Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/14/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB190 | |
| HJR33 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 190 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 190-PFD ALLOWABLE ABSENCE
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 190, "An Act relating to
allowable absences from the state for purposes of eligibility
for permanent fund dividends; and providing for an effective
date."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 190, Version 27-LS0564\R, Kirsch, 2/3/12, which was
adopted as a work draft on 2/7/12.]
8:06:22 AM
MIKE PASCHELL, Staff, Representative Eric Feige, Alaska State
Legislature, presented HB 190 on behalf of Representative Feige,
sponsor. He said the bill would address the issue of allowing
different groups of people to be absent from the state for
longer periods of time and still receive their permanent fund
dividend (PFD). He said the legislature put in place "a 10-year
rule as a drop-dead provision for the PFD, with the exception of
members of Congress and their staff." He stated the sponsor's
concern is that members of the military are not allowed to
continue to receive the PFD when other individuals serving the
state and country are. Mr. Paschell said the original bill
concept has been changed to "limit, as well as possible, the
number of PFDs that are given out under allowable absences over
an extended period of time," while still addressing the original
intent of the bill sponsor. He said by placing the Permanent
Fund Division's restrictions in statute, the state will have "a
stronger set of provisions for evaluating allowable absences
beyond the original five years." He explained, "After five
years, you have to qualify in a more detailed way to continue to
receive the PFD."
8:08:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the proposed legislation
would not be heard in the House Judiciary Standing Committee,
and he asked Mr. Paschell to confirm that Legislative Legal and
Research Services pointed out no legal or constitutional
problems with HB 190.
MR. PASCHELL said that is correct.
8:10:27 AM
MICHAEL BARBER, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial/Fair
Business Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law,
regarding Representative Gruenberg's question, stated that he is
not aware of any constitutional or legal problems with [HB 190]
as currently written.
8:10:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if an amendment to keep the 10-year
limit would cause any enforcement problems for the Permanent
Fund Division.
8:11:26 AM
DEBBIE BITNEY, Director, Central Office, Permanent Fund Dividend
Division, Department of Revenue, answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if extending the 10-year maximum to
congressional staff would be problematic. He clarified that
that would not include members of Congress.
MS. BITNEY offered her understanding that the division has
"never had congressional staff out that long."
8:12:14 AM
MS. BITNEY, in response to Representative P. Wilson, stated that
the proposed legislation would clarify for the public what the
considerations of the division would be.
8:13:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the word
"documentation", on page 3, line 17, of Version R, and ventured
that the word "proof" would be less limiting.
MS. BITNEY said she has no issues with the word "documentation".
8:13:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to the chair, explained
that "proof" is "anything that tends to prove a fact," including
a document or oral testimony under oath.
MS. BITNEY responded that she doesn't see any problem with using
the word "proof".
8:14:53 AM
MR. BARBER offered his understanding that the related language
refers to the initial eligibility determination made by the
department. He explained that the department typically receives
documentation with the application, and oaths are taken if there
is a dispute, at which point there would be an administrative
hearing. He concluded, "So, I think that 'proof' would be just
fine."
8:15:24 AM
MS. BITNEY, in response to Representative Petersen, said the
division requires travel documents and has access to various
databases across the state, such as voting records and
registration and military payroll records, all of which show
whether the person's "declaration is still Alaska."
Furthermore, the division takes oral testimony from applicants
and accepts their word "on certain things."
8:17:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ERIC FEIGE, Alaska State Legislature, as sponsor
of HB 190, reminded the committee that the original purpose of
the bill was to allow an Alaska resident, intent on returning to
the Alaska upon retirement, to serve in the military for a full,
20-year career and qualify for his/her PFD during that entire
time. He said not many people follow this path.
8:20:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG directed attention to the phrase, "the
department shall consider", on page 3, line 23. He said the
language may mean that the list to be considered by the division
is exclusive or that the factors the department shall consider
shall include but not be limited to the listed factors. He said
he does not like ambiguity in legislation. He asked, "Which of
those two is the sponsor's intent?"
8:21:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE FEIGE indicated that that which the department
shall consider is not exclusive. In response to a follow-up
question, he said would accept an amendment to that point.
8:23:02 AM
MR. BARBER indicated that changing the language to be inclusive
would not be problematic.
8:23:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony.
8:23:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
as follows:
Page 3, line 23:
Before "the department"
Insert "the factors"
After "shall consider"
Insert "shall include"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said under Conceptual Amendment 1, the
language would read as follows:
(f) To determine whether an individual
intends to return and remain in the state
indefinitely, the factors the department shall
consider shall include
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:24:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2,
as follows:
Page 3, line 17:
Between "providing" and "to"
Delete "documentation"
Insert "proof"
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, Conceptual
Amendment 2 was adopted.
