HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE MAY 6, 1997 2:30 P.M. TAPE HFC 97 - 124, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97 - 124, Side 2, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97 - 125, Side 1, #000 - end. TAPE HFC 97 - 125, Side 2, #000 - #1670. CALL TO ORDER Co-Chair Gene Therriault called the House Finance Committee meeting to order at 2:30 P.M. PRESENT Co-Chair Therriault Representative Kohring Representative Davies Representative Martin Representative Davis Representative Moses Representative Foster Representative Mulder Representative Grussendorf Representative Kelly Representative Hanley was not present for the meeting. ALSO PRESENT George Dozier, Staff, Representative Pete Kott; Paul Grossi, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation, Department of Labor; James Armstrong, Staff, Senator Dave Donley; Dean Guaneli, Chief, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law; Tim Benintendi, Staff, Senator Tim Kelly; Tuckerman Babcock, Staff, Senator Lyda Green; Marianne Burke, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of Commerce and Economic Development; Michael Lessmeier, State Farm Insurance, Juneau; Carla Timpone, Alaska Women's Lobby, Juneau; Peter Nakamura, MD, MPH, Director, Division of Public Health, Department of Health and Social Services; Kristen Bomengen, Assistant Attorney General, Human Services Section, Department of Law; Nancy Weller, Division of Medical Assistance, Department of Health and Social Services; Angela Salerno, Executive Director, National Association of Social Workers, Juneau; Lauree Hugonin, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Juneau; Arthur Snowden, Administrative Director, Office of the Administrative Director, Alaska Court System; Jayne Andreen, Director, Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Anchorage. SUMMARY 1 SB 70 An Act defining the offenses of unlawful discharge of a firearm; and relating to the commission of those offenses by minors. HCS CS SB 70 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Administration dated 4/10/97, the Department of Law dated 4/9/97, and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Administration dated 4/10/97, the Department of Corrections dated 4/10/97, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/21/97 and the Department of Health and Social Services dated 2/21/97. SB 104 An Act relating to regulation and examination of insurers and insurance agents; relating to kinds of insurance; relating to payment of insurance taxes and to required insurance reserves; relating to insurance policies; relating to regulation of capital, surplus, and investments by insurers; relating to hospital and medical service corporations; and providing for an effective date. HCS CS SB 104 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal note by the Department of Revenue and a zero fiscal note by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. SB 141 An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and relating to the possession of firearms. SB 141 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HB 116 An Act relating to workers' compensation self-insurance. CS HB 116 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "individual recommendations" and with fiscal notes by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development dated 4/25/97 and the Department of Labor dated 4/25/97. HB 234 An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the general relief program; and relating to financial responsibility for the costs of abortions. 2 HB 234 was HELD in Committee for further discussion. The bill was placed in Subcommittee with Representative Kelly as Chair and with members Representative Martin and Representative J. Davies. HOUSE BILL 234 "An Act relating to assistance for abortions under the general relief program; and relating to financial responsibility for the costs of abortions." REPRESENTATIVE TERRY MARTIN explained that HB 234 would provide a new measure of logic and consistency to the State's abortion law in two areas; first, in establishing the procedure's priority on the official list of medical procedures the State will pay for under the General Relief Medical (GRM) program; and second, by creating a mechanism by which the State can identify and hold financially responsible the would-be father. He added, it is not logical that an elective procedure such as an abortion should continue to hold a higher priority to other more essential services. HB 234 would have the State require payment from the pregnant woman, either partially or in full, for an elective abortion if it had been paid for under the General Relief Medical Program. HB 234 would require that the male responsible for the pregnancy be identified and held financially responsible for an abortion sought under the General Relief Medical Program. Currently, under Title 47, the State requires a woman seeking financial assistance from the State to identify the father or her dependent children. The State then recovers any costs it can from the father through the Child Support Enforcement Division. Representative Martin thought that it was logical that if a father of a born child should reimburse the State, so should the father of an unborn child. Representative Martin pointed out that HB 234 would represent a new bench mark in requiring accountable parties to accept the full responsibility for their actions. If we are to continue to have a policy in Alaska of publicly- funded abortion, Representative Martin stressed that the State should do all it can to collect from the responsible persons. PETER NAKAMURA, M.D., MPH, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, noted that the Department strongly opposes the proposed legislation. He indicated that the bill would be harmful, speaking to the historical problems during the times when there was no 3 medical access to abortion. Hospital rooms were then responsible for addressing the "back yard" results of self induced abortions. At this time, any abortion procedure is safer than a normal delivery. He asserted