Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/10/1994 05:00 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 106
HB 364 - PFD PROGRAM/ALLOWABLE ABSENCES
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER welcomed Representative Jim Nordlund,
Prime Sponsor of HB 364, to the committee and asked him to
present the bill.
Number 108
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that HB 364 adds service in
the Public Health Service (PHS) and in the U.S. Merchant
Marine to the list of allowable absences for eligibility for
permanent fund dividends. He stated that he sponsored this
bill at the request of constituents, one of which is a
Merchant Mariner and one who is a member of the Public
Health Service, because he believes that these people are
entitled to the exemptions. Representative Nordlund stated
that members of the Public Health Service are commissioned
officers, much like military personnel, and are required to
leave the state on assignment against their will for duty
assignments. He said, due to the nature of their job,
Merchant Mariners cannot be physically located in the state
because their job requires them to be on their ship. He
said that his intention is to ensure that these people who
are domiciled in the state are still considered eligible
when they are required to be at sea for more that six
months.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND also added that there was a recent
Superior Court decision that stated that PHS commissioned
officers should be eligible for statutory allowable absences
under the permanent fund dividend program.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that even if this bill does
not pass, he thought the court would order the payment of
these PHS officers. Representative Nordlund then said that
he would be happy to answer any questions.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE asked what the position of the
Department of Revenue was.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER replied that Tom Williams from the
Permanent Fund Dividend Division would present the
department's position.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that he saw that there would be
532 members of the PHS who would be affected and asked how
many Merchant Mariners would be affected.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE answered that there were
approximately 191.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND said that number is hard to
determine and the Department of Revenue would probably have
a problem with this and stated further that when you count
the number that apply and meet the requirements for the
dividend program the number would not be that high. He said
that there were 14,000 Merchant Mariners nationwide.
Number 146
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there was an active component
of Merchant Mariners in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND answered that there is no chapter of
Merchant Mariners in the state and that he thought it was a
national service that did not isolate by state.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if the likely scenario would be
the following: an Alaskan joins the Merchant Marine and
ends up traveling around the world and not like military,
who sometimes are assigned here, then become residents and
are eligible for the dividend program.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND replied that this is the intent, but
probably there is nothing to prohibit someone who is in the
Merchant Marine from moving to Alaska and then becoming
eligible for the dividend program, much like the military.
Number 155
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he had an amendment that
he would be willing to offer that may have some
constitutional questions. He said that it is not his intent
to allow someone who just maintains a mailbox address in
Alaska and is actually domiciled in San Francisco from
benefitting from the program. Representative Nordlund said
that his intent is to provide eligibility for people who are
domiciled in the state except when they are at sea and that
he would be open to any way to clarify that.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that it is very difficult to
stipulate what you have to have to establish residency in
Alaska. Representative Mulder stated that it was a policy
question of whether Merchant Mariners should be considered
in the same manner as any other branch of military service.
Number 169
TOM WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF THE PERMANENT FUND DIVIDEND
DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, stated that the Department
of Revenue does not support any expansion of allowable
absences. He stated that there is a challenged court
decision by Judge Dana Fabe that did not conclude that PHS
were military, because they are not classified as such by
federal law, but PHS does have a lot of similarities to the
uniformed military services. He said that he did not
believe that they are transferred out against their will,
but there is the opportunity to transfer and there have been
agreements by PHS officers where they are guaranteed to come
back to Alaska. Mr. Williams stated that the court decision
stated that PHS officers should be treated similar to the
military and be allowed to remain eligible when they are
absent because of their similarities to the military. The
court has remanded the specific cases in the suit back to
the department to make other determinations.
MR. WILLIAMS said that the department originally determined
that they were not eligible because their absence was not
allowable in statute. Now, they are remanded back to
determine eligibility based on all factors, after which they
will go back to the court. Mr. Williams stated that the
department has spoken with the Attorney General's Office
about the appeal of this case once it is finalized. He said
that the PHS includes mostly physicians and some engineers
that do serve often side-by-side with military personnel,
but not in all cases.
With respect to Merchant Mariners, MR. WILLIAMS said that
his investigation has shown that there is no Merchant Marine
corps like the Coast Guard or the Navy. He said that
nongovernment owned commercial vessels make up the Merchant
Marine of the United States and that the Coast Guard issues
cards to qualified Merchant Mariners. Mr. Williams stated
that anyone who was issued a Merchant Marine card and was
serving at sea under the auspices of that card would qualify
for an allowable absence. He said that it is really not
affiliated with the military and is a commercial service and
raises the question of what basic private employment jobs
should be considered an allowable absence.
