HFIN-260517-1330

Okay, I'm going to call this meeting of the House Finance Committee to order. Let the record reflect that the time is currently 3:56 PM. And present today we do have myself, Co-Chair Foster, and we also have with us Representative Jimmy.

And just to give folks a heads up, I believe we're going back to the floor possibly in about half an hour. And so I was hoping that maybe we could get through some of the amendments on SB 24, which is the tobacco and e-cigarette tax bill.

And we also have with us Representative Kocher Josephson and So let's see here, in terms of, um, the amendments, I believe we left off at Amendment Number 9. Um, and let me see if I can find those. We also have, uh, Representative, uh, Galvin as well as Representative Bynum and, um, Representative Step also. So as I mentioned earlier, um, we're going to be taking up amendments too.

And we also have Representative Kocher-Schraggy, um, and we also have Representative Allard and, um, Representative Hannan. We also have Representative Hannan. And so, um, just to reiterate, we are on Senate Bill 24, that is the tobacco and e-cigarette tax bill, and, um, we left off at Amendment Number 9, and we were in mid-stride. We had a motion to move the amendments, um, and so we'll probably come back to an explanation of the amendment does in just a moment. I think we're just looking for 2 more members members.

So I'm just going to take a quick brief at ease and make sure we've got our full committee here. And that will be the intent, is to do a recap. And Representative Bynum, you had Amendment Number 9, so when we come back, if you could just give us a recap of that amendment. And I'm going to take a brief at ease.

Okay, and House Finance back on record at 4 o'clock. And so before us we do have Senate Bill 24, that is the tobacco and e-cigarette tax bill. And when we left, uh, last night, um, we were on Amendment Number 9. And Representative Bynum had a conceptual amendment that he wanted to introduce. And, um, so Representative Bynum, maybe before you do that, can you reiterate what Amendment Number 9 was?

And then if you wanted to make a motion for your conceptual amendments. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Absolutely. So under Amendment 9, what I was attempting to do was set the the revenue part of this bill to be applied to the host— or to apply it as a wholesale tax as opposed to a retail tax. The reason for doing that was, is that it was to align the tax with what we already do in current statute and not create a new taxing system in the state, basically putting that burden on the retail users.

Now, I did hand out— I do have some information I believe I did hand out for the committee that talks a little bit about the T-21 program, what's being applied through the states. Also, as part of the amendment, I handed out a little handout talking about what other states are doing, and many other states are doing and applying the tax in this way. So from my perspective, this was to create alignment with what we already do, and it was to also alleviate the burden of trying to establish a new retail tax system statewide.

So that's what the amendment did. Okay, thank you. And then if you wanted to introduce your conceptual—. And just to be clear, I think that we're on 3, is that correct? Because I think there were 2 others prior.

I think you're right. I think Representative Allard introduced one, withdrew, uh, we'll call this one number 3. 3, I think you're right. Thank you. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Co-Chair Foster, I move conceptual amendment number 3. Object. Okay, Representative Bynum. Thank you, um, Co-Chair Foster. I'm not sure if, uh, that, that had been handed out to you everybody or not.

But ultimately what the amendment does is it also adds back in what I was attempting to do in an earlier amendment, but there was some legal drafting errors or issues. And so what it does is that it leaves in current statute our laws with regard to who is being fined and how, and it doesn't apply a new acceleration or addition of increasing the age for creating a violation or a legal action that would require fine and/or potential court appearances. That is what the conceptual amendment does. Okay. Any discussion on the conceptual amendment?

Senator Pannen? Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. The first— well, it's actually page 2, the second area of deletion after we get past the title, pages 7 through 22, which is existing statute that was— existing statute that the bill is only amending the age of, but the conceptual amendment deletes the entirety of. And I'm concerned about what that does, because right now, believe it or not, we do have places that are allowed to have cigarette vending machines, et cetera, but they have to be located in a way that they can monitor the age of access. So whether it's 19 or 21, and I guess I'm concerned by deleting that language entirely where it leaves businesses that have vending machines, not bar vending machines, but it turns out a lot of like fish processors have them in break rooms.

Hold on, let me—. And not sure if that was the intention there by deleting that section too. Representative Bynum. Sure. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

So what I asked alleged legal to draft this, I told them that I would want it to keep the— just keep existing law in place. And so when you look at the amendment on page 1, line 4, it says page 2, lines 7 through 22, delete all material. And so 7 through 22 is deleting Section 2 out of the statute. Now what that isn't doing is it's not deleting it out of the actual statute, or this would have had a replacement that showed bracketing. What we're doing is we're removing it from.

Bill. So we're leaving in place current statute. So all that language in the bill from line 7 through 22 on page 2 will remain in statute. It just leaves it as 19.

Does that clarify for the representative?

Question?

Mr. Lampkin. Yeah, I'm wondering if the sponsor reads it the same way. Mr. Lampkin. For the record, Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens. There are a lot of components to this conceptual amendment to the underlying amendment that can quickly cause a lot of confusion.

I have hesitation supporting this at the table at this time. I appreciate the spirit of the maker of the amendment, but given the hour and the complexity of this bill overall, this I think befuddles Just point of order. Co-chair Foster. Representative Bynum. It is 4:05 PM and to brush this along because of the hour, I find not an acceptable measure for this committee.

We are here to do the work and understand the materials in front of us. We are not working at 11 PM here. Can we have a brief recess? No, no, we are not having a recess. An at ease, please.

I want to say this on the record. I'm sorry, I do have a— I do have a queue. I've got Representative Stepp, Josephson, Allard. I'll take a brief at ease. I would like a brief at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:07 PM, and I think Representative Bynum has made his comments. Anything further, Representative Bynum, before I come back to the queue? Representative Bynum. Thank you. I will withdraw my point of order, uh, Co-Chair Foster.

I just want to make sure that when we're asking, um, a member— the member here to talk about the bill— that we just confine our comments to the bill and whether or not they approve of it or not, not the deliberative process that we must do here. Care. I appreciate that. Thank you. Representative Stepp, did you have a comment?

