02/06/2018 03:00 PM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HCR2 | |
| HB168|| HCR10 | |
| HJR31 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HCR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 168 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 6, 2018
3:11 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins, Chair
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, Vice Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative Adam Wool
Representative Chris Birch
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Gary Knopp
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andy Josephson (alternate)
Representative Chuck Kopp (alternate)
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Urging Governor Bill Walker to join with the Alaska State
Legislature to respond to the public and behavioral health
epidemic of adverse childhood experiences by establishing a
statewide policy and providing programs to address this
epidemic.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 168
"An Act relating to regulation notice and review by the
legislature; and relating to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Proposing an amendment to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to the jurisdiction of standing committees.
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31
Urging the United States Congress to overturn the Federal
Communications Commission's order ending net neutrality.
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE: RESPOND TO ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) TARR
01/23/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/23/17 (H) HSS, STA
03/14/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/14/17 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
03/21/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/21/17 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/23/17 (H) HSS AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
03/23/17 (H) Moved HCR 2 Out of Committee
03/23/17 (H) MINUTE(HSS)
03/24/17 (H) HSS RPT 6DP 1NR
03/24/17 (H) DP: JOHNSTON, TARR, EDGMON, SULLIVAN-
LEONARD, KITO, SPOHNHOLZ
03/24/17 (H) NR: EASTMAN
05/16/17 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
05/16/17 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HB 168
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HCR 10
SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) CHENAULT
03/10/17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/10/17 (H) STA, FIN
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
BILL: HJR 31
SHORT TITLE: CONGRESS REVERSE FCC ON NET NEUTRALITY
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KAWASAKI
01/26/18 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/18 (H) STA
02/06/18 (H) STA AT 3:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HCR2 as prime sponsor, with the
use of a PowerPoint presentation.
ALISON KULAS, Executive Director
Advisory Board on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse (ABADA)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HCR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 168 and HCR 10, as prime
sponsor.
TOM WRIGHT, Staff
Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on HB
168 and HCR 10 on behalf Representative Chenault, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE Scott KAWASAKI
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HJR 31, as prime sponsor.
JACOB GERRISH, Staff
Representative Scott Kawasaki
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 31 on behalf of
Representative Kawasaki, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:11:24 PM
CHAIR JONATHAN KREISS-TOMKINS called the House State Affairs
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:11 p.m.
Representatives LeDoux, Wool, Birch, Johnson, Knopp, and Kreiss-
Tomkins were present at the call to order. Representative Tuck
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HCR 2-RESPOND TO ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES
3:12:11 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the first order of business
would be HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Urging Governor Bill
Walker to join with the Alaska State Legislature to respond to
the public and behavioral health epidemic of adverse childhood
experiences by establishing a statewide policy and providing
programs to address this epidemic.
3:12:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GERAN TARR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HCR 2, brought attention to the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HCR 2 [30-LS0277\J, Glover, 1/17/18,
included in the committee packet and hereafter referred to as
"Version J"]. She maintained that given the current fiscal
crisis, the need for long-term planning, and the need to
understand the state's "cost drivers," the time is right to
discuss the issue of the public health crisis of adverse
childhood experiences (ACEs) in Alaska and its impacts to
communities and the state budget.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR began a PowerPoint presentation, entitled "A
Public Health Crisis: Adverse Childhood Experiences." She
referred to slide 2, entitled "What are ACES?" and relayed that
two physicians - Dr. [Vincent] Filitti and Dr. [Robert] Anda -
in doing research on obesity, discovered a link between early
childhood experiences and health problems in adulthood. This
led to their 1998 study, in which they gave a ten-question quiz
to enrollees of a health insurance program to assess their
exposure to trauma as children. Based on the answers to those
questions, each research subject was assigned an ACE score from
zero to ten.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slide 3, entitled "What Kind of
Childhood Trauma?" and relayed that the quiz assessed trauma in
three categories - abuse, neglect, and household disfunction.