8:24:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3, "to
retain the current 10-year limit." In response to Chair Lynn,
he indicated that the amendment could be inserted on page 3,
following line 12, of Version R.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He offered his belief that Conceptual Amendment 3 would also
involve deleting Section 3, on page 4, line 15, which read:
*Sec. 3. AS 43.23.008(c) is repealed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG cited AS 43.23.008(c), which read as
follows:
(c) An otherwise eligible individual who has been
eligible for the immediately preceding 10 dividends
despite being absent from the state for more than 180
days in each of the related 10 qualifying years is
only eligible for the current year dividend if the
individual was absent 180 days or less during the
qualifying year. This subsection does not apply to an
absence under (a)(9) or (10) of this section or to an
absence under (a)(13) of this section if the absence
is to accompany an individual who is absent under
(a)(9) or (10) of this section.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that subsection (a), paragraph
(9), relates to serving as a member of Congress; subsection (a),
paragraph (10), relates to serving as staff of a member of
Congress; and subsection (a), paragraph (13), relates to someone
accompanying another eligible resident. He said he is not
certain how the repeal of AS 43.23.008(c) fits in, but thinks it
should be considered along with Conceptual Amendment 3.
8:27:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that that is why he proposed a
conceptual amendment. In response to the chair, he said that
Conceptual Amendment 3 proposes to retain the current 10-year
limit and expand it to include congressional staff. In response
to a follow-up question, he clarified as follows:
The Congress person elected by the citizens of the
state and sent to Washington, D.C., would be exempt,
but the congressional staff who have made a career
choice and have decided to go to work Outside would be
under the 10-year limit just like anyone else.
CHAIR LYNN summarized that under Conceptual Amendment 3, members
of Congress would be the exception, but those who made the
choice to work for them would be treated just like anybody else
who chooses to go Outside to work.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said that is correct.
8:29:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he would like to retain the ability
of the congressional staff to continue receiving the PFD,
because, although they have made a career decision, they are in
Washington, D.C., working for the State of Alaska.
CHAIR LYNN questioned how many congressional staff members are
currently employed.
8:30:07 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON recollected that [Ms. Bitney] had offered
her understanding that no congressional staff ever had served
for over 10 years receiving PFDs. He clarified that there is
nothing in Conceptual Amendment 3 that would make someone lose
his/her Alaska residency. He stated there are many others who
serve Alaska who are not working as congressional staff, and he
does not think congressional staff members who have made the
career choice to work in Washington, D.C., should be receiving a
special exemption.
8:31:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested dividing the question. He
related that the term "staff of a member of Congress" is a
technical term. He said most of the time congressional staff is
paid by a committee.
8:33:15 AM
MS. BITNEY said the division requests a list of staff members
from congressional delegates, but said she would need to do some
research to determine the criteria for the list.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he thinks "they are very sensitive
about this." He encouraged Ms. Bitney to research the issue.
8:34:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the question be divided so
that one question would relate to the 10-year limit, while the
other question would relate to whether to expand the limit to
congressional staff.
8:35:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
reiterated his explanation of Conceptual Amendment 3. He told
Chair Lynn that he does not see the need to divide the question.
8:38:00 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
said under HB 190, the five-year provisions currently in
regulation would be codified; Conceptual Amendment 3 would not
change that.
8:38:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to divide the question.
CHAIR LYNN announced that there being no objection, the question
was divided.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON explained that he does not feel
comfortable lumping together the issue of the 10-year limit with
the issue of removing the exemption from congressional staff.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON withdrew his motion to adopt Conceptual
Amendment 3.
8:39:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4, to
retain the current 10-year limit on allowable absence. There
being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted.
8:39:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 5, to
include congressional staff in the 10-year limit related to
allowable absences.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He stated that he feels
strongly that congressional staff members are serving Alaska.
8:40:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said congressional staff members are
required to live far from Alaska to do their jobs, and he opined
that they should not be punished for that.
8:41:44 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Seaton and Keller
voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 5. Representatives
Petersen, Johansen, P. Wilson, Gruenberg, and Lynn voted against
it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
8:42:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSSS HB190, Version 27-
LS0564\R, Kirsch, 2/3/12, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSSSHB 190(STA) was reported out of
the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 15 HB190SS-DOR-PFD-02-07-12.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |
| 16 HB 190 Ten Year Numbers Memo.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2012 8:00:00 AM SSTA 4/12/2012 9:00:00 AM |
HB 190 |