Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/12/2022 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB66 | |
| HB142 | |
| SB182 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 142 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 142-PFD ELIGIBILITY
4:19:36 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 142, "An Act relating to eligibility for
the permanent fund dividend." [Before the committee, adopted as
the working draft on 3/29/22, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 142, Version 32-LS0491\W, Nauman,
3/28/22, "Version W."]
4:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KEN MCCARTY, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 142, provided brief introductory remarks on
Version W.
4:20:54 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:20 p.m. to 4:24 p.m.
4:24:38 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.1, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert new bill sections to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(e) is amended to read:
(e) To determine whether an individual intends
to return and remain in the state indefinitely, the
department shall consider all relevant factors,
including
(1) the length of time the individual was
absent from the state compared to the length of time
the individual was physically present in the state;
(2) the frequency and duration of voluntary
return trips to the state during the past five years;
(3) whether the individual's intent to
return to and remain in the state is conditioned on
future events beyond the individual's control;
(4) the ties the individual has established
with the state or another jurisdiction, as
demonstrated by
(A) maintenance of a home;
(B) payment of resident taxes;
(C) registration of a vehicle;
(D) except as provided in (g) of this
section, registration to vote and voting history;
(E) acquisition of a driver's license,
business license, or professional license; and
(F) receipt of benefits under a claim of
residency in the state or another jurisdiction;
(5) the priority that the individual gave
the state on an employment assignment preference list,
including a list used by military personnel.
* Sec. 4. AS 43.23.008 is amended by adding a new
subsection to read:
(g) An individual who is absent from the state
for a reason permitted under (a)(1) or (2) of this
section but who the department determines is
ineligible because the individual voted or registered
to vote outside the state regains eligibility for a
permanent fund dividend if, during the qualifying year
or the year immediately preceding the qualifying year,
the individual
(1) is physically present in the state at
some time during the qualifying year;
(2) registers to vote in the state or
cancels the individual's voter registration outside
the state; and
(3) is otherwise eligible."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10, following "APPLICABILITY.":
Insert "(a)"
Page 4, following line 11:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(b) AS 43.23.008(e), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(g), added by sec. 4 of this
Act,
(1) apply to the permanent fund dividend
2023 qualifying year for the 2024 dividend year and
thereafter; and
(2) may not be applied to allow an
individual to regain eligibility for a qualifying year
before 2023."
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:25:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS deferred to Ms. Mackinnon, as the proposed
amendment was drafted in communication with the Permanent Fund
Dividend Division.
4:25:35 PM
ANNA MACKINNON, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
explained that Amendment 1 would allow students who accidentally
voted out of state to correct that error and maintain
eligibility for the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN shared his understanding that it would be
a crime for a student to vote in another state if he/she was
still a resident in Alaska. He asked why the legislature should
overlook that and allow the individual to qualify for the PFD.
MS. MACKINNON explained that many students unintentionally
register to vote in another state, unaware that it would make
them ineligible to receive a PFD.
4:28:14 PM
DIRECTOR MACKINNON, in response to a follow up question from
Representative Eastman, said it would be a policy decision. She
conveyed that many students and parents felt disenfranchised in
these scenarios.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN believed that this situation highlighted
an education issue in Alaska. He argued that the solution for
accidentally committing a crime in another state was not to
allow the students to maintain their PFD eligibility. Instead,
he opined that the concern should be addressed through education
efforts.
4:30:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE directed attention to Section 4 on page 2,
lines 2-7, of Amendment 1. She asked whether the student, after
registering to vote in another state in 2020, would lose
eligibility in 2021 and regain eligibility in 2022.
MS. MACKINNON pointed out that the effective date of 2023 would
nullify Representative Vance's example. Nonetheless, she
acknowledged that if the student met the criteria in paragraphs
(1)-(3) of Section 4, the division could remedy the mistake.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE sought to clarify that a student who
registered to vote in another state would lose eligibility for
the dividend that year.
MS. MACKINNON answered, "Correct."
4:33:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern about paragraph (2) on
page 2, line 10, of Amendment 1. He suggested that the language
may encourage people to vote twice from two different states in
the same election.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON said that would never be the case, as the
election timeline was different than the application period.
Further, she explained that the division wouldn't become aware
of this error until the student filed for the following year's
dividend.
4:35:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his concern.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS tabled Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN wondered whether the solution to the
questions posed by Representative Eastman was contained in HB
66.
4:37:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.2, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 3, line 19:
Delete "(16), or (17)"
Insert "or (16) - (18) [(16), OR (17)]"
Page 3, line 27, following "(17)":
Insert "serving as a volunteer for a religious or
charitable program;
(18)"
Page 3, line 31:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 3:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 6:
Delete "(1) - (16)"
Insert "(1) - (17) [(1) - (16)]"
Page 4, line 7:
Delete "(4) - (16)"
Insert "(4) - (17) [(4) - (16)]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(b) is amended to read:
(b) An individual may not claim an allowable
absence under (a)(1) - (17) [(a)(1) - (16)] of this
section unless the individual was a resident of the
state for at least six consecutive months immediately
before leaving the state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(b), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:38:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 2 would create
an exemption for individuals serving as a volunteer for a
religious or charitable program.
4:39:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY opined that specifying religious and
nonprofit organizations would open the bill up "to a lot of
different things." He argued that it was a dangerous path to go
down.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON stated that Amendment 2 was a policy decision
for the legislature.
