Legislature(2013 - 2014)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
04/01/2013 01:30 PM Senate JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB81 | |
| HB33 | |
| SB65 | |
| HB69 | |
| HB83 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 69 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 33 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 65 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 81 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 83 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 83-FEDERAL LAWS & EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2:45:10 PM
CHAIR COGHILL announced the consideration of HB 83. [CSHB
83(JUD) 28-LS0328\O was before the committee.]
2:45:30 PM
JIM POUND, Staff to Representative Wes Keller, sponsor of HB 83,
noted that this was the second hearing for HB 83. It pertains to
federal statutes, regulations, presidential executive orders or
secretarial orders that are passed by the federal government and
federal agencies and are currently reviewed by the attorney
general's office. The bill asks the attorney general to provide
the judiciary committees in each body a copy of the review so
they may decide whether to introduce legislation that would
nullify the measure or make it not applicable in the state of
Alaska. He noted that Assistant Attorney General David Jones was
available to answer the questions that Senator Wielechowski
raised when the bill was introduced.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI inquired about the attorney general's
position on the bill, if there would be any problems with
implementation, the extent to which DOL currently reviews
federal statutes, regulations, executive orders and actions and
secretarial orders, and if the bill would cause DOL to need
additional resources.
2:47:59 PM
DAVID JONES, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division,
Opinions, Appeals, and Ethics Section, Department of Law (DOL),
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that DOL does not see problems with HB
83. He explained that a similar version was introduced in 2011
and discussions with the sponsor led to the language in the
current bill. It says "the attorney general will continue to
review" and DOL's understanding is that would not impose an
obligation on the attorney general to review all statutes,
regulations, executive orders and actions, and secretarial
orders to determine whether any were potentially preemptive.
Rather, the attorney general's office would continue its normal
course. With that understanding, DOL does not believe the bill
will impose excessive work on the department.
CHAIR COGHILL asked if the conflict addressed in Section 2 would
be primarily a constitutional conflict.
MR. JONES said it could be characterized otherwise, but the
Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution assures that almost
every conflict between a federal and state provision will have a
constitutional element.
CHAIR COGHILL commented that it's been his experience that
accepting money from the federal government comes with the
relinquishment of some right or power.
SENATOR DYSON questioned how the Department of Law would
continue current practices if the bill were to pass, because his
understanding was that it would impose a mission on the
department to look for conflicts between state and federal
statutes, regulations, and other directives.
MR. JONES acknowledged that if the department were to undertake
a complete review of all federal statutes, regulations, and
orders to determine whether any were potentially preemptive, it
would require a significant number of additional staff.
SENATOR DYSON offered his belief that the legislature wants the
Department of Law to be alert to the particular conflicts that
affect liberties and actions in the state.
MR. JONES replied that the message is clearly received,
understood, and will be accepted.
2:53:37 PM
SENATOR DYSON said he and most of his colleagues want to be
alert to protecting liberties and they will consider this a
significant part of Department of Law's mission.
MR. JONES acknowledged the directive.
2:54:16 PM
MIKE COONS, representing himself, Lazy Mountain, Alaska, said he
hopes that HB 83 is passed from committee today. The bill is
legally solid, and it protects people from an "out of control"
President. He encouraged the committee to read Bob Byrd's
testimony and the documents pertaining to HB 69, because they
dovetail into this bill. The need for this bill has grown over
the last four years, but it's been needed for decades since the
federal government has been disregarding the Tenth Amendment and
burdening states with unfunded mandates. Now it is incumbent on
states to stand up for citizens' rights and for what is best for
the state. He maintained that the current administration was
using executive orders to enact law, although Article Two of the
U.S. Constitution does not provide that authority. He cited
examples. Passing HB 83 will help states take back the nation
and perhaps put backbone in Congress to stand with the
Constitution.
2:58:14 PM
CHAIR COGHILL opened committee discussion.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI noted he had an amendment that was
discussed previously.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI moved Amendment 1, labeled 28-LS0328\O.1.
