Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/01/1998 03:22 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 1998
3:22 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chairman
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 65
Requesting that Alaska wild salmon be included as an organic food
under federal law.
- MOVED CSHJR 65(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 158(L&C)
"An Act relating to motor vehicle liability insurance covering a
person who has had the person's driver's license revoked for
possession or consumption of alcohol while under 21 years of age."
- HEARD AND HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS:
Alaska State Board of Public Accountancy
Marjorie J. Kaiser - Anchorage
Steven R. Tarola - Barrow
Sandra R. Wilson - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors
Donald J. Iverson - Anchorage
Scott McLane - Soldotna
Patricia Peirsol - Fairbanks
Patrick Kalen - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
Lawrence R. Krupa - North Pole
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Trevor V. Ireland - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Labor Relations Agency
Alfred L. Tamagni, Sr. - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Marine Pilots
Peter S. Garay - Homer
Michael N. White - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Marital and Family Therapy
Dixie A. Hood - Juneau
Elaine L. Williams - Juneau
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
State Medical Board
Martha T. Cotten - Eagle River
Constance E. Livsey - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Martha J. Linden - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
Dennis Davidson - Anchorage
Carla Meek - Juneau
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Pharmacy
Paul Joseph Gionet - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
Sundi M. Hondl - Wasilla
Ann P. Mattson - Juneau
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
Carey S. Edney - Anchorage
David J. Sperbeck - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
Judy Kemplen - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Real Estate Commission
Audrey J. Foldoe - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Veterinary Examiners
Deanna J. Thornell - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
John A. Abshire - Anchorage
Valerie K. Baffone - Anchorage
Shawn Pierre - Chugiak
Florence S. Rooney - Anchorage
James G. Williams - Douglas
Marc D. Stemp - Bethel
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
Board of Dental Examiners
Raymond L. Lang - Nome
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
Board of Dispensing Opticians
Cynde M. Oleck - Fairbanks
- CONFIRMATION ADVANCED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 65
SHORT TITLE: CLASSIFY WILD SALMON AS ORGANIC FOOD
SPONSOR(S): RESOURCES
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/20/98 2682 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/20/98 2682 (H) L&C
04/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: SB 158
SHORT TITLE: INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC.
SPONSOR(S): JUDICIARY BY REQUEST
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
04/02/97 935 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/02/97 935 (S) L&C, JUD
02/05/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/05/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/19/98 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/19/98 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
02/20/98 2591 (S) L&C RPT CS 1DP 4NR NEW TITLE
02/20/98 2591 (S) DP: KELLY
02/20/98 2591 (S) NR: MACKIE, HOFFMAN, MILLER, LEMAN
02/20/98 2591 (S) ZERO FNS TO SB & CS (ADM, DCED)
03/02/98 (S) JUD AT 1:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
03/02/98 (S) MINUTE(JUD)
03/03/98 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
03/03/98 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
03/03/98 2715 (S) JUD RPT 2DP 1NR (L&C)CS
03/02/98 2715 (S) DP: TAYLOR, MILLER NR: PARNELL
03/02/98 2715 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FNS (DCED, ADM)
03/05/98 2749 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 3/5/98
03/05/98 2750 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
03/05/98 2751 (S) L&C CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
03/05/98 2751 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
03/05/98 2751 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 158(L&C)
03/05/98 2751 (S) PASSED Y14 N6
03/05/98 2759 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/06/98 2533 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/98 2533 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY
04/01/98 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JEFF BAILEY, President
Prime Select Seafoods, Incorporated;
commercial fisherman
P.O. Box 846
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-7750
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 65.
KATE TROLL, Fisheries Development Specialist
Division of Trade and Development
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110804
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0804
Telephone: (907) 465-5464
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 65.
BARBARA BELKNAPP, Executive Director
Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute
1111 West Eighth Street, Suite 100
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1895
Telephone: (907) 465-5560
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 65.
CHERI SHAW, Executive Director
Cordova District Fishermen United
P.O. Box 939
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3447
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 65.
ED WOJAK
2642 40th Avenue West
Seattle, Washington 98199
Telephone: (206) 282-0782
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 65.
RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant
to Senator Robin Taylor
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3717
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 158.
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for
National Association of Independent Insurers
3328 Fritz Cove Road
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 789-0172
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 158.
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist
for State Farm Insurance Company
124 West Fifth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-5912
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 158.
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief
Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, Alaska 9811-0200
Telephone: (907) 465-5648
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 158.
MARIANNE BURKE, Director
Division of Insurance
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110805
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0805
Telephone: (907) 465-2515
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 158.
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on Confirmation Hearings.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 98-42, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:22 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Hudson,
Sanders, Ryan and Kubina. Representative Cowdery arrived at 3:24
p.m.
HJR 65 - CLASSIFY WILD SALMON AS ORGANIC FOOD
Number 0080
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business
was HJR 65, Requesting that Alaska wild salmon be included as an
organic food under federal law.
Number 0090
REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON presented HJR 65. He stated Alaska's
wild salmon had long been recognized as a heart-healthy food by the
medical community and indicated this resolution asked the United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Alaska's congressional
delegation, and Congress in general, to allow Alaska's wild salmon
an opportunity to be classified as an organic food. He noted the
organic food market, encompassing many different types of foods,
was approximately $3.5 billion in 1996 and was growing at a rate of
about 20 percent per year. Representative Hudson indicated the
salmon farming industry was working to have farmed salmon
classified as an organic food and that Alaska had to appeal for
that classification for far healthier wild salmon. He indicated
farmed salmon were raised in closed systems and were fed
antibiotics, steroids and things of that nature, while Alaska
salmon was out in the pristine, cold Alaska waters. Representative
Hudson stated it was very important that this effort was made. He
commented he did not know if they would be successful, but
indicated this resolution simply asked that the USDA and Congress
allow Alaska wild salmon the opportunity to be classified as an
organic product. He noted there were witnesses to testify about
the marketing assets of this effort. The sponsor statement read:
The organic-foods market is a growing market (annual
growth rate of 20%) with total sales of $3.5 billion in
1996. Alaska's wild salmon, long recognized by the
medical community as a heart healthy food, and reared in
pristine Alaskan waters should be a strong candidate for
this growing market.
Unfortunately, farmed salmon producers, both domestic and
foreign, are ahead of Alaska in striving to convince the
U.S. Department of Agriculture that farmed salmon should
qualify for Organic certification under federal law.
House Joint Resolution 65 requests that Alaska wild
salmon be fairly considered by objective scientific
criteria as an organic food. The United States
Department of Agriculture, via the Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS), is seeking the establishment of national
standards for the organic production and handling of
agricultural products. The deadline for public and
official input is May 30th, 1998.
The global salmon industry is fiercely competitive.
Organic certification is a valuable market niche because
a rapidly growing base of consumers has demonstrated
willingness to consistently pay top dollar for products
of choice.
HJR 65 is but one step in pursuing this significant
market. It puts the United States Department of
Agriculture on notice that Alaskans are watching the
pending debate over organic qualification, and it asks
our delegation in Congress to assist in this matter, to
insure the huge agri-business doesn't simply dominate the
agenda from the start.
Number 0290
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to page 1, line 5, of the resolution,
asking about the wording "environmentally clean waters" [lines 4
and 5 read, "WHEREAS the ocean waters off the coast of Alaska are
among the most environmentally clean waters on the globe; and"].
Chairman Rokeberg indicated he agreed with the concept of Alaska's
clean waters but was not sure he understood the meaning of
"environmentally clean".
Number 0320
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON brought forward the word "pristine".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would take testimony and
indicated the committee might want to consider alternate language
for "environmentally".
