House Labor & Commerce Committee

This meeting of the House Labor and Commerce Committee will come to order. The time is 4:50 PM on April 29th. Members present are Representative Carrick, Representative Freer, Co-Chair Fields, and myself, Co-Chair Hall. We have a quorum. Please silence your cell phones.

I'd like to thank Andrew Magnuson, the Labor and Commerce Committee Secretary, and Menzo Moises with the Juneau L.A.O. For their support. We have 5 bills on the agenda today. Please note that SB 164 has been rescheduled to our May 1st meeting on Friday. Today on the agenda we have SB 21, Alaska Work and Save Program Retire Savings Board, by Senator Wielechowski.

SB 258, Contract Licensing Software Applications, by Senator Jessie Keel. HB 325, Industrial Hemp, by Rep. McCade. HB 234, PERS Emergency Dispatchers, by myself, Co-Chair Hall. HB 350, Qualified Entity Income Tax, by Co-Chair Fields. We will also consider two governor's appointees: Heather Crivello to the Board of Nursing and Rebecca Bombs to the Board of Pharmacy.

We will now move to our first hearing for SB 21, Alaska Work and Save Program, Retire Savings Board, by Senator Wielekowski. Thank you, Senator, for being here.

Thank you, Miss Maxine LaBerge, for being here. Thank you also, Representative Costello. Please identify yourselves for the record and begin your presentation. Thank you and good afternoon. For the record, Bill Wilkowski, State Senator representing East Anchorage, joined by Maxine LaBerge in my office.

I'm Mia Costello, Representative for District 15 in Anchorage. Thank you. I know you're familiar with this, this bill or a version of this bill. This is the Alaska Work and Safe Program. It's a bill that has been introduced in a number of states all across the country.

All across the political spectrum. It is a bill which I think provides very necessary relief for small businesses, helps them set up a retirement system at no cost to provide— we believe there's about 100,000 Alaskans who may be eligible for a retirement savings plan under this at no cost for the employer. The, the, the big hindrance that small businesses have is that setting up one of these programs can cost anywhere from $4,000 to over $10,000. It's complex. It takes time.

This would provide a system where the state fundamentally acts as the fiduciary. I have a number of slides here. We're going to go through this really quickly. And we had a number of testifiers online, but because of the delay, I think we may have lost some of them. But I'll turn it over— I don't know how you want to proceed, Madam Chair, but I can have Ms. LaBerge walk through this if you would like.

Thank you, Senator Wielekowski. I'd like the record to reflect that we were joined by Representative Calhoun at 4:52. And yes, Ms. LaBerge, please continue with your presentation. And Senator Wielekowski, we, we have one invited testifier online right now, and that is Ms. Marge Stonking with AARP.

Thank you. Maxine LaBerge, staff to Senator Wielekowski. The next few slides here are information on the bill and why it's important, which I know the committee received some excellent testimony on Monday when Representative Costello presented her bill. I I was wondering if you would like me to review that information or skip to the differences in the two bills right now. If you could skip to the two different— to the differences, that would be great, Ms. LaBerge.

Thank you. Absolutely. So we're going to skip to the end of this. So SB 21, Alaska Work and Save, has moved through the other body. In the Senate Finance Committee, we were able to work with several members to make a couple of changes to the bill.

And these are the only changes that should be different between HB 338 and SB 21. SB 21. Our approach here is to take a little bit of a lighter touch with businesses. So a couple of changes were made. We first, we did an exemption for businesses with 5 or fewer employees and also for businesses that have been in operation for 3 years or less.

So this bill would only apply to businesses with 5 or more employees that have been operational and for over 3 years. Um, we also removed fines and penalties, and in doing that, we removed the Department of Labor from this bill, and we placed compliance responsibilities back with the Department of Revenue. Um, and then lastly, we added a provision that the administrator should be, um, watching federal legislation to ensure that participants in the Alaska Work and Safe program are able to take advantage of federal incentives like the one that is offered in the SECURE Act 2.0, which you might have heard of, which, um, is a longer story which I'm happy to provide details on if you're interested in. So those are the main changes that we made in SB 21, and I just wanted to give Representative Costello an opportunity to comment on the differences between the bills. Madam Chair, is that your desire?

Please. Thank you. So yes, I'm in support of the changes made to the legislation. I think it, it has a nod towards some exemptions that are really important in relation to the size of the business and how new the business is that will make it easier for implementation. And I want to thank my Senate sponsor for this legislation and helping work on that in that body with these changes.

Great. Thank you, Representative Costello. Thank you, Ms. LaRouche. With that, we will turn to invited testimony, and we have Ms. Marge Stoneking online, the State Director of Advocacy with AARP. Ms. Stoneking, would you please put yourself on the record and begin your testimony?

Thank you. This is Marge Stoneking, AARP Advocacy Director. Thank you for having me back. I was really just going to be online for questions today. I will just reiterate the testimony provided by my colleague in Government Affairs on the importance of restoring some compliance mechanism to this bill so that we can join another state's partnership to make this viable.

So that all Alaska workers who are eligible can have the opportunity, can have a chance at a secure retirement. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stoneking. Does the committee have questions for Ms. Stoneking or for the bill sponsor? Representative Colon.

I do for the bill sponsor. Please. And I don't know if the department's here, but through the chair to maybe whoever can answer. So with the changes, I saw the fiscal notes a little hefty, and so did the changes change that fiscal note? So it sounds like Department of Labor is out, but the DOR remains.

Thank you, Representative Kahlom. Through the chair, Bill Likowski, for the record. We had a meeting with the Department of Revenue. Yeah, I agree, the fiscal note is a little hefty, and I was surprised that they need that many people. I know similar types of legislation in other states— Delaware, for example, they do it for $179,000.

We are working with the department to try to get that the number down because we do think it is higher than it should be. Yes, so through the chair, follow-up. Follow-up. Yeah, I support the bill. I just, you know, I was surprised at that.

And it does seem— so, so this bill though would join the compact, right? And so there is a fee for the compact, correct? Through the chair, Representative Kholm, yes, there is a fee for the compact. We don't know the exact amount. We're told it's between $200,000 and $300,000.

That would be That would be in the first year. And then after that, the plan is to have this be as close to self-funded as possible. And it's self-funded in the sense that employees pay— they would sign up for an investment, whether maybe an S&P 500 investment, for example. And then there'd be a few basis points that would essentially fund the program. What some other states do is they charge a fee, whether it's a small monthly fee or a small yearly fee.

To help cover any extra costs on top of that. And that's one of the things that we explored with the Department of Revenue today, to try to again get that fiscal note down, because I agree, it is, is much higher than it probably should be. Yeah, for sure. And one more follow-up. Follow-up.

And so does this bill have the permanent fund option too, to throw some of your dividend in? It's through the chair, uh, Representative Coleman. Yes, it does. And I— and we've had some conversations with Representative Sadler. I understand he may have another idea which we're open to discussion.

Okay, right. Thank you. Thank you. Additional questions from the committee for the bill sponsor?

