Video: https://www.360north.org/gavel/video/…

Written Speech:

At first blush House Bill 168 may look okay; I was told over and over again that this simply gets rid of a standing committee. I was also told when I got the floor today that the Rules Chair (LeDoux) actually asked the sponsor to carry this piece of legislation--which I found very interesting.
I was Chair woman of the Administrative Regulation Review Committee. It has a very powerful purpose. Regulations can have cripling effects on the economy. As chair I met 15 times. Our committee exposed regulatory concerns. I also testified many times to boards as concerns of regulations were brought to my attention. We were also able--I specifically remember a regulation that we were able to block (using education funds in election). To eliminate another concern, I can tell you were fiscally responsible; if we didn’t use the committee money we returned a good portion to the general fund.
I was able to work very closely with leg legal. Leg Legal has an excellent lawyer over there--with many years of experience--and I was able to work closely with her. Also, as Chairwoman of the Administrative Joint Review Committee I was able to introduce legislation called the Regulation Impact Transparency Act. It had about 20 sponsors in this house, I even let a member from downtown amend my bill. It passed almost unanimously in both bodies. It just seems really goofy to me that because some people feel that a committee is not embracing the power that it has; is that cause to get rid of it?
I believe the reason some of past committee chairs were not meeting often was because we had such a terrific (reg review) lawyer over at Leg Legal! They were working between 20 and 25 hours per week on every regulation ensuring they were written to meet the intent language of the law. I think they were doing a very good job.
After deep review of HB 168 I realize it does do much more than just get rid of a standing committee. I know some people agreed to vote for this legislation possibly with limited knowledge. But what I want you to know is based on something my mother always told me about commitments: When I sign a chit sheet, or I tell someone I’m going to support something, I try to remember to say “with the knowledge given at this time I will support it. If new information comes I want the liberty to back out.”
This vote may be a test of character; I think it is very important that if you have made a commitment to people in your district, or any kind of statement about how you care about regulations, and how they impact your constituent’s lives or their businesses, this is a time I truly believe you must vote no on HB 168.
What HB 168 does, according to Leg Legal, is gets rid of the proactive regulatory review process. If you look at the sectional that was provided, this impacts the railroad, it impacts AIEDA the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation, Alaska Housing Copr and Alaska Aerospace Corp et. HB168 upsets a critical balance between the legislative, the executive and the judiciary branches of government. (HB 168 does not get rid of Government it gets rid of Government Oversight)
Yes, it is true, in 1980 the courts did sadly strip our legislative powers to fully repeal a regulation. However, we still had a proactive process to work interagency to expose our concerns and cause tremendous interactions between the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs.
When I went door-knocking to businesses in our district, the number one thing my constituents told me was they had problems with regulations. And although during organization I was not thrilled about getting joint regulation Review as a Committee assignment-(it was not my first priority) There were I believe some 27 members of our caucus then and I was happy to become chairwoman of something, and I embraced it. As Chair, I was so thankful to all of you who helped pass HB 140 the Regulation Impact Transparency Act; that was a transformational law for regulations. It caused agencies to not only just look selfishly at the impact upon the agency but also look at all agencies. If they were promulgating a regulation they had to look at the impact on all agencies and all regulations. Also they had to assess impacts to communities and the private sector.
House Bill 168 does repeal portions of HB 140; if you look at section 23, in this bill it repeals the 10-day send-back. We were given 10 days to send back a regulation of concern and this strips our power of that opportunity.
This bill increases the burden on us now as legislators, year-round, and many of us may not have the expertise of reading regulations which are be so complicated. It took me quite a while to learn how to read these regulations. According to leg legal if this bill passes our official regulation review process will be no longer available.
This is of deep concern to me: We will no longer officially be supported by Leg Legal; they can help us—we can ask them—but there’s not guaranteed support there.
Section 23 also is of concern 40:25.128, the official communications between Department of Law and Leg Affairs is not required any more. It can happen, but it is not required. In essence ;the bill removes the legislature’s official responsibilities of legislative review to match intent of a regulation to the intent of the law. It increases our workload, it decreases our power. We already have very limited power.
During a recession sometimes blocking or exposing a regulation can really help our businesses out. We have a major financial problem on our hands right now. I’m just amazed that this bill has risen to top priority when we are in such a massive fiscal crisis and have a recession on our hands, because I think this is an opportunity (watch for business crippling regs).
I’ve given you lots of reasons to vote NO on this bill. I think it’s of critical importance; that we take our commitment if we care about overburdening regulations, we don’t want to let the Executive branch run free. We need to embrace our responsibilities and make sure that Administrative law (regulation) which is written by the Administration, matches the intent of legislation we work so hard to create in this body. With that I passionately urge a NO vote on this bill.

Please thank those who voted NO
No Votes: Reinbold, Tuck, Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Kopp, Eastman, Rauscher, (oddly LeDoux since she originally sponsored bill), Kawasaki

Yes Birch,Chenault,Claman,Drummond,Edgmon,foster,Gara,Grenn,Johnson,Johnston,Joesephson,Ktio,Knopp, KreissTomkins,Lincoln,Neuman,Ortiz,Parish,Pruitt,Saddler,Seaton,Spohnholz,Stutes,SllivanLeonard,Tarr,Thompson,Tilton,Wilson,Wool,Zulkosky

https://www.360north.org/gavel/video/…

Just in case people say they had "no idea" what the bill did--they heard this and other opposing speeches--To watch the formal speech click the link just above!