Legislature(2021 - 2022)SENATE FINANCE 532
04/14/2021 01:00 PM Senate 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 | |
| HB76 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 76(FIN) am
"An Act extending the January 15, 2021, governor's
declaration of a public health disaster emergency in
response to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)
pandemic; approving and ratifying declarations of a
public health disaster emergency; providing for a
financing plan; making temporary changes to state law
in response to the COVID- 19 outbreak in the following
areas: occupational and professional licensing,
practice, and billing; telehealth; fingerprinting
requirements for health care providers; charitable
gaming and online ticket sales; access to federal
stabilization funds; wills; unfair or deceptive trade
practices; meetings of shareholders; and school
operating funds; relating to informed consent for
COVID-19 vaccines; relating to personal objections to
the administration of COVID-19 vaccines; providing
immunity from liability and disciplinary action for
occupational licensees for exposure of clients to
COVID-19; providing immunity from liability for
persons engaging in business and their employees for
exposure of customers to COVID-19; and providing for
an effective date."
2:12:32 PM
Co-Chair Bishop discussed housekeeping and the amendment
process.
[note to self: Erin later references the Hyde amendment]
2:13:09 PM
Co-Chair Stedman MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Co-Chair Stedman spoke to Amendment 1. He explained that it
was a clarifying amendment dealing with the RPL process and
receiving federal money outside of legislative session. He
said that the amendment would allow for the calling back of
the legislature to address federal appropriations. He said
that in the event that the legislature could not meet, the
governor would have to call a Special Session.
2:15:50 PM
Senator Hoffman observed that there were different
repealing dates. He asked what repealing date was
envisioned if the amendment were adopted.
2:16:14 PM
AT EASE
2:16:54 PM
RECONVENED
ERIN SHINE, STAFF, SENATOR CLICK BISHOP, addressed Senator
Hoffman's question. She explained that there was no repeal
date for this section outline in the bill. She said that
the items were tied to specific packages coming form the
federal government, which did not necessitate a repeal
date.
2:17:33 PM
Senator Olson pointed out the date and considered that SNAP
benefits were currently under question of continuing. He
wondered whether the amendment helped in getting funds to
needy families.
Ms. Shine stated that the section did not address SNAP
funds. However, Sections 2 and 4 did address the SNAP
benefits.
Senator Olson clarified that he was asking about whether
there were other programs that would be under pressure that
would be alleviated by the amendment.
Ms. Shine considered the way the funds were outlined in
Section 12, which were similar to fund that came to the
state through the CARES Act. She said that the funds were
not for specific programs that functioned through the state
Operating Budget or any other appropriation bill.
2:19:24 PM
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:19:42 PM
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 2 (copy on
file). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 3 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 3. He explained that the
amendment related to emergency powers for the Commissioner
of the Department of Health and Social Services (DHSS).
2:22:02 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the governor could sign
the bill, declare the emergency over, and then have the
commissioner of DHSS reestablish a public health emergency
that only addressed certain items to capture federal
funding.
Ms. Shine interpreted that it was a possibility.
Senator Wielechowski considered the provision in Amendment
3 dealing with emergency procurement. He understood that it
allowed for no-bid contract authority. He wondered whether
the authority was limited to the section or was it anything
related to the emergency that may be redeclared by the
commissioner of DHSS.
Ms. Shine read the amendment to indicate that the powers
provided to the commissioner of DHSS for emergency
procurement specific to the public health emergency
requested, and the power specifically numerated to the
commissioner of DHSS for declaring a public health
emergency, could be found on Page 5 of the bill. She
understood that the scope for procurement would be narrow.
Co-Chair Bishop noted that staff from the Legislative Legal
Department were available to comment on Senator
Wielechowski's question.
Senator Wielechowski wanted more information on no-bid
contract emergency procurement powers that would be granted
to the governor because of the amendment.
2:24:50 PM
AT EASE
2:26:03 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski restated his question about no-bid
contract authority.
ANDREW DUNMIRE, LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL
DEPARTMENT (via teleconference), responded that the
amendment would allow the DHSS commissioner to bypass the
normal procurement process for procurement related to a
public health emergency.
