House Floor Session, 5/13/26, 5:30pm

Will the House please come to order. We left off a few hours ago on Amendment Number 2 to the capital budget, Senate Bill 214, Finance. The maker of the amendment had introduced the amendment, to my recollection, and then we had an amendment put before the body to divide the question. And that's— pardon me, that amendment and a motion before the body. That motion is in front of the body to divide the question as it pertains to Amendment Number 2.

Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Representative Stapp, if you could restate your motion, please. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's I'll jump in a little bit. So basically the motion on the board would divide the amendment into a question for two questions, Part A and B.

Part A would be basically the entire amendment down to line 21. Part B would be lines 22 to the end of the amendment. And that basically states that the question is funding all of the projects in A and then removing the funding for the, Galena School District project in Part B. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I do recall hearing an objection before we— there was an objection.

I confirmed it with the Chief Clerk's Office before we left some time ago. So the motion before the body again is to divide the question. If you're ready for the question, again, I'll just restate that to be super redundant. The motion before the body is to divide the question on Amendment No. 2.

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? 11 Yea.

Madam Clerk, if it's still admissible, Representative Allard would like to choose— would go from yay to nay.

Nope, we'll keep Rep. Allard at a yay. Could you please announce the vote total? 11 Yays, 28 nays. With a vote of 11 yays to 28 nays, the motion to divide the question has failed. That brings Amendment Number 2 in its entirety or its original form back before the body.

Representative Stepp, I'm gonna turn to you. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm gonna be opposed to the amendment. I attempted the division because I don't think it's fair to basically punish the school district in Galena for having a partially funded project that's ranked number 2 on the major maintenance list. What this amendment does is it removes the entirety of the funding for that project under the major maintenance list, and it sets the precedent that we as a body will skip the major maintenance list projects.

I believe that though the projects are in this amendment are worthy of funding, if we were to willfully skip projects on the major maintenance list, Mr. Speaker, as was already done somewhat by both bodies' finance committees, that would set a pretty terrible precedent that the legislature going now forward would not adhere the rigorous standards of the major maintenance list and just opt to fund whatever schools it wants. So I guess, you know, I'd ask the members not to support the amendment because if you set that principle, that'll just be the principle going forward and, you know, our record from now, and that would make the maintenance list itself kind of irrelevant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise against this amendment as well. I think the representative from District 32 articulated it well. This was a project that was number 2 on the school maintenance list, and it was only partially funded. I don't think that's a good precedent to set, and that is why I will be voting against this amendment. Thank you.

Aris.

Will the House please come to order. Under debate on Amendment Number 2. Is there further discussion?

Seeing none. No wrap-up.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 2 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? 16 Yeas, 23 nays. With a vote of 16 yeas to 23 nays, Amendment No.

2 Has failed to pass the body. Madam Clerk. Amendment No. 3. Brevities.

At this—. Will the House please come back to order? At this time, I'm rolling Amendment Number 3 and Number 4 to the bottom of the pile.

Madam Representative Fields, uh, here I move and ask unanimous consent to rescind action on Amendment 2. There is an objection.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order. I believe we have the voting board properly configured. The motion before the body is essentially to bring us back to where we would have Amendment Number 2 before the body. And as I think you can read, the motion is to rescind previous action on failing Amendment Number 2. If you're ready for the question, 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? 20 Yeas, 19 nays. The vote of 20 yeas to 19 nays.

I'm hoping I get this right. The motion has— Sorry.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order. With a vote of 20 to 19, 20 yeas, 19 nays, the motion to rescind, to go back to Amendment Number 2, passed. So it brings Amendment Number 2 back before the body.

Are you ready for the question, Representative Fields? Mr. Speaker, I move to rescind because it's been hours since we were on the amendment, and I was just going to offer a brief reminder of what the amendment does, if that's okay. The floor— you have the floor. Thank you. What this amendment does is it replaces $5 million in funding for a school in Galena because that school sent a letter saying they couldn't use that $5 million and it appropriates that $5 million to $1 million Performing Arts Center, $1 million DOME, which is matching funds to leverage private investment, $1.4 million Wonderland Behavioral Health Treatment in the Valley, and I believe $1.4 million Arctic Winter Games in Fairbanks.

It is a good amendment because it's balanced. It doesn't violate the agreement with the Senate, and I ask my colleagues to vote yes. Representative Hannan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to speak in opposition to the amendment, and although there's a lot of paraphrasing of a letter that was presented to the Finance Committee, it did not say that they can't— that Galena School cannot use it. They said $5 million doesn't get us there. We're still going to have a leaky roof and a sagging.

School. And, uh, I appreciate the comments from the member from, uh, Fort Wainwright. Galena is number 2 on the school major maintenance list, and we need to start working towards some solution. It's not enough to do the repairs they need, but it's some. And I urge you to continue to support that school and that project, even though it's not nearly enough.

We are going to hear that refrain, I think, on a number of capital projects, and I urge a no vote on Amendment 2.

Representative Staff. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the member from Juneau's kind comments. We're rarely in alignment on these things, I feel like, but that's well said. I would just say, Mr. Speaker, all the projects in this amendment are good projects. I won't make another motion to divide the question, although it would be in order, because I don't wanna waste a bunch of time.

I just wanna reiterate the fact that if you were to pass this amendment, you are going to set a precedent of saying that some schools on the major maintenance list matter. In this case of Galena, they are ranked number 2 because the superintendent and the school district did a really good job and there's a great need there in their application. I think it's a travesty that we didn't fund this item to the actual request. That's why I have an amendment coming later to do that, Mr. Speaker. But if I will say, if you were to remove the funding and fund Anchorage projects and some other projects that are sure valuable, good projects, you're going to set a terrible precedent for people in this body and the other body to say that major maintenance list, that's just something that we only follow for the schools we like.

And then for the schools we don't like, we'll just skip them and fund the ones we like. And Mr. Speaker, the entire reason the major maintenance list exists is so the legislature doesn't do that. I'm asking the body, don't set that precedent here. Don't say we care about some kids in some schools but not other kids in some schools. Because if you do that, Mr. Speaker, every legislature from now until the end of time is just gonna roll down that list until they get to a school that they represent.

And if it's a school that you represent and you don't have any power, who cares? Vote no, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

Representative Allard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this amendment right here has a whole bunch of things in it that we have other amendments for that are coming down the line. And I really liked hearing District 17's representative say good things about Arctic Winter Games. So I look forward for him to vote for the amendment for Arctic Winter Games.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, the letter that keeps getting alluded to, a portion of it was read, and with your permission, I'd like to read the— just the—. Thank you.

The estimated total cost to fully address these critical needs is approximately $17.8 million. While the FY 2027 capital budget includes $5 million for this project, that level of funding is insufficient to resolve the underlying structural and systems failures. Partial funding risks ineffective use of state resources, as unresolved foundational issues will continue to drive deterioration and may render incremental improvements unusable. The point that it seems to me when you actually read the letter is that this gentleman who's done a good job, um, of managing this school is saying that if we partially fund it, We're at risk of continued deterioration and the project will cost more in the long run. He's not saying that they have no use for it, that it would be a, a completely inefficient use of funds.

He goes on to label and to list out some of the things that they would be able to use them for to try and stop that deterioration. So once again, I echo the comments from the member from Fairbanks. I don't think that we should pick and choose which schools to gut, and so I will be in opposition to Amendment 2. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I would like to just say that I understand when the letter came out saying this isn't enough, we have a catastrophic failure. $5 Million doesn't even touch the replacement of what needs to— the construction cost of what needs to happen. And possibly that letter came out, I guess, without the knowledge of the superintendent. So, I mean, there is that. But I will just say that sometimes there is something to be said for the fact that if you have a large project and it needs to be done all at once, that it is— it actually makes it hard to piecemeal it and maybe even gives people an opportunity to say, oh yeah, we gave them $5 million.

That's a little bit of a bandaid and take away that, take away the urgency. But it sounds like this project is urgent and they need the higher amount of funding. And I will be a no vote because we're replacing, we're really replacing school major maintenance and with some, we're changing from needed to nice to have. And we really need to stick with what's needed. Thank you, Mr. President.

Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support, and it's for one project and one project only, and that is the Wonderland Outpatient Youth Mental Health Facility in the Matsu. It's 150 kids is how many it would serve. We do not have services for those 150 right now.

