News from Hughes » April 27, 2021

Last Thursday, the Senate Community & Regional Affairs Committee held a hearing on SJR 13 sponsored by the committee. As chair, it is my office’s responsibility to carry all legislation produced by the committee. My committee aide Dawson Mann presented the legislation regarding broadband in Alaska to our members.

SJR 13 was moved from committee after its initial hearing and is likely to be scheduled for a Senate floor vote this week. You can read more about the resolution in my article in this newsletter.

Hearing SB 122 sponsored by Sen. Reinbold in the Judiciary Committee with newly assigned Judiciary Chair Senator Holland at the helm. The bill further defines the term “victim” by adding the child of someone who is deceased as a result of a crime.

Did you know Russian pollock is marketed in Europe and elsewhere (except in the U.S.) as “Alaskan” pollock?

Did you know Russia has closed its doors to U.S. seafood in recent years?

Did you know Russia has more than doubled its seafood imports in the U.S. in the last eight years?

Is your blood boiling yet?

Last week, in the Senate Special Committee on World Trade meeting, I brought up the need for this to be corrected and will work with my colleagues to send a strong message to Washington, D.C. The lack of fair and reciprocal trade practices hugely impacts this important fisheries industry in Alaska. This needs to be fixed!

If we don’t like rules or policies or laws, it is the legislature’s job to change them. We’re lawmakers not lawbreakers. To stand for our liberties, to uphold constitutional rights, to get rid of bad laws and institute good ones, protesting and complaining is inadequate. It takes votes to get good proposals across the finish line or to stop bad proposals – and that takes working together with our colleagues, which requires building relationships based on integrity and respect.

Over the last week I received numerous inquiries concerning recent action to reorganize two committees in the Senate. I decided that it would be a good idea to explain how the legislature operates, what some of the standards and rules are, and why they exist, particularly those that guide how we conduct ourselves. I am hopeful that this will provide you with information to better understand the people’s branch as we seek to get the people’s work done in as an efficient and seamless way as possible.

The system of rules for the operation of the legislature begins with Article 2 of the Alaska State Constitution. Article 2 of the Alaska State Constitution covers several areas of the legislature including but not limited to powers, duties, regular and special sessions, form and passage of bill, how to handle vetoes and rules for legislature. Specifically, Article 2, Section 12 states, “Rules – The houses of each legislature shall adopt uniform rules of procedure.” The constitution is clear that the legislature shall adopt their own rules.

The adopted rules (adopted by a 2/3 majority vote in each house of the legislature) define the day-to-day roles, jurisdictions, responsibilities and processes to allow the members of the legislature to work off of the same sheet of music in an orderly way.

As instructed by our State Constitution,the Alaska State Legislature has adopted Alaska State Legislature Uniform Rules. This document lays out the standard for conduct and for the administration of the duties of the legislative branch of government.

The Uniform Rules contain 55 rules that give instructions on items such as organization, the daily order of business, motions, voting procedures, joint sessions and numerous other subjects. (Refer to the link above to learn more.)

The Uniform Rule that I would like to bring to your attention is Uniform Rule 26, Decorum in Debate. It states that “decorum in debate is governed by the provisions or Sections 120 through 126, MASON’S MANUAL OF LEGISLATIVE PROCEDURE, 2010 edition, when not inconsistent with these Uniform Rules.”

These sections of Mason’s Manual of Legislative Procedure, which makes up Chapter 13 of the manual, govern how elected officials are to conduct themselves while fulfilling their duty. It covers a myriad of actions that are unacceptable. Its purpose is to encourage members to be respectful of each other in debate, even when debating subject matters that are controversial and difficult. We are to be statesmen and stateswomen; civility is not the exception – it is the rule.

The main theme of these rules can be found in the first rule of decorum in debate, Section 120. It reads:

“(T)he rights and duties of members of the legislative body are derived from and founded upon the absolute equality of the members. Every member has the same right as any member to present questions for the consideration of the house and has the same right to be heard. Members must not be permitted by their conduct to deny to others that which they claim for themselves. It is the duty of all members to conduct themselves so as not to obstruct the like rights of other members. Freedom of speech involves to all rules of debate. The language used by members during debate should be temperate, decorous and respectful”.

As legislators, we must first recognize that while we may not agree on every item, subject, or policy that is presented to us, we must voice our opposition in such a way that respects those with whom we disagree. The constitutionally required decorum prohibits disrespectful speech against other members of the legislature.