Seeing none, do you have any closing comments, Senator Wielechowski or Representative Costello? No, thank you. Okay, with that, we are going to set an amendment deadline for this bill, for SB 21. We're going to set the amendment deadline for tomorrow at 5 PM, and with that, we will set this bill aside and move on to the next item on our agenda. Thank you for being here.

Okay, okay, the next item on our agenda is SB 258, Contract Licensing Software Applications, by Senator Jesse Keele. Senator Keele and staff Honor Miller Austin, please join us at the table. Thank you for being here. Thank you for Presenting to House Labor and Commerce, please identify yourselves for the record and begin your bill presentation. Thank you, uh, Madam Chair, co-chair, Mr. Co-chairman, and members of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.

Um, for your records, my name is Jesse Keel, and I have the privilege of representing Northern Southeast Alaska Senate District B. With me this afternoon is Honor Miller Austin of my staff. Thank you, Madam Chair. And as I've talked to you here and introduced myself and begun preparing, of course I've messed up my tech. What better beginning to a software licensing bill.

Madam Chair, software improves productivity across every level of government. We use it for just about everything, and the few things we don't, we're desperately trying to start. In recent years, some software licensing agreements have started to sprout terms that require users, require customers to move existing applications or new application licenses they buy to the vendor's preferred cloud environment instead of letting an agency operate those systems on their own servers or the cloud environment of their choosing. Senate Bill 258's fundamental premise is that should be a decision left to the customer, left to the market. It should be decision based on things like price, quality, security, technical.

Specifications. All of those things should factor in, but no vendor should have the ability to, uh, require a public entity to use, uh, exclusively their cloud environment. Protecting Alaska's treasury and Alaska local governments from this kind of artificial lock-in is fiscally responsible. Competition ultimately lowers costs. So, Senate Bill 258 is the fix.

It simply says that software licenses cannot restrict where the state or political subdivision chooses to run applications they buy. The bill, I should note, does not stop an agency from going with All One for the software and the cloud services, all that stuff, if they so choose. If somebody offers a smokin' deal and it meets all your specs, You should be able to take it. SB 258 does not mess with that. The key here is who chooses.

It should be the level of government accountable to the citizens and the Treasury that makes that decision. This isn't one of those red team, blue team bills. I'll just note that the Council of State Governments points to a model act for this. It comes from New Hampshire. It's been passed by the state of Indiana, among others.

It's also part of ALEC model legislation. Has been passed by Ohio, West Virginia. This is one of those situations where good government, good fiscal management, and free enterprise all line up. With that, Madam Chair, I am happy to answer questions. I believe we also have one invited testifier on your telephone.

Thank you, Senator Kiel. Yes, I believe we have Mr. Scott Drexel online with the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing. Mr. Drexel, if you're online, will you please identify yourself for the record and be please begin your testimony.

Great, thank you very much, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Scott Drexel, pardon me, and I'm appearing before you on behalf of the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing. I'm here today to support SB 258, and my organization is again the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing. We're comprised of American companies representing a cross-section of industries. From healthcare and financial services to manufacturing, software, and, and cloud and cybersecurity providers.

The, the purpose of SB 258 is very simple. It's just to ensure that a contract entered into by a state agency for the purchase of software that is designed to run on generally available server hardware doesn't artificially restrict the state's ability to deploy that software in the infrastructure environment that best fits the particular needs of the agency. As Senator Keele noted already, 7 states have already enacted this legislation, really because it's a technology procurement good housekeeping bill. It frees the state up to make its own technology decisions based on a variety of different factors from cybersecurity and cyber resilience to cost savings, to being able to utilize new technologies from emerging vendors in a way that matches the sort of specific and unique needs of each individual entity. The need for this legislation arises out of a change that happened about 6 years ago.

So prior to 2019, the industry standard was known as BYOL, or bring your own license. And under that model, once a customer purchased software, they were free to deploy that software in the environment of their choosing, whether that was a cloud service provider, whether that was on-site servers, on-premise servers. But that changed and really arising out of no particular technical necessity. It was really just a way that that some large technology providers were attempting to utilize the popularity of some of their software to force their customers to use their cloud secure or cloud service offerings. This sort of removes that artificial restriction.

It puts the choice back in the hands of the people who know the state's needs best, whether that's central IT or procurement office. And, uh, allows the, the state to take advantage of, you know, free and open competition, which, um, you know, it fosters innovation and drives cost savings. So I'm happy to answer any questions anybody has, but, um, thank you for, for being willing to take the time on this today. Thank you, Mr. Drexel. We have a question from Co-Chair Fields.

Thank you. Through the chair, Mr. Drexel, who funds the CFSL? Which companies are sort of behind your organization?

So, public funders of the Coalition for Fair Software Licensing include Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, but there are about 22 different members, some of whom are confidential by their own Sort of reasons for that are fear of retaliation, frankly, for speaking out against one of their largest vendors and providers. But those, those, those two are public. There are about 18, 19 others as well. Got it. Could I ask a follow-up?

Follow-up. So which large, say, competitors are not a member of your organization?

Uh, sorry, through the chair.

The companies that are involved in it, and there's also some nonprofit groups, span a variety of industries. But I mean, it would take a long time to list out everybody who's not a member. But, you know, Microsoft is not a member. Oracle is not a member. There are— SAP is not a member.

Those are companies that I chose those three in particular because they tend to lean a little bit more heavily into the kind of restrictive software licensing practices companies that I mentioned. I typically don't like to single any of them out, but you know, just to answer your question honestly and thoroughly, those companies are not members because they tend to be a little bit more aggressive on the type of restrictive licensing practices that we're attempting to address with this legislation. Okay, thank you. We have a question from Representative Freer. Thank you.

Here through the co-chair, I, I'm looking at the fiscal note and it came to Senate Community and Regional Affairs back in the middle of March. I'm curious if the State Information Officer has an update or if we are anticipating an update on the fiscal note or if we should expect to continue to see a zero fiscal. Thank you, Representative Freer. We do not have anybody from the state on the line, but Senator Keel, do you have any information that you can provide on that? Thank you, Madam Chair.

In answer to Representative Freer's question, the bill has not changed since the initial fiscal note, and as I have talked with the Department of Administration through the budget process and occasionally the Office of Information Technology, they have not expressed any changed analysis as the bill has moved forward through the Senate process. So I don't currently anticipate any updates. Certainly they haven't indicated that any are coming. Okay, thank you, Senator Kiel. Representative Kollom.

Thank you, through the chair. Well, maybe this is to Mr. Drexel. I don't know, I'll pose it, maybe you can answer it, Senator Kiel. So I'm not a tech person, so let's get down to like really elementary here. So it's my understanding that the state uses Microsoft.

That's the license, that's the software we have. And what Drexel is saying is that Microsoft can require us to use their cloud and we're not free to use other clouds. That's— is that the problem we're trying to solve? Senator Keele?

Madam Chair, in answer to Representative Kahlom's question, the state does heavily use Microsoft products for our enterprise backbone. And my concern in addressing Senate Bill 258, I don't know if the current contract has the provisions I'm worried about or not. I'm worried that the next one shouldn't. That's my focus.

