Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/03/2018 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 3, 2018
10:05 a.m.
10:05:05 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Paul Seaton, Co-Chair
Representative Les Gara, Vice-Chair
Representative Jason Grenn
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Lance Pruitt
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Cathy Tilton
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Jennifer Johnston, Sponsor; Elizabeth
Rexford, Staff, Representative Jennifer Johnston.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Rob Carter, Manager, Plant Materials Center, Division of
Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources; Doug Gardner,
Director, Legislative Legal Services.
SUMMARY
HB 41 JOINT PRIME SPONSORSHIP OF BILLS
CSHB 41(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a
"do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Legislative Affairs Agency.
HB 197 COMMUNITY SEED LIBRARIES
CSHB 197(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with
a "do pass" recommendation and with one new zero
fiscal note from the Department of Natural
Resources.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the meeting schedule.
HOUSE BILL NO. 197
"An Act relating to the duties of the commissioner of
natural resources; relating to agriculture; and
relating to community seed libraries."
10:06:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON, SPONSOR, thanked the
committee for hearing the bill. She referenced the new
committee substitute (CS) [yet to be adopted version M, see
below for detail]. She shared that working on the CS had
been a collaborative process that had made a good bill even
better. She had heard significant support for the passage
of the bill from agricultural local gardening communities.
The bill would help to legitimize a growing movement in the
state to further improve food security and self-
sufficiency. She thanked the committee for hearing the bill
and asked her staff to provide further detail.
ELIZABETH REXFORD, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE JENNIFER JOHNSTON,
read from a prepared statement:
The newest version of HB 197 reduces labeling and
testing regulations for the exchange of small batches
of commercial seeds. The bill will permit the Alaskan
gardening and farming communities the opportunity to
continue expanding seed sharing without breaking the
law. We currently have far onerously labeling
requirements in Alaska.
The way the statute is currently written, any seed
that is used at any capacity within the state has to
go through or should go through the commercial process
of extensive testing, germinating percentages, and
labeling. The new requirements comparatively would be
limited. The new labeling guidelines would require
only a few sections: the seed's common name and name
and address of the seed library. If treated with a
toxic substance the labeling would require the
statement "treated seed, not for consumption." As for
signage in the library, the seed library would have to
display the statement "not authorized for commercial
use and not classified, graded, or inspected by the
State of Alaska." The new fewer requirements for
labeling is far less than the two pages of
requirements we currently do have.
As stated previously, Alaska has been experiencing a
severe food security challenge. By passage of this
bill, our community seed libraries will be able to
confidently exist and grow into the future. Please
join us in supporting HB 197. Rob Carter whom is the
state's plant material center manager is online as our
expert. Thank you for taking the time to hear this
bill again.
10:09:09 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had previously been
joined by Representative Ortiz.
Representative Wilson asked for verification the 100-pound
limit in the bill meant that a person [could not give or
exchange seed] exceeding more than 100 pounds at one time.
She asked for verification that it was not an annual limit.
Ms. Rexford answered that a 12-month limitation per person
included in a previous bill version had been removed.
Representative Wilson asked if the limit was based on a
particular transaction in the current bill.
Ms. Rexford answered in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced language the summary of changes
from bill versions A to M, specifying version M had removed
the insertion of "commercial and noncommercial." He asked
for clarification.
Ms. Rexford answered that the specific language in the
summary of changes had been an error.
Representative Guttenberg spoke to the importance of the
bill for encouraging gardens and early farmers. He
appreciated the sponsor's work on the bill. He explained
there was no need to regulate seed libraries "at that
level" but they were still subject to regulations regarding
noxious weeds and other things. He thought 100-pound per
person limit seemed like a substantial amount. He asked for
detail. He asked if the limit focused on one specific seed
such as grass, alfalfa, hay, or other.
Ms. Rexford answered that the sponsor had considered a few
levels and numbers in terms of grams and pounds. She
believed the figure had originally been 100 grams, which
was far too small for the department to oversee and
regulate. The level had been increased to 1 pound, which
was also viewed as too low. The department had come up with
a number to protect the public and agricultural communities
against invasive species and other noxious plants. She
discussed how the 100-pound limit had been calculated. It
had been suggested by calculating the general broadcasting
plant recommendation for the non-commercial planting of a
cover crop used to improve soil health or to produce a crop
such as oats or barley for 1 acre of feed or forage. In the
future there may be several instances where the amount
would exceed the 100-pound limitation, in which case, the
current testing regulations would be followed.
