Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120

02/18/2017 11:00 AM 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
Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ HB 44 LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
*+ HB 13 NO ST/MUNI FUNDS: FED IMMIGRAT REGISTRY TELECONFERENCED
Heard & Held
-- Public Testimony --
+ Bills Previously Heard/Scheduled TELECONFERENCED
+= HB 20 SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHB 20(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
+= HCR 5 UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES TELECONFERENCED
Moved CSHCR 5(STA) Out of Committee
-- Public Testimony --
                    ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE                                                                                  
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                                                                           
                       February 18, 2017                                                                                        
                           11:02 a.m.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS PRESENT                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair                                                                                   
Representative Chris Tuck                                                                                                       
Representative Chris Birch                                                                                                      
Representative DeLena Johnson                                                                                                   
Representative Gary Knopp                                                                                                       
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair                                                                                     
Representative Adam Wool                                                                                                        
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                              
Representative Lance Pruitt                                                                                                     
Representative Charisse Millett                                                                                                 
Representative Scott Kawasaki                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 20                                                                                                               
"An  Act  relating  to marriage  solemnization;  and  authorizing                                                               
elected public officials in the state to solemnize marriages."                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHB 20(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 5                                                                                               
Proposing an amendment  to the Uniform Rules of  the Alaska State                                                               
Legislature  relating  to  the membership  of  the  Committee  on                                                               
Committees.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - MOVED CSHCR 5(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 44                                                                                        
"An  Act  requiring  a  legislator  to  abstain  from  taking  or                                                               
withholding official  action or exerting official  influence that                                                               
could  benefit or  harm  an immediate  family  member or  certain                                                               
employers; requiring a  legislator to request to  be excused from                                                               
voting in an instance where the legislator may have a financial                                                                 
conflict of interest; and providing for an effective date."                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
HOUSE BILL NO. 13                                                                                                               
"An Act prohibiting the expenditure of state or municipal assets                                                                
to create a registry based on race or religion."                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
     - HEARD & HELD                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 20                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS                                                                              
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CLAMAN                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/16/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/18/17       (H)       STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HCR 5                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EASTMAN                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
02/06/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
02/06/17       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/16/17       (H)       STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
02/16/17       (H)       MINUTE(STA)                                                                                            
02/18/17       (H)       STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 44                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS                                                                             
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRENN                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/13/17                                                                               
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/23/17       (H)       SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE INTRODUCED-REFERRALS                                                                
01/23/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/23/17       (H)       JUD, FIN                                                                                               
01/25/17       (H)       STA REPLACES FIN REFERRAL                                                                              
01/25/17       (H)       BILL REPRINTED 1/25/17                                                                                 
01/25/17       (H)       JUD WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE                                                                 
                         23 FOR SSHB 44                                                                                         
01/25/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/25/17       (H)       -- Meeting Postponed to 1/27/17 --                                                                     
01/27/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/27/17       (H)       -- Meeting Rescheduled from 1/25/17 --                                                                 
01/30/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
01/30/17       (H)       Heard & Held                                                                                           
01/30/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/03/17       (H)       JUD AT 1:30 PM GRUENBERG 120                                                                           
02/03/17       (H)       Moved CSSSHB 44(JUD) Out of Committee                                                                  
02/03/17       (H)       MINUTE(JUD)                                                                                            
02/08/17       (H)       JUD RPT CS(JUD) 1DP 3DNP 3AM                                                                           
02/08/17       (H)       DP: LEDOUX                                                                                             
02/08/17       (H)       DNP: KOPP, EASTMAN, REINBOLD                                                                           
02/08/17       (H)       AM: KREISS-TOMKINS, FANSLER, CLAMAN                                                                    
02/18/17       (H)       STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
BILL: HB 13                                                                                                                   
SHORT TITLE: NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY                                                                                  
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/17                                                                                
01/18/17       (H)       READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS                                                                        
01/18/17       (H)       STA, JUD                                                                                               
02/18/17       (H)       STA AT 11:00 AM GRUENBERG 120                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
WITNESS REGISTER                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
SARA PERMAN, Staff                                                                                                              
Representative Matt Claman                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented an amendment to HB 20 on behalf                                                                
of Representative Claman, prime sponsor.                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
DOUG GARDNER, Director                                                                                                          
Legislative Legal Services                                                                                                      
Legislative Affairs Agency                                                                                                      
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions on Conceptual Amendment                                                               
1 to HCR 5.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JASON GRENN                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Presented SSHB 44, as prime sponsor.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
RYAN JOHNSTON, Staff                                                                                                            
Representative Jason Grenn                                                                                                      
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:   Reviewed the  sectional analysis for  HB 44                                                             
and  testified  during  the  hearing  on SSHB  44  on  behalf  of                                                               
Representative Grenn, prime sponsor.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
PAUL KELLY, Staff                                                                                                               
Representative Andy Josephson                                                                                                   
Alaska State Legislature                                                                                                        
Juneau, Alaska                                                                                                                  
POSITION STATEMENT:  Answered questions  during the hearing on HB                                                             
13, on behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
VALERIE BROOKS                                                                                                                  
Ketchikan, Alaska                                                                                                               
POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HB 13.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
ACTION NARRATIVE                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
11:02:22 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS  called  the  House State  Affairs                                                             
Standing   Committee    meeting   to   order   at    11:02   a.m.                                                               
Representatives   Tuck,   Birch,    Johnson,   Knopp,   Josephson                                                               
(alternate),  and  Kreiss-Tomkins were  present  at  the call  to                                                               
order.                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
          HB 20-SOLEMNIZE MARRIAGE: ELECTED OFFICIALS                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
11:03:47 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the first  order of business                                                               
would  be  HOUSE  BILL  NO.  20, "An  Act  relating  to  marriage                                                               
solemnization; and  authorizing elected  public officials  in the                                                               
state to solemnize marriages."                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
11:04:31 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  opened public  testimony on  HB 20.   After                                                               
