Legislature(2005 - 2006)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/28/2005 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 130 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 153 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 97 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 164 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 175 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | SB 113 | ||
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 28, 2005
9:58 a.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Green convened the meeting at approximately 9:58:26 AM.
PRESENT
Senator Lyda Green, Co-Chair
Senator Gary Wilken, Co-Chair
Senator Fred Dyson
Senator Bert Stedman
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Donny Olson
Also Attending: CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens;
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens; NONA WILSON,
Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities; KIP KNUDSON, Deputy Commissioner of Aviation,
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; ANNETTE
KREITZER, Chief of Staff to Lieutenant Governor Loren Leman, Office
of the Lieutenant Governor; BRIAN WEST, Intern, Office of the
Lieutenant Governor; MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to Representative
Kevin Meyer; KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental
Health, Department of Environmental Conservation; ANDREA DOLL; CHIP
WAGONER, Executive Director, Alaska Catholic Conference; KIM
CARNOT, Staff to Co-Chair Green; TIM BARRY, Staff to Senator
Stedman; MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of
Alaska; KRIS NORRIS, Government Affairs, Icicle Seafoods, Inc.;
JANE ALBERTS, staff to Senator Bunde; PAT DAVIDSON, Director,
Division of Legislative Audit; RICK URION, Director, Division of
Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development;
Attending via Teleconference: From an offnet location: DAVE
EBERLE, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities; PAMELA
MILLER, Biologist and Executive Director, Alaska Community Action
on Toxics; ALAN COLTER; DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcohol Beverage
Control Board, Department of Public Safety; BRENDA STANSILL,
Director, Center for Non-Violent Living, and chair of a steering
committee of the Alaska Counsel on Domestic Violence and Sexual
Assault; CHRISTI BRAND, President, Opticians Association of Alaska;
From Anchorage: KEN PERRY, General Manager, PARATEX Pied Piper, and
representative, Certified Applicators in Alaska, National Pest
Management Association, and RISE; ANNA FRANKS, Chief Executive
Officer, Planned Parenthood of Alaska; CASSANDRA JOHNSON; MICHAEL
MACLEUD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties Union;
LARRY HARPER, American Board of Optometrists;
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SB 113-GULF OF ALASKA GROUNDFISH FISHERY
The Committee heard from the sponsor. The bill was reported from
Committee.
SB 130-WORKERS' COMPENSATION/ INSURANCE
A Subcommittee was formed to review the bill and make
recommendations to the full Committee. The bill was held in
Committee.
SB 153-INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS
The Committee heard from the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities. The bill was reported from Committee.
HB 97-OATHS; NOTARIES PUBLIC; STATE SEAL
The Committee heard from the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. An
amendment was adopted and the bill was reported from Committee.
HB 19-PESTICIDE & BROADCAST CHEMICALS
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the Department of
Environmental Conservation, industry organizations, public interest
organizations, and members of the public. The bill was held in
Committee.
HB 15-LIQUOR LICENSES: OUTDOOR REC. LODGE/BARS
The Committee heard from the sponsor and the Department of Public
Safety. An amendment was adopted and the bill was held in
Committee.
SB 20-OFFENSES AGAINST UNBORN CHILDREN
The Committee heard from the sponsor, the co-chair, representatives
of interested organizations and a member of the public. The bill
was reported from Committee.
SB 164-SALMON PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
The Committee heard from the sponsor and industry representatives.
The bill was reported from Committee.
SB 175-DISPENSING OPTICIANS
9:58:44 AM
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 113(RES)
"An Act relating to entry into and management of Gulf of
Alaska groundfish fisheries."
This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
9:59:01 AM
CHERYL SUTTON, Staff to Senator Ben Stevens, outlined two new
fiscal notes drafted since the previous hearing. The receipt
supported services fund source would be generated from fees.
The Committee had no questions regarding the new fiscal notes.
9:59:41 AM
Co-Chair Green pointed out this legislation relates to provisions
in the recently passed SB 93, which would be soon transmitted to
Governor Murkowski for signature into law.
Ms. Sutton affirmed.
Co-Chair Green remarked on the appropriateness of not utilizing
general funds for this purpose.
10:00:07 AM
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report the bill from Committee
with individual recommendations and new fiscal notes.
Without objection COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SB 113 (RES) was MOVED from
Committee with a new fiscal notes from the Department of Fish and
Game dated 4/28/05; one for the Commercial Fisheries Entry
Commission in the amount of $20,000, and a the other for the Boards
of Fisheries and Game in the amount of $45,600.
10:01:02 AM
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 130(FIN) am
"An Act relating to the grant of certain state land to the
University of Alaska; relating to the duties of the Board of
Regents; establishing the university research forest; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Co-Chair Green assigned Co-Chair Wilken, Senator Dyson and Senator
Hoffman to a subcommittee and charged the subcommittee to review
this legislation and make recommendations to the full Committee.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
10:02:28 AM
SENATE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to international airports revenue bonds; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
NONA WILSON, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, testified this would increase the "bond cap" for
the issuance of International Airport System Revenue Bonds by $288
million to total $813 million. These bonds would be issued to
finance projects at the Fairbanks International Airports, which are
operated as a unit of the Alaska International Airport System. The
airports are operated in accordance with an agreement that
obligates the carriers to pay for the operation of the airport,
including the redemption of these bonds.
10:04:32 AM
Senator Olson asked why the project size has increased and asked
what the additional funds would be utilized for.
10:04:53 AM
Ms. Wilson replied the funds would be utilized for runway
reconstruction.
KIP KNUDSON, Deputy Commissioner of Aviation, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, explained the funds generated
from the additional bond issuance would be utilized to fund the
issuance costs and capitalized interest specifically for terminals
projects until the terminals begin to generate revenue.
10:05:37 AM
Senator Olson requested written or oral testimony expressing the
position of affected air carriers.
10:05:53 AM
Mr. Knudson stated he would provide a spreadsheet titled, "Alaska
International Airports System, Capital Projects, Signatory Airline
Ballot Summary, January 2005" [copy on file], which indicates that
the air carriers support the Fairbanks projects.
10:06:29 AM
Co-Chair Wilken also noted language of the second paragraph of the
sponsor statement reads, "Annual debt service on the revenue bonds
will be paid for primarily through airline rates and fees. All the
projects requiring bond funding were approved by the Alaska
International Airport Systems' 26 signatory airlines in January of
this year."
10:06:51 AM
Co-Chair Green understood the spreadsheet would list the names of
the affected airlines and how each voted on the proposed projects.
10:07:05 AM
Mr. Knudson informed that 80 percent of these revenues are
generated exclusively from cargo carriers.
10:07:20 AM
Co-Chair Green emphasized that cargo carriers would pay these
bonds.
10:07:26 AM
Senator Hoffman asked how the Federal Express carrier voted, noting
it is the major carrier that provides many jobs in the state.
Senator Hoffman had understood that an earlier appropriation to the
Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport was sufficient to fund
homeland security improvements. He asked therefore why an
additional $14 million is requested for this purpose.
10:08:39 AM
Mr. Knudson replied that the project estimated to cost $14.6
million has been "held off at arms length" for approximately ten
years. The federal Department of Homeland Security now encompasses
United States Customs, Border patrol, the Transportation Safety
Administration and another federal agency that operates screening
areas and occupy office space in the North terminal. These agencies
have demanded that the State renovate the terminal to meet federal
standards. The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities does not support these renovates and has delayed their
undertaking as long as possible.
10:09:36 AM
Senator Hoffman clarified the entire $14.6 million is designated
for the North Terminal.
Mr. Knudson affirmed.
10:09:49 AM
Co-Chair Green asked when the information Senator Olson requested
would be delivered.
Mr. Knudson anticipated ten minutes.
10:09:59 AM
DAVE EBERLE, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,
testified via teleconference from an offnet location that he was
available to respond to questions.
10:10:25 AM
Senator Olson noted the sponsor statement indicates that the bond
package would include $91 million for projects at Concourses A and
B of the Ted Stevens Anchorage International Airport. He cited
significant cost overruns incurred on projects relating to
Concourse C and asked the estimated cost overruns of the projects
at A and B.
Mr. Eberle expressed intent that no cost overruns would be
incurred. A variety of measures are under consideration to ensure
this. He offered to detail those measures.
Senator Olson requested such detail later.
Mr. Eberle assured he would provide this information.
The bill was HELD in Committee. It was brought back before the
Committee later in the meeting.