that to remove access to the services, would force the State back into the "dark ages". KRISTEN BOMENGEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, HUMAN SERVICES SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, spoke to the constitutional issues raised by the legislation. The effect of the bill would eliminate abortion funding which raises a constitutional inquiry. If the funding was restored to the relief medical services spectrum, it would give rise to a subsequent constitutional issue requiring that the woman reveal the name of her sexual partner in order to receive the service. Section 3 of the bill separates out abortion services from all other pregnancy related services and places it into the list of items eliminated from funding. Ms. Bomengen pointed out that to date, the Alaska State Courts have not addressed abortion issues directly. In other states which have explicate privacy protection, provide for pregnancy related services in a constitutionally neutral manner. She noted that it was the Department of Law's belief that the effect of the legislation's language would place impermissible burdens upon a woman's option to choose to terminate the pregnancy. She continued, if funding was fully restored for all general relief services, or if a constitutional challenge was required for the State to offer all pregnancy related services equally, at that time, Section 2 of the bill would be addressed. That section provides that the woman name the sexual partner in order to receive medical services from the State. The Department understands that the woman's choice not to provide the name of her sexual partner is a protected right. There are many reasons that a woman would not want to have the name released. In response to Representative Kelly's request, Ms. Bomengen explained that the male involved often needs to be sought in order to be identified. Ms. Bomengen provided some reasons why a woman would choose not to identify the male partner. Co-Chair Therriault advised that the State provides the funds for the service and has the right to recoup those costs. Ms. Bomengen agreed that the State does have the right to recoup costs as established in the bill. However, given the cost of the procedure, the State would be able to recoup their cost solely through the woman's permanent fund check. Given the 4 current value of that check, the State would have recouped costs from the woman's check. Requiring her to reveal information that she may not wish to reveal, could result in constitutional problems. Discussion followed between Representative Martin and Ms. Bomengen regarding the number of other states which pay for abortions. Ms. Bomengen agreed that all states are not constitutionally required to pay for an abortion. The State can not discourage the right to exercise a constitutional right based on religious or moral hostility. Co-Chair Therriault asked how the father's dividend check would be accessed. Ms. Bomengen stated that in most cases, the procedure would be paid for by the woman's permanent fund check. Representative Martin countered that procedure should be similar to the one used by the Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA) and would be done at the time of delivery. Representative Martin thought this action would provide an incentive to the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS). Co-Chair Therriault pointed out that even though the bill recommends pursuing both the man and woman, there would be no need to go past the woman. Representative Kelly suggested that an amendment be added to the bill which would clarify that the both parents be equally responsible, whereas, if the mother chose not to identify the father, then she remain singularly responsible for payment. NANCY WELLER, DIVISION OF MEDICAL ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES, stated that Section 3 of HB 234 would eliminate the Department's ability to fund abortions for low income women. Since 1986, the Department has not funded any services beyond the current number #7. She addressed the concerns of the Department. The Department would take action against the woman and collect her permanent fund dividend for the abortion costs. Of the people who apply for the Medicaid program, most recipients are eligible for Medicaid. Those who receive abortions under the General Relief Medical (GRM) program, do not have to identify the father of the child until the child is born. The person could be required, under a condition of receiving funding for an abortion, to assign the rights to their permanent fund dividend check to the State or ask them to identify the father of the unborn child. That would be costly for the Department and would require deep tissue testing. The cost for the testing in the State of Alaska is 5 $975 dollars. Many areas of the State do not do DNA testing. Also, there is no statewide authority to compel a father to comply with the testing. Ms. Weller agreed that it was a compelling idea to have the father take part in the administrative costs, although, reiterated that it is not a sound idea or financially feasible. The bill provides authority to take action on the cost of the abortion, but does not cover the administrative costs associated with establishing paternity. Representative Kelly asked the connection between federal Medicaid, Medicare and State funded abortion dollars. Ms. Weller replied that most women that receive funding for abortion through the General Relief Program (GRP) are Medicaid recipients. There is no link between federal and state dollars. Representative Martin spoke to the priorities of the services funded and suggested that by eliminating abortions would provide more funding for other emergency services. Ms. Weller advised that those are two different programs and services. The State spends about $300 thousand dollars on GRM abortions annually, whereas, the cost of adult emergency care is close to $4 million dollars. She emphasized that these are two different programs and the money can not be used for the alternate program. ANGELA