HFLR-20260520-1530

Will the House please come to order. Madam Clerk, are there any messages from the governor?

I have no messages from the governor this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. Any messages from the other body?

Messages dated May 19 stating the Senate has passed and is returning the following House Concurrent Resolution number 14, suspend uniform rules for Senate Bill number 14, and House Concurrent Resolution number 18, suspend uniform rules for Senate Bill number 21. The Senate has passed and is returning the following: House Bill number 50, Snow Classics. The Senate has passed and is returning the following: committee substitute for House Bill number HB 96, Labor and Commerce, amended Home Care Employment Standards Advisory Board, and House Bill 244, CNA training, and committee substitute for House Bill 249, Labor and Commerce, transfer vehicle title to insurer. The Senate concurred in the House amendments to Senate Bill 9, Judiciary, thus adopting House committee substitute for committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 9, Judiciary, Surrender of Infants, Infant Safety Device, title change HCR 14. And the Senate concurred in the House amendments to Senate Bill Number 21, Finance, thus adopting House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 21, Labor and Commerce, Alaska Work and Save Program, with title change HCR 18.

I have no further messages from from the other body. Are there any communications? There are no communications. Reports from standing committees? There are no reports of standing committees.

Reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees. Citations or resolutions for interruption? There is a special order citation calendar. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that notice and publication requirements be waived in the citations on the first special order citation calendar. We made a special order of business. Without objection. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House approve the citations on the first special order citation calendar. Hearing no objection, the first special order citation calendar is approved. Madam Clerk, are there bills for introduction? There are no bills for introduction this afternoon.

This brings us to consideration of the daily calendar. And before we begin considering the bills on the daily calendar, just for the body's awareness, pursuant to Uniform Rule 30C, reconsideration is not available today as it is the last day of session. Secondly, pursuant to Uniform Rule 43B, I'm waiving engrossment today for the same reason. Today is the last day of session. Madam Clerk, please read the first item on today's calendar.

Senate Bill Number 79 by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee entitled an Act Relating to Wage Payments.

The Labor and Commerce Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 79, Labor and Commerce, with one previously published zero fiscal note and one new fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Burke and co-chairs Fields and Hall. No recommendation: Carrick, Amend, Colon, Sadler, and D. Nelson.

The Labor and Commerce Committee also considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute For committee substitute for Senate Bill 79, L&C pending with a new fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass. Representatives Burke and co-chairs Fields and Hall, Amend, Calong, Carrick, Sadler, and D. Nelson.

The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with House committee substitute for Senate Bill 79 Finance with a technical title change, attached 1 new zero fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass. Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Hannon, Bynum, Co-Chair Foster. No recommendation: Tomaszewski, Stapp, Allard, Moore, Co-Chair Schragi, and Josephson. There are 2 House committee substitutes.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 79 with the new technical title be adopted in lieu of the original bill.

There is an objection for the purposes of explanation. The committee substitute, Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will make it very quick. What we did is there was a component in the bill for interchange fees that was removed from the bill, and we are back to the pay card bill.

Addressing the committee changes in House Finance, Representative Fields. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not be supporting the committee changes in House Finance. As the bill left Labor and Commerce, there was a provision that would have prevented imposition of interchange fees by credit card companies for taxes and tips. We have heard from small businesses— there are restaurants, bars that are losing $50,000 a year in interchange fees on taxes and tips.

Going to big banks in New York City. One of the more insidious financial trends over the last 2 decades is more and more wealth is getting concentrated on Wall Street, and these large credit card companies are pulling more and more wealth out of our small businesses. In response to that provision inserted in committee, we heard from, I think, the most lobbyists I've ever heard from on any issue. Every big bank, every credit card company had a lobbyist, sometimes more, and they said, if we did this, if we stood up for our small businesses, they were going to litigate. And I would say absolutely, anytime we take on these special interests in Wall Street, they're going to litigate.

That's our job. So I don't support the committee changes. I'm not going to get in the way of the bill ultimately moving. The underlying bill is not particularly problematic, but I think this is an issue we will need to return to because when you look at the fees and the amount of money these credit card companies are taking out of our state, it's outrageous. And I think we'll have another opportunity to stand up for small businesses.

Thank you. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would vehemently urge the body to adopt the finance CS. I support the changes, although I appreciate the member from Downtown Anchorage's zeal.