10:12:13 AM
SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE
BILL NO. 97(COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE)
"An Act relating to the authority to take oaths, affirmations,
and acknowledgments in the state, to notarizations, to
verifications, to acknowledgments, to fees for issuing
certificates with the seal of the state affixed, and to
notaries public; and providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
ANNETTE KREITZER, Chief of Staff to Lieutenant Governor Loren
Leman, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, introduced herself and
Mr. West.
BRIAN WEST, Intern, Office of the Lieutenant Governor, read a
statement into the record as follows.
House Bill 97 addresses changes in Alaska's notary statutes,
which have not been updated since 1961. The changes being
proposed today have been suggested by Alaskan notaries working
together with Lieutenant Governor Leman's office. These
proposed changes are outlined to you in the notary statute
comparison handout [copy on file], which should be in front of
you today and I shall walk you through that.
They're arranged in categories of qualifications, terms, fees,
bond, commission types, commission revocation, and notary
data. Going to the handout under qualifications, currently the
applicants must be a resident of the State and at least 19
years of age. We're proposing lowering that age to 18. At the
same time, we're proposing that felons may not become notaries
in this state. The terms will remain the same for public
notaries, which is four years. And we're proposing that
limited governmental notaries public commissions would be
open-ended with automatic revocation upon termination of
government employment. For fees, currently there is a $40
application fee and a $2 fee for a certificate. We're
proposing that the application fee will remain at $40 but the
certificate would be increased $3 to $5.
The bonds at this time will remain the same at $1,000 and the
lieutenant governor will be required to keep the bonds two
years.
Commission types:. Notary publics will serve four-year
commissions as well as limited governmental notaries. The
proposed change in the making is that limited government
notaries will be expanded to include municipal and federal
employees in addition to State.
Commission revocation, currently via administrative procedure
act, must be invoked to review all complaints against notaries
no matter how trivial. We're proposing that the lieutenant
governor, for good cause, be a form of disciplinary procedure
is an administrative hearing office.
Notary data: currently we collect information such as mailing
address, surety information and commission dates. We would
like to be able to collect more data including e-mail, for the
purpose of communication and to collect additional
information, which will not be available for the public.
For non-commissioned notaries, there will be no changes. And
finally, this bill addresses electronic notarization, which
currently is not addressed in the current statutes. This will
remove impediments for notaries by electronic means.
10:15:50 AM
Co-Chair Green noted current statute provides that notary names,
mailing address, surety information and commission dates are
available to the public. She asked about the public availability of
e-mail addresses.
Mr. West replied that the e-mail addresses of notaries would not be
available to the public.
10:16:40 AM
Senator Olson asked why the minimum age requirement would be
lowered from 19 years to 18 years.
10:16:48 AM
Mr. West replied that people could be hired for bank teller
positions beginning at the age of 18. Bank teller positions usually
include notary public duties as part of the job description.
10:17:39 AM
Co-Chair Green asked if the Lieutenant Governor received increased
inquiries on this matter, which prompted this legislation.
10:17:44 AM
Ms. Krietzer explained that when Lieutenant Governor Leman took
office he directed staff to investigate how administration of the
notary public could be done differently. Staff vetted with Alaska
notary publics, companies that employ notaries, national
organizations, lobbyists and other parties. It was determined that
the bond amount should be changed although the fee for non-State
employees to become a notary should remain unchanged. Consensus was
reached with other legislative committees that have heard this bill
on other changes to the current system.
10:19:01 AM
Co-Chair Green commented on the process undertaken to make these
changes.
10:19:07 AM
Senator Hoffman asked if the proposed fee structure intends that
any state employee could become a notary public at no charge.
10:19:25 AM
Ms. Krietzer clarified that the provision is written to waive the
fee for State, municipal and federal government employees
performing notary public services as a job duty to accomplish
government business. One government agency should not charge
another for notary services.
10:20:22 AM
Senator Hoffman surmised that the fee would not be automatically be
waived for any state employee wishing to become a notary. The
notary functions must be included in the duties of the position
held by that employee.
10:20:38 AM
Ms. Krietzer affirmed.
10:20:43 AM
Senator Hoffman asked the date of the last fee increase.
10:20:51 AM
Ms. Krietzer replied that no changes in the fee structure have been
made since 1961. The House Finance Committee questioned this.
However, it was determined that unless the Notary Public program is
to be considered a revenue generator, a higher fee could not be
justified.
10:21:13 AM
Senator Hoffman calculated the fee to be $10 per year the
certificate is valid.
Ms. Krietzer affirmed.
10:21:31 AM
Amendment #1: This amendment deletes the language of subparagraphs
(A) and (B) of subsection (6) of Sec. 44.50.020. Qualifications.,
repealed and reenacted in Section 8 of SCS COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SB
97 (COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE) on page 8, lines 16 through 22. New
language is inserted to read as follows.
(6) may not, within 10 years before the commission
takes effect,
(A) have had the person's notary public
commission revoked under AS 44.50.068(a)(2) or (4) or
under the notary public laws of another jurisdiction for
a substantially similar reason;
(B) have had the person's notary public
commission revoked under AS 44.50.068(1)(3), unless the
person has reestablished residency in this state under AS
01.10.055 before the person submits the application;
(C) have been disciplined under AS 44.50.068
if, at the time the person applies for a notary public
commission under this chapter, the disciplinary action
prohibits the person from holding a notary public
commission; or
(D) have been disciplined under the notary
public laws of another jurisdiction if, at the time the
person applies for a notary public commission under this
chapter, the disciplinary action prohibits the person
from holding a notary public commission; and
This amendment also deletes the language of subparagraph (4) of
Sec. 44.50.036. Denial of applications., added by Section 9 of the
bill on page 10, lines 25 though 27 and inserts new language to
read as follows.
(4) applicant's commission as a notary public has
been revoked, within 10 years before the commission takes
effect, in
(A) this state for a reason stated in
(i) AS 44.50.068(a)(2) or (4);
(ii) AS 44.50.068(a)(3), unless the
person has reestablished residency in this state
under AS 01.10.055 before the person submits the
application; or
(B) another jurisdiction for a reason
substantially similar to AS 44.50.068(a)(2) or (4).
This amendment also inserts a new subparagraph to subsection (a) of
Sec. 44.50.068. Disciplinary action; complaint; appeal, hearing;
delegation., added by Section 11 on page 16, following line 16 to
read as follows.
(3) failure to maintain residency in this state
under AS 01.10.055.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Green objected for an explanation.
Ms. Krietzer explained that the Division of Legal and Research
Services determined that the language in the Senate State Affairs
committee substitute was unclear. That language unintentionally
barred a person from becoming a notary public who had moved from
the state but then returned. This correction was necessary in three
sections of the bill.
Co-Chair Green removed her objection.
Without further objection the amendment was ADOPTED.
10:23:37 AM
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report SCS COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE
HB 97 (COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE), as amended from Committee with
individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There was not objection and SCS COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE HB 97 was
MOVED from Committee with zero fiscal note #1-corrected, from the
Office of the Governor.
AT EASE 10:23:49 AM
SB 153-INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS REVENUE BONDS
This bill was heard and held earlier in the meeting.
Co-Chair Green noted the information Senator Olson requested had
been distributed.
10:25:39 AM
Mr. Knudson reviewed the voting history of the air carriers as
indicated on the aforementioned spreadsheet.
10:27:05 AM
Senator Hoffman was satisfied with the information regarding the
position of Federal Express.
10:27:29 AM
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report the bill from Committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There was no objection and SB 153 was MOVED from Committee with
fiscal note #1 from the Department of Revenue.
AT EASE 10:27:48 AM / 10:28:39 AM
10:28:40 AM
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 19(FIN)
"An Act relating to pesticides and broadcast chemicals; and
providing for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
MICHAEL PAULOWSKI, Staff to Representative Kevin Meyer, read a
statement into the record as follows.
The intent behind the bill before you, House Bill 19, is
twofold. First, to eliminate the State general fund obligation
for what is a required pesticide program, and second to
provide reasonable protections for the public health. I'll
take these two intents twofold.
Speaking on general funds, the way the State's pesticides
programs work is that the EPA [federal Environmental
Protection Agency] approves a pesticide for sale in the United
States. Then each state registers the pesticide for sale in
that particular state. The state agency in our case is the
Department of Environmental Conservation. They are responsible
not only for the registration of pesticides, but the
inspection and enforcement of pesticides that the EPA puts on
the handling, distribution and sale of these chemicals. In
every other state in the United States, the cost of this
program is borne by fees that are levied along with the
registration of the chemicals. Alaska is the only state that
does not have such a fee. HB 19 would levy a fee on the
chemical companies to pay for the cost of regulating the sale,
distribution and use of their chemicals within the state of
Alaska.
