Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/20/1995 09:11 AM Senate HES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE HEALTH, EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE
March 20, 1995
9:11 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Chairman
Senator Loren Leman, Vice-Chairman
Senator Mike Miller
Senator Johnny Ellis
Senator Judy Salo
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 105
"An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or
custodian consent before a minor receives an abortion; establishing
a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may petition a court
for authorization to consent to an abortion without consent of a
parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the definition of
`abortion'; and amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 40, 53,
and 79; Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure 204, 210, 212, 213,
508, and 512.5; and Alaska Administrative Rule 9."
SENATE BILL NO. 117
"An Act establishing a statewide independent living council and
clarifying its relationship with existing agencies; and providing
for an effective date."
SENATE BILL NO. 123
"An Act relating to student loan programs, interstate compacts for
postsecondary education, and fees for review of postsecondary
education institutions; and providing for an effective date."
PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION
No previous action to record.
WITNESS REGISTER
Senator Leman
State Capitol
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime sponsor of SB 105.
Brant McGee
Public Advocacy
900 W 5th Avenue #525
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the appointment of the guardian at
litem.
Judith Kohler
Americans United for Life
Chicago, IL
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed the importance of parental
involvement statutes.
Chris Christensen, Staff Counsel
Alaska Court System
303 K Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-2084
POSITION STATEMENT: Discussed SB 105.
Art Mathias, President
Christian Coalition
PO Box 741564
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated the need for parental involvement.
Barbara Fallon
POSITION STATEMENT: Pointed out the inconsistency of parental
involvement legislation.
Pauline Hillter, Chair
Abortion Rights
PO Box 240667
Anchorage, Alaska 99511
POSITION STATEMENT: Stated opposition to SB 105 for Abortion
Rights.
Virginia Phillips, Spokesman
Right to Life for American Indians & Alaskan Natives
404 Lake Street 2-D
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 105 and urged its speedy passage.
Martha Devereaux
1511 Edgecombe Drive
Sitka, Alaska 99835
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the speedy passage of SB 105.
Sharon Waisanen
35985 Pioneer Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 105.
Gene Ottenstroer
PO Box 1059
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 105.
Eileen Becker, Assistant Director
Homer Crisis Pregnancy Center
PO Box 2
Homer, Alaska 99603
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 105.
Lisa Penalver, President
Fairbanks Coalition for Choice
1166 Skyline Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SB 105.
Kelli Mahoney
Mat-Su
POSITION STATEMENT: Concurred with Ms. Penalver and recommended
funding model pregnancy prevention programs.
Stan Ridgeway, Deputy Director
Department of Education
801 W 10th Street
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 117.
Joe McCormick, Executive Director
Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education
Department of Education
3030 Vintage Boulevard
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7109
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed SB 123.
Jerry Shriner, Special Assistant
Department of Corrections
240 Main Street, Suite 700
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the Department of Corrections'
amendment.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-17, SIDE A
SHES - 3/20/95
SB 105 PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION
Number 003
VICE-CHAIRMAN LEMAN called the Senate Health, Education and Social
Services (HESS) Committee to order at 9:11 a.m. He explained that
Chairman Green would be arriving later due to a cancelled flight.
He noted that other members would arrive shortly and he would chair
the meeting until Senator Green arrived. He introduced SB 105 as
the first order of business before the committee. Vice-Chairman
Leman relinquished control of the chair to Senator Miller in order
to deliver his sponsor statement.
SENATOR LEMAN, prime sponsor of SB 105, explained that SB 105
provides for a judicial by-pass for parental consent requirements
for a minor's abortion. The objective of this is to make the
existing parental consent requirement in state law enforceable.
Currently, the state does not enforce the parental consent
requirement; the attorney generals specified that the Alaska
Statute is not constitutional. The statute does not have an
alternative procedure, judicial by-pass. He clarified that
judicial by-pass would allow a juvenile girl to go to court to
request that she be allowed to give consent for an abortion instead
of her parents. SB 105 would provide that alternative procedure
which would make it consistent with other state's whose similar
laws have been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
Senator Leman stated that SB 105 would help young pregnant women
seek guidance for one of the most important decisions they may
make. He pointed out that procedures such as ear piercing and
receiving medication in a school clinic require parental consent or
permission for minors. He explained that personally, he did not
want judicial by-pass because it would provide a large loophole.
However, SB 105 would reduce the number of abortions while ensuring
parental involvement.
