Legislature(2017 - 2018)ADAMS ROOM 519
04/03/2018 10:00 AM House FINANCE
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.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB197 | |
| HB41 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 197 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 277 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 41 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 299 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 41
"An Act relating to joint prime sponsorship of bills."
10:25:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE LES GARA, SPONSOR, introduced the
legislation. He explained that over the years the
legislature had allowed legislators to become joint prime
sponsors of legislation. The old rule only allowed
legislators to become joint prime sponsors in the first
five days of session. He discussed that some of the best
relationships he had built in the building were with
members across the aisle working as joint sponsors on
legislation. The bill would reinstitute the practice of
allowing joint sponsors on legislation and would allow it
to happen any time during the year. He believed working
across party lines was good - it built relationships and
trust. He thought it was what the public expected. He
believed it was better for a group of people, especially
people across party lines, to stand together on an issue.
He recalled working as a joint prime sponsor with the
former mayor of Fairbanks [Representative Steve Thompson]
and the former House Finance Committee co-chair from Haines
[Representative Bill Thomas] and a number of other
individuals.
Vice-Chair Gara elaborated that based on his experience as
a former Minority member, Minority bills move through the
legislative process more slowly. He believed co-sponsorship
across party lines helped solve the problem. He stated the
bill was simple and followed the current legislative
Uniform Rules. He explained that changing the Uniform Rules
required a two-thirds vote, which he did not want to do. He
explained that the bill would allow a group of legislators
to agree to be joint prime sponsors. There would be one or
two lead legislators sponsoring the bill. He elaborated
that a legislator could always remove their name from a
bill at any time it was in the house they belonged to. He
had asked Doug Gardner, director of Legislative Legal
Services if he could remember a case where someone had
objected to another legislator removing their own name off
a bill. As far as Mr. Gardner could recall, it had never
happened. He acknowledged it was a possibility and a
legislator would know that when they signed on. In that
circumstance, he reasoned he would tell his constituents he
no longer supported a piece legislation and would try to
take his name off as soon as possible.
Vice-Chair Gara summarized that the bill would get people
to work together and especially encouraged newer, younger
legislators to build relationships. He thought the bill was
a small thing that was beneficial for the legislative
process.
10:29:53 AM
Co-Chair Seaton asked if one of six or so co-prime sponsors
would be allowed to offer an amendment in committee. He
asked if all co-prime sponsors would have equal ownership
of the legislation. He noted that co-sponsors were
different than the owner of the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara believed the co-prime sponsors would have
to come up with an agreement at the start of a piece of
legislation. In the past, when he had been the lead co-
prime sponsor, people had given him the discretion to make
those calls and he had brought issues back to the other
sponsors for them to decide whether they were amenable to
the change. A group of sponsors could also agree in advance
whether to accept any amendments or a co-prime sponsor
would have to say in front of a committee they did not know
whether the other co-prime sponsors accepted the amendment.
He reasoned that when considering legislation, it was a
committee's purview to decide whether or not to amend a
bill. He noted he had never had the problem. In his
experience, they had always trusted the lead prime sponsor
to report back to other sponsors to determine whether the
change was acceptable or if they should try to reverse it.
He believed it was necessary to have an understanding
between prime sponsors at the start of a piece of
legislation.
Co-Chair Seaton thought it was beneficial to put any
potential pitfalls on the record during committee
discussion. He noted that it was easy for a legislator to
take their name off a piece of legislation as a co-sponsor,
which included submitting a green slip or telling the
clerks. He asked if the process would be the same for prime
sponsors. Alternatively, he asked if a legislator had to
stand on the [House or Senate] floor to make the request,
which was typically the process when requesting to change
the sponsor.
10:33:08 AM
Vice-Chair Gara replied it was a good question. He
referenced the late date and explained that he would
support changing the Uniform Rules if he believed it could
be done. The bill followed the current Uniform Rules
requirement for a person to stand up [on the House or
Senate floor] to request unanimous consent for the removal
of their name from the bill. No one could recall that a
person had ever objected to the removal of a name. He
reiterated his earlier testimony that a person would enter
into a co-prime sponsorship with the knowledge that it was
a remote possibility.
Representative Thompson recalled when he had first become a
legislator there had been a yellow sheet that members could
fill out to become a co-prime sponsor, but the first prime
sponsor had to agree to add any co-prime sponsors. He
thought there had been a deadline one to two weeks after
the start of session to sign on as a co-prime sponsor on a
bill. He asked if that was the case under the bill as well.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that all prime sponsors had to
agree to the other prime sponsors, which had never been a
problem. In the past, it had only been possible to sign on
as a co-prime sponsor within the first five days of the
first year of a two-year legislative session. He thought
the option should be available all year. He believed
working together should occur all year and should not be
limited to the first five days of session.
Representative Thompson agreed.