The second provision in HB 19 is those intended to protect the
public health. There are two ways that the sponsor has gone
about doing this. The first is that when pesticides or bypass
chemicals are applied in a public place, they are applied by a
certified applicator. This is someone that is trained in the
use and application of these chemicals. The second is that
reasonable public notice is posted when pesticides are
applied. This is important because the sponsor's intent was to
find that balance and strike that balance between added cost
to the industry and reasonable protections for the public. You
might hear today some testimony that will talk about previous
public notice, something that's 48 hours in advance. The
sponsor very carefully worked to something that is more along
the lines of similar to a wet paint sign; that when the
activity occurs and when the public should be concerned, that
notice is given to them.
There are approximately between 5,500 and 5,700 different
chemicals that are used in the state of Alaska. Trying to
write legislation that specifically addresses the handling and
use of all of these chemicals, the sponsor found incredibly
problematic. And so to reach these public health goals, HB 19
turns the Department of Environmental Conservation to in
regulation achieve the ends that are put forth in HB 19.
10:31:44 AM
KEN PERRY, General Manager, PARATEX Pied Piper, and representative,
Certified Applicators in Alaska, National Pest Management
Association, and RISE, testified via teleconference from Anchorage,
read a statement into the record as follows.
I am Ken Perry, a lifelong Alaskan and General Manager of
PARATEX Pied Piper - Alaska's oldest Pest Management Company.
I also represent Certified Applicators in Alaska, and speak by
permission of the National Pest Management Association and a
major chemical manufacturer's group known as RISE. As you are
aware, I have been involved in this bill since Mr. Meyer first
kindly asked us to meet with his assistant, Mr. Pawlowski and
representatives from the Department of Environmental
Conservation some months ago. I am grateful for this
consideration on their part. At that time, I addressed the
same concerns I have addressed continually through many
committees, and have offered reasonable solutions as well.
Frankly, the document before you today is so far removed from
the original intent of the sponsors, that I am amazed it still
has support. In that vein, I submitted to you via e-mail
yesterday a workable set of amendments that can return the
bill to its original course and meet most of our concerns. I
urge you to either adopt those amendments or send the bill
back to the sponsor to achieve those same goals.
On the issue of pesticide safety, the barrages of comments you
are receiving from certain environmentalists have already been
addressed at the federal level. While they certainly have
every right to be heard on their claims, it is still the EPA
who makes the decision on what chemicals can be safely used,
when and where. While a pesticide free environment might seem
to be a goal for them, we should not ignore the desire of
others for a pest free environment. Their choices to buy
products to achieve their desire should not be denied by
excessive fees levied against the manufacturers, who will then
simply remove their availability from the Alaska marketplace.
Nor should the concerns you hear raised about five to ten
products which they continually reference require 4600 other
products to be punished. If you have not done so, I would urge
you to request a current list of the 4620 currently registered
pesticides. The first thing you will notice is that the vast
majority (perhaps 80%) are sanitizing agents, wood
preservatives and animal care products. Continue to peruse the
list for products that are "specialty use" items, registered
and sold in small volumes to someone in Alaska or have trade
store names that do not exist in our state. As you will see,
very few of them, perhaps 4 percent, are used by the
professional applicators, and many of those are used once or
twice a year.
I would urge this committee to take the reasonable and
responsible approach to this matter, not the inflamed and
passionate but seriously misdirected sledge hammer one you see
before you. Consider your decision carefully as the eyes of
many major companies who may chose to do business with our
state in the future are upon you.
10:35:06 AM
Co-Chair Green had learned from the Division of Agriculture that it
receives requests each year for the registration form currently in
use. Most companies are accustomed to this procedure. She asked how
the current practice differs from that of other states.
10:35:44 AM
Mr. Perry characterized the difference as the imposition of various
proposed fees where none currently exist. Manufacturers could not
predict the amount of chemicals that would be sold. Many products
are sold in small quantities and manufacturers would likely opt to
not register to sell those products in the state. His organization
suggested a fee of $25, although he still anticipated a hardship in
registering chemicals.
10:37:11 AM
PAMELA MILLER, Biologist and Executive Director, Alaska Community
Action on Toxics, testified via teleconference from an offnet
location about the nonprofit organization concerned about long-term
affects of pesticides. The organization strongly supports this
bill, as it would provide a useful method to track chemical use and
impacts. This bill would be a good investment to protect public
health.
Ms. Miller requested that further protection be extended to areas
near vulnerable populations, such as day care centers.
10:39:40 AM
ALAN COLTER testified via teleconference from offnet location on
behalf of himself. He told of a friend exposed to high levels of
pesticides who experienced diminished health, reduced quality of
life, and ultimately death at the age of 47. This friend underwent
dialysis treatment and a kidney transplant. Many manufacturers
assert that most pesticides are not harmful, however many are.
Public health is a high concern.
10:41:45 AM
Co-Chair Green asked the witness's opinion on whether this
legislation would advance efforts for addressing the matter.
10:41:55 AM
Mr. Colter emphasized that any action is worthwhile. He admitted to
not closely reviewing the language of this bill, but understood it
to be similar to legislation considered during a previous
legislative session, which he supported.
10:42:17 AM
Co-Chair Green asked Ms. Miller the same question of whether this
legislation would further efforts.
10:42:31 AM
Ms. Miller answered it would because any time parents and others
are notified that chemicals would be sprayed allows those parents
an opportunity to protect their children and others who could be at
risk. The provisions of this legislation are reasonable not
extreme.
10:43:31 AM
Co-Chair Green told of regulatory language related to health care
and childcare facilities that is included in other legislation and
that would complement and strengthen this bill. Just because these
facilities are not specifically addressed in the bill currently
before the Committee, it is not an indication that the issues had
not been considered. Inclusion of too many details in a bill
becomes a detriment because the assumption could be made that the
overall provisions of the statute do not cover any inadvertently
omitted listings.
10:44:38 AM
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation, provided information on
the pesticide program. The State has primacy and therefore
implements the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
requirements. The federal government provides funding for these
efforts. State regulations allow the Department to issue permits
for certain activities, including distribution of chemicals over
water and the spraying of chemicals by air. In addition, the State
imposes restrictions on chemicals determined to be harmful when
used in cold climates. This occurs infrequently, and the State
primarily relies on EPA scientific findings. Currently, the State
does not charge users or manufacturers for these services it
provides. This legislation proposes to do so. She assured that
certain products, such as sanitizers, would be exempted, as it is
not the intent to discourage cleaning activities. Other products
would likely be exempted as well.
10:47:17 AM
Co-Chair Green asked whether the Committee should secure additional
information.
10:47:34 AM
Ms. Ryan stated that some in the pesticide industry are of the
opinion that this legislation would impose too many restrictions;
others feel the Department should increase its efforts. This is
typical for this issue. This legislation offers a compromise. It
would impose certain restrictions in areas which children could be
exposed and would require public notice of chemical distribution.
10:48:28 AM
Co-Chair Wilken pointed out that the fiscal note indicates an
increased cost of $280,000 for FY 06, which is not reflected in the
Governor's proposed budget.
Co-Chair Wilken also noted the analysis in the fiscal note states
that by FY 08, all general funds would be eliminated for this
program. Therefore, the fiscal note should be amended to reflect
this.
10:49:22 AM
Ms. Ryan agreed. The fees would need to be collected quickly if
this bill becomes law.
10:49:43 AM
Co-Chair Green requested a spreadsheet detailing how the proposed
fee amounts were established.
10:50:01 AM
Co-Chair Wilken surmised that beginning July 1, 2005, the
Department would expect to collect $318,000 in fees in one year.
Ms. Ryan affirmed.
Co-Chair Green asked how this amount was calculated.
10:50:27 AM
Ms. Ryan replied that originally the bill would have required three
staff to oversee the program. This was changed to two. The cost of
these positions along with the amount of eliminated general funding
currently appropriated to the program was calculated to determine
the amount of fees necessary. A small fee would be assessed to
certified applicators. These applicators have indicated these fees
would not cause a hardship.
10:51:47 AM
Senator Olson spoke to the delay in learning about the adverse
affects of some chemicals. It has taken many generations before
manufactures admit, under duress, the harm that a chemical has
caused. This concerned him.