ascertaining  that there  was no  one who  wished to  testify, he                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:05:24 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
SARA  PERMAN, Staff,  Representative  Matt  Claman, Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, on  behalf of  Representative Claman,  prime sponsor                                                               
of  HB 20,  noted an  amendment had  been prepared  to address  a                                                               
concern,  expressed  during  the  House  State  Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee's  previous  hearing of  HB  20  on 2/16/17,  that  the                                                               
proposed   legislation  would   require   elected  officials   to                                                               
solemnize   marriages.     She   asserted   that  the   amendment                                                               
[subsequently  moved  as  Amendment   1],  would  alleviate  that                                                               
concern.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:06:19 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  moved to  report HB 20,  as amended,  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.  [The motion  was subsequently treated as withdrawn                                                               
to address an amendment.]                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
11:06:50 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at-ease at 11:07 a.m.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
11:07:03 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK moved  to adopt  Amendment  1, [labeled  30-                                                               
LS0242\A.1, Bruce, 2/17/17], which read:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Page 2, line 1, following "state":                                                                                     
          Insert "; nothing in this paragraph requires or                                                                   
       obligates an individual holding an elective public                                                                   
     office in the state to solemnize a marriage"                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:07:31 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  stated that he  would be voting  against HB                                                               
20,  [as  amended].    He  offered his  belief  that  HB  20  was                                                               
unnecessary legislation,  because anyone in  the state can  buy a                                                               
license for $25.                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
11:08:07 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  moved to  report HB 20,  as amended,  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal notes.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected.                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
A  roll  call  vote  was taken.    Representatives  Knopp,  Tuck,                                                               
Josephson, and Kreiss-Tomkins voted in  favor of reporting HB 20,                                                               
as amended, out of committee.   Representatives Birch and Johnson                                                               
voted against it.  Therefore,  CSHB 20(STA) was reported from the                                                               
the House State Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 4-2.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
          HCR 5-UNIFORM RULES: COMMITTEE ON COMMITTEES                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:09:52 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that  the next order  of business                                                               
would  be  HOUSE  CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION   NO.  5,  Proposing  an                                                               
amendment to  the Uniform Rules  of the Alaska  State Legislature                                                               
relating to the membership of the Committee on Committees.                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  opened public  testimony on  HCR 5.   After                                                               
ascertaining  that there  was no  one who  wished to  testify, he                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:11:22 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP  moved  to adopt  Conceptual  Amendment  1,                                                               
labeled 30-LS0359\A.1,  which read as follows  [with hand written                                                               
changes]:                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Page 1, line 12, following "committee":                                                                                    
          Insert "and the Committee on Committees"                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS objected for the purpose of discussion.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP relayed that  Conceptual Amendment 1 inserts                                                               
"the Committee on  Committees" to make that  committee subject to                                                               
the proportional rule, like the standing committees.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  asked for testimony from  Legislative Legal                                                               
and  Research   Services  regarding   the  merit   of  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:13:11 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
DOUG GARDNER,  Director, Legislative Legal  Services, Legislative                                                               
Affairs Agency, conveyed his understanding  that of the intent of                                                               
HCR 5  is to make Uniform  Rule 1(e) conform to  recent practices                                                               
by the House.  He said  that although Uniform Rule 1 provides for                                                               
the Speaker of  the House to select five members  to serve on the                                                               
Committee  on   Committees,  membership  on  the   committee  has                                                               
generally been  five majority members  and two  minority members.                                                               
He said that  if the intent is to change  the committee selection                                                               
practice so  that seven  members are put  on the  committee, then                                                               
the amendment he prepared does that with certainty.                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
11:15:20 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP explained  that he  modified the  amendment                                                               
drafted by  Mr. Gardner by deleting  lines 2 and 3,  thus leaving                                                               
the  phrase "at  least  five  members" in  Section  1  of HCR  5,                                                               
subsection (e),  beginning on  line 6.   He  added that  the only                                                               
change proposed  by Conceptual  Amendment 1  is the  insertion of                                                               
"and the Committee  on Committees" after the  word "committee" on                                                               
line 12 of Section 1, subsection (e), of HCR 5.                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GARDNER stated  that if  the proposal  before the  committee                                                               
leaves the membership of the  Committee on Committees at five and                                                               
makes it subject to proportional  representation, then the number                                                               
of  minority  members  on  the  Committee  on  Committees  simply                                                               
depends on the size of the minority.                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
MR.  GARDNER   offered  that  under   HCR  5,   the  proportional                                                               
representation  of   the  minority   could  be   determined  with                                                               
certainty; however,  there would be  no certainty provided  as to                                                               
the  number  of members  on  the  Committee  on Committees.    He                                                               
offered that  the Speaker of  the House could choose  to populate                                                               
the committee with  five, seven, or even nine members.   He added                                                               
that  if flexibility  is what  the House  State Affairs  Standing                                                               
Committee wants, then  HCR 5 and Conceptual  Amendment 1 together                                                               
would provide that.                                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
11:17:27 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK asked  for  confirmation that  if there  was                                                               
less than  25 percent  minority status [in  the House],  then the                                                               
majority would not have to  recognize anyone from the minority to                                                               
be on the Committee on Committees.                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
MR. GARDNER  replied that  is correct.   He  added that  once the                                                               
size of  the minority in the  House drops below ten  in any given                                                               
year, it would  not be a legally  cognizable minority; therefore,                                                               
it would not have membership on the Committee on Committees.                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asserted that  the Committee on Committees is                                                               
such  an important  committee, because  it establishes  all other                                                               
committees  and the  membership to  those other  committees.   He                                                               
said  that  traditionally  there  has been  a  minimum  [minority                                                               
representation]  of  two.   He  added  that he  likes  Conceptual                                                               
Amendment 1, because it follows a  structure for five or more and                                                               
stays  consistent  with  [standing] committee  composition.    He                                                               
offered that if  at some point there is a  very small minority in                                                               
the  House, such  as eight  or less,  he would  like a  "minimum"                                                               
provision  so that  the  Committee on  Committees  does not  just                                                               
consist of  majority members with  the minority having  no voice.                                                               
He suggested  that in this  situation, a minimum  provision would                                                               
be the  only opportunity for  the minority to  have a voice.   He                                                               
stated support of Conceptual Amendment  1, but said he would like                                                               
to see  a minimum of two  [minority members] on the  Committee on                                                               
Committees.                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR  KREISS-TOMKINS  removed his  objection  to  the motion  to                                                               
adopt Conceptual Amendment 1.   There being no further objection,                                                               
it was so ordered.                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked  for an at ease to  draft an additional                                                               
amendment,  if  the sponsor  of  HCR  5  is agreeable  to  having                                                               
minimum minority representation [on  the Committee on Committees]                                                               