Number 0370
JEFF BAILEY, President, Prime Select Seafoods, Incorporated;
commercial fisherman, testified via teleconference from Anchorage.
He stated Prime Select Seafoods, Incorporated, was a fishermen-
owned seafood marketing company located in Cordova. He thanked the
committee for considering this important resolution encouraging
inclusion of Alaska's wild salmon in the USDA's National Organic
Program. He stated, "My interest in this issue began in December
when I heard on National Public Radio that USDA was seeking public
comment on the (indisc.--whistling) to regulate (indisc.) organic
label. I did some research and discovered in my dismay that wild
salmon ... Alaska wild salmon in particular, was not included in
the proposed rules. My first reaction was to contact USDA to see
if wild salmon was simply overlooked. They informed me that wild
salmon was not on the list because USDA ... had no way to monitor
what wild fish eat in their ... open ocean environment. My outrage
came later when I learned that (indisc.--coughing)-raised salmon
was being considered for inclusion ["exclusion" stated on tape]
because USDA could monitor what they consumed. We began a campaign
to reverse Alaskan salmon's exclusion. It is essential that Alaska
present an unified front ... to strongly promote inclusion of
Alaska wild salmon in the National Organic Program. The farmed
salmon industry has already recognized the value of a USDA
certified organic label and has been working closely with USDA for
over seven years. Alaska is woefully behind on the issue and is
very close to having its salmon excluded from the organic program."
Number 0510
MR. BAILEY continued, "This exclusion will prohibit Alaskan
fishermen from being able to participate in an organic industry
which last year was worth $3.5 billion in the US [United States]
alone. We can do something about it and need this resolution to
provide the political clout needed for USDA's reconsideration.
Alaska salmon is sold in an extremely competitive market. We have
lost significant market share to the farm-raised fish and consumers
lack awareness of the inherent and important differences between
farm-raised and wild fish products. The organic label could help
us provide a critical distinction and add substantially to the
overall value of Alaska's salmon resource. This added value
translates into money; money for fishermen, processors, support
industries and the state of Alaska. It is time for Alaska to stand
up and say enough is enough with regards to the ever increasing
displacement of our wild salmon resource by farm-raised salmon and
trout in the world marketplace. Recognition of Alaska wild salmon
as a certifiably organic product has the potential to turn the
entire Alaska salmon industry back to ... its historical place as
a dominant power in the world salmon industry."
Number 0590
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN indicated he was ready to move the
resolution.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he appreciated Representative Ryan's
anxiousness.
Number 0602
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA thanked Mr. Bailey for his work and
indicated he hoped that if HJR 65 passed through the legislature
Mr. Bailey would continue his efforts.
Number 0615
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bailey why farmed salmon producers were
ahead of Alaskans in getting the USDA to adopt that standard,
noting they were speaking of overseas, foreign salmon here.
Number 0639
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA responded he thought that was part of the
point, stating, "While we're cutting our ASMI [Alaska Seafood
Marketing Institute] budget, our marketing budgets here in Alaska,
they're doubling theirs. They're out there doing everything they
can to find market for theirs. ... These people recognize how to
sell something ...." Representative Kubina said the organic foods
market was exploding in the United States. He commented on farmed
salmon being raised in closed pens, stating "You can't call that
clean, environmentally or not, clean water." Representative Kubina
also noted the use of antibiotics and coloring agents in the
production of farmed salmon, and he said these groups were saying
to the United States government, or the United States regulators,
"Hey, we should be ... organic ...." Representative Kubina
indicated he felt this was the opportunity for Alaska to say,
"Whoa, wait a minute, here's the real organic," because, he stated,
"Our fish are organic, purely natural, we're not feeding them
anything, the world feeds them."
AN UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER stated, "The oceans are feeding 'em."
Number 0719
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he couldn't agree with Representative Kubina
more. He asked if Mr. Bailey had anything to add.
Number 0725
MR. BAILEY added that the USDA has never regulated seafood in the
past in any manner, it was strictly agricultural products, and he
indicated the agency was more comfortable with what the farmed
salmon producers could show the USDA because of the definition of
farming. He said he thought Alaskans found themselves outside a
regulated authority that had never really recognized them anyway,
indicating this was why he thought Alaska had been caught off-guard
and was behind. Mr. Bailey stated he felt very strongly that this
resolution and position would "turn their heads around." He
indicated the USDA program had received over 25,000 comments and
an extension of the comment period was being discussed. He noted
he did think the program had potential, but indicated the program
was going to be rewritten and this was where Alaska needed to be
included.
Number 0787
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "We need to get the word out to all
Alaskans to make sure they're commenting to the right people."
Number 0812
KATE TROLL, Fisheries Development Specialist, Division of Trade and
Development, Department of Commerce and Economic Development
(DCED), came forward to testify. She stated the department had
been working on and reviewing these proposed regulations,
developing official comments. Ms. Troll said the legislature's
resolution was "in sync" with those official statements as they
were currently drafted. She explained farmed salmon was ahead of
Alaska salmon here because USDA decided to include fish in its
definition of livestock. She noted these regulations were written
from a terrestrial farm perspective and apparently the farmed
salmon industry was able to get the USDA to insert "fish" in this
definition of livestock. Ms. Troll indicated that while Alaska
salmon was not specifically excluded, it clearly was not included
at that point. She stated, "Our focus has been to say, 'Wait a
minute ... ocean-farmed environments as well wild seafood is
dramatically different than ... livestock. You need to have a
separate section which addresses seafood.'" She indicated that,
while wild salmon certainly is the impetus behind their involvement
in commenting on these regulations, all Alaska seafood products
would be affected. She commented that there was no notion of crops
coming from the sea under the USDA's definition of wild crop
harvesting. Ms. Troll stated it was very clear through reading
that anything pertaining to seafood was an afterthought,
commenting, "So that's why ... we're pushing to say, 'Hey, back
off. Start over again with seafood.'" She indicated the
department had been working with the Governor's office in
Washington, D.C., which had been in contact with Senator Stevens'
office. She said Senator Stevens made an inquiry which basically
told the USDA there would be changes, and she said they were very
glad to have that message delivered from the Senator's office.
Additionally, Ms. Troll noted the proposed rules would prohibit the
use of any word sounding like organic, directly or indirectly. She
commented Alaska's whole marketing campaign was based on "wild" and
"natural," stating, "These rules go into place, we'd be prohibited
from using 'wild' and 'natural,' when clearly if anything is
intrinsically organic, it is our salmon." She noted it was a fight
full of irony, but one she believed would have major positive
market impacts, not only for the salmon industry but for the entire
seafood industry.
Number 1005
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he was glad the Administration was
addressing this, noting it did go far beyond salmon "in all the
things that we have out there." He stated, "And we do have farmers
.... We have shellfish farmers all over the state. And so, while
I want this to go forward, the more you think about it, the more
I think we need to make sure that we protect our place and I'm
glad you're there."
Number 1035
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked Ms. Troll her views on the use of
"pristine" instead of "environmentally" on page 1, line 5, of the
resolution.
MS. TROLL said she thinks "pristine" fit, noting the term was used
in the draft she had been working on.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented that "pristine" means "remaining in
a pure, unspoiled state," and it struck him that might even have
more power.
Number 1080
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his preference for "pristine," indicating
he felt, after thought, that "environmentally clean" also was
appropriate because of the presence of plankton, et cetera, in
water which is absolutely pristine and environmentally sound but
not necessarily clean in the sense of being transparent. Referring
to Representative Kubina's statement, Chairman Rokeberg said it
seemed appropriate to cover all Alaskan naturally-harvested
seafood. He asked Ms. Troll if she thought this resolution should
be expanded, or if there were any recommendations from the
Administration or herself as a specialist in this area.