10:13:19 AM
Representative Guttenberg opined that a one acre lot
bordered on commercial, but he was not certain where the
break point occurred. He asked to hear from the Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) at what point a low level seed
library became commercial (due to size).
ROB CARTER, MANAGER, PLANT MATERIALS CENTER, DIVISION OF
AGRICULTURE, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES (via
teleconference), asked for a restatement of the question.
Representative Guttenberg complied. He believed 100 pounds
exceeded what he perceived a seed library to be. He viewed
seed libraries as local gardeners with vegetable and garden
patches. He stated that 100 pounds could be much more if it
was for a family. He asked what a 100-pound limit included
that a limit of 25 to 50 pounds could not have done.
Mr. Carter answered that 100 pounds was a general broadcast
planting rate for crops such as oats, barley, and wheat
that an individual may utilize for a forage crop for their
goats, cows, or other livestock. The department believed
limitations were necessary to provide protection and ensure
it could control the spread of invasive or nonnative
species of plants in Alaska. The department wanted to make
sure the limitations were high enough for individuals
living a subsistence lifestyle who may be raising livestock
or producing a forage or feed or improve their soil in
remote regions of one acre or more. The department believed
100 pounds met the need and still fell below the threshold
required for commercial planters or producers.
10:16:08 AM
Representative Guttenberg thought the answer made
significant sense. He had not previously thought about a
local gardener or seed library trying to support goats or
dairy. He asked for the coverage of 100 pounds of barley or
grass seed. He asked for verification the bill applied to
noncommercial farmers only and would not include commercial
seed producers.
Mr. Carter replied in the affirmative. For example, the
bill would apply to an individual living in Bethel or north
of the range along the Yukon River who was required to
purchase some seed. He continued that to save on shipping
the individual had brought in a couple hundred pounds. The
individual had carryover from the previous year from a
barley crop they had used to raise livestock for
subsistence. The bill would give the individual the right
to share the noncommercial seed with the community and
nonprofits in order to reap the benefits of a cover crop or
the forage produced off a reasonable one acre.
Co-Chair Seaton referenced the summary of changes, which
addressed the limitation of 100 pounds for a single
transfer. He pointed to labeling requirements on page 4 of
the bill pertaining to each person receiving seeds. He
wondered if a person could buy four 100-pound sacks on four
different days to avoid the 100-pound limitation.
Alternatively, he wondered if a person would be limited to
buying 100 pounds per year.
Ms. Rexford answered that as the bill currently read, the
limit was per transaction.
Co-Chair Seaton asked for the location of the provision in
the bill. He looked at the requirement on page 4 of the
bill that read "a person may not give seed or exchange seed
with another person under AS 03.20.110 and 03.20.120 in an
amount that, for each person who receives the seed, exceeds
100 pounds." He asked if the limit was per transaction or
per person.
10:19:50 AM
Mr. Carter viewed the limit as applying to the person
receiving the seed. For example, it was more efficient to
buy cereal grain in bulk. He provided a hypothetical
example of an individual on the peninsula who chose to
purchase a super sack (1,800 to 2,000 pounds of seed) to be
used as forage on their property. If a person used 1,000
pounds of the seed and wanted to donate the remainder
across the community, to a seed library, or to a nonprofit,
they would be limited to giving out 100 pounds of the seed
per person.
Co-Chair Seaton asked if the sponsor saw a transaction
limitation any differently.
Representative Johnston answered they had contemplated
various limits. She believed the current language was the
best it could be without limiting too much, while
maintaining some kind of protection.
Co-Chair Seaton clarified for the record that the limit was
per person.
Co-Chair Foster noted the committee had been joined by
Representative Grenn earlier.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for CSHB 197(FIN), Work Draft 30-LS0493\M
(Wayne, 3/7/18).
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Vice-Chair Gara reviewed the zero fiscal note from the
Department of Natural Resources.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 197(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 197(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from
the Department of Natural Resources.
10:23:57 AM
AT EASE
10:25:25 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act relating to joint prime sponsorship of bills."
10:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He explained that over the years the
legislature had allowed legislators to become joint prime
sponsors of legislation. The old rule only allowed
legislators to become joint prime sponsors in the first
five days of session. He discussed that some of the best
relationships he had built in the building were with
members across the aisle working as joint sponsors on
legislation. The bill would reinstitute the practice of
allowing joint sponsors on legislation and would allow it
to happen any time during the year. He believed working
across party lines was good - it built relationships and
trust. He thought it was what the public expected. He
believed it was better for a group of people, especially
people across party lines, to stand together on an issue.
