Legislature(1997 - 1998)

02/06/1997 08:00 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                        February 6, 1997                                       
                            8:00 a.m.                                          
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Jeannette James, Chair                                         
 Representative Ethan Berkowitz                                                
 Representative Kim Elton                                                      
 Representative Mark Hodgins                                                   
 Representative Ivan Ivan                                                      
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Fred Dyson                                                     
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 18                                                 
 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska             
 relating to changing the rate of a tax or license that supports a             
 dedication of its proceeds.                                                   
      - FAILED TO MOVE CSHJR 18(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                          
 OVERVIEW:  Department of Transportation and Public Facilities                 
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 37                                                           
 "An Act relating to a requirement that a parent, guardian, or                 
 custodian consent before certain minors receive an abortion;                  
 establishing a judicial bypass procedure by which a minor may                 
 petition a court for authorization to consent to an abortion                  
 without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian; amending the             
 definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and 79, Alaska                
 Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508, and 512.5,           
 Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska                       
 Administrative Rules."                                                        
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 * HOUSE BILL NO. 65                                                           
 "An Act relating to partial-birth abortions."                                 
      - BILL POSTPONED                                                         
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HJR 18                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) IVAN                                            
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 01/29/97       164    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/29/97       164    (H)   STA, HES, JUD, FINANCE                            
 02/04/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/04/97              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/06/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB  37                                                               
 Dyson, Martin                                                                 
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG             ACTION                                       
 01/13/97        37    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97                           
 01/13/97        37    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/13/97        37    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 02/06/97              (H)   STA AT  8:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 THOMAS W. WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant                                       
    to Representative Ivan Ivan                                                
 State Capitol, Room 418                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-4589                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HJR 18.                            
 ROD WILSON, Staff Architect                                                   
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Transportation and Public Facilities                            
 3132 Channel Drive                                                            
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-6962                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented an overview of the Department of               
 Transportation and Public Facilities.                                         
 DUGAN PETTY, Director                                                         
 Division of General Services                                                  
 Department of Administration                                                  
 P.O. Box 110204                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0204                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2250                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented an overview of the Division of                 
 General Services.                                                             
 KEITH GERKEN, Architect                                                       
 Facilities (Juneau)                                                           
 Division of General Services                                                  
 Department of Administration                                                  
 P.O. Box 110210                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0210                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-5683                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented an overview of the Division of                 
 General Services.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY                                                     
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 411                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-2327                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HB 37.                                        
 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director                                                  
 Division of Public Health                                                     
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110610                                                               
 Juneau, Alaska 99811-0610                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 465-3090                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided testimony on HB 37.                             
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 97-8, SIDE A                                                             
 Number 0001                                                                   
 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by             
 Chair Jeannette James at 8:00 a.m.  Members present at the call to            
 order were Representatives James, Vezey, Ivan and Hodgins.  Members           
 absent were Berkowitz and Elton.                                              
 Number 0036                                                                   
 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced for the record that Representative            
 Fred Dyson was excused from today's meeting.                                  
 CHAIR JAMES further announced the meeting was listen only for the             
 teleconference network today due to time restraints.                          
 Number 0114                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES announced for the record the arrival of Representatives           
 Ethan Berkowitz and Kim Elton.                                                
 HJR 18 - DEDICATED FUNDS: RATE MAY BE CHANGED                               
 The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs            
 Standing Committee was HJR 18, Proposing an amendment to the                  
 Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to changing the rate             
 of a tax or license that supports a dedication of its proceeds.               
 CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Ivan Ivan, sponsor of the                
 bill, to present the amendment.                                               
 Number 0127                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN explained the intent of the amendment was            
 to try to meet the effective date of CSHB 1(STA) that passed out of           
 the House State Affairs Standing Committee this week.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN called on Thomas W. Wright, Legislative                   
 Assistant to Representative Ivan Ivan, to explain the amendment               
 Number 0181                                                                   
 THOMAS W. WRIGHT, Legislative Assistant to Representative Ivan                
 Ivan, stated the amendment was the result of a suggestion made by             
 James Baldwin, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law.  The            
 amendment made the resolution retroactive to October 1, 1997 to               
 coincide with the effective date of CSHB 1(STA).  The amendment               
 ensured there would not be a gap between the raised revenues from             
 the tobacco tax and the school fund.                                          
 Number 0251                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved that the amendment be adopted by the                
 committee.  There was no objection.                                           
 Number 0294                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN moved that CSHJR 18(STA) move from the                    
 committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal                 
 Number 0308                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.  He was opposed to the resolution              
 and objected on the grounds that a fiscal note was not attached.              
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wright if the resolution had a fiscal note?             
 Number 0346                                                                   
 MR. WRIGHT replied, "Yes."  A $3,000 fiscal note was attached, and            
 according to the Division of Elections, the note could go as high             
 as $56,000, depending on the number of issues on the ballot.                  
 Number 0434                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey if his objection was                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "Yes."                                          
 CHAIR JAMES called for a roll call vote.  Representatives James,              
 Berkowitz and Ivan voted in favor of the motion.  Representative              
 Elton, Hodgins and Vezey voted against the motion.  The CSHJR
 18(STA) failed to move from the House State Affairs Standing                  
 OVERVIEW:  Department of Transportation and Public Facilities               
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was an overview presentation by the Department             
 of Transportation and Public Facilities.                                      
 Number 0458                                                                   
 ROD WILSON, Staff Architect, Office of the Commissioner, Department           
 of Transportation and Public Facilities, (DOT&PF), explained the              
 presentation would cover an overview of the state's public                    
 facilities, and the issues affecting their usability.  The DOT&PF             
 asked that the Department of Administration also address the                  
 committee members today regarding the issue of lease space.                   
 MR. WILSON cited the state currently had 1,430 facilities statewide           
 that were occupied and maintained, excluding the university system.           