I totally forgot, co-chair, so thanks. Representative Josephson? Well, I, I think I agree with Mr. Lambkin in that because I had conference committee, arrived early for that, went to the floor, I didn't know that this lengthy conceptual amendment was here. Didn't know about it. What I'm told is that what it does is leaves in place Section 2 as if it wasn't amended by the— in that single space from 19 to 21.

Now yesterday we said we don't want 19- and 21-year-old service members smoking. That was the consensus. And this would say we don't want them smoking but other adults, young adults, can. I guess, um, you know, at some point I agree with Mr. Lampkin that I'm entitled to say if I can't digest all of this, then I'm in a no position, because I can understand the bill. Representative Ballard.

Uh, thank you. So sometimes when we take long at-eases and we don't finish bills, people have the ability to change their minds. I've changed my mind about this whole bill. I am trying to get through these amendments, but it seems like the bill's not for me. The bill needs a lot of work.

I don't know at this point if this is a tax bill or if it's a T21 bill. I've heard other people say the same thing. The bottom line is this for me: marijuana, you can get your— like, what's that word called when you can't function because you are stoned? Alcohol, you're obliterated if you get drunk and you drink. Tobacco doesn't do that.

So because of all this discussion and everything that's been going on, I no longer support the bill. I think if you're 18 and you want to smoke cigarettes, by all means, do your thing. So I totally don't agree about the military anymore. This has given me a lot of thought and a lot of pause, and I just wanted to find out if this is a tax bill or not. Is this a stop people smoking because they're adults And we just don't want them to smoke cigarettes.

They're adults and they don't want to smoke cigarettes. Why are we doing this? So I don't know what we're doing here, but I'm willing to listen to all the amendments. And I don't think it's appropriate for anybody other than the person moving the amendment to introduce their amendments. And let's talk about it and go through it.

Representative Stab, I'd like to maybe ask the sponsor to have wrap up and call question. That was okay. Question is called in terms of wrap-up. Representative Hannan— I'm sorry, Bynum. Representative Bynum.

Yes, thank you, Co-Chair Foster. This, um, conceptual amendment is not complicated at all. This bill has 3 components to it. One is it's creating additional violations in law. The second one is, is that we are raising the age, uh, to prohibit sellers from selling, and the third is to implement taxes.

So what I am doing is, as I am with this conceptual amendment, is I am simplifying this bill by just removing the additional violations that are being added in this bill. And I, I previously had said that under, under the earlier amendment when I talked about this was what we're doing here by increasing the age and creating a penalty is that we are providing an opportunity in law for there to be police interactions with younger people. Not, not talking about kids here. We're talking about young adults, increased interactions with young adults, pretextual stops, creating an obligation for those people to interact with law enforcement. And studies have shown that if we want to be serious about reducing smoking, we do that through education and we do that at the retailer.

We, we limit who we can sell to. And that having this possession component and criminalizing through a penalty does not help. The CDC has reports out for that. The FDA has reports out for that. Non-Smoking Foundations even have reports, reports for that because we want to focus our efforts where they matter.

And that's what T21 is supposed to do. It's supposed to help with education and prevent the sale of these tobacco products, not to criminalize people. Now, we've had a lot of arguments here about criminalization, whether this is a crime or not. You get a fine, you can go to court for it. It's creating pretextual situations for police officers to engage with our youth And you can go look at the statistics on which youth are getting engaged with.

And I, I have some additional information I'd be happy to share with the committee. And when I talk to the courts, what the courts will tell you is that the cases that they receive on this, or a large portion of them, at least this is my understanding of it, is through engagement of policing activities in our schools. So they'll get large sums of these fines at the school where smoking is already prohibited, tobacco products are already prohibited by the students, and the engagement is occurring in a school setting. Otherwise, they receive very little engagement with law enforcement. And if that's the case, I don't know why we would be putting a law to create an opportunity for these pretextual stops based on somebody— the way that they look.

And so that's why I'm offering this amendment. It is not complicated. It is just saying keep in law what we already have in law. I didn't go beyond that. Okay.

And we had, um, let's see here. I believe Representative Hannon, you objected. You maintain your objection? I do. Okay, the objection is maintained.

Madam Clerk, this is conceptual amendment number 3. To Amendment Number 9, if you could please call the roll. Representative Hannan? No. Representative Tomaszewski?

No. Representative Moore? No. Representative Allard? Yes.

Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Galvin? No. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Bynum?

Yes. Representative Ballard? Yes. Representative Josephson? No.

Representative Schragg? No. Representative Foster? No. 3 Yea, 8 nay.

So on a vote of 3 yea to 8 nay, conceptual amendment number 3 to amendment number 9 has not been adopted. And that takes us back to the main amendment. Representative Bynum, anything further? Yes, co-chair Foster.

Mr. Foster, and just a quick closing on Amendment Number 9. Amendment Number 9 moves the taxing for the e-cigarette products and other tobacco products included in the bill. It moves them to a wholesale component, which is what we currently do in law. We could have a lot of debate about whether the tax rate is too high or too low when we talk about trying to reduce Smoking, especially smoking in younger people. One of the methods that is effective in doing that is you raise the price of the product.

And so that's why I'm assuming that's why we're putting a tax bill with a T21 bill. A lot of people like that idea. And it— but all I would like to do is, is to treat these new smoking delivery or these new nicotine delivery products in the same way that we treat all nicotine delivery products, and that, that is that we monitor them, monitor them, and we charge the wholesale tax on them. You heard a lot of things in the comments about this, is that there might be black market happening. That's going to happen anyway.

You're not allowed to sell these products without going through distributor. That's what this law is doing. So I don't know why we put additional burden on Alaska businesses by changing our system. Creating a retail tax unless if our goal— and that's what I believe people think is our goal— is to start moving us to effectively a statewide sales tax, because I think that's what this does. And it's too much of a burden on our businesses.

We can accomplish the same thing by doing what we already do in law. Okay, thank you. Yesterday, Representative Sharagi, you objected to Amendment Number 9. Do you maintain your objection? Yes, I do.

Okay, the objection is maintained. Madam Clerk, we are on Amendment Number 9. If you can please call the roll. Representative Galvin? No.

Representative Allard? Yes. Representative Stapp? Yes. Representative Hannan?

No. Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Bynum? Yes.

Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes. Representative Schraggy?

No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Foster? No.

5 Yay, 6 nay. So on a vote of 5 to 6, Amendment Number 9 has not been adopted. Would like to recognize that we do have in the audience with us Representative Underwood. Thanks for being here with us. And we are now on Amendment Number 10, which is Representative Allard.

I withdraw my amendment. Okay, Amendment Number 10 has been withdrawn. Representative Skaff, Amendment Number 11. Thank you. I move to rescind action on Amendment 3.

Okay, and if we could just take a moment to find Amendment Number 3. So it's my military, uh, active duty military exemption. Okay, okay. So there is a motion to rescind. Was there an objection?

Yes. Okay, there is an objection. So the motion to rescind, is that debatable? I have no comments, just I'm ready for a vote. Okay, okay.

So take a brief at ease.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:20 PM, and we have a motion by Representative Stapp to rescind action on Amendment Number 3. We have an objection, and so with that, Madam Clerk, if you would please call the roll on whether or not we are rescinding on our action on Amendment Number 3. Before we do that, I just want the sponsor of the amendment to put back on record what this actually does, please. Okay, Representative Stepp, if you could give us a summary of what Amendment Number 3 is. It's not appropriate until the rescission vote is taken, Co-Chair, and then I can move the amendment and put the amendment again on record.

Okay, I think, I think it's good for folks to know what we're voting on. The question is to rescind action on Amendment 3. Amendment 3 exempts active duty military soldiers who are 19 and 20 years old from the state punishment fine section of the bill. Perfect, thank you. Okay, so with that, uh, Madam Clerk, uh, if you would please call the roll on whether or not we rescind action On Amendment Number 3.

Representative Tomaszewski. Yes. Representative Hannon. No. Representative Bynum.

Yes. Representative Moore. Yes. Representative Galvin. No.

Representative Jimmy. Yes. Representative Allard. No. Representative Stapp.

Yes. Representative Schraggy. No. Representative Josephson. No.

Representative Foster. No. 5 Yea, 6 nay. So on a vote of 5 yea, 6 nay, Amendment Number 3 will not be— action will not be rescinded. That now takes us to Amendment Number 11.

Representative Stout? Not offered. Okay, Amendment Number 11 will not be offered. Representative Allard, Amendment Number 12? Not offered.

Okay, Amendment Number 13, Representative Josephson? Uh, one moment. Okay. Not offered. Okay, amendment number 13 will not be offered.

Representative Josephson, amendment number 14.

Uh, not offered. Okay, Representative Josephson will not be— actually, actually, Representative Josephson, please repeat these.

Okay, House Finance back on record at 4:23 PM. Representative Josephson, Amendment Number 14. I move Amendment 14. Check. We have an objection.

Representative Josephson. I would invite Mr. Alper to describe the effect of Amendment 14. Representative— or Mr. Alper, if you can please put yourself on the record. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

For the record, Ken Alper, staff to Representative Josephson. So Amendment Number 14 is in the portion of the bill that talks about a required labeling related to vape products, what needs to appear on the label in the stores. And what it adds to that requirement is the so-called concentration. There's an open question. There's a lot of ambiguity over how strong many of these vape products are.

Some of them are obviously quite a bit stronger than others, and that should influence— and that's part of the reason while we stepped away from this idea of a volumetric tax because there's just a lot of unknowns. So before we even got into that world, it just seems like a good idea to know how strong are these products. So the pack of cigarettes will tell you how many milligrams of tar in each cigarette, for example. So this would require similar information to be on the vape products as a required state mandate in the labeling, and that's pretty much all it does. Representative Josephson.

May I ask Mr. Alper a question? Representative Josephson. Mr. Alper, and I want you to be careful with your answer, only in that I want you to tell me as best you know, and I'm looking at folks who care about healthy lungs and cancer mitigation and the like. Do they support this amendment? Mr. Alper.

Through the chair to Representative Josephson, to my.

Acknowledge. I believe the— let's call it the health community— that are watching this bill closely does support the idea of better information out in the public of what's actually contained in these products. Yes. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Lampkin.

Tim Lampkin, staff to Senator Stevens. Respectfully, Mr. Chairman, am I at liberty to deliberate on the bill, or am I confined to say that I support or oppose this amendment? You are free to do either. And so if you support or not, or if you just want to say you think it's something that's a good idea, we certainly support folks and their thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the spirit of consumer protection, any labeling that helps particularly young people and adult consumers of these products is a I believe beneficial to the bill. Okay. Thank you. Representative Hannan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Believe it or not, I'm going to speak in opposition to this amendment.

Labeling restrictions advantage manufactured units. And as I described yesterday, there's sort of two schools of vape products, those that are manufactured and will come with a label. And in many There is advocacy to create a directory of your product has been inspected, your label's been verified, your product's been tested, it matches the label contents, sort of creating a manufacturing area advantage. There are a whole other set of vape products that are mixed at the store, and in all likelihood there is a distinct market disadvantage if they then need to stop every mix to say your combination is this. Now, I want to assure you, I'm opposed to all of the products with any pretext that they are health products in any way.

But I do not want to advantage manufacturers of certain types of products over the other. I will be in opposition to the amendment. Okay. Any further discussion? Representative Tomaszewski and then staff.

Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I guess I'm curious with the, the wording, the nicotine concentration in milligrams per milliliter at the total amount. Is, is this something that they do now? I just, I'm not familiar with the product. I haven't read the product labels or what they have.

Do, do some have them and some don't? Don't? And is that a standard way to measure those amounts and an easy way to be able to— the public to digest what actually it's saying? Mr. Alpert. Thank you.

Through the chair to Representative Tomaszewski. Yes, in fact, it is, as I understand it, in the same section of the bill where this amendment would be taking place. And that's 4350.885. There's an earlier restriction that says to sell a vape product in Alaska, it can't have a nicotine content of more than 70 milligrams of nicotine per milliliter. So that— and that number itself, I believe, has been debated and amended in prior versions of the bill before it got to the Finance Committee.