Most individuals in the business community, especially deal with these processing fees, basically said it would be incredibly cumbersome, expensive, and challenging for them to have that provision included in the bill. And they would end up having to drive costs up to regular everyday Alaskans and pass through those to consumers if it would become law. So I ask the members to adopt the finance CS, which is in line with the bill sponsor's wishes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My objection to the motion. We have additional microphones. Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? I believe the question pertaining to an explanation of committee substitute has been satisfied. Therefore, I'm going to rule, not seeing further objection, that you did object, so we will go to a vote in terms of adopting the Finance Committee substitute. The question before the body is, shall— I do not see any additional microphones raised, so I'm going to go to the question. The question before the body is, shall the Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 79 be adopted?

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 30 Yeas, 10 nays. By a vote of 30 yeas to 10 nays, the Finance Committee substitute has been adopted.

Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 79 Finance be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage.

Hearing no objections, so ordered. Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 79 Finance by the House Finance Committee entitled An Act Relating to Wage Payments and Providing for an Effective Date. And before I turn to the carrier of the bill, I'm going to kindly ask members to keep their comments succinct, concise, brief, whatever the term might be, because time is more and more of the premium here as every minute goes by. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief on the explanation of what this bill does. This bill allows employers employers to offer pay cards to their employees. The employees can opt in for this service. Pay cards are an alternative to a check or direct deposit.

These pay cards act much like a debit card. They have protections in place that protect the employee. The employee is not charged fees to use them at the merchant, and they can also withdraw cash from the card without charge. There's a list of many benefits that are in the bill for that, and I look forward to any questions. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Additional debate? I'm not seeing any. Very brief. Very brief.

House, please come back to order. I am not seeing any debates, comments, and the bill has been explained. Are you— Representative Joseph.

Thank you. Sorry, Mr. Speaker, I— this bill looks like it's improved from 2 years ago, but— and I appreciate very much the work of the member from the other body from the North Kenai. I just, I just am still confused and will be voting no. So for example, a payroll card account must provide an employee at least 1 cost-free withdrawal each week. Is that to be celebrated, that once a week I can get my own money for free?

Okay, is that—. Are they doing me a favor? It's my money. I just can't vote for the bill. I'm sorry.

Representative Bynum, do you want to address that quickly? Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. When an employee receives a paycheck, they get one paycheck to go deposit into the bank, and this is saying that the employee employee has an opportunity to withdraw all of their money from the card with no penalty. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 79 Finance pass the body? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 38 Yeas, 2 nays. With a vote of 38 yeas to 2 nays, Senate Bill 79 has passed the House.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. Madam Clerk.

Committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 163, Labor and Commerce, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled an Act Relating to Inactive State Accounts and Funds, Repealing the Public Access Fund, Repealing the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program Emergency Account, Repealing the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Reserve Fund, and Providing for an Effective Date. The State Affairs Committee considered the bill attached HB 163, Labor and Commerce, one previously published, zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass Representatives Vance, McCabe, Sinclair, Holland, Tim Schutt-Storrie, and Chair Carrick. I have no House committee substitutes. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments?

I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that committee substitute for Senate Bill 163, Labor and Commerce, Be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, placed on final passage. Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 163, Labor and Commerce, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled an Act Relating to Inactive State Accounts and Funds, Repealing the Public Access Fund, Repealing the Alaska Temporary Assistance Program Emergency Account, Repealing the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Reserve Fund and providing for an effective date. Representative Colon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had the privilege of carrying this from a member from the other body, from Anchorage.

So we've spent a lot of time growing our statute books in the last 2 years. There's an opportunity to repeal something and make the statute book a little smaller. Senate Bill 163 is a cleanup bill, repeals 3 inactive funds with zero funds in them. Permission to read, please? Permission granted.

It uses the biannual inactive funds report, which you can find on your desk, produced by Ledge Finance, which identifies inactive funds or accounts that are outdated, duplicative, or otherwise noted as unneeded. Ledge Finance, Ledge Legal, and the relevant departments were consulted in vetting these funds to ensure that they are ready to be repealed with no negative or unintended consequences. So the 3 funds you'll find on page— there's one on page 5, one on page 7, or 2 on 7 of the inactive state funds report. This report actually is a result of a bill that was passed about 3 years ago from the same member that, um, that lets finance go through the accounts and reviews what accounts are old or outdated that we could actually repeal and start cleaning up the statutes. So the 3 funds is the Public Access Fund, the Alaska Affordable Heating Fund, and the 2001 Special Olympics World Winter Games Reserve Fund.

