Legislature(2003 - 2004)
2003-04-30 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2003-04-30 House Journal Page 1211 SB 120 The following, which was advanced to third reading from the April 29, 2003, calendar (page 1182), was read the third time: SENATE BILL NO. 120 "An Act relating to the state's sovereign immunity for certain actions regarding injury, illness, or death of state-employed seamen and to workers' compensation coverage for those seamen; and providing for an effective date." Representative Gara moved and asked unanimous consent that SB 120 be returned to second reading for the specific purpose of considering Amendment No. 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Gara: Page 2, lines 14 - 16: Delete all material. Insert "state, unless under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement the employee has the right to bring a claim against the state; if an employee has the right to bring a claim against the state under this paragraph, the employee's claim is limited to the remedy provided under 46 U.S.C. 688 (the Jones Act); if an employee does not have the right to bring a claim against the state under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, AS 23.30 provides the exclusive remedy for an employment related claim." Representative Gara moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Anderson objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: 2003-04-30 House Journal Page 1212 SB 120 Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 13 NAYS: 26 EXCUSED: 1 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Berkowitz, Cissna, Crawford, Croft, Gara, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Joule, Kerttula, Kookesh, Moses, Ogg, Weyhrauch Nays: Anderson, Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Fate, Foster, Gatto, Harris, Hawker, Heinze, Holm, Kapsner, Kohring, Kott, Lynn, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan, Rokeberg, Samuels, Seaton, Stoltze, Whitaker, Williams, Wolf Excused: Wilson And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. The question being: "Shall SB 120 pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: SB 120 Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 30 NAYS: 9 EXCUSED: 1 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Anderson, Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Fate, Foster, Gatto, Harris, Hawker, Heinze, Holm, Joule, Kapsner, Kohring, Kookesh, Kott, Lynn, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan, Ogg, Rokeberg, Samuels, Seaton, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Whitaker, Williams, Wolf Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Crawford, Croft, Gara, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Kerttula, Moses Excused: Wilson And so, SB 120 passed the House. Representative Coghill moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. Representative Berkowitz objected. 2003-04-30 House Journal Page 1213 The question being: "Shall the effective date clause be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: SB 120 Third Reading Effective Date YEAS: 27 NAYS: 12 EXCUSED: 1 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Anderson, Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Fate, Foster, Gatto, Harris, Hawker, Heinze, Holm, Kohring, Kott, Lynn, Masek, McGuire, Meyer, Morgan, Ogg, Rokeberg, Samuels, Seaton, Stoltze, Weyhrauch, Whitaker, Williams, Wolf Nays: Berkowitz, Cissna, Crawford, Croft, Gara, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Joule, Kapsner, Kerttula, Kookesh, Moses Excused: Wilson And so, the effective date clause was adopted. Representative Gruenberg gave notice of reconsideration of the vote on SB 120.