03/18/2008 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB297 | |
| HB65 | |
| SB263 | |
| SB179 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | SB 179 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 263 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 297 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 18, 2008
2:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Con Bunde
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 297
"An Act relating to the compensation for certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by collective
bargaining agreements; relating to pay increments for longevity
in state service; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 297(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 65(FIN)
"An Act relating to breaches of security involving personal
information, credit report and credit score security freezes,
protection of social security numbers, care of records, disposal
of records, identity theft, credit cards, and debit cards, and
to the jurisdiction of the office of administrative hearings;
amending Rules 60 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCS CSHB 65(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 263
"An Act relating to the State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors; and relating to an
exemption for persons certified by the National Institute for
Certification in Engineering Technologies who are engaged in the
design of fire detection and suppression systems from
registration as architects, engineers, land surveyors, or
landscape architects."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 179
"An Act requiring family health care insurance coverage for
dependent children who are less than 26 years of age."
HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SB 297
SHORT TITLE: NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
03/03/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/03/08 (S) FIN
03/06/08 (S) L&C REFERRAL ADDED BEFORE FIN
03/11/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/11/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/11/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/08 (S) L&C AT 4:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/15/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: HB 65
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) COGHILL, GARA
01/16/07 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/5/07
01/16/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/07 (H) L&C, JUD, FIN
01/31/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/31/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/28/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/28/07 (H) Heard & Held
03/28/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/04/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/04/07 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/16/07 (H) L&C AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 17
04/16/07 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/20/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/20/07 (H) Heard & Held
04/20/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/23/07 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/23/07 (H) Moved CSHB 65(L&C) Out of Committee
04/23/07 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/07 (H) L&C RPT CS(L&C) 2DP 3NR 1AM
04/24/07 (H) DP: GATTO, NEUMAN
04/24/07 (H) NR: BUCH, LEDOUX, OLSON
04/24/07 (H) AM: GARDNER
05/02/07 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
05/02/07 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/05/07 (H) JUD AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 120
05/05/07 (H) Moved CSHB 65(JUD) Out of Committee
05/05/07 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
05/07/07 (H) JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 2AM
05/07/07 (H) DP: HOLMES, LYNN, COGHILL, RAMRAS
05/07/07 (H) AM: DAHLSTROM, SAMUELS
01/23/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
01/23/08 (H) Heard & Held
01/23/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/13/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/13/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/13/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/18/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/18/08 (H) Heard & Held
02/18/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/19/08 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/19/08 (H) Moved CSHB 65(FIN) Out of Committee
02/19/08 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
02/21/08 (H) FIN RPT CS(FIN) NT 4DP 5NR
02/21/08 (H) DP: HAWKER, CRAWFORD, GARA, NELSON
02/21/08 (H) NR: KELLY, THOMAS, STOLTZE, MEYER,
CHENAULT
02/27/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
02/27/08 (H) VERSION: CSHB 65(FIN)
02/29/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/29/08 (S) L&C, JUD, FIN
03/04/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/04/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/04/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/13/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/13/08 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/15/08 (S) L&C AT 4:00 PM BELTZ 211
03/15/08 (S) Heard & Held
03/15/08 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 263
SHORT TITLE: ARCHITECTS, ENGRS, SURVEYORS BD/EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) THOMAS
02/08/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/08/08 (S) L&C
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 179
SHORT TITLE: DEPENDENT HEALTH INSURANCE; AGE LIMIT
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) DAVIS
05/14/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/07 (S) L&C, HES, FIN
03/18/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
KAREN LIDSTER
Staff to Representative John Coghill
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 65.
MAEGAN FOSTER
Staff to Representative Les Gara
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 65.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Law (DOL)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the changes in SCS CSHB 65 ( )
version N.
AUDREY ROBINSON
Reed Elsevier, parent company of LexisNexis
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not support CSHB 65(FIN).
JON BURTON
ChoicePoint
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not support CSHB 65(FIN).
GAIL HILLEBRAND
Consumer's Union
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported the CSHB 65(L&C).
DANA OWEN
Staff to Senator Ellis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SCS CSHB 65(L&C) version N.
SENATOR JOE THOMAS
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 263.
CRAIG FREDEEN, Mechanical Engineer member
Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 263(L&C), version C.
KELLY NICOLELLO, Assistant State Fire Marshal
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 263(L&C).
PAT THOMPSON
Simplex Grinnell
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CSSB 263(L&C).
THOMAS OBERMEYER
Staff to Senator Davis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 179.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JOHNNY ELLIS called the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 2:04:47 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senators Davis, Stevens, Hoffman, and Ellis.