Representative Guttenberg would much prefer to have someone
help him with a bill whether they were prime or co-prime
sponsors, instead of a person merely adding their name as a
co-sponsor. He did not object to the bill. He spoke to the
preference for having legislators sign on who actively
advocate for the legislation. He did not necessarily
believe a person had to be on the co-prime or prime sponsor
list to take that action. He noted that he had worked
significantly with the sponsor of the previous bill and had
become a co-sponsor earlier in the day. He spoke to the
importance of getting things done as opposed to merely
putting someone's name on a bill. He understood it was
important for some people and the dynamics for everyone in
the building were different. He thought it was possible to
bring a group of people together who did not feel it was
important to have their name on the legislation. He
observed the dynamics differed by person, bill, and party.
He noted that some issues had no party or regional lines,
which worked very well. He imagined the co-prime
sponsorship option was the best thing. He added the
dynamics in the building took wild swings.
10:38:14 AM
Representative Tilton asked how far along in the process a
co-prime sponsor could be added.
Vice-Chair Gara answered upon introduction of the bill. He
elaborated there would be agreement prior to the
introduction of a bill. He understood Representative
Guttenberg's point and explained his preference to have co-
prime sponsors who would contribute work to the bill.
Additionally, if someone who wanted to co-prime had a good
relationship with a legislator the prime sponsor did not,
the co-prime sponsor could inform the person about the
merits of the bill. He agreed with Representative
Guttenberg about his preference to have co-prime sponsors
who would work on the bill and help it along. He surmised
that four people could do more work than one person. He
believed it was nice to have ownership over a passed bill
after two years of hard work.
Representative Pruitt referenced language in Section 3 of
the bill specifying that a bill could only be withdrawn
with the agreement of all joint prime sponsors and in the
manner prescribed in the Uniform Rules. He asked how the
process would work. He wondered if a prime sponsor would
make the motion to withdraw the bill on the floor or if co-
prime sponsor signatures would need to be gathered prior to
moving to withdraw the bill.
Vice-Chair Gara answered that a person would stand up on
the floor and ask for unanimous consent to withdraw the
bill; if there were no objections, a co-prime sponsor's
name would be removed. He referenced the last provision in
the bill [Section 3 cited by Representative Pruitt]
regarding an agreement of all joint prime sponsors and
deferred to Legislative Legal Services. He was amenable to
removing the sentence requiring agreement of all joint
prime sponsors to withdraw the bill if it did not require a
Uniform Rules change. He did not want a bill that would
require a two-thirds vote in both bodies.
DOUG GARDNER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), referenced the conversation about the
prior prime sponsorship for pre-filed bills that ended in
the 29th Legislature. One of the concerns at the time had
been about who had the authority to withdraw a bill. In
response to the concern, the dilemma had been resolved in
the current bill by requiring all joint prime sponsors to
agree to the bill's withdrawal. In other words, everyone
sponsoring the bill would be treated the same. Currently,
only the sponsor of a bill had the authority to withdraw a
bill. He believed the provision was a logical extension of
the rule.
10:43:57 AM
Vice-Chair Gara had misread the last sentence and believed
the sentence made sense. He explained that if a person
wanted to remove their name from a bill they could stand on
the floor and make the request. Historically, there had
been no objections. The second part of the sentence
pertained to withdrawing a bill. He provided a scenario
where a bill had four prime sponsors who supported it and
one who no longer supported it. He explained that the
person could decide to take their name off the bill. He did
not want to prevent the remaining sponsors from trying to
move the bill forward.
Representative Pruitt believed there needed to be approval
of all the joint sponsors. He was trying to determine the
logistics of the process. He used a scenario with two co-
prime sponsors who had a disagreement on the bill. He
elaborated that one sponsor wanted to withdraw the bill,
but the other did not. He contemplated what would take
place if the member who supported the legislation was
absent and the other member made a motion to withdraw the
bill. He asked how there would be confirmation of agreement
between all co-prime sponsors. He recalled there had been
problems with the issue in the past, which had resulted in
the elimination of the process.
Mr. Gardner mentioned statute, floor practice, and
precedent developed by the bodies. He likened the situation
to a scenario where a bill was being waived from committee
with the agreement of all committee members. He believed
legislators were honorable on the floor and that
individuals would communicate whether an agreement had been
made. He referenced the scenario provided by Representative
Pruitt where there were two co-prime sponsors of a bill. He
believed one of the sponsors could stand up on the floor
and relay that they had spoken to the other sponsor and
they both agreed the bill should be withdrawn. He believed
it was probably the same type of practice. If there was a
dispute, the member who wanted the bill withdrawn could
chose to remove their name from the legislation.
Representative Pruitt asked if waiving a bill from
committee was practice or fell under Uniform Rules.