Number 105
Senator Leman pointed out that 22 states now enforce some form of
parental involvement legislation which has reduced teenage
abortions by up to 27 percent. Applying the typical factors to
Alaska, approximately 100 children's lives could be saved every
year with the passage of SB 105. He informed everyone that recent
polls illustrate that 74 to 80 percent of the population would
support the parental right to be involved in the abortion decisions
of minor women. He acknowledged that SB 105 would not cure all the
devastation caused by abortion, but the legislation would help.
Senator Leman reiterated that Alaska statutes provide for parental
involvement in many other areas and abortion should be consistent
with those. Regarding the constitutionality of such legislation in
Alaska, Senator Leman noted that children and adults are viewed
differently in the law and the courts. He explained that while the
Constitution of Alaska protects children, it also presumes that
children are not at the same level of maturity as adults. The law
acknowledges the difference between children and adults in the
following three areas: (1) there is a peculiar vulnerability of
children, (2) there is an inability of children to make decisions
in an informed mature manner, and (3) there is an importance placed
on the parental role of child rearing. SB 105 attempts to
encourage parental involvement while allowing a streamlined
alternative procedure for those who wish to go to court.
Number 167
SENATOR MILLER returned the Chair to Senator Leman.
SENATOR LEMAN began calling those who wished to testify.
BRANT MCGEE, Head of the Office of Public Advocacy (OPA), explained
that they were interested in this bill because the judicial by-pass
requires the appointment of a guardian at litem. Guardian at
litems are provided by OPA. He stated that approximately 2,400
abortions are performed in Alaska of which 288 are performed on
women age 17 or younger. He estimated that 39 percent, 112 young
women, would pursue judicial by-pass. That estimation is based on
a study that said that of those states without parental consent or
notice 61 percent of parents were informed of their children's
abortion.
Mr. McGee noted that states with judicial by-pass should have a
record which would project what would happen in these proceedings.
In Pennsylvania, which enacted such legislation last March,
approximately 100 percent of minors' abortions are approved by the
court. Massachusetts has data dating back to April of 1981 when
the parental consent law came into effect; 1/10th of one percent,
14, of the abortions were denied. Of those 14 denials, 12 were
overturned by an appellate court and the remaining two became moot.
He informed the committee that a Minnesota judge characterized his
participation in more than 1,000 parental notification hearings as
a routine clerical function. This evidence illustrates that black
middle-aged judges would be unlikely to deny teenage women seeking
judicial by-pass for an abortion. He indicated that the clauses in
those states had been condemned for delaying teenagers' abortions
as well as a judiciary waste of time and money. However, the
Pennsylvania Pro Life group does feel that parental consent laws
discourage minors from having abortions.
Number 229
Mr. McGee pointed out that page 5, line 16, subsection (d) of
SB 105 seems to confuse the functions of a guardian at litem and an
attorney which are both appointed; one person cannot serve in both
capacities. A guardian at litem must protect the best interest of
the child while an attorney must represent the wishes of their
client. He did not feel that the appointment of a guardian at
litem would be appropriate since the best interest of the child
would not be relevant to the judicial criteria in making the
decision. He suggested that mandating the appointment of an
attorney to represent the client would seem more appropriate.
SENATOR SALO expressed concern about the time needed to appoint a
guardian at litem and obtaining an attorney, especially with the
upcoming funding cuts. BRANT MCGEE said that a guardian at litem
and an attorney are appointed overnight. The resulting problem
would be that the person or attorney must be available to devote
their full time to the preparation for the hearing. Mr. McGee
noted that the office could not afford to absorb this
responsibility into their current caseload. They cannot pay for
their current caseload.
SENATOR SALO inquired as to the fiscal note of SB 105. SENATOR
LEMAN informed her that the fiscal note from the Office of Public
Advocacy was $112,000 per year.
SENATOR MILLER asked Mr. McGee how he arrived at his numbers when
little if any reporting of abortions occur. BRANT MCGEE explained
that he had received articles from a friend in Denver from which he
had derived this information. He cited the article "Parental
Involvement and Minors' Abortions Decisions" published in Family
Planning Perspectives in the fall of 1992 which discussed the
numbers of minors seeking abortions, the reasons they seek
abortions, and the reasons they may not desire parental
involvement. The other data can be found in the Family Planning
Perspectives and a book entitled, Abortions and Women's Health
which was published in 1990.