So that, that's a fungible number, but it's a finite limit. So what this amendment would do is say if the product in question is 20 or 30 or 68, but not more than 70, it would be on the label. And if the product itself was, say, 50 milligrams per milliliter and it was a 5-milliliter container, a capsule or what have you, that would be 250. It would be a just simple multiplication of the concentration times the volume.

Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Okay. I've got Representative Stapp, then Bynum.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, I mean, I'm just actually going to be in agreement with the member from Juneau. I feel like that's happening way too often. The reason is basically there's kind of dispute in this dispute and kind of the vape people world that the worst kind of unhealthiest vape juice is the massively manufactured kind of low-quality stuff. And what this amendment does, it just adds another cost thing, a warning label. So all you're, all you're going to end up doing is advantaging really the seller on the price point of kind of the worst type of product.

So I'm going to be a no on the amendment. Representative Bynum. Thank you. Through the chair to the bill sponsor's representative on line page 15, line 18. I'm sorry, line 17.

We define that the label is to inform the consumer about all vape product ingredients and nicotine content. Do we know what was the intention of the nicotine content component of that language? Is there a— was this pulled from somewhere else, or did we intend that it would actually include what the amendment's doing? Mr. Lemkin, through the chair, Representative Bynum, that language is consistent with largely what's already being done in the industry. I would venture to say that the industry and these manufacturers would like to give the consumer some idea of what's contained in the product that they're buying.

Whether or not those ingredients are confirmed by a laboratory and other regulatory means is unknown, but at least there is a label of some kind existing on products out there. Currently. This would cost—. Representative Bynum. Thank you.

Through the chair. Thank you, sir, for that. I'm not very too familiar with how these products are actually measured. Is this typically the standard way that you would provide content for the product? Is the amendment saying milliliters, grams per milliliter?

Mr. Lambkin. Through the chair. Representative Bynum. It depends on the product.

There's also occasions where you see a percentage referenced. If it's 5% nicotine or 10, I think is the cap. I think the real potent ones are labeled as 10%. But this is not inconsistent with what's at least attempted to being labeled on the market currently. Thank you.

Okay. Any further discussion on Amendment 14? Seeing none. Let's see. Wrap up.

Representative Josephson. Yeah. You know, I'm glad. That Representative Bynum steered us back to the bill. I just see this as almost like an explication or definition of what we mean by nicotine content.

That's sort of what this does, is it helps explain what we're talking about. And that's all I have. Okay. Representative Stepp, do you maintain your objection?

Yes. Okay, and so we are on Amendment Number 14, and Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll. Representative Stapp? No. Representative Jimmy?

Representative Tomaszewski? No. Representative Hannan? No. Representative Bynum?

Yes. Representative Galvin? Yes. Representative Moore? Yes.

Representative Allard? Yes.

Representative Jimmy? No. Representative Schraggy? No. Representative Josephson?

Yes. Representative Foster? Yes. 6 Yay, 5 nay. So on a vote of 6 yay, 5 nay, Amendment Number 14 has been adopted.

And just so folks know, I've received word that there is at this point no floor time that's being scheduled. It'll probably come later, but at this point we've been given the green light to keep going. Looks like we've just got amendments 15, 16, 17, and 18, so we'll continue through the amendment process. And we've got Representative Hannon, amendment number 15. I move amendment 15.

Object for explanation. Okay, Representative Hannon. So this is a technical fix For the definition of retail sales of vaping products, put it in the correct section of the bill. This was a request of the sponsor. This is all language that currently exists in the bill, but it's moving where it is in the bill.

Remove my objection. Okay, the objection's been removed. Any further objections? Hearing none, Amendment Number 15 has been adopted. That takes us to Amendment Number 16.

Representative Allard.

No, I'm withdrawing it. Okay, Amendment 16 has been withdrawn. Amendment 17, Representative Ballard. I withdraw. Okay, Amendment 17 has been withdrawn, and that takes us to Amendment number 18, and we'll give it a moment here for Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move 18. Okay, do we have an objection?

Uh, I don't hear an objection. Okay, so with that, uh, Amendment Number 18. I'll object. Okay, I'd like to hear from the bill sponsor first. Representative Josephson.

Uh, same, same. I'd love to hear, uh, Mr. Lambkin's position. Mr. Lambkin, through the.

Chair, Representative Galvin and Josephson, we are supportive of this. It's a simple effective date change given the time span that's occurred since we last addressed the bill in committee. So this would make effective date of the tax component July 1st of '27 and the age effective date from 19 to 21 July of 2026 this year. I remove my objection. OK, any further objection on Amendment 18?

Seeing none, Amendment 18 has been adopted. Are there any further amendments? Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. Last night we were going late.

We went through our amendments. Amendment 4 was offered that provided some new definitions or new language in the bill. And I'm not sure that I fully understand what we actually did, so I rescind my— rescind action on Amendment Number 4. Okay, a motion to rescind action on Amendment Number 4 has been made. And I guess in the spirit of what we did earlier, which was just to know what the amendment is, Representative Josephson, can you just very succinctly give us a summary of what the amendment did, and then we will go to the vote on whether or not to rescind action on the amendment.

Yes. First, I'd note, if my note is correct, it passed 11 to 0. What we did is we adopted an amendment I offered that said that in the definition of OTP, other tobacco products, we would include synthetic nicotine products, nicotine substitutes. We learned that those were made in a lab. They are nicotine.

It's just not— anyway, they are nicotine. And we talked about Zyn and how it comes in a pouch to keep one's gums cleaner, ostensibly. And there was unanimity that this was worthy of addition.

And with that, the motion is before us. And again, it is Motion to rescind action on Amendment Number 4. And I believe— who made the objection? Representative Galvin. Okay, you maintain your objection?

I maintain my objection to not— to rescind. Yes, I don't want to rescind. Representative Stepp. I have a parliamentary inquiry. Sure.

I don't believe I was here for that amendment, so I don't know if I can participate in the rescission. Yeah, absolutely. Okay, just clarification. And just for the record, the ruling is that Representative Stepp can participate in the Motion, the vote. So Madam Clerk, if you can please call the roll.

And again, this is with regard to Amendment Number 4, rescission motion. Representative Moore. I'm sorry, we'll back up just for a quick second. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I just wanted clarification that this is not a vote to say no on the amendment itself. This is only to say whether or not we go back to have a conversation about it. Correct. This is a rescinding A motion to rescind action that was taken on Amendment Number 4. Madam Clerk, if you can please call the roll.