Titans are going to clash. And Madam Chair, I apologize for being overly blunt. I don't care. What I care about is the public treasury and whether we're making decisions based on —those things that we all care about, quality, security, life cycle cost, things like that. So I do not know whether the current contract has the kind of provisions that this bill would address.

I am concerned that the next one shouldn't. If the current vendor offers us the absolute best deal on all the qualifications, we should go with them. That's not for the legislature to decide. Nor does Senate Bill 258 decide it. Okay, so follow up, you're just looking for choice— choice— oh, Mr. Drexel, sorry.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Drexel. Through the chair, if I could please, if I might add to that. Um, so any, any contract that, that was signed after 2019, um, the, the provisions exist in, in the terms of service, which can change at any point. So, uh, yes, it.

It would be in there. I want to be clear that the state buys all kinds of different software from all kinds of different vendors. This isn't targeted at any one of them in particular, but the idea is that, yes, when you have a product— we'll just take, you know, like an Office 365 that is designed and technically capable of being installed on any hardware environment. There are restrictions that the vendor currently places on which of its competitors you may use that software with. And ultimately, it's really just a business tactic, but it's one that comes with a significant cost.

All this does is it sort of removes the sort of artificial coupling of the purchase of software to the environment. There's a very specific wording in the current legislation that says generally available desktop or server hardware. That language specifically carves out software as a service because those products are not intended to be installed on different servers that run on proprietary clouds. So the answer to your question is yes, as of right now, if you have a contract with a vendor like Microsoft, and again, I'm not speaking to their, contract with the state directly. That is prohibited from being run on several competitors and heavily restricted on several others.

Representative Kollum? Yeah, can I do a follow-up? Yes, please. I guess this is for the bill sponsor. So I'm interested, have you spoken to, or how does the chief information officer for the state feel about it?

Has he had any input on this? Madam Chair, in answer to Representative Kahlom's question, I did put the question to the state CIO. I don't believe we have an official position from the administration, but I drafted the bill accordingly. And I will just note that given the state's heavy use of products, as I discussed earlier, there is a zero fiscal note. If I may, Madam Chair, I think it is worth noting that, as, as Mr. Drexel said, the state does use all kinds of software.

Our IRIS system, which is HR and some payroll stuff, is made, I think, by CGI. It was recently lifted to the cloud, and I believe it was lifted to the Azure cloud environment. That's fine. The bill is not intended to tell the state of Alaska where— from the legislature, which cloud we, we must or shall use. What it would prevent is if somebody else bought CGI and they couldn't tell the state, you're going to have to move that out of the Azure cloud and run it on ours.

Okay. I have another question, but I can wait. I'll add you to the bottom of the queue. We— next we have Representative Carrick, followed by Co-Chair Fields, and then Representative Kolomegan. Awesome.

Thank you, Coach Rahal. I have two questions. Maybe I'll just ask the first one first and then go to the bottom of the queue. But I guess my question is, is if this is good language for the state and for state entities, is it broad enough for private users? Are companies also similarly limited, and do they need clarity in statute as well to conduct business on this issue and/or are individual users when purchasing products similarly limited from what they can download?

And I'll just echo Rep. Kahlom's statement. I'm not the most technologically savvy, so you might have to walk me through that. Madam Chair, um, in answer to Representative Carrick's question, this bill does not impact, uh, private sector deals or contracts, um, nor does it impact, uh, the individual software market. Um, My goal in Senate Bill 258 was to protect the public treasury, the taxpayer or the citizen's dollar. I have not run this bill through any of the business groups in the state to see what they would think of it, and so I am somewhat reluctant to get deeply involved into the private sector market without an understanding of those dynamics.

So the impact of the bill is limited to the public sector.

Okay. We will come back to you, Representative Carrick. Co-chair Fields. Through the Chair, I would appreciate if the bill sponsor would inform us about other states that have done this and whether they had any loss in efficiency. I mean, there is some benefit to using a system across departments, for example.

Definitely sympathetic to the bill, but just want to make sure we aren't unwittingly creating inefficiency. There's too many examples of that when departments shift from one platform to another. So just would appreciate that background if you don't have it on hand, maybe as a follow-up. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm happy to answer Representative Field's question.

Now, um, you know, just Ohio and Illinois, you've got 25 million Americans and their state and local governments. When you add in West Virginia, New Hampshire, Missouri, Colorado, Indiana, um, you've added at least 10 million more. I'm not sure. So, um, the effect that's had is that the market has contracts available, uh, that work under the terms of this bill. Even if that were not the case, uh, I'll remind the committee that The text of the bill lets a public sector entity choose to go all one, should they elect to.

So I had contact with one municipality that said, "We really like what we've got. Why would you make us change it?" And the answer is, "I won't." The bill doesn't. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MILLER] Follow-up? [Speaker:COMMISSIONER MAY] I just wanted to ask through the Chair if you all have looked at what happened in those states with respect to software systems. Management to see if there have been any unanticipated developments as a result of passage of this bill.

Doesn't seem like there would be, but I was just hoping that you would check. That's all. Thank you, Madam Chair. To answer Representative Fields' question, we did a little looking. We did not find reported problems or cost increases.

Thank you, Senator Keele. Representative Kolumb. Yeah, so through the chair to the bill sponsor, mine was around increases too. So usually in business, when you're trying to encourage your customer to use the cloud and licensing or anything, there's usually a discount or some incentive to keep it together. So I guess I'd need to talk to the CIO if we're under that, any kind of those kinds of discounts.

But is there anything in the bill that would keep a software company from kind of penalizing you for not taking, using their cloud?

Madam Chair, in answer to Representative Kolumb's question, I think that's where the market forces come in. Should Megacorp X say, "Use mine or I'm going to charge you more for the license," Megacorp Y is very likely to come in at a better price. A follow-up. I see that Mr. Drexel might have a brief comment, I hope. Mr. Drexel, and you are muted.

My apologies. At the end of the day, through the chair, I— that's precisely why legislation like this is needed. To the extent a vendor comes in and threatens the state with removing bundled pricing. That's what allows, as Senator Kiel mentioned, other vendors to be able to offer their goods and services at competitive prices. I can give you two specific examples, both at the federal level.

One was a 2020 contract renewal with the Department of— Agriculture, in which they had— they asked that very question. There were perceived switching costs as they looked to migrate away from a single vendor to another. And there was a big complaint filed with the government, with the GAO, that in their subsequent investigation, they found that the department had missed out on $112 million in savings. They paid $170 million for one set of productivity software when there was a comparable offering from another major technology provider that would have been less than $60 million. There's a second example that's sort of the reverse of this that was the Department of Transportation in 2025 took advantage of sort of an open bidding process, migrated to, I believe it was Google Workspace and realized a 71% savings almost instantly.

And I think the lesson there is any vendor who tells you that competition leads to increased cost is really making a veiled threat. Because it's just a general tenet of free enterprise that more competition leads to at least the potential for lower cost, and it keeps all the parties at the table operating, you know, with their best offers.

In front of them. Follow-up? Brief follow-up? Yes, so I'm all for the free market. I understand that.

