01/29/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB57 | |
| HB68 | |
| HB49 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 49 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 57 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 68 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 29, 2025
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Carolyn Hall, Co-Chair
Representative Ashley Carrick
Representative Robyn Niayuq Burke
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative David Nelson
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 57
"An Act relating to wireless telecommunications devices in
public schools; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the sale of alcohol; and relating to the
posting of warning signs for alcoholic beverages."
- MOVED HB 68 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 49
"An Act relating to tobacco, tobacco products, electronic
smoking products, nicotine, and products containing nicotine;
raising the minimum age to purchase, exchange, or possess
tobacco, a product containing nicotine, or an electronic smoking
product; relating to the tobacco use education and cessation
fund; relating to the taxation of electronic smoking products
and vapor products; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 34
"An Act establishing the Alaska Innovation Council; and relating
to financial disclosures for members of the Alaska Innovation
Council."
- BILL HEARING CANCELED
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: COMMUNICATION DEVICES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) L&C, EDC
01/29/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 68
SHORT TITLE: ALCOHOL: SALE, WARNING SIGNS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/24/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/24/25 (H) L&C, HSS
01/24/25 (H) L&C WAIVED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, RULE
23(A)
01/27/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
01/27/25 (H) Heard & Held
01/27/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
01/29/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 49
SHORT TITLE: TOBACCO/NICOTINE/E-CIG AGE; E-CIG TAX
SPONSOR(s): HANNAN
01/22/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/22/25 (H) L&C, FIN
01/29/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KELLY LESSENS, Individual Member
Anchorage School Board
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, supported HB 57,
with some recommendations for change.
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, testified in
support of and answered questions during the hearing on HB 57.
KIM WHITMAN, Co-Founder
Phone Free Schools Movement
Overland Park, Kansas
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, testified in
support of HB 57, with some recommendations for change.
DAVE BOOTH, Principal
Palmer High School
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, testified in
support of and answered questions during the hearing on HB 57.
LON GARRISON, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 57.
JOE BANKOWSKI, Enforcement Supervisor
Alcohol and Marijuana Control Office
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 68.
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor presented HB 49.
HUNTER MEACHUM, Staff
Representative Sara Hannan
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to Representative Hannan, prime
sponsor of HB 49, gave an introductory presentation on HB 49,
and read the sectional analysis.
JOE DARNELL, Chief Investigator
Division of Behavioral Health
Department of Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 49.
KATIE STEFFENS, Deputy Program Manager
Tobacco Prevention and Control Program
Department of Health
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As an invited testifier, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 49.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:15:37 PM
CO-CHAIR ZACK FIELDS called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m.
Representatives Carrick, Burke, Saddler, Coulombe, Nelson, Hall,
and Fields were present at the call to order.
HB 57-COMMUNICATION DEVICES IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
3:15:46 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 57 "An Act relating to wireless
telecommunications devices in public schools; and providing for
an effective date."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that the committee would begin with
invited testimony on HB 57.
3:16:27 PM
KELLY LESSENS, Individual Member, Anchorage School Board, as an
invited testifier, supported HB 57 with some recommendations for
change. Ms. Lessens stated HB 57 would direct school districts
to develop and adopt a policy that would prohibit the use of
non-school issued electronic devices during the school day,
including during passing and lunch periods. She stated her
concern that cellphones are distracting, and that students are
becoming increasingly dependent on them. She stated that there
are 18 states that have laws restricting or prohibiting the use
of cell phones during school hours. She noted that the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED) passed a
resolution in the fall [2024] recommending the Anchorage School
District (ASD) revise its cell phone policy. The department
also drafted a model cell phone policy. Ms. Lessens offered one
recommendation for a committee substitute (CS) regarding
regulated accessibility to electronic communication devices
(ECDs) dependent on a student's level in school. She posted
that devices become more essential as students progress through
school. She proposed language specifying that elementary and
middle school students would not be permitted to access ECDs
during the day, only before or after the school day.
Additionally, she stated that high school students, particularly
those with academic or curricular needs, would not be permitted
to access ECDs during the day, unless directed to do so by their
teachers in order to accomplish a specific academic purpose that
could otherwise not be accomplished by devices provided by the
district. She offered an anecdote, recounting that staff have
difficulty "policing" cell phones, given that students outnumber
staff members in every school.
3:24:12 PM
DEENA BISHOP, Commissioner, Department of Education and Early
Development, as an invited testifier, testified in support of
and answered questions during the hearing on HB 57.