Senator Olson also noted that certification of applicators could be
more difficult for rural residents. He favored a temporary waiver
for these communities.
10:52:54 AM
Ms. Ryan acknowledged the difficulty in obtaining a certification
for an applicator. One solution would allow for the issuance of a
temporary license in the event a trainer was unable to travel to
the community. The intent is not to hamper the elimination of pest
infestation. Certification is not a difficult process; the course
that has been given for years, is "easy" and has a zero failure
rate.
10:54:23 AM
Co-Chair Green asked if the waiver could be granted in urban areas
as well in instances in which it was not "handy" for an applicator
to obtain certification.
10:54:47 AM
Ms. Ryan replied that the waiver would be not restricted to remote
areas
10:54:56 AM
Senator Dyson told of a friend who died five years ago after
contracting leukemia after a trucking company used Benzene to kill
bugs in his mattress. He asked what protections Alaskans have
against chemicals used in the shipment of goods in to the State.
10:55:56 AM
Ms. Ryan replied that all states have regulations governing
pesticide use. Federal law prohibits the use of products in a
manner different than specified on the label. Therefore, in the
instance of Senator Dyson's friend, the moving company violated the
law if it applied more than the approved amount of the chemical. If
the Department is informed of these instances, it can investigate.
The commercial use of products is inspected, and if the Department
is aware of a specific shipping company's questionable activities,
that company is inspected.
10:56:51 AM
Senator Dyson asked about any provision that requires customer
notification of any chemical distribution done by a shipping
company.
10:57:08 AM
Ms. Ryan replied that no State requirement currently exists and
that such a proposal would be subject to federal trade laws. She
would investigate the matter.
10:57:25 AM
Senator Dyson requested additional information.
10:57:31 AM
Co-Chair Green informed that she was raised in an area in which
chemicals were commonplace. Her father was a chemical researcher.
In addressing the limiting of pesticide use, balance must be
understood.
10:58:22 AM
Co-Chair Green indicated the fiscal note required additional
review.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
AT EASE 10:58:59 AM/ 3:09 PM
[Note: A computer malfunction occurred during the following portion
of the meeting. Periodic links to the For The Record (FTR) audio
program were lost. Audio is still available by clicking on any
timestamp above and forwarding to 3:09 pm when this meeting
resumes. (A separate meeting was held in this location at 2:06 pm
and is included in the audio file for this date.) It is not
possible to select the exact portion of the recording relating to a
particular topic until the computer system was restored at 4:15
pm.]
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 15(L&C) am
"An Act relating to outdoor recreation lodge alcoholic
beverage licenses; relating to transfer of certain beverage
dispensary licenses issued before June 6, 1985; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
MICHAEL PAWLOWSKI, Staff to sponsor Representative Kevin Meyer,
testified this bill is intended to create a liquor license for
outdoor recreation lodges. These lodges have are an important part
of the State economy. A liquor license specific to the needs of
these lodges has never been established. This creates problems for
communities near the location of some of the lodges as well as for
wholesale alcohol distributors. A wholesaler may not sell alcohol
for resale to a party that does not possess a liquor license. Under
the current system, lodges either provide alcohol to their guests
at no charge or as part of the package rate. This is in violation
of statute.
Mr. Pawlowski stated that this legislation would provide for the
issuance of a limited liquor license that could not be transferred,
allows alcohol to only be served to registered overnight guests or
off duty staff, and only served on the licensed premises or in
conjunction with guided outdoor recreation activities.
Mr. Pawlowski explained this license is intended to address
situations involving lodges located near communities that prohibit
the use of alcoholic beverages.
Senator Hoffman asked the definition of an outdoor recreational
lodge as it pertains to this bill.
Mr. Pawlowski cited subsection (c) of Sec. 04.11.225. Outdoor
recreation lodge license., added by Section 2 of the bill. The
language reads as follows.
(c) In this section, "outdoor recreation lodge" means a
business that provides overnight accommodations and meals, is
primarily involved in offering opportunities for persons to
engage in outdoor recreation activities, and has a minimum of
two guest rooms.
Mr. Pawlowski noted the intent is include lodges at which the
primary purpose of its guests would be to partake in an outdoor
recreation activity.
Senator Hoffman told of an outfit operating in the election
district he represents. At this site, tents are temporarily erected
on platforms. He asked if lodging such as this would qualify as
guest rooms and if the operator would be eligible to obtain the
license.
Mr. Pawlowski replied that other criterion would apply. A licensee
must be available to serve alcohol and the alcohol could only be
served in conjunction with a guided outdoor activity. If the sites
were offered solely as a place to stay, the license would not be
available.
Senator Hoffman stated that guided fishing activities are the
purpose of this operation. Conflicts exist between the Native
organization and the guides, who claim that alcohol is not served.
Local residents however attest to witnessing cases of alcohol
passing through the airport.
Mr. Pawlowski identified this situation as the reason this
legislation is necessary. With the issuance of a license,
communities can provide input and the State regulators have control
over the business.
Senator Dyson asked if this license would apply to floating lodges.
Mr. Pawlowski understood that the license would apply to operations
with at least two guest rooms that provide overnight accommodations
and meals in which the primary purpose is to involve people in
outdoor recreation.
Senator Dyson asked about self-propelled floating operations.
Mr. Pawlowski was unsure and deferred to the director of the
Alcohol Beverage Control Board.
DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcohol Beverage Control Board, Department
of Public Safety, testified from an offnet location that the issue
of floating lodges has been discussed. It was determined that these
facilities could be licensed under the provision of this bill.
Addressing certain factors would be necessary in the event the
float would be present for any period within the boundaries of a
local government. Providing this license to a float operating
outside the boundaries of a local government could be preferable to
the currently applied carrier license. The vessel specifically in
question is a barge that is not self propelled but is towed from
one location to another by a tugboat. This vessel did not meet the
qualifications imposed for a carrier license, which applies to
boats, ships, trains, airplanes, etc.
Co-Chair Wilken referenced the definition of "outdoor recreation
lodge" as a business. He asked if this implies that the licensee
would be a commercial entity that would possess a business license.
Mr. Griffin affirmed. He elaborated that the Board first determines
whether an applicant is registered as a corporation before issuing
a license. The Board must be able to deal with a legal entity in
the event of problems pertaining to the license.
Co-Chair Green asked if the language of the bill is sufficient in
stipulating that a business must be licensed.
Mr. Griffin replied that if the business is a corporation or a
limited liability, the language is sufficient.
Co-Chair Wilken asked if a sole proprietor or partnership would be
included.
Mr. Griffin deferred to the Division of Corporations of the
Department of Revenue. The Alcohol Beverage Control Board's concern
is the accountability and potential culpability of liquor license
holders. The Board does have accountability and culpability for
taking action against an individual in a sole propriety or
partnership operation.
Co-Chair Wilken understood that a sole propriety or partnership
must obtain a business license to conduct commercial operations.
Senator Hoffman asked the number of applications for this license
the witnesses anticipates would be received.
Mr. Griffin was unsure and estimated approximately 50 applications
would be submitted.
Mr. Griffin noted that some facilities are "over-licensed" in that
they possess a liquor dispensary license, which allows for the
distribution of alcohol to anyone, not just registered guests. This
presents other problems especially in rural Alaska. The proposed
lodge license would be preferred, as it limits distribution to
guests.
Senator Dyson asked if a bed and breakfast operation that serves
meals family style is allowed to serve a glass of wine to guests
without obtaining a liquor license.
Mr. Griffin responded that the Board does not regulate a "true" bed
and breakfast in which the owner or operator resides on site. In
this instance the business is operated within the home. To regulate
these operations would require a significantly higher budget.
Senator Hoffman qualified that such practices is not legal in a dry
community.
Mr. Griffin confirmed.
Senator Hoffman asked if this would be allowed in a damp community.
Mr. Griffin replied that serving alcohol to guests in a home-
operated bed and breakfast would be allowed.
Amendment #1: This amendment inserts "relating to brewpub licenses"
into the title of the bill on page 1, following line 1. The amended
bill title reads as follows.
An Act relating to brewpub licenses; relating to outdoor
recreation lodge alcoholic beverage licenses; relating to
transfer of certain beverage dispensary licenses issued before
June 6, 1985; and providing for an effective date.
This amendment also inserts new bill sections on page 1, following
line 6 to read as follows.