The problem is, in this case, if you have a state that runs HR and like half their departments on Microsoft, it's not so easy just to switch. And so I'm just a— it feels like the states are a little bit at an unfair advantage. It's kind of— I mean, a decision to get a cheaper license or cheaper vendor does come with a cost to time and headache. So that's, I guess that's what I was concerned about. Through the chair, absolutely.

But the state should have the opportunity to assess that, that option. Ultimately, if the state decides it wants to spend all of its technology resources on a single provider to provide cloud services and productivity software and security software, That's okay, the state should be able to do that. They should be able to factor in cost and cybersecurity and everything that they need to, as long as it's their decision. I think what we don't want, and there are multiple examples of this, I can cite one off the top of my head in a large school district in the state of Georgia, where as the school district decided it wanted to migrate its its, to the cloud, all of the software that they had purchased became instantly non-transferable and the school district was faced with a multimillion dollar bill in order to repurchase all new content, new licenses to be able to run them in the place that they wanted to run them. This is a school district.

This isn't, you know, this isn't a place where there's, you know, a bunch of money sitting around somewhere. So I think that the idea isn't that that the states should be forced to take on any kind of expensive undertaking. It's that they should have the option to evaluate their opportunities. Thank you, Chair. Representative Carrick.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. So I guess in addition to the potential for cost increase concerns from other states, I am curious too about unintended security consequences. So if you have departments potentially using different platforms and sharing data. Do we have any information about whether that has had any unintended security issues with data not using a uniform system? And I recognize that this bill is really just providing the option for choice, but I am just wondering about if you, if you provide the option, the option will be taken up by some entities in the state, most likely.

So have there been any unintended security issues in the states that have done this that you know of? Madam Chair, in answer to Representative Karaka, uh, I am not aware of any. I have not seen any, uh, generally reported. Um, as you noted, nothing in the bill, uh, stops a or prevents a, a security concern, a security requirement from being in place.

Is it theoretically possible that someone could— I guess, as long as— I'm trying to think of a way that could work. If the software works, it should work, and if it doesn't work, it shouldn't be something— it won't run on the server system within the cloud. Senator Kiel, it looks like Mr. Drexel has some comments. Mr. Drexel, could you please keep your comments very brief? We're under a time crunch this evening.

Thank you. Yes, through the chair, just to answer your question very directly, cyber resilience increases through vendor diversification. So the more you are siloed with a single vendor, a vulnerability in one becomes very quickly a vulnerability in all of them. So part of the benefit of allowing procurement offices and central IT the ability to diversify the vendors is that you're mitigating cybersecurity risk at the same time.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair, maybe a comparison, a simile.

Some apps just won't run on an iPhone 3, no matter how much I want it.

Senator Keele, you have some catching up to do.

Are there further questions from the committee? Okay, not seeing any. Senator Keele and Ms. Honor Austin-Muller, thank you very much for your time. We are going to set this bill aside for a future date.

Please let the record reflect that we were joined by Representative Sadler at 5:26 PM. Thank you, Mr. Drexel, for your time and expertise. Our third bill on the agenda this evening is HB 325, Industrial Hemp, by Representative McCabe. Representative McCabe, thank you for joining us this evening. Would you please give us a brief recap of your bill?

Thank you, Madam Chair. So HB 325, the Industrial Hemp Bill, updates industrial hemp statutes to ensure Our regulatory framework is clear, predictable, and aligned with federal law while protecting small agricultural producers from unnecessary bureaucracy. Industrial hemp is an agricultural crop, not marijuana, and it should be regulated accordingly. Since federal legalization under the 2018 Farm Bill, states have been responsible for implementing hemp programs that comply with federal standards. This bill ensures Alaska statutes reflect that framework in a structured and responsible way.

The bill requires federally compliant testing methodology, maintains the 0.3% THC standard, and preserves the 1% destruction threshold consistent with federal enforcement practices. For hemp testing between 0.3% and 1%, the bill prioritizes remediation and compliance rather than automatic punitive action. Enforcement remains fear— firm but fair and predictable. And I think I'll stop there, Madam Chair. I know you're under a time crunch.

And thank you, Representative McCabe. We have a question from Coach Fields. Uh, thank you through the chair. Yeah, I do support the bill, and I just had a couple of questions looking at potential amendments. Um, I was curious about the— on page 3, there's a 1,000-meter isolation distance, and I am guessing that is based on seed dispersal or something similar?

I guess, how do we know that's the right number? Thank you. Thank you. Through the co-chair, Representative Fields, it has to do with the flowers and the cross-pollination and bees, I think. I'm not that conversant on the actual, you know, husbandry that goes along with it for that, but I do know that I had a conversation with Ms. Sarah Williams who testified here, and they are concerned that cross-pollination would increase the THC level in what they're trying to keep it, you know, underneath the 0.3.

I have a follow-up. Follow-up? I guess, so if there was an— if you had an industrial hemp operation and someone came in with a marijuana operation that was also legal, what gives? Does the industrial hemp have to stop, or could this be used to say, hey, well, we have an existing industrial hemp operation, so you gotta grow your marijuana somewhere else. Through the co-chair, Representative Fields, I don't think that we have contemplated, you know, sectioning them off or saying you can't grow one next to the other.

I think there is a version of hemp that does— is not flowering. And I know Miss Williams, and she might even be online, I'm not sure, she might be able to answer this better. I see that Miss Williams is online for public testimony, but I also see Miss Amy Sites, policy director of the Alaska Farm Bureau, is online for questions. Who Who do you prefer, Representative McCabe? I would bet that, with all due respect to Amy, I would bet that Sarah can answer this one better.

Okay. Ms. Williams, do you need the question repeated to you? No, I'm following. Okay. Nope, I'm following.

This is Sarah Williams, Secret Seeds Foundation. Thank you so much for the referral. So let me just give some quick breakdown. So you're correct, like what would happen if there was an outdoor grow of a cannabis farm right next to to a hemp farm, could there be cross-pollination? Absolutely.

That could happen if there is sunflowers right next to the hemp farm. There could be cross-pollination. That is the way nature works. And so the element at question here is THC. The element at question here is could the cannabis strain cross-pollinate with the hemp strain and could we have an increase in THC at that point?

And so at that point, I think this is why the— The nature of the bill is the way it is because once you get to the point of testing for THC, you're a little too far in to back out at that point, right? The farmer has put forth their effort, their time, and their money and their investment. And so to criminalize them over something they don't necessarily have control over seems a little extra, seems a little too much. So at this point, this amendment to the bill says, hey, how about We approach it with some re-meeting.

Some better approaches so that we don't criminalize someone for something they had no control over, but they tried hard to meet the regulations as per they were written. Follow-up, Co-Chair? Through the Chair, so 1,000 meters is a long way. It's more than half a mile, and I just, I just want to make sure we're not being overly restrictive in where people can grow industrial hemp. And I am curious, I mean, If the department's establishing an isolation distance, then I would think if there was an industrial hemp operation, it would preclude cannabis from being located within 1,000 meters.

I'm actually fine with that. I just want to understand the sequence. That is, kind of, you respect whoever was there first, or are we prioritizing industrial hemp? And I'm, I'm fine with any of them. I just want to understand how it's going to work with the department, and I want to make sure that it shouldn't be a shorter distance, frankly, to— because you have one operation and shoot, suddenly you've got a fairly large radius of mileage around you.

