Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/11/2025 01:30 PM 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 | |
| SSCR1 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 36 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SSCR 1 | TELECONFERENCED | |
SENATE SPECIAL CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Disapproving Executive Order No. 136.
4:05:14 PM
Co-Chair Foster asked the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) to come to the committee table to resume a
presentation from the previous day. He noted that they had
left off on slide 8 of the presentation.
JOHN BOYLE, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
resumed a PowerPoint presentation titled "Executive Order
136 Establishing the Department of Agriculture," dated
March 10, 2025 (copy on file). He began on slide 9 titled
"Tomorrow's Department of Agriculture" showing what the
proposed department of agriculture would look like.
BRENT GOODRUM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
RESOURCES, read from prepared remarks on slide 9:
As envisioned in Executive Order 136, tomorrow's
Department of Agriculture is a measured approach? an
important next step.
A Commissioner and a lean support services team will
be paired with the functional division of agriculture.
This will allow for the new Commissioner and
leadership of the Department to quickly assess and
prioritize policies, necessary programs, and
coordination efforts to better assist Alaska's
agricultural sector to grow and thrive in the years
ahead. As responsibilities and programs are evaluated
and eventually added over time with the consideration
and consent of Legislature, the structure can adapt to
accommodate.
4:06:49 PM
Mr. Goodrum moved to slide 10 titled "Reclassifications":
This slide depicts the identified positions that will
be reclassified in order to establish the new
department. This modified approach was informed by the
many insightful and helpful conversations that we have
had with legislators particularly with respect to the
state's fiscal situation. Our team revisited all
options based upon the feedback we received in those
meetings to ensure that the establishment of the new
Department of Agriculture is both responsive to the
fiscal challenges the State is encountering as well as
the significant and important opportunities for real
growth that await the agriculture industry.
The most recent Governor amendment transmitted by OMB
mid last week reflects what we've developed as a cost-
neutral, position-neutral department:
Instead of creating 13 new positions, and an
associated $2.7 million dollar increment, the
Administration will reclassify three positions within
the current Division of Agriculture and transfer two
positions and funding from within DNR to also be
reclassified. DNR will continue to provide admin
services functions in order to support the new
Department of Agriculture.
Additionally, the new department will absorb any costs
related to the reclassifications.
4:08:13 PM
Representative Hannan looked at slide 7 showing that the
existing Division of Agriculture had 37 positions including
32 permanent full-time and 5 part-time. She looked at slide
9 showing 39 total positions [for the proposed department]
with 34 permanent full-time positions. She was thrown off
because of the five transferred positions. She asked what
the two additional positions would be that were not
reflected in the transferred positions.
Mr. Goodrum pointed to slide 10 showing three positions in
the left column identified under the existing Division of
Agriculture that would be reclassified. The positions
included a director's position that would be reclassified
to the commissioner's position, a vacant natural resources
technician 3 position that would be reclassified into the
HR consultant 3 position, and a vacant agronomist 1
position would be reclassified into the administrative
services director position. Additionally, two positions
that had been vacant for greater than three years within
DNR would be transferred to the proposed department of
agriculture and reclassified.
Representative Hannan remarked that in the past two years a
number of positions had been added to the Fire Management
Section to try to address wildfire management. She was
concerned positions had been added and not filled. She
anticipated there would be wildfire costs and expenses seen
in the coming year. She wondered how many other positions
in the wildfire section that had been added were still
vacant. She was concerned the legislature had been trying
to add to wildfire management, but individuals would be
reclassified into administrative duties.
Commissioner Boyle responded that his first question had
been whether positions were critical for wildfire response.
He relayed that the two positions had been vacant over
multiple years. The department's recruitment attempts had
been unsuccessful for the positions both based in rural
eastern Alaska, which had been historically hard to fill.