 The number increased to 1,805 when the university system was                  
 included.  The total square footage was 7.5 million square feet,              
 excluding the university system.  The number increased to 12                  
 million square feet when the university system was included.  The             
 age of the facilities ranged from new to 50 years old.  The oldest            
 facility was built in 1912.  The replacement value in 1995 dollars            
 exceeded $1.5 billion, excluding the university system.  The number           
 increased to $2.3 billion when the university system was included.            
 The average value was $200 per square foot.  The size of the                  
 facilities ranged from 100 square feet-a cold storage building-to             
 200,000 square feet-the State Office Building in Juneau.  And, the            
 activities of the facilities ranged from maintenance shops to                 
 airport terminals.  The facilities were located throughout the                
 state and often they were the most significant facility in the                
 MR. WILSON addressed the issue of deferred maintenance.  The                  
 department conservatively estimated that the magnitude was $100               
 million for executive branch agencies, and as high as $250 million            
 statewide, including the university system.  These figures were               
 based on a report from 1993.  He cited the following areas of                 
 deferred maintenance as examples:  roof deterioration problems,               
 structural problems, electrical problems, and interior finishes.              
 He announced the DOT&PF had requested through the Office of                   
 Management and Budget, $2 million for funding for the deferred                
 maintenance of five buildings.  These buildings were in dire need             
 of maintenance.  It would be up to the legislature to appropriate             
 that money.                                                                   
 MR. WILSON further addressed the issues surrounding the Americans             
 with Disabilities Act (ADA).  He explained there were 1,200                   
 buildings that did not comply with the requirements of the act,               
 according to a 1993 audit.  The assessment was $8 million, of                 
 which, the legislature funded in the fiscal years 1994 and 1995.              
 He explained 50 of the 1,200 facilities had been updated to meet              
 the act and were met with great approval from the disabled                    
 community.  He reminded the committee members that the act required           
 all building to meet the compliance requirements by July 1, 1995.             
 Therefore, the state was open to litigation.  The state had made a            
 good effort to comply which was probably why it had not heard too             
 much from the disabled community.  He speculated that the state               
 would probably hear more from them in the future, however.                    
 Number 1082                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated the figures Mr. Wilson mentioned were startling.           
 She believed that the state should consider selling the facilities            
 that it could not maintain.  It should consider entering into a               
 lease arrangement so that the maintenance would be included.  She             
 asked Mr. Wilson to respond.                                                  
 Number 1114                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied that issue was lease oriented rather than                  
 ownership oriented.  He was more in favor of owning a facility than           
 of leasing a facility.  He suggested that Mr. Dugan Petty,                    
 Department of Administration, could add more to the conversation              
 surrounding the issue of the cost of leasing.                                 
 Number 1148                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES expressed her concerns of the schools that were part of           
 the list that Mr. Wilson referred to earlier.  She was distressed             
 because the House State Affairs Standing Committee just turned down           
 an opportunity to guarantee money for schools by not passing CSHJR
 18 (STA) out of the committee.  She asked Mr. Wilson what could the           
 legislators do to convey to the people that this was a serious                
 Number 1195                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied media exposure would be helpful.  He would not             
 like to see exposure surrounding tragedies such as a roof                     
 collapsing, however.                                                          
 Number 1245                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES expressed her disgust of this issue.  She was pleased             
 that the camera was here today to help inform the public of the               
 seriousness of this issue.  A $2.3 billion replacement figure was             
 a big investment for the state.                                               
 Number 1284                                                                   
 MR. WILSON clarified that the $2.3 billion replacement figure did             
 not include the rural schools.  The value of the schools was                  
 between $3 billion to $4 billion statewide.                                   
 Number 1310                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated in 1993 she knew the numbers of the rural                  
 schools.  Most of the schools were in need of code upgrades due to            
 health, life and safety issues.  And, some of the schools had been            
 on a list for seven years to eight years.  The figure was roughly             
 $120 million and that included the schools in the organized                   
 boroughs that the state had assumed responsibility for their                  
 maintenance costs.                                                            
 Number 1349                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson how many of these                
 buildings were actually needed?                                               
 Number 1357                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied the department had not done an assessment of               
 occupancy in each facility.  He estimated that the state could                
 reduce the square footage about 5 percent.  Every facility was                
 occupied and used.  He did not know the efficiency of the                     
 occupancy, however.                                                           
 Number 1380                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if the cost he referred to            
 earlier included passed-through grants that had gone to buildings             
 that the state funded, but had a quasi ownership to?                          
 Number 1391                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied, "No."  These were facilities that the state               
 owned out right.  The monies that had passed through to other                 
 organizations and municipalities were not included in these                   
 Number 1402                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if there were certain areas           
 of the state that had more of a deferred maintenance problem?                 
 Number 1407                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied, "No."  The problem was spread across the entire           
 state.  There were facilities that received additional care, but              
 even that care was not at an adequate level to keep them                      
 Number 1420                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if the department had a               
 five-year plan?  Do you know how many new building were needed?               
 Number 1440                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied the department did not have an organized process           
 as to what new buildings were brought onto line.  He explained each           
 agency campaigned for its own needs.  The DOT&PF assisted other               
 departments to determine the cost and other issues, but it was the            
 responsibility of each agency to bring the matter forward to the              
 Number 1487                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Wilson who the department            
 worked with in the ADA community?                                             
 Number 1493                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied the department dealt directly with the                     
 Governor's Council for Employment of People with Disabilities.  The           
 council assisted the department prioritize its list of 1,200                  
 facilities.  In addition, the department had contact within local             
 Number 1525                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he would like a copy of the ADA               
 priority list Mr. Wilson referred to.  He asked Mr. Wilson what was           
 generally needed when there was a failure to comply with the ADA?             
 He wondered if the deficiency was the lack of a ramp, for example.            
 Number 1545                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied entrances to facilities was the top priority.              