So anyway, if the sponsor has— and I'm not expecting an answer right now— the sponsor has feedback and it should be a smaller distance, I could run an amendment for that. Okay, thanks. And through the co-chair, Representative Fields, so yeah, one of the reasons for that spacing is for the cross-pollination, right? And one of the reasons for the remediation area between 0.3 and 1.0 is so that if you should get some form of cross-pollination and you get a little bit higher THC level you don't have to automatically just destroy your crop. That was what was killing the farmers that had tried it before, is they plant a crop and like Ms. Williams said, then all of a sudden there's a little bit of cross-pollination, somehow it tests high, and by the time it's high, our growing season is almost done.

You can't replant and you have to destroy it all, so you're out all the seeds and all the efforts. So we want to make sure that they're not doing it illegally. So there are things in the bill that say that you can't You know, frequent flyers are gonna, are gonna have a problem. They're gonna have to figure out how it's happening, or if they're doing it intentionally, that'll be even worse problem. But yeah, I mean, I'm, I'm happy to get a little more information on the, on the spacing and see if there's a way to mitigate it.

Keep in mind, I'm not 100% sure, but a lot of grow operations for marijuana in Alaska are indoors. Yeah. We actually have a— I'd like to turn to Representative Carrick and we'll come back to you, Co-Chair Fields. Representative Carrick. Thank you, Co-Chair.

I just wanted to add to this conversation. I kind of agree with Rep— or Co-Chair Fields. I don't know if we need to put in statute a specific distance, but I'll just say there are exceedingly few outdoor marijuana operations in Alaska. One of them, of like 3 to 5 in the whole state, is in my district. And just speaking with that individual farmer, He would never contemplate putting industrial hemp on the property because of the risk of cross-pollination, thereby making his hemp crop completely useless.

So I think farmers tend to self-regulate on this. So I don't know if we need it in statute, but I— it is a legitimate problem. And for the very few number of growers that are growing outdoor marijuana, they're probably not going to be in the industrial hemp business just because of that potential for cross-pollination. Grow nation. Okay, Coach Airfields.

Uh, I, I just don't know the industry well enough, so I'm looking at page 3, allow a harvest window of not more than 30 days after sample collection and with possible, with permissible extensions. And again, I just want to make sure we're not being, um, excessively restrictive in the bill. And what's the rationale around 30 days? And should we consider something slightly different? And just want to ask that.

It's probably another—. Through the chair. There you go. Is that Miss Williams? Yes, it is.

This is Miss Williams. It's a good— see, it's probation. I'd like to give some response to that. These regulations were written by, uh, the industrial hemp program, right? They were written by— I cannot pronounce Phil's last name, but one day I'll learn how to do that.

Um, but Phil over there, they wrote those, and the intention for the 30-day is because at the point of harvest is when your THC quantity is highest. After 30 days you begin to degrade and so you're going to get a sample that is incorrect and not an ample— I guess not a good indication of where it was at the time of harvest. Thank you for the explanation. Okay. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Madam Chair. To the sponsor, Representative Cave, I have some familiarity with the Plant Material Center, the PMC, out in Palmer. And I know that part of what they do is they try and have certification of seeds. Would the PMC have any participation in the industrial hemp seed certification program? Through the chair, Representative Sadler, 100%.

Good. Right on. Good. Gives me some great confidence. Thank you.

I was multitasking. Representative Sadler, who is that question for? I apologize. I got it. You already answered it.

Oh, okay, great. I, I'm not known for my multitasking. Great. Further questions from the committee? Okay, seeing none.

We noticed, uh, public testimony, so I am going to open public testimony. Is there anyone in the room who'd like to provide public testimony? Seeing none, I will turn online, and I will say I'm going to have to limit public testimony to just 2 minutes. We're in a very tight time crunch with that. Ms. Williams, do you have anything additional that you would like to share?

I see that you're in the queue for public testimony. No, I gave my testimony. I just wanted to be available for questions should I need to be. Thank you so much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Williams.

Next in the queue is Lindsay Poole with Sacred Seeds Foundation calling from Wasilla. Ms. Poole, do you have public testimony?

Uh, yes, yes, I have a very quick statement. I thank you all for the time and here I go. Article 1, Section 2 of the Alaska State Constitution states: All political power is inherent in the people. All government is founded upon their will only and is instituted solely for the good of the people as a whole. Hemp is good for the people as a whole.

It is carbon sequestering both pre-harvest and post-production in hempcrete applications. It is good for jobs in many industries including farming, food, construction, logistics, textiles, plastics, biofuels, paper, and more. Speaking of paper, founding father Benjamin Franklin owned a hemp paper mill. Several founding fathers including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Henry Clay all grew hemp.

Alaska Constitution Article 1, Section 1 states in relevant part, "All persons have a natural right to the enjoyment of the fruits of their own industry." Because hemp is good for the fruits of Alaska's industry, I support HB 325, and I encourage your committee to pass it. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Poole. Next in the queue, we have Hannah Stratton calling from Sterling.

Miss Stratton, would you please put yourself on the record and begin your testimony?

Uh, yes, I'm here. I'm sorry, I've never done this before, so I'm a little nervous. Um, I'm calling from Sterling and I am a farmer. I also have a biology degree. This is something that extremely interests me.

I definitely support HB 325 because there really should not be restrictions on hemp, which hemp is also cannabis, but for simplification, hemp versus cannabis with intoxicating effects. As a farmer, I want to grow hemp, but I don't have the, you know, I, there needs to be less restrictions so that farmers who want to grow hemp purely for fiber or like the food products, not for intoxicating purposes, for animal feed, for bedding, is so that we are able to do that easier. The cannabis with intoxicating effects definitely should be restricted, but I think it's so important to have a definition between the two and a clear line between the two. And yeah, that's all I can say right now. I want to keep it short.

Thank you. And could you please state your name for the record, please? I don't believe we caught it at the beginning. Oh, sorry, Hannah Stratton. Thank you very much, Ms. Stratton.

With that, I'm not seeing anybody else online for public testimony, and I don't see anybody in the room. But if anybody is listening and would like to, you can submit your written testimony to [email protected]. With that, I'm going to close public testimony.

At our April 24th hearing, we set an amendment deadline of Thursday, April 30th at 5 PM for this bill. And unless there are any closing comments or questions from the committee, I believe we're going to set this bill aside until Friday. Seeing none, thank you very much, Representative McCabe. We look forward to seeing you again on Friday. Madam Co-Chair and committee, I appreciate the time and the effort.

Thank you. Next, we will turn to our fourth bill on the agenda. That is HB 234, which is PERS emergency dispatchers, of which my office is the sponsor. As a reminder to.

Committee. What this bill aims to do is reclassify emergency dispatchers as first responders and seeks to add emergency dispatchers to the public safety category of PERS, the PERS retirement system. We have been working with the Division of Retirement and Benefits to get some of our questions answered based on the previous committee hearings that we've had, but we have not yet heard back. So with that, we noticed public testimony and I plan to open public testimony. Is there anybody in the room who would like to testify on HB 234?