I want to help the Matsu, and it's not a nice thing to have, it's something that we must have. Um, That is why I have to vote yes on this. I have no choice but to vote yes on this. Yes, it will disimpact some of the mental health service overloads that we have in Anchorage, but it will be servicing the entire state. This is a crisis.

This helps. The $1.4 million that goes to that youth outpatient mental health facility is not the entire amount. It's a significant amount that will enable this essential project to the state of Alaska to go forward, and I urge people to please vote yes. Yes. Representative Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment. Permission to read? Permission granted. The Wonderland Project is being funded here.

It's a development that's a 19,000-square-foot behavioral health and youth facility in the heart of the Matsu. It's known as the Wonderland Project. This is a 2-story trauma-informed facility that will house programs and services specifically designed for children and adolescents experiencing emotional and behavioral challenges, many of whom are involved in Alaska's foster care and child welfare systems. This is an essential project that we have to see come across the line. This is not a continued ask, this is a first ask.

This isn't something that they have, this is just something that they have begged for. Urge a yes vote for this funding. Thank you. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. One of the problems with the school in Galena and one of the issues that they raised is life safety egress issue. By not funding this school, by skipping this school, we are putting those kids at risk for the ability to have life safety and egress out of that school in the event of emergency. I don't think we want that on our conscience, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I will be opposing this amendment.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we all might have missed something. The member from District 32 said that he has an amendment coming up later to fully fund the Galena project. So in the spirit of compromise and moving on, why don't we vote this amendment in and then vote his amendment in when it comes up to fully fund Galena because we have heard the letter that they need full funding.

So to me, that's a reasonable compromise and it's a way, it's a path forward. So let's do that. Briefly. Very brief.

Will the House please come back to order? We are still under debate on Amendment Number 2.

Representative Josephson. Mr. Speaker, it took 14 years, but I finally miscast a vote, and I look forward to voting for this amendment. Having looked at the letter again from Galena, at least part of the letter, and I'm quoting, the writer says that it's an extremely poor utilization of state funding, close quote, to fund $5 million. Now, I suspect that's because he wanted the $30+ million, and I get that. I get it.

I'm not an expert on the major maintenance list. What I was told was that Galena hadn't previously appeared on the list, I mean, at least not in recent years. I don't know if that's accurate, and I'm also told that there are concerns about the sophistication of grant writers that Galena has a sophisticated approach that would light up the sky, and others are sort of not able to keep up with that sophistication. I don't know how to fix that. I, I— we don't have a bill for that.

But, um, I think that the items here are essentially statewide items for the reasons the member in front of me noted earlier in the afternoon. And I'm gonna support this amendment. Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I know I spoke on this already, but with your indulgence, I have two more points I'd like to make.

This particular project took many years to put together because this school is in such dire condition. The Galena City School District spent almost $500,000 putting this application together. That's what it costs to get a major project like this on the major maintenance school list. Those dollars are out, completely out of their budget until these types of funds come back to them.

I wanna point out that this particular project, the Sidney C. Huntington Elementary and High School renovation project, is on the major maintenance list as number 2, but it's not on there at $17 million. It's on there as $36,533,012. That's the total cost of this project. The Galena City School District tried to pare it down to something that maybe the legislative body could accept this year with that $17 million that was offered in House Finance. So the $5 million that's in there right now moves this project forward.

I don't know what else to say except, um, Yeah, this is a need. This is a process.

And if the body decides to pull this money out of this line item from the major maintenance school list, then why will any other school district spend any money to ever get on this list again? I urge you to vote it down.

Representative Klawe. I was going to wrap up. Is this a good time? Oh, there's still one more mic. Representative Schrag, you did have your mic up.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very briefly, I wanted to speak to this again, just as a reminder. You know, I had risen previously in opposition to this amendment just in respect to the work of the House and Senate Finance Committees. But I did note in my prior comments These are really meaningful projects.

They're valuable projects. And to the extent that members have talked about there will be amendments later on down the line, I want to remind folks that these budgets are being put together in close coordination between the bodies, and we have to be able to get these budgets to match up and to balance at the end of the day. These other amendments I don't see funding sources for. And so when Wonderland comes back up, I'm going to be voting no, and that's a problem. What this amendment does is it does find a funding source, which I appreciate.

And while it's problematic to take it from the school major maintenance list, we do have a letter that says it would be an extremely poor use of state funds to put $5 million towards Galena right now. So it is a real conundrum for myself and other members of this body when you have a school saying that the amount of money in the budget is not a good use. It's very problematic. We've heard that these other things that are being proposed to be funded through this amendment are really valuable things that would be a good use of state funds. And lastly, I just want to speak up in defense of the other body that made the initial decision to put Galena in at the reduced amount.

Some members have described that as skipping the list. Look, there are schools throughout the school major maintenance list that have been waiting years and years and years for funding. Because the other body chose to include Galena at a smaller number, it allowed, frankly, this body and the other body to go further down the list and do critical roof repairs at an additional 5 or 6 schools. It's going to prevent future cost escalations in those schools. There's no perfect way to approach either of the budgets, the capital budget.

There is no perfect answer. There's, there's so many needs and so little funds. It creates these conundrums, and that's why this work is so difficult. But I won't blame any member for voting for this amendment given the fact that we have the commentary that we have from the superintendent and the really meaningful additions that are being proposed in this amendment that others have spoken to very well. So I'm likely still to be a no, but it's a very difficult vote for me because, well, I've stated why.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Briefities.

Will the House please come back to order. With Amendment Number 2 before the body in wrap-up comments, Representative McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So a couple things. Let's be clear that the projects on the amendment are not just Anchorage projects.

We've got $1.4 million going to a facility in Mat-Su that's serving kids statewide. We're also funding the Arctic Winter Games in Fairbanks, $1.6 million. I also wanted to clarify, I didn't set the precedent for skipping schools or not funding schools on the major maintenance list. That's not my fault. The Finance Committee on the other side chose not to do that and only gave 5, and our Finance Committee chose not to fund it.

That's— I had no power in those decisions. Usually when I do amendments, I— try to find a funding source. I saw the letter from the superintendent. It was pretty clear. Maybe things, maybe he has a change of mind now, but at the time when I was writing the amendment and trying to put this all together, I thought, well, he doesn't want it.

I've got some projects that I think would really impact kids, especially kids, all these projects are statewide items. I mean, Arctic Winter Games is huge boom for the state. For the state, for the— and for this, it'll be for Fairbanks. And so, I mean, I, I just push back that somehow if this amendment passed, we set the precedent. We didn't set the precedent.

The people in charge of going down the list and choosing the schools set the precedent. The $5 mil, whether it stays there or not, they still skipped over it. They still didn't fund it. It's still only at $5. They set the precedent.

I did not. I was just simply trying to get some good projects for the Valley, Anchorage, and Fairbanks that affect kids, that affect families, and I thought it was a good use of money. So press the green button.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall member number 2 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? 19 Yeas, 20 nays. With a vote of 19 yeas and 20 nays, Amendment Number 2 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment Number 5 by Representative Moore, beginning page 40, following line 10. Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment Number 5. There's an objection.

Permission to read. Permission granted. Alaska Addiction Rehabilitation Services is in the process of adding a 14,000-square-foot gymnasium and community center in the existing campus.

That they have. This will provide clients with access to exercise and recreation as part of their recovery process. This will also serve as a hub for large AA meetings and NA meetings for— and other meeting and recovery-oriented events. This is Phase 3 of construction, and this appropriation is being made in Section 15E of the bill of this amendment, and this is an act— is contingent on the 2000— I'm sorry, on 2027 fiscal year-to-date average price of Alaska North Slope crude oil being equal to or greater than $79 a barrel on December 31st, 2026. So this is attached to a waterfall.

I urge support for this amendment. This is a wonderful program that we have, a very much needed rehabilitation service where it's not lost on anybody in this room how much we need services like this, and I urge support for the amendment. Representative Swaggy, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in opposition to Amendment 5. I do think that this is a great program being run out of the Matsu.

