03/13/2024 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB358 | |
| HB254 | |
| HB278 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 358 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 278 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 2024
1:04 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Sarah Vance, Chair
Representative Jamie Allard, Vice Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Jesse Sumner
Representative Andrew Gray
Representative Cliff Groh
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 358
"An Act relating to use of artificial intelligence to create or
alter a representation of the voice or likeness of an
individual."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 254
"An Act relating to liability for publishing or distributing
pornography to minors on the Internet."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 278
"An Act establishing the administrative regulation review
division."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 358
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT AI-ALTERED REPRESENTATIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CRONK
02/20/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/20/24 (H) JUD
03/13/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 254
SHORT TITLE: PROHIBIT PORNOGRAPHY TO MINORS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) VANCE
01/16/24 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/12/24
01/16/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/24 (H) L&C, JUD
01/31/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/31/24 (H) Heard & Held
01/31/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/06/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/06/24 (H) Heard & Held
03/06/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/11/24 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/11/24 (H) Moved HB 254 Out of Committee
03/11/24 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/13/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 278
SHORT TITLE: ADMIN. REGULATION REVIEW DIVISION
SPONSOR(s): WAYS & MEANS
01/18/24 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/18/24 (H) JUD, STA, FIN
03/13/24 (H) JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 358, as the prime sponsor.
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff
Representative Mike Cronk
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB
358, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor.
BOB BALLINGER, Staff
Representative Sarah Vance
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
254, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor.
RICHARD DARR, Executive Director
National Decency Coalition
Nashville, Tennessee
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave invited testimony during the hearing
on HB 254.
REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 278, on behalf of the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means, sponsor by request, chaired
by Representative Carpenter.
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff
Representative Ben Carpenter
Alaska state Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented the sectional analysis for HB
278, on behalf of the House Special Committee on Ways and Means,
sponsor by request, chaired by Representative Carpenter.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:15 PM
CHARI VANCE called the House Judiciary Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Carpenter,
Sumner, Gray, Groh, Allard, and Vance were present at the call
to order. Representative C. Johnson arrived as the meeting was
in progress.
HB 358-PROHIBIT AI-ALTERED REPRESENTATIONS
1:05:13 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 358, "An Act relating to use of artificial
intelligence to create or alter a representation of the voice or
likeness of an individual."
1:05:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CRONK, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, presented HB 358. He shared the sponsor statement
[included in the committee packet], which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In this high-tech world Artificial Intelligence has
become a lightning rod for debate. HB 358 is written
as simply as possible to address the use of AI to
create false identities and cause harm. Literally
everything we see and hear now can be called into
question. Is it real, is it genuine, or is it AI
created or enhanced. Your voice, your image will only
be yours and safe from harm if safeguards are put into
place.
1:06:20 PM
DAVE STANCLIFF, Staff, Representative Mike Cronk, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Cronk, prime sponsor of
HB 358, presented the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1. AS 45.50 is amended adding a new section.
Article 6A. Use of Artificial Intelligence to
Represent an Individual.
Sec. 45.50.860 Unauthorized representation of voice or
likeness.
• Restrictions in the use of AI to create or alter
a person's voice or likeness.
• Sets the standard in the restriction of "Intent
to cause harm."
• Defines:
1. "Artificial Intelligence"
2. Individual"
3. "Likeness representation"
1:08:37 PM
MR. STANCLIFF shared several examples of AI generated
impersonations of elected officials. One example involved an
impersonation of President Biden and impacted 25,000 people. He
said the proposed legislation would convey that the legislature
is aware of this problem.
1:10:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY informed the committee that as a podcast
host, he would often edit the order of guests' statements for
clarity. He sought to verify that the bill would only cover AI
generated material.
MR. STANCLIFF confirmed.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that rearranging people's words
shouldn't be allowed because it would be easy to insert words
and reverse the meaning of sentences. He suggested that the
amendment should be broader in scope.
MR. STANCLIFF said that would make the bill more complicated,
and the goal was to keep it narrow and focused. He stressed
that the use of this technology in child pornography is rampant.
He indicated that the intent to cause harm would be determined
by the courts.
1:14:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER questioned the constitutional right of
free speech when applied to the use of AI and how to ensure that
AI is not unduly influencing.