He stated that the fire management team had assured him it
had been managing over multiple years without the
positions. He elaborated that there were other capable
people able to fulfill the roles. More importantly for
DNR's firefighting effort was its ability to retain
wildland firefighting crews. He highlighted discussions
from a couple of years back when the department had been
hemorrhaging firefighter crews because its pay scale had
been so disparate from the federal government. He reported
that the legislature provided funding to increase pay and
the department was now doing a phenomenal job recruiting
and retaining firefighters. He noted that the department
was very well positioned for fire preparedness in the
current year. The department did not see an issue with
transferring the two positions.
4:12:38 PM
Representative Allard referenced the commissioner's
statement that there had been positions vacant for three
years. She wondered how many other vacancies there were.
She wanted to know what the department had used the funds
for.
Commissioner Boyle replied that he would follow up in
writing.
Representative Stapp thanked the commissioner for being
mindful of the cost associated with setting up a new
department and for being upfront about vacant positions
that had not been filled. He noted that not all departments
were as forthcoming about vacancies.
4:14:12 PM
Mr. Goodrum moved to slide 11 titled "Costs Comparison":
Working from left to right is a Cost Comparison that
displays the Division of Agriculture's current FY2025
Management Plan followed immediately to the right by
the FY2026 Governor's Budget. The third column
reflects the net outcome of the Governor's Amended
budget which transfers two PCNs and funding for those
positions from DNR as well as a $2.2 million request
for Federal Receipt authority for Micro Grants for
Food Security. The last column contains the FY2026
Total Estimated Budget for the Department of
Agriculture.
Commissioner Boyle looked at the timeline on slide 12. He
detailed that the legislature had 60 days to disapprove the
creation of the new department. Assuming the legislature
did not disapprove the EO, DNR would begin to implement
transition plans to have the department live on July 1. He
concluded the presentation on slide 13 titled "Transition
Work Includes." He reported that DNR had already done
substantial work engaging with the broader agricultural
stakeholder community on what a new department of
agriculture would entail. He referenced the administerial
functions involved in ensuring the department was
operational. He detailed that because the existing Division
of Agriculture was located in Palmer, it would not be
necessary to find new office space or deal with challenges
setting up a new office. He stated that the physical and
technical process of getting the department up and running
would be relatively smooth and effective.
4:16:46 PM
Representative Galvin thanked the presenters for the
presentation. She supported ensuring goals were met in
terms of food security and opportunities individuals
choosing a career in agriculture. She asked what would
happen if the EO did not pass. She wondered how the
department would arrange things to make sure the work got
done.
Commissioner Boyle replied that agriculture was currently
one of his priorities and responsibilities at DNR. He
relayed that DNR would continue to support the division's
initiatives in the support of the agriculture community. He
believed the Senate Majority had indicated it may consider
introducing a bill that would create a department of
agriculture. Based on conversations with legislators, he
believed most did not philosophically have any issues with
creating a department and raising the awareness of
agriculture and food security to a higher level. He shared
that DNR would continue to work with the agricultural
community and stakeholders and it would continue to
advocate for agriculture as a state priority.
Representative Galvin looked at the position
reclassifications on slide 10 and asked if it would still
be possible for the commissioner to make some of the
changes [if the EO did not pass]. She thought it seemed
like the work could still happen under a division. She did
not know how much flexibility the department had without
the EO.
Commissioner Boyle answered that they would see how the
session played out. He relayed that it was DNR's intent to
continue to be more responsive to the needs of the
agricultural community, particularly if there were specific
roles or functions that needed to be filled. He relayed
there was significant administrative flexibility in terms
of how the department was organized to ensure the needs
were being met.
4:20:31 PM
Representative Allard asked which other state did not have
an agriculture department.
Commissioner Boyle answered, "Rhode Island."