Commissioner Bishop cited findings from the book, titled The
Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt, and Johann Hari's work on
focus and mental health. She stated that recently published
research on the "anxious generation" reported an increase in
anxiety, depression, and loneliness among teenagers. These
increases are linked with the advent of smart phones and social
media. Unlike prior generations, Commissioner Bishop noted,
modern teenagers are navigating a digital world facilitated by
endless notifications, constant comparison, and fear of missing
out (FOMO). Social media algorithms' sole focus is content that
drives engagement, and research shows that negative content
increases engagement. Commissioner Bishop stated that research
shows visual platforms like Snapchat and Instagram increase
issues with body image, whereas anonymous platforms like Yik Yak
increase incidents of harassment online. Commissioner Bishop
argued that removing cell phones during school hours gives
students a reprieve from the "constant connectivity" and allows
them to focus on learning and personal growth. She cited Johann
Hari's book, Stolen Focus, stating that the addictive design of
apps and platforms, combined with interruptions, makes it nearly
impossible to concentrate on a deeper level. She asserted that
removing cellphones from classrooms would allow for students to
maintain attention. Adolescents spend an average of seven hours
daily on screens, much of which is on social media. Both
Jonathan Haidt and Johann Hari emphasized the importance of
face-to-face interactions for emotional growth and bonding in
their respective bodies of work.
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated when cellphones are removed from
schools, students are encouraged to engage directly with their
peer and teachers, allowing them to practice engaging in real-
world dynamics. She stated that Haidt, in The Anxious
Generation, found links between cell phone usage and sleep
deprivation. Commissioner Bishop maintained that unrestricted
phone use during school hours increases the risk of
cyberbullying, a significant contributor to anxiety and
depression in teens. In 2021, the Pew Research Center reported
that 59 percent of U.S. teens experienced cyberbullying, the
most common activities being offensive name-calling, spreading
false rumors, and receiving explicit images without consent.
She noted that online harassment can escalate quickly and reach
a wider audience over time. In 2018, a study published in
Science Magazine found that false or negative news spread at a
rate of six times faster on Twitter, than positive or neutral
news. The Pew Research Center also found that negative content
on platforms like Facebook receive higher engagement, via likes
and shares. In 2019, the Journal of School Violence reported
that 35 percent of bystanders who witness cyberbullying engage
in it by forwarding the content. She asserted that social media
platforms are designed to exploit human psychology, particularly
the negativity bias. She concluded that a technology as
pervasive as cell phones requires systemic solutions. She
asserted that a phone-free environment in school empowers
students to focus on their education, connect with peers, and
develop resiliency. Finally, she stated that HB 57 is aligned
with the model policy recommendations as put out by DEED.
3:34:33 PM
KIM WHITMAN, Co-Founder, Phone Free Schools Movement, as an
invited testifier, testified in support of HB 57 with some
recommendations for change. Ms. Whitman stated research found
that 97 percent of students use phones during the school day for
an average of 43 minutes, typically spent on social media
applications ("apps"), gaming apps, or YouTube. She stated that
one-third of teenagers report being exposed to pornography at
school, 35 percent of teenagers admitted to using their cell
phone to cheat, and 65 percent of students report distractions
via electronic devices in the classroom. She stated that 72
percent of U.S. high school students report cell phones as a
major problem in the classroom. In 2017, the Brain Drain study
found that the presence of a phone, even when silenced and
stowed away, reduced cognitive capacity. The study found that
students perform best on tests and when learning new materials
when their cellphones are stored in separate rooms. The
National Education Association (NEA) conducted a poll with
results finding that 83 percent of members support prohibiting
cell phone usage during the entire school day, from the first
bell to the last bell. She noted that, in 2023, the U.S.
surgeon general advised that learning time and social time in
schools be phone-free.
MS. WHITMAN offered modifications for HB 57. She recommended
the removal of exceptions for emergency purposes, noting that
first responders and experts suggest that students should be
focused on listening to instructions in the event of an
emergency, not communicating with parents. She remarked that,
if students were instructed to hide in the event of an
emergency, the notification of a phone could alert an intruder
to the student's location. She noted the increased parent
presence on campus in the event of an emergency could block
evacuation efforts. Additionally, she said high call volumes
could overwhelm communication systems, and potentially block
phone lines. Ms. Whitman also recommended the addition of an
exception for documented medical or Individualized Educational
Program (IEP) needs, such as a child with diabetes who uses
their phone to track their insulin levels. In addition, she
recommended that HB 57 mandate the phone be stored separate from
the person, due to the phone's addictive nature. Lastly, Ms.
Whitman recommended adding provisions to prohibit students from
accessing social media during the day, as well as restricting
schools from communicating with children on social media. She
added that parents should be given a choice in their children's
presence on social media, and anecdotally, she shared that
parents have voiced frustrations at schools' requirements for
students to communicate with their peers/teachers/administration
via social media. She reiterated her support of HB 57.