Two of the categories include behaviors that impact the person,
such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence
to an adult family member, and having a parent in jail.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to slide 4, entitled "What is your
ACES Score?" and encouraged committee members to take the quiz
on their own to get a better understanding of the exposures that
are assessed by the quiz. She offered that doing so would help
the members appreciate the information gathered and the
potential of that information to influence policy and save
money.
3:16:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 5, entitled "ACES Studies
in Alaska," and stated that there were two key findings from the
ACE studies conducted in Alaska. The first is that childhood
trauma is far more common and far more expensive than previously
realized. She said that the finding that childhood trauma is
"more common" is something of great concern. Alaska has a
record number of children in foster care - more than 3,000
currently - and these children likely have experienced a great
deal of trauma in childhood and are continuing to experience
trauma. She referred to the category "neglect," and offered
that the research demonstrates that prolonged neglect can be
more damaging than physical and sexual abuse. She stated that
the second key finding was that the impact of this trauma
affects individuals over a lifetime and societies over
generations. She emphasized the importance of that finding:
the ACE study reveals the exposures to an individual that lead
to undesirable health outcomes in adulthood; the impact to
societies over generations has not been fully understood in the
public policy context. She mentioned that the Office of
Children's Services (OCS) often serves the second and third
generations of the same families.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 6, entitled "Select
Negative Health Outcomes," and said that some of the negative
outcomes listed are not surprising. Before the ACE studies,
people referred to the "cycle of violence," in which individuals
growing up with domestic violence in the home have a higher
likelihood of committing violence. She said that what the ACE
study discovered that was new was physical health problems as
outcomes, such as liver disease and heart disease, which can be
very costly.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slide 7, entitled "Select Negative
Health Outcomes," to point out the percentages of an outcome
linked to high ACE scores. She relayed that the research shows
that 40.6 percent of Medicaid spending can be linked to
childhood trauma; Medicaid spending is prominent in state budget
discussions; and there has been an increase of 30,000 Medicaid
enrollees this year. To the extent that the increase in
Medicaid enrollees is the result of early childhood trauma,
"upstream" prevention activities become more important for
influencing the outcomes and eliminating spending.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR cited from slide 7 the "current smoker"
outcome percentage of 32 percent and the "heavy drinking"
outcome percentage of 20.5 percent. She referred to a McDowell
Group report, entitled "The Economic Costs of Drug Abuse in
Alaska, 2016 Update," prepared for the Alaska Mental Health
Trust Authority (AMHTA) and the Advisory Board on Alcoholism and
Drug Abuse (ABADA), which claims that the cost is in the
billions of dollars. She emphasized that Alaska is paying for
the costs through treatment, through courts, through
incarceration, and through the handling of dysfunctional
students in schools. She maintained that considering the cost
to Alaska, there is great opportunity to makes changes and spend
this money better.
3:21:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 8, entitled "The Price of
Not Intervening Before Trauma Occurs," to demonstrate potential
savings: a 32 percent reduction in costs due to smoking would
yield a $186 million in savings; a 20 percent reduction in
[costs due to] substance abuse would yield a $350 million in
savings; and a 40.6 percent reduction in Medicaid costs would
yield a $350 million in savings. She offered that the proposed
resolution mentions other statistics and explained that because
of all the research in this area, costs and percentages are
constantly being updated; in any case, the costs are significant
and there are opportunities for savings.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to slide 9, entitled "Overcoming
ACES in Alaska Building a Statewide Movement," to point out the
many and varied organizations that have been able to "connect
the dots" by looking at the outcomes, such as drug abuse,
domestic violence, and suicide, through the ACE "lens", and thus
understand that their issues are all interrelated. She gave an
example: individuals with four or more ACEs are in the hundreds
of percentiles more likely to commit suicide; Alaska leads the
nation in suicide rates; if suicide prevention is directed
toward young adults or teens, the opportunity may have been
missed, because suicide may be the result of childhood trauma.