Number 298
SENATOR MILLER inquired as to how Mr. McGee arrived at the numbers
for Alaska regarding the number of abortions in Alaska and the
relating percentages. BRANT MCGEE specified that the number of
abortions in Alaska referred to reported abortions. Mr. McGee
commented that he did not have data for 1993 and 1994. The number
of women 17 or younger is derived from statistic reports. Mr.
McGee clarified that the 39 percent of young women that he projects
would seek judicial by-pass for an abortion is derived from another
study. The other study illustrated that in states without parental
consent or notification 61 percent of parents were informed of
their children's abortion. Mr. McGee assumed that the remaining 39
percent who do not currently inform their parents would seek a
judicial by-pass. The final number is an assumption based on hard
data.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why Mr. McGee assumed that all 39 percent of
those minors would go to court rather than a portion of that group
going to their parents due to SB 105. BRANT MCGEE clarified that
the numbers are based on the number of children who currently do
not go to their parents. The assumption is that if they do not
inform their parents now and another alternative is provided, they
would choose the alternative. Mr. McGee agreed that some would
decide to talk to their parents, but that would depend upon many
factors such as the availability of information regarding judicial
by-pass.
SENATOR LEMAN encouraged Mr. McGee to provide his testimony in
writing and offer any other information he can.
Number 339
JUDITH KOHLER, Americans United for Life testifying from Chicago,
explained that the United States' Supreme Court had stated many
good reasons to enact parental involvement statutes. Enacting such
legislation would be in the best interest of Alaska in protecting
the health and welfare of its minors, fostering family unity, and
encouraging parental involvement in the upbringing of minor
children. SB 105 has been drafted in order to conform with the
Supreme Court requirements set out in parental involvement statutes
in other states. Parental involvement statutes are important
because teenagers often have difficulty assessing long-term
consequences of difficult decisions. She asserted that parental
involvement is particularly poignant with regard to abortion
decisions due to the fact that a parent often remains responsible
for their child for many years after an abortion.
Alaska already has 22 parental consent or notification statutes.
Ms. Kohler stated that although, abortions are legal they are not
always safe. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm for
the Pro Choice movement, reported that Alaska had 2,370 abortions
in 1992 of which a third may be minors. Minors are in danger of
experiencing medical complications; they have a 10 percent chance
of experiencing immediate medical complications such as cervical
injury, a perforated uterus and others. She surmised that since
Alaska does not have an enforceable parental consent law, the
parents of these minors receiving abortions were probably unaware
of the possible dangers their children faced. Mr. Kohler said that
Minnesota and Massachusetts have documented evidence that
illustrates that the teenage pregnancy and abortion rate decreased
after parental involvement statutes were enacted. There are
currently 38 states which have parental involvement statutes,
consent is required in 22 of the states while notice is required in
16 of the states.
Number 392
SENATOR LEMAN asked if 38 states currently enforce parental
involvement or is the number 22. JUDITH KOHLER clarified that 38
states have such statutes while some states are currently under
litigation or they have become enjoined or declared
unconstitutional. Ms. Kohler noted the chart from which this
information is drawn. Ms. Kohler pointed out that the Pennsylvania
statute provides much of the basis for SB 105.
SENATOR LEMAN inquired as to where abortions involving minors
without parental consent would typically be performed. JUDITH
KOHLER stated that fewer and fewer abortions are done in hospitals.
Perhaps, that is a result of the availability of abortion clinics
which is where the majority of abortions are performed.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if these clinics would have access to the
juvenile's medical records. JUDITH KOHLER replied no and explained
that only parents would have access to the minor's full medical
record. Ms. Kohler felt that having a minor's full medical record
for an abortion would lend support for the passage of parental
involvement and consent legislation.
In response to Senator Salo, Ms. Kohler stated that she was the
Legislative Counsel for Americans United for Life. Ms. Kohler
commented that she had dealt with this issue in a variety of ways
due to her past experience as a former Illinois Legislator and
prosecutor. Americans United for Life has been involved in every
Supreme Court case that has been litigated since and including Roe
vs. Wade. Americans United for Life is a law firm which deals with
legislation, litigation, and public education.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if Americans United for Life were involved in
the numerous cases listed in the committee's back up. JUDITH
KOHLER said yes and listed many of the cases in which the
organization was involved. Ms. Kohler commented that this
organization was the most experienced law firm in the nation in
litigation defending statutes.