4:40:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE asked how religious or charitable program
would be defined.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would look to the federal
definitions for tax status and organizations that regularly send
individuals overseas for periods of service.
4:41:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained her objection.
4:42:20 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Vance, and
Kaufman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 2.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 4-3.
4:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.3, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete ", as determined by the Alaska Commission
on Postsecondary Education,"
Insert "[, AS DETERMINED BY THE ALASKA COMMISSION
ON POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION,]"
Page 4, line 10:
Delete ", applies"
Insert "and AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2
of this Act, apply"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:43:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that Amendment 3 would remove
the Alaska Commission on Postsecondary Education's (ACPE's)
adjudicatory role for determining the availability of comparable
education programs in Alaska, per AS 43.23.008(a)(2). He shared
his understanding that the commission was not fulfilling this
requirement and did not see it as part of its mission.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether that was true.
DIRECTOR MACKINNON said she had no knowledge of whether ACPE was
fulfilling that provision. Nonetheless, she contended that it
was a statutory requirement.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Representative Story whether she had
any insight on this matter.
4:44:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY did not know the answer. She believed that
the intent of AS 43.23.008(a)(2) was to provide consumer
protection for students.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he was not necessarily opposed to
Amendment 3; however, he suggested that ACPE should weigh in.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN suggested tabling Amendment 3 to a later
bill hearing at which the commission would be present to
testify.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS agreed. He announced that Amendment 3 was
tabled.
4:47:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 4, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.4, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 2, line 23:
Delete "armed forces"
Insert "uniformed services [ARMED FORCES]"
Page 4, following line 7:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(f) is amended to read:
(f) In [FOR PURPOSES OF (a)(7) OF] this section,
(1) "family member" means a person who is
(A) [(1)] legally related to the individual
through marriage or guardianship; or
(B) [(2)] the individual's sibling, parent,
grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter,
uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin;
(2) "uniformed service" means the Army,
Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space
Force, and the Commissioned Corps of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Public
Health Services."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 4, line 10:
Delete "applies"
Insert "AS 43.23.008(a), as amended by sec. 2 of
this Act, and AS 43.23.008(f), as amended by sec. 3 of
this Act, apply"
REPRESENTATIVE TARR objected.
4:47:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN explained that the intent of Amendment 4
was to include all members of the uniformed services in the
exemptions section to allow those individuals to retain PFD
eligibility.
4:48:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY spoke in favor of Amendment 4. She
emphasized the importance of recognizing these uniformed service
members, the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and Public Health Services in
particular, as those individuals were often sent on long
deployments. She reported that 15 Alaska residents served in
the NOAA Commissioned Corps.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS noted that 231 Alaskans served in the
Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Services.
4:50:52 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS shared a personal anecdote. He asked
whether a member of the Public Health Services Commissioned
Corps who performed his/her residency in Maine followed by 20
years of service in Sitka would be able to claim dividend
eligibility in Maine, if Maine had a dividend program.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said, per his intent, the answer would be
no. He clarified that the focus was a uniformed services member
on deployment, as opposed to permanent station.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked what constituted deployment for NOAA
and Public Health Services Commissioned Corps.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY deferred to Ms. MacKinnon.
4:52:49 PM
MS. MACKINNON said the terms of deployment were provided under
the Universal Code of Military Justice. She pointed out that
uniformed service members on deployment would also be subject to
the 5-year rule, as it currently existed, the 72-hour rule, and
the intent to return.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS repeated his question, asking what
constituted deployment for the Commissioned Corps of the NOAA
and Public Health Services.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his understanding that the
legislature could borrow the federal definition of deployment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS reiterated his interest in "nailing down"
the definition.
4:55:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY offered to follow up with the definition.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that Amendment 4 was tabled.
4:55:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE moved to adopt Amendment 5, [labeled 32-
LS0491\W.5, Nauman, 3/29/22], which read:
Page 1, line 1, following "eligibility":
Insert "of active duty members of the armed
forces for the permanent fund dividend; relating to
the physical presence in the state requirement for
eligibility"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected.
4:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE explained that the intent of Amendment 5
was to provide additional clarification of active duty members
by requiring physical presence in the state for eligibility.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed his appreciation for the
clarification offered in the proposed amendment.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought to confirm that Amendment 5 was a
title change.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR highlighted the issue with conforming
language, as Amendment 4 replaced "armed forces" with "uniformed
services."
4:56:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE suggested that Legislative Legal Services
could be authorized to make the appropriate conforming changes.
4:56:44 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
4:57:09 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS said he would provide Legislative Legal
Services with the appropriate latitude for conforming changes
when final action was taken.
4:57:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN opined that the significance of the
proposed amendment was unclear. He asked what inspired
Amendment 5.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE deferred to the bill sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said, "this bill, HB 142, is really
talking about military or changes to uniformed services only."
4:59:11 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked Ms. Nauman how the adoption of
Amendment 1 would interact with the adoption of a title change
amendment as embodied by Amendment 5.
4:59:58 PM
EMILY NAUMAN, Deputy Director, Legislative Legal Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, shared her understanding that
Amendment 5 would narrow the title to lock in the procedural
intent of the bill. In response to Chair Kreiss-Tomkins'
question, she indicated that authorizing Legislative Legal
Services to making conforming changes would remedy any issues.
5:00:56 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 5 was adopted. He announced that
the bill would be held over.