Representative Hannan? No. Representative Moore? No. Representative Allard?

No. Representative Gelvin? No. Representative Stapp? No.

Representative Tomaszewski? Yes. Representative Bynum? Yes. Representative Jimmy?

No. Representative Josephson? No. Representative Schraggy? No.

Representative Foster? No. 2 Yea, 9 nay. So on a vote of 2 yea to 9 nay, the motion to rescind action on Amendment Number 4 is not passed. And so with that, we are through the amendment process.

And unless folks have questions for the sponsor, I would entertain a motion. Representative Sharagi. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster. I move SB 24, Work Order 34-LS0260/G, out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. House Finance Committee authorizes Legislative Legal to make any technical and conforming changes necessary.

Object. We have an objection. Would you like to speak to your objection, Representative? Yeah. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

I'm—. Thanks to the member for bringing the bill forward. I'm just not going to support anything that punishes my soldiers in the active Army by fining them for doing something. So if you can go to war, should be able to smoke. State police shouldn't hassle you.

So I'm going to be no, moving this out. Representative Bynum, then Allard. Representative Bynum. Yes. Thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

Thank you, Mr. Lamka, for being here and bringing this bill forward to us. Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I appreciate your time. I also will not be supporting moving the bill out of committee. I believe that this bill has components in it that need more work.

I think that the overall arching— overarching goal of the bill to move us in alignment with federal law is what the bill should actually be and I would support that 100%. But I don't support the element of creating additional opportunities for contextual stops with law enforcement unnecessarily. I also don't support creating a new tax mechanism to put additional burdens on our businesses when we already have a system in place that will accomplish the same thing. So I will not be in support of moving the bill out of committee at this time. Okay.

Representative Ballard. Thank you. I'm not going to support this for moving out of committee either. I have a problem with, um, doing new taxes, but I also have a problem with punishing 18-year-olds who are adults, and if they choose to smoke tobacco, that's up to them. Thank you.

Okay, uh, Representative Josephson. Uh, I'm going to happily agree to move this out and support it over objection. Um, I don't think there are going to be significant pretextual stops I appreciate that stopping a 12-year-old with a cigarette is different than stopping a 20-year-old with a cigarette. I just think that police are pretty busy, and I don't— there's a whole plain view doctrine. I mean, if they stopped a 20-year-old with a cigarette, they might have a conversation.

I just don't think they're going to do that, for starters. If the plain view doctrine refers to, are they doing something else that demonstrates criminality, that may be an issue for them. They shouldn't do that.

I think the wholesale doesn't work because it's a different product. It's just a different product, and it's not conducive to a wholesale tax. And I think it's wrong that we have a system where we tax cigarettes and not e-cigarettes, and You know, the only minor adjustment I would make is to toughen up slightly the penalty for youth so that it has some meaning in, as I understand, a youth's perception of $100. But this is long overdue. And by the way, on the subject of it needs more work, Mr. Lampkin and President Stevens have been working on this for years.

And those of us who were here, I understand if you're a freshman, maybe it's your first bite, but this is sort of the same bill. It's just a retail tax. It, it's been vetted and vetted some more and vetted some more after that. And it's time to move the bill. Okay.

Representative Galvin, then Jimmy.

Representative Galvin.

Thank you. Very briefly, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. Uh, thank you, thank you to you and to the senator. And to— I know that Representative Hannan has worked on this issue for a long, long time. I have a neighbor who has been to the ER a few times.

He's very young, and I'm so sad that he got addicted to this drug. And I know that if it were a lot more expensive, he would have not had access. To the teachers who have struggled because the students have had to run out of the room because they couldn't concentrate for 45 minutes at a time. Let's hope that this makes a difference. I know that there's a big educational component to this, and so I'm very grateful.

To the parents, there's so many parents who just say, no, you can't because it's against the law. And that makes a difference. There are a lot of parents who do use that line and it works, and I appreciate that. I apologize if those who are in the military feel offended. I do think that aligning to the federal law makes sense to me.

That said, I do hope that we don't see any extra harm done there, but I don't think that this— that is the intent, and I don't think that that's what will happen. And so I will be a yes vote on this bill. Thank you. Representative Jimmy.

I vote for the bill reluctantly and hope there will be a chance on the floor to do an amendment where we won't be punishing adults for possession. I support taxes, I support the restriction of sale, but I do not support.

Or the possibility of punishing adults for possession, especially those in the military.

Thank you, Chair Foster. As you know, I've been a passionate advocate of taxing the largest growing area of tobacco addiction products of the 21st century, and that is e-products. And I, although one member has said don't support new taxes, I would assert all other products in the category exist. We have a tax on tobacco, but the electronic and synthetic have managed to use lawyers to argue that it doesn't apply to us because of the way that our taxes specify products by name. And, um, You know, we always call them sin taxes, but what we know is they are contributors to the largest cost of preventable health conditions that we end up as a state and a country having to deal with.

And taxes work as a deferment to the most price-sensitive people, and those are the youngest users. So I support taxing it. I support regulating it. I guess I also want to say, because people kept talking about 18-year-olds, Alaska has not allowed 18-year-olds to be legal consumers of smoking for over 20 years. Now, when I was a teenager, the smoking age was 16 in Alaska, and my high school had a smoking area for us right out back.

But it's— that's when we did not understand the full effects of the addiction and the lifelong health concerns. And even if this bill doesn't pass, 18-year-olds in Alaska cannot consume tobacco legally. It's against the law.

I hope you will support the bill on the floor, and I hope you'll support the bill moving out of committee today. Representative Stepp, do you maintain your objection? The objection is maintained. Madam Clerk, so we are voting on passage of SB 24. Can you please call the roll?

Representative Bynum? No. Representative Galvin? Yes. Representative Jimmy?

Yeah. Representative Tomaszewski? No. Representative Moore? Yes.

Representative Allard? No. Representative Stapp? No. Representative Hannan?

Yes. Representative Schraggy? Yes. Representative Josephson? Yes.