MR. WILLIAMS said that the department proposed some
regulations related to working out-of-state. Under the
current regulations, if you accept a job out-of-state and it
is not for one of the fully allowable absences, you do not
retain eligibility for the permanent fund program.
MR. WILLIAMS explained that the department had proposed
regulations concerning accepting part-time employment
out-of-state that stipulated an individual could remain
eligible if they maintained a physical home here at all
times. He said that these regulations were designed to take
care of construction workers or those who had to leave the
state during a slow period and most often left their family
here. Upon advice of the Department of Law, these
regulations would be constitutionally questionable because
it faces an economic test, namely, someone may not be able
to financially maintain a home here. Consequently, these
regulations were not adopted under the advice of the
Attorney General.
MR. WILLIAMS said that administering the program to PHS
officers would not be a problem, because they do have leave
and earnings statements from which they would be able to
determine eligibility. He said that there would be some
problems or questions that would have to be answered for
determining eligibility for service in the Merchant Marine.
Mr. Williams said that when you look at any allowable
absence, you also look at the "piggyback provision" of the
spouse and children.
Number 233
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked Mr. Williams if the department
would be neutral or possibly supportive of the inclusion of
the PHS officers, but not so amenable to the Merchant
Marine. He also asked that if the court decision prevailed,
would the commissioner incorporate this into regulation.
MR. WILLIAMS replied that the department does not support
opening the program to the PHS as opposed to the Merchant
Marine. He said that the department does not support adding
any additional allowable absences. Mr. Williams said if the
Supreme Court ruled that Judge Fabe was correct in his
ruling, then the commissioner would go in and add this to
PFD regulations. He added that he does not believe that
will occur.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the department knew how many
Merchant Mariners would be included under this provision.
MR. WILLIAMS answered that he had no way to estimate this,
but that they had some cases from Ketchikan in the past.
Number 257
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE asked if the general philosophy of
the department was against any opening of the allowable
absence provisions and further asked if the department would
prefer to have it closed to the military.
MR. WILLIAMS asked for clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE asked if it was correct that the
department did not want any expansion of the current
allowable absences.
MR. WILLIAMS said the department is not supportive of any
expansion, and with respect to PHS, the department does not
see any particularly unique argument that would convince
them to open it up. He said that members of the PHS have
repeatedly asked the commissioner to adopt a regulation and
the department concluded that there were not enough
similarities to the military that would suggest that it was
warranted.
Number 272
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER stated that during testimony on a
similar bill, the Representative from Kodiak made a
suggestion that perhaps the statutes should be amended to
say that anyone who is gone from the state for longer than
150 consecutive days is not eligible, and the department
liked this idea.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER said that he understood that this
would make it easier for the department.
MR. WILLIAMS agreed that it would make the program easier
and more equitable to administer.
Number 278
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that he thought that it was
appropriate for the department to speak of how a program may
be easier to administer, but it is up to the legislature to
decide who in eligible for the dividend program. He stated
that for whatever the reason, it is up to the legislature to
decide this and it has to be based on the merits.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND referenced a statement made by Mr.
Williams that he was not sure if PHS officers did not have
to leave the state against their will. He said that the
court stated in its decision that PHS officers, like members
of the armed services, serve at the pleasure of their
superior officers and do not have control over where they
are commissioned.
REPRESENTATIVE NORDLUND stated that the question of whether
the legislature should allow anybody who is employed outside
of the state to be eligible for the dividend is a valid
concern, but when your job in on a ship in the middle of the
sea where you couldn't possibly be residing in another
state. He said that if in fact these people are residents
and they just happen to be out at sea for more than six
months a year, they should receive the permanent fund out of
fairness.
Number 302
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that out of fairness, every
Alaskan citizen who has an occupation that takes them
out-of-state, whether they be a Merchant Mariner or an
employee of ARCO or BP, should then be included, otherwise
it is discriminating one class of occupations against
another. Representative Kott said that this was discussed
in the Judiciary Committee and that there are constitutional
questions when you start separating classes. He stated that
when you are a Merchant Mariner, or ARCO employee, quite
often there is no choice of where you are assigned.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT proposed an amendment to include all
occupations.
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE objected.
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked for a roll call on the amendment
Amendment to HB 364
Add to AS 43.23.095 (8)
"(J) out-of-state employment."
ROLL CALL:
Representative Mulder: No
Representative Navarre: No
Representative Kott: No
YEAS: 0 NAYS: 3 ABSENT: 2
The Amendment failed.
Number 320
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there were any further
amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT stated that he had an amendment that he
would hold at that time
Number 323
REPRESENTATIVE NAVARRE moved HB 364 from committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
Number 325
REPRESENTATIVE MULDER asked if there was any objection.
There being none and HB 364 was moved from committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|