HB 129-FISH & GAME: OFFENSES;LICENSES;PENALTIES  1:02:11 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 129, "An Act relating to sport fishing, hunting, or trapping licenses, tags, or permits; relating to penalties for certain sport fishing, hunting, and trapping license violations; relating to restrictions on the issuance of sport fishing, hunting, and trapping licenses; creating violations and amending fines and restitution for certain fish and game offenses; creating an exemption from payment of restitution for certain unlawful takings of big game animals; relating to commercial fishing violations; allowing lost federal matching funds from the Pittman - Robertson, Dingell - Johnson/Wallop - Breaux programs to be included in an order of restitution; adding a definition of 'electronic form'; and providing for an effective date." CHAIR CLAMAN advised that subsequent to the meeting of 2/7/18, the Department of Administration (DOA) submitted an updated indeterminate fiscal note. 1:03:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to adopt Amendment 1, Version 30-GH1687\D.1, Bullard, 1/30/18, which read as follows: Page 5, line 14, following "subsection": Insert ", as adjusted for inflation as provided  in (d) of this section," Page 5, line 27: Delete "a new subsection" Insert "new subsections" Page 6, following line 3: Insert a new subsection to read: "(d) Beginning July 1, 2023, and every five years thereafter, the department shall recalculate and update by regulation the restitution amounts provided in (b) of this section to adjust for inflation, based on a formula provided by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development, reflecting the change in the Consumer Price Index for the Anchorage metropolitan area compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, rounded to the nearest $50 increment." Page 7, line 13: Delete "2017" Insert "2018" REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected. 1:03:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS advised that Amendment 1 adjusts the restitution amounts within CSHB 129, which are belatedly adjusted for inflation after 30-odd years, to be adjusted for inflation every 5-years, out into the future. Thereby, he said, the amounts will keep pace with economics and not become outdated as they have, which has been part of the cause for "the meat of this bill." 1:04:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN noted that the amendment references "based on a formula" and requested a description of the formula. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opined that the formula is that which the Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) uses to calculates inflation every year. While he does not know the inputs to the formula, he said he does know that this is a metric used in law for many of the state's administrative functions, and he described it as a "common CPI formula." 1:05:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether there is a cap on how high these fees could be raised based on the formula. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS responded that he did not believe there was a cap because consumer price increase (CPI) over a 5- year period is approximately 4.5 percent, the restitution amounts would increase 4.5 percent. He opined that there would not be anything that limits the amount the restitution would increase because it would be tied to inflation, and if inflation runs away, the corresponding increase would also be there as well. 1:06:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether his reading was correct in that this formula says, "$25 and a penny" and that will bump it up to a $50 increase. 1:06:57 PM NOAH STARR, Staff, Representative Kreiss-Tomkins, Alaska State Legislature, responded that it would be rounded up to the nearest $50 increment. 1:07:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN commented that his initial thought was that this deals with some fairly large figures here and there could be fines up to $25,000, even without an increase in inflation. He offered concern that if these formulas work automatically, the legislature might be lax in its attention and it may go even longer than the 30-years. Potentially, he said, there could be large fees that the legislature should approve before the fees go into effect. 1:08:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP offered concern for Amendment 1, noting that for any type of bail schedule or fee schedule printing or training, the more those issues can be standardized and stay the same is certainly better from an enforcement perspective or, in this case, a restitution perspective. Secondly, he said, the numbers amended with this bill have not been amended for at least two decades or longer, and the department offered the committee a number it believed would be reflective, not just for 5-years, but this would be "good to go" for some time. He opined that it would take some of the fluidity out of the law and make it easier to track over time, both from a training, printing, and updating method if the legislation was left as presented to the committee by the department. 1:10:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 1:10:32 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Stutes, and Claman voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1, Version 30-GH1687\D.1. Representatives Kopp, Millett, and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 1:11:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt Amendment 2, Version 30- GH1687\D.5, Bullard, 2/8/18, which read as follows: Page 2, line 31, through page 3, line 2: Delete "as provided in AS 12.55 [BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BY BOTH]" Insert "by a fine of not more than $5,000 [$1,000], or by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by both" Page 4, lines 12 - 14: Delete "punishable as provided in AS 12.55 [, AND UPON CONVICTION IS PUNISHABLE BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH]" Insert ", and [UPON CONVICTION] is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 [$5,000], or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both" Page 