3:40:13 PM
DAVE BOOTH, Principal, Palmer High School, as an invited
testifier, testified in support of and answered questions during
the hearing on HB 57. Mr. Booth stated Palmer High School (PHS)
banned cellphones from 7 a.m. to 2:15 p.m. approximately three
years ago. In the area of discipline, Mr. Booth stated there
was a 43-percent decline in alcohol use by students, a 67-
percent decline in drug use by students, and an 87.5-percent
decline in vape/tobacco use. He stated that PHS had 36
cyberbullying infractions in the first semester of the previous
year [2023-2024], and that the school has had two incidents thus
far during the 2024-2025 school year. In the area of academics,
Mr. Booth stated there was a 28 percent-reduction in failing
grades between the first semester of the 2023-2024 school year
and the first semester of the 2024-2025 school year. He
reported that there was a 14 percent improvement in students
passing Algebra I and declared similar statistics for English I.
In response to earlier testimony, Mr. Booth offered his belief
that there is no problem with "policing," as student will rise
to meet high expectations. Mr. Booth asserted that students at
PHS are happier, and more sociable.
MR. BOOTH stated that research shows that after a child looks at
a cellphone in any capacity, the distraction lasts for
approximately 20 minutes. He noted that PHS has six transition
periods, amounting to 120 minutes of distraction (assuming the
cellphones are accessed during transition periods) throughout a
5.5-hour school day. Mr. Booth stated that the school is safer
without cellphones, due to the school's ability to monitor the
content that students access throughout the day through school-
owned devices. He stated that they [PHS staff] have been able
to intervene when students have thoughts of self-harm or
violence. He concluded that the cell phone ban has been a
monumental transformation for PHS.
3:46:31 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS invited questions from committee members.
3:46:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked whether there was a concern among
local authorities if the state were to pass legislation
regarding cell phone use. Additionally, she asked why ASD has
not created its own policies regarding cell phone usage.
3:47:27 PM
MS. LESSENS responded that the existing policies regarding cell
phone usage in ASD is out of date due to the diversity of the
district. She added that she believed local control is
important and noted that being her reason for supporting a CS to
allow for a little more nuanced HB 57.
3:51:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE asked how many school districts currently
have a cell phone policy.
3:52:32 PM
COMISSIONER BISHOP responded that all districts have a cell
phone policy. She said she would get back to Representative
Burke regarding how many districts a have cell phone restriction
policy. In response to an earlier question from Representative
Coulombe regarding local control, Commissioner Bishop posited
that action needs to be taken at the state level, and that it
will take a collective effort from students, parents,
legislators, and educators to address the issues arising from
cellphone use in schools.
3:54:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE noted that there is language in the bill
that requires districts adopt a policy. She asked whether the
required policy must be the model policy recommended by DEED.
3:55:08 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he did not intend to prescribe a
specific policy. He stated it is the intent of HB 57 to ban
cell phones during the school day.
3:55:30 PM
LON GARRISON, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards (AASB), as an invited testifier, answered questions
during the hearing on HB 57. He noted that AASB has had a model
cell phone policy for approximately 12 years. He remarked that
when cell phones first came out, it was thought that they could
be beneficial to the learning environment to some degree. He
stated that there is already a comprehensive model policy that
is not exclusive to cellphones. He offered his belief that
there is an opportunity to modify existing policies, as opposed
to starting over.
3:57:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated her support of the intent of the
legislation. She voiced concerns about semi-urban and rural
schools that use technology to conduct remote learning. She
remarked that there are times when cell phones are used in place
of malfunctioning devices. Representative Carrick stated that
while she supported the ban of social media and phones in
school, she is concerned about what might happen when school-
owned technology malfunctions under HB 57. Representative
Carrick asked whether DEED would fill in those resource gaps.
3:59:21 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP offered her belief that needing a cell phone
to fulfill academic obligations does not outweigh the damage
done by social media and cell phones. Commissioner Bishop
stated that it is important that schools offer technology and
other supports for learning in conjunction with a cell phone
ban. She offered her belief that [teachers] will still be able
to teach without cell phones in the classroom.
4:00:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated that HB 57 is not specific to
social media use and acknowledged there is no way to write
legislation to ban social media use on phones in school and
allow academic use. She voiced her concern about the under-
resourcing in schools in Alaska. Many students in districts use
phones to connect to teachers, other students, and classrooms.
She noted there are cases where students have no other way to
connect to their educational institutions except for on their
cell phones.
4:01:47 PM
MS. WHITMAN agreed with Co-Chair Fields in stating that, if
students have access to their phones, they will use them for
social purposes, not solely for academic purposes. She asserted
that the issues regarding connectivity or lack of infrastructure
in classrooms would need to be addressed separate from cell
phone restriction policies.
4:02:33 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP, in response to questions regarding current
policy and enforcement from Representative Nelson, explained
that there is a cell phone ban under the model policy. She
echoed Principal Boothe in stating that when a school has high
expectations, children will rise to meet those expectations.
4:04:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON remarked that he doesn't see how HB 57
might be effective if current policies were not upheld. He
noted the bill would allow exceptions for "emergency purposes"
but does not define the term. He asked for the definition of
"emergency purposes".