I don't think we need that anymore. And just in the interest of time, I won't explain the reasons. If you want the reasons or the— why Ledge Finance says we can repeal them, I think you can You can refer to the report and I can answer any questions.

Not seeing any and not seeing any need for wrap-up. Are you ready for the question? Question being, shall committee substitute for Senate Bill 163, Labor and Commerce, pass the body? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 0 nays. By a vote of 39 yeas to 0 nays, Senate Bill 163 has passed the body.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objections, so ordered. Madam Clerk.

Committee substitute for Senate Bill number 164, Labor and Commerce, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled An Act Eliminating Deductions for the Remittance of the Motor Fuel Tax, Tobacco Taxes, and Tire Fees Relating to Discounts on Cigarette Stamps and Providing for an Effective Date. The Labor and Commerce Committee considered the bill attached to one previously published fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Trier, Carrick, and Co-Chairs Hall and Fields. No recommendation, Colon. The Finance Committee considered the bill attached to one previously published fiscal note.

Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Galvin, Hannon, and Co-Chairs Schraggy, Josephson, Foster. No recommendation, Tomaszewski, Stapp, Bynum, and Moore. I have no House Committee substitutes. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? I have no amendments.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that committee substitute for Senate Bill 164, Labor and Commerce, be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. Hearing no objections to order, Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. Committee substitute for Senate Bill 164, Labor and Commerce, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled An Act Eliminating Deductions for the remittance of the motor fuel tax, tobacco taxes, and tire fees relating to discounts on cigarette stamps, and providing for an effective date.

Representative Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read and use my notes? Permission granted. So Senate Bill 164, for those of you who haven't reviewed it, is similar to the previous bill that we just heard in that Uh, we direct Legislative Finance to do some annual analysis of, uh, where our books are and what programs.

So from a report that's called the Indirect Expenditure Report, Legislative Finance reviewed 136 programs and recommended 45 of them for cleanup. This bill includes 4 of them.

They are a— 3 of them are tax credits, tax deductions for you filing the tax on time, and 1 is for using the appropriate tax on your cigarette stamps. All of these tax encouragements were instituted when there was a tax change implemented. And the concern was we wanted to encourage a timely renewal of you being able to file. So in Section 1, it includes the motor fuel tax timely filing credit that was instituted in 1997, the tobacco tax products tax that was implemented in 1997, the cigarette stamp tax discount that was implemented in 2003, And the fourth one is the tire fee timely discount, and it does not tell me which year that was implemented. Um, these are all credits off of your tax for paying them.

In total, they're about $500,000 if we do away with these deductions. Not all people are able to take advantage of them, and most of these taxes are now paid instead of on a paper process as usual digitally. The bill streamlines government, levels the playing field, and adds a few new drops to the revenue bucket. And I would encourage you to support the bill. Representative Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to a question for the sponsor, or the person who's carrying the bill. I'm wondering if some of these tax structures are a little bit complicated and require affixing stamps 2 things and so on. And I wasn't entirely clear since I didn't hear this bill, is if some of the tax is actually retained by the merchant or by the— in exchange for the more complicated procedure they have to take on, and if that is eliminated in this bill.

Representative Hannan, in closing comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and again, permission to use my notes and to read. So, for example, the stamp— cigarette stamp tax discount was implemented in 2003 when the new cigarette stamp required you to purchase a new piece of equipment At the time, the machine was a $75,000 machine, 2003, and the discount was a $50,000 discount. But we have never taken that discount off the books, so people who have long ago amortized and deduct that stamp machine for cigarette stamp taxes that are due are still able to take that deduction annually. There are currently 8 companies who benefit from using that discount, each to the tune of roughly $40,000 a year in stack— stamp— cigarette stamp tax discount.

The other 3 were all, again, when we were changing a tax and we wanted to make sure people filed in a timely basis, we incentivized giving them a discount off their tax due by paying them in a timely fashion.

