MINUTES SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE 2 April 1998 9:05 a.m. TAPES SFC-98, #109, Side B CALL TO ORDER Senator Bert Sharp, Co-chair, convened the meeting at approximately 9:05 a.m. PRESENT In addition to Co-chairman Sharp, Senators Pearce, Donley, Parnell and Adams were present when the meeting was convened. Senators Torgerson and Phillips arrived respectively shortly thereafter. Also Attending: SENATOR GARY WILKEN; SENATOR LOREN LEMAN; MIKE POLLEY, staff to Senator Loren Leman; JIM BALDWIN, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Law; DAN SPENCER, Chief Budget Analyst, OMB; DIANE BARRANS, Executive Director, Post Secondary Education Commission, Department of Education; and aides to committee members and other members of the Legislature. Via Teleconference: DOUG GRIFFIN, Director, Alcohol Beverage Control Board, Department of Revenue from Anchorage. SUMMARY INFORMATION Co-chair Sharp advised the committee they would pick up where they left off with SB 233. SENATE BILL NO. 233 "An Act extending the termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board." CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 233(FIN) "An Act relating to membership on the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; extending the termination date of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board; relating to sales of beer and wine on a golf course or at a recreational site; relating to notice of alcohol- related arrests; and providing for an effective date." Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that a CS had been adopted, however no amendments had been addressed. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #1. Senator Parnell OBJECTED. Senator Donley explained that the amendment dealt with the issue of whether or not the Alcohol Beverage Control officers may carry a firearm and clarified that they may. Senator Parnell asked if they were currently carrying firearms and if this was just a question of whether they can, or was there a specific reason as to why they should be carrying a firearm. Senator Donley responded that in the audit the question was raised as to whether they should or not. The actual personnel doing the job were the ones asking for the authority to be able to carry a firearm. Given the places they were asked to go and types of crimes they were witnessing, Senator Donley felt it a reasonable request. Senator Pearce said it was her understanding that two of the investigators were former police officers, who took this request to the commission. It was her further understanding that the auditors felt there was no merit to having investigators carry firearms. She requested that Mr. Griffin testify and advise if there had been a specific incident wherein he feels his investigators were endangered. Douglas Griffin, Director, Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, Department of Revenue testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He said there had been some threats and some investigators had been involved in some confrontational situations. They had not been fired upon and no one had been injured with regards to these confrontations. However, the Board has taken these situations very seriously and they are looking into them. Senator Pearce asked if during the investigations they would be looking into any illegal activities and in dealing with the owners of the licenses did that mean there were bar owners in the State that were threatening the inspectors? Mr. Griffin responded that there had been incidents where bar owners had acted violent. He said the dilemma they were faced with was they were charged with enforcing Title 4. The perception was that it only applied to liquor licensees, however there were Title 4 violations that could be committed not only by licensees but also by members of the general public. For example, someone purchasing alcohol and providing it to an underage individual. Looking at identification on a licensed premise was another example he cited. They were looking at all aspects of safety for their investigators. In response to Senator Parnell's earlier question, he said there was a specific regulation at present, 15 AAC 104.505 (b) adopted by the ABC board in 1981 which says the board's investigative personnel were not authorized to carry firearms in the performance of their duties. He said the board had been trying to amend this specific regulation. Senator Parnell asked what training ABC officers would receive. Mr. Griffin said they would have to have particular firearm training and certification as peace officers. They could be certified the same as police officers and would be professional in their job. Senator Parnell asked if they could guarantee training before allowing the investigators to carry firearms. Mr. Griffin assured the committee of this guarantee. Co-chair Sharp asked if the board's personnel costs would increase if this were to be authorized? Mr. Griffin indicated that it was his understanding these individuals would qualify as a police officer and they would be eligible for those higher benefits. However, it was not the approach they were taking. In his investigation of this matter, he looked at other State employees who had two categories that allowed the carrying of firearms, yet they are not considered peace officers and are not eligible for the twenty-year retirement or other benefits of a police officer. That was also the same category he agreed upon for their investigators. Co-chair Sharp asked if the retirement was at thirty years rather