 Nearly every building, he explained, had problems with rest rooms             
 because they were built tightly.  And, some buildings did not have            
 an elevator so access was limited to the upper floors.  He                    
 reiterated, probably the major one issue was entrances including              
 MR. WILSON further stated agencies conducted program remedies for             
 the ADA requirements.  The act actually said the programs and the             
 services must be available to the disabled individual.  Therefore,            
 provisions were made to have a representative of a service meet an            
 individual on the ground floor of an office building with no                  
 elevator, for example.  That was a suitable, temporary solution.              
 The department preferred to have a facility be in full compliance             
 so that the agencies had a wide variety of how they would use the             
 space within the facility.                                                    
 Number 1633                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson what percentage of office             
 space was leased versus owner occupied?                                       
 Number 1646                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied it was a 50/50 split right now.                            
 Number 1650                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if there was a situation              
 where the state was a landlord to a third party?                              
 MR. WILSON replied, "Yes, I believe so."                                      
 Number 1663                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Wilson if they would be practical            
 candidates to divest the assets to sell to the occupant?                      
 Number 1670                                                                   
 MR. WILSON responded Mr. Dugan Petty, Department of Administration,           
 could answer that question better.                                            
 Number 1676                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wilson how long had he worked in this                   
 MR. WILSON replied he had been with the department since 1985.                
 Number 1682                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Wilson if he had a suggestion for a systemic            
 solution to the deferred maintenance problem?                                 
 Number 1717                                                                   
 MR. WILSON explained Mr. Keith Gerken, Department of                          
 Administration, would address her concerns later in the overview.             
 The department did have some thoughts surrounding that issue.  It             
 could identify the problems, but it did not have a solution.  The             
 solutions, he believed, would come from the Alaska State                      
 Legislature because they were primarily budget issues.                        
 Number 1749                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated one solution was to have every state agency that           
 occupied a state owned building pay the rent.  She believed, if               
 that was a requirement, an agency would not occupy as much space.             
 Number 1766                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied he also believed there would be a reduction.               
 Number 1770                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Wilson if there was a dramatic             
 difference between leased space and state owned space in deferred             
 maintenance?  Was there a market incentive that meant the leased              
 space would be better maintained to meet the requirements of the              
 ADA, for example?                                                             
 Number 1812                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied he could only address that question from the               
 leased space he worked at-3132 Channel Drive, Juneau, Alaska.  He             
 explained, the care and the maintenance that went into the building           
 was much superior than what the state could put into in a                     
 comparable building.  It was also ADA accessible.  It was a newer             
 building so it would be easier to modify for the ADA requirements             
 compared to an older building, however.                                       
 Number 1850                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Wilson if the state would be better            
 off not buying old buildings to house state functions or state                
 people than constructing new buildings, for example?                          
 Number 1870                                                                   
 MR. WILSON stated in some cases he believed it would be more                  
 advantageous to the state to level an old building and either re-             
 build it or find space else where.  The state had some buildings              
 that were clearly not cost effective to keep them open.  There was            
 no other alternative at this point in time, however.                          
 Number 1893                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Wilson if the state leased any             
 facility from the Permanent Fund Corporation?                                 
 Number 1905                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied he had no idea.  He asked the committee members            
 to hold all lease questions for Mr. Dugan Petty, Department of                
 Number 1915                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY announced that the state of Alaska led the               
 nation in ADA compliance.  It was a huge nationwide problem, and              
 Alaska was ahead of the rest.  And, the legislature was remiss by             
 not addressing the state's Congressional delegation with a                    
 resolution asking that the goals be moved forward so that there               
 were no frivolous lawsuits.  He further suggested changes were                
 needed in the ADA.  He cited a building that was built in 1912                
 could not be economically renovated to meet ADA compliance.  There            
 were other ways, he declared, of allowing for handicap access, but            
 they were not allowed by the ADA.  He cited a common meeting place,           
 as an example.  Furthermore, he agreed it was cheaper to level a              
 building and build a new one than it was to upgrade the codes.  In            
 addition, the legislature made the codes by law.  He had never seen           
 an effort to address the law to recognize the inherent value in the           
 infrastructure that already existed.  Maybe, it was not necessary             
 to bring every building up to the same standard.                              
 Number 2032                                                                   
 MR. WILSON stated that was one of the things that he tried to                 
 address to Representative Berkowitz.  There was a program                     
 alternative.  A community could create a building that was totally            
 ADA accessible that contained 15 meeting rooms for various                    
 agencies, for example.  He reiterated the act said that the                   
 "programs and services" needed to be accessible.  The problem,                
 however, was diffusing the staff within an agency.  It would create           
 supervisory problems.  He believed this program would word best in            
 the rural communities.  This option was not being pursued by the              
 department, however, because there was no way it could pull the               
 agencies into a single unit.                                                  
 Number 2092                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated Mr. Wilson was just addressing the                
 current ADA.  He believed changes were needed to the act to                   
 encourage and make more options available.  Moreover, he cited in             
 1974 the state of Alaska adopted the building code that made every            
 facility in the state built prior to 1974 obsolete.  And, every               
 three years there were upgrades.  The requirements in the building            
 code were not designed for arctic conditions, and the state was               
 being straddled with the expenses.  He did not see how the state              
 could even afford to have public buildings much longer.  The                  
 operating costs of mandatory air changes in the arctic environment,           
 for example, would create prohibitive operating costs.                        
 Number 2131                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied he had testified on standards for air quality in           
 the past.  He was sympathetic to what Representative Vezey stated.            
 The air quality changes were not only difficult to do in the                  
 arctic, but energy consumption also increased dramatically.  The              
 codes that Representative Vezey referred to were adopted through              
 the Department of Public Safety and the Department of Labor, not              
 the DOT&PF.  The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities           
 was only responsible for the ADA.                                             
 Number 2161                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the codes he referred to were actually            
 adopted by the legislature.  The legislature recently gave the                
 agencies the authority to adopt the electrical code.                          