MR. STANCLIFF suspected that if the intent of using AI generated
images was to cause harm, that person could be held liable under
the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER sought to confirm that the bill seeks
to modify AS 45.50.
MR. STANCLIFF answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked whether there was any discussion
with Legislative Legal Services about the definition of harm.
MR. STANCLIFF stated that the definition was kept intentionally
broad.
1:18:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out that the proposed definition
of AI contemplates a machine-based system with varying levels of
autonomy. He asked whether the bill sponsor had considered a
scenario in which the AI system has complete autonomy and asked
who would be liable.
MR. STANCLIFF pointed out that AI is widely used for many great
purposes. He reiterated that liability would depend on the
intent to cause harm.
1:20:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether this issue had been addressed
in other states.
MR. STANCLIFF shared his belief that at least 35 other states
are delving into this in one way or another. In addition, deep
fakes are being addressed by national legislation and technology
companies are being asked to be more responsible.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH questioned the origins of the proposed
damages of up to $2,000 for the first violation not to exceed
$2,500 for second or subsequent violations.
MR. STANCLIFF said the bill sponsor was open to the committee's
suggestions.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH addressed the concept of intent. He pointed
out that in most scenarios, both parties typically believe they
are doing the right thing. He asked how that kind of thinking
played into the intent to cause harm standard.
MR. STANCLIFF commented on the ability to convince a judge and
jury that someone was harmed [by the use of AI].
REPRESENTATIVE GROH asked whether [the proposed damages] were
enough.
MR. STANCLIFF reiterated his hope that the committee would delve
deeper into these issues. He characterized the bill as a
starting point.
1:26:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER clarified that he was supportive of the
bill's intent. He asked whether the definition of AI matters if
its purpose is to cause harm. In addition, he asked who would
be responsible when the AI's response is counter to its intent.
MR. STANCLIFF responded, "If your finger hit the keyboard, it
could come back to bite you." He reiterated that if the use of
AI is intended to cause harm, bully someone, or destroy a
business, the bill would open up the door for more efficient and
justifiable civil action.
1:30:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER suggested that an AI program of a certain
level of autonomy could be [defined as] a person for the
purposes of liability under the proposed legislation.
CHAIR VANCE clarified that the bill would create civil
liability, not criminal.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER pointed out that in terms of civil
liability, incarcerating a computer program would not be
entirely possible.
1:32:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY gave an example involving two candidates
similar in race, age, gender, and height. One of the candidates
presents himself/herself as 5 inches taller with the use of
Photoshop and wins the race. Considering that the taller
candidate tends to win in presidential races, he asked whether
the use of Photoshop would be considered AI and whether harm was
done.
MR. STANCLIFF answered no. He reiterated that the bill pertains
to AI that's used to enhance or change an image with the intent
to cause damage. In contrast, if AI was used to make your
opponent appear shorter or to alter his/her speech in a strange
way, then the bill might apply. He maintained that because it's
a civil matter, the courts would need to make a judgement based
on intent.
1:34:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY considered a scenario in which a radio
station unintentionally uses a clip of President Biden that was
AI generated and asked whether the radio station would be held
liable.
MR. STANCLIFF suggested that the committee should consider
indemnifying people who can present an honest answer for airing
AI generated content. He pointed out that AI has already been
used in politics. He emphasized that the bill would be a
starting point for identity protection.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY opined that $2,000 is not a deterrent to
media companies.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER stated that intent matters. He likened
AI generation to an uncontrollable forest fire, indicating that
regardless of intent, the person who "pushed the button" should
be held responsible.
1:38:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON pointed out that the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) has very stringent guidelines
that does not include the use of AI.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY stated, "One person's spoof is another
person's truth," and shared his belief that [the use of AI on
the radio] is something to be concerned about.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH suggested that political satire or parody
should not be sanctioned due to First Amendment protections. He
emphasized the difficulty of this task given the novelty and
importance of the topic.
1:43:37 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that HB 358 would be held over.
HB 254-PROHIBIT PORNOGRAPHY TO MINORS
1:43:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 254, "An Act relating to liability for publishing
or distributing pornography to minors on the Internet."