than twenty? Mr. Griffin indicated that was correct. Senator Pearce asked about park rangers and fish and game biologists and noted they not only protected themselves but also other members of the public against bears and other animals and wildlife. She felt there were also other problems with other individuals allowed to carry firearms and cited the airport security who chased someone twenty miles down the road to kill them. She doesn't feel we should give more individuals police powers in the State. Senator Parnell said he appreciated the need as addressed by Senator Donley. However, he did have the same concerns as Co-chair Sharp in taking more employees into a new retirement system and making them eligible for different pay ranges and benefits. He did not understand that to be part of the original bill and asked Senator Donley to clarify the amendment. Senator Donley said just because someone was authorized to carry a firearm did not mean they should be classified into a peace officer status. It would be up to the administration and collective bargaining. He also noted that from the audit illegal gambling and prostitution were being investigated. Senator Parnell asked if there was an alternative route as opposed to the amendment. Senator Donley said the issue was being studied and the board was considering repealing their regulation that prohibits their investigators from carrying firearms. Senator Parnell asked if the regulation were repealed would it accomplish the same as the amendment? Senator Donley said yes, if the regulation were repealed. Senator Parnell asked if they would still need statutory authority to carry a firearm. Senator Donley felt they would. It is specified by statute who can do it. But then again, he said the administration took a very broad interpretation of their powers by regulations. Co-chair Sharp noted for the record that Senators Torgerson and Phillips were now present. Senator Donley continued that philosophically, these were trained employees of the State. And it is known that the State is not going to issue them firearms without the same level of training they do to police officers. These individuals are being put into some very dangerous situations, they are highly trained and many of them are former police officers. Normal individuals are allowed to carry weapons. These individuals would be highly trained by the State and he felt this was a reasonable call. Mr. Griffin indicated that the next couple of months they expect a policy making decision. He noted that the ABC board was concerned for the safety of their employees. Senator Pearce said she felt it was going in the wrong direction to license investigators. They can always call the police if necessary and that's what they should use. She further indicated that it would be difficult to obtain prosecutions. Senator Phillips asked how many states allow their investigators to carry weapons. Mr. Griffin responded that approximately thirty-seven states allow this, however he did not know if it was by statute or regulation. Senator Torgerson voiced his concern of an individual being in a bar with a gun. He didn't feel that was ever appropriate. Co-chair Sharp said there was an OJBECTION to amendment #1 and asked the Secretary to call the roll. By a roll call vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) amendment #1 FAILED. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #2. He said it was in reference to page seventeen of the audit report. The Commissioner of Public Safety had delegated powers for investigating gambling and prostitution to the enforcement officers of the ABC board and the board had approved that delegation. The auditors recognized that was probably a good thing to do, as the current investigators are some of the most knowledgeable enforcement in the State regarding these issues. The auditors further point out, however, that the existing statutes specifically prohibit that delegation, which is in fact occurring and working well. He said the amendment would make their current procedure consistent with statute. He said the audit report pointed out that the investigating officers are all former police officers. Senator Pearce requested someone from Department of Revenue testify however, Co-chair Sharp noted there was no one signed up nor in attendance. Senator Torgerson said he was not sure the ABC board investigates gambling unless it is associated with a bar having illegal gambling. He said the local police and State Troopers were available in prior cases and also the Department of Revenue. He felt this was an over- characterization of what they do as far as investigating gambling. By a roll call vote of 1 yea (Donley) and 6 nay (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment FAILED. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #3. He said this amendment would add two public members to the Alcohol Beverage Control board. In the audit it was pointed out that the current balance of three public members to two members from the industry had been problematic, since the Administration had failed to appoint a third public member. This created a two-two deadlock on many occasions as far as taking any enforcement action. It would be good public policy to have more public members on the commission to balance out the conflict industry members may have. Senator Adams asked Mr. Griffin if the agency support this and if a fiscal note had been prepared for the addition of two new public members. Mr. Griffin said the board had not taken a position on this amendment. A fiscal note had not been prepared as of yet, even though there was going to be some fiscal impact. He felt it would be approximately $5000 for additional travel. Senator Pearce voiced concern over the additional costs and whether the size of a board just because a particular Governor has not filled positions in it in a quick manner. By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Torgerson) and 5 nays (Sharp, Pearce, Adams, Parnell, Phillips) the amendment FAILED. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #4. Senator Adams OBJECTED. He said that amendments #4 and #5 were basically the same and asked the sponsor explain any preference. Senator Donley said that amendment #4 pointed out that in the audit there had been dissatisfaction with the dual responsibility of the board and the local governing bodies and no one took final responsibility for the input from local neighborhoods about problems with liquor licenses in their neighborhoods. In clarifying the difference between amendments #4 and #5 he said #5 would place the super-majority into the ABC board and not into the local governmental body. Senator Adams asked Senator Donley which one would be his preference? Senator Donley said either one would work but the least controversial would be amendment #5. The Legislature would be making clear guidelines to the State agency to take its responsibility considering input from neighborhoods and people directly impacted by the liquor licenses. He said his preference would be amendment #5. In response to a query from Senator Adams, Mr. Griffin said he had looked at the two amendments. He voiced concern in giving authority to the advisory board. He thought there might be a violation of Title 29. He said the board had been trying to work with community councils to overcome this problem. Senator Parnell concurred with Senator Donley and noted they shared one community council. He felt it was not so much a problem with the ABC board but rather with the assembly not taking into consideration neighborhood concerns. Senator Pearce said she shared the same concern of Mr. Griffin. When her community council sees the word "alcohol" they vote "no". Senator Phillips also concurred. He said usually the owner showed up at the meetings and explained what they wanted to do. There followed some miscellaneous conversation between Senators Pearce and Phillips as to the different community councils. Co-chair Sharp noted there was still OBJECTION to the amendment and asked the roll be called. By a roll call vote of 3 yeas (Donley, Parnell, Phillips) and 4 nays (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams) amendment #4 FAILED> Senator Donley MOVED amendment #5. (Tape #109, Side A switched to Side B.) By a roll call vote of 2 yeas (Donley, Phillips) and 5 nays (Sharp, Pearce, Torgerson, Adams, Parnell) the amendment FAILED. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #6. Senator Pearce OBJECTED and following a brief explanation of the amendment by Senator Donley WITHDREW her objection. WITHOUT OBJECTION amendment #6 was ADOPTED. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #7. Senator Donley explained that this was a modified amendment #3. It would still remain status quo leaving the membership at five members. Line nine would delete "2" and insert "1". Line thirteen would delete "3" and insert "4". Section 2 would be deleted. Senator Pearce OBJECTED and asked for comments by Mr. Griffin. He said it was difficult to respond to this and noted the vacancy in public member ship is unfortunate. He felt the board had dealt with most issues with great unanimity, especially concerning issues of sanctions against licensees. He felt the board had listened to neighborhoods and wanted to be on record in saying that he felt the board had been very responsive. He told the committee that whenever there was a tie vote he had the authority to be the breaking vote. Senator Torgerson asked when the terms of the two members engaged in the industry would expire? Mr. Griffin said one ran until the year 2000 or 2001 and the other expired next year. Senator Torgerson said he would support the amendment if a transition clause were included that whenever a vacancy occurred the public member be appointed. Senator Donley concurred and moved technical correction to the amendment that the existing members would serve out their terms and the drafters put in a new transition clause. In response to a query from Senator Pearce Mr. Griffin advised that when he voted to break a tie he always voted his conscience. Senator Pearce WITHDREW her objection and WITHOUT OBJECTION amendment #7 was ADOPTED. Senator Torgerson MOVED CSSB 233(FIN). Senator Adams OBJECTED. By a roll call vote of 6 yeas (Sharp, Pearce, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell, Phillips) and 1 nay (Adams) CSSB 233(FIN) was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note from the Department of Revenue, ABC Board. Co-chair Sharp called SB 332. SENATE BILL NO. 332 "An Act relating to the Alaska Student Loan Corporation." Senator Pearce advised the bill had been heard last week and the amendments in the files were a result of that hearing. She noted that "E" version of the bill had been adopted as a working draft. The bill was held over so Senator Donley would have time to prepare some amendments. Senator Donley advised the committee that he would no be offering amendments #1. He would like to start with amendment #3. There was no objection. Senator Donley MOVED amendment #3. He said this amendment would allow Alaskan students