 MR. WILSON stated the Department of Public Safety and the                     
 Department of Labor were the two agencies that typically came to              
 the legislature with recommendations.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, "quite frankly, the Department of                
 Labor administers most of them, and they know the least about it of           
 anybody in the state."  There had not been an engine pushing from             
 the engineering or the architectural communities to address the               
 Alaskan modifications to the building code.                                   
 Number 2187                                                                   
 MR. WILSON stated a group of design professionals pushed for some             
 time for changes to the plumbing code.  The plumbing code still               
 worked off the 1974 requirements that called for cast iron piping             
 in commercial buildings.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that was changed last year.  The                  
 Department of Labor fought against plastic piping for 12 years.               
 MR. WILSON said that was a classic example of expenses that did not           
 need to be incurred.                                                          
 Number 2213                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented the studies he had read indicated              
 that maintenance and renovation were far cheaper than new                     
 construction because of reduced overhead.                                     
 Number 2250                                                                   
 MR. WILSON stated he agreed 100 percent with Representative Vezey.            
 It was more cost effective to maintain a building than it was to              
 let a building go un-maintained for a number of years then rebuild            
 Number 2259                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated mechanical systems could not be put               
 together in piecemeal.  At times, they had to be replaced.  Under             
 the code, however, sometimes it was necessary to bring the entire             
 building up to code.  That was when the economics was lost.                   
 Number 2271                                                                   
 MR. WILSON replied under most of the maintenance activities he did            
 not believe that was the case because of the 25 percent of the                
 building value provision.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he brought this issue up to acknowledge             
 that the legislature as a body was responsible for adopting a lot             
 of the codes, and there was a lack of interest in this subject.  He           
 had seen bills go through the body when he was the only person that           
 knew what was being voted on.  "But, we don't let that slow us                
 Number 2319                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated with ADA funds there was a lot of             
 money being spent putting in gold plated bathrooms and not enough             
 money being spent throwing down plywood ramps.  He asked Mr. Wilson           
 what was being done to make better wheelchairs?  Individuals were             
 only looking at engineering solutions.                                        
 Number 2341                                                                   
 MR. WILSON stated that was one of the original questions asked of             
 the federal government in 1990.  The response from the federal                
 government was that it was more concerned about making facilities             
 accessible than dictating how to build a better wheelchair.  He was           
 not convinced, however, that somebody out there could not build a             
 wheelchair to climb a set of stairs.  How accessible would that               
 wheelchair be? he wondered.  It became a question of affordability.           
 Number 2395                                                                   
 DUGAN PETTY, Director, Division of General Services, Department of            
 Administration, was the first person to present an overview of the            
 Division of General Services.  He explained the department allotted           
 space in state buildings, acquired and managed leased office space.           
 He cited the state had 1.6 million square feet of office space                
 under lease.  The three major office locations were-Anchorage,                
 Fairbanks and Juneau.  He cited 770,000 square feet of office space           
 in Anchorage and 41 leases.  That was the largest.  The average               
 cost was $1.56 per square foot.  He cited 135,676 square feet of              
 office space in Fairbanks and 31 leases.  The average cost was                
 $1.45 per square foot.  He cited 397,00 square feet of office space           
 in Juneau and 68 leases.  The average cost was $1.89 per square               
 TAPE 97-8, SIDE B                                                             
 Number 0001                                                                   
 MR. PETTY further explained the department's ADA requirements were            
 more stringent in its lease acquisitions.  The department must                
 comply with Title 2 of the act and treat it as if the state owned             
 it.  Moreover, the department worked with a space standard.  It               
 used an invitation to bid formula to acquire office space that took           
 into consideration the monthly cost.  It did not consider other               
 costs such as moving.  An average lease was five years with a                 
 renewable option.  The department discovered, however, that it was            
 moving every five years due to better prices from competition.                
 But, when the cost of moving was factored in, it was actually                 
 costing the state more money.  Therefore, the formula was modified            
 to factor in the other expenses.                                              
 MR. PETTY explained lease acquisitions were relatively long-six               
 months.  The department was required under AS Sec. 36.30.080,                 
 "Leases," to bring a lease replacement to the legislature if the              
 value exceeded $2,500,000, for approval.  In addition, other issues           
 surrounding leasing involved moving costs for agencies, for                   
 example.  An office space today required heating and electrical               
 sophistication to meet technology.  The ADA requirements also                 
 remained an issue.  When the state renewed a lease it required from           
 the leaser to meet the needs of Title 2 of the act.  That was not             
 a problem, it were the longer leases that had not moved towards               
 compliance that were a problem.  In addition, space was also an               
 issue for agencies when their programs expanded.                              
 Number 0377                                                                   
 MR. PETTY further explained in Anchorage it was a renters market.             
 In Juneau the prices were higher due to less competition.  For the            
 last ten years, funding had been an issue because the department              
 had received less money than it requested.  The biggest issue now             
 facing the department was the renewal of the Department of Natural            
 Resources building in Anchorage.  The department was also                     
 considering buying the National Bank of Alaska building in                    
 Anchorage.  That was contingent on the approval of the legislature,           
 Number 0536                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty what the average square foot           
 cost was in the rural areas?  He mentioned earlier the average                
 square foot cost in Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau.                          
 Number 0553                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied he did not have that figure with him now.  It was           
 an odd number.  The range was dramatic.  He explained it depended             
 on the location.  In Kenai the range was $1 to $1.35.  Whereas, in            
 Barrow, the department would be happy if the cost was $6.                     
 Number 0590                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty what the restraints and                
 requirements were before the state invested in lease-hold                     
 improvements?  And, how much of the budget would that be?                     