regardless of its membership in the House.                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN  opined that Representative Tuck  raised a                                                               
valid  point.    He  said   that  in  his  research  on  minority                                                               
representation in  the House and  the Senate going back  to 1975,                                                               
he  found that  there were  times  in which  the minority  caucus                                                               
constituted  less  than  25 percent  of  the  Senate  membership;                                                               
therefore, the  minority caucus was not  an officially recognized                                                               
caucus.   He  said  that in  a number  of  those situations,  the                                                               
presiding officer  determined that minority  representation would                                                               
be  included on  the  Committee on  Committees,  even though  the                                                               
Uniform Rules  did not require  it.   He stated his  concern that                                                               
requiring  the  Committee  on  Committees   to  follow  the  same                                                               
prescription  as  the  standing   committees  would  remove  that                                                               
flexibility for  the presiding officer.   He added that  if there                                                               
was no minority caucus, the  presiding officer would not have the                                                               
opportunity  to recognize  minority  members but  be required  to                                                               
only recognize members of the  majority caucus.  He expressed his                                                               
concern that  the minority inadvertently  might be  excluded from                                                               
the Committee on Committees.  He  stated that he does not have an                                                               
objection   to  the   intent  of   the  amendment   suggested  by                                                               
Representative Tuck.                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:21:51 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
The committee took a brief at ease at 11:21 p.m.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
11:22:34 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK  said  that  to  insert  a  minority  member                                                               
requirement  for  the  Committee   on  Committees  into  Rule  1,                                                               
subsection (e), of the Uniform  Rules, the minority would have to                                                               
be  recognized, and  a minority  would  not be  recognized if  it                                                               
constitutes less  than 25  percent of the  House membership.   He                                                               
expressed that he didn't know how  to craft language to allow the                                                               
appointment  of a  minority member.   He  suggested that  perhaps                                                               
language  stating the  appointment of  "a member  other than  the                                                               
majority" would  achieve his desired  results.  He added  that he                                                               
would coordinate with the bill sponsor  on this issue in the next                                                               
committee to which HCR 5 is assigned.                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:23:28 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  moved to  report HCR 5,  as amended,  out of                                                               
committee  with individual  recommendations and  the accompanying                                                               
fiscal  notes.    There  being no  objection,  CSHCR  5(STA)  was                                                               
reported from the House State Affairs Standing Committee.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
          HB 44-LEGISLATIVE ETHICS: VOTING & CONFLICTS                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
11:23:58 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that  the next order  of business                                                               
would  be SPONSOR  SUBSTITUTE  FOR  HOUSE BILL  NO.  44, "An  Act                                                               
requiring  a legislator  to abstain  from  taking or  withholding                                                               
official  action  or  exerting   official  influence  that  could                                                               
benefit or harm an immediate  family member or certain employers;                                                               
requiring a  legislator to request  to be excused from  voting in                                                               
an instance  where the legislator  may have a  financial conflict                                                               
of interest; and  providing for an effective date."   [Before the                                                               
committee was CSSSHB 44(JUD).]                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
11:24:48 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JASON  GRENN, Alaska State  Legislature, presented                                                               
SSHB 44, as prime sponsor.  He  stated that the intent of SSHB 44                                                               
is to increase transparency within  the legislature and allow the                                                               
public to  see with utmost  certainty that conflicts  of interest                                                               
are taken  seriously in Alaska.   He asserted that the  intent of                                                               
SSHB 44 is  not to prevent a legislator from  voting on an issue,                                                               
as legislators are  elected to represent their  constituents.  He                                                               
attested that  SSHB 44 would  neither directly stop  a legislator                                                               
from  voting nor  outright disqualify  him/her from  voting.   He                                                               
said that SSHB 44 lays out  a standard procedure for a legislator                                                               
to  decide  for  himself/herself  if  he/she  has  a  substantial                                                               
conflict of  interest.  He opined  that there is always  room for                                                               
improvement, and legislators can exemplify a higher standard.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRENN  paraphrased  from the  sponsor  statement,                                                               
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
     SSHB  44 contains  provisions to  ensure conflicts  are                                                                    
     "substantial" before a legislator  would be required to                                                                    
     abstain  from voting.  Any benefit  a  legislator or  a                                                                    
     member  of  the  legislator's  immediate  family  might                                                                    
     receive   from  supporting   a   particular  piece   of                                                                    
     legislation would  have to be greater  than the benefit                                                                    
     a large  group of  Alaskans would  receive in  order to                                                                    
     require abstention.  The bill and  resolution recognize                                                                    
     the responsibility  of legislators  to vote,  except in                                                                    
     clear cases where the outcome  of the vote would result                                                                    
     in substantial  personal financial gain.  This includes                                                                    
     cases   where  an   immediate   family   member  or   a                                                                    
     legislator's employer would receive  a large and direct                                                                    
     financial benefit.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
11:26:2 8 AM                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
RYAN JOHNSTON,  Staff, Representative  Jason Grenn,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature, on behalf of Representative  Grenn, prime sponsor of                                                               
SSHB 44, paraphrased  from the sectional analysis,  which read as                                                               
follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     Section 1:  Defines the conflict of  interest standards                                                                    
     under  which  a Legislator  may  vote  on a  particular                                                                    
     issue. Conflict  is defined  as substantial  benefit or                                                                    
     harm  to the  financial  interest  of the  legislator's                                                                    
     immediate family member,  the legislator's employer, an                                                                    
     immediate family member's employer,  a person with whom                                                                    
     the legislator is negotiating  employment, or from whom                                                                    
     the legislator or immediate  family member has received                                                                    
     more than $10,000 in income  within the last 12 months.                                                                    
     Exceptions to  this include  those outlined  in Section                                                                    
     2,  or  while  participating in  public  discussion  or                                                                    
     debate.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section 2: A  legislator may not vote on  a question in                                                                    
     a committee and must request  to abstain from voting on                                                                    
     the  floor if  the  legislator or  an immediate  family                                                                    
     member   has  a   substantial  financial   interest.  A                                                                    
     legislator  may vote  on  an  appropriations bill  that                                                                    
     meets the requirements of  AS 37.07.020(a) or 37.07.100                                                                    
     (Executive Budget Act).                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
     Section 3:  Defines "substantially benefit or  harm" as                                                                    
     the  effect on  the person's  financial interest  being                                                                    
     greater than the effect on  the financial interest of a                                                                    
     substantial  class  of  persons  to  which  the  person                                                                    
     belongs  as  a  member  of  a  profession,  occupation,                                                                    
     industry, or region.                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
     Section  4: Defines  "financial interest"  as ownership                                                                    
     of an  interest or involvement in  a business, property                                                                    
     ownership, or  relationship that is a  source of income                                                                    
     or financial benefit.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
     Section  5: Provides  that this  Act only  takes effect                                                                    
     upon  passage of  a  resolution  amending Uniform  Rule                                                                    
