Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/30/2004 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 460-ALLOWABLE ABSENCES AND PFDS Number 0985 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 460, "An Act relating to absences to provide care for certain relatives for purposes of permanent fund dividend eligibility; and providing for an effective date." [From this point forward, the committee substitute (CS) for HB 460, Version 23-LS1700\D, Cook, 4/1/04, was treated as adopted and before the committee as a work draft.] Number 0999 AURORA HAUKE, Staff to Representative Beth Kerttula, Alaska State Legislature, testifying on behalf of Representative Kerttula, sponsor, explained that the intent of the original bill was to allow people to provide care for critically ill or injured family members, no matter where that family member became ill. She indicated that when the sponsor discussed the bill with the Permanent Fund Dividend Division, it was pointed out that the language may imply that [the individual started out being ill inside of the state and then had to go outside of the state for care]. MS. HAUKE directed attention to page 3, beginning on line 9, which read as follows: (d) For purposes of (a)(6) and (7) [(a)(7)] of this section, "family member" means a person who is (1) legally related to the individual through marriage or guardianship; or (2) the individual's sibling, parent, grandparent, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, uncle, aunt, niece, nephew, or first cousin. Number 1115 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked, "So, the intent of this is if there is an Alaskan who has someone who's a non-Alaskan who's injured, they can leave for how long and still continue to collect dividends?" MS. HAUKE offered her understanding that the length of time would be the same as for any other allowable absence. She guessed five years. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said, "So, it's under the 10-year time frame, so it starts in 2008, if that's the cutoff that you're talking about." In response to a question from Representative Gruenberg, he clarified that the 10-year window "starts in 2008," but is not "from 2008." Number 1202 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if "critical life-threatening" is defined in statute. MS. HAUKE said she doesn't know. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has a problem with the broadness of the language regarding the definition of a family member. MS. HAUKE noted that the sponsor chose to leave the language as it currently is in statute. Number 1289 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that he doesn't have a problem with the language, "[PARENT, SPOUSE, SIBLING, CHILD, OR STEPCHILD]". Number 1303 CHAIR WEYHRAUCH said he has an amendment that would change the sunset to "January 1, 2006", so that the legislature has the opportunity to "come back and look at it." REPRESENTATIVE HOLM stated that he thinks the language is broad. He questioned the inclusion of "first cousin". Number 1355 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a request by Chair Weyhrauch, moved [to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 460, Version 23-LS1700, Cook, 4/1/04, as work draft]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected. Number 1385 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, as follows: On page 2, lines 10-11: Delete "family member" Retain "[PARENT, SPOUSE, SIBLING, CHILD, OR STEPCHILD]" On page 3, lines 8-14: Delete Section 2 of the bill CHAIR WEYHRAUCH objected to Amendment 1. Number 1394 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if a grandparent is considered a parent. He also asked, "And what about an aunt or an uncle?" REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered, "No, it's not." He clarified that "the terms are used differently here." Number 1406 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recalled a floor debate last year regarding this issue. He said he thinks the committee is getting into something that is not proposed in the bill. He turned attention to [page 2], line 11, which read, "critical life-threatening illness or injury", and he said he is not certain whether "critical life-threatening" applies to "injury". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG clarified that "critical life- threatening" would modify both "illness" or "injury". REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he would like to add "grandparent". REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would consider that a friendly amendment [to Amendment 1]. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that the amendment to Amendment 1 would add "grandparent" to the list [on page 2, lines 10-11, text previously provided]. Number 1498 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if the committee realizes the following: We are no longer talking about an Alaskan who was injured; we are talking about someone who is injured who is Outside, and we have an Alaskan who goes out to care for them. Now, if ... it's a [critical] life- threatening illness, and they become a dependent on that person, then, under other portions, that person may ... - having never been here - be eligible for a [permanent fund dividend (PFD)], because they're a dependent of the Alaskan who's out on allowable absence. If ... we create this as an ... extended allowable absence, anyone who's a dependent upon that person can also receive a permanent fund dividend check. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that that's a good point and may be a problem in current law. Number 1533 REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he has kids Outside, but they don't receive a permanent fund. CHAIR WEYHRAUCH clarified that Representative Seaton had pointed out that "we're opening it up for everybody." He said, for example, "Why don't we just give permanent fund dividends to every relation to the member who lives in Alaska?" REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said he doesn't think the amendment does that. Number 1553 REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified: The way this works, if you look at the statutes as what's allowed: If you're a dependent, such as the military, if you have children that are dependent on somebody that's on active duty that rotated up here, ... was here, and leaves, all of those dependents are accompanying a person ... that's got an allowable absence. And so, they are under the accompanying allowable absence person - the person on active duty. And my question here is that we're going to have the same thing where we're going to have somebody with an allowable absence, and a dependent on that allowable absence, and then qualify for the PFD. [HB 460 was heard and held.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|