He recalled working as a joint prime sponsor with the
former mayor of Fairbanks [Representative Steve Thompson]
and the former House Finance Committee co-chair from Haines
[Representative Bill Thomas] and a number of other
individuals.
Vice-Chair Gara elaborated that based on his experience as
a former Minority member, Minority bills move through the
legislative process more slowly. He believed co-sponsorship
across party lines helped solve the problem. He stated the
bill was simple and followed the current legislative
Uniform Rules. He explained that changing the Uniform Rules
required a two-thirds vote, which he did not want to do. He
explained that the bill would allow a group of legislators
to agree to be joint prime sponsors. There would be one or
two lead legislators sponsoring the bill. He elaborated
that a legislator could always remove their name from a
bill at any time it was in the house they belonged to. He
had asked Doug Gardner, director of Legislative Legal
Services if he could remember a case where someone had
objected to another legislator removing their own name off
a bill. As far as Mr. Gardner could recall, it had never
happened. He acknowledged it was a possibility and a
legislator would know that when they signed on. In that
circumstance, he reasoned he would tell his constituents he
no longer supported a piece legislation and would try to
take his name off as soon as possible.
Vice-Chair Gara summarized that the bill would get people
to work together and especially encouraged newer, younger
legislators to build relationships. He thought the bill was
a small thing that was beneficial for the legislative
process.
10:29:53 AM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if one of six or so co-prime sponsors
would be allowed to offer an amendment in committee. He
asked if all co-prime sponsors would have equal ownership
of the legislation. He noted that co-sponsors were
different than the owner of the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara believed the co-prime sponsors would have
to come up with an agreement at the start of a piece of
legislation. In the past, when he had been the lead co-
prime sponsor, people had given him the discretion to make
those calls and he had brought issues back to the other
sponsors for them to decide whether they were amenable to
the change. A group of sponsors could also agree in advance
whether to accept any amendments or a co-prime sponsor
would have to say in front of a committee they did not know
whether the other co-prime sponsors accepted the amendment.
He reasoned that when considering legislation, it was a
committee's purview to decide whether or not to amend a
bill. He noted he had never had the problem. In his
experience, they had always trusted the lead prime sponsor
to report back to other sponsors to determine whether the
change was acceptable or if they should try to reverse it.
He believed it was necessary to have an understanding
between prime sponsors at the start of a piece of
legislation.
Co-Chair Seaton thought it was beneficial to put any
potential pitfalls on the record during committee
discussion. He noted that it was easy for a legislator to
take their name off a piece of legislation as a co-sponsor,
which included submitting a green slip or telling the
clerks. He asked if the process would be the same for prime
sponsors. Alternatively, he asked if a legislator had to
stand on the [House or Senate] floor to make the request,
which was typically the process when requesting to change
the sponsor.
10:33:08 AM
Vice-Chair Gara replied it was a good question. He
referenced the late date and explained that he would
support changing the Uniform Rules if he believed it could
be done. The bill followed the current Uniform Rules
requirement for a person to stand up [on the House or
Senate floor] to request unanimous consent for the removal
of their name from the bill. No one could recall that a
person had ever objected to the removal of a name. He
reiterated his earlier testimony that a person would enter
into a co-prime sponsorship with the knowledge that it was
a remote possibility.
Representative Thompson recalled when he had first become a
legislator there had been a yellow sheet that members could
fill out to become a co-prime sponsor, but the first prime
sponsor had to agree to add any co-prime sponsors. He
thought there had been a deadline one to two weeks after
the start of session to sign on as a co-prime sponsor on a
bill. He asked if that was the case under the bill as well.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that all prime sponsors had to
agree to the other prime sponsors, which had never been a
problem. In the past, it had only been possible to sign on
as a co-prime sponsor within the first five days of the
first year of a two-year legislative session. He thought
the option should be available all year. He believed
working together should occur all year and should not be
limited to the first five days of session.
Representative Thompson agreed.