1:44:20 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:47 p.m.
1:47:21 PM
CHAIR VANCE passed the gavel to Representative Carpenter.
1:47:49 PM
CHAIR VANCE, prime sponsor, presented HB 254. She paraphrased
the sponsor statement [included in the committee packet], which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
House Bill 254 stands out as a crucial legislative
initiative, addressing the growing public health
crisis related to the influence of pornography on
minors. It serves as a proactive measure to disrupt a
tool employed by traffickers, preventing easy access
to young would-be victims through explicit content.
Recent years have witnessed an alarming exposure of
minors to pornography, facilitated by advances in
technology and the widespread availability of explicit
content on the internet. This early exposure
contributes to the hyper-sexualization of young minds,
promoting bullying in schools and setting unreasonable
self-expectations, necessitating urgent legislative
action.
House Bill 254 recognizes the disturbing connection
between pornography and exploitation. It acknowledges
that individuals involved in pornography may be
victims of exploitation, blurring the line between
consensual adult participation and sex trafficking.
Some are forced into participating against their will,
revealing a sinister aspect of the adult industry.
The bill also addresses the link between the demand
for pornography and the demand for commercial sex,
including trafficking victims. The normalization of
explicit content in society is argued to contribute to
an increased demand for sexual services, perpetuating
sex trafficking. Organized crime networks profit from
both pornography and exploitation, utilizing explicit
content as a lure to manipulate and control vulnerable
individuals.
One alarming aspect necessitating urgent legislative
intervention is the role of pornography in the tactics
employed by human traffickers. By restricting minors'
access to explicit material, House Bill 254 serves as
a crucial tool in the fight against human trafficking,
contributing to the overall well-being and safety of
the next generation.
In conclusion, passing House Bill 254 is an urgent and
necessary step in safeguarding the mental, emotional,
and physical health of our youth. It reflects a
collective responsibility to create a secure and
nurturing environment, allowing minors to develop into
healthy, well-adjusted individuals free from the
corrosive influence of explicit material.
CHAIR VANCE concluded that HB 254 would establish civil
liability for the intentional publication or distribution of
pornography without utilizing a commercially reasonable age
verification method. In short, the bill would require age
verification before accessing [pornography] websites. She said
passing HB 265 is a crucial step towards safeguarding the
mental, emotional, and physical health of [Alaska's] youth.
1:51:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER cautioned the public that the
committee's conversation may not be appropriate for all age
groups.
1:52:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that although [a
similar] law passed in Texas, the courts blocked the
legislation. He cited the reason for that decision, which
quoted Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, and asked how
Alaska would maneuver [if the courts were to strike down HB
265].
1:53:25 PM
BOB BALLINGER, Staff, Representative Sarah Vance, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Vance, prime sponsor of
HB 265, pointed out that the Texas ruling was overturned, adding
that the state has a legitimate interest in protecting children
from pornography.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how the bill would prevent the use of
virtual private networks (VPNs) to circumvent this law.
CHAIR VANCE stated that the bill would not prevent the use of
VPNs and that morality cannot be legislated.
1:55:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the third-
party commercial software would require users to upload a
government identification (ID), credit card information, or the
use of facial recognition to verify age. He expressed concern
that people who follow the law could be at risk of having their
identities compromised.
MR. BALLINGER said most of these websites require credit card
information regardless. He added that the bill specifically
prohibits websites from retaining the information used for
identity verification.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out that Pornhub is free;
furthermore, he stated that websites like X [formerly Twitter]
and Reddit contain graphic pornography. He asked how the bill
would restrict access to that.
MR. BALLINGER explained that if a platform itself is not
creating [the pornographic content] or purposefully providing
it, then it would not be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the intent of the bill is to
catch "bad guys" or prevent minors from viewing [pornographic]
material.
CHAIR VANCE explained that the bill would prevent minors from
accessing pornography, and by doing so, act as another roadblock
to prevent offenders [from accessing children].
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER opened invited testimony.
2:02:43 PM
RICHARD DARR, Executive Director, National Decency Coalition,
gave invited testimony during the hearing on HB 254. He shared
a quote from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and discussed
similar legislation enacted in Louisiana, which resulted in an
80 percent decrease in access to Pornhub. In addition, he
discussed the technology used in Louisiana that required a
government ID and a biometric face scan. He stated that the
bill would implement "base level" age verification in Alaska and
could go further by empowering the enforcement arm of the state.