Representative Foster? Yes. 7 Yea, 4 nay. So on a vote of 7 yea to 4 nay, Senate Bill 24, which is version 34-LS0260/G, moves out of committee as amended with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. House Finance Committee authorizes alleged legal to make any technical and conforming changes as necessary.

Please do stick around to sign the yellow committee reports. Mr. Lampkin, any parting words? Thank you. I think he probably just wants to leave at this point. I think he said it all with his— appreciate you bringing the bill forward.

Please pass our regards on to Senator Stevens. And so we do have 2 invited testifiers for the next bill. What I'd like to do is— and that is the Invasive Species Bill, Senate Bill 174. What I'd like to do is take a 5-minute break and then we'll come back. And let's see, I don't see Senator Dunbar or his staff here, so we'll have to get them up here.

So that's the perfect opportunity to take a break. I'd like to do a quick rollout of their bill and then get right to invited testimony. It's just 2 people, and then we should be good for a while. So with that, House Finance will be recessed at 4:49 PM.

Okay, House Finance back on record. And as is kind of my normal thing here, I'm going to call the meeting back to order at 5:01 PM. The reason I said that is it's my way of encouraging folks to come back into the room. So looks like it's working pretty well. We've got Representative Tomaszewski here.

Actually, we're not doing quorum right now. Our call— calling of attendance because we did that earlier. But I am going to kind of list out what the plan is here. And next up, we do have Senate Bill 174, and that is the invasive species management bill.

And I'd like to invite up Senator Dunbar as well as his staff, Mr. Hunter Lotzfeld. And so the plan is to get maybe— if we could just get a shorter, maybe brief summary, and then we'll try to get to the invited testifiers, and then we'll come back to your full rollout of the, of the, of the bill. But maybe we could just give kind of a high level, and then that way we can allow the invited testifiers— I see they're calling in from California, Minnesota, Is that right? Maybe I'm looking at the wrong— no, this is— Mr. Chair, we should not have had— we have one invited testifier in the room and there might be one other, but—.

Oh, it's under public testimony. That's what it is. Okay. I might go to them first, actually, and then we'll come back. So with that, Senator Dunbar, thank you for being here.

And if you can put yourself on the record. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Forrest Dunbar, Senator from District J.

My name is Hunter Lotsfeld. I'm staff to Senator Dunbar. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And as per your suggestion, I'll keep it very brief because I know you're pressed for time.

SB 174 would create a council to tackle the challenge of invasive species in Alaska. This came out of conversations with scientists and public officials and other shareholders. It would also create a fund, but it would not charge the fund. And it would ask the— require the Invasive Species Council to produce a strategic plan every— within 5 years, a 5-year plan rather, and then update it periodically. So with that, Mr.

Chair, if you'd like, my staff can do a sectional, and then we do have one invited testifier here. Okay, I'm showing two invited testifiers on my script here. I've got Dr. Reed as well as Daniela Verna. Is the person who's here is Daniela? Is that Dr. Reed?

Oh, Dr. Reed. Okay. So we do have invited testimony. And in terms of Daniela Verna, is that— was that somebody you recognize? Is that somebody who's supposed to be testifying but is not here today?

Just for questions. Oh, questions. Okay. This is a question. So let me put that down.

What I'd like to do before we go to the full rollout of the bill is maybe just allow the invited our public testifiers to be able to testify since it might be a little later. I'm guessing it must be about 8 o'clock in Minnesota. So with that, I'm going to go ahead and open up public testimony on Senate Bill 174.

And first up, we have Lisa Kaufman calling in from Pine Mountain Club, California. Ms. Kaufman, if you can put yourself on the record.

Hi, co-chairs and members of the committee. This is Lisa Kaufman. I'm with Best Friends Animal Society, and I am calling from Pine Mountain Club, California, but I am only here to answer questions.

Not to testify. Okay, great. Thank you. And so let's see here. We also have— I'm not sure if I'm saying the right— Regan Lynch, I believe you might be also listed for questions also.

Is that correct?

Hi, good afternoon. Yes, that is correct. And you got my name correct. That was perfect. It's Regan Lynch.

Thank you. Great. Okay, thank you. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify? Public testimony?

Anyone online? I don't think so. If anyone would like to submit written testimony, they can do so by emailing us at [email protected]. Again, that is [email protected]. So I'll go ahead and close public testimony.

And we will jump right over to Ms. Emily Reed, if you'd like to come up and put yourself on the record. And thank you for being here tonight.

Yes. Thank you. For the record, my name is Emily Reed. I am the regional invasive plant coordinator with the Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition. And I was also just here for questions.

Oh, okay, great. Okay.

So with that, I think just so folks are aware, we also have Mr. Joe Felkel with Fish and Game and Tammy Davis with Fish and Game. So with that, Senator Dunbar, if you'd like to provide the full rollout of the bill. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. Again, for the record, this is Forrest Dunbar.

Senator from District J. The full rollout of the bill isn't much longer than the brief rollout of the bill. It's not a very long bill. It's a pretty straightforward bill. It creates an invasive species management council.

This came out of conversations that I had at the conference at the BP Energy Center that involves a number of people to already tackle this issue. This is a serious issue statewide. I won't go into too much depth because I think everybody on this committee understands it. Invasive species impact every part of the state, from northern pike killing salmon to Elodea clogging or choking ponds and rivers, to green crab pushing out red crab, to in Anchorage we have a tremendous problem with European chokecherry and a variety of other invasive species. The good news is Alaska still has fewer invasive species and there's fewer, less economic harm in Alaska than other parts of the country.

So far we've done a reasonably good job compared to other parts of the country. But the threat is real. It is, could be devastating to the state, and we need to coordinate our government and non-government response to invasive species. That is what the Invasive Species Council is designed to do. It has a variety of stakeholders on the council.

It has a small fiscal note because it is staffed by a— by the Department of Fish and Game, and they do create a 5-year strategic plan, as I stated earlier. With that, Mr. Chair, I am open for any questions folks might have. Okay, maybe we'll go ahead and jump right into the fiscal note while we're here. Mr. Felkel, would you like to put yourself on the record?