Number 1143
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA indicated he would like to see the resolution
go forward in its current form because of it was a response to the
fish farm, and he would agree to work with people on another
resolution dealing with the whole industry, rather than holding up
anything.
Number 1175
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Ms. Troll had said that possibly the
USDA regulations currently being drafted might have negative
ramifications on advertising, even other species, and some of those
other things, if they were not granted organic status. He asked if
that was correct.
Number 1182
MS. TROLL answered in the affirmative. She said the proposed
rules, as currently written, would make it extremely difficult for
any Alaska seafood product to say it qualified because fish was not
in the USDA's thinking as a wild crop. She indicated Alaska's
seafood would fall under this wild crop category since it was not
livestock, referring again to the success of the farmed salmon
industry in getting "fish" inserted into the definition of
livestock which would give that industry an advantage in saying its
products were organic and Alaska's were not. She noted salmon was
currently the "hot button" concern, where the state saw the farmed
salmon industry taking a lot of its marketing advantages away. She
commented Alaska needed to stop this and HJR 65 addressed this
primary concern. Ms. Troll noted the resolution was not in
conflict at all with the comment being drafted by the
Administration; she stated, "We just realize ... that,
strategically, we thought it would be best, rather than try to
insert a word and change a word here, is to say, 'Wait a minute,
don't treat seafood as an afterthought - it merits its own section
and here's elements we'd like to see in that section.'"
Number 1266
BARBARA BELKNAPP, Executive Director, Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute (ASMI), came forward to testify next. She stated ASMI
supported HJR 65; it believed HJR 65 would be beneficial to ASMI in
its marketing efforts as well as to the industry. She said Ms.
Troll had been doing a tremendous amount of work on the technical
aspects of this and ASMI had been assisting. She indicated an
organic designation would be particularly helpful in the Japanese
market, where Alaska's market share was eroding rapidly, and where
the consumers were currently very label and health conscious with
the recent E. coli (Escherichia coli bacteria) problems. Ms.
Belknapp said the organic designation is even more important in
Europe, with mad cow disease (bovine spongiform encephalopathy) and
some of the other things there. In the United States, she said it
was not as broad, but her feeling was that any niche market or
added consumers through organic labeling would be beneficial to the
industry.
Number 1334
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked why they couldn't put on an "Alaska wild
salmon" label.
MS. BELKNAPP replied they did, but she said they didn't say
"organic." Ms. Belknapp explained it became a little complicated
because "wild" was used in some markets and "natural" in others.
"Natural" was mainly used in the United States to avoid confusion
with endangered salmon, and "wild" was used in Japan and Europe.
She noted "pristine waters" was used all the time as part of their
advertising.
Number 1370
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY asked if Alaskan red (sockeye) salmon
wasn't very popular in Japan and commanded a higher price. He
noted he hadn't been there in a few years.
MS. BELKNAPP replied that unfortunately Alaska's market share had
eroded in the last two years from more than 50 percent down to
almost 20 to 30 percent. She stated Alaska had lost 70 percent of
its market share in Japan to farmed salmon.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked if the costs of the two types of
salmon were the same.
Number 1399
MS. BELKNAPP replied in the negative, stating Alaska sockeye salmon
was more expensive. She commented farmed salmon was priced below
all United States product in the United States and outside the
country. That was a real disadvantage for Alaska, but she said it
had been proven that most people would pay more for products
labeled organic. Ms. Belknapp reiterated that Alaska's Japanese
market share was eroding quickly and anything that could help stop
that was valuable.
Number 1440
CHERI SHAW, Executive Director, Cordova District Fishermen United
(CDFU), testified next via teleconference from Cordova. She noted
she was speaking behalf of CDFU and herself, and read from a
prepared statement:
CDFU supports HJR 65 and the effort it will create to
allow wild Alaska salmon to be federally labeled as
organic. While the market for wild salmon has been
eroding due to the increasing production of farmed
salmon, the organic market has been growing dramatically.
As noted in HJR 65, in 1996 alone sales were worth $3.5
billion. Organic food sales have increased 20 to 25
percent in each of the last 6 years. Overseas, organic
foods are even more popular.
The commercial fishing industry has often been called the
first permanent fund. With the high quality of
management we find here in Alaska, the salmon fishing
industry will pump millions, if not billions, of dollars
into the state's economy into perpetuity. Anything the
legislature can do to help increase Alaska's salmon share
in the global market will benefit all Alaskans.
In conjunction with a passage of HJR 65 in the
legislature, a letter-writing campaign by all Senators,
Representatives and the constituents they represent
should be organized requesting the federal government
allow wild-harvested Alaska salmon to be labeled organic
under the Organic Foods Production Act. This step
forward will give the state and its salmon industry a
valuable marketing edge they've both been searching for
in this increasingly competitive global market.
The organic label will increase demand for Alaska wild
salmon and should increase exvessel value, thereby adding
growth to the state's revenue in shared raw fish taxes.
This is a win - win situation.
Number 1528
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked where and to whom would they write.
MS. SHAW replied to the USDA, to Dan Glickman, she believed.
Number 1541
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he asked for the record and the committee
would obtain that information from Representative Hudson. He noted
the Secretary of Agriculture was Daniel R. Glickman.
Number 1564
ED WOJAK testified next via teleconference from Seattle. He
testified as an individual, commenting he worked as a Bristol Bay
fisher and a business lobbyist with predominantly Western Alaska
Community Development Quota (CDQ) groups in Norton Sound and on the
Yukon Delta as clients. He indicated he heard of this USDA rule-
making the previous fall, and had questioned why fish wasn't
included when the USDA was considering standards for organic beef
and poultry. He said he found that fish as food was listed as
livestock in this Act, and livestock was considered to be an
agricultural product which would qualify for organic certification,
yet it didn't appear Alaska's fish would qualify. Mr. Wojak
indicated he testified at the Seattle USDA hearing, which was one
of four hearings held country-wide. He commented on the irony of
the situation and indicated the information he received from the
USDA panel was that his ocean-harvested wild product would not
qualify for organic certification but a pen or pond-raised product
would. He said he further commented to the USDA, "We, as
harvesters of wild salmon, we have never lost those standards of
purity and wholesomeness that you're striving to achieve with your
organic program ...." He noted the previous testimony had spoken
to the rest of his comments and he thanked the committee on behalf
of Alaska's fishermen for considering this issue.
Number 1669
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anyone else who wished to
testify on HJR 65. Hearing none, he commented to Representative
Hudson that while he thought resolutions should be written in a
positive form as a matter of tone, there was nothing indicating
farm-raised fish shouldn't be considered organic. Chairman
Rokeberg asked if they were advocating for two separate standards.
Number 1705
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON answered in the affirmative, indicating they
wanted to make sure pristine-watered, Alaska wild salmon were
organic.
Number 1725
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he agreed with Ms. Shaw's suggestion
of a letter-writing campaign once this was adopted, indicating they
should make that whole issue very clear to Alaska's congressional
delegation and the Secretary of Agriculture in those letters.
Number 1736
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG alternately suggested another resolution covering
all seafood, noting that was an important point. He referred to a
letter from ASMI being distributed to the committee.
Number 1753
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to change the word
"environmentally" on page 1, line 5, to "pristine".
Number 1762
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the amendment was adopted. Page 1, line 5 now read,
"pristine clean waters on the globe; and".
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS asked if "pristine clean" was
redundant.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked if the chairman wished to delete the
word "clean".
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for the definition of "pristine".
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied he thought it meant natural, noting
he had just had that definition.
Number 1773
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 3:53 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:54 p.m.
Number 1805
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the chair would entertain another amendment
to delete the word "clean" which occurred on page 1, line 5.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA made a motion to adopt the amendment.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the amendment before the committee was to
delete the word "clean", stating the sentence would read "... among
the most pristine waters on the globe". He asked if there were any
objections. Hearing none, the amendment was adopted.