I'm seeing none, but I do see a couple of people online and we will start with Colette Thibodeau calling from the Anchorage Airport Police and Fire. Ms. Thibodeau, could you please keep your remarks to approximately 2 minutes? We are on a time crunch. With that, I will turn it over to you.

Okay, can you hear me? Yes, we can, ma'am. Okay, sorry about that. This is, uh, this is also my first time doing this. So, um, my name is Colette Thibodeau.

I am currently the emergency dispatch supervisor at Anchorage Airport Police and Fire. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to everyone about my life's work and passion. I've been a supervisor for 3 years and previously served 25 years as an emergency dispatcher in several other agencies. I fully support this bill as it has been brought forth in many different forms for the past 28 years that I've been in this profession. Sorry, not a breath.

It's time to gain traction, gain some traction, and recognize the voices on the phones and radios that have been supporting all the communities and public safety responders. They, we are the forgotten. Many times we don't get closure, we don't get recognition, we don't get the appropriate training or compensation. We just adapt and overcome. We come to work all shifts around the clock, even when all other state workers are told to stay home due to inclement weather or cold buildings.

You should see how cold it gets into many centers around 2:00 AM. You can't just turn on the answering machines or forward phones to accommodate holidays, birthdays, or family time. We are 24/7 infinity. I have personally taken calls that have brought me joy, like helping deliver a baby or providing CPR and the person lived. I've taken calls that have baffled me, like the man who invited friends to his house for a barbecue and choked on the steak that he just prepared, and none of his friends knew his address.

He did not survive. I've had calls that haunt me, such as the open 911 call of a woman being beaten by her husband with a metal baseball bat while her children are sitting inside the house. Through quick thinking and teamwork, we were able to eventually find them. We are flood detectives and we use all our energy to find anything to help citizens have hopefully a successful outcome. Challenge accepted.

We seek out new technologies to improve our services. Many of us seek out opportunities to educate the public. I've done more Girl Scout or Boy Scout tours than I can count. We want nothing more than to serve our fellow citizens. We just want— we just ask for some consideration in return.

The consistent short staffing, the long shifts, the things that we hear do take a toll on all of us in one way or another, physically, financially, and mentally, especially if anyone can make it to 30 years. But that's getting rare, especially when people are not feeling seen, heard, or supported. And I will add unofficially, nationally there have been 7 known dispatcher suicides since January. This is an alarming trend. I'm available and open to any questions, or most certainly I have more stories that will blow most of your minds.

Thank you again for your time. Thank you very, very much for your time, Ms. Thibodeau. We appreciate it. Um, next in the queue we have Erin Kawara calling from Juneau. Ms. Kawara, will you please put yourself on the record and begin your 2 minutes of testimony?

Yes, good evening. My name is Erin Calwora. I'm the Public Safety Manager for the City of Juneau. I manage programs for both the police and fire departments, including the communications center dispatch staff and associated technologies such as radio and the 911 system. I'm a board member for the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials and the National Emergency Numbering Association, which deals with 911 operational and technical issues.

I support efforts to align emergency dispatch professionals with other protective service professionals such as firefighters and police officers. This shift will provide our dispatchers with access to essential mental health resources and retirement benefits. Reclassification will be a huge step to improve recruitment, retention, and boost the morale of our existing staff statewide. Our dispatchers are not administrative assistants. They're critical, life-saving work, and the mental stress and pressure they undergo does not align with clerical positions.

They perform indispensable work with demanding urgency while working very difficult schedules. 911 PSAPs and other emergency communication centers face high attrition rates. In Juneau, we're struggling with sustaining minimum staffing due to ongoing retention and recruitment woes. We currently have only 7 of our authorized 13 comm center positions filled. Dispatchers are currently working an average of 58 hours per week, week after week, month after month.

The hiring process takes about 6 months. During that process, we carefully vet the candidates, and we have an obligation to ensure anyone we hire in the position is not only technically and interpersonally suitable, they must have outstanding integrity and judgment, along with recall, problem-solving skills, attention to detail, accuracy, interpersonal testing. We do conduct background, psychological exams, drug testing, and hearing testing before we hire anyone. Just like their police officer coworkers, dispatchers are prohibited from using drugs, including marijuana. Just like their fire department EMS coworkers, Alaska Administrative Code establishes that certified emergency medical dispatchers must receive proper training, continuing education, and formal oversight from the medical director.

Once hired, public safety dispatchers undergo over 7 months of classroom and on-the-job academy training to provide them with certifications and skills necessary to work solo while processing emergency calls and managing timelapse critical events. Dispatchers face a significant but underrecognized risk of suicide, largely due to a lack of research funding, inconsistent classification as first responders, and a widespread underreporting. Many cases of dispatch suicide go unreported because agencies and families do not consistently identify them as first responder suicide. This lack of reporting is compounded by the stigma surrounding suicide. There are documented higher rates of depression and chronic trauma exposure among dispatchers.

The evidence strongly indicates an elevated suicide risk. Reasonable retirement options and expanding the availability of wellness benefits will be a very, very appealing incentive for our well-trained, experienced, hardworking public safety professionals to stay in their field serving the public and promoting public safety. Through my work with APCO and NENA, those are the state boards I was telling you about, and by following mandated FCC reporting, I estimate that there are around 49 operational PSAPs in Alaska, which is a call center that answers 911, with about 320 full-time public safety dispatchers working in Alaska. Not all of those dispatchers are in the PERS system. They should be recognized as first responders.

Reclassification will strengthen our call center in Juneau and other call centers statewide. Thank you very much for the opportunity to share my testimony. Thank you, Ms. Kawara. Representative Sadler. May I ask the testifier a quick question?

We are in a very tight timeline here, Representative Sadler. I appreciate it. I'll speak quickly. To the person just I understand the benefits of expanding wellness benefits is going to help ameliorate some of the stresses we've heard so eloquently and thoroughly. But this legislation aims primarily at a quicker retirement.

What else can the legislature do to help ease the stresses of the job over the course of now maybe a 20-year career?

Ms. Kawahara.

The most important thing is reducing the amount of time that these dispatchers have to carry this burden. I have one person in my call center that's Tier 2, if you can believe that. Her retirement date is in May, next month. I can't believe she made it that far. We very, very, very rarely— she's the only one who's ever done that, 30 years, pulled that off.

If we could have a lesser retirement, less time that they have to work before they could retire, if they have a light at the end of the tunnel, I think more people would stick with it, more people would do it. As far as the wellness goes, just being classified as a first responder or with a peace officer and firefighter classification, protected class, that will allow dispatch and comm centers that are standalone to be eligible for grants. It will allow them to receive workers' compensation and other wellness benefits that will allow them to.

Just do better in their personal lives and do better at work. Thank you, Madam Chair, for the chance to ask the question. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Kawara. And not seeing additional people online for public testimony and seeing none in the room, I will close public testimony.

With that, we are going to set HB 234 aside and move on to our 5th bill today, which is—. Can I interrupt? Representative, is there an amendment deadline on this yet? There is not. Okay, all right, sorry.