Number 445
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, General Counsel to the Judicial Branch, informed
the committee that the Supreme Court does not take a position on
legislation unless it would directly effect the internal
administration of the Judicial Branch. Legislation such as SB 105
are policy calls which are constitutionally given to the
legislature. He commented that page 5, lines 1-4 of SB 105 refer
to a referee which the court system designates as a master, an
attorney that is a specialist in a particular area. In Anchorage
and Fairbanks where three quarters of the case volume is found,
there are standing masters. He explained that the Supreme Court
has always held that the power to appoint a master to give advice
to a judge is an inherent power of a judge. The legislature cannot
restrict that power even with a two-thirds vote. He expected that
most of these cases in Anchorage would be referred to the Probate
Master. The Probate Department is separate from the rest of the
Superior Court; this department handles other judicial consent
issues for juveniles.
Mr. Christensen suggested that if OPA would be required to appoint
guardians at litem and attorneys, then language to that effect
should be specifically added on page 5, lines 16-21 to AS 44.21.410
which sets forth the jurisdiction of OPA. He apologized for not
having the fiscal note prepared and explained that they were still
determining the number of cases per year that there may be. He
noted that Mr. McGee's fiscal note is only based on providing a
guardian at litem. If an attorney is to be appointed also then the
cost would probably more than double Mr. McGee's fiscal note.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the court system had any comments regarding
the expedited procedure that SB 105 sets forth. CHRIS CHRISTENSEN
noted that SB 105 would impose additional costs due to the
expedited procedure. Mr. Christensen said that they recognize that
if the legislation is approved then there would be no other
alternative, but to follow this procedure. The Probate Department
in Anchorage is already full through June. Mr. Christensen
explained that with this legislation, they may have to leave
additional time open in order to accommodate these cases which may
in the long-term slow other areas of the court.
Number 497
ART MATHIAS, President of the Christian Coalition of Alaska, stated
that SB 105 is not about abortion, but rather parental rights and
responsibilities. No matter ones personal opinion of abortion,
parents have the right and the responsibility to be involved in the
decisions of their minors. He reiterated that a physician is
required to receive parental permission in order to treat a child's
common cold or give a physical. Abortion does not require this
parental consent although it is a serious medical procedure with
serious side effects. He felt that the government would be
contributing to the destruction of the family by not requiring
parental consent for abortions of minors. He implied that
teenagers were not mature enough to make life and death decisions
such as abortion and be able to deal with the emotional trauma
afterwards. Those who oppose SB 105 oppose the family. Abortion
is a family decision. The rare case of pregnancy due to incest is
addressed in SB 105 by allowing the judge to step in place of the
family. He emphasized that as the family has deteriorated so has
society; efforts to rebuild society and its families must be
doubled.
BARBARA FALLON, testifying on her own behalf, informed the
committee that she had worked in a children's agency for five years
with foster care and adoption and seven years as a director of a
clinic in a general hospital. She mentioned the Right to Privacy
when commenting on the inconsistency in regard to parental
responsibility required in other areas dealing with minors. She
emphasized that it seemed inconsistent that parents may not be
informed when their minor child makes decisions about abortion or
carrying a child to term.
Number 554
PAULINE HILLTER, Chair of the Abortion Rights project, explained
that the Abortion Rights project is dedicated to keeping abortion
safe and legal for all women. Parental involvement cannot be
legislated. The project is opposed to SB 105.
VIRGINIA PHILLIPS, a mother and grandmother and great grandmother,
stated support for SB 105 and for the physical and emotional health
of minors. Minors do not have the necessary maturity for such a
life changing decision as abortion. She reiterated the fact that
minors are protected from their own immaturity in other areas and
it seems logical to protect minors from making the decision to have
an abortion by themselves. Some physicians need the restraint of
the law making it illegal to perform an abortion on a minor without
parental consent just as merchants are restrained with laws
regarding selling alcohol and tobacco to minors.
Ms. Phillips pointed out that parents and guardians are the only
persons with complete medical and emotional facts concerning the
minor, the minor may not even know all the facts. This information
is necessary for a physician to make an informed decision regarding
a minor's abortion. Parents should monitor the effects after an
abortion and be able to help the minor with unforeseen medical and
emotional problems. She noted that since the parents would be
responsible for any medical costs after the abortion, it would only
seem fair that they be included in the decision-making process.
She indicated that the family unit could be strengthened by working
through an unplanned pregnancy as a family. She had experienced
this with her eldest daughter.