She claimed that organizations such as Best Beginnings and
Alaska Association for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health
(AK-AIMH) have been formed based on the recognition that early
childhood experiences are integral to lifetime experiences, and
there is opportunity to impact the subsequent issues by looking
at them through the lens of ACE.
3:24:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TARR turned to slide 10, entitled "Overcoming
ACES in Alaska: Connecting people and policies," to point out
additional work done in the state. She stated that OCS receives
50 reports of child abuse or neglect per day. Most ACEs happen
to Alaska kids by age 3; therefore, waiting until early
adulthood or adulthood to address the problem is too long.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR moved on to slide 11, entitled "Overcoming
ACES in Alaska" to present the three "asks" in the resolution.
She maintained that the resolution does not request policy
changes at this time; it is more focused on raising awareness
and building the knowledge foundation around ACE, the research
that has been performed in Alaska, and the opportunity for
changing practices, improving health outcomes, and saving money.
3:25:07 PM
ALISON KULAS, Executive Director, Advisory Board on Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse (ABADA), testified that ABADA looks for the
connections that Representative Tarr mentioned and ways to work
with partners to reduce ACEs. She stated that ABADA has been
able to partner with the Department of Education and Early
Development (DEED), which created eLearning modules to inform
teachers, school staff, and community members about ACEs and
offer them a trauma-informed approach to intervening early in
life.
3:26:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt Version J as the working
document. There being no objection, Version J was before the
committee.
3:27:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX expressed her belief that ACEs cause some
real problems in adulthood. She referred to page 2 of Version
J, lines 6-10, and asked whether smoking and obesity were more
the result of parents smoking and the foods they gave their
children, rather than abuse.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR maintained that ACE research is changing the
understanding on those issues. She gave an example: many
schools are incorporating "mindfulness" activities to address
trauma by helping children self-regulate their emotions;
activities often include meditative and deep breathing
exercises. She maintained that some counselors believe that the
link between smoking and a high ACE score is because smoking
replicates a mindfulness activity; it involves deep breathing,
but in the form of smoking. She claimed that the original [ACE]
study is recent, and the information is new, therefore, has not
been broadly applied in the medical community or in public
policy yet. She emphasized the importance of the quiz and
maintained that doctors are beginning to ask their patients the
same questions [as on the ACE quiz] to better understand the
origin of behaviors.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR offered the term "epigenetics" and explained
that everyone starts out with a genetic blueprint, but it is
subject to change due to environmental exposures. She said that
there are modifications and mutations to the genetic blueprint
that may be related to later health effects.
3:30:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the quiz is in the committee
packet.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR replied, it is not. She stated that she
would provide the link to committee members. She maintained
that the collective ACE score of all 60 legislators would be
interesting information.
3:30:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL expressed his appreciation with the study
and his support of early intervention. He commented that he
believes that there are some "leaps of faith" in the numbers
provided by Representative Tarr: for example, 20 percent of
people who smoke do so because of ACEs or 20 percent of people
who drink heavily do so because of ACEs; therefore, without
ACEs, 20 percent of the costs would be eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL relayed that he recently asked the principal
at his children's school what she needed most. He said that she
replied, "I need a social worker." He offered that children in
elementary school today have more social problems than children
a generation ago; dealing with those problems earlier [in life]
would be advantageous.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR referred to page 8 of the report, entitled
"The Economic Costs of Adverse Childhood Experiences in Alaska"
[prepared by Patrick Sidmore, MSW, for ABADA and the Alaska
Mental Health Board (AMHB) and included in the committee
packet], which read, "Population attributable risk is a well-
established method in epidemiology of determining the percentage
of an outcome which is linked back to a precursor". She said
that this section of the report explains the science and
methodology of determining the percentages. She maintained that
often health data is difficult to obtain, and it is important to
continue the research.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR mentioned that the All Alaska Pediatric
Partnership (A2P2) has been encouraging physicians to have
conversations [about ACEs] with their patients; Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) has incorporated these
discussions into their standard communications with patients.
