HB 3-DEFINITION OF "DISASTER": CYBERSECURITY  2:16:20 PM CHAIR CLAMAN announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the definition of 'disaster.'" [Before the committee was CSHB 3(STA).] 2:17:17 PM CHAIR CLAMAN passed the gavel to Vice Chair Snyder [who transitioned from Teams video participation to in-room presence during this part of the meeting]. 2:17:28 PM CHAIR CLAMAN moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB 3(STA), labeled 32-LS0041\G.5, Dunmire, 3/16/21, which read as follows: Page 2, line 30, following "affected;": Insert "in this subparagraph, "critical  infrastructure" means systems and assets, whether  physical or virtual, so vital to the state that the  incapacity or destruction of the systems and assets  would have a debilitating effect on security, state  economic security, state public health or safety, or  any combination of those matters;" 2:17:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND objected for the purpose of discussion. CHAIR CLAMAN spoke to Amendment 1. He said it would add a definition of critical infrastructure based on the federal definition, changing the reference to the United States to "the  state". 2:18:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE DELENA JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor of HB 3, said she is fine with Amendment 1. 2:18:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked for a definitions showing the difference between "security" and "state economic security". REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN proffered that an example of security is public security, such as a threat to the public safety database, while a threat to the transportation of oil would be directly related to economic security. In response to a follow-up question, he said he thinks under the proposed legislation, the governor would have the authority to declare an emergency if there was a threat to the pipeline. To a further follow-up regarding web sites, he said the answer depends on the specific situation; a massive web site with a tremendous amount of use that is getting threatened is different from a personal web site. He said Amendment 1 "doesn't propose to provide that level of definition." 2:22:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE said she likes the effort to define critical infrastructure in terms of cybersecurity; however, she said all the lines in Amendment 1 that reference security, economic security, and public health and safety may be limiting what can be done. She suggested ending the sentence following "have a debilitating effect". She expressed concern that there may be things that would fall under that definition that are not listed in Amendment 1. 2:24:36 PM CHAIR CLAMAN responded that he would not support that change because the definition in Amendment 1 is patterned on the federal definition and he would like the two to align so that the federal standard informs how the state standard is applied. 2:25:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed concern that making the definition as broad as it is would authorize the declaration of disaster for anything. 2:26:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND noted that Amendment 1 would amend [paragraph (2), subparagraph] (F), [which is a subparagraph added under CSHB 3(STA)]. She highlighted the following in subparagraph (F): (F) a cybersecurity attack that affects critical  infrastructure in the state, an information system  owned or operated by the state  REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND opined that an information system includes any web site and data storage. She gave the example of "My Alaska," which includes not only the permanent fund dividend (PFD) application process, but also public official financial disclosures and campaign disclosures. She said she thinks Amendment 1 strengthens the definition of cyber infrastructure and "is fine as is." 2:28:15 PM CHAIR CLAMAN, in response to a question from Representative Kurka, offered his view that Amendment 1 would affect only [subparagraph] (F). 2:30:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND removed her objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 1. 2:30:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 2:30:35 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, Vance, and Claman voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 1. Representatives Eastman and Kurka voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 5- 2. VICE CHAIR SNYDER passed the gavel back to Chair Claman. 2:31:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 2, labeled 32- LS0041\G.2, Marx/Dunmire, 3/16/21, which read as follows: Page 1, line 1, following "to": Insert "a declaration of a disaster emergency;  and relating to" Page 1, following line 2: Insert new bill sections to read:  "* Section 1. AS 26.23.020(c) is amended to read: (c) If the governor finds that a disaster has occurred or that a disaster is imminent or threatened, the governor shall, by proclamation, declare a condition of disaster emergency. The disaster emergency remains in effect until the governor finds that the danger has passed or the disaster has been dealt with so that the emergency no longer exists. The governor may terminate the disaster emergency by proclamation. A proclamation of disaster emergency may not remain in effect longer than 30 days unless extended by a majority of the members of the legislature in joint session [BY A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION]. The proclamation must indicate the nature of the disaster, the area threatened or affected, and the conditions that have brought it about or that make possible the termination of the disaster emergency. A proclamation to declare a condition of disaster emergency must also state whether the governor proposes to expend state funds to respond to the disaster under (i) or (j) of this section. Unless  authorized by a majority of the members of the  legislature in joint session,  (1) the governor may not declare a  condition of disaster emergency while a declared  condition of disaster emergency remains in effect; and  (2) the governor may not declare a  condition of disaster emergency related to a condition  of disaster emergency previously declared by that  governor.   * Sec. 2. AS 26.23.210(a) is amended to read: (a) In the event of a conflict between this chapter and AS 26.20, including in the event the governor declares a disaster under this chapter due to an attack or credible threat of imminent enemy or terrorist attack [AS DESCRIBED IN AS 26.23.900(2)], the provisions of this chapter shall govern." Page 1, line 3: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 3" Page 1, line 6: Delete "resulting from" Insert "[RESULTING FROM" Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 30: Delete all material and insert: "(A) AN INCIDENT SUCH AS STORM, HIGH WATER, WIND-DRIVEN WATER, TIDAL WAVE, TSUNAMI, EARTHQUAKE, VOLCANIC ERUPTION, LANDSLIDE, MUDSLIDE, AVALANCHE, SNOWSTORM, PROLONGED EXTREME COLD, DROUGHT, FIRE, FLOOD, EPIDEMIC, EXPLOSION, OR RIOT; (B) THE RELEASE OF OIL OR A HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCE IF THE RELEASE REQUIRES PROMPT ACTION TO AVERT ENVIRONMENTAL DANGER OR MITIGATE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE; (C) EQUIPMENT FAILURE IF THE FAILURE IS NOT A PREDICTABLY FREQUENT OR RECURRING EVENT OR PREVENTABLE BY ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE OR OPERATION; (D) ENEMY OR TERRORIST ATTACK OR A CREDIBLE THREAT OF IMMINENT ENEMY OR TERRORIST ATTACK IN OR AGAINST THE STATE THAT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS OR A DESIGNEE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAL, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY OR A DESIGNEE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CERTIFIES TO THE GOVERNOR HAS A HIGH PROBABILITY OF OCCURRING IN THE NEAR FUTURE; THE CERTIFICATION MUST MEET THE STANDARDS OF AS 26.20.040(C); IN THIS SUBPARAGRAPH, "ATTACK" HAS THE MEANING GIVEN UNDER AS 26.20.200; OR (E) AN OUTBREAK OF DISEASE OR A CREDIBLE THREAT OF AN IMMINENT OUTBREAK OF DISEASE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES OR A DESIGNEE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES CERTIFIES TO THE GOVERNOR HAS A HIGH PROBABILITY OF OCCURRING IN THE NEAR FUTURE; THE CERTIFICATION MUST BE BASED ON SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM A LOCAL, STATE, FEDERAL, OR INTERNATIONAL AGENCY, OR ANOTHER SOURCE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OR THE DESIGNEE DETERMINES IS RELIABLE];" 2:31:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 2. He said it would remove all the reasons for the damage and focus instead on there being damage; therefore, any widespread damage would qualify as a disaster. Further, he said Amendment 2 would prevent there being two disasters declared when the legislature had not addressed the first one. 2:34:33 PM CHAIR CLAMAN observed that Amendment 2 would require a title change to the purpose of the bill. Further, he stated that the proposed amendment would delve into "a whole new area about declarations of disaster," which he said has never been the subject of the proposed legislation. Therefore, he ruled Amendment 2 out of order. 2:34:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE objected. She observed that Amendment 2 applies to Section 1 of CSHB 3(STA); therefore, she questioned how it would be out of order. CHAIR CLAMAN explained that part of Amendment 2 proposes a new section not part of AS 26.23.900; it goes into AS 26.23.020, which addresses the declaration itself as opposed to the cybersecurity issue. He said, "This is the sort of thing we should spend a lot more time reviewing than taking it up as an amendment to an existing bill." 2:35:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked if it was Chair Claman's intention to rule all amendments that change the bill title out of order. CHAIR CLAMAN said this is not a blanket rule. He explained that under Rule 1 in Mason's Manual, the committee is allowed to control the debate and "not spend excessive time on things that aren't really relevant to the matter at hand." He suggested Representative Eastman's proper venue is to introduce a bill taking up these issues. 2:36:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected. 2:36:53 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of the ruling of the chair on Amendment 2. Representatives Vance, Eastman, and Kurka voted against it. Therefore, the ruling of the chair was upheld by a vote of 4-3. 2:37:57 PM CHAIR CLAMAN ruled Amendment 3, [included in the committee packet but never moved for adoption] out of order. He said it brings up the subject of martial law, which had not been discussed previously, and which he opined is well beyond the bounds of what the committee would be discussing today. 2:38:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN asked whether Amendment 3 had been "entered into the record." CHAIR CLAMAN offered his understanding that Amendment 3 had been entered into the record, since it was "circulated on [the Bill Action & Status Inquiry System] (BASIS)." 2:38:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected to the ruling of the chair. He said CSHB 3(STA) deals with disaster emergencies, and he opined there is confusion on at what point an emergency becomes martial law. 2:39:07 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of upholding the ruling of the chair on Amendment 3. Representatives Kurka, Vance, and Eastman voted against it. Therefore, the ruling of the chair was upheld by a vote of 4-3. 