AMENDMENT 1
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI
TO: CSHB 83(JUD)
Page 2, following line 13:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 3. AS 44.23.020(b) is amended to read:
(b) The attorney general shall
(1) defend the Constitution of the
State of Alaska and the Constitution of the
United States of America;
(2) bring, prosecute, and defend all
necessary and proper actions in the name of the state
for the collection of revenue;
(3) represent the state in all civil
actions in which the state is a party;
(4) prosecute all cases involving
violation of state law, and file informations and
prosecute all offenses against the revenue laws and
other state laws where there is no other provision for
their prosecution;
(5) administer state legal services,
including the furnishing of written legal opinions to
the governor, the legislature, and all state officers
and departments as the governor directs; and give
legal advice on a law, proposed law, or proposed
legislative measure upon request by the legislature or
a member of the legislature;
(6) draft legal instruments for the state;
(7) make available a report to the
legislature, through the governor, at each regular
legislative session
(A) of the work and expenditures of
the office; [AND]
(B) on needed legislation or
amendments to existing law; and
(C) summarizing litigation between the
state and a department or agency of the federal
government, including, for each case, a discussion of
the legal issues presented to the court, the cost of
the case, and the final disposition of the case, if
available;
(8) prepare, publish, and revise as it
becomes useful or necessary to do so an information
pamphlet on landlord and tenant rights and the means
of making complaints to appropriate public agencies
concerning landlord and tenant rights; the contents of
the pamphlet and any revision shall be approved by the
Department of Law before publication; and
(9) perform all other duties required by
law or which usually pertain to the office of attorney
general in a state."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
2:59:04 PM
CHAIR COGHILL objected for an explanation.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI explained that the bill currently requires
the attorney general to provide summaries of what is happening
with federal statutes and regulations, but it appears to create
a gap because the attorney general is not required to actually
provide a summary of the litigation against the federal
government. The amendment fills that gap.
MR. POUND said the sponsor considers this an unfriendly
amendment. It would probably add a fiscal note to the bill,
which is unnecessary. Furthermore, he wasn't given a copy of the
amendment until now.
CHAIR COGHILL pointed out that Senator Wielechowski brought the
issue up during the last hearing. He said his perspective was
that a summary of litigation seemed reasonable.
SENATOR DYSON described the amendment as a substantial change.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said the bill appears to be asking the
attorney general to review tens of thousands if not hundreds of
thousands of documents and prepare memos of every document that
is potentially in conflict with a statute or regulation, and the
Department of Law submitted a zero fiscal note for that work.
The amendment simply asks for a summary of the litigation that
the state is involved in. The bill creates a gap that the
amendment fills, and there shouldn't be a fiscal note.
3:02:39 PM
CHAIR COGHILL asked Mr. Jones if he had reviewed the amendment.
MR. JONES said no.
CHAIR COGHILL said it's only fair to provide an opportunity for
everyone to look at the amendment and quantify the cost. He
reiterated that he was more sympathetic to the amendment than
not.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI said there was no attempt to keep the
amendment from the sponsor or anyone else; his office just
received it.
CHAIR COGHILL said if the bill goes to the finance committee, he
wants it to be on purpose with some recommendation.
SENATOR DYSON observed that the issue isn't money; it's what the
legislature wants the attorney general to do. He opined that the
amendment changes the bill profoundly.
3:05:23 PM
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI clarified that the amendment doesn't take
anything away, it adds a section that says the attorney general
provides an additional summary of the litigation.
CHAIR COGHILL said he was open to the discussion because both
look at conflicts between the state and federal government.
MR. POUND remarked that it's a difference between past and
future. Litigation is what is taking place now and in the past,
whereas regulations, secretarial orders, and executive orders
are happening now and in the future.
CHAIR COGHILL announced that he would hold HB 83 and take action
on Amendment 1 on Wednesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| Senate CS for HB 69 Version I.pdf |
SJUD 4/1/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |
| Written testimony_HB69_Vasquez.docx |
SJUD 4/1/2013 1:30:00 PM |
HB 69 |