SALERNO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL WORKERS, JUNEAU, spoke in strong opposition to the proposed legislation. HB 234 would virtually eliminate the availability of abortion services for one class of individuals in the State, poor women. If the services are eliminated, there will be unintended outcomes. The options would be restricted for poor women. There are many unintended pregnancies each year. There will also be increased costs to the State with the fetal testing. And also, assuming the cost of Medicaid and welfare for those children. She stressed that when children are unwanted in a family, much more recorded child abuse and neglect exists. CARLA TIMPONE, ALASKA WOMEN'S LOBBY, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to the proposed legislation. The Lobby's concerns are specific to three areas: * Related to gender equity; * Related to class issues; and * Related to singling out one elective procedure as opposed to another. (Tape Change HFC 97-124, Side 2). Representative Kelly pointed out that the bill does not make 6 a statement about an individual's position on abortion; rather, it is only a statement about funding abortion. Co-Chair Therriault placed HB 234 in Subcommittee with Representative Kelly as Chair and with members Representative Martin and Representative J. Davies. He asked that the Subcommittee address the following concerns: * The amendment provided by Representative Martin; * The issue of addressing the identify of the father in the situation; * Any constitutional issues which need addressing by the Department of Law; and * How to compel a man/father to participate in the actual paternity and potential responsibility. HB 234 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. HOUSE BILL 116 "An Act relating to workers' compensation self-insurance." GEORGE DOZIER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PETE KOTT, noted that HB 116 contained numerous substantive and procedural requirements designed to ensure that worker's compensation self-insurance groups remain fiscally sound and able to fulfill Alaska's workers compensation requirements. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on file]. PAUL GROSSI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, advised that the Department would support Amendment #1. Mr. Dozier explained that Amendment #1 would impose a duty of care which would be exercised by the trustees of the groups created by the bill and would be a standard level of care. MARIANNE BURKE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF INSURANCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, commented that the Department supports Amendment #1 which would address a concern regarding investment criteria for excessive money and how it would be handled. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment #1 was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Copy on file]. Discussion followed regarding Amendment #2. 7 [Temporary tape malfunction for five minutes]. Mr. Grossi noted that funding would be needed within the group and that there should be included a safety net to pay claims should the group fail. He suggested that it would be essential to place liquid assets inside the group in order to properly fund the initial stage of the revenue stream and the safety protection at that end. Insurance requirements for an insurance company is $1.75 million dollars. Representative J. Davies asked if the director had the authority to control the amount. He believed that if they don't have adequate insurance, they shouldn't be in business. Mr. Grossi replied that in order for it to be affordable for the size of the group, there would need to be a high enough retention self insurance. Representative J. Davies believed that the amounts should be self regulating. Ms. Burke pointed out that through Department research, similar organizations typically have $200-$500 thousand dollars in a retention fund, critical to the organization. Representative J. Davies questioned how the numbers were determined. Ms. Burke pointed out that they had been provided in the proposed legislation. In order to become established, they must have a minimum of a $500 thousand dollars premium for the year, of which they need 25% of that cost to begin. The 25% is broken down between the administrative and claims portion. She noted that it was her intent that the system work while at the same time, protecting the workers. That is why an alternative funding source has been proposed and would require money up-front. Representative Kohring MOVED to report CS HB 116 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. CS HB 116 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with "individual recommendations" and with fiscal notes by the Department of Commerce and Economic Development dated 4/25/97 and the Department of Labor dated 4/25/97. SENATE BILL 70 "An Act defining the offenses of unlawful discharge of a firearm; and relating to the commission of those offenses by minors." JAMES ARMSTRONG, STAFF, SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, explained that SB 70 would provide strong new deterrents to individuals who 8 unlawfully discharge firearms at buildings or dwellings. Last year, an Anchorage family was awakened in the middle of the night to a barrage of gunfire. The next day, the Anchorage Police Department found five bullets lodged in various locations of the family's home. Juneau has witnessed seven separate accounts of shootings at dwellings in the last year alone. Under current State law, the unlawful discharge of a firearm at a building is only a misdemeanor. SB 70 would create a new class B felony offense for the unlawful discharge of a firearm at a dwelling. The legislation would also create a class B felony offense for discharging a firearm in the direction of a building with reckless disregard of risk of physical injury to a person. It would also address the problem of random reckless discharges of firearms by instituting tough new penalties on those individuals who not only endanger property but innocent lives as well. Mr. Armstrong explained that the work draft would add intent language to Section 1. Representative J. Davies recommended discussion by the Department of Law addressing the changes made to the work draft. ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, testified that there is legal justification contained in the criminal code and that removal of the proposed language would not be in conflict with that criteria. The language is not necessary as the legal justification applies to all statutes. Representative Martin MOVED that work draft, 0-LS0272\C, Luckhaupt, 5/5/97, be the version before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CSSB 70 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CS SB 70 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with fiscal notes by the Alaska Court System, the Department of Administration dated 4/10/97, the Department of Law dated 4/9/97, and zero fiscal notes by the Department of Administration dated 4/10/97, the Department of Corrections dated 4/10/97, the Department of Public Safety dated 2/21/97 and the Department of Health and Social Services dated 2/21/97. SENATE BILL 104 9 "An Act relating to regulation and examination of insurers and insurance agents; relating to kinds of insurance; relating to payment of insurance taxes and to required insurance reserves; relating to insurance policies; relating to regulation of capital, surplus, and investments by insurers; relating to hospital and medical service corporations; and providing for an effective date." TIM BENINTENDI, STAFF, SENATOR TIM KELLY, stated that the bill was requested by the Division of Insurance and contains numerous provisions that will enhance the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of insurance regulations for the Alaskan consumer and industry. The majority of the provisions implement the minimum federal standards for individual and group health insurance plans as established under the federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which will become effective in Alaska by July 1, 1997. If the provisions are not enacted in this legislative session, the federal Department of Health and Human Services will take over regulations of these standards in individual and group health insurance markets in Alaska. Mr. Benintendi provided a summary of the federal minimum standards in the bill: * In August 1996, the 1996 Act was signed into federal law. The Act received wide bipartisan support in Congress and by many organizations including the American Medical Association (AMA). * Federal law establishes minimum standards for all individual and group health care plans which must become effective July 1, 1997. These standards ensure that health coverage is portable, available and renewable for many individuals. * If Alaska fails to enact the federal reforms or otherwise, provides for enforcement of the federal reforms, the federal government will enforce compliance in Alaska beginning January 1, 1998. * Alaska has the option to implement an alternative to the minimum individual health insurance standards in federal law. This legislation would provide for the necessary amendments to the insurance code to implement 10 such an alternative as well as other amendments necessary to implement the minimum group reforms. * The bill would provide for a federally acceptable alternative by modifying the eligibility requirements for the Comprehensive Health Insurance Association (CHIA). This alternative would be the least disruptive to Alaska's small individual health insurance market. Mr. Benintendi commented that Amendment #1, 0-LS0407\KA.4, Ford, 5/5/97, was a refinement of an amendment provided on the Senate floor to improve the legislation's intention. [Copy on file]. He commented that Senator Kelly supports the amendment. Ms. Burke advised that the issue is currently before the Alaska Supreme Court and involves contradictory federal decisions. The federal court remanded it to the State Supreme Court. The amendment would remove the ambiguity which lead to the case and would clarify the intent. (Tape Change HFC 97-125, Side 1). MICHAEL LESSMEIER, STATE FARM INSURANCE, JUNEAU, agreed that there exists a controversy about when the underinsured motorist coverage is triggered. The policy decision made by Senator Donley is reflected in Amendment #1. He believed that the consideration is a complicated issue. Representative Martin MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Mr. Lessmeier spoke to a concern regarding that the maintenance of records provision being held for ten years, Page 5, Line 31. He pointed out that this is longer than any other state in the country. He requested it be changed to five years. Ms. Burke responded that all domestic insurers in the State of Alaska are required to keep their records ten years. She added that the Division would have no objection to changing it to five years. Mr. Benintendi noted that the sponsor would not object to that change. Representative Martin MOVED that language change on Page 5, Line 31, deleting "ten years" and inserting "five years". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Martin MOVED to report HCS CS SB 104 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it 11 was so ordered. HCS CS SB 104 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with a fiscal note by the Department of Revenue and the Department of Commerce and Economic Development. SENATE BILL 141 "An Act relating to permits to carry concealed handguns; and relating to the possession of firearms." TUCKERMAN BABCOCK, STAFF, SENATOR LYDA GREEN, commented that the intent of SB 141 is simple. There is no reason that the permitted few should be more restricted than the unregulated many. He suggested treating people and their handguns equally. All Alaskans, who are not otherwise prohibited by federal or state law from owning or possessing handguns, can carry handguns openly in certain places and can carry concealed without a permit in certain places. An Alaskan should be able to carry a concealed handgun in those same places, and should be required to do no more than fingerprinting, training and