Senator Wielechowski could not support the amendment.
Senator Olson asked whether there was a cap on the
procurement amount allowed under the amendment.
Mr. Dunmire replied in the negative.
Senator Olson expressed concerns similar to Senator
Wielechowski and would not support the amendment.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection.
Senator Wielechowski OBJECTED.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: von Imhof, Wilson, Stedman, Bishop
OPPOSED: Olson, Wielechowski, Hoffman
The MOTION PASSED (4/3).
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 4. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:30:02 PM
AT EASE
2:34:26 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski addressed the topic of Amendment 5. He
shared that he was not happy with the language in the
amendment and would not be offering it at this time.
Senator Hoffman understood that the chairman would allow a
rewrite of the amendment to be offered before the passage
of the legislation.
Senator Wielechowski MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 5. There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:35:36 PM
AT EASE
2:35:44 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Bishop explained that Amendment 5 would continue
to be worked on and would be offered as an amendment on the
Senate Floor.
Senator Wielechowski agreed with that assessment.
Senator von Imhof MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 6 (copy on
file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator von Imhof spoke to Amendment 6. She explained that
the amendment would extend the sunset date for the School
Operating Funds Reserve until 2025.
2:36:50 PM
Senator Hoffman asked whether the amendment complied with
federal regulations pertaining to CARES and CRRSSA funds.
Ms. Shine explained that the amendment addressed school
fund balanced and was not tied to actual relief funds
received.
Co-Chair Bishop WITHDREW his objection. There being NO
further OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 7 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to the amendment. He explained that
Section 11 was unfair to healthcare workers and workers
excluded in the section.
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 7. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
2:38:37 PM
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 8 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson explained that the amendment would ensure
that Covid-19 relief funds were not used for abortions.
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the amendment was
constitutional under the Alaska Constitution.
Mr. Dunmire thought the amendment would have a substantial
constitutional question specifically due to the Alaska
Supreme Court case of State versus Planned Parenthood of
the Great Northwest.
2:40:04 PM
Senator Olson asked whether the amendment would interrupt
the funds that might come through to the state.
Mr. Dunmire did not think the amendment would interrupt the
flow of federal relief funds to the state.
2:40:55 PM
AT EASE
2:41:28 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Olson restated his question.
MEGAN WALLACE, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, ALASKA
STATE LEGISLATURE (via teleconference), thought it was
difficult to predict what the substance of a hypothetical
lawsuit might be. She did not foresee a challenge to the
amendment delaying fund. She considered that the amendment
would relate to the states use of the funds after they had
been received.
2:42:52 PM
Senator Wielechowski referenced a case cited by Mr. Dunmire
that was thought to be indicative of precedent. He asked
about the estimated cost of such a case.
Ms. Wallace did not have the requested information. She
thought LFD or OMB could provide the information.
2:43:49 PM
AT EASE
2:44:52 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wielechowski understood that under the Protect Life
rule, Title 10 funds were prohibited from being used for
abortions. He understood that any COVID-19 funds were
already prohibited by law to be spent on abortions.
Ms. Shine noted that the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)
had not had the Hyde Amendment attached, which was normally
attached to appropriation bills since Roe v. Wade. Due to
this, if there were available funds that could go to an
organization that would provide an abortion, it would be
possible. She noted that if there were funds that came
through and needed to be appropriated by the legislature,
and abortion funding ban could be included.
2:47:20 PM
Senator von Imhof understood that much of the ARPA funds
were going into specific areas such as childcare and
heating assistance. She surmised that most of the funds
were earmarked for specific expenditures.
Ms. Shine affirmed that much of the funding coming to the
state and throughout the country was specifically earmarked
for certain things. She said that the legislature could
forbid the spending of funds wherever they deemed fit.
2:48:50 PM
Senator von Imhof thought Ms. Shine was saying that there
were federal funds coming to the state that were being used
for abortions.
Ms. Shine clarified that she was not saying that federal
funds were being used for abortions, but that the Hyde
Amendment was not attached to the fund legislation.