TAPE 95-17, SIDE B
Ms. Phillips reiterated the statistics in Pennsylvania which
indicate that teenage births and abortions have decreased since
parental involvement legislation was enacted. She urged the
committee to pass SB 105 in its entirety as soon as possible. She
noted that she was a Right to Life spokesman for American Indians
and Alaskan Natives.
Number 580
MARTHA DEVEREAUX, testifying in Sitka, hoped that SB 105 would
receive a speedy passage. She suggested that legislation be
introduced which would pursue a 24 hour waiting period and
information on fetal development given to women. Parental
notification in the case of minors receiving abortions is about who
is responsible children. Parents are responsible for the welfare,
provision and safety of their children. She reiterated the
inconsistencies with parental consent and notification; abortion is
a serious operation with many known side effects although parental
consent or notification is not legally required. She listed many
of the known side effects and dangers of abortions according to the
National Abortion Federation.
Ms. Devereaux cited a New York Times, CBS poll that illustrated
that 76 percent of Americans support parental notification laws
with only 21 percent in opposition to such laws. She discussed the
passage of the 1991 Minnesota parental notification law which
resulted in the decrease of teen pregnancy by 20 percent and
abortions by 27 percent. Minnesota discovered that parental
involvement works to reduce both the teen pregnancy rate and
abortion. She informed the committee that Planned Parenthood's
research division estimated that more than 90 percent of women who
have abortions experience some form of physical or emotional
trauma; 73 percent label the trauma as severe. Women who were
asked if they would have chosen an abortion knowing where their
lives were today, 94 percent said no. Ms. Devereaux recounted the
1990 case in Indiana in which a daughter's life could have been
saved if the parents had known about her abortion. She asserted
that parents are ultimately responsible for deciding the welfare of
their children.
Number 545
SHARON WAISANEN, testifying from Kenai Soldotna, opposed SB 105.
SB 105 does nothing to prevent pregnancy. She informed everyone
that in her experience in professionally working with young women,
a great many of them seeking abortions do talk to their parents.
Those who do not talk to their parents have a reason for not
talking with their parents, furthermore, these women would not be
likely to pursue the judicial by-pass option. She said that many
children are victims of their parents.
Ms. Waisanen discussed the Montana situation in which there is a
proposal to require that one parent be notified 14 hours before
their child had an abortion. She reviewed various other states
parental involvement legislation. She indicated that not all
parents would deal with a pregnant daughter in a loving and caring
manner which could lead to the psychological and/or physical injury
of the daughter. She noted that she had been a high school
counselor and had worked with many young women in this situation.
GENE OTTENSTROER, testifying from Delta Junction, stated his
opposition to SB 105 and any bills that are for abortion. This
country was formed around God and the family unit. SB 105 and
others like it attack the family unit and destroy it. SB 105 is
one step toward the New World Order Clan. Passage of SB 105 and
others like it that permit abortion would be like slapping God in
the face. Everyone who has a part of this will answer to God.
EILEEN BECKER, Assistant Director of the Homer Crisis Pregnancy
Center (HCPC) and mother, said that she had worked with women for
the last eight years at HCPC. She supported SB 105. She
characterized those who would oppose SB 105 as either the abortion
clinics or parents who do not want to take responsibility for the
actions of their children. She recounted the experiences she had
with three pregnant minors at HCPC. SB 105 would send a message to
minors that parents do care. She expressed amazement that minors
cannot have their ears pierced without parental consent, while a
child can go through an abortion alone.
Number 471
LISA PENALVER, President of the Fairbanks Coalition for Choice,
opposed SB 105. She indicated that parental involvement is a noble
goal, but it is impossible to legislate a level of parental
involvement. Parental consent in regard to abortions of minors is
desirable; most teens do involve their parents. Those teens who do
not involve their parents are situations in which the family
structure is already distorted. She emphasized that an unplanned
pregnancy was already difficult enough for teens without further
barriers such as SB 105. Abortion nor pregnancy is to be taken
lightly. She pointed out that the complications that Ms. Kohler
attributed to abortion are actually risks of any sexual activity
not explicitly abortion. The risk of complications for pregnancy
is 11 times greater than for an early abortion.
Ms. Penalver noted that sexuality issues in teens are treated
differently than other issues that currently have parental
involvement required. Teens are not required to receive parental
consent for the treatment of sexually transmitted diseases. She
pointed out that court appointments may pose a problem because in
rural Alaska delays in appointments would be inevitable which would
result in more second trimester abortions in teens. Second
trimester abortions for teens greatly increases their health risks.
