Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
03/02/2021 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB3 | |
| HB18 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY
3:02:31 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the definition of
'disaster.'"
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony.
3:03:24 PM
KATIE BOTZ testified in support of HB 3. She opined that all
Alaskan government entities need to be aware of cybersecurity,
especially now, in 2021. She relayed that there have been many
global cases that involved hacking government agencies and
encouraged the protection of Alaska's government. She claimed
that it is "extremely easy to hack into the internet these
days." She suggested all government agencies install a VPN to
help protect and secure their networks from being hacked. She
alleged that BASIS and the DMV are not secure and accordingly,
expressed her concern. She expressed interest in finding ways
to help Alaska and offered her insight going forward.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on HB 3. He continued by
advising the consideration of amendments.
3:07:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1, [labeled 32-
LS0041\A.2, Dunmire, 3/1/21], which read:
Page 2, line 27, following "affected;":
Insert "in this subparagraph, "critical
infrastructure" has the meaning given in 42 U.S.C.
5195c(e);"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
3:07:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN informed the committee that Amendment 1
provides a reference to the United States Code for the
definition of "critical infrastructure." He opposed creating a
definition that would require amending if the federal definition
were to change, as the bill relies on the federal disaster
declaration definitions instead of state definitions. He
explained that Amendment 1 references Section 42 U.S.C.5195c(e),
which provides the foundation for definitions of "critical
infrastructure" in the supporting documents. Furthermore, he
offered his belief that it allows the federal government
flexibility through regulations, to both expand and contract the
definition of "critical infrastructure" within the meaning of
this portion of the U.S. Code.
3:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN observed that the U.S.C. {United States
Code] references interstate networks and sought to clarify
whether the definition is inclusive of intrastate networks
before proceeding.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that "inter" and "intra" sound
similar and asked Representative Kaufman to indicate which he
was referring to.
3:09:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN, after further clarification from
Representative Kaufman, offered his understanding that neither
interstate nor intrastate are mentioned in the U.S. Code
definition. Nonetheless, he acknowledged that as a matter of
commerce clause control, the federal government does not have
the capacity to regulate "intrastate," further noting that there
would be a commerce clause issue if the federal statute
pretended to control activities strictly within Alaska. He
maintained that the definition primarily describes the
facilities, which wouldn't have much impact in Alaska as the
state does not have many interstate infrastructures that crosses
boarders.
3:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN offered his observation that the federal
definition is limiting because it does not encapsulate things
that are vital and critical to Alaska. He suggested using the
federal definition and replacing the language "so vital to the
United States" with "so vital to the state of Alaska," which
would capture a broader aspect of critical items in Alaska that
wouldn't otherwise be captured under the federal code.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY opined that using the federal definition as
it's currently written would include states that Alaska does
business with, such as [Washington], and therefore, would be
all-inclusive. Consequently, she expressed her support for
Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested getting a [legal] opinion on
[Amendment 1].
3:13:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR expressed concern with the federal
definition because there could be a cyber attack on
infrastructure in Alaska that would be critical to the state but
would not rise to the level of importance to be considered
critical infrastructure to the United States. She added, for
example, that network outages in Wasilla would not be considered
critical infrastructure to the United States. She maintained
that the definition should be clarified to reflect Alaska-based
assets that are critical to the state.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS asked if this section of U.S. Code lists
the types of infrastructure assets that are included.
3:14:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN replied the U.S. Code does not have that,
later adding that the definition is fairly broad. He noted that
there is nothing in the federal definition that specifies
"interstate." He said under the definition, something can be
within the state and considered critical infrastructure, such as
the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which is a transportation
structure that if placed in cybersecurity risk, would be
considered critical infrastructure despite never leaving the
state. He offered his belief that the identified risks are not
the concern, adding that the primary point is to provide a
framework to reference.
3:16:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he would like to think that the
"boots on the ground" would be able to make judgement calls
regarding what constitutes critical infrastructure; however, he
recalled testimony from the previous hearing, which highlighted
a failed attempt to progress through the disaster declaration
process to conclusion because the statutory language didn't
allow it. He maintained that the language "vital to the United
States" could cause a borough attorney to object for the same
reasons, in which case, the legislature would be in the same
position two years from now.
3:18:14 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opined that it might be "half a dozen of
one, six of the other," as the broad intent of the legislation
is clear. He shared his belief that this definition probably
adds more clarity than otherwise.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1. He asked if there is further objection.
3:18:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:18:52 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:18 p.m.
3:19:32 PM
RREPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked for the bill sponsor's stance on
Amendment 1.
3:19:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor of HB 3, said she is "fine" with Amendment 1. She
offered her understanding that the rest of the act [Alaska
Disaster Act] still leaves the responsibility of defining
critical infrastructure to the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA) and does not exclude "intrastate."
3:20:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his objection.
3:20:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Story, Claman, and
Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of the adoption of Amendment 1.
Representatives Tarr, Vance, Kaufman, and Eastman voted against
it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 3-4.
3:21:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, [labeled 32-
LS0041\A.3, Dunmire, 3/2/21], which read:
Page 2, line 18, following the second occurrence of
"state":
Insert "or a political subdivision of the state"
Page 2, line 20, following "state":
Insert "or a political subdivision of the state"
Page 2, line 26, following "state":
Insert "or a political subdivision of the state"
Page 2, line 27, following "state":
Insert "or a political subdivision of the state"
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion. He
informed the committee that Amendment 2 was drafted in
consultation with the bill sponsor and the Alaska Municipal
League (AML) to provide additional clarity on what entities can
request a disaster declaration - namely cities and
municipalities. He directed attention to a letter from AML
[included in the committee packet], which provided additional
context.
3:22:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN reflected on flooding that occurred in
his district [District 10], which qualified as a disaster in the
borough but not the state. He asked if Amendment 2 indicates
that a disaster on the political subdivision level would also
qualify as a state disaster.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS sought further clarification from
Representative Eastman.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if Amendment 2, by replacing the
word "state" with "political subdivision of the state,"
indicates that a political-subdivision-level disaster would
qualify as a state disaster. He offered his understanding that
currently, there is a distinction between the two.
3:24:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS pointed out that the landslide in Haines,
which affected Haines only, rose to the level that, by the
governor's discretion, qualified as a state-level disaster. He
added that apparently, after reviewing the facts of the flooding
in [District 10], the governor found that the incident did not
reach that level. Nonetheless, both instances were local
incidents that did not have statewide implications.
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE, in response to Representative Eastman,
noted that the language in Amendment 2 inserts "or a political
subdivision of the state" after the occurrence of "state" rather
than replacing the word "state." She asked if Representative
Eastman shared the same understanding.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered yes. He offered his
understanding that adding "or a political subdivision of the
state" creates an either/or.
3:26:01 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS explained that as it's currently written,
the bill allows for some ambiguity on whether the Matanuska-
Susitna (Mat-Su) Borough, because it's not state government,
could request a disaster, whereas Amendment 2 clarifies that
municipal governments are eligible to request a disaster
[declaration]; however, it doesn't guarantee that the request
would be granted.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON noted that all cities are considered
political subdivisions. She explained that not all municipal
disasters rise to the level of a state disaster; regardless,
sometimes the state intervenes to allow a city that experienced
a specific disaster to the area to acquire federal funding,
which speaks to the intent of Amendment 2.
3:27:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed his support for the amendment
and indicated his intent to put forward a conceptual amendment
if Amendment 2 is adopted.
3:28:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. Hearing no further
objection, he announced that Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:28:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN, referencing page 2, expressed concern
that the bill, as amended, is too broad. He moved to adopt
Conceptual Amendment 1, which would remove the "vulnerability
component" to maintain focus on attacks that have occurred or
are about to occur. He remarked:
The conceptual amendment would be to limit the scope
to those attacks that have happened or are about to
happen and would remove the vulnerabilities from
triggering a disaster before anything bad has actually
happened.
3:30:23 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.
Broadly speaking on behalf of DMVA and the governor's
discretion, he said, they do not declare disasters "willy
nilly." He pointed out that thus far, there has been a lot of
discretion and restraint exercised on the issuance of disaster
declarations. Regarding cybersecurity vulnerabilities, he
opined that having all-available resources and flexibility would
be conceptually advantageous, even if nothing has happened yet.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON relayed that if a large, widespread
vulnerability were identified, a disaster could be declared, and
funding could be sought. She acknowledged the concern of being
overly broad and deferred to her staff, Mr. Cordero, to address
that concern.
3:32:36 PM
ERICK CORDERO, Staff, Representative DeLena Johnson, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Johnson, prime
sponsor of HB 3, explained that vulnerabilities are taken into
account when considering resources for the solution. He
informed the committee that vulnerabilities are the foundation
of attacks and targeted by state actors, which is why they are
important to include in the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN related that a known vulnerability would
need to be fixed and responded to. He said that sounds like an
important utility.
3:34:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed her concern that declaring a
vulnerability-based disaster would signify that Alaska is
vulnerable. However, she recalled from previous testimony that
in part, defining a vulnerability dictates how many people can
work the issue in a quick amount of time. She opined that part
of the hurdle is understanding the definition of "vulnerability"
in regard to cybersecurity. Ultimately, the more technicians,
the sooner the vulnerability is over, she stated. Therefore,
she said she comfortable with keeping the word "vulnerability."
3:35:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN maintained his support for Conceptual
Amendment 1, stating that this legislation is not only speaking
to a known cybersecurity vulnerability, which has already been
identified, but also, a cybersecurity vulnerability that has yet
to occur. He shared his understanding that the bill as it's
currently written, would allow a political subdivision that may
encounter a vulnerability in the future, to potentially qualify
for a state disaster. He opined that the broadened bill
language could allow Alaska to be in a perpetual state of
disaster, which Conceptual Amendment 1 attempts to avoid.
3:37:34 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Eastman voted in
favor of the adoption of Conceptual Amendment 1.
Representatives Tarr, Story, Claman, Vance, Kaufman, and Kreiss-
Tomkins voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 1
failed by a vote of 1-5.
3:38:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN questioned whether the committee could
set the bill aside to allow time to obtain an opinion from
Legislative Legal Services.
3:39:18 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:39 p.m.
3:39:54 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS acknowledged that bookmarking the bill is
worth further consideration.
3:40:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that HB 3 is a good bill, which he
looks forward to hearing in the Judiciary Committee. He added
that he would consider co-sponsoring the legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY shared her belief that HB 3 is a good bill.
She opined that the State Affairs Committee should consider what
protections Alaska has to prevent [cybersecurity attacks] from
happening.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said he supports the concept of adding
cybersecurity into statute; however, he indicated his objection
to reporting HB 3 out of committee in its current form.
3:41:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN moved to report HB 3, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected.
3:41:31 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kaufman, Tarr,
Story, Claman, Vance, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in favor of
reporting HB 3, as amended, out of committee. Representative
Eastman voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 3(STA) was reported
from the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 5-
1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 3_Definition of Critical Infrastructure_42 U.S.C 5195c(e)_HSTA.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2021 3:00:00 PM |
|
| HB 3 Testimony - Letter of Support AML 3.1.2021.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3 Fiscal Note DOA-IT 2.21.2021 (Printed 3.2.2021).pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3_Amendment 1_HSTA_3-2-2021.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB 3_Amendment 2_HSTA_3-2-2021.pdf |
HSTA 3/2/2021 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |