Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
05/14/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| SB79 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB133 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 20 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 195 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 133 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SB 79-PAYMENT OF WAGES; PAYROLL CARD ACCOUNT
[Contains discussion of HB 171.]
3:34:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to wage payments."
[Before the committee, adopted as a working document on 5/9/25,
was HCS SB79(L&C), Version 34-LS0494\N, A. Radford, 3/19/25,
"Version N".]
3:34:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opened public testimony on SB 79 (L&C).
3:34:43 PM
SCOTT TALBOT, EDTA Member, Electronic Transactions Association,
testified in opposition to SB 79 (L&C). He stated that his
company was concerned that SB 79 (L&C), as amended, would harm
Alaska's economy, small businesses, and financial institutions.
He stated that the payments industry charges a small fee to
provide rewards, retailer loyalty programs, innovation and fraud
protection for small businesses. He asserted that, were SB 79
(L&C) to become law, would threaten those benefits. He asserted
that the cost to implement a new system under SB 79 (L&C) would
cost a small business a "couple thousand dollars He said that
taxes and gratuities may need to be processed separately under
SB 79 (L&C). He referred to the federal court in the northern
district of Illinois which ruled that a similar law in Illinois
is likely preempted by the National Bank Acts, and as a result,
national and out-of-state banks in Illinois were excluded from
the legislation. He stated that [were SB 79 (L&C) found to be
preempted by federal law] 99.6 percent of transactions would be
excluded in Alaska. He asserted that only state chartered
credit unions and financial institutions would be subject to the
provisions of SB 79 (L&C), while national competitors would
still be able to collect interchange fees. He concluded by
suggesting that there would be costly and lengthy litigation
were SB 79 (L&C) to become law.
3:37:25 PM
JOSHUA BRODA, Owner, Multiple Restaurants, He stated that a
reduction in interchange fees would allow him to put more money
back into his business and his employees, by hiring new
employees or paying his current employees higher wages. He
stated that he is not concerned about the "perceived" costs of
implementing the proposed legislation and offered his
understanding that it is the credit card company's
responsibility to update their software. He asserted that SB 79
(L&C) would help the economy by allowing Alaska's small business
owners to keep more money in their businesses.
3:39:53 PM
AMBER GLASSER, Director of Operations, Matsu Resort, testified
in support of the amendment for SB 79 (L&C). She stated that
her small business is veteran and locally owned. She noted that
her restaurants profit margins are currently one to two percent
and noted that her restaurant could use the extra support. She
thanked the committee members for their time.
3:40:55 PM
JACK MANNING, representing self, testified in support of SB 79
(L&C). He stated that he owned a small business. He stated
that, in tax collection for the city, he loses a percentage to
the credit card companies. He noted that the alcohol tax in
Juneau, Alaska is eight percent, upon which additional fees are
paid. He asserted that SB 79 (L&C) was an opportunity for
fairness, and it would support municipalities and prevent small
businesses from paying taxes on money that they do not collect.
He thanked the committee members.
3:42:49 PM
SARAH OATES HARLOW, President, Alaska CHARR, gave a prepared
statement [included in the committee file] in support of SB 79
(L&C), which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
I have served as President & CEO of the Alaska
Cabaret, Hotel, Restaurant, and Retailers Association
(commonly known as Alaska CHARR) since 2018. Alaska
CHARR is based in Anchorage but has over 750 members
across Alaska communities and represents over 2,000
hospitality establishments that employ over 41,000
workers around the state. I am proud to write to you
today in support of House CS for Senate Bill No.
79(L&C) [HCS SB 79 (L&C)(L&C)].
Hospitality and food service is Alaska's most diverse
industry and represents over $3 billion in labor
income and $5 billion in economic impact to Alaska.
This is driven largely by our friends and neighbors
who are small business owners, with 9 out of 10 of
Alaska restaurants and hospitality establishments
being small businesses. In 2024, restaurant and
hospitality businesses collected and remitted over
$900 million in taxes on behalf of all levels of
government.