However, they did just recently receive state funding to expand the number of beds that they have to be able to service— serve Alaskans. The requested funding here is for a gym and recreational center, and I think that in a time of limited funds and many needs. This is not the best use of state funds, so I'll be opposed to this at this time. Thank you. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Maybe a little context. So first off, AW— or ARRS, Alaska Addiction— AARS, Alaska Addiction Rehabilitation Services, is out in Point McKenzie, which is my favorite place. But they came from a place called Nugent's Ranch. It used to be in downtown Wasilla.

And they have been servicing all Alaskans for a long time, or providing services to all Alaskans. Somewhere north of 50% of the people are not from the Matsu. Many of them are from rural Alaska that doesn't have any kind of ability to rehabilitate these folks. The guy that runs this has done—. Eddie's.

The House please come back to order under debate on Amendment No. 5. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have quite an effect on people all the time.

That happens all the time. So I just want to say that the guy that runs this has been finding creative and innovative ways to expand his services for people. They bought some ATCO trailers from Jay Bear. They hauled them out there. They remodeled them and they increased— they almost doubled their bed size.

They have Added a complete, they have a huge greenhouse. They had one and they just added another one of the same size. They grow vegetables, they sell the vegetables, they have animals out there. They're actually starting quite the little operation and farm to give the people that are in rehab, sometimes for as much as a year, to give them hope, to give them job skills, to give them something to do. They take great pride in that place.

And I love to visit them and see what they're doing. And if anybody here needs a gym, if anybody in Alaska needs a gym to help with rehabilitation, it is Nugent's Ranch. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Settler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of Amendment 5. This is support for a very long-term treatment program in a growing part of the state. You know, for some people in recovery, it takes months to get it right. And you can't spend 18 hours a day in group or in meetings. You have to have some time to recreate for a healthy mind and a healthy body.

If you want to keep people off the streets, if you want to keep people out of our jails, if you want to keep people out of emergency rooms, then you need to support the facilities to help them find recovery from long-term abuse of alcohol and drugs. This facility has been working on the cheap for a long time, and I think it's appropriate that the state invest a couple of our bucks to help people from all over the state come to the Massou get sober, get straight to be treated and resume their lives. Representative Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise in support of this amendment.

This facility is one of the many reasons that one of my family members who's here with me this session is alive. And so they are definitely well worth every penny. I know that they come from every angle to try and get any type of funding that they can and trying to ask the minimum from the state for help for that when they are serving the whole state and keeping our people alive is well worth effort. So I would just say, please press the green button. Before we continue on, brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? Under debate on Amendment Number 5. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. This is a— this is for a demographic of people that are really underserved and really need this type of recreation. I think this is the perfect example of a way to make things happen properly, and I am in support of this amendment. Thank you.

In wrap-up, Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just encourage a green button. These are, again, essential, essential programs that we need for Alaska and for the growing concern of addiction in our state. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment Number 5 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

The clerk, please lock the roll.

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 17 Yeas, 21 nays. With a vote of 17 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment Number 5 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment Number 6 by Representative Moore, beginning page 40, following line 10. Representative Moore.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment 6. There's an objection. Permission to read. Permission granted.

This one, um, we just kind of went over in Amendment Number 2. This is again, it's $1.4 million in funding for the Wonderland Project in the Valley through Denali Family Services. Again, Alaska continues to face a youth behavioral crisis, particularly in for transition-age youth navigating mental illness, foster care placements, and educational, educational instability. The Matsui Anchorage borough is one of the fastest growing regions in the state, yet access to age-appropriate trauma-informed mental health facilities is severely limited. Many youth are currently served in a rented makeshift retrofitted space not designed for growth, not designed for contributing to lower retention and higher disengagement from care.

The Wonderland facility will serve more than 150 youth annually in Alaska. More than 150 of our children all through the state could be served through a program like this. This is not a full ask of what they're even asking for. This is a partial ask, something that is extremely needed, very essential for every district in the state. So I hope that there's some support for this one.

Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this amendment. The maker of the amendment forgot to mention the important funding source in the amendment, Mr. Speaker. In the event that oil price averages above $79 a barrel in December of this year, that's when the project would be funded.

So the best thing about this amendment is it fills a need, but it's contingent upon in the event that the state has excess revenue. And I can't think of a project probably more worthy of being funded in the, in the event the state has excess revenue as this project, Mr. Speaker. And I just remind the body, Mr. Speaker, that in the event that oil price does not average $79 a barrel or more, then the amendment effectively is null and void. So there isn't any harm in balancing the budget and voting for this. And I just applaud this maker of the amendment for making it.

Thank you. Representative Schrag.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Great project. Would love to see it funded in a future year, but I'm going to be a no on this one today. This is not the right time or the place for this, and we could add every project under the sun under a waterfall.

It's very hard to pick and choose. We've worked hard to have a balanced budget that addresses needs across the state, and I stand by that budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Underwood. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise again in strong support of Amendment Number 6. 6. Um, this is actually in my district, and I'll have to respectfully disagree with the previous speaker about this is not the time.

Um, this is housing kids that are in severe mental health crisis, behavioral health crisis, many foster children, kids that have endured extensive trauma. And right now, this facility operates not only in the Matsu in a very small capacity, but it also has a place in Anchorage that it serves, but it— we've said it before, it's serving children all over the state of Alaska. And I don't know when is never not the time to spend any money that could potentially lead to saving our children's lives. So I just urge a green button, please. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak in favor of this amendment. It is, if there is a waterfall, if we're fortunate to have enough money to build it, we do need to start investing in children with acute problems. Don't know that you can figure it out to the dollar, but I think if we start investing in these helping children especially, we're going to save money further down the road in operational costs for corrections and all kinds of other things. So it's worth taking a risk in, in my view.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wholeheartedly support this amendment. And as a previous member said, that there are other things that are more important in the budget or want to maintain a balanced budget.

Well, let me, let's look upstream. We don't pick these kids up now, they end up within our correctional system and cost us more. We need to help these kids now. They're, I looked through some of these projects, they're not statewide. This is a statewide program.

And I looked some that are specific to specific districts and areas. And this is statewide, and we're being told we won't fund kids to keep them out of jail and take care of them, but we'll fund other stuff that is frivolous, in my opinion. Thank you.

Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise with a question for the maker of the amendment. Specifically, I'm hoping that you could describe which facilities in the state fill the same niche as what this facility would and what type of medical or legal crisis would result in a youth ending up at the facility.

And wrap up, Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to thank the member from Fairbanks for explaining the waterfall. That was—. I missed that.

And I want to I do respectfully disagree with the co-chair from Fairbanks— from Anchorage, I'm sorry.

This is—. He's right. This is not a good time. We're late. This is very, very late to the table for this amendment, for this funding, for this facility, for something that we desperately need for our mentally ill children and kids in foster care, kids with instability at home, instability in their education facilities.

And to my colleague from Glenallen, I will have to get you some of those questions answered. I don't have them off the top of my head, and I apologize.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order.

We have before the body Amendment Number 6.

Are you ready for the question? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her votes? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 18 Yeas, 21 nays. The vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays.

Amendment number 6 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk. Amendment number 7 by Representative Johnson, beginning page 4, lines 19 through 20. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Amendment Number 7. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I just wanted to bring this forward. It has again the much coveted and chased out after $5 million from Galena School.

And I would, with permission to read, Mr. Speaker. Permission granted. Thank you. I would like to read a paragraph from the court system that talks about what they could do with $5 million. So The preliminary design for the Palmer Court expansion project included additional space for 3 new courtrooms, spaces associated with the courtrooms, jury assembly, jury deliberation, and restrooms, office space for 3 judges, and space for positions associated with the new judges.

The court system has been using the funds from the $7.2 million appropriated in FY25 for Phase 1 of the expansion to add to the one courtroom within the Palmer Courthouse's existing footprint. And I will add that is in the basement. With an additional $5 million, the court system could continue moving the project forward. And the original project was $30— I believe it was $32 million total— would continue moving the project forward for 2 additional courtrooms. With this balance, or with this funding, the court system would first complete a revised full design of the facility expansion.

The balance of this funding would be used to construct a contained shell for including courtrooms that would include a poured slab, exterior walls, and roof. So, Mr. Speaker, there is, um, there's a huge need at the court system, uh, in Palmer. The court system's number one project, the number one project for.