SB 105 is designed to reduce the number of abortions. She felt
that SB 105 would put minors seeking abortions who cannot talk to
their parents at risk. Such minor women would either seek an
illegal abortion or go through the court process. The court
process would also pose delays and serious health complications.
KELLY MAHONEY informed the committee that she has had 12 years
experience in counseling pregnant teens. She concurred with the
testimony of Ms. Penalver. She indicated that in her field she
often sees children who have been coerced by their parents to have
an abortion. She commented that the Alan Guttmacher Institute is
a well respected institute for research; it is not a research arm
of the Pro Choice organization. In a 1992 study, two percent of
teens surveyed said that someone at the clinic attempted to push
them into an abortion. One percent of those same teens said that
they were pressured by the clinic to continue the pregnancy. In
the same study, 18 percent of the young women who did not
voluntarily inform their parents, but whose parents discovered
their pregnancy, reported being forced by their parents to have an
abortion.
Ms. Mahoney asserted that healthy families would communicate about
such a decision. A court procedure is unfriendly to teens. There
would continue to be transportation problems in rural areas such as
Mat-Su. She felt that most doctors and counselors do an excellent
job in counseling teenagers in their decisions. She recommended
focusing on funding model pregnancy prevention programs. She
discussed a coalition in Mat-Su which taught abstinence based
education in the school. This education resulted in a decrease in
teen pregnancies; there were 65 teen pregnancies before the
education and 23 teen pregnancies after the education. She said
that such education programs proved better than clearing the path
for increased child bearing, aid to families with dependent
children recipients and increased strain on the medical budget.
Ms. Mahoney stated that SB 105 was unclear as to how a child would
prove to the court that she has issues that deter her from speaking
to her parents. She suggested that research illustrates that teens
having abortions have less emotional and physical traumas than
those bearing children.
SENATOR LEMAN announced that SB 105 would be held until Wednesday,
March 22, 1995 for further testimony. Anyone interested in
submitting written testimony could give it to the teleconference
moderator in order to forward to the committee. Senator Leman
relinquished control of the committee to Senator Green.
SHES - 3/20/95
SB 117 STATEWIDE INDEPENDENT LIVING COUNCIL
Number 405
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 117 as the next order of business
before the committee.
STAN RIDGEWAY, Deputy Director in Vocational Rehabilitation,
explained that SB 117 was introduced at the request of the
Department of Education (DOE). SB 117 establishes in statute a
statewide independent living council which would allow the
department to continue to receive federal funding. Approximately
$900,000 in federal funding is received for independent living
services across the state. He pointed out the analysis of the
fiscal note which breaks down the funding sources. The Division of
Vocational Rehabilitation receives federal Part B funds in the
amount of $283,000 with a required state match. Federal Part C
funding is granted to centers for independent living; Access Alaska
and Southeast Alaskan Independent Living Center receive portions of
that money. The state contributes $563,000 in general funds to
centers in the state.
Mr. Ridgeway explained that Governor Hickel had appointed a
Statewide Living Council in 1993. The Division of Vocational
Rehabilitation and the council are required to submit a state plan
to the federal government in order to receive funding. He
explained that Governor Hickel had reappointed the council in 1994
due to controversy regarding that the council was not established
in statute. This needs to be established in statute in order to
have an ongoing statewide living council.
SENATOR SALO asked if the provisions in SB 117 were the same as
those when the council was created under Governor Hickel. STAN
RIDGEWAY stated that the council remains the same and he specified
that the majority of the council's members are disabled.
SENATOR LEMAN asked if the language specifying that a member be
compensated with $150 for each day they perform services was the
existing requirement. STAN RIDGEWAY said that there is not an
existing federal requirement. The language merely allows
compensation to a person that is unemployed or loses money from
their job. Mr. Ridgeway specified that the amount parallels the
compensation other boards offer.
SENATOR LEMAN presumed that if this compensation was not required
by federal law then it would not be in statute. STAN RIDGEWAY said
that was correct, but that the compensation is required in Title
VII of the Rehabilitation Act.
SENATOR LEMAN suggested that this language may need to be redrafted
in order to clarify.
Number 345
CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it was common to specify the amount to be
compensated in the bill. SENATOR MILLER explained that this
compensation would be in addition to the per diem and travel
expenses of the member. There are other boards that have this such
as the Permanent Fund Dividend Board and the Railroad Board. Most
boards only receive a per diem. Senator Miller said that it is
common to specify the amount for compensation.