Representative Allard thought that was the case. She
referenced a memorandum prepared by DNR [on March 7, 2025]
(copy on file) specifying that the EO did not alter
statutory responsibilities and authorities related to
agriculture. Additionally, she read the first sentence of
the EO: "Under the authority of art. III, Section 23, of
the Alaska Constitution and in accordance with AS
24.08.210, I order the following" She surmised that the
governor had the constitutional authority to make a
department. She would not want to see the governor come
into the legislature's lane to tell it what it could and
could not do. She pointed out that the governor was the
executive branch, and she supported the department of
agriculture because she thought it was a good thing. The
idea had taken her time to wrap her head around because it
was the time of DOGE [Department of Governmental
Efficiency] and individuals were trying to cut back
government. However, she believed the department would help
access the state's natural resources and was good for the
state as a whole. She thought it could result in bringing
up manufacturing companies to produce products from Alaska
farmers. She shared a story about meat packaged in another
state with a Palmer stamp on it. She stated [the ability to
create the department] was the governor's constitutional
right and duty to ensure the state survived in case bad
things happened.
4:23:54 PM
Representative Johnson suggested it would be nice to hear
from the division director. She asked the director to share
his vision for the department with the committee.
BRYAN SCORESBY, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE,
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, replied that his vision
was for the department of agriculture to continue to grow
agriculture. He had heard from farmers in Alaska on the
following needs: more land to grow food on, more capital to
finance projects, and a market to sell the products. He
believed that a Department of Agriculture would create a
strength of government to make those things happen. He did
not think the division currently had that ability. He
stated that the division had a history of doing what it had
done in the past.
Representative Johnson asked how the commissioner position
would be different from the division director position. She
asked what a commissioner would be able to do that the
director could not do currently.
Mr. Scoresby responded that when engaging in the retail
sector, the title of the person speaking made a difference
to the retail. He highlighted helping the Alaska Range
Dairy get its milk into Walmart as an example. He detailed
that the division helped the dairy get its inspections
lined up with a third party, but he believed the third
party called a higher up government head to help encourage
Walmart to put the product in its store. He added that the
dairy had been dumping quite a bit of milk every week,
which had changed when the product got into Walmart. He
stated that when he called the director of the USDA it
meant something, but when a commissioner called it meant a
lot, and when the governor called it meant a whole lot. He
noted that title had its strength, which is a benefit that
would be brought at the department level.
Representative Johnson asked if other states or the federal
government knew if there was a difference pertaining to
Alaska's department.
Mr. Scoresby replied that when he spoke to his counterparts
in other states, their titles were more like Commissioner
Boyle (with the exception of Rhode Island). He remarked
that the things his counterparts were doing in their states
kept them so occupied that very few of them cared much
about Alaska beyond being interested in visiting as a
tourism destination. He relayed that the individuals rarely
asked questions about the division's work.
Representative Johnson appreciated Mr. Scoresby's work at
the division over the years. She asked if he had any other
comments.
4:29:04 PM
Mr. Scoresby answered that he supported the governor in his
request to create a department of agriculture. The division
looked forward to the strength the creation of a department
would bring to the agriculture sector in Alaska. The
department would aid in policy development to push and
promote for more production and growing food in Alaska to
feed Alaskans. He highlighted that if goods did not make it
to Alaska at some point in the future, local production
would feed people.
Representative Johnson shared that she had a bill to make
the giant cabbage a state vegetable. She asked if Mr.
Scoresby would support the bill.
Mr. Scoresby responded that he deferred the idea to the
legislature.
4:30:51 PM
Representative Jimmie noted that she would personally vote
for the salmon berry. She asked if the department would
assist individuals who did not know how to start farming in
rural areas.
Commissioner Boyle believed it was the responsibility of
the department or division to help Alaskans have the tools
they needed to be successful. He noted that states with
strong agricultural sectors had departments, cooperative
extension services, and a number of other entities
including farm bureaus, many of which existed in Alaska and
were equipped towards helping people be successful. He
stated that most agricultural endeavors were often capital
intensive. He elaborated that for people to try to jump
into that line of work without a great understanding of
what kind of soils they were working with or amendments
they many need to improve soils, and without knowledge of
what varieties of crops would have more success, state
departments of agriculture and cooperative extensions could
help provide answers to in order to set people up for
success. He remarked that there had been a lot of trial and
error in Alaska's agricultural community, which was okay,
but not ideal in the long run.