6, lines 9 - 11: Delete "[AND, UPON CONVICTION, IS] punishable as  provided in AS 12.55 [BY A FINE OF NOT LESS THAN $100 NOR MORE THAN $500]" Insert "and [, UPON CONVICTION,] is punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000 [$500]" Page 6, lines 25 - 27: Delete "[AND IS] punishable as provided in  AS 12.55 [BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN ONE YEAR OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $5,000, OR BY BOTH]" Insert "and is punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year or by a fine of not more than $10,000 [$5,000], or by both" Page 7, lines 2 - 5: Delete "[, AND UPON CONVICTION IS] punishable as  provided in AS 12.55 [BY IMPRISONMENT FOR NOT MORE THAN SIX MONTHS, OR BY A FINE OF NOT MORE THAN $1,000, OR BY BOTH]" Insert ", and [UPON CONVICTION] is punishable by imprisonment for not more than six months, or by a fine of not more than $5,000 [$1,000], or by both" 1:11:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that the $25,000 figure the department changed for misdemeanors, appeared to be a bit too high for misdemeanors. Particularly, she offered, when these are misdemeanors against the people that the department would probably be able to collect money, so she changed the amount. 1:11:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked what is the highest fee that would be assessed under Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX responded that the highest fee assessed under the amendment would be $10,000. 1:12:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked whether Representative LeDoux had received any feedback from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers or anyone else regarding Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX answered that she had not, and added that the administration, when going over this bill with her office staff, did not mention the change from ... "that there was going to be a now $25,000 fine." 1:13:14 PM CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he understands Representative LeDoux's concern in that if there is a potential $25,000 fine limit on a class A misdemeanor, the folks charged with fish and wildlife violations may be one of the small number of folks in the state being fined at that higher level. From his personal experience in dealing with a few fish and wildlife criminal cases over the years, those cases tend to be plea negotiated and worked out in advance, he advised. In that regard, he did not see much potential in someone would receiving a $25,000 fine that "they didn't actually decide was their choice to embrace for a variety of reasons." He added that he likes the idea of greater uniformity in the statute rather than many exceptions. While, he understands the concerns, he will be a no-vote on Amendment 2 even though it is an important issue and he was glad it was before the committee, he commented. 1:14:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES removed her objection. There being no objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 1:15:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 3, Version 30- GH1687\D.4, Bullard, 2/8/18, which read as follows: Page 2, following line 26: Insert a new bill section to read:  "* Sec. 4. AS 16.05.340(a)(6) is amended to read: (6) Resident hunting, trapping, and sport fishing license .................. 75; (A) however, the fee is $5 for an applicant who has an annual family or household income equal to or less than the most recent poverty guidelines for the state set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for the year preceding application; (B) a person paying $5 for a resident hunting, trapping, and sport fishing license shall [MUST] provide proof of eligibility under this paragraph when purchasing [REQUESTED BY] the license [DEPARTMENT]." Renumber the following bill sections accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE STUTES objected. 1:16:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN referred to the handout received from the department regarding the numbers from 2017, [document unavailable], depicting that approximately [18,594] low-income licenses were sold in Alaska. The difference between a regular license and a low-income license is that it moves from $94 to $5, with a $90 difference. He remarked that a number of concerns were raised over the fact that there is no verification for this $90 license discount, where basically, a person goes to a clerk at Walmart and requests a low-income hunting or fishing license wherein the person's signature represents their qualification, and they pay $5. There is no verification to that process resulting in a of significant amount of revenue not going to the state. The concerns are that much of those discounts are given to people who do not qualify and because there is no verification at the time of purchase, the Alaska State Troopers are required to follow up with questions as to how they qualify, which puts a burden on the troopers. He suggested that if the verification was in place, the troopers would not have to follow up with questions. This amendment encourages the department to ensure that there is some verification which could be as simple as showing their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) card or proof of SNAP eligibility to the clerk when purchasing a license, and significantly reduce the number of licenses sold fraudulently. Currently, he said, the revenue that was lost if "we're talking about people paying the full price," was over $1.6 million last year. Except, he advised, it is actually a much larger number because for every dollar spent on hunting or fishing licenses, the state receives a 3-to-1 federal match. Therefore, the amount of the foregone revenue for the state last year was actually over $6.6 million if those licenses had been purchased at the full price. While, he said, the legislature does want people to continue to qualify for the low-income $5 license, it is important they verify that they actually do qualify rather than simply being on the honor system. 