Number 1805
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move HJR 65 as amended, with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
Number 1814
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections. There being
none, CSHJR 65(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
Number 1829
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 3:54 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 3:57 p.m.
CSSB 158(L&C) - INSURANCE CHANGES FOR DR. LIC REVOC.
Number 1855
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
was CSSB 158(L&C), "An Act relating to motor vehicle liability
insurance covering a person who has had the person's driver's
license revoked for possession or consumption of alcohol while
under 21 years of age."
RALPH BENNETT, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Senator
Robin Taylor, came forward to present SB 158. Mr. Bennett read the
sponsor statement:
The "use it or lose it" provisions of current statute
have had an unintended consequence. Minors who lose
their drivers licenses for minor consuming offenses often
find themselves and their families with increased
insurance premiums and occasionally a (policy)
cancellation.
Senate Bill 158 would correct this situation by
prohibiting an insurer from raising rates and/or
cancelling existing policies solely for suspension of a
minor's drivers license as a result of minor consuming
where not involving driving.
This narrowly focused version of SB 158 does not address
other offenses such as DWI, using false ID, or possession
of controlled substances.
MR. BENNETT read the January 1, 1998, sectional analysis prepared
by Joe Ambrose, Legislative Assistant to Senator Taylor. This
sectional analysis read:
Section 1 adds language to the existing statute stating
that AS 21.36.210(a)(2) does not apply to an
administrative revocation as described in AS 21.89.027,
the new section which begins on page 2 of the bill.
AS 21.36.210(a) specifies why an insurer may cancel a
policy: nonpayment of premium or suspension or revocation
of a drivers license.
Section 2 is the operative section of the bill and adds
a new provision to state law. (a) says an insurer may
not refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle liability
insurance, cancel an existing policy, deny a covered
claim, or increase the premium only because of an
administrative or court ordered suspension for minor
consuming. (b) says that (a) does not prevent an insurer
from underwriting or rating a loss in the same manner as
it would have had the suspension not occurred.
Section 3 says the bill would apply to policies issued or
renewed on or after the effective date. This would mean
that policies currently being charged a higher rate would
have to be adjusted at the next renewal.
MR. BENNETT stated the bill corrected unintended consequences of
the "use or lose it" provision in current law. It prohibited an
increase or cancellation of insurance solely because of license
suspension for minor consuming and did not include offenses
involving operation of a motor vehicle or other offenses such as
driving while intoxicated (DWI), use of false identification (ID),
or possession of controlled substances. The legislation only
covered revocation or suspension by either administrative or court
action for minor consuming. Mr. Bennett stated, "Rate increases
often affect parents' insurance, choice of dropping a kid from the
policy, permanent revocation, or paying a higher premium." He
indicated representatives from the Division of Motor Vehicles,
Department of Administration, and the Division of Insurance,
Department of Commerce and Economic Development, were present to
answer questions.
Number 1995
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he had been given a possible committee
substitute and asked Mr. Bennett to explain. Chairman Rokeberg
indicated CSSB 158(L&C), Version L, labeled 0-LS0839\L, engrossed,
was before the committee [the possible committee substitute was
work draft Version P, labeled 0-LS0839\P, Ford, dated 4/1/98].
Number 2010
MR. BENNETT stated the new possible committee substitute was based
on negotiations with the insurance industry [copies of Version P
were distributed to the committee]. He said it was Senator
Taylor's belief they could come to an accommodation in the next day
or two. Mr. Bennet stated, "The industry is concerned about the
situation that would arise where a person's license has been
revoked, either administratively or through a court proceeding, but
they're driving anyway illegally." Mr. Bennett indicated the
industry had legitimate concerns and he thought a "simple wording
fix" would address that, but Senator Taylor did not wish to make
this change until he had a chance to discuss it with the industry
and the departments together. Mr. Bennett said they would like to
have the bill held over.
Number 2050
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he had brought up Version P so the
committee would be aware during the testimony.
Number 2060
MR. BENNETT said the possible committee substitute had been
developed that morning and was not necessarily finalized; he
indicated it might be changed with further negotiations the
following day.
Number 2084
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if SB 158 had another House committee
referral.
Number 2088
MR. BENNETT replied the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 2096
JOHN GEORGE, Lobbyist for National Association of Independent
Insurers (NAII), came forward to testify. He stated he represented
Allstate Insurance Company, GEICO, USAA (United Service Automobile
Association) and other companies. He reiterated the prior
testimony, commenting, "We're working, we're doing some fine
tuning, we're pretty close. I think we all agree conceptually on
what needs to be done, we're just not quite there yet. So if it'd
be your intent to hold it, I think we'll testify when we get
something that we actually ... can all agree on."
Number 2015
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the committee might not take a lot of
testimony if the bill was brought up again.
Number 2124
MR. GEORGE said NAII was concerned about people who actually drove
while they did not have licenses. He said the statutory cites in
the bill included some things he believed were violations while
driving and he noted he thought the sponsor's intent was to only
cover "while not driving." Mr. George indicated a minor language
change might be necessary and he thought his organization would be
in support of the bill when the agreed-upon proposed committee
substitute was brought forward.
Number 2148
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to Section 2, subsection (b) of CSSB
158(L&C) [Version L]. He stated, "Notwithstanding the fact, you
can't cancel the insurance or deny coverage or anything else. You
could still rate the insurance and increase the premium, is that
correct?"
Section 2 of CSSB 158(L&C) read:
*Sec. 2. AS 21.89 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 21.89.027. Motor vehicle insurance following
driver's license revocation. (a) Notwithstanding AS
21.36.210, an insurer offering insurance in this state
may not (1) refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle
liability insurance coverage; (2) cancel an existing
policy of motor vehicle liability insurance; (3) deny a
covered claim; or (4) increase the premium on a motor
vehicle liability insurance policy if the refusal,
cancellation, denial, or increase results only from the
fact that the person's driver's license was revoked under
AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption
of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal
ordinance with substantially similar elements.
(b) The provisions of (a) of this section may not
prevent an insurer from underwriting or rating for a loss
experience in the same manner as it would for a person
who has not had the person's driver's license revoked
under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185.
Number 2162
MR. GEORGE indicated he did not have a copy of Version L in front
of him, but said, "It's my understanding ... that you could not
increase the premium on the policy, cancel it, fail to renew, or
deny a covered claim if the revocation was for -- the intent was
non-driving related incident. If you're at a party, the kid gets
caught with a beer in his hand, his license is revoked, and they
chose that because that's something [that's] really important to a
kid, but it's not a driving incident, and ... we're willing to buy
off on the fact that it's not driving so you don't rate their
insurance for that. Except if he's driving after that, then we
think ... we ought to be able to rate for that, and the way it was
originally drafted, we think we might be precluded from canceling
the policy if they've got this unlicensed kid driving the car while
he's got an administrative revocation." He commented that was
NAII's intent. He noted they were finding these very small flaws
that they were working on and he thought they would come up with a
solution.
Number 2204
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY gave the situation of four or five vehicles
owned in a family and one member receiving a speeding citation. He
asked if the whole policy would be penalized for that.
Number 2225
MR. GEORGE said he was not an insurance agent; he had a lot of
experience with regulating insurance. He stated it was his
understanding they would be rated on one vehicle but could not
swear to that.
Number 2235
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he did not believe that was the case.
MR. GEORGE said he was willing to accept he was wrong.
Number 2244
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated someone might own several vehicles
for different uses, noting he and his wife had four vehicles, and
if his wife received a ticket driving her car, the premiums on all
four vehicles would increase. He stated he did not think that was
fair or equitable, noting he didn't know if they could work
something out with this bill.