to borrow more money over the current $9500 cap for certain types of graduate schools not offered in Alaska. With the exception of dental and medical they could borrow up to $15,000/year and dental and medical would be moved up to $25,000/year. Senator Gary Wilken was invited to join the committee. He said he admired Senator Donley's work with the WAMI program. He knows how difficult it has been, but much needed. He said he would support the amendment but not the bill. He noted the student loan program was still trying to get on its own feet and each year had been lessening their request for more general fund money. He felt the bill in general would create more losses for the student loan program. He said they should concentrate more on making the program self-sufficient. Senator Parnell asked what the default rate was, but Senator Wilken deferred to Diane Barrans. Diane Barrans, Executive Director, Post Secondary Education Commission, Department of Education was invited to join the committee. She said at this time they had not done a data extraction to really examine what this amendment might do for graduate students. She said overall the default rate was at about nineteen percent. She said one of the concerns of the commission was that it raised the aggregate cap for not only medical and dental borrowers but also other graduate students. Looking at the debt load if someone were to borrow at the increased level, beginning immediate repayment, the monthly payment on a twenty-year schedule would be over $900. If there was economic hardship and it was extended to twenty-five years it would be $850 per month. She explained the commission would be issuing a mortgage size loan in an unsecured debt capacity. The risk extended to the commission was significant. Senator Parnell felt there was a need to look at the real value of the dollars at this point in time. He did not feel they were asking students to do any more that requested from students ten years ago. Senator Torgerson asked in relation to income was it any worse that someone that has borrowed $42,000 and has a $500 payment? Ms. Barrans said she has not really had time to look at the types of graduate degree programs they would be funding at the higher levels. She said some may be in the myriad of substantial incomes, however, some, such as social work would have very modest incomes. Senator Torgerson asked if the option were to general fund subsidize the students and not ask them to borrow more money? Ms. Barrans referred to her memo of 31 March and 1 April and said she explained a need for some general fund capitalization. She said the commission was loaning approximately $80 million/year. She suggested a general fund source for loans. Senator Torgerson indicated that he preferred the option of additional money being available to borrow instead of them coming to the Legislature and creating programs such as WAMI. He asked what other states did for graduate study monies? Ms. Barrans said Alaska's program was currently the most generous graduate program available. Again referring to her memos, she said there were other loan programs available, such as Federal and private. In response to Co-chair Sharp, she noted that because interest does not start on the ASL until time it is being paid back many borrowers opted for this program rather than the Federal program on which interest started at the time of the award. She further explained that the majority of graduate students attended schools out-of-state. She said approximately 400 - 600 borrowers would qualify for the new increased limits. Senator Adams said he OBJECTED to amendment #3. He felt it could be repaired by a new bill. By a roll call vote of 4 yeas (Pearce, Donley, Torgerson, Parnell) and 3 nays (Sharp, Adams, Phillips) amendment #3 was ADOPTED. Senator Donley indicated he would not offer amendment #3. Senator Pearce MOVED CSSB 332(FIN) and WITHOUT OBJECTION it was REPORTED OUT with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note from the Department of Education. The following verbatim transcript of SJR 42 is incorporated into the minutes. Co-chair Sharp called SJR 42. SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42 Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 42(JUD) Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to marriage. CO-CHAIR SHARP: SJR 42. We have gone through hours and hours of public hearing with this committee on this bill. SENATOR PHILLIPS: SJR 42. Do we have any committee substitute? CO-CHAIR SHARP: No. A judiciary... SENATOR PHILLIPS: I would move the judiciary version of SJR 42 with the accompanying one fiscal note. SENATOR ADAMS: Objection. CO-CHAIR SHARP: There has been objection. SENATOR ADAMS: I am looking for the judiciary committee substitute. Is that in the packet? SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yeah, it is, Mr. Chairman. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Beg your pardon? SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yeah, it should be. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Judiciary is in here on mine. SENATOR PHILLIPS: Want to know what the changes are? (pause on record) CO-CHAIR SHARP: Is it in your folder? SENATOR ADAMS: Mr. Chairman, could we go over just the changes real quick? CO-CHAIR SHARP: I think every member has the two bills in front of them. SENATOR PHILLIPS: Did you want an answer? SENATOR ADAMS: Yeah, go over the changes, would you? SENATOR PHILLPS: Oh, O.K. That's what I though you said. O.K., Mr. Chairman, obviously I'm not an expert on this, but I can at least try. If you look at the original version it had article 12, Judiciary put it in article 1. And Judiciary deleted the original language up to the second sentence. "The Legislature may, by law, enact judicial requirements relating to marriage" and inserted "No provisions of this Constitution may be interpreted to require the State to recognize or permit marriage between individuals of the same sex. Additional requirements related to marriage may be established to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska." Now, Mr. Chairman, those are the main changes. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Donley? SENATOR DONLEY: As much as I am reluctant...it seems to me the initial sentence covers pretty much everything that the entire paragraph covers. I mean it defines what a marriage is. The constitutional construction clearly, from the recent State Supreme Court cases, (unintelligible) clearly indicates that a subsequent amendment cannot be invalidated by a prior section of the Constitution. So that with just the first sentence nobody could interpret the Constitution, any other clause of the State's Constitution overriding that first sentence which defines a marriage as existing between one man and one woman. And I don't understand the necessity of the third sentence, "additional requirements may be established". Typically the Constitution, where it says, "additional requirements" it specifies that it be done by statute or by the Legislature. But this doesn't say. It just says "additional requirements may be established". It begs the question by "who" to me. Every other sections of the Constitution specify "who" shall establish subsequent provisions. (Tape SFC-109, Side B changed to SFC-110, Side A at approximately 10:40 a.m.) CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Leman, could you explain the nature of the changes between the original bill and the judiciary version and some of the...did you hear some of Senator Donley's...? SENATOR LEMAN: I just stepped in and didn't hear that... SENATOR DONLEY: Do you want me to...I could CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K. SENATOR LEMAN: I just heard the comments that...I know what the differences are, but I did not hear his questions. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Did you hear, Senator Donley? SENATOR DONLEY: I liked the original version better than the judiciary version, my first impression. So, why the changes and why did the judiciary committee think this version was better? SENATOR LEMAN: The overall reason is to remove ambiguity in the future and future challenges. Wanted to make sure that it's very clear and that's the reason for it. And I'll let Mr. Polley go through and explain each one in detail. MR. POLLEY: Thank-you. For the record, my name is Mike Polley, staff aide to Senator Leman. First, just some background comments on the genesis of both these proposals. The first version, here, draft "A", is actually identical to a version that Legal Services drafted back in 1996, when the Legislature initially addressed this subject. And, at that time, one of the proposals being considered was that it should be in the structure of an amendment to the Constitution rather than a statute. At that time it was decided that a statute was sufficient, since there had been no Court ruling on the subject, saying that any constitutional rights were implicated. And, so, the decision was made to abandon that and go with the statute. So, when we initially introduced the bill, we simply took the language that had been prepared back in 1996 and introduced it. Subsequent to that, we consulted with attorneys who have been involved in the litigation on same sex marriage in both the State of Hawaii and also the State of Vermont, which are the only two other states, aside from Alaska, which are dealing with this issue in their Courts. Those attorneys reviewed the language of our 1996 draft and felt that it was inadequate and it could potentially create some ambiguity. So, if I could turn to the new draft, just very quickly...the first line, to be valid or recognized in the State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. Basically, the term "valid" applies to marriages that are entered in to in our State, the term "recognized" would deal with the matter of the potentiality in the future if another state or foreign jurisdiction were to legalize a same sex union would Alaska then have to recognize that marriage. And so, the two verbs there, "valid" and "recognized" apply to the in-state and out-of-state questions. And then, "only" is the limiting word and obviously one man and one woman simply restating what has always been the law in Alaska. The second line, "no provision of this Constitution may be interpreted to require the State to recognize or permit marriage between individuals of the same sex" is in the amendment to basically deal with the scenario that if a Court found a contradiction between the first sentence and the overall values or vision of the document and shows the latter. In other words, what we are trying to do is preempt a situation, such as what occurred in Colorado, where the voters there actually passed a constitutional amendment saying that no special preferences could be granted to people based upon their sexual preference. That was an amendment to the constitution. The Colorado Supreme Court actually struck down an amendment to their own constitution because they found it to be inconsistent with other parts of the constitution. I realize that