I'd encourage a yes vote. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall committee substitute for Senate Bill 164, Labor and Commerce, pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 25 Yeas, 14 nays. By a vote of 25 yeas to 14 nays, Senate Bill 164 has passed the body.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the evicted effective date clause. I think you have to move the effective date clause. Move the effective date clause.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the effective date clause be adopted? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 35 Yeas, 4 nays. With a vote of 35 yeas to 4 nays, the effective date clause has been adopted.

Madam Clerk.

Senate Bill Number 252 by Senator Clayman, entitled an Act Relating to the Uniform Commercial Code Relating to Secured Transactions Relating to Controllable Accounts, Controllable Electronic Records, and Controllable Payment Intangibles Relating to relating to negotiable instruments, relating to letters of credit, relating to warehouse receipts, bills of lading, and other documents of title, relating to investment securities, relating to leases of goods, and relating to fund transfers. The Labor and Commerce Committee considered the bill attached to one previously published zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Freer, Carrick, co-chairs Hall and Fields, No recommendation. Colombe, Sadler, and D. Nelson. The Judiciary Committee also considered the bill, attached one previously published zero fiscal note.

Signing the report do pass: Representative Vance. No recommendation. Mina, Costello, Underwood, Eichide, and Chair Gray. I have no House committee substitute. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments?

I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Bill 252 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. We have no objections, so ordered.

Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. Senate Bill number 252 by Senator Clayman, entitled an Act Relating to the Uniform Commercial Code Relating to Secured Transactions Relating to Controllable Accounts, Controllable Electronic Records, and controllable payment intangibles relating to sales, relating to negotiable instruments, relating to letters of credit, relating to warehouse receipts, bills of lading, and other documents of title, relating to investment securities, relating to leases of goods, and relating to fund transfers. Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Uniform Commercial Code is a set of business rules adopted by all 50 states that ensure contracts are enforced consistently all across the country.

Alaska first adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1967. As commerce evolves—. Permission to read? I thought you'd never ask.

Permission to read? Permission granted. As commerce evolves, the Uniform Law Commission and American Law Institute periodically recommend updates Senate Bill 252 incorporates their 2018 and their 2022 amendments. The 2022 amendments establish rules for controllable electronic records, CERs, digital assets like cryptocurrencies, NFTs, and electronic promises to pay. They clarify ownership rights and how controllable electronic records can be used as collateral, providing legal certainty for these increasingly common transactions.

Importantly, the amendments use technology-neutral language, ensuring that they remain relevant as technology continues to develop. These amendments are not regulatory. They provide a framework for private parties choosing to use new technologies without dictating how business must be conducted. The 2018 amendments address problems that arise from when a partnership or LLC interest is used as loan collateral. These Updates are developed by experts across the country, over 350 experts.

They take years to develop these amendments. The 2022 amendments have already been adopted by 35 states. Alaska should do the same to stay aligned with the best practices, support emerging technologies, and signal that Alaska is open for business. I urge your support for this bill. Thank you.

Any debate or discussion? Not seeing any and not seeing any closing comments. Are you ready for the question? Question being, shall Senate Bill 252 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Representative Prox.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 0 nays. By a vote of 39 yeas to 0 nays, Senate Bill 252 has passed the House.

Madam Clerk. House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 258, Labor and Commerce. Introduced by the House Labor and Commerce Committee entitled An Act Relating to Contracts for the Licensing of Software Applications. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Carrick.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to carry this bill for the member from downtown Juneau in the other body. Permission to read from my notes? Permission granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So recently, software licensing contracts have developed requiring government units to move the software to the cloud instead of their own services— servers, a decision which belongs at the local level where budgets and security are considered. Additionally, and even more concerning, some contracts forbid using specific competitors' cloud computers, driving government to captive cloud options, which limits flexibility, increases costs, and reduces the state's ability to choose the most practical and cost-effective technology to serve the public. So the bill before you, Senate Bill 258, protects state and local governments from software vendor lock-in and ensures that the government can choose where software is installed and operated, including on its own hardware and infrastructure. It prevents software licensing contracts from forcing mitigation— or migration, rather— to specific cloud providers or from restricting competing platforms and preserves local and state decision-making over technology, security, and budget priorities. Essentially, Mr. Speaker, this is a bill which allows for greater flexibility for state entities when making these decisions and is providing better cost-effective solutions.