2:39:50 PM CHAIR CLAMAN ruled Amendment 4, [in the committee packet but never moved for adoption], out of order. 2:39:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN objected and spoke to his objection. He indicated the Chair Claman, through his ruling, was denying his constituents their right to speak through the committee process. CHAIR CLAMAN welcomed a bill from Representative Eastman addressing these issues. He maintained that he thinks [Amendment 4] would not be a wise use of the committee's time; therefore, he said he would not change his ruling. 2:40:40 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Snyder, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Claman voted in favor of the ruling of the chair on Amendment 4. Representatives Eastman, Kurka, and Vance voted against it. Therefore, by a vote of 4-3, the ruling of the chair was upheld. 2:41:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 5, labeled 32- LS0041\G.6, Dunmire, 3/17/21, which read as follows: Page 2, line 17: Delete "cybersecurity" Insert "cyber" Page 2, line 22: Delete "cybersecurity attack or cybersecurity" Insert "cyber attack or cyber" 2:41:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS objected. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 5. He recalled there had been testimony supporting a broader scope to include all cyber incidents and events, not just those where someone is "going through the guard tower and causing the damage or injury." He said he does not have a position on [Amendment 5], but he explained that "it does seem to clarify the intent of the sponsor." In response to a question from Chair Claman, he clarified that he is offering Amendment 5 for the benefit of the committee, not for his constituents. 2:42:44 PM CHAIR CLAMAN noted Mark Breunig, an information security officer, was available for questions. 2:43:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked to hear Mark Breunig's thoughts on Amendment 5. 2:43:26 PM MARK BREUNIG, Chief Information Security Officer, State Security Office, Department of Administration, said he does not have an issue with the change proposed under Amendment 5. He said he thinks the intent of [CSHB 3(STA)] would be maintained. 2:43:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS removed his objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 5 was [adopted]. 2:44:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN moved to adopt Amendment 6, labeled 32- LS0041\G.7, Dunmire, 3/17/21, which read as follows: Page 2, line 22: Delete "vulnerability" Insert "event" 2:44:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN spoke to Amendment 6. He said the reason is that the bill sponsor had said that "event" was what was originally intended. He said he was offering the amendment but taking no position on it. In response to a question from Chair Claman, he explained the reason he had not combined Amendments 5 and 6 was for the purpose of clarity. 2:45:10 PM MR. BREUNIG, in response to Chair Claman, said he thinks "vulnerability" speaks to potential outcomes. He said "event" is broader but does not damage "the integrity and intent of this change." 2:45:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in response to Chair Claman, said she is fine with Amendment 6 because she does not think it changes the outcome of CSHB 3(STA). 2:46:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER removed her objection to Amendment 6. There being no further objection, Amendment 6 was [adopted]. CHAIR CLAMAN invited final comments on CSHB 3(STA), as amended. 2:46:30 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that her prior concern regarding political subdivisions of the state had been addressed, and they would be protected under CSHB 3(STA), as amended. 2:47:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE VANCE expressed thanks to the bill sponsor for bringing the proposed legislation forward to provide "more opportunities to protect our systems in the future." 2:47:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN expressed appreciation for the proposed bill and said he would not object to its moving forward, but he said he has concerns with the direction it takes the state, since it would broaden the degree to which a disaster can be declared during a time in which "we are declaring an awful lot more disasters than we have in the past." He opined, "... if we're going to continue to declare these disasters going forward, I think that points to the need for some substantive changes in our laws, so we don't have to get around the laws by declaring the disasters as frequently as we do." 2:48:31 PM CHAIR CLAMAN said he appreciates the sponsor's legislation, since it addresses concerns that have arisen since the state has experienced cybersecurity issues and attacks in the last few years in Alaska, and he appreciates the sponsor working with his office on the definition of critical infrastructure. He further expressed appreciation for the amendments brought by Representative Eastman that offered clarity on cyber versus cybersecurity. For those reasons, he said, he encouraged support of CSHB 3(STA), as amended. 2:49:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to report CSHB 3(STA), as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 3(JUD) was reported out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee. [REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER returned to her office to participate during the final portion of the meeting via Teams.]