Representative Guttenberg would much prefer to have someone
help him with a bill whether they were prime or co-prime
sponsors, instead of a person merely adding their name as a
co-sponsor. He did not object to the bill. He spoke to the
preference for having legislators sign on who actively
advocate for the legislation. He did not necessarily
believe a person had to be on the co-prime or prime sponsor
list to take that action. He noted that he had worked
significantly with the sponsor of the previous bill and had
become a co-sponsor earlier in the day. He spoke to the
importance of getting things done as opposed to merely
putting someone's name on a bill. He understood it was
important for some people and the dynamics for everyone in
the building were different. He thought it was possible to
bring a group of people together who did not feel it was
important to have their name on the legislation. He
observed the dynamics differed by person, bill, and party.
He noted that some issues had no party or regional lines,
which worked very well. He imagined the co-prime
sponsorship option was the best thing. He added the
dynamics in the building took wild swings.
10:38:14 AM
Representative Tilton asked how far along in the process a
co-prime sponsor could be added.
Vice-Chair Gara answered upon introduction of the bill. He
elaborated there would be agreement prior to the
introduction of a bill. He understood Representative
Guttenberg's point and explained his preference to have co-
prime sponsors who would contribute work to the bill.
Additionally, if someone who wanted to co-prime had a good
relationship with a legislator the prime sponsor did not,
the co-prime sponsor could inform the person about the
merits of the bill. He agreed with Representative
Guttenberg about his preference to have co-prime sponsors
who would work on the bill and help it along. He surmised
that four people could do more work than one person. He
believed it was nice to have ownership over a passed bill
after two years of hard work.
Representative Pruitt referenced language in Section 3 of
the bill specifying that a bill could only be withdrawn
with the agreement of all joint prime sponsors and in the
manner prescribed in the Uniform Rules. He asked how the
process would work. He wondered if a prime sponsor would
make the motion to withdraw the bill on the floor or if co-
prime sponsor signatures would need to be gathered prior to
moving to withdraw the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara answered that a person would stand up on
the floor and ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the
bill; if there were no objections, a co-prime sponsor's
name would be removed. He referenced the last provision in
the bill [Section 3 cited by Representative Pruitt]
regarding an agreement of all joint prime sponsors and
deferred to Legislative Legal Services. He was amenable to
removing the sentence requiring agreement of all joint
prime sponsors to withdraw the bill if it did not require a
Uniform Rules change. He did not want a bill that would
require a two-thirds vote in both bodies.
DOUG GARDNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), referenced the conversation about the
prior prime sponsorship for pre-filed bills that ended in
the 29th Legislature. One of the concerns at the time had
been about who had the authority to withdraw a bill. In
response to the concern, the dilemma had been resolved in
the current bill by requiring all joint prime sponsors to
agree to the bill's withdrawal. In other words, everyone
sponsoring the bill would be treated the same. Currently,
only the sponsor of a bill had the authority to withdraw a
bill. He believed the provision was a logical extension of
the rule.
10:43:57 AM
Vice-Chair Gara had misread the last sentence and believed
the sentence made sense. He explained that if a person
wanted to remove their name from a bill they could stand on
the floor and make the request. Historically, there had
been no objections. The second part of the sentence
pertained to withdrawing a bill. He provided a scenario
where a bill had four prime sponsors who supported it and
one who no longer supported it. He explained that the
person could decide to take their name off the bill. He did
not want to prevent the remaining sponsors from trying to
move the bill forward.
Representative Pruitt believed there needed to be approval
of all the joint sponsors. He was trying to determine the
logistics of the process. He used a scenario with two co-
prime sponsors who had a disagreement on the bill. He
elaborated that one sponsor wanted to withdraw the bill,
but the other did not. He contemplated what would take
place if the member who supported the legislation was
absent and the other member made a motion to withdraw the
bill. He asked how there would be confirmation of agreement
between all co-prime sponsors. He recalled there had been
problems with the issue in the past, which had resulted in
the elimination of the process.
Mr. Gardner mentioned statute, floor practice, and
precedent developed by the bodies. He likened the situation
to a scenario where a bill was being waived from committee
with the agreement of all committee members. He believed
legislators were honorable on the floor and that
individuals would communicate whether an agreement had been
made. He referenced the scenario provided by Representative
Pruitt where there were two co-prime sponsors of a bill. He
believed one of the sponsors could stand up on the floor
and relay that they had spoken to the other sponsor and
they both agreed the bill should be withdrawn. He believed
it was probably the same type of practice. If there was a
dispute, the member who wanted the bill withdrawn could
chose to remove their name from the legislation.
Representative Pruitt asked if waiving a bill from
committee was practice or fell under Uniform Rules.