1:19:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's testimony that verifying a license was a burden to the Alaska State Troopers and asked whether he had anything to show the committee with which the troopers report that it is a burden. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that his office was in contact with some of the troopers and the policy is that if the troopers encounter a low-income license, they are required to ask questions and determine whether the person qualifies. He acknowledged that it is not an exhaustive investigation, but the troopers are required to "probe a little bit." 1:20:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's testimony that there seems to be fraud and asked whether he had any evidence of fraud, and where he received that information. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that currently there are no verifications so there is no way of demonstrating the amount of fraud that takes place, "but we do hear from a number of people that those licenses are oftentimes being abused." 1:20:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP asked Representative Eastman to describe the sufficient proof of eligibility when purchasing a low-income license at Fred Meyer, and other entities. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that currently, the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS) ensures that people match the income eligibility for various state programs. In that regard, he said, if a person qualifies under one of those programs it would match the requirement for verification. 1:21:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX referred to a person eligible for a SNAP card, and asked whether their income must be equal to, or less than, the most recent poverty guidelines, or whether they are eligible if they are over the poverty guidelines. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that the limits on poverty are established federally, and usually the state establishes some percentage based on those federal poverty guidelines that change from time to time. In the event a person qualifies for the SNAP program, he opined that the person is "pretty close to whatever income requirements you're signing off on from the department." He commented that this is a good question and, following the passage of Amendment 3, he would like to see the department give some attention that issue to verify the information is current and that it actually matches. CHAIR CLAMAN listed the individuals on line from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) available to testify. 1:23:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what sort of burden this might put on the vendors because it sounds like a good idea. When purchasing a license, there should be some requirement to show the applicant is low-income, and she does not want to overly burden the vendors, she said. CHAIR CLAMAN advised that the folks from the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) could respond. 1:24:05 PM CHAIR CLAMAN asked whether 18,594 licenses were received in 2017. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative. CHAIR CLAMAN (audio difficulties) person paying $5 must provide proof of eligibility under this paragraph when requested by the department. He asked whether it was the ADF&G and not the person at the Walmart counter. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered in the affirmative. 1:25:10 PM BRUCE DALE, Director, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), said he could speak to part of Representative LeDoux's question, but Major Chastain would be a better person to respond. In terms of the burden on the vendor, currently they have to sign that "they accept the license" (audio difficulties.) He explained that showing verification would not be a great burden on the vendor because it would be similar to the hunter showing their driver's license. The suitable piece of verification would have to be clear and standardized so there was no mistaking the proper verifications and the improper verifications, he stressed. Many people purchase through e-vendors online and those people would have to click a certification box or they would not be able to purchase online. He then deferred to Major Bernard Chastain, Department of Public Safety (DPS). 1:27:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether there would be any online purchase verifications that the applicant actually did fall under the poverty line, other than a mere certification box. She further asked whether a SNAP card has a number on it wherein each person could input their SNAP number. MR. DALE said was not familiar with what is on the SNAP card, and that the ADF&G would need to modify its programs to accommodate that entry of verification. He explained that when the applicant buys their license, they sign and certify that they do meet the criteria for the $5 license. 1:29:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX recalled a Senate election a few years ago wherein one of the candidates, who had graduated from law school, had one of these licenses. She opined that there is the possibility of fraud when a person does not have to provide any proof of eligibility when purchasing the license, and it leaves a big loop hole. She asked how much it would cost the ADF&G to change its program if Amendment 3 were adopted. MR. DALE advised that he could not answer that question at this time. CHAIR CLAMAN asked Major Bernard Chastain whether, under the state's current statutory scheme, in the event he was qualified for the low-income license he would have the three following choices: show proof of eligibility at a Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers office; go online and check a box that said he was eligible for this discounted license; or go to an entity that sold licenses and simply check the box stating he was eligible. He asked whether, under this amendment, all applicants would have to show proof of eligibility. 