Section 2. AS 04.11.135(a) is amended to read:
(a) A brewpub license authorizes the holder of a beverage
dispensary license to
(1) manufacture on premises licensed under the
beverage dispensary license not more than 150,000 gallons of
beer in a calendar year;
(2) sell beer manufactured on premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license for consumption on the
licensed premises or other licensed premises of the beverage
dispensary licensee that are also licensed as a beverage
dispensary;
(3) sell beer manufactured on the premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license in quantities of not
more than five gallons per day to an individual who is present
on the licensed premises;
(4) provide a small sample of the brewpub's beer
manufactured on the premises free of charge unless prohibited
by AS 04.16.030; and
(5) sell beer manufactured on the premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license to a person licensed as
a wholesaler under AS 04.11.160 [; SALES UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH
MAY NOT EXCEED 15,000 GALLONS OR THE AMOUNT SOLD UNDER THIS
PARAGRAPH IN CALENDAR YEAR 2001, PLUS 10 PERCENT, WHICHEVER
AMOUNT IS GREATER].
Section 3. AS 04.11.135(a) is amended to read:
(a) A brewpub license authorizes the holder of a beverage
dispensary license to
(1) manufacture on premises licensed under the
beverage dispensary license not more than 150,000 gallons of
beer in a calendar year;
(2) sell beer manufactured on premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license for consumption on the
licensed premises or other licensed premises of the beverage
dispensary licensee that are also licensed as a beverage
dispensary;
(3) sell beer manufactured on the premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license in quantities of not
more than five gallons per day to an individual who is present
on the licensed premises;
(4) provide a small sample of the brewpub's beer
manufactured on the premises free of charge unless prohibited
by AS 04.16.030; and
(5) sell beer manufactured on the premises licensed
under the beverage dispensary license to a person licensed as
a wholesaler under AS 04.11.160; sales under this paragraph
may not exceed 15,000 gallons or the amount sold under this
paragraph in calendar year 2001, plus 10 percent, whichever
amount is greater.
Section 4. AS 04.11.135(d) is amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the holder of a
brewpub license who, under the provisions of AS 04.11.450(b),
formerly held a brewery license and a restaurant or eating
place license and who, under the former brewery license,
manufactured beer at a location other than the premises
licensed under the former restaurant or eating place license
may
(1) manufacture not more than 150,000 gallons of
beer in a calendar year on premises other than the premises
licensed under the beverage dispensary license;
(2) provide a small sample of the manufactured beer
free of charge at the location the beer is manufactured unless
prohibited by AS 04.16.030; and
(3) sell the beer authorized to be manufactured
under this subsection
(A) on the premises licensed under the beverage
dispensary license or other licensed premises of the
beverage dispensary licensee that are also licensed as a
beverage dispensary;
(B) to a wholesaler licensed under AS
04.11.160; [SALES UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH MAY NOT EXCEED
15,000 GALLONS OR THE AMOUNT SOLD UNDER THIS SUBPARAGRAPH
IN CALENDAR YEAR 2001, PLUS 10 PERCENT, WHICHEVER AMOUNT
IS GREATER;] or
(C) to an individual who is present on the
premises described under (A) of this paragraph, or where
the beer is manufactured, in quantities of not more than
five gallons per day.
Section 5. AS 04.11.135(d) is amended to read:
(d) Notwithstanding (a) of this section, the holder of a
brewpub license who, under the provisions of AS 04.11.450(b),
formerly held a brewery license and a restaurant or eating
place license and who, under the former brewery license,
manufactured beer at a location other than the premises
licensed under the former restaurant or eating place license
may
(1) manufacture not more than 150,000 gallons of
beer in a calendar year on premises other than the premises
licensed under the beverage dispensary license;
(2) provide a small sample of the manufactured beer
free of charge at the location the beer is manufactured unless
prohibited by AS 04.16.030; and
(3) sell the beer authorized to be manufactured
under this subsection
(A) on the premises licensed under the beverage
dispensary license or other licensed premises of the
beverage dispensary licensee that are also licensed as a
beverage dispensary;
(B) to a wholesaler licensed under
AS 04.11.160; sales under this subparagraph may not
exceed 15,000 gallons or the amount sold under this
subparagraph in calendar year 2001, plus 10 percent,
whichever amount is greater; or
(C) to an individual who is present on the
premises described under (A) of this paragraph, or where
the beer is manufactured, in quantities of not more than
five gallons per day."
This amendment also provides that sections 2 and 4 take effect July
1, 2005 and sections 3 and 5 take effect December 31, 2005.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for adoption.
Co-Chair Green objected for an explanation. She noted a title
change would be required if this amendment were adopted.
Mr. Pawlowski relayed that Representative Meyer supports this
amendment. It would create a temporary compromise for brewpubs and
brewers in an attempt to "better solution to the operation of their
business in the State." It would provide a five-month reprieve of
the restriction on the amount of beer that a brewpub is allowed to
sell to a wholesaler. The intent is that the impacted groups would
present a long-term solution to the legislature the following year.
Co-Chair Green noted the presence of representatives of brewpubs
available to respond to questions.
Senator Olson requested assurance that this amendment would not
impact dry or damp communities.
Mr. Pawlowski replied that the amendment would have no impact on
dry communities. A local option always supersedes any other
license. He qualified he was unfamiliar with the laws regulating
the wholesale distribution of liquor to damp communities.
Co-Chair Wilken expressed initial concern, as a constituent is
involved in brewpub operations. Upon consulting this constituent,
he learned that the "little guy" is protected in this amendment. He
therefore supported the amendment.
Co-Chair Green removed her objection to the adoption of the
amendment.
The amendment was ADOPTED with no further objection.
Co-Chair Wilken remained uncertain that the language in the bill
would require that lodges owned by a sole proprietor or a
partnership obtain the alcohol dispensary license. He suggested the
definition of business be clarified in this instance or that a
provision inserted to require that an outdoor recreation lodge must
possess a business license to qualify for the alcohol dispensary
license.
Mr. Pawlowski remarked the sponsor's intent is that the legislation
is to apply to businesses. Therefore a provision requiring an
operator to secure a business license before qualifying for the
alcohol license is appropriate. The language currently in the bill
is based on the AS 4.11.090(d) statute governing beverage
dispensary license.
Co-Chair Wilken requested an opportunity to have an amendment
drafted to provide for the clarifying language.
The bill was HELD in Committee.
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR SENATE BILL NO. 20(JUD)
"An Act relating to offenses against unborn children."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
Senator Dyson, sponsor of the bill, testified this legislation had
undergone extensive review in the Senate Health and Social Services
and Judiciary committees. He requested the Committee work from
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SB 20 (JUD), Version "R" rather than COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE SB 20 (2ndJUD), Version "U".
Co-Chair Green noted no objection was voiced to this request and
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SB 20 (JUD) was before the Committee.
Senator Dyson stated that this legislation "follows" the federal
Unborn Child Protection Act. It was discovered that the federal law
only applies in those instances when a federal crime was committed
on federal property. The State attorney general recommended a
parallel State law be enacted to allow for the prosecution of an
assault or murder of an unborn child in conjunction with the
prosecution of an assault or murder of a pregnant woman.
Co-Chair Green reminded that the Senate Finance Committee
considered similar legislation the previous session. The
legislation before the Committee presently is an improvement.
Senator Dyson concurred.
ANNA FRANKS, Chief Executive Officer, Planned Parenthood of Alaska,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage to the COMMITTEE
SUBSTITUTE SB 20 (2ndJUD) version of the bill. She read her
testimony into the record as follows.
We would like to thank Senator Dyson for his ongoing
commitment to children and families. First and foremost,
Planned Parenthood agrees with Senator Dyson that the loss of
a pregnancy due to an act of violence is a tragic event. We
share his goal of making it a greater crime when such an
unfortunate circumstance happens.
However, we are unable to support the bill as currently
written. As I have indicated when meeting with many of you
individually, we have an alternative approach that would
accomplish greater penalties when a pregnant woman is harmed.
We view legislation such as this as part of a national trend
designed to erode the foundation of a woman's right to choose
as set forth in Roe v. Wade by elevating the legal status of
all stages of prenatal development under state laws.
Indeed, Senator Dyson has indicated that this is the intent of
the bill. With all respect, however, Senator Dyson also stated
during his comments to Senate Judiciary that the intent of the
bill is not to undermine the right to legal abortion.
I therefore suggest that an alternative we can all agree on: a
penalty enhancement approach that would make it one felony
count higher to harm a pregnant woman when the result ends in
miscarriage or stillbirth. We've consulted with our legal
staff and have learned this approach is more likely to reach
offenders because the language is much clearer. The resulting
penalty would be as stiff as the penalties outlined in the
current version of SB 20.