4:05:33 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that he is inclined to look to state
and local boards to define "emergency purposes". Additionally,
in response to Representative Nelson's earlier comment, he
clarified that while most school districts have a cell phone
policy, many do not have a cell phone restriction.
4:06:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated that in current policy, students
are not supposed to have cell phones turned on or in the
classroom, but many students still do so.
4:06:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Commissioner Bishop to speak to how a day-
long ban would be more effective.
4:06:26 PM
COMMISSIONER BISHOP stated that there is a difference between a
day-long ban and the existing policies. She noted that [DEED]
did not know how damaging cell phones were five years ago.
4:07:03 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:07 p.m. to 4:10 p.m.
4:10:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Ms. Whitman to describe her
organization. He asked Co-Chair Fields to distribute the draft
and model policies from ASD, DEED, and AASB.
4:11:49 PM
MS. WHITMAN stated that the Phones Free School Movement is a
nonprofit started by three moms. She stated she saw how cell
phone use at schools was directly impacting her children and
children around the world. After a year of working with school
administrators across the United States, Ms. Whitman discovered
three things that were paramount to a successful phone-free day:
communication, clear policy, and consistent enforcement. She,
along with the two other co-founders, created the Phone-Free
Schools Administrator Toolkit, a roadmap on how to successfully
implement bell-to-bell phone-free policy. She noted that she
would circulate the "toolkit" with her written testimony.
4:13:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, in response to Representative Saddler's
request, responded that the committee would circulate Ms.
Whitman's website.
4:13:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked whether there was a financial cost
for the cell phone ban at Palmer High School.
4:13:57 PM
MR. BOOTH responded yes and no. He explained that the
administrators bought phone pouches for Palmer High School but
did not receive enough support from the district office for the
enforcement of pouch use. In the end, there was no cost, as PHS
did not end up using pouches, and instead the policy was written
such that phones must be turned off and be "off the student."
This means that the phone can be in the backpack or in the
student's locker, for example. He stated that when a student is
seen with a phone during the school day, it is turned in to the
[principal's] office. He remarked that, currently, PHS averages
fewer than two cell phones taken from students daily.
4:15:16 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Booth to send additional follow-up
testimony in writing to the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested that invited testifiers be made
available for further hearings of HB 57.
[HB 57 was held over.]
HB 68-ALCOHOL: SALE, WARNING SIGNS
[Contains discussion of HB 37.]
4:15:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 68, "An Act relating to the sale of alcohol;
and relating to the posting of warning signs for alcoholic
beverages."
4:16:10 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:16 p.m.
4:16:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 68,
labeled 34-LS0340\N.1, C. Radford, 1/27/25, which read as
follows:
Page 1, lines 1 - 2:
Delete "; and relating to the posting of warning
signs for alcoholic beverages"
Page 6, lines 6 - 22:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
4:16:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:17:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted there are two elements of HB 68:
lowering the age of service for alcohol, and cancer warning
signs for alcoholic beverages. He remarked that the two
elements are separate: the first is a workforce issue, while
the second is a public health issue. He stated that while he is
in support of lowering the age of service for alcohol, there is
another piece of legislation [HB 37] that mirrors the provisions
in HB 68 for cancer warning signs for alcoholic beverages. He
offered his belief that it is important to consider the two
issues separately.
4:18:18 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS maintained his objection to Amendment 1 to HB
68. He stated that HB 37 would take an additional step in
consolidating the number of signs that are posted in
establishments. He remarked that he is in support of hearing HB
37, but not supportive of taking language out of HB 68 at this
time. Co-Chair Fields noted further concerns that "opening the
bill up" would result in delay for an important workforce bill.
He felt a sense of urgency in giving the [hospitality] industry
some predictability, considering the season typically starts at
the beginning of summer.
4:19:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE supported the amendment to separate the
two issues. She noted there was a testifier who preferred HB 37
over the provisions in HB 68.
4:19:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER didn't see how Amendment 1 to HB 68 would
cause delay. He argued that by taking the cancer warning
provisions out, HB 68 would become a single-issue bill, thus
allowing for smoother passage through the legislature.
4:20:00 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Nelson, Coulombe,
and Saddler voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 1 to
HB 68. Representatives Burke, Carrick, Fields, and Hall voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a
vote of 3-4.
4:20:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 68,
labeled 34-LS0340\N.2, Bergerud/C. Radford, 1/28/25, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 17, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 3, line 20, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 4, line 16, following "beverages":
Insert "; the supervision described in this
paragraph must be provided in person by a manager or
supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age or
older and who has been charged with the task of
providing the supervision"
Page 4, line 26, following "beverages.":
Insert "A person employed as permitted under this
subsection shall be supervised in person by a manager
or supervisor of the business who is 21 years of age
or older and who has been charged with the task of
ensuring that the employee will not consume alcoholic
beverages."