This legislation also allows exceptions when required for federal accreditation, security certification, or technical architecture of the software. It allows the state to voluntarily purchase bundled cloud hosting, support, or related services when it makes operational or financial sense, preserves the ability to negotiate discounted pricing arrangements, and applies to contracts that are entered into, renewed, or amended after the bill takes effect. Mr. Speaker, there were also some changes adopted in the House Labor and Commerce Committee substitute which were meant to drive down any potential cost to the state from the legislation, and those were adopted in consultation with the administration in order to keep the fiscal note low. And so we had a discussion yesterday about a fiscal note that was submitted extremely late in the process and reasons why the committee has chosen to reject that fiscal note. And I'm happy to answer any questions and also try to provide any technical answers where I can.

Thank you. Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order?

We're under debate on Senate Bill 258. Representative Elam, I believe you are next in the queue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

House Bill 258 I really appreciate the work that the member from the other body put into doing this. Unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to support this.

The realities are is there's a couple of, couple of sections in here that I have some concerns with. In its original version that came over from the Senate to the House over here, or from the other body to the House here, Originally was missing a couple of paragraphs, but it still contains a couple sentences that I have some issues with. If I may read—. Permission granted. In the first section here, it says that a contract entered into by the state to license software application, right, you know, that's what we're— the topic is here, that's designed to run on generally available desktop or server hardware may not limit the state's ability to install the software on a desktop or server hardware of the state's choosing.

Sounds pretty benign. It's not really all that— if you don't understand the underlying architecture behind the technologies, it doesn't sound like it's that big of a deal. The problem is, is that when you start comparing cloud platforms, what you realize is, is that there are two big tech giant groups here that are battling. You have Amazon and Google versus Microsoft. The problem is, is that Microsoft has a, a full portfolio that is all cloud-based, and they charge licensing fees to the different tiers of their platform.

And Amazon and Google simply don't offer those product listings. And so Amazon and Google have the ability to host a virtual environment in the cloud but they don't have productivity suites. So that would be things like Office or an operating system, if you want. And so most of the business environment is in there. So Amazon and Google right now are in the process of trying to force Microsoft to allow their applications to be hosted on any generally available hardware, which means their cloud systems.

And I don't mean to get too nuanced into the weeds here, but basically what that means is they don't want Microsoft to be able to charge them a licensing fee, and they're trying to get us to get into the battle here with legislation that says that they can't charge a licensing fee. So currently with Microsoft products and all of the platforms, you can put it on any generally available hardware. The problem is, is that Amazon and Google are not as compliant. Competitive because they also have to pay a licensing fee because they don't have the underlying infrastructure. So basically Microsoft is saying, we've worked on this for generations now, Amazon and Google want our work to be put on their platform for free, and I can't get in the way of that right now.

Um, I think that the added language that the, the bill sponsor put in here with these extra couple of sections was very nice. It allows the state to be able to purchase the applications with potentially minimal amount of risk to what that's gonna do to the overall cost to consumers. But at the end of the day, because they're doing this monopoly-type battle, um, it's, it's two tech giants fighting each other. And so I, I mean, I think that these two tech giants should battle it out, and we shouldn't necessarily start creating legislation that favors one over the other.

So I'm a no vote. Yes, had us in suspense there.

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and Notwithstanding the conversation that just had, or the comments that were made before, I recognize that there, I mean, we see it every day, there is a battle that is happening. However, the language, the new language that was added where the vendor, et cetera, et cetera, but determines in writing that the restriction is in the best interest of the state, I don't see how that puts us in the middle of that.

And I see that as a, with the, now I gotta get to the right page here, but the state chief procurement officer would be making that decision. So I think that this is still good, a good piece of legislation that there are battles happening. However, we can look out for the best interests of our state in the midst of these corporations battling it out. So I rise in support. Thank you.

Representative Prox.

Cut the internet.

I speak in opposition to this. Well, I guess I have a question. If, which I think happens when you start mixing programs from Google or Amazon or Joe Blow's computer apps, you introduce a huge training, get used to it expense. And if we were to stick with one operating system and one business suite that one program looked and operated sort of like the other, I think the— that we would waste considerably less time than we are now. And I'm not entirely sure whether this would contribute to that problem, but I think that is a significant problem of trying to find the cheapest or a shortcut to something, and we're just wasting tremendous amounts of time trying to get used to different programs.