2:06:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether platforms, like [X] or
Instagram, could be considered publishers by engaging in in some
level of content moderation.
MR. BALLINGER directed attention to page 2, line 16, which
provided a carveout for certain Internet platforms. He
reiterated that if the platforms are not creating or
distributing the pornography, they would not be held liable.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked whether pornography websites would
fall under this exemption.
MR. BALLINGER answered no.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he could see the carveout applying to
Google as well and asked whether extensive content moderation
would essentially place [the content] under control of the
entity.
MR. BALLINGER remarked, "If what you're doing is providing a
platform, but you're not distributing it, you have no intent to
do it, you're not controlling it to the point where you can
police all that material, then you wouldn't be liable for it."
2:10:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH requested further explanation of the
carveout for news and journalism and asked whether this
particular provision had been raised for litigation by other
states.
CHAIR VANCE shared that her intent is not to interfere with the
free speech of journalists and to instead, target those who have
purposefully made it their business to provide pornography. She
deferred to Mr. Ballinger to speak to any litigation surrounding
this issue.
MR. BALLINGER did not know the answer.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER asked Mr. Darr whether there would be
any legal implications for this kind of legislation.
MR. DARR said subsection (c) [on page 2, lines 8-10] features
identical language to both the Utah and Louisiana bills. He
added that the challenges brought against both the [Louisiana
and Utah] bills were dismissed.
2:13:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER asked which of the categories listed in
subsection (d) [on page 2, lines 16-18] would capture Instagram
or [X].
MR. BALLINGER suggested that they could be considered search
engines. He offered to follow up with the requested
information.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER directed the question to Mr. Darr.
MR. DARR shared his understanding that they could be considered
a "provider."
2:15:57 PM
CHAIR VANCE highlighted the qualifier on page 1, line 6, which
indicated that a substantial portion of the platform's content
must be pornography to require age verification.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER opined that the ability to carry out
significant and targeted moderation, while not moderating other
content, would establish an intent to publish.
2:18:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referenced a Washington Examiner Article
that discusses a spike in VPN searches as pornography sites
blocked access in Virginia. He noted that per the article, the
same spike occurred in Utah before similar legislation was
passed. He asked whether the bill sponsor would advise adults
to use a VPN if they don't want to share their ID or credit
cards.
CHAIR VANCE said she would advise them not to view pornography
and would not make a recommendation on how they can skirt the
law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether it is against the law to use a
VPN.
CHAIR VANCE said not to her knowledge.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY conveyed the argument that "not all
pornography is created equal." He suggested that in an attempt
to circumvent the age verification, the bill might inadvertently
lead minors to view illegal websites with worse content that may
not implement the same standards as mainstream [pornography]
websites.
CHAIR VANCE said the same argument is made for the legalization
of prostitution, adding that she highly disagreed.
2:21:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the bill sponsor would outlaw
pornography if she could.
CHAIR VANCE acknowledged that pornography is protected by the
First Amendment. She added that while pornography is
inadvisable for anyone's health, she swore an oath to uphold the
constitution.
2:22:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER announced that HB 254 would be held
over.
2:22:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:22 p.m. to 2:29 p.m.
[Representative Carpenter returned the gavel to Chair Vance.]
HB 278-ADMIN. REGULATION REVIEW DIVISION
2:29:14 PM
CHAIR VANCE announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 278, "An Act establishing the administrative
regulation review division."
2:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BEN CARPENTER, Alaska State Legislature, on
behalf of the House Special Committee on Ways and Means, sponsor
by request, chaired by Representative Carpenter, presented HB
278. He paraphrased the sponsor statement [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Alaska's
economic growth is the worst in the nation. It is
imperative that we grow the private economy. One way
to do this is by decreasing the high regulatory burden
Alaskan's have when doing business.
In current law, AS 44.62 (Administrative Procedures
Act) allows for the Governor or Lieutenant Governor's
review of regulations, requires the Department of Law
to advise agencies on regulations, and requires public
notice and public comment. There is no specific
requirement for Legislative review of proposed
regulations, nor any action that the Legislature can
take on them. Also included in As. 44.62, government
corporations are exempt from the Administrative
Procedures Act.