4:20:48 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purpose of discussion.
4:20:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that Amendment 2 to HB 68 clearly
identifies and delineates the responsibilities for those
supervising employees under the age of 21. He remarked that it
is important that young people in the hospitality industry have
guidance from someone who is older, and that this person is
clearly identified as directly responsible for their
supervision. He asserted that, from the owner's perspective,
having clearly delineated supervision for employees under 21
will ease concerns for insurance providers about potential
increased liability. He concluded that Amendment 2 to HB 68 is
good for owners of licensed premises, young workers, and public
acceptance of HB 68.
4:22:28 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL maintained her objection to Amendment 2 to HB 68.
4:22:37 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked for the definition of "adequate
supervision" under HB 68.
4:23:45 PM
JOE BANKOWSKI, Enforcement Supervisor, Alcohol and Marijuana
Control Office (AMCO), Department of Commerce, Community &
Economic Development, stated that clarification on "adequate
supervision" would be helpful.
4:24:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS [objected] to Amendment 2 to HB 68. He voiced
concern over ambiguity around spaces where supervision would be
required. He stated he would not want for regulations to
require an "older adult" supervise employees between the ages of
18-21 years old, as Amendment 2 to HB 68 is written.
4:24:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE stated her intention to protect the
licensee from legal trouble. She stated support for Amendment
2.
4:25:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK found the answer from AMCO to be
inadequate. She agreed with Co-Chair Fields that Amendment 2 to
HB 68 could restrict the workforce that the bill is meant
include.
4:26:11 PM
MR. BANKOWSKI clarified that historically someone who is allowed
to operate in this supervisory position would be someone over 21
years old. He specified that he is not trying to take a
position one way or another on what the amendment should look
like or how it should be written.
4:26:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated that a supervisor present on the
premises of the restaurant where an 18- to 21-year-old is
serving would likely count as adequate supervision.
MR. BANKOWSKI answered yes.
4:27:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that he agreed with Representative
Coulombe in protecting the licensee from legal trouble,
regarding Amendment 2.
4:27:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that the premise can be far
distant from one end to the other end. He offered his belief
that the way HB 68 is currently written would invite unwanted
legal deliberation over the meaning of "adequate supervision".
He offered his belief that it's important that HB 68 clarifies
the degree of supervision. He welcomed [conceptual] amendments
to Amendment 2.
4:28:19 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Coulombe, Nelson,
and Saddler voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 2 to
HB 68. Representatives Carrick, Burke, Hall, and Fields voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 2 to HB 68 failed to be
adopted by a vote of 3-4.
4:29:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK stated that she appreciated both
amendments in intent. She noted that even with the passage of
HB 68, Alaska would still be rather restrictive compared to
other states.
4:30:05 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated his hope that AMCO would work with
stakeholders in providing a clear definition of "adequate
supervision".
4:30:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that, although he did not support
the provisions for cancer warnings, he supported the underlying
element of HB 68, that is, allowing younger people into the
workforce. He offered his belief that the bill is unbalanced,
but that he might support it.
4:30:38 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL moved to report HB 68 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, HB 68 was reported out of the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS handed the gavel to Co-Chair Hall.
4:31:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:31 p.m. to 4:34 p.m.
HB 49-TOBACCO/NICOTINE/E-CIG AGE; E-CIG TAX
4:35:55 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 49, "An Act relating to tobacco, tobacco
products, electronic smoking products, nicotine, and products
containing nicotine; raising the minimum age to purchase,
exchange, or possess tobacco, a product containing nicotine, or
an electronic smoking product; relating to the tobacco use
education and cessation fund; relating to the taxation of
electronic smoking products and vapor products; and providing
for an effective date."
4:36:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SARA HANNAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, presented HB 49. She noted that there are two key
policies in HB 49: raising the minimum age to purchase from 19
to 21 to align state law with federal, and to establish a sales
tax for electronic smoking products (ESPs), otherwise known as
"vapes," or "vape products." In December of 2019, the Federal
Government changed the age to buy, possess, or consume tobacco
products from 19 to 21. Representative Hannan noted that Alaska
is not in compliance with the federal government. Under tobacco
products, vapes are not taxed by the State of Alaska. Under
Alaska statutes on tobacco, taxation is delineated by type. She
said ESPs could fall under the category "other tobacco
products"; however, the tobacco industry has successfully argued
against taxation due to lack of identification of ESPs, or
vapes, in statute. She stated that Alaska has been very
successful in decreasing the rate of youth combustible tobacco
smoking. This approach has been accomplished with a three-
pronged approach: a tobacco tax on traditional
cigarettes/tobacco products, the creation of a statewide tobacco
control and educational program, and the creation of youth
cessation programs. Representative Hannan offered her belief
that vape products are targeted at youth populations. She
commented that there has been a "huge increase" in young people
consuming nicotine via introduction through ESPs. She concluded
that vapes are not regulated in the same way that cigarettes
are; therefore, there is a lot of variability in the products.