Quite all right. Um, our fifth, our fifth bill for today is HB 350, Qualified Entity Income Tax, by Co-Chair Fields. Co-Chair Fields, uh, and, um, Evan Anderson, if you would please give a brief rundown of the intent of this bill. I can do that very quickly. This is a bill establishing an income tax on other corporation types beyond C-corps, starting at a threshold of $25 million.

Same rate, 9.4%.

Thank you, Co-Chair Fields. Are there questions, um, from the committee for Co-Chair Fields or his staff? Okay, seeing none, we set a— the committee set an amendment deadline of April 28th at 5 PM, and we received 4 amendments. Rep. Colon, you're the sponsor of all 4. Do you have a motion related to Amendment 1, labeled G.1?

Uh, yeah, give me one second. Yeah, brief it is.

We are back on record. Representative Colom, do you have a motion? Yeah, I withdraw Amendment G.1. Okay, I'll be offering that. Amendment G.1 is being withdrawn.

With that, Representative Colom, do you have a motion for Amendment 2? Yeah, I move G.2. Object. There is an objection. Representative Kloner, would you please present your amendment?

Yes, so G.2, let me see, 15.

Yes, so G.2 deletes the informational return that requires businesses to file their tax returns that are not required to pay. So this was a change. It's right in the middle. So basically this is telling businesses you got to file, we're going to get all your information, but you don't have to pay. I see this as phishing.

It's proprietary information. Unless there's cause for DOR to go digging into their books, I don't want to require all LLCs and S corps and all the companies to just file so the state can get information on their business. So the amendment just deletes that paragraph. Okay. Coach Airfields.

Yeah, I think the intent of this was in response to members' interest in who's affected. So if there's opposition to it, I'll happily accept this amendment. If it doesn't help, and I'm sure there will be more discussion at subsequent committees, so I'm going to withdraw my objection. Okay, the objection is withdrawn. Is there further objection?

Okay, seeing none, Amendment Number 2 is adopted. Representative Kollom, do you have a motion for Amendment Number 3? I move Amendment Number 3, G.3.

Object. There's an objection. So, uh, GDOT 3 versus, uh, there's a— on page 3 there's a repealer, and Section 5 is repealing 3 statutes. Those statutes are related to tax credits for campaign contributions. I didn't really see how they fit the bill.

I don't really understand why they're there, and actually one of the statutes is, um, pertaining to individual tax credits. So I just didn't— I didn't think it should be in the bill, and I don't want to repeal a tax credit. I was hoping Evan Anderson could talk to why that's in the bill. Okay. Mix Anderson.

Thanks, Co-Chair Hall, and through the Chair to the committee, about Amendment G.3. So I just spoke with Emily Nauman from Legal Services about this amendment. I think she might be online and can help kind of provide some more information about this as well. But these three statutory references date back to when Alaska had an income tax, um, and so there's a— their credit, um, for campaign contributions to an individual income tax bill. Now it's been nearly 50 years since, uh, we as a state repealed the income tax.

However, there is a concern that with rolling out an S corp tax that these statutes could potentially be applied to reduce someone's tax bill under their S-Corp tax bill. And I believe Emily Nauman might have more info. Thank you, Mick Sanderson. Ms. Nauman, are you able to provide additional context?

Sure. For the record, this is Emily Nauman, Legislative Legal Services, to the Chair, Evan correctly summarized the history of these tax credits. They've been around since the income tax was repealed and in fact do offer a refundable tax credit for campaign contributions for any individual willing to file an income tax return. It's unclear to me whether or not the Department actually has a mechanism for paying out these refundable tax credits. The Department would be the right person to ask about that, but what I will say is because The types of entities that we're taxing under the bill are generally considered pass-through entities.

In other words, we're taxing the income of an individual at the federal level. I flagged that it might cause confusion about whether or not these tax credits, which as far as I understand are no longer used, might be able to be applied against the new tax in the bill. Thank you, Miss Nowman. We have a question from Co-Chair Fields followed by Representative Sadler. I actually was just going to say thanks for the explanation.

I think with that explanation I'm going to maintain my objection and appreciate the history. Okay, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I just want to be real clear, um, Section 5, the effect of Section 5 in this bill is to allow people to deduct political contributions from the tax that would be imposed on them by the rest of the bill. Is that correct, Miss Nowman?

Through the chair, Tori Flint of Saddler. I'm not sure if I totally followed your question, but I would say that the repealers that are being removed, if the amendment was adopted, these tax credits against an individual income tax that does not exist but are refundable, presumably, if you go to the department, those tax credits would remain in the statute. And follow-up. Follow-up. If the amendment was adopted.

And that's why I wish to make it clear on the record exactly what the effect is of Section 5, and I'm hoping to get clarity on this. So Section 5, if adopted, would allow people to deduct political contributions from the tax imposed by this bill. I hope that's clear, and I ask, is that correct? Through the chair to Representative Adler, no. If this amendment were adopted, these existing tax credits would stay on the books, and this tax credit would remain.

If the amendment is not adopted and the bill stays as drafted, these tax credits would be repealed and would no longer exist in the statute, so they'd no longer be available for individual. Okay, okay. Representative Colon followed by Co-Chair Fields. I had a question, uh, Ms. Nauman. So I guess I flagged this because this is under individual tax credits.

So are you saying— I'm not sure why it's in a— I'm not sure why it's a concern in a bill that's taxing businesses.

Through the chair to Representative Colon, the The way that sole proprietors, partnerships, S corps, LLCs, et cetera, the types of entities that are being taxed by the bill are taxed at the federal level is the income of those entities is passed through to an individual's personal income tax form. The bill— there is a concern that these statutes that are, as far as I understand, no longer used, could be interpreted to apply to this new tax because it parallels the federal tax system. It was unclear whether or not these tax credits against the individual income tax could be used against the new tax in the bill, and because my understanding is the tax credits are no longer used, it seemed prudent to remove them from the statutes. Okay, and just for information, I think the credit was up to $100, so it's not like a huge win for people. But yeah, thank you for the clarification.

With the clarification, I'll withdraw the amendment.

Co-chair Fields, did you have anything related? No? Okay, okay. So Amendment Number 3 has been withdrawn. Thank you, Ms. Nowman, for your expertise.

Representative Colon, do you have a motion for Amendment Number 4? Uh, yeah, I move, uh, G. DAP 4. Object. There's an objection. Representative Colon?

So this amendment is changing the effective date from immediate to 2028, and that is just to have businesses have some time to prepare for this tax. Some might need to divest in some capital, may need.

To reorganize, to be able to be prepared to pay for the tax. And I think it's not fair to have an immediate effective date. So this just gives them a little time to prepare for it. Okay. Is there further discussion on Amendment No.

4? Representative Sadler. Thank you. I'm going to express my support for that. I think it's— for being a small bill or a short bill, the consequences are very significant.

It's a reversal of current policy. Allowing this, uh, the effect of this bill, should it, should it pass, um, to go forward. I think allowing people that are going to be obligated to pay this deserve a little time to have it socialized, to learn about it and prepare for it. So I think this is a smart amendment. Okay, Co-Chair Fields.

