Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/16/2022 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 | |
| HB363 | |
| Presentation: Child Care Trust Fund | |
| SB143 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 363 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 143 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 363-BROADBAND: OFFICE, GRANTS, PARITY
3:18:58 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 363, "An Act establishing the office of
broadband; creating the broadband parity adjustment fund;
establishing the Statewide Broadband Advisory Board; and
providing for an effective date."
CO-CHAIR FIELDS said the committee would begin with invited
testimony.
3:19:43 PM
DIANE KAPLAN, President/CEO, Rasmuson Foundation, provided
invited testimony on HB 363. She said broadband impacts many of
the areas important to the Rasmuson Foundation's mission of
promoting a better life for Alaskans. The foundation wants this
effort to succeed, she stated, and is prepared to offer
resources as a convener and a grant-maker to ensure it happens.
Over the next five years Rasmuson Foundation will have about
$100 million of unrestricted revenue to invest in new
opportunities in Alaska. The board has selected broadband as
its first new area of investment because the foundation's goals
around education and workforce development, along with people
being able to participate in the global world and as citizens,
relies on broadband that is both accessible and affordable.
3:21:23 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease due to a sound system
technical difficulty.
3:21:33 PM
MS. KAPLAN continued her testimony. She said bringing people
together to discuss solutions has always been the core part of
the Rasmuson Foundation's grantmaking philosophy. As the
foundation researched how it could assist with broadband, it
convened numerous stakeholder groups, including tribal leaders,
nonprofits, members of the telecom industry, members of the
legislature, the administration, and prominent citizens. Some
of these meetings have evolved into advisory groups to assist
with information and coordination.
MS. KAPLAN advised that the Rasmuson Foundation is prepared to
assist this effort financially, with two immediate areas being
the setup of the state's broadband office and coordination
between the state and tribes. A concern has been heard that the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) money designated for the setup of broadband offices may
be delayed. If this is the case and given its crucial role, the
foundation is prepared to offer resources to the state or
directly to start building the state's [Office of Broadband].
Additionally, it has been repeatedly heard that strong
coordination between tribal broadband efforts and the state is
desperately needed for Alaska to take full advantage of this
opportunity. To that end, the foundation could support the cost
of a coordinator position to assist with communication and
coordination between the tribes that are eligible to receive
broadband funds and the State of Alaska.
3:23:07 PM
MS. KAPLAN specified that the Rasmuson Foundation can engage in
grantmaking with particular emphasis on workforce development,
technology training for organizations and residents, and even
support specific projects. It will be important that Alaska
build a workforce that can install, maintain, and service
broadband infrastructure, as well as provide training and
resources that will allow Alaskans, particularly those in rural
Alaska, to access jobs that can be done remotely. Ms. Kaplan
further specified that the foundation is building up its own
resources in preparation for assisting applicants. The
foundation has identified organizations that can provide
technical assistance like engineering and regulatory support
along with grant writers to assist with applications,
particularly for tribal partners. Given this is all coming
together very quickly, perhaps greater needs will emerge, such
as assistance with required mapping.
MS. KAPLAN concluded by stressing that the Rasmuson Foundation
is invested in seeing affordable and high-speed broadband
deployment succeed in Alaska and is open to discussions on how
that happens. She noted that Anand Vadapalli is the Rasmuson
Foundation's chief consultant for helping to determine the
foundation's proper role. For this effort the board has
allocated $3 million of startup funds to be deployed in the way
most useful to the state.
3:24:52 PM
ANAND VADAPALLI, Consultant, Rasmuson Foundation, provided
invited testimony during the hearing on HB 363. He noted that
the funding decisions under these various federal funding
programs will extend into 2023 and deployment of the
infrastructure thereof will extend forward for 40 years. He
urged that first and foremost the State of Alaska take a long-
term perspective in setting forth the structure, governance,
charter, and organization of the Office of Broadband to ensure
policy and operational continuity that will span changes in the
legislature and the administration over the life of these
programs. Strong and shared leadership between the governor's
office and the legislature, he said, is critical for good
governance and long-term success. Second, he continued, as the
eligible entity under the Broadband Equity Access Deployment Act
(BEAD Act) program, the State of Alaska has significant
responsibilities, including coordination, communication,
planning, governance, and oversight. To adequately address
these needs, he advised, the legislature must provide adequate
resources and operating budget for this broadband office,
funding digital capacity and equity planning as well as
grantmaking and management capabilities. A well-resourced
broadband office is critical in allowing Alaska to compete
effectively for the funding available and subsequently to
provide appropriate governance and oversight for the funding
received. Mr. Vadapalli said the foundation's written comments
provide more detail, including best practices from other states
for the committee's reference.
3:26:52 PM
MIKE NAVARRE, Member, Board of Directors, Rasmuson Foundation,
provided invited testimony during the hearing on HB 363. He
stated that the Rasmuson Foundation has been tracking the
broadband topic and multiple funding opportunities for several
years. The foundation recognized that it did not have the
resources to build out the infrastructure, he continued, but if
the opportunity presented itself the foundation would be
interested in helping to coordinate and bring people together,
convene them, and offer monetary resources to help achieve
success. He said the Rasmuson Foundation is here to help in any
way it can to ensure the rollout of this once-in-a-generation
opportunity to provide all Alaskans with critical infrastructure
necessary to fully participate in the digital world. The
Rasmuson board has met to specifically discuss this topic and
wants to assure success in Alaska, he added.
3:28:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 363, labeled
32-LS1527\I.6, Klein, 3/14/22, which read:
Page 1, line 12, following "federal":
Insert ", tribal,"
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the amendments being considered
by the committee today are in response to last week's public
testimony urging the addition of tribal members to government;
that in the government-to-government relationship tribes are
government as well. Adding tribes to this legislation is what
Amendment 1 seeks to do, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, as the
prime sponsor of HB 363, spoke to proposed amendments to the
bill. He stated he is in total support of Amendment 1.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:29:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt Amendment 2 to HB 363,
labeled 32-LS1527\I.7, Klein, 3/14/22, which read:
Page 4, line 18, following "governor":
Insert "to three-year terms"
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER explained that Amendment 2 specifies the
length of a term on the board.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated he has no objection to Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired about the reasoning behind three
years for a term.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER replied that it isn't a specific rationale
but rather a typical range found in advisory boards. Sometimes
the range is two, sometimes three, other times four, and three
seemed like a reasonable selection.
3:30:37 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 3:30 p.m.
3:31:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment
2.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER explained that the conceptual amendment
would correct an error by changing "line '18'" to "line '19'".
Therefore, Amendment 1, as amended, would read:
Page 4, line 19, following "governor":
Insert "to three-year terms"
3:31:45 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection to Conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 2 was adopted.
3:32:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY noted the Office of Broadband would go
about eight years, until the year 2030, which would be two
three-year cycles and a final two-year cycle. He suggested
making it [two four-year cycles] or [one eight-year cycle] so
the term would expire when the office expires.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER responded that having a term length is
valuable for a variety of reasons for not wanting someone to
serve the entire time, such as the range of expertise that might
be needed, or the dynamics on each specific board. She said
this was done in collaboration with the co-chairs and in
consultation with the bill sponsor, and three was the number
that was landed on.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that historical knowledge is of
value, but this knowledge would be lost every three years when
all the people come off the board and a fresh board begins.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that in looking at the amendment he
assumed the members did not have to be bumped off the board
after their terms ended, they could be reappointed.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER confirmed that the members could be
reappointed. She said there is no limit on the term being
renewed because there is no language in that aspect.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that a three-year term would come after
the next governor, allowing that governor the benefit of gaining
familiarity with the board and the ability to make an informed
decision about whom he or she wants on that board.
3:34:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE surmised there could be an opportunity
for this advisory board to be extended beyond the 2030 sunset
date if there were to be continued federal investment or the
state decided to continue investing in this area.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON answered "exactly." Looking forward, he
said, is always of arbitrary nature and a 10-year term for the
[Statewide Broadband Advisory Board] was picked because clearly
it would have a lifespan of five or ten years depending on how
long this work takes place. Regarding a term of three years for
board members, he pointed out that the term for Board of
Fisheries members is three years, after which many board members
are reappointed because they did a great job and have broad
support. A three-year term therefore seemed in consort with
being a good period of time.
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE asked whether the governor would have
discretion to end someone's three-year term early. He further
asked whether a three-year term could mean the state could
become stuck with someone who doesn't show up at meetings or
some other thing.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER replied that there is an endless number of
sideboards and guidelines on how a board should look, operate,
and be adjusted over time. In trying to strike a balance
between giving some direction while allowing some flexibility,
this falls within a moderate ground and is in consultation with
the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that generally appointees serve
at the pleasure of the governor.
3:36:52 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted.
3:37:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 3 to HB 363, labeled
32-LS1527\I.8, Klein, 3/14/22, which read:
Page 4, line 18:
Delete "and"
Insert "(3) two members from the legislature,
serving as ex officio nonvoting members, one of whom
shall be appointed by the president of the senate and
one by the speaker of the house of representatives;
and"
Renumber the following paragraph accordingly.
Page 4, line 30:
Delete "(c)"
Insert "(c)(1), (2), or (4)"
3:37:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:37:05 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained Amendment 3 would add two members
of the legislature as ex officio, nonvoting, members of the
board. One would be appointed by the Senate President and the
other by the Speaker of the House of Representatives. She said
good, close communication between this group and the legislature
is wanted in the event the legislature needs to come back and
make changes to the Office of Broadband or appropriations are
needed to match. The legislature would be well informed and
engaged in the process but would not have the ability to vote
and change the direction.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that he supports Amendment 3
because it is a standard practice and a good check and balance
to have a member from each chamber attending the meetings and
reporting back and being a conduit between the legislature, the
board, and the Office of Broadband.
3:38:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE conveyed that he supports Amendment 3.
He asked whether a term should be included in this amendment
like in Amendment 2.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ answered that this would be sitting
legislators, not legislators that were termed off because they
weren't reelected. The incoming Senate President or House
Speaker would then fill the spot of a legislator that was not
reelected.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that as a former presiding
officer, his assumption is that Amendment 2 is for the nine
members appointed by the governor. Under [Amendment 3], the
presiding officer at the start of each new legislative session
would appoint two members. For example, the thirty-third
legislature would appoint two members and then the thirty-fourth
legislature would appoint two members, and, theoretically, it
could be the same legislators.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN added that if a legislator is no longer
in office he or she can't be there, so it will solve itself.
3:39:49 PM.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
3:39:58 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 4 to HB 363, labeled
32-LS1527\I.10, Klein, 3/15/22, which read:
Page 2, line 31:
Delete "(1)"
Page 3, line 4:
Delete ";"
Insert "."
Page 3, lines 5 - 11:
Delete all material.
Page 4, line 19, following "members":
Insert ", at least two of whom live in an
unserved or underserved area,"
Page 5, following line 1:
Insert a new section to read:
"Sec. 44.33.930. Definitions. In AS 44.33.910 -
44.33.930,
(1) "unserved area" means an area that does
not have broadband speeds of at least 25 Megabits per
second downstream and at least 3 Megabits per second
upstream with a latency sufficient to support real-
time interactive applications; and
(2) "underserved area" means an area that
does not have broadband speeds of at least 100
Megabits per second downstream and at least 20
Megabits per second upstream with a latency sufficient
to support real-time interactive applications."
Page 5, line 2:
Delete "and 44.33.920"
Insert "44.33.920, and 44.33.930"
3:40:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:40:01 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 4 was crafted in
partnership with the sponsor and in response to the public
testimony urging that members of the unserved and underserved
communities be represented. It was heard in testimony that
plenty of the people in unserved and underserved communities are
experts in these subject matters. It is important to have those
voices sitting at the table when those conversations are
happening. Definitions [of "unserved area" and "underserved
area"] are included in Amendment 3 and are the definitions found
in the federal legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he supports Amendment 4 because it
strengthens the bill by stating what is intended and it is in
full alignment with the federal [Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act] (IIJA) and recommendations from the Governor's Task
Force on Broadband.
3:41:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked about the provision in Amendment 4
on page 1, lines 1-2, that would in the bill on page 2, line 31,
delete "(1)".
3:41:51 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:41 p.m. to 3:42 p.m.
3:42:50 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that no content is being deleted, only
the numbers one, two, and three are being deleted.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that Amendment 4 adds the two members
who live in unserved or underserved areas and moves the
definitions of unserved and underserved to a section further
down in the bill, thereby removing the requirement for numbers
one, two, and three on page 2 of the bill, beginning on line 31.
So, they are conforming changes reflected in the reorganization
posed by Amendment 4.
3:43:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about whether this whole section
defines "anchor institution" and what it means regarding
bandwidth and unserved and underserved, and therefore it would
be deleting the definitions thereof and it is somewhere else.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that it only deletes the number one,
not any of the text on anchor institutions. The language [in
the bill on page 3, lines 5-11,] defining "unserved area" and
"underserved area" is being deleted and these terms defined
elsewhere. Therefore, "anchor institution" is on its own and
doesn't need a number in front of it; it's purely organizational
and the substance of "anchor institution" isn't being changed.
3:45:00 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 4 was adopted.
3:45:09 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 5 to HB 363, labeled
32-LS1527\I.13, Klein, 3/15/22, which read:
Page 4, following line 28:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(d) The advisory board shall establish a
broadband technical working group to provide technical
recommendations to the advisory board. The advisory
board shall appoint individuals to the technical
working group who collectively have expertise in the
different technologies that provide broadband service
in the state. The broadband industry representative on
the advisory board shall also serve on the broadband
technical working group."
Reletter the following subsections accordingly.
3:45:11 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:45:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment 5.
3:45:17 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:45:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained that Conceptual Amendment 1
would, on line 6 of Amendment 5, following the word "service",
add the words "and manage and deliver projects". The idea, he
said, is to ensure that there are technical-aware people as well
as project-aware people because good project management and
project management awareness are wanted.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ related that she and Representative Kaufman
had two separate amendments, both of which achieved the
underlying objective of Amendment 5. She said adopting
Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 would consolidate the two
amendments into one.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON stated that since it appears to be a
friendly amendment he has no objection.
3:46:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS withdrew his objection. Therefore, Conceptual
Amendment 1 to Amendment 5 was adopted.
3:47:04 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 5, as amended,
establishes a technical working group which would, in essence,
be a subcommittee of the [advisory] board. The idea, she said,
was to mirror in the board what was in the task force, which was
a technical subcommittee that included subject matter experts in
broadband and internet access in rural Alaska and now also in
project management associated with these broadband projects.
This ensures that the board itself stays broad, is technology
neutral, and capitalizes on all the expertise that is out there
and that this technical working group will be able to provide
information to the full board. The broadband industry
representative on the advisory board will serve on the broadband
technical working group and ideally that person will be the
representative to the board as a whole and represent the working
group to the broader advisory board.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON spoke in support of Amendment 5, as
amended. He stated that when putting an advisory board together
as the bill proposes to do, one must be cognizant of not making
the board too big yet at the same time the board must wrap its
arms around all the various players as best as possible.
Industry is an integral part of all of this, and industry's
expertise is needed at the table. Having a technical subgroup
seems to accomplish the objective of industry having a seat at
the table and being an important part of the decision-making
process but at the same time not expanding the advisory board to
a point that it gets too big and makes it hard to chase people
down to have meetings.
3:49:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 5, as amended, was adopted.
3:49:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to adopt Amendment 6 to HB 363, labeled
32-LS1527\I.15, Klein, 3/15/22, which read:
Page 2, line 25, following "partners":
Insert "through the University of Alaska, technical,
vocational, or trade schools, and apprenticeship
programs"
3:49:28 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:49:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that Amendment 6, on page 2, line
25 of the bill, further defines the workforce development in-
state partners by stating that these partners should include the
University of Alaska, technical, vocational, or trade schools,
and apprenticeship programs. This ensures that while building
out this infrastructure, Alaska's capacity to be able to build
and maintain the infrastructure is also being built. This is a
great way to get Alaskans jobs and make sure that the investment
in this effort is maintained and protected.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON expressed his support of Amendment 6. He
said this also comports with the broadband task force's
recommendations.
3:50:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated that he reads the amendment as the
University of Alaska being the overseer of the workforce. He
asked whether other industry individuals or organizations could
partner into this.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ replied that the intention is not for the
University of Alaska to have oversight of all these areas, but
that the University of Alaska is one of the stakeholders that
would be involved in workforce development. She said it would
also include technical, vocational, or trade schools and could
include high school level programs, programs that are outside of
public institutions in the state, as well as apprenticeship
programs. It is not to put the University of Alaska over other
workforce development, but rather to include it in a list of
program types that would be consulted in terms of workforce
development.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY stated he is concerned that the wording
seems to imply that the University of Alaska is overseeing the
technical, vocational, or trade schools, and apprenticeship
programs.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ responded, "Absolutely not, it's just first
in the list."
3:52:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS removed his objection. There being no further
objection, Amendment 6 was adopted.
3:52:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN moved to adopt Amendment 7 to HB 363,
labeled 32-LS1527\I.2, Klein, 3/14/22, which read:
Page 1, following line 12:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(2) develop short- and long-term
strategies for deploying affordable broadband to
communities statewide, based on the effects on
consumer costs, the timeline for deployment, the
breadth of coverage, sustainability of the broadband
without further subsidy, broadband reliability and
speed, whether multiple technologies are necessary,
technological neutrality, and preventing duplication
of federal programs;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 2, line 13, following "infrastructure":
Insert "that supports the short- and long-term
strategies developed under (b)(2) of this section"
3:52:20 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS objected for discussion purposes.
3:52:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN explained Amendment 7 by reading it aloud
to the committee members.
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that the amendment is well
intentioned, and he thinks he knows what it is intended to
accomplish, but his first reaction is that the way the bill is
presented to the committee, and as amended, accomplishes the
goals that are wanted to be accomplished. He said the terms in
Amendment 7, such as breadth of coverage, sustainability of the
broadband without further subsidy, go outside the scope of the
broadband task force.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS requested Ms. O'Connor to speak to Amendment 7.
3:54:24 PM
CHRISTINE O'CONNOR, Representative of the Telecommunications
Industry, Governor's Task Force on Broadband, Executive
Director, Alaska Telecom Association (ATA), stated that
Amendment 7 is quite detailed and has several concepts that
aren't defined here and are not areas where the task force made
recommendations. She said her concern is it could conflict with
NTIA's detailed rules which will be issued in the Notice of
Funding Opportunity which is due in mid-May. Her other concern,
she continued, is that this could have unintended consequences
on existing federal programs that are supporting schools,
telemedicine, and a variety of the telecommunication ecosystem.
3:55:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY inquired about what is not being done
that the amendment is attempting to address.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that it is to get clarity that
[the state] will operate on short- and long-term strategic
plans, which will avoid some of the conflicts or problems that
typically crop up when doing potentially overlapping work or
work in an arena where there are not only technological
selections to make but also the compatibility of those. It's to
make it more explicit within the framework of a short-term and
long-term strategy.
3:56:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked what Ms. O'Connor sees that is
different in the language of the amendment from the intent of
the task force.
MS. O'CONNOR answered that she sees some duplication here of
what is already in the bill language. Affordable broadband is
addressed in the task force and throughout the [federal]
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), she continued.
Sustainability without further subsidy is not something that the
task force delved into and is a concept that needs to be
carefully addressed with coordination from the federal agencies.
Interagency coordination and looking at duplication of programs
is happening at the federal level via an interagency working
group between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), US
Department of Agriculture (USDA), and NTIA. There could be an
unintended consequence of eliminating programs that are
essential to Alaska's broadband infrastructure. The task force
did talk about reliability in-state, but those metrics are
addressed elsewhere in the bill. The amendment is not adding to
the bill and in some areas it is well outside what the task
force recommended.
3:58:40 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the intention of Amendment 7 is
good and noble. She said she is a fan of doing things right but
is concerned with the issue of sustainability of broadband
without further subsidy conflicting with the bipartisan IIJA's
stated objective of meeting first unserved communities and then
underserved communities. Alaskans are trying to educate the
NTIA about what rural and what unserved in Alaska means and how
important this is. Access to broadband and high-speed internet
is like a utility these days - business cannot be conducted,
healthcare and education cannot be received. She suggested that
this could be revisited in the next year and refined with the
broadband advisory group once there is a more robust
understanding of what the federal guidance is going to be and
how the State of Alaska can comply with the spirit and letter of
the law and regulation coming from the federal government.
4:00:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN withdrew Amendment 7. He offered his
appreciation for the comments and said he is relentless about
well managed projects. He said he concurs with some of the
points that were made although he still thinks there are good
things that could be fit in now.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that HB 363 is an important piece of
the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that will
be a game changer for the state of Alaska. She said HB 363 is
an important building block for Alaska as it moves forward.
4:01:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ moved to report HB 363, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 363(L&C) was moved
out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.