HB 278 would establish an Administrative Regulation
Review Division, a vital mechanism to ensure
transparency, accountability, and efficiency in the
regulatory process within the State of Alaska. It also
Removes the Government corporations' exemptions from
regulatory review from law.
The Administrative Regulation Review Division will
serve as a permanent staff agency under the oversight
of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Its
primary function is to facilitate thorough legislative
review of administrative regulations filed by the
Lieutenant Governor. This will be achieved through
comprehensive assessment of proposed regulations,
ensuring alignment with legislative intent, statutory
authority, and consistency with applicable laws.
The administrative regulation review division will be
tasked with several key responsibilities:
1. Reviewing all administrative regulations to ensure
they properly implement legislative intent.
2. Providing comments and recommendations to the
governor and state agencies on proposed regulations.
3. Investigating findings transmitted by standing
committees regarding regulations inconsistent with
legislative intent.
4. Promoting needed amendments or repeals of
regulations deemed inappropriate or outdated.
5. Recommending legislative action to annul
regulations found to be inconsistent with legislative
intent.
Furthermore, the Division will have the authority to
examine all administrative regulations, including
proposed adoptions, amendments, or orders of repeal.
It will provide expert commentary and recommendations
to the governor and state agencies, promoting
necessary amendments or repeals when regulations
deviate from legislative intent or fail to meet
statutory standards.
HB 278 aims to simplify regulatory compliance process,
ensure regulatory compliance with legislative intent,
and provide a mechanism for continuous improvement in
our regulatory framework. This will in turn create a
better business environment for our State.
2:35:30 PM
KENDRA BROUSSARD, Staff, Representative Ben Carpenter, Alaska
state Legislature, on behalf of the House Special Committee on
Ways and Means, sponsor by request, chaired by Representative
Carpenter, presented the sectional analysis [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1 Adds language to conform to new
Administrative Procedures language added by this bill
to the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)
adjudication section of law.
Section 2 Removes the exemption for the Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation from the APA.
Section 3 Amends the Legislature statute to require
the legislature to review every proposed regulatory
action before the date the regulation is scheduled to
be adopted, amended, or repealed.
Section 4 Adds a language to the Legislature statute
to require standing committees to review proposed
regulatory actions and transmit its findings to a new
division under the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee (LB&A) established by this bill.
Section 5 Amends Fiscal Note statute to include LB&A
in agencies deadline reporting requirements.
Section 6 Adds new language to the Legislature statute
allow the Legislative Affairs Agency to review
proposed regulations and to assign an attorney for
such review.
Section 7 Adds new sections to the Legislature statute
to create a permanent staff agency responsible to the
LB&A Committee for the purpose of providing
legislative review of administrative regulations filed
by the Lieutenant Governor, named the Administrative
Regulation Review Division. Allows the LB&A Committee
to hire staff and requires the Legislative Affairs
Agency to provide legal assistance to the new
Division. Gives the following powers to the Division:
(1) Require state officials to give full cooperation
to the Division,
(2) Examine all regulations to determine whether they
would properly implement legislative intent,
(3) Prepare and distribute reports and materials,
(4) Investigate findings submitted by a standing
committee, and
(5) If necessary, recommend that LB&A introduce
legislation to annul adoption of regulations.
Section 8 Removes the exemption for the Alaska
Aerospace Corporation from the APA.
Section 9 Removes the exemption for the Adak Reuse
Authority from the APA.
Section 10 Removes the exemption for the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation from the APA.
Section 11 Removes the exemption for the Alaska
Permanent Fund Corporation from the APA.
Section 12 Conforming language for DNR state lands
statute APA requirements.
Section 13 Adds to Public Records statute exemptions
legal communications between the Executive and
Legislature regarding regulatory review.
Section 14 Conforming language.
Section 15 Conforming language.
Section 16 Adds to the Governor's requirements under
the APA to add issues raised by Administrative
Regulatory Review Division to reasons the Governor may
return a proposed regulation to an adopting agency.