Number 2266
MR. GEORGE stated there was legislation passed into law the
previous year which required an insurance company to exclude a
named driver upon request by the insured. He indicated this could
be used to avoid paying the premium for a "wayward" child still
living at home by excluding the child from the policy by name. He
indicated the child would not be covered if he or she drove the
vehicle, and he thought Representative Cowdery could exclude his
wife this way from three of the vehicles, noting Representative
Cowdery would probably not want to do that.
Number 2295
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed both the vehicle and the person were
insured. He confirmed a vehicle, a person, and the two together
could be rated.
MR. GEORGE replied the coverage applied a number of different ways.
If a person owned a vehicle, there was coverage for an accident
with that vehicle no matter who was driving it if that person had
the owner's permission. If the owner of an insured vehicle was
driving a car owned by someone without insurance, the owner of the
insured vehicle would be covered while driving that non-insured
vehicle. He stated, "It covers you as a named person no matter
whose car you're driving, and it covers your car no matter who is
driving it." He indicated there were other policies which worked
differently, but this was the norm. He stated, "You can buy a
policy that only covers you while driving the specified vehicle
...."
Number 2333
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN asked if someone could exclude his wife even if
she had not had a ticket.
MR. GEORGE said he believed so, but only theoretically.
Number 2345
MICHAEL LESSMEIER, Lobbyist for State Farm Insurance Company, came
forward to testify. He said their primary concern was that the
legislation, as written, included driving situations and Senator
Taylor's focus had to do with non-driving situations. Mr.
Lessmeier said the bill specifically referred to AS 28.15.183 and
AS 28.15.185, noting AS 28.15.183 included someone who operated a
vehicle after consuming alcohol in violation of AS 28.35.280. He
added that AS 28.15.185 would include someone who refused to take
a breathalyser test after he or she was suspected of driving while
under the influence. Mr. Lessmeier said one of the difficulties,
which he thought Senator Rick Halford had brought up on the floor,
was insurance was not that complicated. Mr. Lessmeier indicated
insurers rated for risk and State Farm Insurance Company wanted to
be able to do so. He indicated they had been discussing language
to narrow the bill so that what the insurers would be prevented
from doing was rating for the person who had consumed alcohol in a
non-driving offense. Mr. Lessmeier indicated this was for a minor
consuming in a non-driving situation, so the family would not be
penalized and the minor would not be penalized later. He mentioned
they did have a concern that sometimes non-driving related behavior
carried over into driving behavior.
Number 2429
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this was embodied in Version P, or if
they were "still tuning on it."
MR. LESSMEIER replied they were still tuning, noting he had seen
Version P only shortly before the hearing. He stated, "Basically
it would involve inserting language saying, quote, "in a non-
driving related incident" in 'paragraph' 1 and I think that would
take care of it. We would insert that language after line 10,
"consumption of alcohol" and then we would insert the words, "in a
non-driving related incident" ...." Mr. Lessmeier confirmed he was
referring to Version P, the work draft, stating, "It would be page
2, line 10 ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE CHANGE]
Page 2, line 10, in subsection (a), Version P, read: "consumption
of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance
with". With Mr. Lessmeier's suggested change the language would
read: "consumption of alcohol in a non-driving related incident in
violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with".
Section 2 in work draft Version P read:
*Sec. 2. AS 21.89 is amended by adding a new section to
read:
Sec. 21.89.027. Motor vehicle insurance following
driver's license revocation. (a) Notwithstanding AS
21.36.210, an insurer offering insurance in this state
may not (1) refuse to issue or renew motor vehicle
liability insurance coverage; (2) cancel an existing
policy of motor vehicle liability insurance; (3) deny a
covered claim; or (4) increase the premium on a motor
vehicle liability insurance policy if the refusal,
cancellation, denial, or increase results only from the
fact that the person's driver's license was revoked under
AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185 for possession or consumption
of alcohol in violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal
ordinance with substantially similar elements.
(b) The provisions of (a) of this section
(1) may not prevent an insurer from
underwriting or rating for a loss experience in the same
manner as it would for a person who has not had the
person's driver's licensed revoked under AS 28.15.183 or
28.15.185; and
(2) do not apply to a liability insurance
policy covering a motor vehicle if the motor vehicle is
operated by a person during a period of driver's license
revocation imposed on the person under AS 28.15.183 or
28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in
violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with
substantially similar elements.
[Note: subsection (a) of Section 2 was identical in both Version L
and Version P, with identical line numbering.]
TAPE 98-42, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. LESSMEIER continued, "... Juanita Hensley has some concerns
with 'paragraph' 2, but that would address most of our concerns."
Number 0040
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor Vehicles
(DMV), Department of Administration, came forward to testify. She
questioned whether they were discussing Version P or Version L.
Number 0058
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated Version L, CSSB 158(L&C), was before the
committee. He indicated discussion of Version P would be allowed.
MS. HENSLEY noted she had worked with the legislative bodies when
the "use it, lose it" law was passed in 1994 and amendments were
made in 1996. She stated the testimony through the process and the
legislative intent at that time had been to make a license
revocation for "use it, lose it" a remedial action, not to
penalize. She stated, "It was discussed that we would not require
SR-22, high risk insurance, or place these individuals in a high
risk bracket and we put it even into Title AS 28.15 at the time of
a license reinstatement we would not require the SR-22 because ...
a lot of these were non-driving violations and why (indisc.) SR-22
certificate of insurance high risk if they were non-driving
violations? The problem was is that it did not get transferred
into Title 21 dealing with the Division of Insurance requirements,
and that's basically what this bill does. [It] comes back and
restates what was stated ... under the 'use it, lose it' law in
1994 and 1996, to place it in the Division of Insurance statutes.
It's already in Title 28, the motor vehicle laws, that we would not
require it. We've had several parents over the last few years call
and complain about the high risk insurance that their insurance
companies are charging them because their minor was picked up, as
Mr. Lessmeier said, out behind the ... barn ... and they weren't
driving."
Number 0235
MS. HENSLEY continued, "They could be at a party in possession of
alcohol or something and have their license revoked if they were
cited for minor consuming or minor in possession of alcohol." She
said it had become somewhat punitive in nature as opposed to being
remedial. She noted it was punitive to the parents, not
necessarily to the minor. Ms. Hensley mentioned an individual in
Petersburg, whose name she could research in her records, who
experienced an increase in insurance premiums from $900 every six
months to $3,600 every six months when the person's 16 1/2 year old
teenager was charged with minor consuming in a non-driving
situation. She commented that was an example of some of the
complaints she had been receiving and indicated she had also heard
from legislators calling on behalf of constituents with complaints
of that nature. Ms. Hensley said this bill had been introduced to
try to remedy that situation. She stated a parent had to give
consent for a driver's license for someone under 18 and when
parents signed that consent the parents were also signing consent
to be financially responsible, to have insurance or have a means of
paying for damages that child incurred.
Number 0386
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Hensley for the Title 28 provisions she
had referred to which had not been put in Title 21 regarding SR-22,
et cetera. He commented he would ask Ms. Burke about Title 21.
Number 0457
MS. HENSLEY stated it was under AS 28.15.183(e), which read, "(e)
Notwithstanding the provisions of AS 28.20.240 and 28.20.250, the
department may not require proof of financial responsibility before
restoring a driver's license, permit, or privilege that is revoked
under this section.". She said AS 28.15.185(d) contained the same
language; it read, "(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of AS
28.20.240 and 28.20.250, upon conviction of an offense specified in
(a) of this section, the department may not require proof of
financial responsibility before restoring or issuing the person's
driver's license.". Ms. Hensley said that change had been made in
1995.