The entire state. And so we concentrate on our schools, but there is another branch of government that is having it, you know, this is having quite an impact. But given the situation, and I put this amendment in when we had the original letter, and I had not heard from my member that this was of grave concern to the folks in Galena. And so with that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I will be withdrawing Amendment Number 7. Amendment number 7 has been withdrawn.

Madam Clerk. Amendment number 8 by Representative Johnson, beginning page 34, line 5. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 8.

There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 1 to amendment number 8. Hearing no objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Amendment number 1 to amendment number 8 has been adopted. All right, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And what that amendment does is that I had a small drafting error where I took the money out, but we didn't put it anywhere. So thank you for the indulgence of the body to bring the amendment or update the amendment. So amendment number 8 is amended.

What this does is it takes the waterfall, which is currently at $80 per barrel, puts it at $81 per barrel. What that means, Mr. Speaker, is this money is not obligated in any way unless, unless prices for oil go high enough that the money is available. So this is not sending us into deficit. It's not any risk. It's actually making a project that is a vital need for Alaska It just provides the funding for this.

So, Mr. Speaker, this would complete Phase 1 and Phase 2 with this of the Palmer Courthouse expansion. And I've spoken to it quite extensively. I hope people will know that this is the number 1 court project as well. And if we're going to go down the list, which there are a few other major court needs this would be the number one on the list for the court system. So, Mr. Speaker, I would ask folks would vote yes on Amendment Number 8 as amended.

Representative Schragg.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in opposition to Amendment Number 8 as amended, um, principally because by adjusting the waterfall to 81, it does not make enough headroom for the $22 million that is in the amendment now to be spent on the Palmer Courthouse. I think on a technical level, if you had oil prices that hit 81, it would create enough headroom, but in the prior water— or in the existing waterfall that's in the budget, there's been careful consideration to make sure that the total surplus from that higher oil price is not consumed through expenditures so that if oil prices decline in the second half of the year, there is not a situation such as what we face this year, where a surplus or a supplemental is needed to be able to balance the budget. And so my concern with this amendment is that it does not create enough headroom to comfortably fund this project in addition to the ones already in the capital budget. And for that reason, I'll oppose Amendment 8.

Thank you. Representative Stepp.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment as amendment. I appreciate the co-chair of Finance's concerns, but Mr. Speaker, this, this amendment would require $81 an oil on average price by December, and it's, it's a $5 million expenditure, Mr. Speaker. In the event that oil averages above $80 by the time that this, uh, would— amendment would be— go into effect, the, the notion that $5 million is going to make or break our budget that would already be in theory surplus is, um, highly unlikely, Mr. Speaker. And Just to add in more support, Mr. Speaker, currently our budget is built off a number much lower than that.

So in the event that we were to rise higher than that, it would make me think that there would be— it would be very unlikely for us to be in any fiscal trouble. And I did misstate the amount of money, Mr. Speaker. It's $22 million, but the point still stands. I ask the members to support this amendment. It is the number one project in the court system and a statewide project.

And thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this amendment. The Palmer Courthouse, one of the busiest courthouses in the state.

And I just remind the body that we recently went through a process of adding a superior court judge to that location. And Mr. Speaker, the, the right to a speedy trial is clearly defined in our Constitution, and that's what we should be striving to ascertain when it comes to the judicial system. So I'm in strong support of this amendment. Thank you. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment for the same reason that the previous speakers stated.

A right to a speedy trial is a fundamental right and just a practical thing. It is really the foundational function of government is to settle disputes. It's to govern. And much of the other services that we provide are providing, not governing. And this is a government, not a providerment.

So we should fund this courthouse. Representative Schwocke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this project. On this amendment, you'll see that this is a project designed for House District 25, but it serves a much larger portion of South Central than just 25.

It actually serves a considerable number of people out towards Nalchena and into the Copper River Basin. This is one of the fastest growing areas around the state. This is where a large amount of— we— a large amount of illicit drugs come through and a lot of our cases are being remanded back to the Palmer Superior Court. And when they don't have capacity to prosecute, we have cases that are dropped. And I definitely I definitely understand why the member from Palmer is bringing this.

This is a multi-phase project. I also wanna point out that in FY25, about $7.2 million was appropriated for the initial design and utility work for this particular courthouse. So I do support the amendment and I hope to see it pass. Thanks. Representative Underwood.

Speaker, I will rise in support of this based on all the comments that were said prior. And I know that we're talking about waterfall funding. In the last few amendments quite frequently. So since there's a little song stuck in my head, I think the theme song of tonight might be "Don't Go Chasing Waterfalls." So I'll leave that. Press the game button.

Wrap up, Representative Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the comments and support. I kind of— we've talked about this. We know we have a need. I don't think there's any question that this is not a district project. This really doesn't have a lot to do with anything besides it is something that's needed for our justice system.

And for that reason, I really want to carry it forward and do right by our courts, Mr. Speaker.

So I don't know how to put it forward any more succinctly but to say that it is crucial that we continue to fund our court system. This is a critical project, and I don't know what more to say as far as, you know, why it doesn't get funded. I can't figure that out entirely, Mr. Speaker. But I would like to ask people to vote yes, as this does not add beyond, over and above what we already, because it is a waterfall. I did speak to Legislative Finance.

This was a number that they told me that I needed to put in for this. And I actually was thinking that it was a little bit, was going to end up with a waterfall providing just a little too much money. I believe this is well funded. I think it's an appropriate amount of funding, and I would ask members to vote yes. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment Number 8, as amended, 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? 17 Yeas, 22 nays. By a vote of 17 yeas to 22 nays, Amendment No. 8 Has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 9 by Representative Schragg beginning page 15, line 6. Move amendment number 9.

There is an objection. Representative Schragg. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 9 relates to the West Lusitania Access Road in the state STIP. This amendment would allocate $47.5 million to stage 2 of the West Lusitania Access Road.

This is at 50%. Of the original amount proposed by DOT, an amount that I hope will bridge the divide between— well, there's just a lot of feelings on this project. This would still allow the department and the state to be able to move forward, provide stability and some certainty around the project and being able to plan for the upcoming construction season, and more specifically, being able to stage materials in the future. This is a really balanced approach. That tries to also recognize that while many do support this project, that the level of funding requested in the STIP for this project is so much that it would likely gobble up federal funds that could go elsewhere in the state.

This would allow us to somewhat right-size the project so that federal funds are more evenly and equitably distributed across STIP projects throughout Alaska, while again providing certainty around this project. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This should be fully funded.

I'm a little dismayed that it's only 50%. I, I, we've talked extensively today on why it should be fully funded. Frankly, the money that is not funded in there is not going to go to other projects around the state. It will go to the advanced construction fund and, and pay that down. So thinking that it's going to be used in Anchorage somewhere or some other project in the state is, is not correct.

Let me talk to you a little bit about the project itself. So Phase 1 is just about complete, um, pay-in, paid-out. It's already— all the money's encumbered. They need money for Phase 2. This project will get us across the West Sioux in Phase 2.

It's a DOT project. It's the first part of the West Susitna Access, but it's the recreational part. More importantly, Mr. Speaker, this will— once it gets across the West Sioux, it will be a game changer for the companies that have leases, gas leases, on the west side of Cook Inlet, such as Hilcorp and Chugash, and they'll be able to work in the wintertime. Some of the other things that this will do And it will open up, it will open up a portion of the West Sioux. And keep in mind now, the West Sioux Access Road, the ADA-funded road— so that's the next 80 miles after this, and we need this first— the next 80 miles goes up to the Estelle Mine, Nova Minerals, US Gold.

One of the things they have up there is antimony, which the US government is in, is in need of. And in fact, they have a $40 million grant they've secured for mining that antimony.

There's other things that this road will access, one of which is Terra Energy and the coal plant. Keep in mind, that's about 80 miles up that road of the total of 110, so it's about 20 or 30 miles and would have to have an access road that went off to the coal plant, but The coal plant plans right now are for a 1.25 gig coal plant. They have secured a billion-dollar grant funding from South Korea Hyundai Heavy Industries. I think they have another grant that's imminent that from the US government to fund this coal plant. As visioned, the coal plant would provide clean coal with carbon sequestration, and it would provide sub-10 cents a kilowatt-hour electricity to the grid.

