Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
02/28/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB54 | |
| HB269 | |
| HB353 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 353 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 269-REQUIRE AK/US FLAGS BE MADE IN USA 9:26:07 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 269, "An Act requiring the state to procure United States and Alaska flags manufactured in the United States; and requiring state buildings and schools to display only United States and Alaska flags manufactured in the United States." 9:26:26 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) for HB 269, Version 25-LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version K was before the committee. 9:26:42 AM NANCY MANLY, Staff, Representative Bob Lynn, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Lynn, prime sponsor of HB 269, discussed the two main changes made in Version K. The first, she said, was the addition of a definition of "manufactured in the United States" as meaning that "the flag was assembled in facilities in the United States". The definition would be in new statute, AS 36.30.321. Ms. Manly explained the reason for the definition is because it is almost impossible to determine where raw materials come from. The second change, she noted, was the addition of the "TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS", on page 2, lines 11-16, of Version K, which was incorporated into the bill after a recommendation from Representative Doll at the previous bill hearing. 9:28:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG thanked all involved for tightening up the language of bill, which he said is now constitutional. He noted for the record that the committee had received legal opinions from Dennis Bailey of Legislative Legal and Research Services, dated January 24, 28, and February 13, as well as an e-mail from Jeff Freidman stating concerns, which he said have been addressed in Version K. He stated his desire that all those documents be included in the committee packet. 9:29:56 AM MS. MANLY, in response to a question from Representative Doll regarding enforcement, said the bill proposes no penalties. She stated, "We're just going to assume that the State of Alaska will follow its own laws and the schools will also." In response to Representative Doll, she said that after doing research for the bill, she would estimate that there are four or five firms that manufacture flags in the U.S. 9:31:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said there are only four companies in the United States that have been certified to manufacture U.S. flags made solely of materials made in the U.S., but he does not know about certification for Alaska flags. MS. MANLY related, "When we were working on a draft for the bill, we tried to use that certification, and [Legislative Legal and Research Services] said, 'No, you couldn't do that.' So, that's why we started getting off on a tangent for ... raw materials and stuff, and then we just kind of tightened that up in this version." 9:32:00 AM CHAIR LYNN said he concurs with those who have called HB 269 a "feel good" bill. He said as a military veteran, when he dies there will be a flag on his coffin, and he certainly hopes it will have been manufactured in the U.S. He remarked that the suit he is currently wearing was made in China, but it is just a "thing." A flag, on the other hand, is not just a thing; it is an important symbol of what the nation stands for. 9:33:22 AM VERN JONES, Chief Procurement Officer, Division of General Services, Department of Administration, in response to a question from Representative Roses, stated his belief that most of the American manufacturers of U.S. flags also produce state flags, and the State of Alaska, as a practice, has been buying its state and U.S. flags from a source that buys its flags from a U.S. manufacturer. In response to a question from Representative Johnson, he said the determination of whether or not to go through a competitive bidding process depends on the dollar amount, and the amount that the state spends on flags do not "rise to that level." He said the purchase of flags for the state is categorized as "small procurements." In response to a follow-up question from Representative Johnson, he confirmed that mandating a source for flags does not violate the state's procurement codes. 9:35:03 AM MR. JONES, in response to a question from Representative Doll, explained that there are "various levels of competition" required in the state's procurement code. Procurements over $5,000 must have competitive quotes, procurements over $25,000 must have written quotes, and procurements over $50,000 - "formal" procurements - must be done with full competition with public notice and a 21-day circulation period. He said he thinks the procurement of flags for the state only amounts to hundreds of dollars, not thousands. REPRESENTATIVE DOLL stated, "It was interesting because we have $15,000 just for the U.S. flags that you buy each year, and that doesn't include Alaskan. So, I would imagine if you put in the Alaskan along with the U.S., you're up to about ... $30,000. So, it is not just a tiny little amount, but thank you for clarifying that." 9:36:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES predicted that the school districts probably would be the most impacted [by HB 269]. He noted that there is a U.S. flag in every classroom, larger ones on display throughout the building, and flags flown outside the building. Most of the schools already have flags, but all the new buildings and classrooms have none, he noted. 9:37:32 AM MR. JONES responded, "What we're talking about as far as the impacts of this bill is the difference you would pay for the lowest prize, presumably foreign-made flags and the U.S. flag, and I think our experience is there's not a great difference in the price." 