Section 17 Adds to public notice requirements under
the APA that copies of proposed regulations be
furnished to the LLA when distributed to the public.
Section 18-20 Conforming language.
Section 21 Adds a new section to APA statute to
require the Lieutenant Governor to submit filed
regulations to the Administrative Regulatory Review
Division along with their fiscal notes, requires
agencies to submit proposed regulations to the Review
Division when submitted to the Governor, and gives the
Review Division 10 days to submit comments to the
Governor.
Section 22-26 Conforming language.
Section 27 Removes the exemption for the Alaska Energy
Authority from the APA.
Section 28 Adds to uncodified law that this Act
applies to adoption, amendment, or repeal of a
regulation that is first proposed on or after the
effective date of this Act.
2:39:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that the legislature, while
in session, is mostly consumed with bills drafted during session
and has little time for regulatory review. He noted there would
likely be a fairly substantial fiscal note associated with
setting up a permanent division to do this task. Nonetheless,
he said if better, more efficient governance is the goal, there
should be a permanent division to review regulations that can be
costly in time and action within the public sector.
2:41:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER said he liked the legislation. He sought
asked whether Sections 3 and 4, which directed standing
committees to take certain action, would be considered intent
language.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER confirmed that the Regulatory Review
Division would not have the authority to direct legislators
within a standing committee to take action.
2:42:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked how the proposed legislation relates
to the "sunset commission bill."
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said the two entities would be
completely different. The proposed sunset commission, composed
of commissioners appointed by the governor and the legislature,
would be created underneath the Office of the Lieutenant
Governor to review departments over time. Conversely, this
division would fall underneath the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee for the purpose of reviewing new regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY speculated that the staff would be entrusted
to do the work. He asked what would be expected of the
legislators and full-time staff.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER explained that if [the Regulatory
Review Division] were created, there would be staff, similar to
[Legislative Finance Division], with a mission and a director.
The division's work would be reported to the chair [of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee]. He likened the
proposed division to a standing committee with a full-time staff
existing under Legislative Budget and Audit Committee for
interim supervision to pursue regulatory review.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there would be a framework for
the division of labor.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said the sooner it starts, the sooner
it's finished. He acknowledged that there would need to be a
division of effort and prioritization.
2:48:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER shared his understanding that there used
to be a special House committee for regulatory review. He
suggested creating a special or permanent standing committee for
regulatory review.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said the focus of the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee is work during interim, whereas for
standing committees, it's not. He argued that with a standing
committee, it could be a challenge to find initiative during the
interim.
REPRESENTATIVE SUMNER suggested that there could be value in
creating a standing committee to receive referrals for bills
promulgating the creation of new regulatory structures in
statute.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER acknowledged that, arguably, the same
effect could be achieved by creating a standing committee, but
there would still need to be full-time staff to do the work.
2:52:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE C. JOHNSON recalled that the problem with the
[Administrative Regulation Review Committee] was the change in
membership every two years; consequently, certain vendettas
against certain things politicized the committee and hindered
its functionality and efficiency.
2:54:07 PM
CHAIR VANCE questioned the current process for regulation review
by the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE CARPENTER said the process is spelled out in AS
04.25.182.
CHAIR VANCE questioned how the bill would impact the length of
time it takes to adopt new regulations. She asked the bill
sponsor to clarify the relationship between the proposed
division and the process of reviewing regulation in the next
bill hearing.
[HB 278 was held over.]
2:57:33 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Judiciary Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:57 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 358 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 358 - v.A.pdf |
HFSH 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 358 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 358 - Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 358 - Alaska Broadcasters Association - Support of Policy.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 358 - Backup Document Articles & Research.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/25/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 358 |
| HB 254 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - v.A.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - Slideshow Presentation.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - Letters of Support.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - Top 13 Age Verification APIs in 2023.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 254 - Age Verfication Petition.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HJUD 3/15/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |
| HB 278 - Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/23/2024 3:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 - v.A.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/23/2024 3:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 - Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/23/2024 3:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 278 - Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM HSTA 4/23/2024 3:00:00 PM |
HB 278 |
| HB 254 - Statement of Zero Fiscal Impact.pdf |
HJUD 3/13/2024 1:00:00 PM |
HB 254 |