4:33:11 PM
Representative Jimmie asked if it would also include
subsistence grants.
Commissioner Boyle replied that with a commissioner of
agriculture and some focused efforts working with the
delegation to ensure Alaska's unique characteristics were
contemplated (e.g., Congress was working on a Farm Bill
designed to increase opportunities for food security),
there were opportunities to look at specific funding needs
that may be more appropriate for residents in rural Alaska
facing unique conditions. One of the key programs currently
administered by the Division of Agriculture was microgrants
for food security geared towards families or individuals in
need of monetary assistance to set up hoop houses, green
houses, raised beds, and chicken coops with the
anticipation it would help them become more food secure and
provide more agricultural output for the state.
4:34:49 PM
AT EASE
4:35:13 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson directed a remark to Representative
Allard. He stated he had not said anything during the
hearing the prior day because the commissioner could defend
himself; however, he believed she was rude to the
commissioner the previous day. He did not want to see the
behavior on the record. He remarked that DNR was arguably
the most important of Alaska's departments. He stated the
department officials were worthy of respect. He asked for
patience and noted the individuals were doing their best.
Representative Jimmie asked if a department of agriculture
would be supportive of subsistence grants for rural areas.
Commissioner Boyle replied that it was difficult for him to
opine without a full understanding of what the grants may
be.
4:36:42 PM
Representative Stapp observed that the Board of Agriculture
and Conservation had reporting requirements to the Division
of Agriculture. He assumed there was no technical change
needed to change the directive of the board to report to a
department of agriculture.
Mr. Goodrum replied that it was all accounted for within
the EO.
Co-Chair Foster noted there were three things to do. He
relayed that his staff would provide a review of SSCR 1.
Additionally, the committee would hear public testimony and
entertain a motion to show the committee considered the
resolution.
4:37:45 PM
Representative Allard responded to remarks by Co-Chair
Josephson. She stated as an elected legislator if things
were not clear to her, they were not clear to the public.
She wanted the information to be clear to everyone
listening. She was trying to be direct. She was not trying
to offend or be rude to anyone. She wanted to be candid
with the individuals presenting regardless of their
experience. She added that she also had significant
experience.
Co-Chair Foster asked his staff to review the resolution.
BRODIE ANDERSON, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE NEAL FOSTER,
reviewed the resolution and attached fiscal note.
Co-Chair Foster directed members to the back of their bill
packets. He did not see a fiscal note.
Mr. Anderson directed members to the correct location in
the packet for SSCR 1, version 34-LS0452\A, which included
two "whereas" clauses and one "be it resolved" clause. The
first whereas clause addressed the issuance of the EO by
the power of the governor, where it was located, and the
purpose of establishing a department of agriculture. The
second whereas clause addressed the requirement by the
legislature to act within 60 days or the EO would become
law. The resolved clause took the required action by
disapproving the EO.
Mr. Anderson highlighted an attached zero fiscal note, OMB
component and control code sAajg created by the Legislative
Finance Division and Senate Resources Committee. He
explained that a fiscal note was required to be attached to
a resolution. He reviewed the procedural aspect. Uniform
Rule 49(a)(4) laid out the requirement of a special
concurrent resolution, which was deployed specifically to
disapprove an EO. The rule reinforced that a special
concurrent resolution did not require to have three
readings in the body. He explained that special concurrent
resolutions were often treated like a board and commission
appointment where committee members did not make specific
recommendations when moving the item from committee. He
added that moving the item forward did not reflect members'
intent to vote in favor of or against the resolution in
joint session.
4:43:10 PM
Representative Bynum noticed there were two documents in
the packets that looked like public comment emails.
Co-Chair Foster observed the subject line labeled public
comment. He asked Mr. Anderson to elaborate.
Mr. Anderson replied that there was an opportunity for
public testimony. He noted that public comment for the EO
was also tracked in the resolution.
4:44:12 PM
Representative Bynum remarked that there were only two
emails in packets labeled public comment. He asked if the
committee was expecting additional public comment. He
wondered where the two emails originated from.
Mr. Anderson replied that the emails had been submitted as
public testimony. He explained that people could send email
comments to a committee email address, which were compiled
in members' packets.
Co-Chair Foster added that there should be an additional
stack of public testimony comment.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that both files should have public
comment included; one grouping of comments was in support
of the EO and one grouping was opposed. The comments were
included in the SSCR 1 packet.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that after discussion, the
committee would hear verbal public testimony.
4:45:51 PM
Representative Hannan elaborated that the public testimony
in the SSCR 1 included a subject line specifying support.
She stated that if someone had written in opposition, it
would also be included in the file. The public comment on
the EO was included in the EO file. She added that it was
not uncommon for people to comment on both things.
Representative Tomaszewski looked at the constitution,
which did not allow the state to have more than 20
principal departments. He asked for verification that the
EO would not exceed that number.
Mr. Anderson responded that he did not believe the EO would
result in exceeding that number, but he had not counted the
number of departments recently. He believed Representative
Tomaszewski was correct.
Representative Tomaszewski asked a procedural question. He
wondered what would happen if the committee failed to move
the resolution forward.
Mr. Anderson answered that the committee could vote on
moving the resolution forward and if it did not pass it
would remain in committee until there were enough votes to
move it forward.
Representative Stapp asked if he could amend the
resolution.
Co-Chair Foster suspected the answer was yes. He took an at
ease to determine the answer.
4:48:41 PM
AT EASE
4:54:25 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster asked to hear from Legislative Legal
Services.
MEGAN WALLACE, CHIEF COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES
(via teleconference), introduced herself.
Representative Stapp asked if he could amend the special
concurrent resolution.
Ms. Wallace replied that the special concurrent resolution
could only be used for the purpose of disapproving the EO.
If the legislature wanted to modify the text of an EO, it
would be accomplished through separate legislation. She
elaborated that if an EO became law because of the passage
of time or the disapproval resolution was not approved by
the legislature, the legislature would retain the ability
to amend those statutes and separately pass a piece of
legislation. The EO could not be amended via the special
concurrent resolution or the EO itself.
4:56:09 PM
Representative Stapp asked if he could amend the language
in the SSCR 1.
Ms. Wallace replied that he could amend the resolution if
the committee discovered a typographical error or to add
legislative intent. The uniform rule restricted the use of
the language to the disapproval of an EO. She stated it was
her opinion that the committee would be constrained in
terms of what the resolution could be used for.
Representative Stapp asked for verification that based on
Ms. Wallace's interpretation, he would not be able to offer
an amendment to change the SSCR 1 from disapproving the EO
to approving the EO.
Ms. Wallace advised that it was not the purpose of a
disapproval resolution under Uniform Rule [49](a)(4). She
would not go as far to say that a committee member could
not offer the amendment; however, she advised that an
amendment approving the EO was unnecessary because the
legislature only had to take action to disapprove if it did
not want the EO to take effect.
4:57:58 PM
Co-Chair Foster referenced Ms. Wallace's statement that the
committee could possibly add intent language [to the
resolution]. He noted there were currently two "whereas"
clauses and one "be it resolved" clause. He asked if Ms.
Wallace was saying the committee could add another whereas
clause but could not change the "be it resolved" section.
Ms. Wallace responded affirmatively. She explained that if
there was a statement of intent the legislature wanted to
express, it could add another whereas clause. She relayed
that the language may be able to be amended slightly if
someone had a different way to express the same principle
to disapprove the resolution. From a technical perspective
the resolution could be amended, but under the uniform
rules, there were specific guidelines as to what a special
concurrent resolution was designed for.
Co-Chair Foster noted that Emily Nauman, director of
Legislative Legal Services was also online.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the convening of a joint
session by the legislature was contingent on the adoption
of the resolution. He rephrased his question and asked if
the joint session could take place if the current hearing
did not occur.
4:59:59 PM
Ms. Wallace replied that Uniform Rule 51 outlined how joint
sessions could be convened by the legislature. From a
constitutional perspective, all that was required was that
a disapproval resolution be adopted by the legislature. She
elaborated that if the legislature suspended its rules or
disregarded them from a constitutional perspective, if a
joint session was held and a resolution was considered and
passed by the legislature, a court was not likely to
intervene on the procedure the legislature used to get
there.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if the resolution was on the desks
of the 60 legislative members and a vote was held, the same
effect could be had without the current hearing.
Ms. Wallace responded that it was correct from a
constitutional standpoint, but it did not necessarily
comply with the procedure set out in Uniform Rules.
Co-Chair Foster stated his understanding that Uniform Rule
49(a)(4) specified that a resolution had to be
"considered." He wondered about a scenario where there was
a motion to send the resolution to the floor that did not
pass. He thought that under the scenario the committee
would still have considered the resolution. He believed
there were numerous gray areas. He asked for comment from
Ms. Wallace.
Ms. Wallace confirmed that Uniform Rule 49(a)(4) specified
that a resolution needed to be considered, which was
different than approved or recommended like the committee
typically did with other legislation. All that was required
to move the SSCR was a signed report articulating that the
committee was moving the resolution on for consideration by
the legislature in a potential joint session.
5:03:03 PM
AT EASE
5:06:38 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Stapp stated his understanding that it was
necessary to take an action in order to have a joint
session. He asked if he would be obligated to go into
joint session with the other body to take the resolution up
if it left the committee.
Ms. Wallace replied that Uniform Rule 51 dictated the
procedure for calling the joint session of the legislature.
In her opinion, with respect to EOs, the constitution did
not require the legislature to go into joint session. She
relayed that a joint session would be required if the
legislature wanted to disapprove an executive order before
it took effect within 60 days.
Representative Stapp asked if there would be nothing to
talk about if SSCR 1 did not leave the committee.
Ms. Wallace remarked that the legislature looked to Mason's
Manual in places where Uniform Rules did not specifically
prescribe procedure. One of the principles in Mason's
Manual was the concept that the body needed to be in
possession of legislation before the body acted. She
believed the cleanest way to ensure the legislation was
available for the legislature to act on it in joint session
was to move it from committee. If the legislation did not
move from committee, it did not mean there were no other
remedies for the body to take to get the resolution out of
committee. For example, the resolution could be discharged
from the floor. She stated that while the resolution could
stay in committee, it ultimately would likely be the will
of the body as to whether or not it wanted to act on the
resolution in joint session.
5:09:59 PM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony on EO 136 and SSCR
1.
JOHN DART, PRESIDENT/OWNER, DART-AM FARMS LLC, NORTH POLE
(via teleconference), called in support of EO 136. He
relayed that his farm was located in Manley Hot Springs. He
would like to see a department of agriculture. He had
listened to the presentation by Commissioner Boyle the past
two days and highlighted that the creation of the
department could be done seamlessly without a great expense
to the state. He stated it was something Alaskan farmers
had wanted for decades. He highlighted that agriculture
made money in Alaska. He relayed that there were numerous
young individuals entering agriculture on a small scale. He
stressed that agriculture needed a voice at the governor's
table. He underscored that agriculture developed a
community, which could not be measured in dollars and
cents. He pointed out the number of steps in growing food
and getting it to market that people did not typically
think about. He thanked the committee.