     34(b).                                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
     Section 6:  Provides for an  effective date  later than                                                                    
     that of  the resolution to Uniform  Rule 34(b) referred                                                                    
     to in Section 5.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON pointed  out the change made by  the House Judiciary                                                               
Standing  Committee,  shown  on  page  2,  line  [20,  of  CSSSHB                                                               
40(JUD)]:  a legislator is  required simply to declare a conflict                                                               
in committee before voting on a  bill, rather than not being able                                                               
to vote in committee.                                                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
11:29:03 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
MR.  JOHNSTON cited  an example  of  what would  be considered  a                                                               
substantial conflict of interest for  a legislator.  He described                                                               
a situation in  which a legislator, voting on major  roads in the                                                               
Interior, is  himself part  of the  substantial class  of persons                                                               
who  lives in  the Interior.   He  said that  if that  legislator                                                               
votes on proposed  legislation that affects a  road that accesses                                                               
only a  parcel of land  of which he/she  is the sole  owner, then                                                               
the  legislator  has  a  substantial  interest  in  the  proposed                                                               
legislation.    He attested  that  the  legislator's interest  is                                                               
different from or greater than that  of anyone else living in the                                                               
Interior, who  also could benefit  from a road to  his/her house.                                                               
He  said  that  in  this  example,  under  the  amendment  to  AS                                                               
24.60.030,   subsection  (g),   proposed  under   SSHB  44,   the                                                               
legislator would be required to  request an abstention.  He noted                                                               
that the example he cited is  on page 6 of advisory opinion 2004-                                                               
02  in the  research  brief from  Legislative Research  Services,                                                               
titled LRS Report 15.422, included in the committee packet.                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
11:30:43 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH asked  for the  sponsor's perspective  on a                                                               
voter's  role  in  evaluating  the  qualifications,  merits,  and                                                               
"business" of  the respective candidates  and House members.   He                                                               
noted that  candidates for House  run for office every  two years                                                               
and candidates  for Senate  every four years.   He  expressed his                                                               
concern that  SSHB 44 would  be "setting  aside the voters."   He                                                               
asserted  that through  the election  process, every  candidate's                                                               
opponents  aptly  and  capably  elucidate  the  affiliations  and                                                               
financial interests of that candidate.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
11:32:04 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRENN asked  if Representative  Birch was  asking                                                               
how voters weigh in during a campaign process.                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH responded  yes.   He explained  that voters                                                               
understand  a candidate's  employment, such  as a  union business                                                               
agent, a doctor, an engineer, a  retail person, or a worker for a                                                               
large  multinational  corporation.    He  pointed  out  that  all                                                               
candidates  complete  a   public  official  financial  disclosure                                                               
(POFD)  statement  exposing  their  financial  interests  to  the                                                               
public.  He asserted that there  is an election process every two                                                               
years, and  if the  public is  validly and  reasonably concerned,                                                               
the issues  are revealed  through that process  and by  virtue of                                                               
having  an opponent.    He  expressed his  concern  that SSHB  44                                                               
disenfranchises  the   17,000  people  that  each   House  member                                                               
represents in his/her district.                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRENN   maintained  that   SSHB  44   focuses  on                                                               
unanticipated legislation.   He referred to the  example given by                                                               
Mr. Johnston  about a  candidate owning property.   He  said that                                                               
owning  that property  would  not  have been  made  known to  the                                                               
voters, nor  would it  be something  that a  candidate's opponent                                                               
would have  talked about.   He offered  that no one  would "bring                                                               
that to  light" during  a campaign.   He gave  an example  of the                                                               
state  constructing  a  road through  that  property  making  the                                                               
candidate a millionaire.  He  said, "Is that something that might                                                               
be reflected  in a future  campaign?   Perhaps.  Is  it something                                                               
you should declare as a conflict of interest?  Perhaps."                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
11:33:58 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN  stated that  SSHB 44 would  give guidelines                                                               
on what  a substantial financial interest  means regarding voting                                                               
on proposed legislation  and would allow a  different process for                                                               
those  occasions.     He  opined   SSHB  44  would   create  more                                                               
transparency and a  way for voters to be made  aware of financial                                                               
conflicts.  He said he is  not suggesting that there was anything                                                               
hidden from  the public before  this legislation  was introduced,                                                               
but that  the public  be informed of  any potential  conflicts of                                                               
interest as the legislature processes new legislation.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH opined  that if  a legislator  were on  the                                                               
receiving end  of a  $1 million  benefit because  of legislation,                                                               
then he  is cautiously optimistic  that the media and  the public                                                               
would scrutinize it.  He said  one of the most substantial issues                                                               
for  the state  currently is  the $3  billion budget  deficit. He                                                               
offered  that  each  legislator has  a  substantial  interest  in                                                               
resolving  that   problem,  and   it  will  affect   each  person                                                               
differently.  He  stated that a legislator's  duty and obligation                                                               
is to his/her individual voters  and expressed his concern that a                                                               
law will  be passed that is  "a little muddled around  the edges"                                                               
with varying ideas  for what is "substantial."  He  opined that a                                                               
legislator's constituency  would be abandoned  through challenges                                                               
to a legislator's  eligibility to vote on issues  because of real                                                               
or  perceived conflicts.   He  offered  that members  do have  an                                                               
opportunity to announce a conflict on  the floor [of the House or                                                               
Senate].   He said  he had a  concern about  disenfranchising the                                                               
voters that legislators are elected to represent.                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRENN maintained  that  SSHB 44  would allow  the                                                               
opportunity for a legislator who  declares a conflict to speak to                                                               
that conflict  before the legislative  body, as opposed  to "what                                                               
happens  now with  just  a  lone objection  that  is  not on  the                                                               
record."   He  stated that  SSHB 44  would allow  the legislative                                                               
body  to  "hear  out"  the  conflict  and  vote  on  whether  the                                                               
legislator  who  has  declared a  conflict  should  abstain  from                                                               
voting.   He  said  that  in some  states,  a  legislator with  a                                                               
conflict  is not  allowed  to vote.   He  asserted  that SSHB  44                                                               
allows for a public process and  for the legislative body to vote                                                               
on the potential conflicts.                                                                                                     
                                                                                                                                
11:36:50 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  asked if  there had  been a  situation that                                                               
prompted introduction of SSHB 44.                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  GRENN  responded not  at  all.   He  stated  that                                                               
before he  ran for  office he  was asked to  resign from  his job                                                               
because of  a potential conflict  of interest.   He said  that he                                                               
did so  because he didn't want  his campaign to have  any sort of                                                               
conflict of interest attached to it.   He mentioned that 49 other                                                               
states handle  conflicts of interest differently  and allow their                                                               
legislators  to  be  seen  as  transparently  as  possible.    He                                                               
asserted that  the legislature can  always build more  trust with                                                               