So this is a private company that wants to build a plant and sell energy to our grid for less than we are paying right now. Mr. Speaker, if you really look at it, we need the diversification. Look at our issues with gas in Cook Inlet right now. If we had diversification such as coal, we would be in great shape. One of the other things that it would do is it goes up the West Sioux and the possible gas pipeline going to Donlin Mine would branch off from there somewhere.

So it would provide access to that. It also provides access to recreation, but provides access to the newly established dipnet fishery on the Big Sioux. Hiking, snowmobiling. It provides so many things, Mr. Speaker. And as I said earlier, one of my dreams— I'll probably not be around to see it— but one of my dreams is to get over into the, over the mountains towards the Villages.

Could you imagine if we had a road that went to McGrath at this point? Maybe a road that went a little bit further. So if we get to the top of the Wesu, and this is just the start, We're halfway there. We're halfway there. We could do that, you know, as oil rises or as we get grants to sort of open up access.

So then the huge amount of money we spent to bring fuel and bring goods and bring supplies into McGrath anyways and some of the villages along the river would be mitigated by this road. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm in support of this amendment, but I am a little bit disappointed that we couldn't find a path forward to understand what this is actually going to mean, not just to the Matsu and not just to my district, but to the entire state. So I had some discussions earlier about, well, Kevin, you know, this will be at least $50 million to your district. I don't look at it that way. This is money for the entire state.

If we are going to develop our resources, and we must according to our constitution, to fund our, general fund and to fund our budget and to fund the permanent fund, this is a great start. And we're kind of doing it halfway, kind of like we did the Poy Mackenzie rail spur. We did it halfway and then we stopped. So I see this kind of going down the same path. We get kind of halfway and then we say, well, maybe we really don't want to do that.

And I think that that's a mistake. And I think we should push this forward to 100% funding of $94 million. But in the meantime, I will be in support of this because I think the co-chair has attempted to find a compromise, even though he's happy and I'm really disappointed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Who called that at ease?

I did. Okay, at ease.

Will the House please come back to order.

Debate on Amendment No. 9. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'm going to be supporting this amendment with some reluctance. And I wanted to just, if I could, read from a few notes. Mr. Speaker, there's no question about it, this road has caught the attention of many Alaskans and those beyond. Uh, the House Finance Committee received 170 letters and emails in opposition to this project from communities across the state, including those from Anchorage and the Matsu, but also from concerned citizens in Talkeetna— I realize that's the Matsu— the Kenai Peninsula, Kodiak Island, several letters, Fairbanks, Southeast Alaska, Copper River Basin, and.

Bush communities including Aniak, Kotzebue, and Nome. First, we're being asked to— well, the administration would like us to approve $95 million. This is half that amount to build Phase 2 of the project.

And I just wanted to note there are countervailing views out there. The member from Big Lake illustrated one side. There are lots of recreational interests that oppose this mine. And there are expenditures that could be made. I'll talk about these in slightly more detail.

But there are incomplete or incompletely funded programs, projects, including the Cooper Landing bypass road on the Kenai is one example of a critical project in need of funds, as is the upgrades the upgrades to the Kenai Goose Bay Road, a designated safety corridor which sees many vehicle accidents and has claimed too many lives. Our federally supported ferry system is in dire need of funds for the Rural Communities Operating Assistance Program and for the Pelican Ferry Terminal reconstruction. Those are also, uh, on the list, uh, to be funded. We are being asked to fully itemize a project by the administration, um, whose federal review is incomplete while leaving unitemized other projects whose federal review is complete and whose communities have been requesting them for years. And I just wanted to note that, um, this project, while I'm going to support this amendment, uh, is not supported by some tourism interests, guiding interests, air taxi services, and others who appreciate the lifestyle that they enjoy now, as do their customers.

We already have some recreational access to this region And it has drawn the opposition of the Iditarod Historic Trail Alliance, which notes concerns with still undergoing— the project still is undergoing NEPA review and something called Section 106 consultation, which also needs completing. The road, fully developed across the river, not up past Mount Susitna, would cross an estimated 85 anadromous fish streams. And likely have some degree of environmental impact to salmon and wetlands in an area already experiencing low returns and impacts to businesses that depend on those salmon runs. In closing, and I do have a couple other numbers I want to give you, we must address the purpose of this road in its entirety, and we must first assume the cumulative, cumulative impacts under this NEPA environmental assessment. If I may, just briefly, I talked about the Iditarod Historic Trail Alliance, which wrote me.

But as an example, according to the Susitna River Coalition, which admittedly opposes the road, there is the FHWA-approved STIP for FY '27 includes a need for $115 million for ferry service for rural communities. I noted that. $69.4 Million for Wasilla to Fishhook Main Street reconstruction, $62.5 million for the Sterling Highway Safety Corridor, and then I mentioned the Pelican Ferry terminal as well. So, you know, I view this as a compromise number which wouldn't sacrifice these other opportunities in the next legislature, and I ask you somewhat reluctantly for support of this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Vats.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too would like to see the full funding for this, but I understand that this amendment is a compromise to get us something. But I want to just kind of spring off of the previous comments made about other projects on the list. They are important projects. But how many of them bring a return on investment?

How many of them build revenue? Because I can tell you that the road on the Kenai Peninsula Most of us just don't care. For the amount of money that that road in Cooper Landing is costing, we would rather have our local roads fixed first because it's a pretty drive through Cooper Landing. However, a previous legislature made that decision, and so we're stuck with spending an incredible amount of money just so people can get through there a little bit faster. So if you were to ask me what the priority was, if it was to put to put money to that, which we need to complete it, or to this project that I know is going to get us to resource development that actually helps pay for the things.

I'm going to prioritize this one. When I look at our Constitution, I always ask myself, what were our founders thinking? What did they envision when they wrote our Constitution? They wanted us to have a capital budget, a robust one, that would build infrastructure in our state. They knew that that would be a struggle.

They said, you need to develop your natural resources for the maximum benefit of the state, and you need to have a capital budget to help build it so that we can thrive. We can have our own economy so that eventually we aren't relying on federal dollars. I think we've failed our jobs on that front. This project helps get us to more reliable energy, more revenue sources for the state to pay for all the things. Every time we bring a capital budget request, or really any, any budget request, the question is, how are we going to pay for it?

This is how we're going to pay for it, Mr. Speaker. I know that there's concerns, there's been opposition, but a lot of that opposition has come from out of state. And frankly, I'm tired of people telling Alaska how we should do our business or where to build a road. That's our business. So I think this is a good amendment.

It would have been a great amendment if it was fully funded, but I'm acceptable of good right now. So I'm pleased to see this back in there, but I think we need to keep our eye on the prize, that this specific project opens up a lot of great opportunity for the state. That's not just one area, one particular district. It's a great region that's going to get us a lot farther down the road than we are now. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. I rise in full support of the West Sioux Access Road. Mr. Speaker, $47 million is better than $0. This gets us partway there, and it may not be a touchdown, but it may be a first down.

So full support of the WSSU, and I would ask that everyone vote for this amendment. Thank you. Representative Holland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise reluctantly to speak to this bill.

I am troubled by the notion here being asked to build— or excuse me, to vote on building half a bridge to nowhere. I recognize the idea that there could be mineral development and mines in the future, but those mines are very early in their development. If we were to call this road a road to mines, it wouldn't actually, as I understand it, even qualify for STIP funding. The only reason it qualifies for STIP funding is we have platted some residential land on the other side of the bridge in order to make it fit the funding. But if we truly were building a mine to the roads, we'd be talking to ADA and we'd be talking about building a toll road that would be be funded by the mining development.

I am troubled by this because I would like to be supporting this development. I would like to be supporting a lot of Alaska development. But there are so many needs we have in this state that are pressing, that are known, that for us to start investing in a speculative, we hope something will happen, if we build it something will come, just seems imprudent to me right now. I cannot imagine that we think we have the money to maintain a new road. Does anybody, Mr. Speaker, think that we are sitting around with extra money to be able to afford to maintain a new road and a new bridge that leads to a parking lot on the other end?

I'm not there yet. I wish I were. I just don't think this is a responsible way for us to invest some of our limited time and energy and the opportunities we could be using this money for. I'm reluctantly troubled by this bill. Probably have to vote no on the amendment.