Mr. Gardner answered under Uniform Rules, the House Speaker
or Senate President had to provide one committee of
referral. The practice of waiving from committee allowed
the speaker and president to satisfy that requirement. He
believed it was a practice issue, where for efficiency, a
bill could be waived at the end of session if a companion
bill had been heard or if people wanted to move it to the
floor. He concluded waiving a bill from committee was rule-
based but was mostly a practice that had evolved in the
legislature to move bills.
10:48:19 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
delete Section 1, lines 3 through 5:
Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
SHORT TITLE. This Act may be known as the Bipartisan
Cooperation Act.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure independents were
counted. She believed including the word "bipartisan" made
the legislation more partisan.
Representative Thompson asked Representative Wilson to
repeat the amendment.
Representative Wilson complied.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2
on page 1, lines 13 and 14 to delete the words "up to four
joint prime sponsors." She believed the number of
individuals allowed to sign on to a piece of legislation
should not be limited to four.
Vice-Chair Gara was agreeable to the amendment and
understood Representative Wilson's point. He posed a
question about whether eight [joint prime sponsors] became
unwieldly. He reasoned the group of individuals could
decide how big or small they wanted to be.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
10:50:12 AM
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to the following language on line
15, page 1 through line 1, page 2: "All joint prime
sponsors must agree to allow additional joint prime
sponsors." He referenced an earlier statement that members
could only sign on as joint prime sponsors at the
introduction of a bill. He thought the language allowed
joint prime sponsors to be added to a bill throughout the
process. He asked Mr. Gardner for clarification.
Mr. Gardner believed the sponsor [of HB 41] should be asked
about his intent. He added that AS 24.08.060, which would
be amended by the addition of subsection (c) applied to the
introduction of bills. In the past, prime sponsorship had
been done in the pre-file process. Once the bill had been
introduced people could become co-sponsors. He believed the
subsection was about the introduction of bills, not about
later on in the process. He reiterated his belief that the
sponsor should put his intent on the record.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to receive something in writing from
Legislative Legal Services about their interpretation of
the provision. He also wanted to hear from the sponsor.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the issue had been closely
considered to ensure joint prime sponsors could only sign
onto legislation upon introduction. He noted there were
only two remaining sections in the bill. The first section
specified a group of members may introduce a bill or
resolution (for the introduction). For clarity, the same
language had been added in Section 3, which specified a
bill may be introduced by a group of members. He explained
the bill clearly applied only to the introduction of
legislation.
10:54:22 AM
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to ensure it was clear on the record
that the bill only applied to the introduction of
legislation. He reasoned that when a bill had not been
introduced there would be no co-prime sponsors at that
time. He referred to the bill's language that all joint
prime sponsors must agree to allow additional joint prime
sponsors, which he believed indicated additional joint
prime sponsors could be added. He wanted it to be clear
that additional prime sponsors could not be added. He
believed no one was a co-prime sponsor until after a bill
was introduced. He explained a bill did not exist until it
had been introduced. He asked if a change to the formatting
was needed.
Mr. Gardner replied that the bill addressed introduction of
bills only and addressed a group of people working together
on a bill. He did not believe the bill language needed
further clarification. He stated that if a person wanted to
be added after the introductory period, they would be added
as co-sponsors, not prime sponsors. Prime sponsors could
not be added under the specific statute after a bill had
been introduced. One of the issues the bill resolved, was
how Legislative Legal Services dealt with additional names
being added to the bill. The statute specified that if an
individual wanted to be a co-prime sponsor that other prime
sponsors all had to agree. He explained it removed
Legislative Legal Services from getting involved in the
process. The issue would be up to prime sponsors to sort
out. He underscored that the bill applied to an
introduction statute, not an add-on-later statute. Based on
the way the statute was drafted, Legislative Legal Services
would not add co-primes after the introduction of a bill.
He believed the statute was fairly clear.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to make sure it was clear on the
record. He appreciated the explanation.
10:58:17 AM
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the
provision requiring all joint prime sponsors to agree to
allow additional joint prime sponsors only pertained to the
introduction portion of a bill. She surmised someone could
not be added as a joint prime sponsor later on.
Mr. Gardner agreed. He detailed HB 41 pertained only to the
introduction process, and not to the period after a piece
of legislation had been introduced. After the introduction
period any individuals added to a bill would be co-
sponsors.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 41(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 41(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
11:01:16 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:01 a.m.