the voters.  He said he believes SSHB 44 would help to do that.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  commented  that it  was  unfortunate  that                                                               
Representative Grenn  resigned from his  job, since Alaska  has a                                                               
citizen legislature.   He added  that hopefully  every legislator                                                               
has "another  life" outside of  the purported three  months spent                                                               
in legislative session.                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
11:37:59 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  expressed his concern that  the legislators                                                               
would "muddy everything up in  chambers and everybody is going to                                                               
stand up and  declare a conflict erring on the  side of caution."                                                               
He  offered  the following  hypothetical  scenario:   a  proposed                                                               
legislation  to fund  a number  of Interior  roads is  before the                                                               
legislature in the  capital budget, and the voting  member of the                                                               
legislature is a construction contractor.   He said that although                                                               
the project  is going out  for bid in  a public process,  and the                                                               
floor sessions  are public,  the contractor, who  may or  may not                                                               
bid on  the project, has a  conflict of interest.   He asked, "Is                                                               
that the  road we're going  to go down  ... every single  time we                                                               
have something coming up here."                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON responded that every  legislator is required to vote                                                               
on  the final  budget under  AS 37.07.020(a).   He  said that  in                                                               
Representative  Knopp's  hypothetical situation,  the  legislator                                                               
could declare his/her  conflict of interest again,  but the chair                                                               
would rule  him/her out  of order, and  the conflict  of interest                                                               
would not  go to  a legislative  body vote.   He added  that this                                                               
situation was unlike  the earlier example, which  did not involve                                                               
a budgetary vote.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                
11:39:44 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  KNOPP asked  what in  the current  process avoids                                                               
declaring  conflicts   of  interest,   and  what   triggered  the                                                               
introduction of SSHB 44.                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE GRENN said he does  not have any personal anecdote                                                               
to relay, and  that the proposed legislation  was drafted without                                                               
input  from  anyone  within  or  without  the  legislature.    He                                                               
asserted  that his  staff worked  on SSHB  44 independently.   He                                                               
added that they  solely focused on creating  transparency so that                                                               
the public can  trust what the legislators are  doing, when there                                                               
is a  perceived conflict  of interest.   He  added that  there is                                                               
nothing that  happened recently in the  legislature prompting him                                                               
to introduce the  proposed legislation.  He said,  however, as he                                                               
went  door to  door, his  constituents mentioned  that they  felt                                                               
legislators were  doing their  voters a  disservice by  not being                                                               
more open and transparent.  He  said some referred to the lack of                                                               
transparency  as  "tarmac disease"  -  when  legislators hit  the                                                               
tarmac,  the  constituents  "didn't   know  everything  that  was                                                               
happening."   He contended that  people were looking for  ways to                                                               
know exactly  "what was  happening in  Juneau."   He said  he has                                                               
responded that  there are cameras  everywhere, social  media, and                                                               
documentation.   He  attested that  the legislature  does a  very                                                               
good job of  trying to share everything done  in the legislature.                                                               
He maintained that  anything that can be done to  put more on the                                                               
public record should be done.  He opined that SSHB 44 does that.                                                                
                                                                                                                                
11:42:21 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON opined that  currently "this building is                                                               
a remarkably  partisan building" and  offered his belief  that if                                                               
the  public were  aware  of how  partisan it  is,  they would  be                                                               
shocked.  He mentioned that in  the State of Hawaii, there are 25                                                               
senators.  He said that currently  all 25 senators are members of                                                               
the Democratic Party.   He went on to say that  two years ago, 24                                                               
of the  senators were  Democrats and  one was  a Republican.   He                                                               
offered the following hypothetical  scenario:  The one Republican                                                               
senator in Hawaii is a pineapple  grower with a pineapple farm on                                                               
the  north  shore of  the  island  of Oahu.    A  Democrat has  a                                                               
"pineapple bill"  and wants  a unanimous vote.   He  is concerned                                                               
that the  Republican has  a conflict of  interest and  would vote                                                               
against his  pineapple bill.  Representative  Josephson suggested                                                               
that  when  the   conflict  of  interest  was   declared  by  the                                                               
Republican,  the   24  Democrats   would  gang  up   against  the                                                               
Republican and  find that the declared  conflict was substantial;                                                               
therefore,  the  Republican must  be  recused  from voting.    He                                                               
expressed his  concern that  a member of  the minority  would not                                                               
get the same  objective hearing on a conflict  of interest debate                                                               
[as a  member of the  majority].  He  asked, "How do  you resolve                                                               
that?"                                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON  replied that there are  many steps leading up  to a                                                               
legislator  needing  to  recuse himself/herself  during  a  floor                                                               
session.   He added that SSHB  44 leaves it up  to the legislator                                                               
to "stand  on the floor"  and make  his/her own declaration  of a                                                               
conflict and request  to abstain.  No one can  stand on the floor                                                               
[of the  House or Senate] and  "call someone out."   He said that                                                               
in that  scenario, the  single minority  member could  request an                                                               
advisory opinion from the Select  Committee on Legislative Ethics                                                               
prior to  his/her declaration in  the floor session.   He offered                                                               
that  if  the  committee  issued an  advisory  opinion  that  the                                                               
legislator  does not  have a  conflict, then  the legislator  can                                                               
avoid declaring  a conflict  during the  floor session  and would                                                               
have  that opinion  as backup  if the  majority members  filed an                                                               
ethics complaint.   He concluded  that there would be  checks and                                                               
balances and no super-majority control.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
11:46:12 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON posed  a scenario as follows:   There is a                                                               
district with all pineapple farmers.   The people of the district                                                               
have  elected   a  pineapple  farmer   because  that   person  is                                                               
representative  of the  district.    She asked  if  every time  a                                                               
pineapple  bill  comes  before the  legislature,  the  legislator                                                               
would have  to declare a conflict  and would not be  able to vote                                                               
on  the bill.   She  said  that the  people of  the district,  in                                                               
essence, have  lost their representation  on the issue  that most                                                               
concerns them.                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
MR. JOHNSTON  said that under  SSHB 44, simply being  a pineapple                                                               
farmer facing a pineapple bill  does not constitute a conflict of                                                               
interest.   He  asserted that  it is  "what's in  the bill"  that                                                               
counts.   He  offered that  if there  is a  tax on  all pineapple                                                               
farmers that  is the same  across the board, then  the legislator                                                               
would have  the right to vote  on that bill, because  the bill is                                                               
affecting the  entire class of  persons, industry, or  region the                                                               
same.  He said if that  pineapple bill only gives a tax incentive                                                               
for pineapple  farms over 1,000  acres, and that  legislator owns                                                               
the  only  pineapple  farm  over 1,000  acres,  then  that  would                                                               
constitute a substantial conflict, which  should be declared.  He                                                               
said that simply being a part  of an industry does not constitute                                                               
an outright  conflict of  interest.  There  must be  something in                                                               
the  proposed legislation  that sets  that legislator  apart from                                                               