4:41:35 PM
HUNTER MEACHUM, Staff, Representative Sara Hannan, Alaska State
Legislature, as staff to Representative Hannan, prime sponsor,
gave an introductory presentation on HB 49, and read the
sectional analysis. She used a PowerPoint [hard copy included
in the committee file], titled "House Bill 49: Restricting
Youth Access To Tobacco and E-Cigarettes," with accompanying
images. She stated that, according to the Department of
Health's (DOH's) Tobacco Prevention and Control program, tobacco
use is the leading preventable cause of death and disease in
Alaska. Over 100,000 adults in Alaska are at risk for poor
health outcomes due to tobacco products. Annually, an estimated
600 deaths in Alaska are attributed to smoking alone. She
stated that nicotine addiction almost always begins in
adolescence; therefore, it is the intent of HB 49 to protect at-
risk youth in Alaska. She noted that e-cigarettes/ESPs/vapes
emerged in the mid-2000s. Since 1994, there has been a decline
in traditional tobacco use from 37 percent to 8 percent among
high school students. The decline of traditional tobacco use
has occurred in concurrence with the explosion of e-cigarette
use. From 2015-2021, there was an increase in vaping from 18
percent to 26 percent in high school students.
MS. MEACHUM explained that most e-cigarettes consist of four
different components: a cartridge/reservoir, a heating element,
a power source, and a mouthpiece. She noted that ESPs can have
a variety of names, including e-cigarettes, e-cigars, e-pipes,
e-hookahs, and vape pens. She stated a battery is typically
used to heat up liquid containing nicotine and other flavor
additives, including butterscotch, bubblegum, cotton candy,
apple cinnamon, which is then inhaled into the lungs. She
stated that vapes can be designed to look like discreet,
everyday items, such as figurine toys, sharpies, pens,
highlighters, thumb drives, and watches. She noted that
advertisements marketing vapes saturate social media, and
companies showcase the "cool factor" of vapes by employing
influencers to increase the sex appeal and installing popular
children's games, like Pacman, in ESPs. Ms. Meachum stated that
the e-cigarette market is unregulated, and HB 49 would ban
marketing to children. Many brands have campaigns on social
media to associate vaping with having fun, relaxation, freedom,
and defiance. Additionally, vape competitions on platforms such
as YouTube are popular. She noted that children are vaping
during school bus rides, in bathrooms, locker rooms, hallways,
and classrooms in schools. There are tutorials on online
platforms, such as YouTube, instructing students how to avoid
detection devices that have been purchased to prevent students
from vaping in school. She stated that e-cigarettes are not
safe and can have lasting health consequences for the developing
brain and cardiovascular system. She concluded that e-
cigarettes are not a [healthier] replacement for cigarettes.
4:48:34 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:48 p.m.
4:49:12 PM
MS. MEACHUM continued to the sectional analysis of HB 49
[included in committee file], which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Sec. 1: AS 11.76.100(a), relating to tobacco sales and
exchanges, makes it a violation to sell to persons
under age 21; however, the person making the sale at a
licensed location may be age 19 or older.
Sec. 2: AS 11.76.100(b), relating to supervision of
tobacco product vending machines (TVM), amends the
exemption for TVMs situated in a private break room,
provided there is signage posted indicating the
minimum age to possess tobacco products is age 21
(from 19).
Sec. 3: AS 11.76.105, (a) relating to possession of
tobacco, electronic smoking products (ESPs), or
products containing nicotine, raises the minimum age
to possess from 19 to 21 years of age; removes the
exemption for incarcerated minors;
(b) makes allowable exemptions as an affirmative
defense for possession under certain conditions; to
include if the product is FDA-approved, is prescribed
by a health care professional, and given by a parent
or legal guardian.
(c) makes possession of tobacco, an electronic smoking
product, or a product containing nicotine by a person
under 21 years of age a violation punishable by a fine
not to exceed $300, or in lieu of paying a fine the
court may direct a defendant to take an educational
class on the harms of smoking.
Sec. 4: AS 11.76.105 (d) directs the court system to
establish a bail schedule for the violation referenced
in Section 3 above. Bail amounts may be forfeited
without a court appearance for a violation by a person
19 or 20 years of age.
(e) A mandatory court appearance is maintained for
minors under age 18.
(f) provides an exemption for persons aged 19-20, when
selling tobacco, nicotine products, or ESPs, to be
exempted from the prohibition of underage possession
of those products.
Sec. 5: AS 11.76.106(b), relating to the 'behind the
counter' control provisions of selling tobacco
products, allowing exemptions for wholesalers, tobacco
shops or online ESP sales, raising the minimum age to
sell from 19 to 21 years of age.