1:30:52 PM MAJOR BERNARD CHASTAIN, Deputy Director, Division of Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), responded that currently, there is an affidavit on the back of the vendor copy of the license requiring the applicant to sign claiming they qualify for the reasons set in statute. The passage of "the fish and game bill last year" removed a portion out of AS 16.05.340 and it read that someone would qualify if they received something "to aid indigent." He referred to Amendment 3, [Version D.4, AS 16.05.340(a)(6), page 1, lines 4-8] and advised that the person must at least meet below the recent poverty guidelines set by the United States Department of Health and Human Services and, he opined, it is a poverty guideline based upon income. He explained that as far as the actual enforcement of the statute, when an applicant signs the affidavit on the back of the license claiming they qualify, the actual crime is false statement on a license application. He pointed out that showing proof of qualification would require an applicant to show proof that they qualified at the time of purchase to whomever is the vendor, which would include Chair Claman's examples, as well as checking a box online claiming they qualify. Although, he remarked, there would be potential problems with the online purchases of licenses in that scenario because the applicant would not actually be showing proof and would simply check a box and sign the license when they receive it. There would be some question about what the proof would be when someone came in to purchase the license, and what document they would have to have to show that they actually met the poverty guidelines, he said. 1:33:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that she did not know how many years this program had been in existence and asked the number of people that had been prosecuted when offering improper information. MAJOR CHASTAIN responded that he does not have the exact numbers, but the division successfully prosecutes people who are not honest on these types of licenses each year. It is not a burden for the Alaska Wildlife Troopers because they already check licenses in the field for this situation, and for people who claim false residency. While he does not have the exact number of people cited and prosecuted each year, it does include an investigation into whether the person qualifies. 1:34:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked the sort of questions an Alaska Wildlife Troopers may ask someone when suspicious, how does the trooper determine whether someone met that standard, or at least met that standard when purchasing the license. MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the troopers ask a few questions when suspicious to determine whether they need to conduct a further investigation into a potential crime. For example, a trooper may ask, "How do you qualify for this license," and if the person says they qualify because they fall below the federal poverty guidelines, "we're done." In the event the person does not know how they qualify for that license, there might be a further investigation. 1:35:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked for clarification that even though the person is outfitted in expensive gear, if a trooper asks how they qualify for a license and they say they are under the federal poverty guideline, "that's it?" MAJOR CHASTAIN replied that it depends upon the totality of the situation, if the troopers are suspicious of the answer in any manner, there may be a further investigation to determine whether they qualify. He offered that one way to determine the person's qualification is how much income they make in a year, which requires more investigation because it includes a household income. In this situation, there may be other factors to consider, such as a spouse or other people living in a household that would meet that qualification to meet this statute, he said. 1:37:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX opined that she thought Major Chastain had testified that they ask the person how they qualify for the reduce rate and if they say they meet the federal poverty guidelines "that's it." She asked whether she misunderstood Major Chastain statement because now it appears he is talking about the totality of the circumstances which seems somewhat different than if the person says they met the income standards, they are finished. MAJOR CHASTAIN acknowledged that he did say that because this is a sensitive issue when it comes to asking people about their household income. In these situations, the troopers have been directed to use their law enforcement experience to determine whether someone was being truthful, and many factors go into that decision. CHAIR CLAMAN commented that one would hope if a person drove up in a fancy new boat with a brand-new engine and had a poverty license, the trooper would be skeptical. 1:38:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked whether this is a significant problem for the Department of Public Safety (DPS). MAJOR CHASTAIN answered that the DPS does not have many of these problems per year, although he does not have the exact numbers. He added that the troopers deal far more with residency-related cases than in low-income licenses. 1:39:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES referred to Representative Eastman's statement that he had "several complaints" and asked who had offered these complaints because Representative Eastman had arbitrarily said that this is a problem. She pointed out that this issue did not sound like it really was a significant problem. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN advised that it is a difficult problem to measure because when measuring prosecutions there are not many. The problem becomes, how to get to the level of prosecution when the state is basically taking someone's honor that they qualify. He advised that the concerns brought to him from some members of the department "anecdotally saying that they do believe this is, in fact, a significant problem, and others as well." 1:40:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES asked to which department he was referring. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN responded, "I was specifically referring to conversations I've had, in some cases, Public Safety. 