 Number 0600                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied tenant improvements were generally rolled into              
 the acquisition cost and amortized over the life of the lease.  He            
 cited the cost for office space was $10 to $15 per square foot in             
 Anchorage.  There was freezer space in the epidemiology department            
 in Anchorage, for example, that was fairly expensive.  There was a            
 lab lease in Juneau that required special vent hoods that was also            
 fairly expensive.                                                             
 Number 0684                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if the trend in lease-space            
 acquisition had grown?  Does the state own more buildings than what           
 was being leased 10 years ago, for example?                                   
 Number 0695                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the state had not seen an addition to the                   
 inventory in terms of big buildings or spaces.  It had seen some              
 incremental growth then decline.  In the late 1970's and 1980's               
 there were new programs that defaulted to existing space because              
 the state was not buying buildings nor building them.  The state              
 had only built very specialized building, such as, the crime lab in           
 Anchorage.  The lease-space portfolio had not changed either over             
 the last ten years.                                                           
 Number 0749                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if there were any                      
 constraints placed on departments or divisions when they requested            
 lease space?                                                                  
 Number 0759                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the department worked with them and held them               
 accountable to the space standards formula.  If specialized needs             
 were necessary, the department looked to them to pay for that.                
 Once it was part of the leasing budget, there was not a lot of                
 incentive for agencies to look to save space, however.                        
 Number 0826                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Petty if the department had a                
 priority basi                                                                 
 s?  And, was it suggested to the agencies when they requested                 
 Number 0842                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the department did that on a continual basis.               
 The department was obligated to get what the agencies needed in               
 terms of space to get their job done.  It had to be in accordance             
 with the space standard formula, and the price needed to be                   
 Number 0886                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Petty how the department evaluated             
 the value of leasing versus owning to the state?                              
 Number 0900                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the department looked at that on a situational              
 basis.  He stated leasing on a long-term basis was a costly                   
 proposition because the maintenance cost was 50 cents to 60 cents             
 per square foot.  It also paid for profit, overhead, principle on             
 interest, and taxes to the leaser.  Therefore, the state was not              
 getting any thing in return for its investment in a lease                     
 Number 1051                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated testimony indicated the state was $500            
 million behind in its deferred maintenance responsibilities.  The             
 state, therefore, was not putting 50 cents per square foot into               
 building maintenance.                                                         
 Number 1069                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied he did not disagree with Representative Vezey.              
 If the state did the job it should do with maintenance, in the                
 long-run it would be cheaper to own and preserve its public                   
 Number 1086                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated the leased space better served the                
 users because it was better maintained.                                       
 Number 1094                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied it was important to look at each situation.                 
 There were many leasers that did a good job maintaining the space.            
 There were problems too.                                                      
 Number 1138                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Petty if he knew if the state              
 leased space from the Permanent Fund Corporation?                             
 Number 1148                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the state did not lease directly from the                   
 Permanent Fund Corporation.  He understood the corporation was                
 interested in two buildings-the Goldbelt Building in Juneau and the           
 Frontier Building in Anchorage-that the state currently leased.               
 Number 1175                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Petty if he saw any problems or            
 benefits from leasing from the Permanent Fund Corporation?                    
 Number 1181                                                                   
 MR. PETTY replied the department would not have any difficulty if             
 the corporation was in that business.                                         
 Number 1310                                                                   
 KEITH GERKEN, Architect, Facilities (Juneau), Division of General             
 Services, Department of Administration, was the next person to                
 present an overview of the Division of General Services.  There               
 were very few people shocked to find out that the state was not               
 doing a good job maintaining its facilities.  He explained a group            
 of 45 to 50 people in November of 1996 gathered to agree/disagree             
 with a list of 20 indicators presented.  They agreed with all 20              
 and added 20 more.  The ten most important were the following:  a             
 $34 million shortfall in the annual maintenance funding to prevent            
 additional deferred maintenance, a $250 million deferred                      
 maintenance backlog, no overall policy for maintenance and                    
 operation of buildings, no statewide automated maintenance                    
 management system, a lack of a statewide capital improvement                  
 program prioritization process, a lack of criteria for an economic            
 model for decision making, no segregation of operating budget                 
 funding, a lack of funding to provide efficient space planning, no            
 point of responsibility established for the condition of state                
 facilities, and lastly, an inability to respond to changing federal           
 facility requirements.                                                        
 MR. GERKEN further stated that a group was established several                
 years ago to address solutions to the issue.  The group concluded             
 the following:  services should be delivered in a customer driven             
 organization, state agencies should be accountable for their space,           
 space should be allocated equitably, the state should be                      
 accountable for adequate future maintenance and repair, the state             
 should not ignore its public trust to provide stewardship of its              
 assets, the state should be innovative in applying technological              
 solutions and human resources, the state should have a funding                
 mechanism to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog, the state               
 should benchmark its performance, and the state should require a              
 contractual agreement between the customers and the service                   
 Number 1950                                                                   
 MR. GERKEN further stated the short-term objectives were                      
 incremental so that they would not impact the programs within the             
 agencies.  There were five pilot projects that the department was             
 working on now.  He cited the following:  the Nome Pilot Project,             
 expanding the automated management system, changing accounting                
 procedures to see what was really spent on facility maintenance and           
 replacement, creating a rental methodology, and working together              
 for more focus.                                                               
 Number 2062                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated some of the idea Mr. Gerken just mentioned had             
 been around for a long time.  She asked for written information               
 that he could provide to the committee members for further                    
 Number 2169                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented the one question that Mr. Gerken did           
 not address was, "Why couldn't the legislature get public support             
 to bring the building up to a level that met their requirements? "            
 That was the bottom line.                                                     
 Number 2258                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES gave notice of reconsideration on her vote on CSHJR
 18(STA).  The bill was scheduled to be heard in the House State               
 Affairs Standing Committee again on Tuesday, February 11, 1997.               
