Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
03/22/2013 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB34 | |
| HB73 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 102 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 73 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 34 - FEDERAL LAWS, REGULATIONS & EXEC. ORDERS
1:11:13 PM
CHAIR KELLER announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 34,"An Act making state compliance with a federal
law, regulation, or presidential executive order contingent on
receipt of certain information from the federal government."
[Before the committee was the proposed committee substitute (CS)
for HB 34, Version 28-LS0195\C, Nauman, 1/30/13, adopted as the
working document on 2/25/13.]
1:11:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TAMMIE WILSON, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor,
offering her understanding of what would be required under
[Version C of] HB 34, indicated disfavor with the indeterminate
fiscal note submitted by the [Office of Management & Budget
(OMB)] for the bill. She referred to the language on page 2 of
the OMB's fiscal note - dated 03/13/2013 - that read in part:
If a federal law has a significant impact, then staff,
and very likely economic consultants, may need to be
hired to determine the impact on the state and all of
the state's communities and industries.
There are just under 250 communities in Alaska.
Assessing the economic impact to these communities is
not a function that agencies are typically staffed to
perform. State employees implement and execute
federal and state programs and cooperative agreements.
They are not required to assess the economic impacts
to communities and industry. Individual communities
are responsible for providing this information to the
legislature directly if they choose to do so. For a
department to provide this information would be a
tremendous undertaking and would require additional
staff and consultants, depending on the requirements
of the law, regulation, or presidential executive
order.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON offered her belief that such analyses
should have already been being performed by the state before any
federal funding was accepted, particularly given the impact on
Alaska's communities.
1:17:09 PM
STACIE KRALY, Chief Assistant Attorney General - Statewide
Section Supervisor, Human Services Section, Civil Division
(Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said that the DOL is not
taking a position on HB 34, but has concerns regarding the
bill's potential future impact on the executive branch of state
government. Specifically, there is a concern regarding the
significant costs related to evaluating [federal laws,
regulations, and presidential executive orders] to the extent
required under [Version C] - including the cost of [hiring
additional staff and consultants] with the necessary expertise;
a concern related to identifying just which information would be
necessary in order for the state to compile the reports required
under the bill, particularly given the state's lack of access to
information obtained at the local level or by private industry;
and a concern related to the delay inherent in conducting the
type of analysis required under the bill, in that such delay
could result in a loss of federal funding or in missing the
construction season - in turn negatively impacting local
government and private industry. In conclusion she said that
the DOL understands the intent of the bill's sponsor and would
be willing to work with her to achieve her goals.
MS. KRALY, in response to questions, relayed that evaluating
federal regulations as required under the bill raises a concern
with regard to having to wait until any such regulations are
actually promulgated; that Version C of HB 34 is still unclear
with regard to how the state shall comply with the bill's
requirements and what shall trigger compliance; and that the
bill doesn't yet define the terms, "economic effect" as used on
page 1, line 10, or describe the scope of the required report.
Changing the bill to address those issues could be helpful, she
acknowledged, and again indicated a willingness to work with the
sponsor.
CHAIR KELLER ascertained that the representative from the Office
of Management & Budget (OMB) had nothing further to add to Ms.
Kraly's comments.
1:32:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX, referring to HB 34 as a great idea,
questioned whether it goes far enough, in that it doesn't yet
address situations wherein local governments and communities and
private industry must comply with state laws, regulations, and
gubernatorial executive orders.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG concurred; noted that the terms
"community" and "industry" as used on page 1, line 11, are also
not yet defined in the bill; and suggested that the
applicability section of the bill be changed such that the bill
would apply to laws, regulations, and orders implemented 180
days after the bill becomes effective.
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON acknowledged those points, and
reiterated that she'd thought the state was already conducting
the type of analyses that would be required under [Version C of]
the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX suggested that perhaps the term,
"industry" could be changed to the term, "person" because that
term is currently defined in statute as including entities other
than individual persons.
1:43:04 PM
MIKE COONS said he supports the intent of HB 34, though he
expressed a preference for the original version of the bill.
1:47:09 PM
CHARLES EDWARDS said he concurs with Mr. Coons's comments.
CHAIR KELLER noted that members' packets contain information
about certain federal requirements impacting the Alaska Railroad
Corporation (ARRC).
REPRESENTATIVE T. WILSON, in conclusion, predicted that the
administration won't be happy with any forthcoming proposed CS
for HB 34 because it, too, would entail more work for the
administration; and remarked: "Sometimes we might have to spend
some money to find out that information, but I think overall
we'll make better choices, and maybe choices we should have been
making in the first place."
[HB 34, Version C, was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHB 34 (JUD) Fiscal Note.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 34 |
| CSHB 73 (JUD) ver. U.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 73 |
| CSHB 73 (JUD) Highlights.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
HB 73 |
| CSSB 22 (JUD) Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/22/2013 1:00:00 PM |
SB 22 |