Yes, yes, for the record, Joe Felkel, Deputy Director, Division of Administrative Services for the Department of Fish and Game. So there's one Department of Fish and Game fiscal note, that's control code UH-DYS. It's for the Sport Fisheries Appropriation and Allocation Unit. This fiscal note requests one permanent part-time fishery biologist, one position to support the work of the new Invasive Species Council and assist in drafting the biannual strategic plan and annual report that the bill sponsor mentioned. The personal services cost would be $79,600 for 9 months in the first fiscal year.

That is for this position to assist in standing up the new council. And then the anticipated costs are $53,100 for 6 months of this part-time position in the out years. There are services costs, uh, including $5,000 a year for meeting support such as venue fees, technology and equipment setup, and public notices and outreach. So total costs include $84,600 for the first year with an ongoing cost of $58,100 in unrestricted general funds in the out years. Okay, thank you very much.

Any questions on the fiscal note for Mr. Felkel? Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Co-chair Foster. So, Mr. Felkel, how many fisheries biologist ones do you have currently in the division?

Uh, I apologize, total, I, I don't have that number available. I could certainly get that back to the committee. I do have information specific to the invasive species program, if that would be helpful. I'm sorry, through the chair, Rep. Tomaszewski. I don't know, follow-up?

Follow-up? No, I'd just like to know if you already have vacant positions with the same or similar titles in the division that we don't have filled. That's my question.

Mr. Felkold? Yes, through the Chair, I, again, I don't have those position numbers in front of me today, but I will get them and provide them to the Committee for distribution. Representative Hannan. Thank you, Co-chair Foster. Mr. Feckel, you did allude to— you do have at your fingertips the number of positions working on invasive species at ADF&G.

Could you tell us on the record how many positions that is? Mr. Felkel.

Uh, yeah, uh, for the record, Joe Felkel again, uh, through the chair, uh, Representative Hannan, Currently, we have one permanent position that manages our statewide program, but we also have a regional program in South Central for pike eradication, and that program includes 4 permanent full-time biologists and 4 permanent part-time seasonal technicians based in Soldotna and Palmer. Okay, so, uh, Chair Foster, so Mr. Feckel, so it remains that at the statewide level, trying to work on invasive species of non-flora, so animals and fish, we have one statewide person, and I believe that's Ms. Davis, who's been championing this for a long time. Is that correct?

Mr. Fogle? Through the chair, that is correct. All right, thank you. Okay, Representative Tomaszewski. Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster.

One more question. I guess if you're familiar with this particular topic, I'm looking at or interested in what do you know about the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership? Or if you're qualified or have information on that, or maybe I should talk with ask one of the others here in the room. Mr. Lotzfeld? Through the chair, I would actually defer that question to Ms. Tammy Davis, who is on the line.

She is our statewide invasive species coordinator, and she works with the partnership and I believe is a member of the partnership. And just for the record, that was Mr. Felkel. Ms. Tammy Davis, can you put yourself on the record?

Yes, good evening, House Finance. For the record, my name is Tammy Davis. I am the statewide invasive species program coordinator for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

I am a member of the partnership, and I am very sorry to do this, to pass the baton, but I would like to defer to Emily Reed, who's in the room, as she is a board member for the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership and can speak about that organization better. Dr. Reed. Yes, for the record, this is Dr. Emily Reed, Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition. The Alaska Invasive Species Partnership is not a formal nonprofit, but it is a group of folks concerned about invasive species and that work on invasive species throughout the state that come together to coordinate, um, conduct outreach and control activities. We have membership from the public, nonprofits, uh, conservation or soil and water conservation districts, federal and state government.

It's a great group. But again, it's informal.

Okay. Any further? Senator Tomaszewski? Thank you, Co-chair Foster. Through the chair, so yeah, I'm just looking to see, looks like they do a lot of work statewide with a lot of different organizations, but I was just curious how they would work in partnership with the new Alaska Invasive Species Council, if that was formed, is that just, is this council just kind of.

Of there to bring all the people together, all the stakeholders together? And would it be any different than what they're doing at the Cooperative Extension and the, and the, the partnership, Species Partnership? Dr. Reid. Yes, through the chair. So before I came to Alaska, I studied invasive species policy at the state level, um, and one thing that I, I found consistently is that the presence of an invasive species council hugely benefited, um, state action.

So in my mind, the council is quite distinct from the partnership because it will be able to make recommendations, set priorities and strategy at the state level, and really have accountability to both the legislature and to the public. Um, one thing that we have found is lacking and that, uh, inhibits the ability to respond quickly to the threats of invasive species is communication and capacity across state agencies. So being able to get agencies together to talk and agree is going to be a huge step to reducing kind of some redundancy and confusion and actually making progress. Follow-up. Follow-up.

Thank you. And so are you familiar with— I know the senator mentioned chokecherries. I know we have an issue in the Fairbanks area with the Canadian chokecherries. Maybe it's a Canadian, maybe it's some other chokecherry. But they seem to be— I mean, I believe it was our electric cooperative that originally handed those trees out to the public.

And now we're saying don't use those. But it seems to me that Golden Valley Electric Association was just— I just heard an ad that they were giving away chokecherry trees again. So I don't know if it's a different variety of chokecherry trees, but I'm just curious if you have any information on that. And also, if you can mention anything about, what do you call it, vetch, that I believe the university brought to the state to feed the caribou or something about that. But if you can touch on any of those topics and how this council would help in the coordination of activity around those invasive species.

Thank you. And I would like to just recognize in the audience, we have Representative Himschu who's joined us this evening. Thank you for being here. Uh, Dr. Reed. Yes, through the chair, I cannot speak to, um, the electric company handing out, uh, chokecherry right now.

My understanding is that there is a ban on the sale and distribution of chokecherry, but I can speak to introduction of these non-native species. Yes, it's, it's a common story, especially with invasive plants, that they were initially brought in and introduced for some beneficial purpose. So whether it be forage for revegetating roadsides to control erosion, to ornamental value, and it's just a matter of not knowing. The problem is once we do know that there's an issue with a plant or a species, how do we respond? And especially with invasive ornamental trees, one of the first things you want to do is get them out of there.