9:38:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that the proposed legislation would not require every flag in every classroom be American made - only the ones flying in the front of the building. CHAIR LYNN stated for record that the bill pertains to official flags flown outside the building, not all the flags flown inside the school, even though he would like to see all the flags be American made. 9:39:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES remarked that when students stand up to salute the flag, they are not saluting the flag flying outside the building, but the ones in their classrooms. In response to Chair Lynn, he said he does not have a problem with the bill as it is, he just wants the record to be clear regarding what the vote will be. 9:41:17 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said Section 1 refers to AS 14.03.130. He read the first sentence [in subsection (a)] of that statute, which read as follows: (a) United States and Alaska flags shall be displayed upon or near each principal school building during school hours and at other times the governing body considers proper. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he interprets that language to mean only the flag that is in front of the school. He asked Mr. Bailey if that is correct or if a clarifying amendment is needed. DENNIS BAILEY, Attorney, Legislative Legal Council, Legislative Legal and Research Services, responded yes. He referred to the proposed amendment to AS 44.09.030, in Section 4 of the bill, and noted that [the current language of subsection (b) of that statute] lists where the flags of both the United States and the State of Alaska shall be displayed, weather permitting, and one of those places, [as shown in paragraph (2)], is "in or near every schoolhouse during school days." Mr. Bailey said he does not see a specific requirement that a flag be displayed in each classroom. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if an amendment is necessary to clarify that "what we're talking about is the flag in front of the building - one flag per building - maximum," not the flags inside the building. MR. BAILEY said the aforementioned statutes speak to a flag near a school building, whereas the bill would "apply to any flag under those sections that required would have to be purchased from a manufacturer in the U.S." 9:43:50 AM MR. BAILEY, in response to Chair Lynn, confirmed that the bill would apply only to new flags that are purchased for display; the transitional provisions in Section 5 would allow flags that are already purchased to be used. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he understands that, but that is not his concern. He reiterated his previously stated concern regarding the need to specify to which flags in school districts the bill would apply. 9:45:11 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved Conceptual Amendment 1, "that we're, in each case, talking about the flag that's in the front of the building." 9:45:23 AM CHAIR LYNN objected to Conceptual Amendment 1. He said when the flags currently shown in classrooms wear out, they will be replaced with a flag in a storeroom, and when there are no more flags in the storeroom, they will be replaced with a new flag that has been made in America. He said he does not see the need for Conceptual Amendment 1. 9:46:19 AM MR. JONES, in response to Representative Johnson, said he is not sure how many flags the State of Alaska has in reserve, because the procurement system used is decentralized; each office or department that needs a flag makes its own purchase. However, he offered his understanding that Legislative Research generated a questionnaire and "had some results from that." 9:47:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE DOLL said information she found shows that the State of Alaska has 563 flags on hand. She said, "We purchase 472 each year; we display 232." 9:48:01 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in determining whether or not to maintain his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, asked Mr. Bailey: Is it your interpretation that AS 44.09.030 and AS 14.03.130 simply refer to the ... main flag that's flown in front of the building or on the building, rather than - in the case of schools particularly - in each classroom? MR. BAILEY quoted AS 44.49.030(b) [language provided previously] and said he thinks it is reasonable to interpret that the bill would apply to flags flown in a schoolhouse. 9:49:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1. He read from Mr. Freidman's e-mail as follows: "I believe this bill only applies to the primary display flags outside the front of each building - page 1. If applied to every classroom flag, the impact would be huge, as we have thousands of classrooms in the district." Even when only pertaining to future flags, Representative Gruenberg said, there would still be a cost to the school district. 9:50:28 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES said he thinks that once the transitional amendment was made, that alleviated the greatest concern the school district had, because he said he thinks Mr. Freidman's concern was in anticipating having to buy thousands of flags at once. He said he thinks Conceptual Amendment 1 would water the bill down to the point where "it's absolutely not even a feel- good bill, it's a meaningless bill." 9:51:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1. 9:51:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report CSHB 269, Version 25- LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected. He said, "We start talking about national symbol over nationalism." He explained that the nationalism says, "We only can spend our money here," rather than really produce a symbol. He said he appreciates when money is spent in America. He added, "But then, under the "ism" that I just said, we're going to make a law that says you must do it that way. Then what ... we do is we put the symbol under a whole different type of scrutiny than I ever really ... wanted it to be." A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Roses, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn voted in favor of moving CSHB 269, Version 25- LS1013\K, Bailey, 2/27/08, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. Representatives Coghill and Johnson voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 269(STA) was reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|