However, this service for the government comes at a
significant cost for the business owner, because
credit card networks require businesses to pay
interchange fees (also known as "swipe fees") on the
taxes they collect. The same is true for tips left by
credit card for servers and bartenders. In both cases,
the operator collects the money, but 100% of the
amount is passed on to either the government or
hospitality employees. But the swipe fees (averaging
2-4% per transaction) must still be paid on the total
check amount, so those fees are coming out of
businesses' margins. Because of the power of the
credit card companies, our small businesses in Alaska
have no ability to negotiate these fees.
You have heard from small businesses that the money
they could save on not having to pay these fees on
money they don't get to keep would enable them to
increase employee wages or hire additional employees.
Large corporations from New York are threatening
removal or reduction of credit cards rewards programs.
These are baseless threats that were also made in
Europe, yet rewards programs exist there with much
lower rates. Regarding concerns about the
administrative burden on small businesses, you've
heard that the bill would be two-fold: it would
prohibit the networks from applying the interchange
fees in the first place so they would have to update
their software on their end, and it provides a
secondary back up option for businesses to recoup
those fees in the event that those large companies
aren't able to get their software updated in time.
Those reporting capabilities already exist in most POS
systems, so there would not be an added administrative
burden on small businesses.
HCS SB 79 (L&C)(L&C) will help thousands of Alaskan-
owned establishments around the state that collect and
remit sales or other taxes on behalf of the
government. This legislation would keep millions of
dollars in Alaska rather than sending them to massive
corporations in New York, meanwhile supporting small
and Alaskan-owned businesses, increasing employment
opportunities for Alaskan workers, and further
contributing to Alaska's economy. I urge your support
of HCS SB 79 (L&C)(L&C).
3:45:45 PM
ELAINE KROLL, Executive Vice President, First National Bank of
Alaska ("First National"), testified in opposition to SB 79
(L&C). She stated that First National, headquartered in
Anchorage, has been serving Alaska for over 100 years. She
asserted that SB 79 (L&C) would harmfully impact First National
and its customers. She reported that debit and credit cards are
faster, more efficient, less expensive, and relatively safer
than cash. She reported that cash transactions represent
approximately 16 percent of all in-person transactions. She
stated that her banks, after paying Mastercard, interchange
revenue makes up 1.6 percent of total revenue, which she stated
was not a major profit center. She reported that interchange
revenue goes towards paying employees, investing in Automated
Teller Machines (ATMs) and card networks, and fraud prevention
for debit and credit cards. She reported that 63 percent of
United States (U.S.) credit card holders have been victimized by
fraud. She additionally reported that debit and credit card
fraud in the U.S. exceeded $10 billion in 2024. She
additionally reported that First National had $350,000 in credit
and debit card loss related to fraud in 2024 and $88,000 through
March 2025. She asserted that they are not a "mega-bank." She
asserted that SB 79 (L&C) would limit First National's ability
to pay for fraud mitigation services and fraud losses and
additionally limit First National's ability to provide rewards.
Additionally, she asserted that SB 79 (L&C) would impact First
National's ability to compete with mega-banks and reiterated
that her bank was strongly against the proposed legislation.
She thanked the committee members.
3:48:11 PM
STEFEN SALDANHA, Senior Vice President, General Council,
Northrim Bank, testified in opposition to SB 79 (L&C). He
stated that Northrim Bank is Alaska's largest state-chartered
bank with 20 branches and additionally stated that Northrim Bank
issues debit and credit cards and provides merchant services for
businesses and non-profits. He argued that SB 79 (L&C) would
pose "significant economic and operational risks" to Northrim's
financial framework and businesses across the state. He
explained that Northrim... He stated that Northrim customers
range from Alaska Native Corporations to small businesses and
non-profits who rely on "[Northrim's] cost-effective payment,
fraud protection, accounting ... banking solutions."