Sec. 6: AS 11.76.109(a), relating to other products
containing nicotine (OTP), including chew, gum,
patches, or E-cigarette products, makes it a violation
to sell, give, or exchange to persons under age 21;
however, the person making the sale at a licensed
location may be age 19 or older.
Sec. 7: AS 11.76.109(b), relating to exemptions to
selling, giving, or exchanging products containing
nicotine to persons under the age of 21, if the
product is FDA-approved, is prescribed by a doctor, or
given by a parent or legal guardian.
Sec. 8: AS 11.76.109(d), relating to the requirement
for vendors to supervise the operation of ESP or
nicotine product vending machines (EVM), amends the
exemption for EVMs situated in a private break room,
provided there is signage posted indicating the
minimum age to possess tobacco products is age 21.
Sec. 9: AS 11.76.109(g), relating to the penalty for
selling or gifting ESP or nicotine products to a
person under the age of 21 as a violation punishable
by a fine of not less than $300.
Sec. 10: AS 11.81.900(b) adds a definition of
nicotine, to include a chemical or chemical compound
intended to simulate the effect of the plant-based
chemical derived from the tobacco plant. This is
intended to include the emergence of synthetic
nicotine in the market as a means of evading tax and
sales penalties.
Sec. 11: AS 29.35.085(c) conforming change relating to
community work provisions as punishment for a minor's
conviction of a violation of a curfew ordinance.
Sec. 12: AS 37.05.580(a) amends the Tobacco Use
Education and Cessation Fund to be moved from the
general fund into the state treasury.
Sec. 13: AS 43.50.070(a), relating to licensing
requirements for buying or selling tobacco or other
products containing nicotine, adds legal authority for
the Dept. of Revenue to suspend, revoke a license for
ESP sales.
Sec. 14: AS 43.50.105(b), relating to wholesale
cigarette sales and licensees, to restrict licensees
from selling or transporting tobacco products to
persons that are at least 21 (from 19) years of age,
and to implement an age verification process when
conducting transactions.
Sec. 15: AS 43.50.105(c), relating to common carrier
transportation of cigarettes, to verify the age (21)
of the recipient before delivery.
Sec. 16: AS 43.50.150(c), relating to the state being
in partnership with municipalities in taxing tobacco
products, is amended to include those municipalities
taxing ESPs, to share data and jointly audit licensees
selling those products.
Sec. 17: AS 43.50.190(d), relating to the Tobacco Use
Education and Cessation Fund, amends the structure of
the fund reflecting three revenue sources going into
the fund: (1) 20% 1/26/25; HB 49, version A
of the annual payment under the Tobacco Master
Settlement Agreement; (2) 8.9% of the general portion
of the state cigarette tax; and (3) the proceeds from
the new tax on electronic smoking products (ESPs)
established in section 17 of the bill.
Sec. 18: AS 43.50.325 adds a restriction on the
transportation of OTP into the state, requiring
licensing to do so, and makes clear provisions for age
verification for delivery of and labelling for such
products. This is a conforming amendment, replicating
AS 43.50.105, which applies only to cigarettes.
Sec. 19: AS 43.50 is amended by adding Article 8,
relating to ESP Sales, Shipping, Licensing, and
Taxation
AS 43.50.850(a) levies a 25 percent tax on the retail
sales price of closed-system ESPs and vapor products
in the state; and
(b) sets a threshold of 200 transactions annually, for
online vendors of ESP, to be licensed with the state
and begin remitting tax returns and payments.
AS 43.50.855 provides for exemptions from the tax to
include closed ESPs or vapor sold on military bases,
approved by the FDA as a tobacco cessation product, or
sold as a marijuana or hemp product that do not
contain nicotine.
AS 43.50.860 requires retailers to be licensed in the
state to sell ESPs, details an annual application
renewal process and fee, license transferability,
suspension and revocation, product packaging and
labelling requirements, and restrictions on marketing
flavored products to youths.
AS 43.50.865 requires ESP licensees to file a monthly
tax return to the Dept. of Revenue (DOR), including
information on what was sold, sales prices, and tax
imposed.
AS 43.50.870, requires record keeping for licensees
selling ESPs, including information on purchase
prices, product sources, and volume of purchase. This
information is to be kept on file for 3 years and must
be available for DOR upon request.
AS 43.50.875 directs taxes collected on ESPs to be
deposited into the Tobacco Use Education and Cessation
Fund, which may be appropriated by the legislature to
provide for tobacco use prevention or for efforts to
prevent or detect the use of tobacco or ESPs in
schools.
AS 43.50.880 is a conforming amendment, adding
restrictions to shipping or transporting ESPs into the
state without a license, consistent with same statutes
relating to shipping or transporting tobacco or
cigarettes.
AS 43.50.885 places restrictions on ESP vapor products
sold to consumers in the state to include: (1) a
nicotine concentration of no more than 50mg/ml; (2)
protection from breakage and leakage; (3) not
containing other additives or stimulants such as
caffeine, taurine, or vitamin E acetate; (4) child-
and tamper-proof packaging; and (5) clear labeling to
inform customers of all ingredients and nicotine
content.