There's an area within this bill I hope this committee will
address, particularly because the fiscal notes to this bill
are zero or unknown. The current bill does not exclude actions
a mother may take against herself. Perhaps, but I don't think
so, the Department of Law is there and could speak to this. In
particular, I call your attention to page 3, Section 2 and
specifically the provisions within the first and second-degree
assault sections. The language now says that a premature
birth, that is the birth before 37 weeks, or the birth of a
baby weighing less than five and one-half pounds is
[indiscernible] evidence of serious physical injury. Under
this bill, premature births would be considered a basis for
examining whether or not a woman would be guilty of assault
against her own child in uterus. I find this to be
incomprehensible.
My close friend gave birth to her baby at 28 weeks, almost
three months premature. Her son weighed just three pounds. She
herself was a premature baby who also weighed just three
pounds but the evidence as to whether or not this may be
hereditary is inconclusive. She did not smoke. She did not
drink and in fact had a healthy pregnancy. Yet if this bill
passes, births like these, or perhaps even spontaneous
miscarriages, would be called into questions.
Smoking while pregnant is my final example. The new State
website for pregnancy [indiscernible] states that pregnant who
smoke should be aware of increased risks to their offspring
including spontaneous abortion, low birth weight, sudden
infant death syndrome, etc. Would smoking while pregnant then
result in charges against a woman? Is this what we want to
accomplish through this bill.
Women need to understand the risks of smoking and everything
must be done to sway their behaviors. But do we want to
criminalize this and suffer the emotional implications and
indeed the financial implications when approximately one in
ten children in Alaska are low birth weight?
This is a policy call that should be seriously considered.
In closing, the current version of SB 20 could create an
environment of fear, as women risk their lives to protect
themselves or forego medical treatment because they're afraid
they may be charged.
I urge this committee to amend the bill to include language
that allows women to have healthy children and allows us to
have stricter penalties against those in society who harm
women. Planned Parenthood is very willing to work with the
committee to accomplish this.
CASSANDRA JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Anchorage as
follows.
I worked for nine years with domestic violence victims and
survivors including two years with the State Counsel on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. I'm grateful the
legislature is willing to address this devastating problem
that is all too prevalent in our state. But I cannot support
this bill in its current draft.
Domestic violence experts nationwide are unanimous in their
opposition to bills such as this. Previous committees have
heard from several such experts in our own state and they've
done a wonderful job about [indiscernible] the issues. But
some points are worth repeating.
Since the late 1970s, Alaska has been in the top five states
for reported sexual assault. I think we can all agree it is
not a distinction that we want to have [indiscernible].
Homicide is the number one killer of pregnant women in our
country: 240,000 pregnant women, six percent of all pregnant
women are battered each year. Injury to the fetus is first and
foremost an injury to a pregnant woman where the fetus
resides. She is the one who deals with the increased emotional
tensions and stress that usually precede a violent episode.
She feels the constant fear. She feels the physical pain. She
works hard to hide the physical and emotional scars from
family and friends. It is imperative that any fair and just
legislation deal with that as a primary issue.
In 2002 Alaska led the nation in women killed by a significant
other. Clearly something needs to be done. What can be done.
Shelters and domestic violence programs in Alaska do
extraordinary things every day to improve the lives of women
and children. And they do it with relatively little funds.
They can definitely use an increase in State funding beyond
what has been appropriated this session.
We need to educate all members of our society that we will not
tolerate gender violence in Alaska. This education needs to
start at a very early age. This body could mandate
comprehensive age-appropriate education programs about gender
violence in all schools in the State.
Certain enhancements would recognize the crime committed
against a pregnant woman and give courts the flexibility to
consider the harm or loss of the fetus.
While I understand this bill would not criminalize the
pregnant women who returns to an abusive partner. What about
the woman who delays or does not seek proper medical attention
after a violent beating for fear her partner or herself will
be charged under this bill. That could have disastrous effects
on her physical and emotional health and she will most likely
return to suffering in silence.
Acts of violence against women are abhorrent but they are
especially disturbing when committed against a pregnant woman.
When a violent crime causes an injury to a pregnant woman that
results in a miscarriage or stillborn we all share the desire
to ensure that the criminal justice system responds decisively
and firmly to exact the appropriate punishment. Protecting
pregnant women and families from violence is a serious problem
that deserves to be elevated above political agendas and
partisan politics.
MICHAEL MACLEUD-BALL, Executive Director, Alaska Civil Liberties
Union, testified via teleconference from Anchorage to "echo" the
comments of the previous two speakers. He continued his testimony
as follows.
The Alaska Civil Liberties Union opposes the passage of this
bill in its present form. We do also support efforts to
enhance punishment for attacks against pregnant women.
We think that the current bill in its current form has some
potential constitutional problems. In particular its related
to the lack of an exemption for a woman committing harmful
acts against herself resulting in harm to the fetus. The
privacy right as you know guarantees the woman's right to
control her own body in the absence of a compelling state
interest. The Roe v. Wade decision has interpreted that right
to protect the right to abortion unilaterally, in some stages
during the pregnancy and conditionally in other times.
This law would criminalize activity with respect to the fetus
anyway, that is less harmful than abortion. If a woman has the
right to abort under the constitution, it simply stands to
reason that she has the right to do other things during her
pregnancy that fall short of abortion.
The other interest affect of this bill is that it will
encourage more abortions. Consider a woman who's anxious about
an activity that she has engaged in during pregnancy that may
result in harm to the fetus. Why would she risk criminal
liability by bearing that child when she could avoid it simply
by having an abortion.
This bill unfairly penalizes wholly innocent and legal
behavior. So for example lets assume that a woman is pregnant
but she does not yet know she's pregnant. She might be
drinking and smoking up a storm and ultimately have harmful
affect on the child. It seems to me that there are a couple of
implications to this. First and foremost, the cost to the
State in attempting to prove criminal activity will sky rocket
it seems to me because it will be very difficult to determine
from what behavior the harm to the child might have resulted.
Would it be the drinking that occurred in the early stages of
pregnancy or was it drinking that occurred in the late stages
of pregnancy? Would it have been one particular act or several
different acts and how does one prove exactly where the
dividing line is there? … Let's just take the strict
hypothetical, where a woman drinks a lot during the early
stage of pregnancy when she doesn't even know she is pregnant.
Is she criminal [indiscernible]? How does the State prove that
the harm to the fetus happened from the activities during that
stage.
We think there are real proof problems for the State that will
increase their prosecution costs. I don't have any numbers on
this because it's a purely hypothetical situation. Suffice to
say though that we do think that there are practical problems
as well as constitutional problems with this bill in its
present form and therefore the Alaska Civil Liberties Union
continues to oppose its passage.
Senator Dyson asked if the witness intended to infer that the ACLU
hold the position that a woman should be allowed to cause any
damage to her unborn child and that such behaviors would be a
protected act.
Mr. Macleud-Ball replied that the ACLU does not take that position,
but rather supports the position of the constitutional right to an
abortion that is unilateral during certain stages of the pregnancy.
Subsequently a woman should be protected against prosecution for
other activities that would be less harmful to the fetus. There is
no clear answer to the question as the issue has not been brought
before the courts. However, the ACLU deems important the concern of
whether this legislation would cause a constitutional violation.
Senator Dyson concluded that his evaluation of the witness'
position was correct.
BRENDA STANSILL, Director, Center for Non-Violent Living, and chair
of a steering committee of the Alaska Counsel on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault, testified via teleconference from an offnet
location in appreciation of the language inserted into the bill
providing that victims of domestic violence would not be held
accountable for the actions of someone else as a result of
returning to an abusive situation. However, this was just one of
many concerns the Center had with regard to this legislation.
Ms. Stansill remained concerned about the woman "riding the roller
coaster" who does know she is pregnant. In addition she questioned
whether snowmachiners, horseback riders, water skiers, marathon
runner and other active women would be protected against
prosecution under the provisions of this legislation. Would a
pregnant woman be held liable for any strenuous activity. She was
unsure "where this bill stopped" and noted the "never ending
question of 'what if'".
Ms. Stansill suggested returning the focus to a crime against the
mother. If a woman is abused and miscarries or the fetus is
damaged, the offender should be charged with a higher-level crime.
She cited a North Carolina state law as a viable solution.