5:14:19 PM
MS. AMY SEITZ, POLICY DIRECTOR, ALASKA FARM BUREAU,
SOLDOTNA (via teleconference), was concerned that keeping
the division within DNR would maintain status quo. She
stated it meant inconsistent support and an underfunded
division that did not have the capacity to realize
programs, resources, and support necessary to build an
industry. From the farm bureau's standpoint, the goal was
to have an agency focused on agriculture, building a strong
industry, speaking up for the industry needs at the
administrative and legislative levels, helping the industry
navigate the difficult larger markets, and having the
resources farmers and ranchers needed. She stated there
were 65 years of evidence that a division within DNR did
not accomplish the goal. The sector was currently lucky
because the DNR commissioner saw the value of agriculture
and the governor and legislators were talking about the
importance of the industry and improving food security.
There was still an underfunded division that lacked
capacity. Additionally, there was a chance that in the
future there would be a commissioner who did not want to
think about agriculture, which had happened in the past. A
department of agriculture would mean the state would have
an agency focused on building the industry.
Ms. Seitz pointed out that having a higher level office
would make a difference, especially when working with
larger markets. She noted that a commissioner could provide
a quicker response time in an emergency such as a severe
weather event impacting farmers. She stressed that the
proposal of creating a department of agriculture was not
growing government, it was about starting to build the
necessary resources for an industry with strong potential
for growth. She spoke about the benefits of the
agricultural industry including healthy food, contributing
to the economy, providing jobs, and making Alaska more
self-reliant. She encouraged the committee to support the
EO and vote against SSCR 1.
Representative Hannan noted that the EO proposed the
creation of a department with zero cost to the state
budget. She asked about a scenario where it was three to
five years before there was an additional dollar. She asked
if under the scenario, a department would fulfill its role
of increasing support. Alternatively, she wondered if Ms.
Seitz would anticipate there would be a request in the next
fiscal year for additional money to fund the department.
Ms. Seitz anticipated there would be requests for
additional funding in the upcoming years to build a
stronger department. She noted it had occurred in all other
industries. She stated that if the budget did not increase,
there would still be a commissioner level seat to give
agriculture a voice at the table.
5:19:22 PM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
5:19:55 PM
Co-Chair Foster emphasized that Uniform Rules did not
require the standing committee recommend a do pass; it
merely required that the resolution be considered.
Co-Chair Schrage MOVED to REPORT SSCR 1 out of committee
the accompanying fiscal note. He noted that a signature on
the report did not reflect members' intent to vote for or
against the resolution in the future.
Representative Tomaszewski OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Foster clarified that if there had been no
objection it would allow the resolution to move forward, or
in the event of a motion, a yes vote would allow the
resolution to go to the House floor.
Representative Tomaszewski thought they could end the
debate on the resolution by not allowing it out of
committee. He hoped members would vote with him.
Co-Chair Foster explained that a no vote would be to not
send the resolution forward. The effect would be that the
department of agriculture would be created because the
legislature had to disapprove it within 60 days.
Representative Allard asked for verification that if the
legislature did nothing, the EO would automatically go into
effect within 60 days.
Co-Chair Foster responded affirmatively.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he would vote in the
affirmative on the resolution, but noted it was no
indication of how he would vote on the floor.
Co-Chair Foster remarked that he would also vote to move
the resolution forward. He emphasized that the committee
was considering the resolution and advancing it for further
debate.
Representative Tomaszewski MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Galvin, Hannan, Jimmie, Foster, Schrage,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Johnson, Stapp, Tomaszewski, Allard, Bynum
The MOTION PASSED (6/5). There being NO further OBJECTION,
SSCR 1 was REPORTED out of committee with one previously
published zero fiscal note: FN1 (S.RES).
Co-Chair Foster reiterated that a signature on the report
did not reflect an intent by any of the members to vote for
or against the resolution during a future floor session.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the schedule for the following
day.