And how can we do that effectively? I think it requires quite a bit of coordination and preparedness to act. And that's what the council really does. It is for preparedness so that if something happens, can act coordinated and quickly. Representative Tomaszewski.

Yeah, thank you, Co-Chair Foster, to the chair. So I'm just looking at Golden Valley's tree giveaway for 2026, May 16th. So I guess that was yesterday. This year, members will be able to choose from a chokecherry. Aronia melanocarpa, a Siberian crabapple, or a common lilac.

So I don't know if that chokecherry falls in that category, but maybe somebody ought to call those people. Thank you. Okay. I've got Representative Bynum, Allard, Schragg. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Co-Chair Schragger. Co-Chair Foster. That's a mix between the two. Co-Chair Foster. It's time to catch myself there.

Apologize. My apologies, Mr. Co-chair, for that. Both of you. I was just going to make the quick comment that this, this is well overdue. We should have had this many years ago.

Everything from the invasive species that we've been dealing with, with newly introduced species coming into Alaska like the green crab. Hundreds of millions of known exposure due to invasive species with a high-end catastrophic exposure of over 100 or $500 million a year to not only trying to mitigate but to our businesses and our industries. So I fully 100% support this, this bill and look forward to moving through the process. Thank you. Okay.

Representative Ballard. Thank you. There's no doubt this addresses issues, but my concern is through the co-chair, Senator, or maybe Doctor, I forgot your last name. Dr. Reed. Dr. Reed, we have 5 federal agencies in the state of Alaska, do we not, that address these issues?

Dr. Reed.

We do have quite a bit of federal action. I'd— from my experience working with the Southeast Alaska Watershed Coalition, which is limited to Southeast Alaska. Um, I don't know that we all know what the other agencies are doing. May I, Representative Ballard? So we have 5 federal agencies in the state of Alaska that you— that work with federal invasive species programs.

So I'm trying to figure out what is different between their dollars and staff that we actually need to have ADFG involved? Because with that large, isn't it possible we can get biologists, yourself included, maybe on one of their boards instead of developing a whole new one? I just kind of want to wrap my head around the importance, please. Dr. Reed? Yes, through the chair, um, I think that's a, a wonderful question, and I've, um, spent time talking to some of these national groups within agencies.

And I thought when I came to Alaska, I was like, I know, I know what's up. I've met with, you know, these groups. I've been in conversations with Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife. But Alaska is quite unique, especially when it comes to invasive species, and that we are not overrun. And we are at a really critical juncture where We can do quite a bit to prevent millions of dollars in damages and mitigation funds.

And I think that Alaskans and people that work for the Alaska government should be leading and coordinating that, um, and having dedicated staff to do so means that those priorities are represented rather than federal agents representing the interests of those federal agencies. Can I do a quick follow-up? Representative Ballard. Is there any way— I'm not disagreeing, I'm trying to figure out— is there any way we can access any of those federal dollars for this board? Is that what we are looking at possibly doing?

Dr. Reid.

Through the chair, I will say that There are 17 states that currently have an invasive species council or committee, and I looked through those budgets, and what I found was that those committees that were active received quite a bit of funding federally and were able to obtain federal dollars for their council and the program. Representative Ballard. Could you— I know you already hit on it a little bit, but can you extend your knowledge of the extent that the agencies, these 5 federal agencies, what they actually do within our state, that you feel that it's— I kind of— I'm gathering from you, you feel it's not enough. We have 5 agencies, federal agencies, and you're telling me that's not enough, that we need a board Or you're advising that a board would be a great thing. And I'm just trying to wrap my head around how a board is going to make a difference in a positive manner, that we already have 5 agencies and why aren't we just kind of putting— going to them and saying, okay.

I see you nodding. You know what I'm getting at. So I'm just trying to figure it out. Could you tell me a little bit about each of the agencies? And we do have floor at 6:00, so we're going to have to recess in about.

3 Minutes here. So, um, Dr. Reed, through the chair, I, I cannot speak to what those agencies do within the state, but, um, I would say that it's not like the number of actors but how they communicate with one another and work together. And, um, you know, we need DOT and Ag talking to each other and Fish and Wildlife and working in a coordinated manner. And that's the piece that I see the council filling.

And just one last question. Do you see the board working with these other 5 agencies though as well? Through the chair? Absolutely. Thank you.

In the queue for questions, I do have reps of Sharagi and Hannan. We do have a floor session at 6. And then yes, floor session at 6:00, and then we've got other meetings at 5:30, which is in about 4 minutes. So we're going to go ahead and— we're going to go ahead and recess. Representative Hannon.

Could I— I wanted to read one thing because— Chair Foster, thank you. Representative Tomaszewski. Looking at chokecherries made me do a quick Google, and that led me to the Department of Natural Resources, the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Forestry Division page on chokecherries. And when you read through that, one of the very salient things it says under "Are chokecherries banned or illegal in Alaska?" There is currently no statewide regulatory authority that prohibits the sale, planting, or maintenance maintenance of Prunus paytas or Prunus virginia in Alaska. However, the municipality of Anchorage has banned the sale of those plants.

So I think one of the reasons to advocate, and I will be supporting a council, is so that a council can identify we have a problem and then recommend we need to give ADF and actually DNR authority to regulate invasive plants on a statewide level. And The feds can do it on federal land, but of course Congress isn't really worried about invasive species in Alaska. And we need state agencies in Alaska recommending for our state where we need to be addressing and how we eradicate Elodia and we stop green crab before it decimates fragile stocks. And I could go on, but according to Department of Natural Resources, They don't have the authority to regulate invasive species and plants. We need to give them that.

I think we— I'm going to go ahead and recess here. One thing, important point here, which is the amendment deadline. I think the bill is a fairly— it's not a complex bill, but if folks do need more time, we'll definitely entertain those. But what I wanted to do is set an amendment deadline for tomorrow, which is Monday, May 18th, at noon. And so we're willing to work with folks if folks need more time.

And so we're going to again set the amendment deadline for SB 174, invasive species, Monday, May 18th at noon. So with that, we're going to recess. And just again, for folks who have stepped in, floor session will be at 6:00. So we've got another meeting to attend at 5:30. And I guess the question is— actually, I think we're good.

We're going to recess at 5:29 PM.