 HB 37 - PARENTAL CONSENT BEFORE MINOR'S ABORTION                            
 The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs             
 Standing Committee was HB 37, "An Act relating to a requirement               
 that a parent, guardian, or custodian consent before certain minors           
 receive an abortion; establishing a judicial bypass procedure by              
 which a minor may petition a court for authorization to consent to            
 an abortion without consent of a parent, guardian, or custodian;              
 amending the definition of `abortion`; and amending Rules 40 and              
 79, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; Rules 204, 210, 212, 213, 508,           
 and 512.5, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and Rule 9, Alaska            
 Administrative Rules."                                                        
 Number 2422                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, explained he             
 introduced HB 37 to enforce the current law that required parental            
 consent for a minor's abortion-AS Sec. 18.16.010, "Abortions."  A             
 parental consent law had been on the books since 1970.  In 1976 it            
 was declared unconstitutional by an attorney general without the              
 provision of a judicial by-pass.  House Bill 37 gave that by-pass.            
 TAPE 97-9, SIDE A                                                             
 Number 0001                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY further stated parental consent was pretty               
 clear and simple.  Parents had to give permission for a school                
 administrator or a doctor to give their child an aspirin, for                 
 example.  It was quite a shock to many Alaskans that their                    
 daughters could receive an abortion without consent.  In other                
 states, parental involvement laws had been on the books and had               
 made a positive impact on reducing the number of abortions and                
 teenage pregnancies.  He cited in Minnesota pregnancy rates fell by           
 20 percent, teenage abortions fell by 27 percent, and teenage                 
 birthrates fell by 12.5 percent.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY referred the committee members to Section 1,             
 "Purpose; Findings," page 2, and read, "(3) the capacity to become            
 pregnant and the capacity for mature judgment concerning the wisdom           
 of an abortion are not necessarily related;"  He believed this was            
 true and that teenagers stood to benefit from the support and                 
 counsel from the parents during one of the most stressful times of            
 their lives.  He was aware that not all families were supportive              
 and that some were abusive.  That was the nature of the judicial              
 by-pass.  Legislators should not focus completely on abusive and              
 dysfunctional families when making public policies because most               
 families were supportive of their children in Alaska.  He urged the           
 members to give this bill consideration and to pass it from the               
 committee.  He called it a common sense bill.  It was a bill that             
 "most Alaskans can put in their hip pocket and understand and agree           
 with.  In fact, most do.  They think that people don't have the               
 right to come in to their family and cause their children to do               
 things that they would disagree with."  Most surgical techniques              
 were very safe, but there were risks involved.  People still died             
 from legal abortions.  Doctors made mistakes.  The parents needed             
 to be involved to relate medical history so that the procedure, if            
 chosen, would go in the most smooth and beneficial way possible.              
 He again asked for the support of the committee members.                      
 Number 0250                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly what his                  
 position was on abortion?                                                     
 Number 0271                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "I am pro-life."                                
 Number 0276                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if there were             
 any circumstances that he would find abortion to be acceptable?               
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "To protect the life of the mother."            
 Not the emotional well-being of the mother, he explained, but to              
 protect her life.                                                             
 Number 0297                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if HB 37 was              
 part of a wider strategy regarding abortion?                                  
 Number 0304                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the strategy of HB 37 was to provide             
 parental notification so that parents would know when surgical                
 procedures were being performed on their children.  Just like when            
 they were required to be informed when their children were given an           
 aspirin, for example.                                                         
 Number 0327                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if there were             
 any companion bills to HB 37?                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied, "I am not offering any companion                
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if he would               
 offer any companion bills to HB 37 in the future?                             
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he would offer future bills on                   
 abortion as he saw fit.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly what sort of              
 bills would he offer?                                                         
 CHAIR JAMES announced the questions of Representative Berkowitz               
 were out of context to HB 37.  She asked him to refrain from those            
 Number 0371                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, in his opinion, if HB 37 was the               
 first salvo in an attack on abortion rights....                               
 Number 0383                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected.  The rules of debate were clear, he            
 said.  "What may come before this committee at a future date was              
 not what we were doing."                                                      
 Number 0399                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated Representative Berkowitz was entitled to his               
 opinion, but the issue on the table was HB 37, and any future bills           
 were not part of the discussion.  She asked him to rephrase his               
 Number 0430                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated he may have misspoken earlier.  He was            
 a co-sponsor of HB 65.                                                        
 Number 0464                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly to walk him               
 through the process that he saw as a result of HB 37.  A young                
 woman found herself pregnant, then what would happen?                         
 Number 0479                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied in the best situation she would talk             
 to her parents about it and then it would become a family decision.           
 If she decided for whatever reason that she could not talk to her             
 parents about it, there was a provision that allowed her to go to             
 a judicial by-pass.  The judge would then decided if there was a              
 level of maturity adequate enough to make a decision without                  
 parental consent, or if there was abuse involved.                             
 Number 0541                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated Representative Kelly presumed that            
 the young woman would immediately head to the court house.                    
 Number 0548                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said he could not speak on every case.  That             
 would be the public policy.  The option would be available to go to           
 the courts if they chose not to go to their parents.  It would be             
 up to a judge if they "would get the relief that they sought."                
 Number 0578                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how long was              
 the time frame for this decision?                                             
 Number 0585                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied five days.                                       
 Number 0597                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kelly if five days was the                   
 decision making time allowed?                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied it was decision making time for the              
 Number 0610                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly if he knew how            
 many people in the state would be affected by HB 37?                          
 Number 0622                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the information was in the fiscal                
 Number 0635                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES explained there was a proposed committee substitute               
 that needed to be adopted.  She asked for a motion.                           
 Number 0647                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the committee adopt the proposed            
 committee substitute, 0-LS0227/E, Lauterbach, dated 1/21/97.                  
 Number 0667                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected.  A roll call vote was taken.               
 Representatives James, Hodgins, Ivan and Vezey voted in favor of              
 the motion.  Representatives Berkowitz and Elton voted against the            
 motion.  The committee substitute was adopted.                                