Number 0522
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether that was merely the proof of having
insurance or if it was more than that.
Number 0527
MS. HENSLEY replied, "It's proof of financial responsibility for
the future which is ... certificate of SR-22."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what made an SR-22, questioning if that was
in the statute as citing.
MS. HENSLEY responded that AS 28.20.240 or AS 28.20.250 was
certificate of insurance and she indicated it required the
insurance industry to notify the DMV within ten days of
cancellation, and the DMV had to take action on the driver's
license if the person canceled that insurance policy during the
three-year period the person was required to carry SR-22.
AS 28.20.240 and AS 28.20. 250 read:
Sec. 28.20.240. Proof required when driving privilege is
restricted. Whenever under a law of this state the
license of a person is suspended, revoked, limited under
AS 28.15.201, or canceled for any reason, the department
may not issue to that person a new or renewal of license
until permitted to do so under the motor vehicle laws of
this state. A period of suspension, revocation, or
cancellation continues until proof of financial
responsibility for the future is provided. Upon
expiration of a period of limitation, the license remains
revoked until proof of financial responsibility for the
future is provided.
Sec. 28.20.250. Action in respect to unlicensed person.
(a) If a person does not have a license, but by final
order or judgement is convicted of, or forfeits bail or
collateral deposited to secure an appearance for trial
for an offense requiring the suspension or revocation of
license, or for driving a motor vehicle upon the highways
without being licensed to do so, or for driving an
unregistered vehicle upon the highways, a license may not
be issued to the person unless the person gives and
thereafter maintains proof of financial responsibility
for the future.
(b) Whenever the department suspends or revokes a
nonresident's operating privilege for conviction or
forfeiture of bail, the privilege remains suspended or
revoked unless the person has previously given or
immediately give proof of financial responsibility for
the future.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So the certificate of insurance under
those particular statutory provisions is the SR-22?" He confirmed
AS 28.20.240 and AS 28.20.250 were the SR-22.
MS. HENSLEY said that was correct.
Number 0597
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON confirmed Ms. Hensley had a copy of Version
P and asked if Mr. Lessmeier's conceptual amendment on page 2, line
10, created problems for her.
MS. HENSLEY replied she would have no problem with that for non-
driving violations. She said her objection to Version P was
subsection (2), under subsection (b), on page 2, lines 16 through
20. Version P, lines 16 through 20, read:
(2) do not apply to a liability insurance
policy covering a motor vehicle if the motor vehicle is
operated by a person during a period of driver's license
revocation imposed on the person under AS 28.15.183 or
28.15.185 for possession or consumption of alcohol in
violation of AS 04.16.050 or a municipal ordinance with
substantially similar elements.
MS. HENSLEY said if the insurance company denied a claim because
the minor's license had been revoked under AS 28.15.183 or AS
28.15.185, indicating she believed this subsection allowed that,
then, whoever had signed consent for that driver's license would be
financially responsible to the victim if that minor was involved in
an automobile accident. She commented, "That's a real concern that
I have. It - it kind of creates an area ... where I look it as
being ... it's going to encourage more parents to - to fall victim
under - under this provisions than what I think was intended
several years ago under the legislation."
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if it would be possible to have the
prime sponsor's representative speak to that.
Number 0788
MR. BENNET indicated they would conceptually return to Version L
and delete lines 16 through 20 which was subsection (2) under (b)
of Version P. He said on page 2, line 10, the words "in a non-
driving situation", would be inserted after "alcohol". Mr. Bennett
said their discussion would begin from that point. He noted he did
not believe subsection (2) under (b) would be required after that
change and thought he was in agreement with Ms. Hensley on that.
Number 0854
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Henley if her department supported the
legislation with that exception.
MS. HENSLEY indicated the changes Mr. Bennet mentioned would put
the legislation almost back to Version L and her department would
have no problem. She said she believed the Division of Insurance
had one more language change to Version L. On page 2, line 13,
after "rating", deleting the words "for a" and inserting "based
upon". Subsection (b) of Section 2 would then read, "(b) The
provisions of (a) of this section may not prevent an insurer from
underwriting or rating based upon loss experience in the same
manner as it would for a person who has not had the person's
driver's license revoked under AS 28.15.183 or 28.15.185.".
Number 0934
MARIANNE BURKE, Director, Division of Insurance, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development, came forward to testify. She
indicated the minor "wordsmithing" Ms. Henley had addressed would
clarify an earlier question as to whether or not an insurance
company could rate on bases other than license cancellation for
non-driving related incidence. She said, for example, if the
teenager who had lost his or her driver's license had also been in
a number of accidents, that would be legitimate rating basis, and
it would have nothing to do with the fact that the teenager's
license had been canceled for the non-driving incidence. Ms. Burke
stated, "By adding the 'based upon' it clarifies that you can use
those legitimate bases you had before, and you can't hide behind
the fact that it was non-driving related violation. I'd like to
just add to the earlier testimony that this is a very important fix
that is needed." She said the division had received numerous
complaints about nonrenewal of the policy. She noted there had not
been any complaints about increased premiums. Miss Burke informed
the committee there were only two reasons an insurance company
could "nonrenew" a personal automobile policy: nonpayment of
premiums or cancellation of driver's license. She said the
insurance companies were canceling or nonrenewing policies because
of the provisions of the "use it and lose it," and so the division
felt it was important to correct this. Ms. Burke noted the
Division of Insurance was in agreement with the proposed changes to
Version L discussed earlier, and felt they would make for a
stronger, clearer bill.
Number 1079
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated, "A lot has been said about how to cure
a problem, but I haven't heard much said about the opportunism of
these insurance companies taking advantage of a little crack to
reap huge amounts of money. Why is always that people have a
tendency not to discuss those things? I think some criticism is
due. If a young person has a revocation for drinking behind the
barn and four cars' premiums are knocked up by $3,600, I think it's
highway robbery, and I think perhaps we should consider a windfall
profit tax on that kind of activity. (Indisc.) put it back into
maintaining the roads perhaps. ... A buck's a buck, but when you
take advantage (indisc.) situation like that, it leaves a bad taste
in people's mouth."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he appreciated Representative Ryan's
comments and understood his level of frustration, recommending he
file legislation if he had a possible solution.
Number 1145
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the chairman wished to entertain an
amendment.
Number 1148
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would wait for another
proposed committee substitute from the sponsor. He confirmed with
Ms. Burke that under current state law, an insurer could only
cancel a policy for nonpayment or revocation of license.
MS. BURKE said that was correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "So they ... can't get out but they can
rate you up and charge you highway robbery, to quote some other
members of this committee."
MS. BURKE replied that was only if it was approved. She suggested
the person whose premium increased to $3,600 should file a
complaint with the Division of Insurance, noting the division would
certainly like to know. She said, "The complaints we have received
is they refuse to renew and use as a basis the fact that the
license has been revoked."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he would like Ms. Burke to speak to the
rating and the division's grievance procedure.
MS. BURKE responded the division would encourage the person to
obtain the one-page form, if he or she had that premium notice or
letter, and send the division a copy. Ms. Burke said the division
would investigate it; it was their job and they did it all the
time.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the statutory authority would be for
the division's investigation.
MS. BURKE replied, "Unfair business practices and the fact that
they were using a rate that was not approved."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked her to explain the meaning of "a rate that
was not approved."
Number 1255
MS. BURKE said the rates used by insurance companies had to go
through an approval process by the division. She stated, "There
are, however, underwriting criteria that they can apply. So, if
they used a rate that was approved by us -- first of all, it
wouldn't go from 900 [dollars] to 3,600 [dollars] every six months,
we would not approve such a rate. However, if they ... had
something that had been approved and it was more reasonable, but
used unfair underwriting practices, we would be able to get them
under ... provisions in [AS] 21.36, which are the unfair trade
practices. We encourage people to let us know anytime something
like this happens. That's our job and ... I take it very
seriously."
Number 1311
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY noted the division approved all rates and
asked if all the rates from various companies were similar or if
there was a large fluctuation in prices for the same coverage.
Number 1327
MS. BURKE said they were basically the same, noting it was very
difficult to find two policies that were exactly the same. She
commented everyone had their own marketing "bells and whistles."
She noted, however, the division kept and closely monitored the
statistics on the different portions of the auto insurance. She
commented there were medical, liability, comprehensive, "UM (ph)
UIM (ph)" portions.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS complimented Ms. Burke for her courage on
saying she approved the outrageous rates the insurance companies
charged for insurance.
Number 1393
MS. HENSLEY of the DMV noted she had one additional comment. She
stated, "If a minor ... is caught driving a motor vehicle with any
alcohol level ... Alaska's a zero tolerance state for anyone under
the age of 21. They are cited for drunk driving, and so that would
go on their driving record as a drunk driving offense. And that's
under [AS] 28.35.280 and 28.35.285 and 28.35.290. ... So it will
be noted on the driving record if they were actually driving [as]
an offense, and that is something that could be rated that's
separate from the revocation of the ... driver's license."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Just the consumption of alcohol ... they
don't have to reach the one point zero, is that correct?"
Number 1435
MS. HENSLEY repeated that Alaska had a zero tolerance for anyone
under the age of 21, so any level or odor of alcohol was considered
drunk driving for someone under 21 years of age.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG added, "And subject to all the ... penalties for
a DWI."
MS. HENSLEY noted a person in this situation would be subject to a
lesser penalty; it was an infraction as opposed to a class A
misdemeanor. She said the offense was punishable with a $1,000
fine, mandatory treatment and community work service.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that had been part of the "lose it or
use it" legislation.
MS. HENSLEY replied it was separate. She indicated it had been
passed in 1996 because the federal ISTEA [Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act] legislation required the state to
have a zero tolerance law for anyone under the age of 21.
Number 1500
MR. BENNETT returned to the witness stand and assured the committee
he would not come back before it without a bill in final form for
the committee's consideration. He stated he thought Senator Taylor
would give that same guarantee if he were present. He thanked the
departments and industry for their assistance.
Number 1518
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the bill would have the support of the
Administration and the industry, indicating this met with the
committee's approval. He stated SB 158 would be held.
Number 1579
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called an at ease at 4:39 p.m. The committee
came back to order at 4:44 p.m.
CONFIRMATION HEARING
Number 1580
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address
confirmations for the Governor's appointments to various boards and
commissions. He stated the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee, in accordance with AS 39.05.080, had reviewed the
qualifications in the following areas and recommended the
appointment of various members of boards and commissions be
forwarded to the joint session for consideration. He indicated the
signing of transmittal letters by individual members did not
reflect an intent by any member to vote for or against an
individual during any further sessions for the purpose of
confirmation.
Alaska State Board of Public Accountancy
Number 1627
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would first address the
confirmations of Marjorie J. Kaiser, CPA, Anchorage; Steven R.
Tarola, CPA, Barrow; and Sandra R. Wilson, CPA, Fairbanks, to the
Alaska State Board of Public Accountancy. He asked if there were
any objections. There being no objections, the names of Marjorie
J. Kaiser, Steven R. Tarola and Sandra R. Wilson advanced forward.
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors
Number 1650
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Donald J. Iverson, Anchorage; Scott McLane, PLS,
Soldotna; and Patricia Peirsol, Fairbanks, to the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors.
Chairman Rokeberg noted these confirmations were in the original
set of appointees. He asked if there were any objections. There
being no objections, the names of Donald J. Iverson, Scott McLane
and Patricia Peirsol advanced forward.
Board of Barbers and Hairdressers
Number 1679
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Lawrence R. Krupa, North Pole, to the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers. He asked if there were any objections.
There being no objection, Lawrence R. Krupa's name advanced
forward.
Board of Chiropractic Examiners
Number 1688
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Trevor V. Ireland, DC, Anchorage, to the Board of
Chiropractic Examiners. He asked if there were any objections.
There being no objections, Trevor V. Ireland's name advanced
forward.
Alaska Labor Relations Agency
Number 1699
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the committee would address the
confirmation of Karen J. Mahurin, Kenai, to the Alaska Labor
Relations Agency.
Number 1704
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a brief at ease at 4:46 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 4:49 p.m.
Number 1705
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee had before it the
confirmations to the Alaska Labor Relations Agency, stating the
committee would hold the name of Karen J. Mahurin, Kenai. He
stated the committee would transmit the name of Alfred L. Tamagni,
Sr., Anchorage. He asked if there were any objections to the
advancement of Mr. Tamagni's name.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS commented that Mr. Tamagni was a "real good
guy."
Number 1735
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, there being no objections, Alfred L.
Tamagni's name advanced forward.
Board of Marine Pilots
Number 1744
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Peter S. Garay, Homer, and Michael N. White,
Anchorage, to the Board of Marine Pilots. He asked if there were
any objections. There being no objections, the names of Peter S.
Garay and Michael N. White advanced forward.
Board of Marital and Family Therapy
Number 1750
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Dixie A. Hood, Juneau, and Elaine L. Williams,
Juneau, to the Board of Marital and Family Therapy. He asked if
there were any objections. There being no objections, the names of
Dixie A. Hood and Elaine L. Williams advanced forward.
State Medical Board
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Martha T. Cotten, MD, Eagle River and Constance E.
Livsey, Anchorage, to the State Medical Board. He asked if there
were any objections.
Number 1767
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he had no objection, but he noted Dr.
Cotten was the wife of a former Speaker.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated Dr. Cotten was the spouse of Sam
Cotten, the commissioner and chairman of the Alaska Public
Utilities Commission.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said it was his understanding Dr. Cotten was
well-thought of in her profession.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON stated he knew Dr. Cotten, commenting she was
a very good doctor and an ethical person.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that was his understanding. He asked if
there were any objections to either name. There being no
objections, the names of Martha T. Cotten and Constance E. Livsey
advanced forward.
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Number 1800
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Martha J. Linden, CNM, Anchorage, to the Board of
Certified Direct-Entry Midwives. He asked if there were any
objections. There being no objections, Martha J. Linden's name
advanced forward.
Occupational Safety and Health Review Board
Number 1810
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Dennis Davidson, Anchorage, and Carla Meek,
Juneau, to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Board.
Chairman Rokeberg wondered if Mr. Davidson was the former famous
basketball player from the early 1950s. He asked if there were any
objections to either name. There being no objections, the names of
Dennis Davidson and Carla Meek advanced forward.
Board of Pharmacy
Number 1830
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Paul Joseph Gionet, R.Ph., Anchorage, and Martin
Krull, R.Ph., Anchorage, to the Board of Pharmacy.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY objected to the advancement of Mr. Krull's
name.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Cowdery wished to speak
to his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated there were letters stating five of
the six members, including the public member, of the Board of
Pharmacy were from the Anchorage area, although Alaska Statutes
required the board to include at least one member from each
judicial district whenever possible [AS 08.80.010].
Number 1870
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted Representative Hudson was from Southeast
Alaska and the first judicial district. He asked Representative
Hudson if he had any knowledge of this particular situation,
indicating the language was "when available or appropriate."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated, "The board shall include at least
one member from each -- whenever possible -- from each judicial
district."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the language "whenever possible" and
confirmed with Ms. Armstrong that the committee had received
correspondence from Mr. Krull or some other people in regard to
this matter.