SENATOR ELLIS asked if Chairman Green was suggesting an automatic
cost of living increase for boards and commissions. CHAIRMAN GREEN
thought that if federal requirements changed then this would have
to be rewritten. She stated that she did not know what the common
procedure was.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the location of the removal or
dismissal standards in SB 117. STAN RIDGEWAY stated that there is
not a dismissal standard; the members are appointed for three year
staggered terms. A member can only serve two consecutive terms.
SENATOR ELLIS emphasized that a dismissal standard has to be
addressed in some manner.
SENATOR MILLER explained that if a dismissal standard is not
specified then it would be at the pleasure of the governor.
CHAIRMAN GREEN assumed that when reasons for dismissal are listed
another problem would be created.
SENATOR SALO suggested that this concern could be handled by
inserting the language, "All members serve at the pleasure of the
governor." on page 3, line 20.
CHAIRMAN GREEN stated that the amendments could be drafted for
Wednesday. SENATOR LEMAN pointed out that the next committee of
referral for SB 117 was Senate Finance and his issue could be
addressed in that committee.
Number 298
SENATOR SALO moved her amendment, Amendment 1, which would insert
the sentence, "All members shall serve at the pleasure of the
governor." at the end of Section 3, line 20.
STAN RIDGEWAY noted that federal law covers that; the governor
appoints the board. He noted that each member of the board had
been asked to resubmit an application to the governor's office for
possible reappointment.
CHAIRMAN GREEN explained that sometimes boards are bound by
overriding federal laws which would be complicated with the
addition of language encompassed in the amendment.
SENATOR ELLIS stated that if the language is the same as the
federal law, then the amendment should not be a problem.
STAN RIDGEWAY did not foresee any conflict.
CHAIRMAN GREEN inquired as to the pleasure of the committee
regarding Amendment 1. Hearing no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
SENATOR MILLER moved that CS SB 117(HES) be moved out of committee
with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
SHES - 3/20/95
SB 123 POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Number 272
CHAIRMAN GREEN introduced SB 123 as the next order of business
before the committee.
JOE MCCORMICK, Executive Director of the Alaska Commission on
Postsecondary Education, stated that SB 123 would achieve three
objectives: the improvement of customer service, strengthen the
financial stability of the Alaska Student Loan Program, and
improvement of the overall program and its administration. He
pointed out that the University of Alaska has increased its tuition
by 250 percent since 1984 while loan limits have remained unchanged
since 1981. Section 1 of SB 123 raises the loan limits. He
presented a sectional analysis of SB 123.
In discussion of the bill's objective to strengthen the financial
stability of the loan program, Mr. McCormick informed everyone that
the loan program is funded entirely through corporate receipts.
This results in the program absorbing loans lost due to death,
disability, default, and forgiveness on loans prior to 1987. The
loss due to interest free deferment payments are also absorbed by
the program. He emphasized that the statutory changes outlined in
SB 123 are necessary in order for the loan fund to remain self-
sufficient. Section 5 would eliminate the interest free deferment
periods that students now receive; approximately $4 million in
revenue is expected to be generated from the $50 million that would
be lent next year. Section 14 would charge a five percent
origination fee in order to cover losses in those cases that the
program formerly absorbed which would generate approximately $2.5
million of the $50 million lent. Mr. McCormick explained that
Section 17 provides that incarcerated persons would be ineligible
for Alaska Student Loan funds due to their inability to demonstrate
the ability to repay the loan. He noted that the Department of
Corrections has an amendment to offer for Section 17 to which the
ACPSE does not object.
Number 180
Mr. McCormick highlighted the technical amendments that support the
objective of the overall improvement of the program and its
administration. Those amendments can be found in Sections 8, 15,
20, 24, and 27. He commented on the recent legislative audit which
reported that the Alaska Student Loan fund could lose upward of $60
million by the year 2011. Those findings simply confirm what the
council has known for some years; the Alaska Student Loan fund is
not an actuarily sound loan fund. The findings of the report also
point out that the State of Alaska would have in equity
approximately $200 to $220 million in cash; that money is to be
returned to the state treasury. He emphasized that the most
important point to remember would be that the program by the year
2011 would have provided more than $900 million in student loans to
184,000 borrowers in Alaska. The legislative audit would seem to
support SB 123. In conclusion, Mr. McCormick pointed out that the
goal of the commission is to ensure that the Alaska Student Loan
program is present and financially viable for the future.