background checks. Mr. Babcock noted that with the exception of the recognition of out-of-state permits and the lowering of the permit fee, the Alaska Peace Officers Association supports SB 141. The Department of Public Safety (DPS) supports most of the bill, although, opposes certain sections. The Department contends that without an increase in volume, reducing fees could result in not collecting enough funds to cover the costs of the program. The Department remains opposed to recognizing out-of-state permits and are definitely cautious about changing the law. Mr. Babcock summarized that existing law is too restrictive, confusing and expensive. Under current law, one is prohibited from walking into a financial institution with a permitted concealed handgun, but is allowed to take the handgun out and carry it openly into the bank. He suggested that existing law too often turns common sense upside down. Representative J. Davies spoke to his philosophy regarding the proposed legislation. He believed that concealed weapons should be prohibited in a bank with only open-carry allowed. Mr. Babcock commented that the people who apply for permits to carry concealed guns are not the ones that commit crimes with those weapons. If a person's intent was to cause damage in a bank, they would not be concerned with carrying a permit or not. Representative Kelly questioned under the proposed bill, 12 would a person be allowed to carry a concealed weapon into a bar. Mr. Babcock stated that would not be allowed. Representative G. Davis argued against the statement that people who obtain a permit to carry concealed are all upstanding citizens. He stressed that there has not been enough study regarding that statement. Representative Kelly countered that history from other states does indicate these positive results. Representative Mulder questioned the fee structure changes recommended by the sponsor. Mr. Babcock replied that the current fee structure is up to $125 dollars for the initial permit and $60 for renewal after five years. Senator Green is proposing to reduce that to $99 dollars for the initial cost and $30 dollars for renewal. The course would cost between $100 to $150 dollars. If the volume were to increase, the Department of Public Safety would be able to meet their target with the amount of money that would be generated from the $99 dollar fee. The fixed cost to the Department is roughly $60 dollars. LAUREE HUGONIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA NETWORK ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, JUNEAU, voiced her concern that the Network opposes three sections of the bill; Section #10, #13 and #16. She noted that the current list of permit qualifications excludes persons who have committed felonies and a various list of misdemeanors including crimes against a person and a crime involving domestic violence. She stressed that if the bill passes in it's current form, it would remove that restriction. The Network strongly opposes that action. Section #13 addresses when a permit could be suspended and would be when there has been a crime charged against a person or a crime involving domestic violence. A person at that point could have been charged with a crime even though they had not been convicted. Ms. Hugonin testified that it would be appropriate to suspend a permit in certain circumstances. She urged that current statute stand. Section #16 repeals and reenacts a list of prohibitive places to carry concealed. A facility that provides services to domestic violence and sexual assault victims was not included, even though not listed in the crime section, she stressed that it is a locked facility. If the person carries concealed, the option to deny entrance is not available. Ms. Hugonin refuted the notion that people in domestic violence centers and those that work there are "sitting ducks". She emphasized that these places are homes of 13 refuge. Places where skills of dialogue, negotiation, fairness, truth-telling and sharing are practiced. Because the Network works to carry out this vision, does not mean that they ignore the real world. Employees at the shelters teach victims to learn how to arm themselves with knowledge, companions and with the belief in the possibility and willingness to stand for peace. She requested that weapons not be allowed on the shelters premise and that request be respected and clearly specified in law. Discussion followed regarding Section #13 between Representative Mulder and Ms. Hugonin. Mr. Babcock noted that Committee members packet included a memo dated 3/24/97, from Legal Counsel to Senator Green, stating that it should be unlawful for any person to possess a fire arm, who is subject to a court order. The sponsor's position is that federal law already prohibits those people from possessing any firearms. Ms. Hugonin replied that there are some federal provisions which are not as expansive as the Domestic Violence Protection Act passed last year. That protective order included in the Alaska Statutes includes emergency protective orders. Federal law does not cover those, while defining who is eligible to obtain a protective order in a more narrow field. (Tape Change HFC 97-125, Side 2). Mr. Babcock spoke to the broad federal laws preclusion list of firearms. He pointed out that AS 11.61.200(a)(8) prohibits the possession of a fire arm while a person is committing a trespass in the first or second degree violation of the domestic violence restraining order and that AS 11.61.200(a)(9) prohibits the possession of any firearm concealed or open while the possessor is communicating with another person in violation of their domestic restraining order. JAYNE ANDREEN, DIRECTOR, COUNCIL ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT, ANCHORAGE, expressed concerns that the Council has on SB 141. She pointed out that the Legislature and the Administration worked very hard three years ago to craft a concealed handgun system which contained adequate safeguards. There have been no problems with that system to date. Ms. Andreen spoke to the specific areas which the Council has addressed