legally, that's a hard concept to digest, that the...we've always thought that any amendment to the constitution is going to trump other parts of the constitution. But, at least in the case of Colorado, an amendment to the constitution did not suffice. So, the second line, here, we believe is necessary, so that it states very specifically "no provision of this Constitution may be interpreted to require that the State recognize or permit marriages between individuals of the same sex". In other words, what we're trying to do is prevent a situation where the Court might find that the first sentence in the amendment conflicts with due process, equal protection or some other part of the Constitution that they would say would override that. The third sentence, "additional requirements related to marriage may be established" is basically just to...set in to address other scenarios because we believe that Judge Michalski's opinion implicates our statutes far beyond the narrow question of whether people of the same sex should be allowed to marry. I mean, what he has found, is a fundamental constitutional right to choose one's life partner without setting any parameters on that. And so, in our mind, that could potentially be invoked to strike on other parts of our marriage statutes, such as limitations on consanguinity and also restrictions based on age. So, the third sentence is just an overall statement that it's appropriate for the Legislature to act in the area of our marriage statutes. Anyway, I apologize for the long winded explanation. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Donley? SENATOR DONLEY: But it doesn't say the Legislature and I think it is pretty consistent throughout the Alaska State Constitution...if you find the language that appears in the original resolution, "...the Legislature by law may enact..." and this one just says, "Additional requirements may be established...". But it doesn't give the power to that to anybody specifically. MR. POLLEY: Through the Chair, Senator Donley, I don't believe it would do any injury to the amendment if the committee wanted to insert, after the word "established", "established by the Legislature to the extent permitted"... SENATOR DONLEY: Or etcetera. SENATOR LEMAN: Or worded as we have elsewhere. I believe we have, Mr. Chairman and Senator Donley, we could say, "The Legislature may establish additional requirements to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska" or something to that effect. Too many things we are trying to get to that I believe are in existing statute are age and blood quantum, you know, those are things that are in existing statute and those are legitimate. We don't want to see claims brought against those types of restrictions that we have in existing law. SENATOR DONLEY: Why did the judiciary committee want to add the caveat, "...may be established to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska". I mean it just seems like that's a given. All through the Constitution we see the Legislature given the power to, as in the original proposal, make statutes, all of which are tempered by the fact that they have to be consistent with the U.S. Constitution and the State Constitution. Now, occasionally, you may want to specify the standards of the U.S. Constitution and not the Alaska Constitution and that would be appropriate but it doesn't mean that the State shouldn't, but, as long as you are covering both, here, that's the default. I mean, that's what would be the default factor, anyhow. MR. POLLEY: Through the Chair, Senator Donley, the thought behind adding the term "Constitution of the United States and Constitution of the State of Alaska" is to address the concerns some people have expressed that yeah, there have been some fears, we believe they're unfounded, that this could lead to other unwarranted restrictions on marriage, as in the case brought to this committee's attention most often, you know, that interracial marriage used to not be allowed, you know, and is this opening the door to setting a restriction like that. Well, of course, the Supreme Court has struck down bans on interracial marriage as being unconstitutional. And so the purpose in having that language is just to clarify for people, and admittedly it is...there is a slight redundancy to it, because obviously the primacy of Federal law exists here, but basically what this language is trying to do is clarify for people that, you know, the Legislature is obviously not going to be getting into areas of reexamining laws interracial marriage. I mean, that's not the scope of this amendment. SENATOR PHILLIPS: Mr. Chair? CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Phillips? SENATOR PHILLIPS: At the hearing on Tuesday night, there were a few that expressed that concern. It was brought up at the hearing. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Parnell? SENATOR PARNELL: And I agree with Senator Donley to the extent that it is a little ambiguous unless we insert something about the "Legislature enacting". And I would propose an amendment on page one, line nine, before the word "additional", insert "The Legislature may enact..." and then strike the words, beginning at line nine, "...may be established..." so the sentence would read, "The Legislature may enact additional requirements related to marriage to the extent permitted by the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Alaska." CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Parnell has proposed an amendment, which would be amendment number one, on line nine, preceeding...adding to the beginning of the sentence, "the Legislature may enact additional requirements related to marriage...", delelting the words "may be established" so that it would read, "The Legislature may enact additional requirements r elated to marriage to the extent permitted by the Constitution..." and so on. Is that correct? SENATOR PARNELL: Yes. CO-CHAIR SHARP: That is the amendment and it will be amendment number one. Any discussion on amendment number one? Any objection to amendment number one? Amendment number one has been adopted. SENATOR ADAMS: Mr. Chairman? Point of order. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Adams? SENATOR ADAMS: Wasn't there a motion before that particular amendment to move out the bill. We're not doing this particularly properly. There's a motion to move out the bill. We should have removed that before we went to amendment number one, Mr. Chairman. SENATOR PHILLIPS: That's correct. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Had you moved that? O.K. Senator Phillips? SENATOR PHILLIPS: I will just withdraw the motion... CO-CHAIR SHARP: Senator Phillips has asked to be able to withdraw his motion to move the bill out of committee. Any objection? Hearing no objection...Senator Parnell? The bill has got... SENATOR PARNELL: O.K., the bill is back before us and...what became of it? Was my motion ruled out of order? CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes. SENATOR PARNELL: O.K. I'll start over again. My motion is page one, line nine, before the word "additional" insert the words, "The Legislature may enact..." and then delete the words at line nine, page one...beginning at page nine...or page one, line nine, "may be established"...those three words should be deleted. CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K. Does the Secretary have that amendment? MADAME SECRETARY: Yes. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Which will be amendment number one. Any objection to that amendment? Amendment number one has been adopted. SENATOR PHILLIPS: All right, Mr. Chairman, I'll move the...I guess it will be the Finance Committee substitute? CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes. SENATOR PHILLIPS: Number SJR 42... SENATOR ADAMS: Object. CO-CHAIR SHARP: There has been objection. Senator Adams? SENATOR ADAMS: May I speak to my... SENATOR PHILLIPS: (unintelligible) SENATOR ADAMS: I yield to my collegue. SENATOR PHILLIPS: With the accompanying three thousand dollar fiscal note. CO-CHAIR SHARP: O.K. It has been moved that CSSJR 42(FIN) be moved out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note. Senator Adams? SENATOR ADAMS: Just briefly, Mr. Chairman, CSSJR 42, what it lacks, I believe, it lacks respect and compassion for people in the State of Alaska. I am a married man, six kids and a Quaker. And I listened to the testimony from some of the religious groups. But I believe that before we pass something like this is that we should wait for the Courts to take it. I think that many Alaskans, no matter where you live in rural or urban areas, have been government infringing on individual rights. And that's basically what this does. I thought we took a sworn oath of office that we would protect the Constitution. That every Alaskan should have equal protection, equal treatment. But we're not doing it with this piece of legislation. One of the things that we try to do, is we Legislators...to do, is try to push morality, I think, on people. None of us...none of the sixty Legislators are perfect. How many, like myself, can stand up and say, "Should I push the morality of what I do on the people of the State of Alaska?" 'Cause I love to gamble. I play poker once a week. I play cribbage. I go to the horse races. So, I love to gamble. After one hundred and twenty-one days I like to drink. But I do not pass that on to the people. And, as a normal human being, also, is I do lust for certain things. A new car, and perhaps something beautiful of the opposite sex. So, there is nobody that is perfect in the Legislature. Any why are we trying to pass on morality? I think morality should not be a Legislative matter and we're trying to do this. And I think that is wrong. We could beg, also, in different sections of the statutes, the invasion of privacy. And I think that's basically what we're trying to do. And I would ask members, that we should at least wait for a Court decision on this piece of legislation. I know I might be the lone wolf in this particular argument but I think it is the only decent thing to do, is not to pass this. CO-CHAIR SHARP: Any other committee comments? There has been objection, please call the roll. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Torgerson? SENATOR TORGERSON: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Parnell? SENATOR PARNELL: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Donley? SENATOR DONLEY: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Adams? SENATOR ADAMS: No. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Phillips? SENATOR PHILLIPS: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Pearce? SENATOR PEARCE: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Senator Sharp? CO-CHAIR SHARP: Yes. MADAME SECRETARY: Six yeas, one nay. CO-CHAIR SHARP: SJR 42(FIN) with accompanying fiscal notes moves out of committee on a vote of six yeas and one nay. End of verbatim transcript, SJR 42. ADJOURNMENT Co-chair Sharp adjourned the meeting until 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. SFC-98 -1- 4/02/98 SJR 42