She emphasized the importance of this in dealing with the
intergenerational trauma aspect of ACE.
REPRESENTATIVE TARR stated that when one hears stories about a
person getting into trouble, he/she rarely hears that the person
came from a stable, loving home with an upbringing that offered
opportunity; more often the person had a great deal of childhood
trauma. She maintained that when looking at these issues
through the ACE lens, instead of asking, Why did you do that? or
placing the blame for the behavior entirely on the person,
whether a child or adult, ask, What happened to you? She
maintained that many of these behaviors are the result of "bad
things that have happened to people" and people are only so
resilient. Resiliency comes from protective factors, and
protective factors include a stable, loving home. Children
growing up without protective factors are hindered in their
abilities to overcome trauma experiences.
3:34:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON offered that [ACE] exists to some degree
but opined that the proposed resolution feels like "big brother"
intrusion and "social engineering." She cited page 3 of Version
J, lines 23-26, which read, "take into account the principles of
early childhood and youth brain development and, whenever
possible, consider the concepts of early adversity, toxic
stress, childhood trauma, and the promotion of resilience
through protective relationships, supports, self-regulation, and
services".
REPRESENTATIVE TARR answered that she disagrees. She relayed
that she grew up in an abusive household and watched her brother
struggle his whole life until he committed suicide. She
expressed her belief that what is proposed under HCR 2 is not
social engineering; children should not have to be beaten or
sexually abused; children are innocent and have no choice or
power in the situations into which they are brought; and caring
for children is a moral responsibility. She reminded the
committee of the 50 reports of child abuse or neglect per day
coming into OCS; over 10,000 reports per year; and in the month
of December there were several hundred reports of child sexual
abuse. She asserted that there are children suffering
unnecessarily, and the state has a role to play to end the
suffering and give these children more opportunities in life.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON responded that she did not say that
children should be abused. She emphasized that the legislature
is not for abusing children. She maintained that not passing
the resolution does not mean that the legislature is for abusing
children.
3:38:30 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HCR 2 would be held over.
HB 168-REPEAL ADMIN. REG. REVIEW COMMITTEE
HCR 10-UNIFORM RULES: REGULATION REVIEW
3:38:58 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the next two orders of
business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 168, "An Act relating to
regulation notice and review by the legislature; and relating to
the Administrative Regulation Review Committee." and HOUSE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Proposing an amendment to the
Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature relating to the
jurisdiction of standing committees.
3:39:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MIKE CHENAULT, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 168, paraphrased from the sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The purpose of House Bill 168 is to repeal the
statutes pertaining to the Administrative Regulation
Review Committee. According to the analysis provided
by Legislative Research, included in your packets, the
ARRC [Administrative Regulation Review Committee] has
not overturned any regulations as a result of these
committee hearings. Although AS 24.20.445 provides
that the committee can suspend regulations for a
"certain time period," the Alaska Supreme Court found
in a 1980 case [State v. ALIVE Voluntary], that the
Legislature has no implied power to veto agency
regulations by informal legislative action and such
actions would violate Article II of the state
Constitution. The actions available to the ARRC are
to introduce legislation to supersede or nullify
regulations. However, Legislative Research was not
able to find any effort to do so from 2003 to the
present.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT relayed that HCR 10 would allow the
jurisdiction of standing committees to oversee proposed and
adopted regulations to replace regulation oversight that is
currently under the jurisdiction of ARRC.
3:41:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL referred to page 1 of the document, entitled
"Administrative Regulation Review," prepared by Legislative
Research Services and included in the committee packet, and
noted the 15 ARRC meetings during one legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT suggested that it may have been one of
the few periods of time ARRC met on a regular basis. He
mentioned that the 15 meetings occurred during the Twenty-Eighth
Alaska State Legislature, 2013-2014, and Representative [Lora]
Reinbold was committee chair.