SB 297-NONUNION PUBLIC EMPLOYEE SALARY & BENEFIT
2:06:23 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced SB 297 to be up for consideration. He said
the committee had adopted CSSB 297(L&C), version E.
SENATOR STEVENS asked if section 20 was still in there.
CHAIR ELLIS answered yes.
SENATOR STEVENS said it seems to bypass the collective
bargaining system.
SENATOR BUNDE joined the committee.
SENATOR DAVIS moved to report CSSB 297(L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.
SENATOR BUNDE objected because section 20 was still in the bill.
A roll call vote was taken. Senators Davis, Hoffman and Ellis
voted yea; Senators Bunde and Stevens voted nay; so CSSB
297(L&C) moved from committee.
CSHB 65(FIN)-PERSONAL INFORMATION & CONSUMER CREDIT
2:09:48 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced CSHB 65(FIN) to be up for consideration;
version SCS CSHB 65(L&C), 25-LS0311\N was before the committee.
He noted the committee received some correspondence from Yahoo
relating to the notification section of the bill and
Representative Coghill thought that concern had been addressed
in the CS; he had been informed that was not the case. Ms.
Bannister, the legislative drafter, was working on language, but
it wouldn't be ready for this committee. So once it was done,
that would "be punted on" to the Judiciary Committee.
KAREN LIDSTER, staff to Representative John Coghill, co-sponsor
of HB 65, said that the sponsor wanted to address the Yahoo
notification issues. She went on to the sectional analysis of
version N. On page 15, line 17, under the subject of exemptions,
"consumer credit reporting agency" was deleted and "a person"
was inserted to correct a technical reference.
2:13:18 PM
On page 16, line 17, "security freeze" language was clarified so
that if a consumer decides to freeze his credit report, all of
it is frozen, not just a part. On page 17, lines 21-22, language
was inserted at the request of the Recorder's Office that it
could accept documents for recording and could give out copies
of documents that had previously been recorded. They did not
want to be in a position of providing information this bill says
they can't. So "request or collect" was deleted and "communicate
or otherwise make available to the general public" was inserted.
Language on page 17, line 23, just clarifies the employees' job
duties relating to a recorded document by inserting
"communicating or otherwise making available".
2:14:55 PM
CHAIR ELLIS said DNR requested this and the private sector
people were concerned that the amended language would apply more
broadly than just to the DNR. He asked if that was correct.
MS. LIDSTER replied that this language could probably apply to
other divisions, but DNR specifically requested it so it could
disclose previously recorded information. Everyone thought it
would be tighter to insert it in the use of social security
number section as well. DNR is happy with this language.
MS. LIDSTER referred to section 45.48.410 on page 18 where lines
11-15 were inserted into the social security number section to
allay vendor concerns that wording in the bill would prevent
them from providing information they believe they were allowed
to provide under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). This language tries to regulate
them to protect Alaska residents, but vendors are still not
totally happy with it. The sponsor said he had made significant
concessions in this area. A couple of words concerning those who
are not regulated by the GLBA or the FCRA still need to be
worked out.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if this language strikes a balance.
MS. LIDSTER answered that according to the sponsor, it strikes a
balance.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if Mr. Sniffen helped Terry Bannister draft
this language.
MS. LIDSTER answered yes. She continued on to page 18, lines 29-
31, where a new section was added - subsection (2) talks about
people regulated by the GLBA "for a purpose authorized by that
act" and on page 19, line 1, a new subsection (3) refers to
people regulated by the FCRA. Under the disclosure section of
the social security numbers on page 19, it talks about the third
party that is regulated by the FCRA; the GLBA was not added here
because that was in subparagraph (3).
MAEGAN FOSTER, staff to Representative Gara, co-sponsor of HB
65, said her office is comfortable with the changes.
ED SNIFFEN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law (DOL),
supported the changes in version N.
AUDREY ROBINSON, Reed Elsevier, parent company of LexisNexis,
appreciated the work the committee and sponsors had done, but
said the new language still doesn't address their concerns.
Unfortunately it might be just a one to two word issue, but the
assumptions don't quite get to their uses. Unfortunately the
GLBA refers to financial institutions and that is particularly
who is regulated by the act; however use of social security
numbers falls within the purview of that act. While LexisNexis
is compliant with GLBA, they aren't technically regulated under
it (their uses are). LexisNexis' misuse of social security
numbers would still fall within the boundaries of the FCC to
prosecute. The conjunction language saying both "be regulated
by" and "purposes regulated by" are the rub. A fix could be made
simply by changing an "and" to an "or" for them to continue
serving Alaskans (for asset location, location of missing
children, checking to make sure a person opening a bank account
isn't a terrorist).