2:49:16 PM
Senator Wielechowski understood that the Protect Life rule
would prohibit the funds in questions from being used for
abortions. His staff had referenced a research report
showing state expenses defending unconstitutional abortion
legislation, which totaled several million between 2016 and
the present. He thought the state did not have a great
track record on such cases and that the amendment spoke to
a problem that did not exist.
2:51:09 PM
AT EASE
2:51:17 PM
RECONVENED
Senator von Imhof asked whether there was federal money
outside of COVID-19 funding that currently paid for
abortions in the state.
2:51:50 PM
AT EASE
2:53:06 PM
RECONVENED
Senator von Imhof restated her question.
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION (via
teleconference), was not aware of any federal dollars being
used in the state to pay for abortions.
Senator von Imhof reiterated that her question was about
federal funds outside of COVID-19 relief funds.
Mr. Painter was unaware of any funding specifically related
to abortions. He referenced Federal Medical Assistance
Percentage (FMAP) funding in a previous bill but did not
believe that it would qualify as funding for abortions.
Senator von Imhof understood that in accordance with the
2001 Alaska Supreme Court Order, the Alaska Medicaid
Program must, under certain circumstances, provide funding
for abortions for women who receive Alaskan Medicaid.
2:54:44 PM
Ms. Shine affirmed that there were exceptions to
prohibitions on abortion funding such as rape, incest, and
the health of the woman.
2:55:12 PM
Senator Wielechowski asked whether the amendment would ban
funding for abortions in the case of rape or incest.
Ms. Wallace explained that Amendment 8 would only allow for
money from the CARES, CRRSSA, or ARPA to be expended for
mandatory services. The circumstance would depend upon
whether, in the case of incest, rape, or threat to the
womans life, the service was considered mandatory under AS
47.07.030(a).
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether rape, incest, or health of
the woman would fall outside of the amendment.
Ms. Wallace understood that in cases of rape, incest, or
threat to the womans life, the procedure could be
considered mandatory.
2:57:21 PM
Co-Chair Bishop restated his question.
Mr. Dunmire noted that the statute in the amendment
mentioned the federal code. He did not know if the
circumstances would be mandatory under federal law.
2:58:38 PM
Senator Olson urged the question.
Senator Wielechowski MAINTAINED his OBJECTION. He thought
the amendment was unconstitutional.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Olson, Hoffman, von Imhof, Wilson, Stedman,
Bishop
OPPOSED: Wielechowski
The MOTION PASSED (6/1). Amendment 8 was ADOPTED.
2:59:33 PM
AT EASE
3:03:55 PM
RECONVENED
Senator Wilson MOVED to WITHDRAW Amendment 9 (copy on
file). There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Senator Wilson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 10 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Bishop OBJECTED for discussion.
Senator Wilson spoke to Amendment 10. He explained that the
amendment would prohibit private and public entities from
requiring vaccination for employment or use of services
until the vaccine is fully authorized by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA).
3:06:09 PM
Co-Chair Bishop asked whether the amendment would prohibit
an employer to require COVID-19 vaccination as a condition
of employment.
Senator Wilson replied in the affirmative.
3:06:53 PM
Senator Olson asked why the private sector was included in
the amendment.
Senator Wilson said it was to provide balance and protect
from discrimination.
Senator Olson understood discrimination against race but
thought that private corporations should be held harmless.
Senator Wilson said the amendment proposed to do everything
possible to make health safety and wellbeing the standard
in the workplace.
3:08:49 PM
Senator von Imhof had some concerns about telling private
businesses what they could and could not do. She also
disagreed with putting an unvaccinated person in the same
category as a federally protected class.
Senator Olson agreed with Senator von Imhof and thought
that the emergency use mad sense as the world was
experiencing a pandemic. He thought the public needed to be
protected and did not support the amendment.
Co-Chair Bishop MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
OPPOSED: Hoffman, von Imhof, Olson, Bishop, Stedman
IN FAVOR: Wielechowski, Wilson
The MOTION FAILED (5/2).
CSHB 76(FIN)am was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Bishop discussed the agenda for the following day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 76 Amendment Packet version E.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |
| HB 76 Amendment 10 Wilson.pdf |
SFIN 4/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 76 |