Uh, I, I guess I would note that this is, um, tax will not be paid, I believe, before 2027, and just would ask confirmation. We actually change some of the dates in the CS and feedback to a constituent. So we already did push it back by a year, but maybe Evan Anderson can just refresh my memory on exactly the timeline that's currently in the bill. Thanks, Anderson. Uh, thanks, uh, through the chair, um, to the question, uh, Evan Anderson for the record, uh, the first tax payment due under this CS that we adopted would be in first quarter 2028.

So by changing out the effective date of the bill, the bill would take immediate effect under this current draft, but again, the tax as written is not due until 2028. So if we do change the effective date of the entire bill, it could delay the department's ability to promulgate regulations and kind of get their systems in place and get ready for the taxation to take place. But we'd probably need confirmation from the department on that. Commissioner Fields. Yeah, I think with that I'm going to oppose the amendment because the intent in restructuring it in the CS was just to give plenty of phase-in time.

And I, I think with taxes not due till 2028, that is a reasonable phase-in time. And if we learn that, you know, there's this whole question of who's going to pay, I think if we learn that a bunch more people are going to pay than we thought, or there were negative consequences that we were learning about in the process of DOR collecting the information, we honestly would have time to change course in 2027. So I I don't think we should push it back farther, but instead let the department do the due diligence. 2028 Is a long time out. So can I ask a question?

Representative Kloor. What version are you reading that from? Maybe you have the wrong version. What version? For the record, Evan Anderson, staff to Rep Fields.

That's version G. So, okay. So I have version G, but okay, so there was two date— two effective date— the immediate 1 was the filing and then the paying of the taxes was the next year, correct? That's right. And it's through the chair to Rep. Colon. Um, so I'm just trying to figure out, because on the bottom of 3 I have 2027, right?

So I'm confused. Uh, if I might respond, um, Evan Anderson for the record, uh, the tax, uh, is for the calendar, calendar year. The way it's set up right now, the tax for the calendar year from 2027 The calendar year 2027 is then due in 2028. Um, and that is to pay— so get rid of the informational return. Would this— this would actually— what they would actually be filing for, for in 2028 for the 2027 taxes?

That's correct. Okay. All right, clarified that. So I'll withdraw the amendment. Okay, Amendment Number 4 has been withdrawn.

Hearing no further questions from the committee, we had public testimony notice, so I will open public testimony. Is there anyone in the room for public testimony? Seeing none, I will turn online, and I see no one online, so I will close public testimony. Are there further questions from the committee, or does bill sponsor have any closing comments? Okay, I am seeing none.

Um, if it is the will of the committee, Mr. Co-chair, may I have a motion? Thank you. I move to report House Bill 350, Work Order 34-LS1474/G, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. Object. Briefities.

We are back on record and there is an objection. Representative Sadler, did you want to speak to your amendment? Thank you. Or to your objection? Thank you, Madam Chair.

Don't like the bill, don't want it to pass, so I object to its passage from committee under any circumstances.

Okay, seeing no further committee discussion, will the secretary please call the roll?

Representative Freer? Yes.

Representative Carrick? Yes. Representative Nelson is not present. Representative Colon? No.

Representative Sadler? No. Co-chair Fields? Yes. Co-chair Hall.

Yes. 4 Yeas, 2 nays.

Okay, by a vote of 4 yeas and 2 nays, HB 350 is reported out of committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes. I just want to make one last comment. I'm going to take the privilege of having the, the gavel on HB 350. My office did entertain submitting an amendment, but we were not able to given the time constraints. But I just want the the record to reflect that the amendment idea was to basically replace the fixed $25 million threshold in HB 3550 with a standard tied directly to federal small business definitions under the Code of Federal Regulations, which would have ensured that only entities larger than what the federal government considers small businesses are subject to the tax.

And then, and a net income tax could be applied on qualified entities, but With that, we're running out of time. This close to the end of the session, we're going to take a brief ease to sign the committee paperwork.

We are back on record. We have concluded our bill schedule for this meeting, but we do have a couple of appointees for consideration. We're going to start with the Board of Nursing. We have Ms. Heather Cravello online. Ms. Cravello, will you please identify yourself for the record and provide a brief statement about your qualifications and and your interest in serving on the Board of Nursing.

Hi, uh, through the chair, good evening, chair, co-chair, and members of the committee. My name is Heather Cravello, and I'm a registered nurse practicing in Kodiak, Alaska. I've been an Alaska resident for 27 years. I am seeking appointment to the Alaska Board of Nursing because I value strong, fair regulation that protects public safety. If confirmed, I would approach this role thoughtfully, impartially, and with respect for the board's statutory responsibilities.

I thank you for the opportunity to briefly speak today. I know you're under a time crunch. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Cravello. Representative Sadler has a question for you.

I do. Thank you, Ms. Cravello. There's always time to do this right. You're embarking on a term on the Board of Nursing. What issues do you see the.

Facing during your possible tenure on that board? Well, I am— through the chair, I am— I'll be learning exactly what the board is working on here shortly, hopefully. I know that, of course, there's always a discussion of the nurse licensure compact, and that's one of the big discussions, at least at the moment. So Follow-up. Follow-up.

Would you care to share your positions on the nurse licensure compact? Compact licensure, pardon me.

Of course. Personally, I can only speak personally at this time. The, of course, the nurse compact is something the board has discussed that I'm aware of and supported in principle. But however, Alaska is not currently a member of the compact. So personally, I think that that is a great idea because I work in in a rural community and having nurses available to fill in the staffing void, that would be very much helpful.

Thank you, Miss Carello. I appreciate that. Co-chair Fields has a question. Miss Carello, um, through the chair, Miss Carello, are you in a supervisory or a non-supervisory position?

I am a supervisory position. Okay, follow-up, Co-chair Fields. Yes, please. I guess, um, I mean, do you feel comfortable expressing your opinion as an individual and not as a representative of Providence when you are weighing in on issues like, you know, anything from the nurse license compact to safe staffing issues to anything else?

Through the chair, yes, my personal opinion, they do not matter when I'm participating in writing regulations based on the statute. So—. Can I ask a follow-up? A follow-up? But I think maybe I didn't say that clearly enough, Ms. Crivello.

I was asking, do you feel like you can express your professional opinion as a nurse even if that were to differ from the policy position of your employer?

Oh, yeah. I do care. I understand what you're saying now. Yes, absolutely. Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Crivello. I am not seeing further questions or comments from the committee. Thank you so much for your patience and your time today, and also for your interest in serving Alaskans. We appreciate it.

Next, we're supposed to hear an appointment to the Board of Pharmacy, Miss Rebecca Bombs, but I am not seeing her online. So with that, I believe we have concluded our business for the day. I want to thank everybody everybody for their patience. I know the evening is getting long. Thank you especially to Andrew Magnuson with the, the committee secretary, and Renzo Moises with the Juneau LIO for staying late, late.

And then also thank you very much to committee aide Joan Wilkerson for keeping us on track. With that, that concludes our business for the day. The next meeting of the House Labor and Commerce Committee is Friday, May 1st at 3:15 PM. The meeting is adjourned at 6:15 PM.