the rest of the class to  constitute a conflict of interest, such                                                               
as only he/she would benefit or be harmed by the legislation.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON expressed two concerns:   in an attempt to                                                               
err on the  side of caution, most  legislators will over-declare;                                                               
and in  an effort to  avoid voting on  controversial legislation,                                                               
legislators will want to be "conflicted out."                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that  declaring a conflict of interest                                                               
allows a legislator to avoid  voting on proposed legislation from                                                               
which he/she may  personally benefit.  He  offered that currently                                                               
it  only takes  an objection  from  one member  to override  that                                                               
declaration in the legislature.   Consequently, the legislator is                                                               
required to vote on the proposed  legislation.  He opined that it                                                               
is  appropriate  that  the  full legislative  body  decide  if  a                                                               
legislator  should  vote,  rather  than  just  one  person.    He                                                               
asserted that  SSHB 44 offers  protection for all members  of the                                                               
legislature, since  there are  times when a  vote may  hurt one's                                                               
political career  and times  when a vote  may hurt  one's private                                                               
career.   He suggested the  following scenario:  A  legislator is                                                               
part  owner of  a nail  salon.   A proposed  legislation benefits                                                               
that nail  salon, because it  is the  only salon that  can handle                                                               
the  training  [mentioned  in the  proposed  legislation].    The                                                               
legislator may be voting on behalf  of the industry, but there is                                                               
only   one   nail   salon  that   can   provide   the   services.                                                               
Representative Tuck asked whether  that legislator should be able                                                               
to vote on that proposed legislation.   He opined that SSHB 44 is                                                               
an innocent bill,  which would allow the  full [legislative] body                                                               
to decide  if a legislator  should vote on  proposed legislation,                                                               
rather than allow one person to decide.                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that SSHB 44 would be held over.                                                                 
                                                                                                                                
            HB 13-NO ST. FUNDS FOR FEDERAL REGISTRY                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
11:51:37 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS  announced that the final  order of business                                                               
would be HOUSE  BILL NO. 13, "An Act  prohibiting the expenditure                                                               
of state or  municipal assets to create a registry  based on race                                                               
or religion."                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
11:52:16 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK  moved  to   adopt  the  proposed  committee                                                               
substitute (CS) for HB 13,  Version 30-LS0147\J, as a work draft.                                                               
There being no objection, Version J was before the committee.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
11:52:46 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON presented  HB 13, as prime  sponsor.  He                                                               
relayed  that he  visited  the local  synagogue  eight days  ago,                                                               
partly  because  of his  faith  and  partly  because it  was  the                                                               
yahrzeit for the late Representative  Max Gruenberg, for whom the                                                               
committee room  is named.   He  explained that  a yahrzeit  is an                                                               
annual commemoration of  a person's death.  He said  that at that                                                               
service, a  visiting rabbinical student read  the well-known poem                                                               
by  Pastor Martin  Niem?ller, written  in response  to witnessing                                                               
the  holocaust.    Representative  Josephson read  the  poem,  as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     First they came for the Socialists, and I did not                                                                          
     speak out because I was not a Socialist.  Then they                                                                        
     came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out                                                                      
     because I was not a Trade Unionist.  Then they came                                                                        
     for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was                                                                        
     not a Jew.  Then they came for me and there was no one                                                                     
     left to speak for me.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON went  on to say that this  poem has been                                                               
updated by  Rabbi Michael Adam,  whose poem was also  read during                                                               
the yahrzeit.  Representative Josephson  read Mr. Adam's poem, as                                                               
follows:                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
     First they came for the  African Americans, and I spoke                                                                    
     up because I am my  sister's and brother's keeper.  And                                                                    
     then they  came for the  women, and I spoke  up because                                                                    
     women hold a  path to sky.  And then  they came for the                                                                    
     Immigrants,  and  I spoke  up  because  I remember  the                                                                    
     ideals of  our democracy.   And then they came  for the                                                                    
     Muslims, and  I spoke up  because they are  my cousins,                                                                    
     and we  are one  family.   And then  they came  for the                                                                    
     Native  Americans  and Mother  Earth,  and  I spoke  up                                                                    
     because the  blood-soaked land cries and  the mountains                                                                    
     weep.  They keep coming, we keep rising up.                                                                                
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON   commented  that   this  poem   was  a                                                               
remarkably fitting commentary on why he introduced HB 13.                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
11:55:41 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON referred to  the 1944 U.S. Supreme Court                                                               
decision,  Toyosaburo   Korematsu  v.   U.S.,  included   in  the                                                             
committee packet.  He mentioned  that this decision was still the                                                               
"law  of the  land," albeit  very strongly  disfavored.   He read                                                               
from the  dissenting opinion by  Justice William  Francis "Frank"                                                               
Murphy, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:                                                                  
                                                                                                                                
     I  dissent,   therefore,  from  this   legalization  of                                                                    
     racism. Racial  discrimination in  any form and  in any                                                                    
     degree  has   no  justifiable  part  whatever   in  our                                                                    
     democratic  way  of life.  It  is  unattractive in  any                                                                    
     setting  but  it  is utterly  revolting  among  a  free                                                                    
     people who  have embraced the  principles set  forth in                                                                    
     the Constitution. All residents  of this nation are kin                                                                    
     in some way by blood or  culture to a foreign land. Yet                                                                    
     they are  primarily and necessarily  a part of  the new                                                                    
     and distinct  civilization of  the United  States. They                                                                    
     must accordingly be  treated at all times  as the heirs                                                                    
     of the American  experiment and as entitled  to all the                                                                    
     rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  went  on   to  say  there  were  three                                                               
comparable  dissenting opinions  in the  Toyosaburo Korematsu  v.                                                             
U.S.  decision, written  by the  three  former justices,  Murphy,                                                             
Roberts, and Jackson.  He stated  that in this 1944 decision, the                                                               
Supreme  Court, by  what  Representative  Josephson considered  a                                                               
remarkable vote of  6-3, gave permission for  the U.S. government                                                               
to  randomly and  arbitrarily gather  up every  Japanese American                                                               
and  put  him/her  into   concentration  camps.    Representative                                                               
Josephson  confirmed that  the  camps  were called  concentration                                                               
camps, and they were also known as internment camps.                                                                            
                                                                                                                                
11:57:14 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  said  that   according  to  what  U.S.                                                               
President Donald  Trump has indicated  to the press,  both before                                                               
his election and after his  election, and what Secretary of State                                                               
Rex Tillerson  said just  last month,  the federal  government is                                                               
considering a registry  of certain people based on  religion.  He                                                               
asserted  that  this  statement  is   not  a  discussion  of  the                                                               
immigration  order  which  has  been enjoined  by  at  least  one                                                               
appellate court,  although the two  issues overlap.   He asserted                                                               
that this issue  concerns a registry of people  who are presently                                                               
naturalized or  born Americans.   He  went on  to say  that these                                                               
people  are not  travelling  Americans, nor  are they  travelling                                                               
tourists;  they are  just Americans,  and the  administration has                                                               
indicated a  desire to register  them.   He said that  his reason                                                               
for reading aloud from the  Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S. decision                                                             
was to assert  his belief that in critical moments,  such as now,                                                               
it is  important to document  for future and  present generations                                                               
that the Alaska  State Legislature "saw this  happening" and took                                                               
a stand.                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON  said that  HB  13  is similar  to  the                                                               
Senate Committee  Substitute for  Committee Substitute  for House                                                               
Joint  Resolution 22(JUD)  ("House Joint  Resolution 22"),  which                                                               
passed both houses in the  Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature,                                                               
2003-2004.   He  asserted that  House  Joint Resolution  22 is  a                                                               
statement by  the legislature about  the USA Patriot Act  and was                                                               
co-sponsored  by  members  of  the  legislature  who  are  widely                                                               
regarded as  among the most conservative  in the last 20  years -                                                               
Senator   Dyson,  Senator   Seekins,   Senator  Taylor,   Senator                                                               
Therriault,   Senator   Ogan,    Senator   Cowdery   and   (then)                                                               
Representative John Coghill.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
11:59:43 AM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON paraphrased  House Joint  Resolution 22                                                               
to  say  that  the  state and  its  instrumentalities,  or  local                                                               
governments,  is  not  going  to   be  involved  in  using  state                                                               
resources  or   institutions  for  the  enforcement   of  federal                                                               
immigration  matters.   He asserted  that House  Joint Resolution                                                               
22, just 18 months after  [the terrorist attacks of September 11,                                                               
2001],  is a  statement about  Alaskans' belief  in liberty.   He                                                               
opined that  even though the  country was traumatized  then, more                                                               
than it is now, the legislature  "did the right thing" in stating                                                               
that it  intended to  protect individual  liberties.   He relayed                                                               
that under HB  13, the state and its local  governments would not                                                               
use  personnel   and  financial  assets  to   support  a  federal                                                               
"overreach" effort to create a  registry based on race, religion,                                                               
ethnicity, or national origin.   He attested that the drafters of                                                               
HB 13 properly  placed the proposed language into  the "family of                                                               
prohibitions   and  preclusions"   [in   AS.  44.99.040],   which                                                               
specifies  those activities  in  which the  state government  has                                                               
decided it will not participate.   Among them are prohibitions on                                                               
enforcing federal laws  on our Second Amendment  privileges or on                                                               
anything that generally  would violate the due  process of Alaska                                                               
citizens.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  asserted that the reason  he referenced                                                               
the  poems  from  religious  scholars  is  that  if  there  is  a                                                               
registry,   he  wants   future  generations,   who  are   writing                                                               
dissertations 100  years from  now, to have  a statement  of fact                                                               
that  says the  Thirtieth Alaska  State Legislature  "caught that                                                               
moment"  before Alaskans  participated  in  something they  would                                                               
regret.   He cited  the treatment  of American  Indians, Japanese                                                               
Americans, and African Americans as  examples of that in history.                                                               
He emphasized that this statement  of fact would demonstrate that                                                               
we caught  ourselves, not at  a moment  of great stress  as right                                                               
after [the  terrorist attacks of  September 11, 2001],  but 15-16                                                               
years later, when  the legislature could calmly say  that this is                                                               
government overreach.   He  offered that if  there is  any belief                                                               
that there is  no need for the proposed legislation,  he would be                                                               
happy to  cite the media  reports of  what the President  and the                                                               
secretary of state have said -  that indeed they would consider a                                                               
registry of minority religion members.                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
12:03:45 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  said that he appreciates  the hysteria that                                                               
has  prompted HB  13,  but  asked if  House  Joint Resolution  22                                                               
doesn't   already  reasonably   and  appropriately   reflect  the                                                               
legislature's  position,  and  HB  13 would  be  redundant.    He                                                               
offered that  he agreed conceptually  with HB 13.   He suggested,                                                               
however, that  the federal  government collects  information from                                                               
everyone in the country for the census every ten years.                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  expressed his  belief that HB  13 would                                                               
not  be  redundant.   He  said  that  House Joint  Resolution  22                                                               
reflects  the Twenty-Third  Alaska State  Legislature, 2003-2004,                                                               
and not  the current  legislature.   He stated  that this  is the                                                               
first  time in  his lifetime  where an  executive officer  at the                                                               
highest  level of  government  and his  secretary  of state  have                                                               
stated that they  are considering registering people.   He opined                                                               
that  it is  worthwhile for  the  State of  Alaska to  say, as  a                                                               
matter  of law,  it won't  participate in  such a  registry.   He                                                               
added  that  if  the  federal  government  chooses  to  create  a                                                               
registry, then  that is up  to the federal government,  but under                                                               
HB  13, Alaska  would  not  be committing  any  "muscle" to  that                                                               
effort.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  asked   if  Representative  Josephson  has                                                               
received  any  indication  that Governor  Bill  Walker,  a  state                                                               
agency, or any  governing body within the  state is contemplating                                                               
participating in a registry.                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE   JOSEPHSON   replied   no,   but   offered   that                                                               
legislation  was   passed  stipulating  that  Alaska   would  not                                                               
participate in  the enforcement of  federal gun laws,  when there                                                               
was no evidence  that the state was going to  enforce federal gun                                                               
laws and no  gun laws were imposed by the  federal government for                                                               
the state  to enforce.   He  opined that  there is  nothing wrong                                                               
with acting prophylactically.  He  stated that he didn't know the                                                               
capacity of the federal government to compel deputizing.                                                                        
                                                                                                                                
12:07:09 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
PAUL KELLY,  Staff, Representative  Andy Josephson,  Alaska State                                                               
Legislature,  on   behalf  of  Representative   Josephson,  prime                                                               
sponsor of HB  13, relayed that the Toyosaburo  Korematsu v. U.S.                                                             
decision  was included  in the  bill packet  to demonstrate  that                                                               
Toyosaburo Korematsu  had to  go to the  U.S. Supreme  Court; the                                                               
case lasted 2 1/2  years; and in the end, he lost.   He said, "If                                                               
we  cut this  off  before it  starts, then  there's  no need  for                                                               
judicial remedy and for somebody to  have to wait 2 1/2 years for                                                               
justice."                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP  offered that since federal  overreach comes                                                               
with  federal dollars,  HB 13  wouldn't prevent  a registry,  but                                                               
would just  prevent the  state from  participating in  a registry                                                               
using state  assets.   He suggested  that the  federal government                                                               
could themselves  set up an  office and create a  registry within                                                               
the state.  He asked if  federal funds, funneled to the state for                                                               
such  an effort,  would be  considered state  assets.   He stated                                                               
that the  intent of  HB 13 is  to prevent a  registry, but  HB 13                                                               
specifically  would prevent  the  state from  participating in  a                                                               