Mr. Gardner answered under Uniform Rules, the House Speaker
or Senate President had to provide one committee of
referral. The practice of waiving from committee allowed
the speaker and president to satisfy that requirement. He
believed it was a practice issue, where for efficiency, a
bill could be waived at the end of session if a companion
bill had been heard or if people wanted to move it to the
floor. He concluded waiving a bill from committee was rule-
based but was mostly a practice that had evolved in the
legislature to move bills.
10:48:19 AM
Representative Wilson MOVED conceptual Amendment 1 to
delete Section 1, lines 3 through 5:
Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
SHORT TITLE. This Act may be known as the Bipartisan
Cooperation Act.
Representative Wilson wanted to ensure independents were
counted. She believed including the word "bipartisan" made
the legislation more partisan.
Representative Thompson asked Representative Wilson to
repeat the amendment.
Representative Wilson complied.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Wilson MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 2
on page 1, lines 13 and 14 to delete the words "up to four
joint prime sponsors." She believed the number of
individuals allowed to sign on to a piece of legislation
should not be limited to four.
Vice-Chair Gara was agreeable to the amendment and
understood Representative Wilson's point. He posed a
question about whether eight [joint prime sponsors] became
unwieldly. He reasoned the group of individuals could
decide how big or small they wanted to be.
There being NO OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 2 was
ADOPTED.
10:50:12 AM
Co-Chair Seaton pointed to the following language on line
15, page 1 through line 1, page 2: "All joint prime
sponsors must agree to allow additional joint prime
sponsors." He referenced an earlier statement that members
could only sign on as joint prime sponsors at the
introduction of a bill. He thought the language allowed
joint prime sponsors to be added to a bill throughout the
process. He asked Mr. Gardner for clarification.
Mr. Gardner believed the sponsor [of HB 41] should be asked
about his intent. He added that AS 24.08.060, which would
be amended by the addition of subsection (c) applied to the
introduction of bills. In the past, prime sponsorship had
been done in the pre-file process. Once the bill had been
introduced people could become co-sponsors. He believed the
subsection was about the introduction of bills, not about
later on in the process. He reiterated his belief that the
sponsor should put his intent on the record.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to receive something in writing from
Legislative Legal Services about their interpretation of
the provision. He also wanted to hear from the sponsor.
Vice-Chair Gara replied that the issue had been closely
considered to ensure joint prime sponsors could only sign
onto legislation upon introduction. He noted there were
only two remaining sections in the bill. The first section
specified a group of members may introduce a bill or
resolution (for the introduction). For clarity, the same
language had been added in Section 3, which specified a
bill may be introduced by a group of members. He explained
the bill clearly applied only to the introduction of
legislation.
10:54:22 AM
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to ensure it was clear on the record
that the bill only applied to the introduction of
legislation. He reasoned that when a bill had not been
introduced there would be no co-prime sponsors at that
time. He referred to the bill's language that all joint
prime sponsors must agree to allow additional joint prime
sponsors, which he believed indicated additional joint
prime sponsors could be added. He wanted it to be clear
that additional prime sponsors could not be added. He
believed no one was a co-prime sponsor until after a bill
was introduced. He explained a bill did not exist until it
had been introduced. He asked if a change to the formatting
was needed.
Mr. Gardner replied that the bill addressed introduction of
bills only and addressed a group of people working together
on a bill. He did not believe the bill language needed
further clarification. He stated that if a person wanted to
be added after the introductory period, they would be added
as co-sponsors, not prime sponsors. Prime sponsors could
not be added under the specific statute after a bill had
been introduced. One of the issues the bill resolved, was
how Legislative Legal Services dealt with additional names
being added to the bill. The statute specified that if an
individual wanted to be a co-prime sponsor that other prime
sponsors all had to agree. He explained it removed
Legislative Legal Services from getting involved in the
process. The issue would be up to prime sponsors to sort
out. He underscored that the bill applied to an
introduction statute, not an add-on-later statute. Based on
the way the statute was drafted, Legislative Legal Services
would not add co-primes after the introduction of a bill.
He believed the statute was fairly clear.
Co-Chair Seaton wanted to make sure it was clear on the
record. He appreciated the explanation.
10:58:17 AM
Representative Wilson asked for verification that the
provision requiring all joint prime sponsors to agree to
allow additional joint prime sponsors only pertained to the
introduction portion of a bill. She surmised someone could
not be added as a joint prime sponsor later on.
Mr. Gardner agreed. He detailed HB 41 pertained only to the
introduction process, and not to the period after a piece
of legislation had been introduced. After the introduction
period any individuals added to a bill would be co-
sponsors.
Co-Chair Foster OPENED and CLOSED public testimony.
Co-Chair Seaton MOVED to REPORT CSHB 41(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
CSHB 41(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with one new zero fiscal note from the
Legislative Affairs Agency.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
meeting.