HB 46-PROCURE AK FISH/AG PROD.; ALASKA GROWN  3:00:53 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act relating to the state and municipal procurement preferences for agricultural products harvested in the state and fisheries products harvested or processed in the state; relating to the sale of milk, milk products, raw milk, and raw milk products; and providing for an effective date." 3:01:00 PM CO-CHAIR TARR opened public testimony on HB 46. 3:01:28 PM JOHN ANDERSON expressed appreciation to the committee for its interest in agriculture. He said he had concerns about the proposed legislation. He related that he is a livestock producer and "HB 46 is a good attempt at a futile process that someone like myself can't touch." He stated that while there may be a small trickledown effect, [the proposed legislation] would benefit just a few farmers. He explained that unfortunately he could not touch a price point anywhere close to 15 percent. MR. ANDERSON said another issue is in determining what will be considered "Alaska Grown." He questioned whether animals would be allowed to be brought to Alaska and slaughtered the next day and qualify for marketing at the 15 percent increase or if it will be held to the high standard of Alaska Grown, which is that the animal [has been in Alaska] for 51 percent of its life. He predicted that if imported animals are "allowed to be considered to this standard without any check," then "certain producers will take advantage of bottom floor cattle and hog prices - especially in Canada right now - and walk away making lots of quick bucks and having an almost zero impact in our state." He indicated that those producers would not be buying grain or hay in substantial amounts; therefore, he questioned the worth of a program that of which people can take advantage. MR. ANDERSON mentioned the (indisc.), on which he is a member, is thriving; however, he cautioned the committee that he has witnessed many instances of disregard for the rules and the intentional mislabeling of products. He said he has brought many of his concerns to the Division of Agriculture, and "they do not feel they can protect the logo anymore." He said because the division will no longer investigate "wrongdoings," some [producers] have started new labels, such as "Golden Heart Grown" in the Interior and "Grow Palmer" in Palmer, Alaska. CO-CHAIR TARR, as prime sponsor of HB 46, informed Mr. Anderson that under current statute, the percentage is 7 percent. She surmised that if the [proposed] 15 percent would not allow Mr. Anderson an opportunity, then the existing 7 percent certainly would not, because it is over 50 percent less. She said she understands that while the proposed change is a "big improvement," it will not accommodate everyone. She indicated her understanding of the challenges of being a small producer of livestock or produce. She explained her commitment to continue working beyond the opportunity proposed under HB 46 "to support ... things that will allow more opportunity for a small producer like yourself." She indicated that the reason she supported the Mt. McKinley Meat Processing Facility was so that people such as Mr. Anderson could have the opportunity to get into the market. CO-CHAIR TARR, regarding the issue of "Alaska Grown," said, "We would anticipate using the same Alaska Grown rule and standard that's in place now." Notwithstanding that, she acknowledged the concern raised by Mr. Anderson regarding imported animals. 3:06:31 PM DAVID OTNESS testified that he liked the sentiment behind [HB 46] and wants Alaska to develop more intrastate commerce. He said he would hold back from offering further testimony until he got "up to speed" on [the proposed legislation]. 3:07:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE PARISH questioned whether the statement made by a previous testifier - that animals could be imported one day, slaughtered the next, and marketed as Alaska Grown - was accurate. 3:07:56 PM JOHANNA HERRON, Development Specialist II, Division of Agriculture, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), responded that that is not current practice. She said, "The certification policy that was passed in previous years states clearly ... that livestock must be raised 51 percent of its life or more in the state to be marketed as Alaska Grown." She said there have been a couple instances where "that has been challenged and concerns have been raised, and ... we investigate ... as we hear of those." 3:08:35 PM CO-CHAIR TARR, after ascertaining that there was no one else who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 46. In response to Representative Rauscher, she stated her intent for the committee to move HB 46 that day. REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER noted that his district reaches Palmer, Glennallen, Delta, and Valdez, and it contains a lot of cultural land and livestock. He requested HB 46 be held for another hearing so that he would have time to speak to his constituent farmers. 3:10:15 PM CO-CHAIR TARR said she does not mind honoring that request, but she indicated it could result in the committee having to meet in the evenings to catch up on its workload. She pointed out that she has been working on "this particular product preference statute" since 2014 and has presented information at several "farm bureau meetings," working closely with many of the individuals in Representative Rauscher's district. 3:11:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his appreciation for the work that has been done thus far, and he maintained his desire to have more time with HB 46. 3:11:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE suggested that Representative Rauscher could talk to someone within the Division of Agriculture who may be stationed in Representative Rauscher's district. 3:12:10 PM CO-CHAIR TARR expressed her hope that Representative Rauscher could get the answers he needed either from division staff or his constituents. 3:13:03 PM CO-CHAIR TARR announced that HB 46 was held over.