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.