registry.                                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  JOSEPHSON responded  that is  correct.   He added                                                               
that HB 13 refers plainly to  state or municipal agencies and the                                                               
use of their  power and treasure.  He relayed  a comment by Chief                                                               
Justice Antonin Scalia stating that  Toyosaburo Korematsu v. U.S.                                                             
was clearly  a wrong decision,  but Mr. Scalia was  not convinced                                                               
that  the  courts  would  ultimately  stop  it.    Representative                                                               
Josephson relayed that  the President's power is  at its greatest                                                               
in  regard to  the country's  borders.   He added  that the  U.S.                                                               
Supreme Court  usually defers very  extensively to  the executive                                                               
branch on  defensive security measures.   He went on to  say that                                                               
what  was  offensive  about  what was  proposed  by  the  current                                                               
administration  before  the  election, after  the  election,  and                                                               
after the  inauguration does  not involve  just the  borders, but                                                               
people  presently  living  in  the  United  States  and  carrying                                                               
passports.   He expressed his  belief that the  legislature would                                                               
do well  by just saying "we  caught you, and we  Alaskans believe                                                               
in our liberty, and we're not  going to participate in this."  He                                                               
cited  AS 44.99.040(b),  which states  that "asset"  means funds,                                                               
facilities, equipment,  services, or  other resources of  a state                                                               
or municipal agency.   He asserted that under HB  13, neither the                                                               
state nor the municipalities will  be able to access these assets                                                               
for a  registry.  He added  that if the federal  government wants                                                               
to set up an office and do  a "Korematsu," it will not be through                                                               
[the State of] Alaska's assistance.                                                                                             
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  commented that  the proposed  legislation is                                                               
similar to House  Continuing Resolution 8, passed  in the Twenty-                                                               
Seventh  Alaska State  Legislature, 2011-2012.   He  relayed that                                                               
the 2011  resolution opposed the procedures  and invasive actions                                                               
of the Transportation Security  Administration (TSA), but nothing                                                               
could be  done to  stop TSA  from "setting  up shop"  in Alaska's                                                               
airports.   He reiterated  that the  legislature can  prevent the                                                               
federal government from using the state's facilities.                                                                           
                                                                                                                                
12:12:13 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE  BIRCH  suggested  that there  may  be  unintended                                                               
consequences, and  he gave  as an example  a person  using "blood                                                               
quantum" to  determine that he/she  is a Native  American artist.                                                               
He asked if there are  any registries currently maintained by the                                                               
state  or an  instrumentality of  the state  relating to  someone                                                               
being  Native American  or qualifying  for a  benefit based  on a                                                               
status  that relates  to race,  religion, ethnicity,  or national                                                               
origin.                                                                                                                         
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON  responded that  he would  research that                                                               
question.   He  asserted that  HB 13  would establish  intent and                                                               
would be placed  in a statute considered to  be a "quintessential                                                               
push-back"  on  federal overreach.    He  said that  the  statute                                                               
addresses  the right  to keep  and bear  arms, the  right to  due                                                               
process, and possibly even the [federal REAL ID Act of 2005].                                                                   
12:14:17 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH  mentioned the REAL  ID deadline of  June 6,                                                               
2017, as  the date that  a driver's  license would not  be enough                                                               
[to  access   military  bases  and   federal  facilities].     He                                                               
reiterated that he appreciates the intent  of HB 13 and the offer                                                               
for  additional  research  to  ensure  there  are  no  unintended                                                               
consequences.                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK  referred to Representative  Birch's question                                                               
as to  whether anyone  was contemplating doing  what HB  13 would                                                               
prevent  and  asserted  that  HB 13  would  prevent  anyone  from                                                               
contemplating it.   He opined that one of  Alaska's problems with                                                               
the federal  government is that  Alaska is always reacting  to it                                                               
rather than taking a proactive  approach.  He cited the reactions                                                               
of the legislature to  the federal REAL ID Act of  2005 as a good                                                               
example of  trying to  protect the residents  of Alaska  from the                                                               
invasiveness of federal overreach provisions.                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
12:15:48 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 13.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
12:16:16 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
VALERIE  BROOKS identified  herself as  a public-school  educator                                                               
and testified that  she supports HB 13.  She  said that she would                                                               
support even  further measures allowing for  sanctuary cities and                                                               
campuses  to  protect  Alaska's   most  vulnerable  families  and                                                               
students, as they come under attack  merely due to where they are                                                               
from  or how  they worship.   She  went on  to say  that she  has                                                               
witnessed very real  fear in her students and  in her co-workers,                                                               
who are  impacted by  the proposed  executive order,  the current                                                               
deportations under way,  and the proposed registry  that has been                                                               
discussed for months by persons  now in positions of authority at                                                               
the  federal  level.   She  asserted  that  HB  13 would  not  be                                                               
redundant,   because  it   deals  with   current  proposals   and                                                               
activities.   She added that she  appreciates that Representative                                                               
Josephson has  spoken about the  duty that Alaskans have  to each                                                               
other.  She said that we  are all humans and deserving of respect                                                               
and safety,  whether documented or  undocumented.  She  urged the                                                               
committee to support  HB 13 and to resist any  attempts to create                                                               
or  support a  registry based  on race,  religion, ethnicity,  or                                                               
nationality.                                                                                                                    
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 13.                                                                          
                                                                                                                                
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 13 would be held over.                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
12:19:16 PM                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
ADJOURNMENT                                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                
There being no  further business before the  committee, the House                                                               
State Affairs  Standing Committee meeting was  adjourned at 12:19                                                               
p.m.                                                                                                                            

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HB020 Alaska Family Action Letter of Opposition 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 20
HB013 Hearing Request 1.26.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB13 Sponsor Statement 1.26.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB0013 ver A 1.26.17.PDF HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB0013 Draft Proposed CS ver J 1.26.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB13 Explanation of Changes 1.30.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB044 Sponsor Statement 1.23.2017.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB044 Sectional Anaylsis 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB0044 CS for Sponsor Substitute Ver U 2.17.17.PDF HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB044 Sponsor Substitute ver O 1.23.17.PDF HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB44 Fiscal Note AL 1.25.2017.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB044 supporting document-AKPIRG Support Letter 1.23.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB044 Supporting Document-LWV 1.27.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB044 Supporting Document- Nees ltr to Jason Green re HB44 2.1.2017.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 44
HB020 Proposed Amendment A.1 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 20
HCR005 Proposed Amendment A.1 2.16.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HCR 5
HB013 Fiscal Note 2.11.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB 020 Letter of Support Joy Lutheran Church 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 20
HCR005 Fiscal Note 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HCR 5
HB13 Supporting Document - Timeline for Korematsu's Resolution 2.17.17.pdf HJUD 4/15/2017 10:00:00 AM
HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB013 Supporting Document - Korematsu v US 2.17.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB013 Supporting Document Constituent Letters 2.20.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13
HB13 Supporting Document - Research Document 3.7.17.pdf HSTA 2/18/2017 11:00:00 AM
HB 13