3:42:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if HCR 10 would repeal ARRC and give
jurisdiction back to the standing committees to review a
regulation and propose legislation to amend or repeal it.
3:43:35 PM
TOM WRIGHT, Staff, Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Chenault, prime sponsor
of HB 168 and HCR 10, responded, "Yes, that is correct." He
relayed that standing committees have jurisdiction now through
[Uniform Rule} regulations and can propose any changes they see
fit. The proposed legislation would repeal the language in
Alaska Statutes that refers to ARRC and clarify that the
standing committees can undertake regulation review if they so
choose.
3:44:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that his understanding of the Alaska
Supreme Court case is that the legislature was dissatisfied with
the way the regulations were written for statutes that were
adopted during a specific administration. The legislature is
fully empowered to subsequently rewrite the statute to realign
the regulatory interpretation. He summarized by saying that it
is not necessary to have a review committee, because a
regulation can be "fixed".
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT agreed and said whether it is by a
review committee or by a standing committee, the only way a
regulation can be changed is through legislation; it can be
accomplished by the committee or an individual.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH suggested that there is a corresponding
federal process whereby regulations can be revised after
Congress has adopted [a law]. He asked whether there is any
opposition to the proposed legislation and resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT replied that he knows of no opposition
and added that funding for regulation review is not in this
year's budget.
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS commented that Representative Birch may
have been referring to the Congressional Review Act (CRA)
[1996].
3:46:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to the last time ARRC had the
funds to hire an attorney to review the myriad of regulations
and did so.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT stated that his guess is that it
occurred in the Twenty-Ninth Alaska State Legislature, 2015-
2016, and the committee chair at that time was [former] Senator
Lesil McGuire.
3:47:00 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that HB 168 and HCR 10 would be
held over.
HJR 31-CONGRESS REVERSE FCC ON NET NEUTRALITY
3:47:28 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Urging the United States
Congress to overturn the Federal Communications Commission's
order ending net neutrality.
3:47:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT KAWASAKI, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HJR 31, paraphrased in part from his sponsor
statement, included in the committee packet, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
In December 2017, the Federal Communication Commission
(FCC) adopted an order to reverse regulations that had
established a federal broadband policy of net
neutrality and attempted to preempt states from
imposing regulations on Internet Service Providers
(ISPs).
Net neutrality protects an individual's ability to
access and transmit information on a free and open
internet. Without net neutrality, ISPs can lawfully
slow down and block access to sites and charge
customers higher rates to access certain websites,
download music or watch videos. The FCC's order to
repeal net neutrality risks making the internet into
an unfair pay-to-play system for small businesses and
individual users.
Alaska's isolation from the Lower 48 means our
citizens rely heavily on the internet for
communication, commerce and emergencies. Many Alaskan
communities already struggle to obtain stable,
affordable internet access. Alaskans First Amendment
rights of free speech, free press and free association
are also at risk without a net neutral environment
enabling the free and open flow of thoughts, ideas and
concerns over the internet.
Upon approval, this resolution would urge the United
States Congress to exercise its authority under the
Congressional Review Act to overturn the Federal
Communication Commission's regulatory decision to
reverse net neutrality protections.
3:50:40 PM
JACOB GERRISH, Staff, Representative Scott Kawasaki, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Kawasaki, prime
sponsor of HJR 31, gave a brief history of net neutrality by
paraphrasing from his written testimony, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
In the 1996 Telecom Act, Congress made a distinction
between two types of services: "telecommunications
services" (Title II) and "information services."
(Title I) "Telecommunications services" transmit a
user's information from one designated point to
another without changing the form or content of that
information. For example, a phone call transmits the
user's voice from one point to another without
changing the content of the voice message, similar to
the way a pizza delivery service transports a pizza
from the pizza parlor to someone's home. "Information
services," on the other hand, offer a user the
capability to create, store, or process information.