Ms. Stansill also suggested that such offenses be considered an
aggravator in sentencing guidelines. Currently a perpetrator guilty
of beating a pregnant woman with fists is convicted of third degree
assault, a misdemeanor. In most instances, if such an offender
pleads guilty to this offense, the charge would be reduced to forth
degree assault. The penalty should "fit the crime".
Ms. Stansill expressed support for protecting children and asserted
that those who perpetrate violence against a pregnant woman that
results in harm to an unborn child should be held accountable.
However, she doubted this bill would accomplish this mission.
Instead, as with other efforts nationally, the focus has been
directed at the possibility of pregnant mothers inflicting damage
on their unborn children.
Ms. Stansill recommended the bill be returned to the Senate
Judiciary Committee for further amendments.
Co-Chair Green emphasized that activities associated with sports
would not be criminalized under the provisions of this legislation.
She pointed out the multiple stipulations of "intent" "knowingly"
and "extreme indifference" required for prosecution.
Co-Chair Green spoke to the primary difference between the two
Senate Judiciary Committee versions of the bill. The work order
number of the second committee substitute adopted by that committee
is 24-LS0197\U. She noted that the previous witness' comments to
the provision exempting pregnant women who return to an abusive
relationship, were directed to Version "U".
Senator Hoffman established that the language in Version "U"
relating to holding harmless a pregnant woman who returns to a
domestic violence situation was not included in Version "R".
Co-Chair Green affirmed.
ANDREA DOLL testified on her own behalf in Juneau that this is a
"fairly dangerous bill" because it provides status to an unborn
child and to the mother as two separate legal entities. This would
make it impossible for a woman to make decisions about her body
without the threat of criminal ramifications. She suggested that a
differential be made between a fetus that is totally dependant upon
the mother's body and a fetus that could be self-sustained.
However, this is not the issue. Rather the issue is that a woman
has a right to govern her body. If a woman does not have this right
she questioned the claim that lawmakers support human rights.
Support for human rights should include the rights of women.
Ms. Doll assumed that violence against women is a crime. She argued
for greater protection of women. She recalled the history of
women's rights when women were jailed and tortured because they
wanted the right to vote. Women still fight today for their human
rights. Although women are allowed the right to vote, the right to
her body had been circumvented.
Ms. Doll requested the Committee amend the bill to make it less
"radical", as it appears to be written in "black and white terms".
It should reflect more compromise and should be returned to the
Senate Judiciary Committee for greater review.
Senator Dyson remarked that he had attempted to respond to
criticisms raised. The Department of Law advised that the first
Senate Judiciary Committee substitute should be considered rather
than the second version. He asserted to the "virtual impossibility"
that a woman would be charged for her activities unless those
activities were "raised to the level" of "knowingly and recklessly
endangering" the fetus. In discussion over attempts to eliminate
all the "what ifs", it was determined that the language of Version
"R" is sufficient.
Senator Dyson shared that he and Senator Hollis French investigated
the option of increasing penalties for crimes of violence committed
against a pregnant woman. They concluded that such provision is
pertinent to a different section of law and would create "several
areas of possible conflict" including the possibility of a double
jeopardy offense. The two senators agreed to work together to
enhance penalties for assaults on women, particularly in instances
of domestic violence. However, this legislation is not the
appropriate method.
CHIP WAGONER, Executive Director, Alaska Catholic Conference
testified in Juneau that the Conference is the "official public
policy voice of the church in Alaska". The church supports this
bill. At least nine other states have adopted similar legislation.
He continued his testimony as follows.
As creatures created in the image of God, we all have an
inherent dignity that comes not from our successes, titles or
bank accounts, but from God himself. As such, each and every
human being from conception to natural death, has a
fundamental right to life and to those things that make life
truly human: food, clothing, housing, health care, education,
security, social services and employment.
Senate Bill 20 recognizes that a child in the womb deserves
protection just as you and I deserve protection. This is
dramatically brought home to me earlier this session as I was
listening to testimony before this very committee from members
of the Key Campaign, the parents of disabled children and the
disabled children themselves. One of the parents said, sitting
in this very chair, when you are pregnant you have great and
wonderful dreams for your child. That is so true. Therefore,
when an unborn child is taken and those dreams are shattered,
the responsible party should be held accountable much as they
would if you or I were the victim.
Many changes have been made to this statute as its gone
through the legislative process, which is one of the reasons
why the legislative process is one of the great inventions of
mankind and humankind.
A woman who has a drinking addiction under this bill no longer
would be held accountable for a crime of harming her child
because she really is a victim herself.
With regard to violence in the home, domestic violence, there
are many women for many reasons that will not leave or cannot
leave that situation. Some might even say for religious
reasons. Others fear of own life. Others fear their children's
live because many times in a domestic violence situation it's
not the women who's threatened, it's the children who are
threatened if the woman does something. And there's economic
reasons - just lots of reasons, particularly in some of our
rural areas where you can't get away as easily as just driving
down the busy street of a city.
So the Catholic Conference would support keeping in the bill,
a provision that the mere fact of living in a domestic
violence situation does not rise to the conduct in any way
shape or form that could lead to her being charged with the
crime under this bill. We feel that this is the right way to
go. It just makes it clear, by having it written in the bill
and we think it will help the bill in its eventual passage. We
don't see it coming up the criminal justice system if that's
made clear in the bill.
Senator Hoffman clarified the witness supports the second version
passed from the Senate Judiciary Committee, Version "U".
Mr. Wagoner affirmed.
Co-Chair Green directed a member of her staff to explain the
differences between the two Senate Judiciary Committee substitutes
and why the Senate Finance Committee should choose to consider
Version "R".
KIM CARNOT, Staff to Co-Chair Green, testified to her understanding
of the reason Senator Dyson decided to recommend Version "R" to the
Committee. The language adopted in Version "U" was too broad. This
bill was designed to criminalize conduct and inserting exemptions
into criminal language is problematic as it is difficult to define
the activities intended for exemption. The sponsor had attempted to
include a provision relating to fetal alcohol syndrome but
encountered difficulty in defining and measuring the condition.
Mental states are established to determine whether conduct rises to
a certain criminal level. Version "R" does not include language
that stipulates that the action of a woman who remains in a violent
situation manifests to the extreme indifference to the value of
human life. Conduct that demonstrates such a manifestation includes
"walking into a crowded room and opening fire".
Ms. Carnot shared that the Department of Law and the Division of
Legal and Research Services advised that a woman's decision to
remain in a battered relationship ordinarily would not rise to that
level of conduct. However, circumstances would occur in which the
decision to remain in the relationship may rise to the level of
extreme indifference. Also considered was whether to establish
timelines on domestic violence incidents. For example, if the
offense occurred five years prior, it could be understandable that
the woman was currently in the relationship. However, the exemption
would excuse not only this woman, but also the woman who returns
after being beaten every day for the previous four weeks and
required hospitalization. At some point the conduct, mental state
and intent of the second woman would rise to a criminal level. For
this reason a "blanket exemption" was not supported.
Co-Chair Green surmised that the issue is fundamentally the mental
state of the woman. The intent to not prosecute all pregnant women
who return to an abusive relationship is expressed elsewhere in the
legislation.
Senator Hoffman asked if the aforementioned dialog was considered
by the Senate Judiciary Committee in it's action in adopting
Version "U", which provided the exemption.
Senator Dyson replied that adequate review of this matter was not
given at that time. He accepted fault for this, as he was
attempting to move the bill through the legislative process.
Senator Dyson offered a motion to report SB 20, 24-LS0197\R, from
Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes.
Senator Hoffman announced he would not object to the motion.
However he expressed "serious reservations" about the choice of
Version "R" over Version "U".
There was no objection and COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE SB 20 (JUD) was
MOVED from Committee with zero fiscal note #1 from the Department
of Public Safety, fiscal note #2 from the Department of
Administration in an indeterminate amount, and zero fiscal note #3
from the Department of Corrections.
SENATE BILL NO. 164
"An Act relating to the salmon product development tax credit;
providing for an effective date by amending an effective date
in sec. 7, ch. 57, SLA 2003; and providing for an effective
date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
TIM BARRY, Staff to Senator Stedman, the bill's sponsor, noted the
proposed committee substitute.
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to adopt CS SB 164, 24-LS0589\L,
as a working document.
Co-Chair Green objected for an explanation.
AT EASE 4:12:14 PM / 4:15:01 PM
[Note: Computer malfunction was corrected. Periodic timestamps are
available from this point forward.]
Mr. Barry read the sponsor statement into the record as follows.