We can and should certainly have rigorous and passionate debate about issues, but we must not make personal jabs and accusations when we have differing positions. We are to focus on the policy not the person. We are not to impugn the motives of other or participate in conduct that disrupts or disturbs the orderly proceedings of the body.

If I am being disrespectful of other members and disrupting the work flow, because my colleagues have a constitutional duty and obligation to complete their work in a limited timeframe, they may have to take action to ensure that I am not hindering that task. When a member cannot conduct themselves in a way that is honorable and constructive over a prolonged period, and that behavior hinders the work and productivity of the legislative body, then corrective action is appropriate.

I hope that this information was helpful to you, but if you ever have more questions on action that the Senate takes, before making assumptions, I welcome your questions and your feedback.

Please call my office anytime at 907-465-3743 to discuss any issues, actions, or concerns you may have.

It was a pleasure to speak with representatives from Matanuska Telephone Association (MTA) and the Alaska Telecom Association (ATA) regarding industry trends and SJR 13 Improve Broadband Internet Access.

Last week Senate Joint Resolution 13, Improve Broadband Internet Access, was passed out of the Senate Community & Regional Affairs Committee and received a wavier for its Senate Labor & Commerce committee referral on the Senate floor. This means that SJR 13 likely will be scheduled for the floor this week and hopefully passed and transmitted to the House to go through the committee process there.

We are pressing to fast-track this legislation so it lands on the desks of our federal delegation and other Congressional leaders while they work on the upcoming capital infrastructure bill. SJR13 urges the U.S Congress to include broadband funding in any federal infrastructure legislation along with other forms of vital infrastructure such as roads, bridges, and ports. We also very importantly want D.C. leaders to know that any funding appropriations for broadband should allow for flexibility due to our state’s varied terrain and vast distances.

Considering how fast this critical resolution has been able to move through the committee process on the Senate side, we decided it would be a great time to give a quick explanation of the history of broadband funding and a rundown of how broadband funding works in Alaska.

Much of the modern broadband funding structures and regulations have their roots in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Broadband has generally been considered a federal issue due to its effects on interstate commerce. Federal funding for broadband mainly stems from the Universal Service Fund (USF) managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and can be broken down into four major programs: The Lifeline program, the E Rate program, the Rural Healthcare Program, and the High-Cost Program.

The annual amount from USF to Alaska is about $300 million. Approximately $150 million is routed as assistance for telecommunication services, to help offset the high monthly cost. Due to Alaska’s unique challenges, for the remaining $150 million per year, the FCC adopted a specialized program called the “Alaska Plan”. It is a ten-year funding to extend and upgrade broadband infrastructure across areas of Alaska. To learn more about the Alaska Plan click here.

Another distinct feature of broadband funding in Alaska is the reliance on “anchor tenant programs” in many small rural communities. Anchor tenant programs are formed when internet providers are brought into a rural community primarily to provide services to one larger entity such as a school, clinic, or hospital to act as the “anchor” and keep broadband business in the area profitable for the provider. Anchor tenant programs help provide lower costs to regular consumers in these rural communities by creating local economies of scale, but also often result in a single provider per community and lack of competition, as well as resistance to disruptive innovation (new technology) in the field of broadband. These are challenges we must work through.

In terms of new funding for broadband in the state, it currently looks like up to $112 million from the American Rescue Plan is routed to broadband infrastructure in the state. $400 million will soon be available for broadband expansion to tribal entities in Alaska as allocated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act in December 2020.

The initial proposal for the federal infrastructure bill known as the “American Jobs Plan” expected to pass later this summer includes $100 billion for broadband funding. If the federal infrastructure package continues to move through the legislative process, SJR 13 makes clear that the Alaskan legislature places a high priority on the “Information Highway” so that Alaskans across the state will have access to reliable and high-speed internet to provide greater opportunities in education, healthcare, remote work, and commerce.

Broadband is foundational for a strong and vibrant economy. With what may be a total of $1 billion total public funds coming into Alaska through the previously mentioned sources in a span of approximately one year, we need to understand where the gaps exist, what the technology options are (e.g., fiber, microwave, low earth orbit satellites), and what is most feasible for an area as far as terrain and distances. SJR 13 supports a workgroup of stakeholders, including providers and consumers, for these purposes.

Catch our latest  #Telling_it_like_it_is Facebook Live video from Juneau. Capitol Series #12 aired April 26th, 2021 at 6pm. We had special guest Senator Roger Holland join us to answer questions and comments from live viewers. Be sure to like my Facebook page so you’ll be notified of these weekly opportunities for you to ask questions, weigh in, and hear the latest happenings in the legislature.