An information service is like a website hosting
service, an online content creator, or an online
social media service. Based on the definitions in the
1996 Telecom Act, in 2002 the FCC classified cable
broadband as an "information service," but attempted
to regulate Internet Service Providers (ISPs) as a
"telecommunications service" by imposing common
carrier-style telecommunications regulations. In this
way, the FCC attempted to enforce net neutrality
without specifically classifying ISPs as utility-style
service provider. The FCC was attempting to find a
common middle ground for net neutrality supporters and
ISPs.
In 2007 Comcast was caught slowing down people's
internet (also known as throttling) and the FCC issued
an order to stop the throttling and tell subscribers
exactly how it managed their traffic. Comcast took the
order to court and in 2010, a judge found that the FCC
lacked the authority to enforce the open internet
principles exactly because Comcast was classified as
an information service provider, and not a
telecommunications provider. Earlier that year, the
FCC Chairman, Julius Genachowski, had attempted to
bolster net neutrality rules by applying some Title II
regulations to Title I services. When those
regulations went into effect in 2011, this time they
were immediately challenged by Verizon and MetroPCS.
In 2014, DC Circuit Court Judge David Tatel again
ruled in favor of the broadband companies and found
that unless ISPs were reclassified as a Title II
"telecommunications service", it would be illegal for
the FCC to impose any common carrier regulations on
them. In that ruling, he specifically stated,
"Broadband providers represent a threat to internet
openness."
MR. GERRISH relayed that since 1996, the FCC has intended to
regulate net neutrality; however, it found through the various
court cases that to do so would require reclassifying ISPs as
Title II telecommunication services. He stated that the 2017
FCC rule-making proposal reclassified the ISPs as Title I
services, thereby eliminating the authority of the federal
government to enforce net neutrality.
3:54:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH opined that "I think we're kind of getting
the cart ahead of horse here." He offered that the law is in
the process of being changed; Alaska has an opportunity to weigh
in on this issue through its congressional delegation; and he
suggested that those who were around during the time of rotary
phones remember the days of heavy-handed government regulation
involved in the phone service, which kept that phone in place
for many years. He opined that the proposed resolution would
interject government regulation into a process that arguably has
advanced the United States; from a technology and internet
standpoint, the country has done very well. He maintained that
he is concerned with having the regulatory engagement throttled
back and managed in the way proposed.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH stated that he does not support HJR 31 and
its objective and believes it is unnecessary because Alaska's
congressional delegation will be taking a hard look at the
issue. He added that he is not sure the Congressional Review
Act is the appropriate vehicle in this situation. He offered
that he understands the intent of the proposed resolution but is
skeptical that inviting the government in to manage the effort
is good for the end consumer.
3:56:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked for confirmation of his understanding
that the "failure" was due to ISPs not being classified as Title
II services, proposed in the court case, but remaining
classified as Title I services.
MR. GERRISH answered that before 2015, ISPs were classified as
Title I information service providers. When they were caught
slowing down the internet, the FCC issued an order requiring
them to stop. The ISPs took the issue to court and the ruling
stated that under Title I, the FCC did not have enforcement
powers. In 2015, the FCC reclassified ISPs as Title II
telecommunication service providers; the FCC was taken to court
again, resulting in the order for net neutrality regulations to
be upheld. He relayed that under Title II, the federal
government has enforcement powers, under Title I, it does not.
The 2017 [FCC] resolution [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)]
returned ISP classification back to Title I; therefore, the FCC
has no powers to enforce net neutrality.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked why the FCC returned ISP
classification back to Title I.
MR. GERRISH replied that he believed the decision was subject to
the opinion of the FCC chairman at the time.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP expressed that he does not understand the
potential outcome of the repeal of net neutrality. He offered
his understanding that with the repeal, internet speed and
services would be subjective, while with net neutrality,
government mandates open and equal access to the internet.