Representative Bynum. Why, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't sure if the member from number 9 was calling me out, but I thought I heard him say a bridge to nowhere. So prompted me to stand up and say, I hope someday we'll have a bridge to somewhere. And I think this is a good project, so I'll be supporting it.

Any closing comments, Representative? Pardon me, Mr. Majority Leader.

Yeah, Mr. Speaker, I'd rise to declare a conflict of interest and ask to be excused from the vote as my business does some public relations work for one of the entities that would benefit from access by this project. There's an objection. Representative Kopp, you'll be required to vote. Representative Schwaggy, in terms of wrap-up. Yep, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Very briefly in wrap-up, trying to keep my remarks short, I think we've heard some of the concerns that exist with this road today. Personally, I've surveyed my voters. They're pretty on the fence about it, generally leaning towards not in support. But again, this is a compromise amendment to try and bridge the divide in this body and find something that works, allows for this project to move forward, just maybe not at a full bore pace. I think that's appropriate and I appreciate members voting yes.

Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment No. 9 Pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Would the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Representative Gray.

From yay to nay.

Anyone else? Seeing no one else, Madam Clerk, please announce the vote. 28 Yeas, 11 nays. The vote of 28 yeas to 11 nays, Amendment Number 9 has passed. Madam Clerk.

Amendment Number 10 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 3, following line 26. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Much as I would love to, Amendment Number 10 will not be offered. Amendment Number 10 will not be offered.

Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 11 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 40, following line 10. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment Number 11 will not be offered. Amendment Number 11 will not be offered.

Briefities. Briefities.

House, please come back to order. Madam Clerk, amendment number 12 by Representative Vance, beginning page 2, lines 21 through 22. Representative Vance, I move amendment number 12. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment is clarifying that the funds for ASMI, the Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, shall be used for domestic purposes only. Now, I am an ex-official member of ASMI, and we reached out to the director, and they clarified that the— they intended for the funds to be used domestically. But I think it's a good message to have it in writing that the legislature supports them focusing on domestic advertising, uh, for Alaska seafood right now. We are the largest producer of seafood in the United States, and, uh, we have market all over the world. However, uh, we have been suffering from, uh, from farmed fish and other outside competitors in our U.S. markets.

And so I just want to make it clear that this— we should focus more efforts that Americans should buy American freedom fish. And I ask for your support. Representative Schraghi.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I recall presentations in front of the House Finance Committee about some of the wonderful work that ASMI is doing. And from what I recall, it's been a month or so now, probably longer, so my memory is getting a little bit foggy, but they've had quite a bit of success marketing in places like Japan and elsewhere in other Asian countries some of our products that we produce here in Alaska very proudly. Now, if it is in fact the case that the director intends to spend this money domestically, the language that is currently in the budget allows for that.

They can spend the money domestically, but I would not want to prohibit them from spending the money where they find it most effectively spent. I want to make sure that we're marketing our products where we're going to have those marketing dollars get the greatest return on investment. If they view that they can get the greatest ROI by advertising in Japan or any other country, I think that they should pursue those markets to try and maximize our dollars that we're spending from Alaska. So I'm going to be in opposition to this amendment to retain flexibility for ASMI and allow them to do the good work that they do as effectively as they possibly can. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fortunately, I'm going to rise in opposition to the amendment. I do appreciate the effort and time that the member from District 5 puts into fisheries and this area. But for me, Mr. Speaker, this international marketing of fish is an important part of our our seafood marketing or seafood industry out of Ketchikan.

Many of our high-valued products, value-added products, are going overseas, and it is an important part of our fisheries. So I will unfortunately be not supporting the measure. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition to this amendment. I think we should, if we're going to let the seafood marketing group market, we should do what they think. They are a better judge of what to do than we are, basically, as has been previously mentioned. And then I just know of a personal experience, I guess.

A relative of mine has developed quite the robust much to my surprise, international market that is viewed as a gourmet as opposed to a farm fish. And, and they've done quite well at it. So we shouldn't discount international marketing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam Rules Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, as the chair of Fisheries, I certainly appreciate the efforts from the member and the intent from the member from District 5. I think it was well intended. However, I would have to agree, rather than repeating everything that's been said, I think our co-chair of Finance did an excellent job in explaining why I will be a no on this amendment. Thank you.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me rise and make a correction for the record. I meant District 6, not District 5.

Any wrap-up comments, Representative Vance? Well, yes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm so glad that everyone is an expert in ASME. I hope that they too participate in the board meetings and understanding their budgets, because ASME does receive federal dollars that is limited to only international advertising and, and communications. However, the only funds that they can use for domestic is that that comes from us and also the receipts from the fish tickets. So they are limited in the use of the funds that they have in their budget.

If we want them to market domestically, they need to use state dollars. That's why I wanted to be specific that the money that we are prioritizing for them would be domestic because it gives us a greater return on investment. I don't want to diminish the work that they do internationally. However, they do get federal dollars for that. But for us to prioritize Americans buying American fish, because then they become lifelong lovers of Alaskan seafood, and I think it is, uh, well worth the investment.

So, uh, I look forward to seeing this vote, and the next board meeting, I believe, is on the 28th, where I intend to have all of you online to learn more. Ah.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 12 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? 9 Yeas, 13 nays. With a vote of 9 yeas to 13 nays, Amendment Number 12 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 13 by Representative Vance, beginning page 39, line 22.

Representative Vance. I move Amendment Number 13. There's an objection. I really wish that this amendment was a different number, Mr. Speaker. Does not make me feel lucky right now.

However, I, uh, permission to refer to my notes as needed. Commissioner Grant. What this amendment does is it adds, uh, funding for Homer Harbor expansion of $700,000 specifically for the, uh, for the PED. For they, uh, we are We have been in the process of expanding the harbor for quite some time, and this gets them to the next phase of the preconstruction engineering and design. Currently, it's in the feasibility study, and they've recent— the Army Corps recently decided upon Alternate 2, and the City of Homer concurred last month with that decision.

A draft feasibility report is expected to be released on the 22nd.

$700,000 Is a non-federal match. It is a statewide investment because Homer is part of the key infrastructure that services more than 135 non-road-connected communities across Southcentral, the Bering Sea, Chukchi Sea, and Arctic regions. It delivers critical cargo including over 1 million pounds of construction materials and acts as a backup to the Port of Alaska.

It's key to the LNG development because it's the nearest ice-free port to Nokiski and will provide essential moorage, maintenance, and escort vessel support for Cook Inlet Natural Gas. Right now we have more than 300 vessels on the waitlist, and deep draft ships are regularly turned away due to insufficient space and depth. This project is not, uh, we build it and hope people will come. We're having to turn people away. The pilot ships that— every ship that goes up to Anchorage needs an escort.

Those escorts come out of Homer. And the proposal is a 43-acre harbor basin, which we have the largest single basin harbor. And I'd just like everyone to know that we have— are concerned about adding to the budget, but this is a cost-neutral. And this just ever so smoothly slips money, excess money from CITKA in the cruise ship vessel funding that is going to municipalities, slides it right over to Homer, kind of smooths out, levels the playing field just a little bit. So it is a cost-neutral budget item that adds this so that we can continue advancing for this important port in Homer.

In expanding so that we can be prepared to be a great partner for the LNG project, but also to continue servicing more than 135 non-road service communities in the region. And so I ask for your support. Representative Hemschutz. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose this amendment for obvious reasons.

Thank you.

Representative Sharkey. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Should be pretty quick remarks on this amendment as well as the next one. I oppose it. Working in close coordination with the capital budget co-chair in the other body, we worked to make sure that the commercial passenger vessel funds were distributed as fairly as possible, trying to make sure that they were distributed based on a number of visitors rationale.

So looking at communities, the number of cruise ship vessel passengers that you had, largely we followed that in distributing these funds. This would be an unfair redistribution of funds from one community to another community. I'm not saying that what the representative from District 6 is trying to do isn't a valid effort, that she is trying to channel funds to towards, but I don't believe in robbing Peter to pay Paul in this manner. So I'll be a strong no vote on this. Thank you.

Representative Sadler. Yeah, Mr. Speaker, I'm gonna rise in support of number 13. You know, I look at the list on page 39 of the capital budget bill before us and I see that the community of Homer, which I've been to many times and enjoyed their port facilities, has $125,000 allocated to them. Then I look down and I see that Petersburg, a wonderful community, fishing community as well, has $125,000 and Cloaque has $125,000. I can't see Skagway's got $9 million, you know, Haines has $3 million, Sitka's got $4.5 million.