AS 43.50.900 provides a definition for "sales price"
for tax purposes.
AS 43.50.990 provides definitions for "closed
electronic smoking product," "electronic smoking
product," "vapor product," "nicotine," and "retailer."
Hardware components such as batteries, battery
chargers, heating elements and mouthpieces are
excluded from the definition of an ESP for tax
purposes, when sold separately or not part of a closed
ESP.
Sec. 20: AS 43.70.075(f), relating to business license
endorsements for selling tobacco products, amends the
existing requirement for signage to be posted on
vendor premises, stating it being illegal to sell
tobacco or ESPs to minors under the age of 21 (from
19).
Sec. 21: AS 43.70.075(m), relating to the process for
suspending business licensees holding a tobacco
endorsement, amends existing statute referring to
tobacco or ESPs being sold to minors under the age of
21 (from 19).
Sec. 22: AS 43.70.075(t), relating to penalties for
licensees violating the T21 provisions, amends
existing statute for lessening the penalties if a
license holder has a written tobacco or ESPs sales
policy to include employees not selling tobacco or
ESPs to minors under the age of 21 (from 19).
Sec. 23: AS 43.70.075(w), relating to the appeal and
administrative process of license suspension, conforms
existing law regarding tobacco and ESP sales, to apply
to sales to minors under the age of 21 (from 19).
Sec. 24: AS 45.50.471(b), relating to consumer
protection and unlawful business practices, adds a new
subsection making it unlawful to market or advertise
ESPs, or components of ESPs to persons under the age
of 21 in the state.
Sec. 25: AS 45.50.471(b), relating to the marketing an
ESP in a manner likely to promote its use by a person
under 21.
Sec. 26: AS 47.12.030(b), relating to the juvenile
justice system, and minors accused of possessing
tobacco, conforms existing law to apply to possession
by minors under the age of 21 (from 19).
Sec. 27: AS 11.76.100(e) is repealed. The statute is
an exemption for sales, and possession of cigarettes,
OTP and ESPs for incarcerated minors.
Sec. 28: Relates to applicability, conforming changes
in the bill.
Sec. 29: Sections 13, 16, 19, and 25 are effective
January 1, 2027.
Sec. 30: All other sections are effective January 1,
2026.
5:00:46 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL invited questions from committee members for the
bill sponsor or invited testifiers.
5:01:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated there is a provision in HB 49 on
excluding tax on military installations. He asked whether there
would also be an age exemption for military individuals.
5:02:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN answered that the military is where the
Tobacco 21 (T21) provisions began. Currently, on military
bases, if a commissary sells tobacco, a consumer must be 21
years old to purchase said product; however, a consumer could
travel outside of the military base and purchase tobacco at 19
years old.
5:02:38 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL asked how HB 49 might help tobacco control and
enforcement.
5:03:28 PM
JOE DARNELL, Chief Investigator, Division of Behavioral Health,
Department of Health, as an invited testifier, answered
questions during the hearing on HB 49. He stated there are
three age-restricted products in Alaska: alcohol, marijuana,
and tobacco. He stated that bringing all age restricted
products to 21 would make it easier on retailers. He stated
that identification (ID) checks would be easier, as all
individuals over the age of 21 in Alaska are issued horizontal
ID, and all individuals under the age of 21 in Alaska are issued
vertical ID.
5:04:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked what the recently updated Alaska
Youth Risk Behavior Survey reported about electronic vapor use
among youth today.
5:05:24 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 5:05 p.m.
5:06:00 PM
KATIE STEFFENS, Deputy Program Manager, Tobacco Prevention and
Control Program, Department of Health, as an invited testifier,
answered questions during the hearing on HB 49. She responded
that the Tobacco Prevention and Control Program recently
collected data in 2023 for the Alaska Youth Risk Behavior
Survey. She reported that 17 percent of Alaska high school
students used e-cigarettes in 2023. Additionally, she reported
that this is a decrease from 2019, but that it is not considered
significant when considering long-term data. She emphasized
that one in six children in Alaska uses e-cigarettes and 23
percent of high school students in Alaska use some form of
tobacco product.
5:07:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked where the tax revenue generated by
HB 49 would go.
5:07:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN responded that the entirety of the tax
revenue generated under HB 49 would be put directly into the
tobacco cessation fund. She explained that the tobacco
cessation fund suffered the "reverse-sweep" problem. She noted
that the fund was swept and is currently substantially drained.
She stated the operating funds that typically roll over every
year are nonexistent. She stated that the goal of HB 49 would
be to add revenue from vape taxes into the fund in such a way
that the funds are not subject to the reverse-sweep vote
restrictions.
5:08:28 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that HB 49 was held over.
5:08:47 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:08 p.m.