So for that, I'm opposed to this until I'm satisfied that that wouldn't happen. Representative Klawe. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to recognize that there is one IT professional in the room, and it's not me. So I'm going to follow the rep from District 8. I appreciate his comments in explaining kind of the unintended consequences of something that I read that looks innocuous, but obviously there's a lot more to this bill.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise briefly and mention that— permission to read? Permission granted. On page 2 of the bill, under line 8, it defines— it says state, defining state, and it says look at statute.

And when you look at statute, we're not just talking about about the state, we're talking about subdivisions of the state, which includes cities, municipalities, boroughs, everybody in the state that is government. So it isn't just confined to state government, it's— it is all state government, including boroughs and cities. I just wanted to make the body aware of that because the mention of state was brought up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Despite the looming battle between Zuckerberg, Bezos, and Bill Gates. I'm tempted to vote for this just to see where in the heck the fiscal note came from. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In wrap-up, Representative Kerik. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you all for comments today. Senate Bill 258 simply promotes competition, flexibility, fiscal responsibility, and long-term cost cost control for Alaska's government units. It does not get in the middle of a tech giant war or argument.

I would argue it simply says that our state and our public entities have the authority to choose the best options for managing public business in the state, and I urge your support. Thank you. Be ready for the question. The question being, shall House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 258, Labor and Commerce, passed the House, members may We'll proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote? 26 Yeas, 13 nays. By a vote of 26 yeas to 13 nays, Senate Bill 258 has passed the House. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the members go into the limbo file to take up House Bill 280. The member from District 12 will explain the changes made by the other body. Hearing no objection, House Bill 280 is before the body. Representative Schraggy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was one change in the other body to House Bill 280. The Senate Finance Committee added clarifying language directing the Department of Revenue to use the multistate tax compact language when creating regulations to define financial institutions. That is the only change. I recommend that members vote to concur.

Thank you. Representative Fields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a reminder on the underlying bill since it's been a while. This bill means that we will collect more revenue in the state of Alaska rather than have California, New York State collect that revenue. It does not change the overall level of taxation. So I would say to members, if they think that California does a better job making spending decisions, I would say definitely vote no on this bill. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise and briefly talk about this bill. I voted yes on this bill last time, and I will vote again Yes on this bill, and there's one primary reason. When the administration came in front of the Finance Committee and we had this in front of us, uh, there was very— a couple very specific questions I asked. Number one, is this a new tax?

The administration said no. I said, number two, is this necessary for modernization of our tax system? And the answer that they gave me was yes. And then I also asked, Mr. Speaker, if this created a modernization and a fair playing field for all of our businesses in Alaska. And the indication I got from the administration was yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to a question, and I, I think this was called the Etsy tax at one time, so I just would like to hear if that has been corrected in this version. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And wrap up, Representative Shraggi. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that, uh, this bill was a revival of one that we had previously seen in the legislature. On the House side, we stripped out the highly digitized tax that specifically targeted, uh, out-of-state highly digitized businesses with a higher tax rate. That has been stripped out, so this is now just a tax modernization bill that updates our corporate income tax structure to recognize businesses have changed and they don't just exist in a physical space, there are also now highly digital— digitized businesses.

They'll just be subject to our already existing corporate income tax structure. There's no longer any special provisions targeting those businesses. Thank you. Mr. Mihailidis.

Will the House please come back to order?

We have before the body a pending motion from the Majority Leader. If I remember correctly, Mr. Majority Leader, did you actually move this bill? I don't think you did. I believe so, but I will restate the motion, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments to committee substitute for House Bill— committee substitute for House Bill 280 Finance, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 280 Finance. Recommend the voters— recommend the members vote yes. Are you ready for the question? The question being Shall the House concur in the Senate changes to committee substitute for House Bill 280 Finance, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 280 Finance? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 28 Yeas, 11 nays. By a vote of 28 yeas to 11 nays, the House has agreed to the Senate changes to Hospital 280.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, effective date clause has been adopted. Breathe at ease.

Will the House please come back to— back to order.

At this time, the House is going to stand at ease.

Until the call of the chair. We have— are making great progress on our calendar and we're waiting for the other body. At ease.