Again, I do not wish to second-guess, but I just can't see that Klawock and Petersburg have the same status as a port in Alaska as Homer. So I think a little nudge is appropriate. And of course, this is all zero-sum. Any money you go to any one of these is money that cannot go to any other. So this is an appropriate effort to allocate more money to an important port in south-central Alaska.

So we should support it. Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The problem is these are restricted funds. The cruise ship passenger vessel tax is collected off of cruise ship passengers, so apportioned that way. You might not know, but Skagway's got the most cruise ship passengers who visit there. My community has happened to suffer some litigation because you can only then use that money to do projects that touch the cruise ship passengers, not your general port development.

So, um, there have been a few times when my community said, well, we're doing the SeaWalk development and it's the cruise ship passengers are using it, and we lost the litigation. It's got to touch the cruise ship portion of it. So it's collected and it's apportioned out based on the number of large cruise ship vessel passengers who come into that port. So Klawock, 2 years ago, would have gotten zero. They've doubled in the number of cruise ship passengers touching their dilapidated little dock, and they're going to quadruple in the next year.

So Homer is a port that I know dearly and have spent many hours in, and, uh, I'm glad they're not eligible for as much cruise ship passenger tax as Skagway gets, because Homer would be a wholly different community if it had the same number of cruise ship visitors that Skagway has. So with that, I will oppose the amendment. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment.

The money for this port in Homer is long overdue, Mr. Speaker, and I think that we should seriously consider the ramifications of what this could do for Homer. And Mr. Speaker, I think that, you know, I've seen the project, I've seen the folks from Homer come down here and talk about this project, and it is a good project, and I think we should support it. Thank you. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, you did it. Now I'm confused again. I think I just heard something about a dedicated fund. I thought we weren't supposed to do that in, in our Constitution. And, and frankly, robbing Peter to pay Paul— here it comes, Mr. Speaker.

Don't we do that with the PFD every year? Sorry.

Representative McCabe.

Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So sometimes lightning does strike twice in the same spot on the same day. I'm going to again agree with the member from Juneau, although I do support the maker of the amendment's funding for the Homer Port. Mr. Speaker, this is cruise ship head tax money.

It goes to communities who basically have cruise ships. I have been to Homer many, many times, Mr. Speaker. I love the Spit and especially Salty Dog Saloon, but I have never seen a fleet of cruise ships at the port in Homer. I have seen them all throughout Southeast, and if it were up to me and I could reallocate this money, I would spend it all on the cruise ship terminal in Fairbanks and the Chena River, Mr. Speaker. But unfortunately, I will be rising in opposition to the amendment, although if the funding for the port were separated by itself, I would support that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wrap-up comments, Representative Antz. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I would like to invite everyone down to Homer this summer where we do have cruise ships. We have at least 45 every summer.

Just because you haven't seen them, just like Santa Claus, doesn't mean he doesn't exist. So to answer the question about whether or not this funding would qualify, I too had the same concern. Yes, permission to read, Mr. Speaker. Permission granted. Thank you.

New harbor infrastructure can qualify for spending from Alaska's commercial passenger vessel.

Excise tax if the project is sufficiently connected to cruise vessel operations, passenger services, maritime safety, or port efficiency. I will preclude from reading examples since the time is running short, but I think everyone gets my point that part of the reason that we need to expand is to accommodate larger vessels. Right now, Homer can accommodate the smaller cruise ships the size of the Love Boat. We have limited the great behemoths that we see here because we like to keep a small town flair, but we do want to have a larger dock to make accommodations for large vessels. So that is a part of this.

And if we are talking about what is fair coming out of Sitka, I think we've seen that it's not. And so I'm asking for a little bit of sweet justice. Today and that you sprinkle a little bit to Homer. Are we ready for the question? I think it is getting late.

The question is, shall Amendment Number 13 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? 13 Yeas, 26 nays.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order. Will the clerk once again announce the vote, please?

13 Yeas, 26 nays. With a vote of 13 yeas to 26 nays, Amendment No. 13 Is adopted. This failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 14 by Representative Vance, beginning page 39, line 22. Representative Vance. I will not be offering this at this time. Amendment number 14 will not be offered this time. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 15 by Representative Colon, beginning page 34, line 14. Representative Kwon. I will not be offering 15 or Amendment 16 at this time.

15—. Amendments 15 and 16 will not be offered at this time. I'm rolling number— Amendment 17 to the bottom of the pile. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 18 by Representatives Tomaszewski Prox, Stapp, Allard, beginning page 3, line 24. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment 18. There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this is the, this is the amendment we've all been waiting for. This puts full funding to the Arctic Winter Games. And, uh, I think many of you are very familiar with the Arctic Winter Games. Uh, this is a very important program, uh, that has international repercussions.

And Mr. Speaker, I would, um, thank the body for the $500,000 that we put into the capital budget already for this, um, but Mr. Speaker, it is, uh, a full $3.5 million that is needed in state funding. Um, the total budget for this event is $6.87 million, and the rest of that funding, Mr. Speaker, is, um, a lot of donations, a lot of in-kind, a lot of, uh, sponsorships, a a lot of merchandise sales. So they are doing a very thorough job at funding this event. And I would just ask for your support. Thank you.

Further discussion on Amendment Number 18? Representative Schwaggy. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. We worked closely with the city of Fairbanks, Fairbanks North Star Borough, to make sure that appropriate funding was made.

Available in the capital budget for them to be able to get off the ground this year and start the process of making sure that we are in fact able to host the Arctic Winter Games in 2028. I've been assured that $500,000 will allow them to get started, continue with their fundraising, put, put forward a package and make sure that we are on track to have the Arctic Winter Games here in 2 years. So at this time, I would oppose additional funding for Arctic Winter Games while they continue to fundraise and build their operations up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any closing comments? Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I know many of us know exactly what this event is, and Mr. Speaker, I think it's very important that we consider fully funding it I understand the, the budget and the times that we face. But Mr. Speaker, we do not want to risk not being able to have this event in 2028.

Fully funding it now will fully set the event in motion and guarantee that we will be hosting it here in Alaska in 2028. I ask for your support. Brief it is.

Would the House please come back to order? Madam Clerk.

We are on Amendment Number 18 with an objection.

We are indeed under Amendment Number 18.

We are ready to vote.

We are missing some members and a very brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? I believe we have everyone present.

Question before the body is, shall Amendment Number 18 be adopted? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 15 Yeas, 24 nays. With a vote of 15 yeas to 24 nays, Amendment No. 18 Has failed to pass.

Madam Clerk. Amendment No. 19 By Representative Sadler, beginning page 3, following line 15. Representative Sadler. I move amendment number 19.

There's an objection. Thank you. Glad to speak. Boy, I feel like a bit of a piker only asking for $10,000 compared to hundreds of thousands or tens of millions. But this is simply to repair a reeking, leaking roof at the Scouting America, that's the boys and girls who are scouting, at Camp Gorsuch in Chugiak in District 24, my district.

This structure supports daily operations for campers, proving access to program materials that serve people from all over the state, boys and girls who come to Camp Gorsuch for their activities. There are, of course, many other more expensive and maybe more pressing needs of this facility, but given the state's finances and the chances of adding money to the capital budget at this stage, I wanted to keep my horizons low and my expectations low. But I will say this modest amendment will help to strengthen facilities that are really helpful to growing our students and our young people's development. It would serve Scouts that would serve schools, city organizations— pardon me, sir— from across the state and not just my district. So with a humble request for approval for this $10,000 capital budget item, I ask your support.

Will the House please come back to order. Representative Schrag. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very briefly, I rise in opposition to Amendment Number 19. I have no doubt that there's a need for these funds for roof repairs and otherwise, but I don't have any background information on this project.

They've never lobbied me as the capital budget co-chair. This is the first time I'm hearing about this project, and so at this time I do not support this amendment. Being included in the capital budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Egan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this. It seems like, it seems like we spent more money talking about it than it's actually going to cost to do this. And, and I will refrain from adding an amendment just to make sure that we have the funding appropriate for this. So please, let's use these kids, uh, their spot.

Thank you.

Any wrap-up, Representative Sadler? Mr. Speaker, as a second-class scout, I am prepared with rebuttal to the co-chair's thing. This actually has been a request in the CAPSA system for months now. It was on my list. It was passed on to the powers that be through my senator for capital requests.

And so it has been there waiting quietly, expectantly, and hopefully for green buttons to be pushed. Are you ready for the question? The question So, with that being said, Amendment No. 19 Passed 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? 18 Yeas, 21 nays. By a vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment No.

19 Has failed. Amendment number 20 by Representative Sadler, beginning page 3, following line 15. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 20.

There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a little more ambitious. This is actually for $210,000 to replace a sports pavilion used at a— it's been worn out after many years of use. It exists up north of Juneau.

It does say Eagle River Scout Camp, but this is actually not my Eagle River. Hurr Eagle River, about an hour north of here, way out the end of the road. It would replace a pavilion that has been used for many years, gotten a lot of loving use, to help teach young people from around the state shooting sports and safety. This is something that's important. Shooting is a tool used in recreation, subsistence, competitive sports, and this would go to help Scouting America, which again is Boys and Girls, in the Menominee Valley.

There's two elements in addition to $210,000 for the shooting pavilion. There would be a modest $5,000 to repair that same camp's medical and trading post shack. And in a place that is, again, an hour away from the hospital, remote location, it's important to have some rudimentary medical facilities available. So this is to keep the guys and gals safe as they learn how to be better people out in the beautiful woods of the North Mendon Hall Valley. And ask for your support.

Representative Schraggy. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, briefly rising in opposition to this amendment. I could make the same remarks I did last time, but I think the rebuttal would be the same same as it was last time. And so I'll just say that while I understand there may be a CAPSES project behind this, we've worked very hard to focus on statewide items, avoid CAPSES projects.

I know that's very difficult for members. My hope is that next year we again see an increased revenue scenario and that we can maybe get back to doing some CAPSES projects for individual districts or otherwise. But at this time, I'm not able to support this amendment and will urge a no vote. Thank you.

Any wrap-up comments, Representative Satterthwaite? Yes, Mr. Speaker. Had I known that I was going to lose on these two, I would have asked for $35 million for each UGiac volunteer fire department station, which would have made the no's much more meaningful. But the need exists, the resources are there, and the Scouts would all appreciate your yes vote. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment Number 20 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? 18 Yeas, 21 nays. With a vote of 18 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment Number 20 has failed to pass.

At this time, I'm rolling Amendment Number 21 to the bottom of the pile. Madam Clerk, Amendment #22 by Representative Schwanke and G. Nelson, beginning page 9, following line 21. Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment #22.

There's an objection. So I'm hearing that we want to be very careful and not to add individual projects for very specific regions and parts of the state. So I'm asking for a fairly small amount here that we add to the Volunteer Fire Capacity Program. It would benefit Districts 1 through 40.

So the, the reason that I'm bringing this forward, uh, this came about because we have several volunteer fire departments throughout our unorganized borough, and many of them reside within my district. I have seen funding for these particular volunteer fire departments decline pretty significantly over the years. One in particular really fairly self-sufficient. They try to raise money. They do a great job every year.

But they, they've been receiving CAP funds for many years. It was $40,000 a year. Then it dropped down to $20,000 a year. And then as of last year, another organization within the local village started receiving CAP funds. So now this volunteer fire department doesn't receive any funds.

Through the state. And this Volunteer Fire Capacity Program offers a very limited number of grants each year. They cap each grant request at $10,000. What these do, they really help provide firefighting capabilities through equipment and Things like radios, apparatuses, things that do expire. And with your indulgence, I have a short section out of a letter I'd like to read.

Permission granted. So this was a letter that was written by the Kokona Fire Department, actually to the governor. In December of 2025, we had a major fire in the Copper River Basin. It was the Caribou Hotel. That burned down that many people know about.

And one of the big concerns that came from that particular fire was the challenges that our fire departments all locally face. We had 4 or 5 different volunteer fire departments that all tried to respond to that particular fire. And thankfully, they were able to keep it from spreading. We do believe we, we lost one particular individual in that fire. But the letter states, our departments face unique challenges as we are located in the unorganized borough without the tax-based funding structures available in other regions.

Our operations rely heavily on community assistance program allocations and our ongoing partnership with the Division of Forestry. Unfortunately, they're not sufficient to meet the increasing demands on our volunteer fire departments. Or maintain the level of safety and readiness our communities deserve. Specifically, one of their concerns is our radio communication systems are nearly obsolete given the Alaska Land Mobile Radio shift from analog to digital. This particular change is affecting volunteer fire departments all over the state.

This letter states, we have very few updated radios, and at $4,000 apiece, we're struggling to find funding to purchase more. The cost of replacing these radios is far beyond the financial capacity of our small departments. I'll skip ahead. Likewise, much of our turnout gear no longer meets the National Fire Protection Association and FPMA standards, creating serious safety risks for our responders.

Probably the most significant part of this letter that I hope people recognize is that I'll just read quickly. Our noncompliance with federal standards puts us at risk of losing our insurance coverage, which would leave the region with no fire service at all. This has far-reaching social and economic ramifications because every mortgage insurance company, business insurer out there, they require fire service within a certain range of insured buildings. Losing structural insurance will drive people out of our region and limit potential employees and families who can move in. So I am asking for a small amount that we can add from UGF to the Volunteer Fire Capacity Program.

It will benefit volunteer fire departments all across the state with UGF dollars in addition to the same level of funding that comes annually through the US— DA for service. So of the awards issued last year in FY26, um, I think there were 32 different volunteer fire departments that received grants, but each one was in the range of $6,000 to $9,000. And we know that each of these fire departments needs significant additional funding beyond that. So I ask for Thank you for your support today. Representative Schragg.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to Amendment No. 22. I have no doubt that there is some real need for volunteer firefighting equipment and the replacement of radios and the like. Look, again, we've worked hard to try and balance as many needs and get as many needs into the budget as possible in our revenue scenario that we're in this year.

My hope is that next year we continue to see these higher oil prices.

And that we might be able to address a program like this in the future. But again, we've worked very hard to try and do what we can within the bookends, as my colleague in the other body would say. And unfortunately this year, this just hasn't quite made it above the line in the budget. So I'll be opposing this today and hopeful that in the future we can begin to again address issues like these across our communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Tomaszewski. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I rise in support of this amendment. You know, it's difficult enough to get volunteers for any particular trade. Mr. Speaker, volunteer firefighters are folks that we need to support.

They need to have the proper equipment, and it's a step to becoming a firefighter. And Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that none of us need a firefighter in our lives, but, you know, I'm glad to know that we have them and they're there. But, Mr. Speaker, I really would appreciate it, and I'm sure they would appreciate it too, if they had the proper funding and some proper equipment to make their job more efficient and safer for them and for those they serve. So I ask for your support. Thank you.

Any wrap-up comments? Representative Schwocke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just add one last thing. Even I want to say on a monthly basis, I hear of structure fires in rural Alaska, and thankfully very few of them have resulted in, in losing individual Alaskans.

But just within the last 2 months, there was another house structure fire within Fort Yukon, and I was contacted by an elder, and she very specifically said, "Please, if there's anything that you can do to kind of help, we really could use one of those portable units where we could move it throughout the community and try to help individual homes when we do have fires." So unfortunately, I scrapped, and I looked, and I I could not come up with an opportunity for them to even apply for a specific grant. We pointed them to the local tribal organization, but we do have a grant program opportunity right now through the state of Alaska. If we add just a small amount, we could improve the capacity for volunteer fire departments across the state. The amount of money that we are talking about today, we're throwing around tens of millions of dollars.

I would really like to see this funded today. Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 22 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

The clerk, please lock the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 17 Yeas, 22 nays. With a vote of 17 yeas to 22 nays, Amendment No.

22 Has failed to pass. Pass, brief it easy.

House, please come back to order. At this time, I'm going to hold Senate Bill 214 in second reading for the purpose of continued amendments tomorrow.

Mr. Majority Leader, I'm going to turn to you next. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand at adjournment until Thursday, May 14th, at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, the House will stand adjournment until Tuesday, May 14th— Thursday, Thursday, May 14th at 10:30 AM.