1:40:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Major Chastain how difficult it would be to change the application because currently, there is an affidavit to sign and attest to the truth of "what you're applying for" as far as residency, and she assumed that would work for income verification levels. She asked what type of re- tooling would be necessary for the department to make this work. MAJOR CHASTAIN deferred to the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G). MR. DALE deferred to Natalie Weber. 1:42:20 PM NATALIE WEBER, Regulations Program Coordinator, Division of Wildlife Conservation, Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G), responded that there are a couple of different options if modifying its software to implement this change, as follows: the first change would be dependent upon access to an electronic database of annual gross income amounts - possibly a database managed by another department - under that scenario the license would be issued electronically by "our electronic" vendor system or the internet, and it would basically be used to verify eligibility, and the issuance of a license would be based on a positive match with the database; and absent access to an electronic database, actual staff would be required to match whatever information the customer provided with one of the other agencies responsible for maintaining that list. She commented that there would definitely be issues to work through; however, it could be accomplished. 1:43:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to Representative Eastman's testimony that for those falsely claiming to be low-income, the state was losing matching fund dollars. She requested the actual formula for fishing licenses, and how that works. MS. WEBER advised that the license dollars are eligible for a federal match and if this money does not go to the department, ADF&G loses out on the federal match dollars as a result. 1:44:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked that in the event Amendment 3 was adopted, what was the likelihood this bill would receive a fiscal note in order to implement the online component of Amendment 3, within the various scenarios she had described. MS. WEBER said that she could not answer that question right now. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether costs or fiscal impacts would be involved in the database matching she had described. MS. WEBER deferred to Mr. Dale. 1:45:42 PM MR. DALE answered that there would be a small fiscal note but he was unsure whether the small cost would actually require a fiscal note because the department is in the process of making some of those software changes and this would be another task added to those efforts. The other factors in terms of cost to consider is, if the burden of proof that was required was not clear enough, or it was varied in its manner, that would probably be a burden to the purchaser. It might also preclude the folks at the stores (audio difficulties) vendors, and if these licenses cannot be sold through vendors, the people would probably opt out of the system. He offered that the department has always preferred to make the licenses as assessible as possible so people could be in the system, the department could manage the resources better, and that they rely on the Alaska State Troopers for enforcement. 1:47:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS described that one of the scenarios would be cross-referencing the databases of gross income in order to determine whether people were below the poverty line. He asked whether such a database exists in Alaska. MR. DALE replied that he was certain that "neither of us can answer that." REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS asked whether he was aware of the existence of such a database. MR. DALE answered that he was not aware of such a database. 1:48:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS referred to the 18,594 low-income licenses sold and asked the total number of non-low-income licenses sold in calendar year 2017 for resident licenses. MR. DALE offered that he did not know the number off-hand and opined that there were 140,000 total licenses. MS. WEBER responded that she did not have the 2017 license information with her; however, the department website cites that for resident hunting licenses there were upwards of 300,000 issued in 2016. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that "a spreadsheet" [handed to Representative Kreiss-Tomkins from the committee aide] indicated that the number was just shy of 200,000 residential licenses. 1:50:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the 18,594 low-income licenses figure and asked whether it was Mr. Dale's view there is widespread abuse on this program because it sounded like there could be some money the Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) could use. MR. DALE answered that he does not believe there is widespread abuse due to his personal experiences and distributing (indisc) licenses in rural Alaska and occasionally in Fairbanks, "awhile back." He offered that he does not believe most people want to cheat and they certainly do not want to necessarily brag about their low-income, but there are no statistics. 1:51:53 PM CHAIR CLAMAN pointed out that the maker of Amendment 3 testified, without naming names, that he was told by the Alaska Wildlife Troopers this is a problem. Chair Claman asked whether it was the department's perspective that abuse is a problem in terms of people taking advantage of the low-income hunting, fishing, and trapping license option. MR. DALE responded that he is only able to present his opinion because he did not ask for the statistics and stated that he does not believe abuse is widespread, as Major Chastain had testified to earlier, and that falsifying residency is a much larger problem. 1:52:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT commented that Amendment 3 is reasonable because low-income folks do have verification readily available, whether it is low income certificates, SNAP card, WIC card, or reduced grocery certificates. She asked whether this amendment is broad enough that the department could write the regulation and give it the authority to accept various forms of those significant verifications. 