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Kelly if the fiscal note would               
 change with the committee substitute?                                         
 Number 0714                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he had a committee substitute from the           
 Senate bill that was identical to the adopted committee substitute.           
 The fiscal note addressed 112 people.  It contained the most                  
 current information.                                                          
 Number 0782                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly, of the 112               
 people in the fiscal note, how many came from "unhealthy" families?           
 Number 0797                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied the fiscal note was an estimate of the           
 future from the Administration.  He assumed it would be a mixture             
 of children from abusive homes and children that were adequately              
 mature to make their own decision.                                            
 Number 0819                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly how many of the           
 CHAIR JAMES stated that was a question that did not have an answer.           
 The fiscal note was a calculation based on existing numbers.  She             
 did not see how Representative Kelly could answer that question.              
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ replied, "I beg to differ."                          
 CHAIR JAMES reiterated it did not have an answer.  Please try                 
 another question.                                                             
 Number 0855                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Representative Kelly, of the 112               
 people in the fiscal note, how many were in areas beyond the reach            
 of a court?                                                                   
 Number 0866                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that question was a concern of Dr.               
 Nakamura, Department of Health and Public Services, who would                 
 testify later.  There was not a court in every town or village in             
 the state.  And, there was a great distance for people to travel to           
 get permission.  However, there were no facilities to perform an              
 abortion in most of those places either.  They would have to travel           
 to a town with a court in it anyway.  That was the reason for a               
 five day waiting period.                                                      
 Number 0928                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Kelly if he had reviewed            
 the American Medical Association's (AMA) position on informed                 
 consent laws?  Please comment on why its position that informed               
 consent might increase the health risk to teenagers might be wrong.           
 Number 0962                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he disagreed that it might cause an              
 increased health risk to teenagers because absent of parental                 
 involvement there was limited access to medical history.  Moreover,           
 he agreed that this was a deeply private decision.  A decision that           
 a family needed to make.  That was the only part of the opposing              
 rhetoric that he agreed with.  He wanted to be involved when his              
 child had a case of strep throat.  He wanted to go the doctors                
 office to answer the questions that needed to be answered.  Most              
 teenagers could not answer those questions about themselves.  He              
 believed it was more dangerous to undergo surgery without that type           
 of information.                                                               
 Number 1046                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated he understood what Representative Kelly           
 said, but that was not what the AMA believed.  He stated he was not           
 concerned about the children in Representative Kelly's family                 
 because it was an intricate unit.  However, there were a lot of               
 dysfunction families.  Those were the ones that he was concerned              
 about.  In fact, some of the family members could be at fault in              
 the pregnancy.  He was not comfortable with an approach that said             
 dysfunctional families had to be involved in this type of decision.           
 Number 1105                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that was the heart of HB 37-the                  
 judicial by-pass.  The original statute since 1970 called for                 
 parental consent.  The courts recognized that there were                      
 dysfunction families so some relief was needed.  The bill perfectly           
 addressed the concerns of Representative Elton.                               
 Number 1140                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained one judge in middle America denied             
 a judicial order for an abortion due to immaturity because the                
 minor did not take the issue to her family.  There were no                    
 standards that the court system applied, he declared.                         
 Number 1189                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES commented it made her feel good that someone else did             
 not have faith in the courts.                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON replied only sometimes.  It depended on the              
 Number 1201                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that judges were human.  They would              
 make mistakes.  More importantly,  "Children are human, and they're           
 going to make a lot more mistakes."  He wanted the parents or the             
 courts to be involved so that they would make fewer mistakes and              
 better decisions.  The mistakes were life threatening or could                
 cause sterility and horrible depression, for example.  The bill did           
 not address the issue of stupid judges and kids.                              
 Number 1242                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that dumb decision were made and in the           
 past it forced them into doing something that was illegal which               
 increased the health risk.  Moreover, he stated he found Section 1,           
 "Purpose; Finding," incongruous.  The findings indicated that                 
 immature minors lacked the ability to make informed decisions.  He            
 wondered if this also meant that they had the ability to be a good            
 Number 1284                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied civilization at large would say that             
 children lacked the ability to make informed choices.  He cited he            
 was constantly signing consent forms for his children for field               
 trips, for example.  He did not care if his child went on a field             
 trip.  There was the issue of liability, however.  The schools were           
 terribly concerned about a field trip because they believed a child           
 could not make an informed choice so it was necessary to cover                
 themselves legally.  But, when it came to an abortion, he asked,              
 "Why was that outside the umbrella?"                                          
 Number 1363                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Representative Kelly, if they lacked               
 that capacity, was he comfortable with their capacity to be a good            
 Number 1373                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that was when the family was needed.             
 Maybe the child was not capable of being a great parent, but the              
 family would gather around and help raise that child.  That would             
 not happen in every situation.  There were dysfunctional families.            
 Public policy should not be made, however, on the basis of a                  
 minority of dysfunctional families.  The judicial by-pass would               
 allow for a forum to go around those families.                                
 Number 1413                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated Representative Kelly was concerned            
 about a juvenile's immaturity in this forum.  Whereas, in other               
 forums he was concerned about a juvenile's waiver.  He asked                  
 Representative Kelly to reconcile those two differences.                      
 Number 1429                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied he would be happy to answer that                 
 question, but he was asking about bills that were not before the              
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated he was asking about a juvenile's              
 Number 1437                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Berkowitz to ask specific                    
 questions about HB 37.                                                        
 CHAIR JAMES stated the House State Affairs Standing Committee just            
 passed a tobacco tax bill out of committee.  The bill did not trust           
 children to have the ability to make decisions.  She wondered, "If            
 it's okay for one thing, is it okay for another?"  There were                 
 fringe elements involved so let's talk about the issue before us              
 and not deviate.                                                              
 Number 1526                                                                   
 DR. PETER NAKAMURA, Director, Division of Public Health, Department           
 of Health and Social Services, commented there appeared to be room            
 for consensus.  We all agreed that a concerned parent should be               
 involved.  Fortunately, that was true in the majority of the cases.           
