Legislature(2017 - 2018)
2018-04-16 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2018-04-16 House Journal Page 3316 HB 219 The following was read the second time: 2018-04-16 House Journal Page 3317 HOUSE BILL NO. 219 "An Act relating to background investigation requirements for state employees whose job duties require access to certain federal tax information; relating to persons under contract with the state with access to certain federal tax information; establishing state personnel procedures required for employee access to certain federal tax information; and providing for an effective date." with the: Journal Page JUD RPT CS(JUD) NT 3DP 1NR 2673 FN6: ZERO(COR) 2674 FN7: ZERO(DHS) 2674 FN8: ZERO(LWF) 2674 FN9: ZERO(DPS) 2674 FN10: (REV) 2674 FN11: (REV) 2674 FIN RPT CS(JUD) NT 4DP 4NR 3AM 3064 FN6: ZERO(COR) 3065 FN7: ZERO(DHS) 3065 FN8: ZERO(LWF) 3065 FN9: ZERO(DPS) 3065 FN10: (REV) 3065 FN11: (REV) 3065 Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the following committee substitute be adopted in lieu of the original bill: CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 219(JUD) "An Act relating to background investigation requirements for state employees whose job duties require access to certain federal tax information; relating to current or prospective contractors with the state with access to certain federal tax information; establishing state personnel procedures required for employee access to certain federal tax information; and providing for an effective date." There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representative Eastman: 2018-04-16 House Journal Page 3318 Page 4, following line 3: Insert a new subsection to read: "(e) An employee who did not, at the time of beginning employment with an agency, disclose a criminal conviction that was required to be reported may not access federal tax information." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Representative Eastman moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Johnson objected. **The presence of Representative Claman was noted. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 219(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 3 NAYS: 35 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 2 Yeas: Eastman, Rauscher, Reinbold Nays: Birch, Chenault, Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Foster, Grenn, Johnson, Johnston, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kito, Knopp, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lincoln, Millett, Neuman, Ortiz, Parish, Pruitt, Saddler, Seaton, Spohnholz, Stutes, Sullivan-Leonard, Talerico, Tarr, Thompson, Tilton, Tuck, Wilson, Wool, Zulkosky Absent: Gara, Guttenberg And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representative Wilson: Page 3, following line 19: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) A newly hired employee shall pay to the state the fee established by AS 12.62.160 for the national criminal history record check. If the employee does not pay the fee within 30 days 2018-04-16 House Journal Page 3319 after the date of hire, the fee must automatically be deducted from the employee's next paycheck." Reletter the following subsections accordingly. Representative Wilson moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Claman objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 219(JUD) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 19 NAYS: 20 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 Yeas: Birch, Chenault, Eastman, Grenn, Johnson, Johnston, Knopp, Kopp, Millett, Pruitt, Rauscher, Reinbold, Saddler, Stutes, Sullivan-Leonard, Talerico, Thompson, Tilton, Wilson Nays: Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Foster, Guttenberg, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kito, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lincoln, Neuman, Ortiz, Parish, Seaton, Spohnholz, Tarr, Tuck, Wool, Zulkosky Absent: Gara And so, Amendment No. 2 was not adopted. Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that CSHB 219(JUD) be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSHB 219(JUD) was read the third time. The question being: "Shall CSHB 219(JUD) pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSHB 219(JUD) Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 33 NAYS: 6 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 1 2018-04-16 House Journal Page 3320 Yeas: Birch, Chenault, Claman, Drummond, Edgmon, Foster, Grenn, Guttenberg, Johnston, Josephson, Kawasaki, Kito, Knopp, Kopp, Kreiss-Tomkins, LeDoux, Lincoln, Millett, Ortiz, Parish, Pruitt, Reinbold, Saddler, Seaton, Spohnholz, Stutes, Sullivan-Leonard, Talerico, Tarr, Thompson, Tuck, Wool, Zulkosky Nays: Eastman, Johnson, Neuman, Rauscher, Tilton, Wilson Absent: Gara And so, CSHB 219(JUD) passed the House. Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSHB 219(JUD) was referred to the Chief Clerk for engrossment.