3:50:48 PM
MICHAEL CERVANTES, Owner, The Banks Alehouse, testified in
support of SB 79 (L&C). He stated that he has 47 employees. He
reported that he pays $81,480 in 2024 and noted that... $23,280
in alcohol tax remittance to Fairbanks, Alaska.
3:52:48 PM
TIM SULLIVAN, President, Alaska Credit Union League, He stated
that in the past decade, legislation similar to SB 79 (L&C) had
been introduced many times in dozens of states, and only passed
in Illinois, where it was now facing a "multi-million dollar
lawsuit." He further proposed that SB 79 (L&C) could violate a
section of the National Bank Act and would not apply to
federally chartered institutions. He noted that the judge on
the Illinois legislation is expected to make a ruling on the
validity of the law within the next couple of weeks to months.
3:55:40 PM
STEVE RAUSCHENBERGER, State Governmental Affairs, Electronic
Payment Coalition, He noted that SB 79 (L&C) could put use of
international and U.S. federally chartered debit and credit
cards at-risk in Alaska. He further noted that Alaska could
not...He urged committee members to wait on the final decision
of the lawsuit in Illinois.
3:58:26 PM
MARK BURGESS, President & CEO, Credit Union One, He stated that
Credit Union One was Alaska's only state-charted credit
institution and served over 90,000 individuals in Alaska. He
asserted that the proposed legislation was being pushed by
companies such as Walmart and Amazon and said that the enactment
of SB 79 (L&C) would give national banks a "free pass." He
opined that SB 79 (L&C) would threaten credit card rewards,
increase the risk of fraud, and mandate tips are only given in
cash.
4:00:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on SB 79 (L&C).
4:00:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE requested an explanation on the
purported connection between interchange fees and credit card
reward programs.
4:01:00 PM
MR. TALBOT replied that the fees collected during card
transactions are given to all companies involved with the
transaction including the banks, processors, and networks. He
noted that the card issuers take the largest portion of the fee,
called the interchange fee, because the card issuers take on
risk of default. He stated that interchange fees are used by
card issuers for a number of different services, such as fraud
prevention, reward programs usually provided in partnerships
with companies such as airlines, and innovations, such as tap
pay.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked Mr. Talbot if he agreed with the
assertion that smaller banks would be harmed under SB 79 (L&C).
MR. TALBOT replied yes. He stated that, in Illinois, a federal
judge granted an injunction noted that the law is likely
preempted by the National Bank Act, which states that a state
shall not pass a law that substantially interferes with the
business of national banks.
4:05:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to adopt Amendment [1] to SB 79 (L&C),
Version "N", labeled 34-LS0494\N.4, A. Radford, 5/14/25, which
read as follows:
Page 1, lines 6 - 7:
Delete "An issuer, payment card network, acquirer
bank, or processor may not receive"
Insert "A payment card network may not establish,
receive,"
Page 1, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "acquirer bank or the acquirer bank's
designee"
Insert "payment card network"
Page 1, lines 12 - 13:
Delete "an acquirer bank or an acquirer bank's
designee"
Insert "a payment card network"
Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 1:
Delete "acquirer bank or the acquirer bank's
designee"
Insert "payment card network"
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "issuer"
Insert "payment card network"
Page 2, lines 7 - 8:
Delete "acquirer bank or the acquirer bank's
designee"
Insert "payment card network"
Page 2, line 14:
Delete "An issuer, payment card network, acquirer
bank, or processor"
Insert "A payment card network"
Page 2, lines 17 - 18:
Delete "the fee the issuer, payment card network,
acquirer bank, or processor does not receive from fees
derived from"
Insert "interchange fee amounts not collected on"
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete "An issuer, payment card network, acquirer
bank, processor, or other designated entity"
Insert "A payment card network"
Page 2, line 21:
Delete "An issuer"
Insert "A payment card network"
CO-CHAIR HALL objected for the purposes of discussion.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said that he had no intention to only burden
local banks. He shared his expectation that there would be
litigation to the proposed legislation.
4:05:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested more details on the effect of
Amendment [1].