 Studies showed that about 61 percent of young women involved their            
 parents.  Another 20 percent involved a responsible adult such as             
 a clergyman.  Unfortunately, of the 40 percent who did not obtain             
 parental consent, one-third lived in an abusive home.  He was                 
 concerned that the bill would put these young women into greater              
 risk of harm-physically and/or psychologically.  The remaining                
 option would be to obtain an illegal abortion.  He cited a young              
 woman in Alaska today would be on life support and in the hospital            
 for at least one year because the options did not seem available to           
 her.  He did not want to force a young woman into this situation.             
 It was a real issue.  Moreover,                                               
 DR. NAKAMURA further stated the judicial by-pass made sense.  It              
 gave an option.  However, the process was not friendly, especially            
 for minors.  And, he wondered if it would even be available to                
 those in the rural areas.  He was concerned that the young woman              
 would wait until the choices were few and the risks went up.  He              
 was also concerned about the ability to maintain confidentiality.             
 He explained he served as a pediatrician in Bethel.  He had worked            
 in the rural communities.  He knew it would be virtually impossible           
 to maintain a level of confidentiality.                                       
 Number 1809                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated that Dr. Nakamura indicated that even now there            
 were illegal abortions.  House Bill 37 would not change that.  A              
 judicial by-pass would not have made a difference.                            
 Number 1833                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied, yes, an individual could access the judicial            
 system if it really was available.                                            
 Number 1858                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES explained she raised 3 of her own children and 19                 
 foster children.  From her experience with her foster children, she           
 discovered the best success was to build a new relationship with              
 the parents.  The biological connection was extremely important.              
 Moreover, a situation such as a pregnant teenager, pulled the                 
 family together.  She asked Dr. Nakamura if he saw the value of               
 encouraging the children to communicate with their parents-not in             
 cases of abuse-but in cases of disciplinary issues, for example?              
 Number 1941                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied there were situations where there would be               
 positive gains.  That would be on a case-by-case basis.  Hopefully,           
 the system would always work with parents no matter how un-                   
 supportive they might be to try and turn the situation around.                
 However, to put a child into that relationship without support                
 could compromise and endanger the child.  Moreover, a crisis                  
 situation was very volatile, and to try to bring about that type of           
 a relationship was extremely difficult.                                       
 Number 2011                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES explained she knew of a situation where a child was too           
 embarrassed and more concerned about the effects on the parents to            
 talk to them.  She asked Dr. Nakamura, if one child was saved, and            
 three were lost, what was the balance?                                        
 Number 2046                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied decisions were made based on the greatest                
 gain.  Fortunately, the majority of the children already had this             
 relationship with their parents-a law was not needed to bring this            
 about.  And, those that did not would be hurt.  There were 11,000             
 deliveries per year in Alaska and roughly 4.5 percent were from               
 children under 17.  Nationally, 40 percent of young woman had an              
 Number 2108                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated there was an extended family system in             
 the rural communities to protect foster children.  He cited the               
 Indian Child Welfare Act was established so that the village                  
 council could represent some of the children being discussed today            
 to ensure their safety.  The rural communities were not as helpless           
 as some people might think.  He expressed his support of HB 37 as             
 a result of his own upbringing.  He believed that families should             
 take care of themselves and their children.                                   
 Number 2197                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied there was a wonderful extended family in the             
 rural communities.  It was not uncommon to find a child being                 
 raised by a cousin or an aunt.  The mandate in the bill, however,             
 would not allow the extended family members to work with the child.           
 The legal parent would be responsible.  This would aggregate any              
 sense of confidentiality because the real parent would need to be             
 Number 2229                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated he disagreed with Dr. Nakamura.  If the            
 extended family was not involved, then the village community would            
 provide legal representation wherever possible.  That was the basic           
 foundation of the village tribal government's responsibility.  He             
 saw HB 37 as an option to parents.                                            
 Number 2267                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked Dr. Nakamura if he was concerned about the                  
 children contacting parents when it might not be a good idea?  And,           
 if he was concerned about the judicial by-pass being intimidating             
 to a child in comparison to going to an abortion clinic for                   
 support?  She did not see that the bill would force a child to go             
 to his parents unnecessarily because of the judicial by-pass.  It             
 was another choice for the child.                                             
 Number 2338                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied Representative James was exactly                 
 correct.  Others, such as, school counsellors in the past had                 
 encouraged children to seek an abortion without notifying the                 
 parents.  Those counsellors would still be available.  "What brings           
 the children to the court, will probably be the same thing that               
 brings them to the abortion clinic.  And, that is a counsellor, a             
 teacher, a school nurse or what not."  He did not think a child               
 would go through this process alone.                                          
 TAPE 97-9, SIDE B                                                             
 Number 0001                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA commented that a normal delivery was more dangerous              
 than an early abortion.                                                       
 Number 0026                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE ELTON explained he had a unreasonable fear of                  
 doctors and attorneys.  "This is an incredible threshold question             
 for a very young person to have to choose-do I tell a family member           
 that might hit me, or do I go to an attorney or put myself in the             
 hands of attorneys that I don't know and don't know anything                  
 about?"  He asked Dr. Nakamura if he was concerned of more                    
 instances of young women in the hospital due to illegal abortions             
 as a result of parental consent?                                              
 Number 0080                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied, "That's correct."                                       
 Number 0082                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated she believed there might be some families healed           
 over this piece of legislation.  That was based on her practical              
 experience as a foster parent.                                                
 Number 0100                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Dr. Nakamura if he knew how many               
 young woman died from an illegal abortion in Alaska last year?                
 Number 0106                                                                   
 DR. NAKAMURA replied, "None."                                                 
 Number 0137                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee              
 meeting at 10:30 a.m.                                                         

Document Name Date/Time Subjects