Senate Bill 164 extends the deadline for salmon processors to
receive a salmon product development tax credit. Under current
law (AS 43.75.035), processors can claim the credit only for
property first placed into service by the end of this calendar
year (December 31, 2005). SB 164 would give processors three
more years (until December 31, 2008) to claim the credit. The
legislation also clarifies what types of items are eligible
for the tax credit, to more effectively achieve the
legislature's goal of encouraging Alaska's seafood processors
to develop innovative value-added salmon products.
4:15:51 PM
Mr. Barry continued reciting the sponsor statement as follows.
In 2003, the legislature passed and the Governor signed
legislation that allows processors to claim a credit on the
tax liability on new equipment they have purchased to add
value to salmon using innovative processing techniques. The
bill (HB 90) that became this law was proposed by the Joint
Legislative Salmon Industry Task Force, and was part of an
effort by Alaska's elected leaders and the fishing industry to
create incentives for the industry to take investment risks
and produce new salmon products that add value to our salmon.
It has worked: a number of processors have taken advantage of
this tax credit. SB 164 extends the deadline for applying for
the credit for another three years, to the end of 2008. In
addition, the bill defines the kind of investment that
qualifies for the credit, making it clear that processors
should be producing new, innovative salmon products in order
to benefit from this program. The legislation has been drafted
in consultation with the Tax Division of the Department of
Revenue, incorporating lessons learned in the first two years
of administering the credit, to ensure that management and
enforcement are efficient and effective.
Senate Bill 164 is supported by many Alaska salmon processors
and fishermen as a valuable tool in improving the quality and
net worth of our wild salmon.
4:17:56 PM
Mr. Barry noted the Senate Resources Committee substitute, which
incorporated a conceptual amendment offered after the testimony of
an at-sea processor. The original version of the bill did not allow
the tax credit to apply to any canning equipment. The intent was to
transition from canned salmon products. However, processors
requested the credit extend to equipment used for "pop top" cans,
as this is new type of product. The committee substitute reflects
this allowance.
4:19:29 PM
MARK VINSEL, Executive Director, United Fishermen of Alaska,
testified in support of the bill and the committee substitute. He
continued his testimony as follows.
Since the Joint Legislative Salmon Task Force passed this bill
and some other bills, the ex-vessel value total for salmon for
Alaska is up $73 million. That's a 45 percent increase from
2002. That increase has also brought an increase of $2 million
in the raw fish tax, based on the ex-vessel price to
fishermen.
Other good news is [that] the total imports of salmon were
down last year to the US domestic market. So there's a better
opportunity for product development to move forward. SB 164 is
an important tool in the transition of these new products to
compete in the marketplace.
Pop top cans are important. Yesterday there was a press
release from Lisa Murkowski that we expect to be getting
canned salmon in the Women, Infants and Children program in
the domestic market. Government purchase programs - we're
always looking to increase canned salmon in the government
purchase programs. The requirement for a can opener has been
one impediment to some of the foreign aid programs.
UFA supports this bill for continued product development to
help continue the trend of increase wholesale and ex-vessel
prices, which should show a return in revenues to the State.
4:21:13 PM
Co-Chair Green, noting Section 1, amending AS 43.75.035(b)(2) on
page 1, lines 10 and 11, asked the significance of extending the
date that property eligible for the tax credit must be first placed
into service from December 31, 2005 to December 31, 2008. She asked
if such an extension would be continually sought.
4:21:34 PM
Mr. Vinsel responded that product development is a long-term
process. He attributed the limited product development made in the
previous years to the low salmon prices. With the stabilized
market, such efforts are feasible. He predicted significant
increases in product development would occur in the next three
years.
4:22:31 PM
Senator Hoffman asked if the salmon industry was still ranked as
the number one employer in Alaska.
4:22:53 PM
Mr. Vinsel replied that the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development reports that the construction industry has surpassed
the fishing industry as the top employer in the state.
4:23:03 PM
KRIS NORRIS, Government Affairs, Icicle Seafoods, Inc., testified
about the 40-year history of the corporation that operates
throughout the coastal areas of Alaska. Icicle Seafood supports
this bill and has participated in this program in the last three
years. These efforts have increased customer acceptance of some new
products. One project involved salmon roe packaged in a "modified
atmosphere" that allows for a longer shelf life. This subsequently
brings some stability to the market place and has been widely
accepted by customers.
Ms. Norris remarked that many companies develop business plans for
future years and that the original deadline of 2005 did not provide
adequate time to implement changes. Extension of the program would
benefit Alaska.
4:25:11 PM
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report CS SB 164, 24-LS0589\L,
from Committee with individual recommendations and accompanying
fiscal note.
There was no objection and CS SB 164 (FIN) was MOVED from Committee
with zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Revenue.
4:25:35 PM
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 175(L&C)
"An Act relating to dispensing opticians, to dispensing
optician apprentices, to the Board of Dispensing Opticians,
and to the practice of dispensing opticianry; and providing
for an effective date."
This was the first hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance
Committee.
JANE ALBERTS, staff to Senator Bunde and aide to the Senate Labor
and Commerce Committee, presented the bill sponsored by that
Committee. This bill would allow the statutes providing for the
Board of Dispensing Opticians to lapse, transferring its authority
of regulating opticians to the Division of Occupational Licensing.
Dispensing opticians would continue to be licensed.
Ms. Alberts relayed that although the Murkowski Administration has
indicated that the number of boards and commissions should be
reduced, Senator Bunde had noticed this was not occurring.
Ms. Alberts stressed that the continuation of the licensing program
would ensure that the quality of care would remain high.
4:28:14 PM
Senator Olson asked the number of actions taken against licensees
in the past.
4:28:24 PM
Ms. Alberts was unaware of the amount and recalled one instance
several years prior. She noted that 28 states continue to license
these activities.
4:29:03 PM
Senator Olson asked how infractions would be prosecuted in the
absence of formal review.
4:29:12 PM
Ms. Alberts replied that this function would be transferred to the
Division of Occupational Licensing.
4:29:25 PM
PAT DAVIDSON, Director, Division of Legislative Audit, testified
that in the most recently completed audit of this board, the
Division of Legislative Audit recommended the board be allowed to
sunset. A registration process was suggested rather than mandatory
licensing. This bill would allow the board to sunset, retain the
licensing requirement, and implement three other audit
recommendations.
4:30:29 PM
LARRY HARPER, American Board of Optometrists, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage in support of the bill.
4:30:37 PM
CHRISTI BRAND, President, Opticians Association of Alaska testified
via teleconference from an offnet location in support of the bill
and its passage from Committee.
4:30:50 PM
Amendment #1: This amendment changes language in AS 08.71.090.
Examination requirement., amended in Section 4 on page 2, following
line 13, of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee substitute, to
provide that the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic
Development adopt an examination established by "a nationally
recognized professional organization" for "contact lens examiners"
and "dispensing opticians examiners". Current statute stipulates
that the Contact Lens Registry examination and the National
Opticianry Competency examination be administered.
This amendment also amends AS 08.71.090 to provide that these
examinations "may" be administered, rather than "shall".
This amendment also changes the language in AS 08.71.110(a)(2)(B)
amended in Section 5 on page 3, lines 15 through 18, to provide
that at least 2,000 hours as a dispensing optician in eyeglasses or
at least 2,000 hours as a dispensing optician in contact lenses may
be required for licensure. Current language of the committee
substitute requires both prerequisites be met.
Co-Chair Wilken moved for adoption.
4:30:58 PM
RICK URION, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development,
testified he has been coordination with opticians to ensure a
smooth transition. This amendment would clear ambiguity in the bill
language.
4:32:24 PM
Co-Chair Green understood the changes made to Section 5 were
grammatical.
Mr. Urion affirmed.
Mr. Urion explained the changes proposed to Section 4 are to
provide assurances that the Division would not attempt to "reinvent
the wheel" and would instead administer recognized examinations.
4:33:02 PM
Co-Chair Green appreciated the resolution to this issue, given
concerns expressed to her by constituents.
[Note: The amendment was not formally adopted, although this was
the intent of the Committee.]
Co-Chair Wilken offered a motion to report CS SB 175 (L&C), as
amended, from Committee with individual recommendations and
accompanying fiscal note.
Without objection, CS SB 175 (FIN) was MOVED from Committee with
zero fiscal note #1 from the Department of Commerce, Community and
Economic Development.
ADJOURNMENT
Co-Chair Green adjourned the meeting at 4:34 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|