concerns with in the proposed legislation: * Protection for domestic violence and sexual assault victims needs to be paramount and 14 under the eligibility qualifications. The Council is concerned that the prohibition on a protective order has been jeopardized under federal law; * Under the eligibility list, someone under the bill would have had to be convicted of two class A misdemeanors in order to be eligible for a concealed handgun permit. That would exclude the mass majority of domestic violent offenders. * The prohibition of concealed handguns in domestic violence sexual assault facilities. Ms. Andreen pointed out that we need to acknowledge that some domestic violence and sexual assault victims are very proficient at use of handguns. The reality is that many of these victims do not have that level of proficiency. Additionally, there are many other adults and children in these facilities. To date, there has been an assurance that these facilities have emergency procedures. She stressed that it is very important to use the criminal justice system, use a safety process to enforce safety for these victims. Ms. Andreen requested the Committee to consider banning all guns from these facilities, both openly carried and concealed. ARTHUR SNOWDEN, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, advised that the Supreme Court feels strongly that an amendment be added to the bill which would ban all firearms from court facilities. Federal law does ban them from federal court houses. Mr. Snowden stressed the highly emotionally charged environment that exists in a court room situation and that the bill needs to be amended to address these concerns. Representative Kohring stated that the procedure of those persons in going through the permitting process should present minimal problems for the court system. Mr. Snowden respectfully disagreed. He reiterated that court houses are highly charged emotional environments. Representative Martin questioned if courts houses had a court ruling pertaining to the expressed concern. Mr. Snowden replied that the court does have a ruling against concealed weapons. Although, citizens are not charged by law with knowing or obeying court rule, but they are charged by law with knowing the statues and laws of the State. He 15 reiterated that we need to ban firearms by law from being carried in court houses. DEAN GUANELI, CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, explained that there are problems with the bill which need to be addressed by the Finance Committee. Those problems fall into two areas: * Current law establishes a list of classes of people who can not get concealed handgun permits. The legislation would sweep away that protection. * Current law also contains a long list of places where concealed handguns can not be carried, which the bills disregards. Mr. Guaneli focused on some of the provisions which are being repealed by the bill. He agreed with Mr. Snowden's idea of banning all kinds of protection in court houses, and the type of ultimate protection that domestic violence shelters and places that provide services to victims would really need. He suggested that any amendment dealing with court houses should also include an additional line taking into consideration where services are added to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault. He suggested that the classes of people who can not get concealed handguns are important to remain in current law. Current law states that someone who is suffering from a mental illness can not get a concealed handgun permit. Federal law states that if you have been adjudicated or institutionalized, you can not carry a fire arm. There are many people walking the streets who are quite paranoid who are law abiding citizens yet are crazy. Those people under the proposed legislation could receive a permit. At this time, the Department of Public Safety will receive an application from someone who otherwise looks like a perfect applicant, and then they will receive letters from the community indicating the marginal ability of these people to be capable of having a permit responsibly. This type of protection does not exist in federal law and must exist in State law. Mr. Guaneli addressed other specifications such as people who had been ordered by the court into alcohol rehabilitation within the last three years. Those people should not be carrying a concealed handgun. Federal law does not speak to serious alcoholics; federal law only addresses someone who is addicted or a user of a controlled substance. 16 Mr. Guaneli noted that if there is going to be a great expansion of the places where concealed handguns are displayed under permit, there needs to be an amendment under the State Criminal Trespass laws to give public buildings and premises the same rights as private places. Representative J. Davies requested more clarification under current trespass laws. Mr. Guaneli responded that current law stipulates that a sign would be effective to prohibit trespassing activities. Representative J. Davies asked if the proposed bill would affect current law with respect to private property. Mr. Guaneli stated it would not affect any of the criminal trespass laws. Representative Kelly MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on file]. Representative Kohring OBJECTED. Representative Kelly reiterated that the court room was a charged environment and that concealed handguns should not be allowed. Mr. Babcock retorted that currently under the law, carrying openly or concealed in a court house is prohibitive. A person would be thrown in jail by the court system for contempt of court. Since it is already written into law, he urged that addition of the language would be redundant. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: Grussendorf, Kelly, Mulder, J. Davies, G. Davis, Foster OPPOSED: Kohring Representatives Martin, Moses, Therriault and Hanley were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (6-1). SB 141 was HELD in Committee for further consideration. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:40 P.M. 17