2:25:28 PM
MS. ROBINSON also mentioned on page 19, line 28, of version N,
subparagraph (3) has the former GLBA language that was changed
in 45.48.410 and 45.48.420 and she asked for conformity purposes
that be changed to reflect the newer language.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if the sponsors thought that updating was wise
to do.
MS. LIDSTER replied it would be no problem.
2:27:05 PM
JON BURTON, ChoicePoint, echoed LexisNexis comments. He was
encouraged that the sponsors recognized the federal issues. The
other issue that remains outstanding is "expressly" versus "not
expressly". He promised to do everything on his end to work
within the framework the sponsors have set up to reach a
solution.
GAIL HILLEBRAND, Consumer's Union, supported the CS. She said
the change on page 19 was purely technical and the concept of
the broader exemptions retain the integrity of saying this is
not a free pass from federal law because federal law really
doesn't govern conduct. Instead, it's when federal law, both
authorizes conduct and regulates the people who engage in it
that the state law would defer to federal law and that is a
reasonable place to draw the line.
2:29:59 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt SCS CSHB 65(L&C), version N.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR ELLIS announced Amendment 1 to be up for consideration.
25-LS0311\N.1
Bannister
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE
TO: SCS CSHB 65( ), Draft Version "N"
Page 3, line 4, following "if":
Insert "the information collector's primary
method of communication with the state resident is by
electronic means, or if"
DANA OWEN, staff to Senator Ellis, explained that Yahoo's
concern was that some vendors communicate strictly through email
and this language would allow them to notify customers of a
breach of confidentiality by email if that is their primary way
of communication.
MS. LIDSTER said Representative Coghill supported the amendment.
CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 1. There were no objections
and it was adopted.
CHAIR ELLIS announced consideration of conceptual Amendment 2,
the technical update on page 19 suggested by Ms. Robinson.
CHAIR ELLIS moved to adopt Amendment 2. There were no objections
and it was so ordered.
2:34:29 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to report SCS CSHB 65(L&C) from committee
with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SB 263-ARCHITECTS, ENGRS, SURVEYORS BD/EXEMPTION
2:35:18 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced SB 263 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR JOE THOMAS, sponsor of SB 263, explained that this
measure makes two modest changes to existing statute. First, it
allows the governor to appoint a petroleum or chemical engineer
to the board if a mining engineer is not available to serve. He
explained that sometimes in the past the position has been left
vacant. The board has 10 members - 2 civil engineers, 1 mining
engineer, 1 electrical or mechanical engineer, 1 engineer from
another branch of engineering as well as 2 architects, 2 land
surveyors and 1 public member. Board members must have been
registered voters in Alaska before the last general election.
Only 22 of Alaska's 4,000 registered engineers are resident
mining engineers, which can make it difficult to find qualified
and interested candidates.
He said the second section of SB 263 adds the underlying
language to the list of exemptions from the licensing laws. The
CS language is different than the original bill in that it
exempts persons who design fire detection or suppression systems
from the engineering licensing laws if they are authorized to
design fire detection or suppression systems by the Alaska
Department of Public Safety (DPS), which is basically what has
been taking place.
SENATOR THOMAS explained this provision solidifies in statute
the current industry practice and has the support of both the
board and the Fire Marshall's Office.
CRAIG FREDEEN, Mechanical Engineer member of the Board of
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors, said he is also a
member of the Professional Design Council; he supported CSSB
263(L&C), version C. He briefed them that the regulations for
licensing of engineers basically say if you're doing design
work, you have to be a licensed engineer. Another set of state
permits is required for persons who do fire protection design.
He said the board is very comfortable with the professionalism
and the knowledge of these individuals with these permits, but
the exemption to this design requirement in statute is kind of
vague. There is concern that a future board may not know as much
about these individuals and may feel they are in violation of
the design regulation in statute; so they wanted it clarified
that their permit is recognized. He supported the first portion
of the bill for the reasons Senator Thomas stated.
KELLY NICOLELLO, Assistant State Fire Marshal, Department of
Public Safety (DPS), supported CSSB 263(L&C) for the reasons
stated by Senator Thomas and Mr. Fredeen. He said all three of
them had worked closely on the CS. He said, "It is a good way to
meet their requirements and still maintain ours without stepping
on anybody's toes or anything else." He added that they would be
working together on requirements for design professionals in the
future and this has developed a team format for them to work in.
PAT THOMPSON, Simplex Grinnell, said he is one of the board's
design professionals and he supported the CS. He said most of
the people in his design community supported the CS as well.