Number 112
SENATOR LEMAN expressed concern with the language that requires the
state to pay the interest under Section 5. This would obligate the
state rather than the fund. JOE MCCORMICK explained that Section
5 is reworded upon the advice of the Department of Law; the
existing statute already requires that the state pay this interest
during specified periods subject to appropriations. This is not an
addition, the language has merely been reworded.
SENATOR SALO commented that SB 123 is a good bill in that the
changes make the program more actuarily sound. However, she did
not want the program to become a profit making program at the
expense of the students. She indicated that the best part of this
program is the number of students that can access the program. She
stated that in general she was supportive of the legislation.
SENATOR ELLIS inquired as to the section changing the priority
order of student loans and child support. JOE MCCORMICK stated
that at present there is no priority on wage garnishments, it is a
first come first serve basis. Child support has taken a priority
in the past years and the commission would like to follow that and
the remaining debt collectors would remain on the first come first
serve basis.
SENATOR ELLIS expressed concern in attempting to reach actuary
soundness for the program with the collection of interest during
deferment periods. What would the scenario be with regard to the
effect of this on students? JOE MCCORMICK explained that bonds are
issued and the holders receive interest on those bonds, every year
that you pay interest to the bondholders for which you do not
collect interest money is lost. More money is lost when a student
is allowed to have an interest free loan during their time in
school than during deferment periods. Mr. McCormick noted that was
due to the fact that typically a deferment period would not be as
long as the time a student attends school.
TAPE 95-18, SIDE A
Number 005
Mr. McCormick noted that the commission shared these concerns in
developing the legislation. The commission chose not to charge
interest during the period when a student attends school. The
legislative audit report recommends that interest be charged when
the student attends school. Mr. McCormick stated that under the
circumstances he would agree with the legislative audit
recommendation; interest should be charged for all the periods in
which the commission pays interest.
SENATOR SALO asked what the corrections amendment would achieve.
JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant to the Commissioner of
Corrections, specified that the Department of Corrections' concern
lies in the possibility that specifically removing any possibility
for incarcerated persons to obtain a loan may result in court cases
for the state or the department. The state and the department are
required to provide incarcerated persons with various opportunities
for rehabilitation. He noted that less than 10 incarcerated
persons had applied for student loans of which none have been
granted. Removing the possibility for application may allow the
person to enter into court contesting that the state is acting in
bad faith with regards to the Cleary settlement.
SENATOR SALO asked if incarcerated persons pay tuition and for what
would they need a loan. JERRY SHRINER stated that there are some
inmates who will graduate from a college and either pay for the
tuition themselves or have a pell grant. Mr. Shriner was not aware
of any who used the Alaska Student Loan program.
Number 071
CHAIRMAN GREEN said that inmates are not kept from education even
without SB 123. JERRY SHRINER explained that even without this,
the inmates would have the opportunity to pursue an education. Mr.
Shriner clarified that Mike Stark and the Attorney General's Office
were concerned that SB 123 would provide an opportunity for an
inmate to go to court and charge that the state is acting in bad
faith with respect to the Cleary settlement. Mr. Shriner suggested
that the language be modified according to the amendment or remove
Section 17 entirely.
SENATOR SALO felt that there must be inmates who would owe money to
the Alaska Student Loan corporation; what would happen to their
payment schedules during incarceration? JOE MCCORMICK stated that
the loan would be shown as in default and it would continue to
accrue interest. The interest rate is 10 percent for defaulted
loans.
SENATOR SALO stated that such a scenario seemed more problematic
than granting more loans to current inmates. She suggested
reviewing that problem.
JOE MCCORMICK informed the committee that the provision was present
because there had been requests from incarcerated students to
receive Alaska Student Loans. The Department of Law advised the
commission that there was nothing in existing statutes to allow the
denial of the loan. He explained that the provision is present in
order to establish firm ground if an inmate is denied an Alaska
Student Loan.
Number 148
CHAIRMAN GREEN noted that there were other amendments that had been
recommended by the department.
SENATOR LEMAN moved a memo from the Commission on Postsecondary
Education which would advance changes in Section 15 and 19,
Amendment 1. Without objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that CS SB 123(HES) be moved out of committee
with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so
ordered.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced that the committee would hear further
testimony on SB 105 and SB 98 on Wednesday. There being no further
business before the committee, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|