Number 1895
SHIRLEY ARMSTRONG, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, answered in affirmative. She stated the committee had
received two or three letters and an inquiry from Representative
Gene Therriault's office about Mr. Krull. She said nothing had
been about Mr. Krull's ability as a pharmacist; the controversy
surrounding his appointment had only to do with the feeling
Anchorage was over-represented and the preference would be for one
person from each judicial district as the statute stated. However,
Ms. Armstrong noted, as the chairman had said, the statute was
permissive, and not mandatory.
Number 1925
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed with Ms. Armstrong that the committee
had also had testimony from or spoken with Ms. Reardon [Catherine
Reardon, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing, Department
of Commerce and Economic Development] about this matter. He
indicated Ms. Reardon had spoken about Mr. Krull's position as
director of pharmacy for Carr-Gottstein Foods Company and Mr.
Krull's therefore unique position to understand the needs of the
Alaska pharmacy industry because he traveled throughout the state.
He asked Ms. Armstrong if the committee had heard that as formal
testimony.
Number 1944
MS. ARMSTRONG replied that Ms. Reardon, director of the Division of
Occupational Licensing, had spoken with Chairman Rokeberg and
herself after a committee meeting, explaining something of the
controversy. Ms. Armstrong indicated the explanation had been
given because Ms. Armstrong and Chairman Rokeberg had inquired if
the controversy had anything to do with qualifications. Ms.
Armstrong said Ms. Reardon had noted the dispute was of a regional
nature and said Mr. Krull was very well-qualified to sit on the
board, giving the reason the chairman related.
Number 1970
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he had been called upon by
pharmacists from Petersburg as well as Juneau, asking for regional
representation for Southeast Alaska on the board. Representative
Hudson noted he had not yet received any recommendations.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Hudson would like the
committee to hold the confirmation, on Representative Cowdery's
advice, to allow him some more time.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he would like to do that.
Number 2008
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed it was the sense of the committee to
hold Mr. Krull's name until Representative Hudson could give the
committee a report from the Governor's office about any success
(indisc.). He noted this was with no reflection on Mr. Krull's
ability. Chairman Rokeberg commented the committee would keep in
mind that Mr. Krull was from Anchorage, and if another name was not
brought forward shortly, the committee would continue with the
Anchorage person.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated the Governor would have to make
that nomination.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG briefly conferred with Ms. Armstrong about a
deadline date for the special action names. He noted
Representative Hudson had the charge of the committee to report on
the matter relating to Mr. Krull's name and the Board of Pharmacy
by April 15. Chairman Rokeberg stated he would take on
responsibility for Ms. Mahurin's name.
MS. ARMSTRONG informed the committee it had stopped on the
confirmation of Paul Joseph Gionet to the Board of Pharmacy. There
being no objections, Paul Joseph Gionet's name advanced forward.
State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy Board
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of Sundi M. Hondl, LPT, Wasilla, and Ann P. Mattson,
Juneau, to the State Physical Therapy and Occupational Therapy
Board. He asked if there were any objections. There being no
objections, the names of Sundi M. Hondl and Ann P. Mattson advanced
forward.
Board of Psychologist and Psychological Associate Examiners
Number 2081
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address the
confirmations of Carey S. Edney, Ph.D., Anchorage, and David J.
Sperbeck, Ph.D., Anchorage, to the Board of Psychologist and
Psychological Associate Examiners. He asked if there were any
comments from the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he believed Dr. Sperbeck was extremely
well-published and had coauthored a couple of publications with a
friend of Representative Ryan's, served on the staffs of Charter
North Hospital and Columbia Alaska Regional Hospital, and
Representative Ryan indicated Dr. Sperbeck might have some
involvement with the Department of Corrections. Representative
Ryan commented Dr. Sperbeck was well-received and well-qualified.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any objections to either
name. There being no objections, the names of Carey S. Edney and
David J. Sperbeck advanced forward.
Board of Certified Real Estate Appraisers
Number 2122
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Judy Kemplen, Anchorage, to the Board of Certified
Real Estate Appraisers. He noted he believed Ms. Kemplen was the
spouse of Representative Allen Kemplen. Chairman Rokeberg
commented he was not familiar with Ms. Kemplen's work as a real
estate appraiser, although he said that did not surprise him as he
was no longer active on a day-to-day basis in the Anchorage real
estate market. He asked if there were any objections. There being
no objections, Judy Kemplen's name advanced forward.
Real Estate Commission
Number 2149
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Audrey J. Foldoe, Fairbanks, to the Real Estate
Commission. Chairman Rokeberg stated he had heard nothing negative
or any problems in that regard about Ms. Foldoe. He stated she
seemed to be a very interested and conscientious worker. He asked
if there were any objections.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated he had no objections, noting he had
known Ms. Foldoe for perhaps 20 years. He commented they didn't
always agree on everything but he indicated he thought Ms. Foldoe
was competent in her profession.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, there being no objections, Audrey J.
Foldoe's name advanced forward.
Board of Veterinary Examiners
Number 2174
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmation of Deanna J. Thornell, DVM, Fairbanks, to the Board of
Veterinary Examiners.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN stated Dr. Thornell was a wonderful and nice
human being who volunteered often for the Yukon Quest. He said she
really liked animals, did an unpaid radio show to tell people about
how to treat animals, et cetera. Representative Ryan stated she
was a delightful person and very competent veterinarian.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, there being no objections, Deanna J.
Thornell's name advanced forward.
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
Number 2201
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would next address the
confirmations of John A. Abshire, Anchorage; Valerie K. Baffone,
Anchorage; Shawn Pierre, Chugiak; Florence S. Rooney, Anchorage;
and James G. Williams, Douglas, to the Alaska Workers' Compensation
Board. Chairman Rokeberg indicated Ms. Baffone, S. Pierre, Ms.
Rooney and Mr. Williams were being considered for reappointment to
the board. He asked if there were any comments or objections.
Chairman Rokeberg asked Ms. Armstrong if she had had any comments
with "Spallins (ph)" about any of these people.
MS. ARMSTRONG replied the committee had received no correspondence,
public opinion messages (POMs), telephone calls or any other
communication.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, that being the case, and there being no
objections, the names of John A. Abshire, Valerie K. Baffone, Shawn
Pierre, Florence S. Rooney and James G. Williams advanced forward.
Number 2231
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a very brief at ease at 5:02 p.m. The
committee came back to order at 5:02 p.m.
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors
Number 2237
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee address the confirmation
of Patrick Kalen, Fairbanks, to the State Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors. He asked Representative
Ryan if he knew Mr. Kalen.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN responded he had known Mr. Kalen for a number
of years.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned whether Mr. Kalen had been previously
rejected for the board or had withdrawn his name. Chairman
Rokeberg noted there had been some controversy a couple of years
previously.
Number 2250
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN said, "Pat plays politics. (Indisc.) may have
been something there ...." Representative Ryan indicated he had
never heard anyone complain about Mr. Kalen's surveying ability.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Representative Ryan had any problem with
Mr. Kalen's name.
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN answered in the negative.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, there being no objections, Patrick Kalen's
name advanced forward.
Board of Dental Examiners
Number 2262
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address the
confirmation of Raymond L. Lang, DDS, Nome, to the Board of Dental
Examiners. There being no objections, Raymond L. Lang's name
advanced forward.
Board of Dispensing Opticians
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address the
confirmation of Cynde M. Oleck, Fairbanks, to the Board of
Dispensing Opticians. He asked if there were any objections.
There being no objections, Cynde M. Oleck's name advanced forward.
Alaska Workers' Compensation Board
Number 2280
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address the
additional confirmation of Marc D. Stemp, Bethel, to the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board. He asked if there were any
objections. There being none, Marc D. Stemp's name advanced
forward.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2320
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|