1:54:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that, while she would like to believe most people are honest, she believes it helps people to be honest when they have to provide verification with their statements. She said that she suspects people probably take advantage of the program whether or not the abuse is widespread, and to write a regulation wherein the vendors simply review the verification. She commented that in the event someone is to receive a benefit, there should be some proof they are eligible for that benefit. 1:55:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES commented that she has a difficult time with Amendment 3 because she does believe most people are honest, and that this is another layer of bureaucracy. She then compared it to the some of the programs that support people who are clearly able to work and are not working. She reiterated that she has a hard time supporting Amendment 3, particularly when the department believes it is not really a problem. 1:56:29 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS commented that he was unsure this is a problem that requires a solution. He commented that he will speak with some of the clerks around his hometown as to their impression whether there is a perception of abuse. He acknowledged that he was unaware that low-income licenses existed in Alaska which shows that "I live in a hole" or people are not bragging about it if they are abusing the system. He pointed out that he could not see how this could work with an online component, and that the online eligibility verification and that non-existing database needs to be flushed out a bit more than this 20 minutes of committee discussion. His impression, he offered, is "maybe catching ADF&G a little bit flat footed." He related that the policy mechanics need to be worked out, particularly with the online side of things, and he would be a no-vote on Amendment 3. 1:58:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commented that he supports Amendment 3 because it is reasonable. 1:58:25 PM CHAIR CLAMAN commented that he echoes Representative Kreiss- Tomkins comments because he has real concerns as to whether abuse is a problem, and that Amendment 3 is a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. He reminded the committee of the testimonies from the Alaska Wildlife Troopers and that prosecutions for false residency takes place with some frequency. He noted that he is troubled by this amendment because it puts the burden on the people issuing the licenses, whether it is Walmart, Alaska Mill and Feed, or different stores specializing more in hunting and fishing. He noted that certain vendors have expressed unhappiness with the new federal government requirements put on folks selling firearms, and "how unhappy they are feeling like they are policing this deal for purchasing firearms." He said that he does not like the idea without having had a more detailed vetting with more input from vendors and the department. The department itself says that this is not a problem, and the director of the department who was actually involved in selling hunting and fishing licenses in Fairbanks and the rural communities, does not see this as a problem. For all those reasons he cannot support Amendment 3, he said. 2:00:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN pointed out that the price of hunting licenses increased to $94, and opined that when considering the federal match, even one person fraudulently procuring a license would cost the state $356 in revenue. He described that it is an uncomfortable situation when a trooper has to ask someone about their income, and by requiring verification alleviates that discomfort in not asking that question at all. Currently, he advised, military veterans must provide verification when buying a discount license, albeit it for more than just one year, but it is appropriate that other proof be provided for non-veterans as well. REPRESENTATIVE STUTES maintained her objection. 2:01:17 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Eastman, Kopp, LeDoux, and Millett (alternate for Representative Reinbold) voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 3. Representatives Stutes (alternate for Representative Fansler) voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 was adopted by a vote of 4-3. 2:02:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE KOPP commended Alaska Wildlife Troopers, Major Chastain, and the other staff that brought CSHB 129 forward because moving a number of these offenses into the violation section, not only deals with the court's resources in prosecuting misdemeanors, but it also puts forward meaningful dollar fines and reminders that the law must enforced and respected. This legislation will streamline their operations, save court resources, keep accountability at a higher level in the law, and in the case of commercial fishing, it will allow the fishermen to get right back to fishing, he advised. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS said he would like to associate himself with Representative Kopp's comments. 2:03:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reminded that the committee that many portions in the legislation deal with violations or offenses that do not involve any culpable mental state, whether it was an accident or on purpose, it makes no difference in the law because the person is still guilty of that offense. He offered concern especially when dealing with fines of up to $10,000 for those folks who are not intentionally doing wrong as maybe it is their first visit to Alaska or their first-time hunting or fishing. While he thinks the legislature wants to encourage people to do right and that penalties are good, he pointed out that there are so many different portions in this bill "where there is no requirement for anyone, law enforcement, or otherwise" to demonstrate that it was intentional. 2:05:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS moved to report CSHB 129(RES), Version 30-GH1687, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 129(JUD) moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee