Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120

03/02/2021 03:00 PM 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.

Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHB 3(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
Heard & Held
-- Testimony <Invitation Only> --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled 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                                                              
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.                                                                   
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                                                              
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                                                                       
          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                                                              
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                                                                   
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                                                              
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-                                                              

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