CHAIR ELLIS noted the CS was labeled CSSB 263( ) 25-LS1457\C,
Bullard.
SENATOR THOMAS said the CS removes lines 7-9 on page 4 which
that allows for state certification rather than national
certification.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if the current board has a mining engineer
and if he expressed opposition.
SENATOR THOMAS replied yes and he has expressed no opposition.
They have all been in favor of expanding the requirement to
chemical or petroleum engineer.
2:45:28 PM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if there has been any opposition to this
bill.
SENATOR THOMAS replied not that he knew of.
2:46:03 PM
SENATOR DAVIS and SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt CSSB 263(L&C),
version C. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR ELLIS said he would hold CSSB 263(L&C) for a further
hearing.
SB 179-DEPENDENT HEALTH INSURANCE; AGE LIMIT
2:47:07 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced SB 179 to be up for consideration.
2:47:11 PM
THOMAS OBERMEYER, staff to Senator Davis, sponsor of SB 179,
said this measure requires family health care insurance coverage
for dependent children who are less than 26 years of age. He
read the following sponsor statement:
Young adults, ages 19-29, are one of the largest
growing segments of the U.S. population without health
care insurance. In 2004, almost 14 million young
adults lacked coverage, an increase of 2.5 million
since 2000. This rapid change is due in part to their
losing coverage under their parents' policies at 19 or
Medicaid or State Children's Health Insurance Program
or graduation from high school or college. Almost half
of college graduates and high school graduates who do
not go to college would be uninsured for a substantial
time after graduation.
Age 19 is a crucial year in health insurance coverage.
Both public and private insurance plans treat this age
as a turning point for insurance coverage. Even if
youth go on to college, parents' insurance plans, they
often stop before graduation. Almost all private
universities and about one-fourth of public
universities require health insurance as a condition
of enrollment. Forty percent of part-time students and
non-students and 20 percent of full-time students ages
19-23 are uninsured...
Insurance coverage is important for this generally
healthy group of young adults who should be encouraged
to start taking responsibility for their own health
care. It has been found that 14 percent of adults 18-
29 are obese, an increase of 70 percent in the 1990s,
the fastest rate of increase among adults. There are
3.5 million pregnancies each year among the 21 million
women ages 19-29. One-third of all diagnoses of HIV
are made among young adults; emergency room visits are
far more common among young adults than children or
older adults. Most young adults have no regular
doctor, no link to the health care system, and more
than one-third of those who do require medical
attention are often saddled with debt and collection
agencies.
States are taking action to mandate coverage for young
adults often allowing for targeted policy options. For
example, in 2006 New Jersey required most group health
plans to cover single adult dependents up to age 30.
Massachusetts as part of its expanded health insurance
law in 2006 considered dependents for insurance
purposes up to age 25 or for two years after they are
no longer claimed on their parents' tax returns. Since
1994, Utah has required coverage through age 26 and
New Mexico provides coverage for unmarried dependents
up to age 25 regardless of school enrollment. Texas in
2003 allowed full-time students to be covered by their
parents' insurance plans to age 25. It's not uncommon
or unreasonable, therefore, that SB 179 would require
offering family health insurance coverage to dependent
children up to age 26.
2:52:00 PM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if there is a separate definition of
dependent child for insurance purposes.
MR. OBERMEYER answered that the IRS defines a dependent as a
person whose parents are contributing to half their costs. Most
plans require parents with children in the student situation to
prove they are students by submitting registration
documentation. A definition of dependent is in each policy.
SENATOR BUNDE said it would be important to hear from the
director of the Division of Insurance. He wanted to know if
requiring this coverage would mean the parents would be saddled
with expensive premiums.
MR. OBERMEYER answered SB 179 has an indeterminate fiscal note.
Because Medicaid is the last resort, this could result in a
savings for the Medicaid program for children who are not
currently covered by third-party insurance. However, these
savings could be reduced if mandatory coverage of an older
dependent increases the cost of health insurance and leads
employers and individuals to drop coverage. Most college
students are very healthy and don't require a lot of care. But
when that one time comes up, this could provide coverage without
burdening the family with a $2,400-policy just for the one
child.
SENATOR BUNDE said this wouldn't necessarily affect a state
employee, but it might affect a privately employed person who
would be faced with higher premiums because of the expanded
coverage.
MR. OBERMEYER replied that could be true, but it may still be
cheaper than providing double coverage for both or not having
any coverage at all for the child - which occurs to a great
number of young people.
CHAIR ELLIS found no one else to testify and said he would hold
SB 179 for another hearing. There being no further business to
come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 2:57:50
PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|