4:06:17 PM
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, explained that
the amendment applies the provisions of the proposed bill to
payment card networks. He noted that their original request was
to apply all provisions of the bill only to payment card
networks.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asserted that the amendment would reduce
vulnerability to challenge under the National Banking Act.
4:07:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE referred to page 3, citing "an entity
through directly provides propriety services and opined that
banks already performed the functions that the proposed
legislation was aiming to address.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that the proposed amendment was mainly
designed to have strongest possible legislative intent if credit
card companies were to litigate, which the state should expect
that they would.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked if the amendment would protect
state-chartered banks.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that it was his intention to make the
proposed legislation applicable to national banks.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE remarked that the proposed legislation
would certainly be challenged in courts and asked for
confirmation that Amendment [1] would strengthen SB 79 (L&C) in
court.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS confirmed that was correct.
4:10:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked about an equal protection issue
regarding the carving out" of state-chartered banks in the
proposed legislation and said that she was not necessarily
opposed to the proposed amendment.
MX. ANDERSON explained that the proposed amendment was
attempting to address the issue of state chartered credit unions
and spoke to the issues that arose from equal protection
clauses.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that his office would do further research
on Representative Carrick's question.
4:11:55 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL removed her objection.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE objected.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Burke, Carrick,
Hall, and Fields voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment
[1] to SB 79 (L&C), Version N. Representatives Nelson and
Coulombe and Saddler voted against it. Therefore, Amendment [1]
was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
4:12:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether there was an updated fiscal
note.
4:13:09 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 4:13 p.m.
4:13:23 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS requested Mr. Schmidt to speak to the fiscal
note.
4:13:39 PM
ROBERT SCHMIDT, Director, Division of Banking & Securities,
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), He referenced a bill similar to the proposed
legislation that had been enacted in Illinois and said that
state banks would have to be federally charted to seek the safe
harbor through preemption as the proposed legislation was
attempting to enact.
4:14:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON requested a copy of the fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS remarked that, ultimately, he did not want to
advance a bill that would only affect state-chartered banks. He
stated that he would distribute a copy of the fiscal note once
it was received from [DCCED].
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that SB 79 (L&C) had changed
significantly in committee and would like to see an updated
fiscal note before acting on the proposed legislation.
4:15:43 PM
SENATOR JESSE BJORKMAN, Alaska State Legislature, stated that
the original fiscal note was zero but offered his understanding
that there could be legitimate fiscal ramifications. He opined
that Alaska needed to stand up to outside interests like
financial institutions and big banks seeking to interfere with
purchases of firearms.
4:20:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE stated that she has continuously
advocated for small businesses, but she was troubled by the
implications for credit unions.
4:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated that he would like to see a fiscal
note before acting on SB 79 (L&C).
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opined that it was normal for state departments
to add fiscal notes throughout a legislative process.
4:22:49 PM
The committee took brief at-ease at 4:22 p.m.
4:23:06 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL moved to report SB 79 (L&C), Version 34-LS0494\N,
A. Radford, 3/19/25, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER objected.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated that he would have liked to
consider the two elements of the proposed legislation
separately. He offered his agreement that small businesses
should not be paying fees and said that he was "not comfortable"
in not understanding the impact of the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Burke, Carrick,
Hall, and Fields voted in favor of the motion to report SB 79
(L&C), Version N, as amended, out of committee. Representatives
Saddler, Nelson, and Coulombe voted against it. Therefore, HCS
SB 79 (L&C)(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| SB133 Sponsor Statement ver. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Summary of Changes ver N to ver I.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Sectional Summary ver. I.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 ver I.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Public Testimony-Letters of Support as of 04.16.25.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB133 Fiscal Note-DCCED-DOI 03.19.25.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 133 |
| SB 79 Amendment 1 (N.1) Fields.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 79 |
| SB 79 Amendment 2 (N.4) Fields.pdf |
HL&C 5/14/2025 3:15:00 PM |
SB 79 |