MR. GERRISH agreed.
3:59:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX cited the sponsor statement, which read,
"The FCC's decision is extremely unpopular with the American
public. A survey conducted by the University of Maryland found
that 83 percent of Americans opposed repealing net neutrality."
She asked whether the survey was a "push poll"; she questioned
whether 83 percent of Americans even know what net neutrality
is, let alone have an opinion on it.
MR. GERRISH answered that the survey is included in the
committee packet for review. He expressed his belief that it
was not a push poll; the breakdown of responses by party
affiliation revealed that both Democrats and Republicans support
net neutrality.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX pointed out that the goal of the proposed
resolution is to have the issue addressed by the U.S. Congress
under the Congressional Review Act. She suggested that since
net neutrality was repealed in December 4, 2017, and submission
to the U.S. Congress for reversal of the rule under the Act must
be done within 60 days, in the time it would take the
legislature to act on the resolution, that deadline would have
passed.
MR. GERRISH expressed his belief that the 60 days begins after
the new regulation has been added to the Federal Register, and
that has not occurred yet.
4:01:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK commented that his 26-year-old son, who
doesn't follow any legislation, has expressed strong support
along with his friends for net neutrality; it is an issue
important to people who spend a great deal of time on the
internet.
4:02:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL commented that he has followed the net
neutrality issue throughout its history; he noted that many
millions of people commented to the FCC about the issue; he
agreed that it is a very important issue; and he expressed his
concern that without net neutrality, consumers will be paying
extra for access to certain internet websites in addition to
their monthly data plans. He stated that he supports the intent
of the proposed resolution.
4:03:27 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced HJR 31 would be held over.
4:04:03 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 4:04
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HCR002 Sponsor Statement 2.22.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 ver J 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Fiscal Note LEG 02.02.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Article ABADA.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Article ABADA-AMHB.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Article CDC Injury Prevention & Control Division of Violence Prevention.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Article Felitti.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Article Yosef.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Letter of Support AK Resilience Initiative 1.9.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR002 Supporting Document- Letter of Support Planned Parenthood 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HCR 002 Additional Document- Presentation on Overcoming Adverse Childhood Experiences in AK 02.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 2 |
| HB168 Sponsor Statement-01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168-Sectional Analysis-01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168A 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168-Fiscal Note LEG-02.02.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168-Additional Document- Leg Research-Meetings-01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168 Additional Document State v ALIVE Voluntary summary and headnotes-2018 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HB168 Additional Document- Statutes Cited 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HB 168 |
| HCR 10-Sponsor Statement-01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR10A 01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR10 Fiscal Note LEG-02-02-18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10 Additional Document-Uniform Rule 20-01.22.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HJR31 Sponsor Statement 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 ver A 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31-LEG-SESS-02-02-18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Dec. 14 Article Business Insider 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Dec. 15 Article Business Insider 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Dec. 15 Article NPR 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Governor's Letter 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Letter to Attorney General Lindemuth 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Letter to Congressional Delegation 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Letter to Senator Murkowski 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Portugal Payment Package Example 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-Rep. Kawasaki Letter to Governor 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Documents 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Documents-Fraudulent Comments from Alaska 02.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Documents-Groups Apposed to Reversing Net Neutrality 02.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Documents-Pew Study 02.05.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Supporting Document-University of Maryland Survey 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Additional Document-Dec. 13 Article Business Insider 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Additional Document-Jan. 4 FCC Order 1.29.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Additional Document- ATA Net Neutrality Letter to House State Affairs HJR31 2.06.18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |
| HJR31 Additional Document- ATA Net Neutrality FAQ 2.06 18.pdf |
HSTA 2/6/2018 3:00:00 PM HSTA 2/8/2018 3:00:00 PM |
HJR 31 |