House Floor Session, 5/19/26, 3:30pm

Will the House please come back to order? Welcome back to all of you. It's been a while. We left off with Senate Bill 124, if memory serves me correct. Senate Bill 24, not 124.

And we were under amendments, Amendment Number 2 to be precise.

And I believe, I believe we were about to go to wrap up. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was looking through Amendment 2, talking with some of the members. There was some legal drafting errors in the amendment.

Representative Bynum, if I could ask you, yes, you restate what Amendment 2 was about just so we're all back on track. Yes, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 2 was drafted to remove the penalties or creating this illegal possession for 19 and 20-year-olds. That's what the amendment did. When legal drafted the amendment, Mr. Speaker, it reached and grabbed into the statute and pulled out some of the things that we intended to keep in the statute.

And so I tried to get a an amendment to the amendment to sort it out. What I've decided to do is I have another amendment. I will offer it later, and I'm going to withdraw Amendment 2 to solve the issue. All right, so Amendment 2 has been withdrawn. Madam Clerk.

Amendment 3 by Representative Bynum, beginning page 11, line 31.

Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment 2. 3. 3. I think you meant—.

Correction, Amendment 3. I move Amendment 3. There is an objection.

Permission to read, Mr. Speaker. Permission granted.

Amendment number 3, Mr. Speaker, is dealing with the wholesale or the retail tax portion of the bill. We had quite a bit of conversation in finance about the mechanisms of providing taxes on the additional items that we're adding in the bill, specifically e-products, e-cigarettes, and items of that nature. This amendment would replace the bill's current retail point-of-sale tax on electronic smoking products with a traditional tobacco-style excise tax imposed at the distributor and wholesale level. The amendment establishes a 75% excise tax on the wholesale price of electronic smoking products, applying the tax upon the first wholesale— wholesaler sale, transfer, importation, distribution, acquisition, or possession of the product within the state. The amendment shifts the responsibility of collecting and remitting the taxes from the retailer to the licensed distributors, wholesalers, and importers.

This is consistent with existing tobacco excise framework. The intent is to align the taxation and enforcement administration of the electronic smoking products with the structure already used for other tobacco products while maintaining a roughly comparable overall tax burden. This amendment establishes that licensing, filing, remitting— remittance and reporting requirements grants that the Department of Revenue authorized— is authorized to administer and enforce the tax. It authorizes necessary regulations, clarifies applicably reliable standards and sets the standards for the remote sellers and the marketplace facilitators. It makes conforming statutory changes as needed to integrate the new excise tax for the existing tobacco law.

And I'll wait for any questions and then I'll close up with a wrap-up, but this is what the amendment does, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The sponsor of the bill opposes this change, as do I, and I want to briefly talk about why it is not the appropriate way for e-cigarettes or vapes to be— electronic smoking products to be taxed. Permission to use my notes? Permission granted. So one of the things that's different in most tobacco sales The unit to be measured is very consistent. A cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette.

A package of Copenhagen is a package of Copenhagen. And so there's very consistency. So, um, our tobacco products currently in statute are taxed at the wholesale level with Cipriller types. So cigarettes, Copenhagen, snuff, chew, they're listed in the statute. Electronic smoking products produce an anomaly in that a single unit has varying levels of nicotine in it and various sizes and measures.

So some are closed unit sales that are kind of disposable units. Some are mixed at the vape store. And so in seeking parity, but it's not exactly parity, The sponsor staff has worked over the last 10 years to find a way to come to what seems to be parity, but it requires a retail tax because the wholesale mechanism and mixing is not consistent from product to product. It's based on analysis conducted by Dr. Frank Chaloup— Chaka, who is the nationally recognized economist for his work on tobacco taxation as well as public health policy. And I would urge a no vote on this amendment switching the tax that's currently in the bill.

Representative Jimmy.

Representative Jimmy. Madam Mr. Speaker, as my same talking points I will not repeat them, but in short story, we should not be penalizing youth where that will lead to basically putting lives at risk in the end. And I will not get into the nitty-gritty. Please support this.

Representative Josephson.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I oppose this. And it may be that the representative from Ketchikan is unaware of this, but On the floor, basically 2 years ago today, we'll call it, there was an amendment that I actually may have had some involvement in that increased the wholesale rate. So the bill 2 years ago remained a wholesale taxation vehicle. That's not what this is anymore for e-cigs. And the The administration vetoed a 35% wholesale excise tax.

35%. And the administration essentially said, that's too much. It's too much. This is double that plus a bit. So this will not pass muster with this administration, and I ask you to oppose it.

Representative Freer. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to offer some levity and suggest that maybe this should be subject to an alternative volumetric tax. And that is just a joke. Sorry.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are back to you, Representative Bynum, for wrap-up comments.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If we are concerned about whether this bill will survive by putting in a wholesale tax, putting in a new retail tax statewide will definitely create issues. Mr. Speaker, this bill isn't just about T21 and trying to reduce smoking. It has some other elements in it. Those elements are dealing with creating additional penalties and also creating a new tax on this product.

I'm not opposed to taxing this product, Mr. Speaker. It's a nicotine delivery product. We have all kinds of different nicotine delivery products that are already taxed under law, and I would contend from a previous speaker that a cigarette is a cigarette is a cigarette isn't actually the case. A cigarette is a nicotine delivery product, Mr. Speaker, and they come in all sizes and shapes. What I'm opposed to in this bill is creating a new retail tax system.

This is new across the state. This will put additional burden on retailers, small businesses across the state, while not providing while not providing the same level of what I call equal treatment.

Couple things that we do, Mr. Speaker, under T21 is we need to do proper education. That's gonna lower usage. We need proper enforcement at the retail sales location. We already do that. And we also need to have the other component which deals with the cost or taxation of the product.

Like I said, Mr. Speaker, I'm not opposed to putting the tax on. I don't mind if the tax is even higher than 75% on this product, and that's not going to be popular with people, but I want a consistent way that we provide taxes for these products in the state without putting a burden on our small businesses. I would urge a yes vote. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 3 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, 21 nays. By a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment No.

3 Has failed to pass. Madam Clerk, amendment number 4 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 1, line 4. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment 4.

There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, this amendment is brought to you by laundry soap, air freshener, mouthwash, and breath mint industries, as well as wives and girlfriends who would rather their significant others not smoke cigars in the shop, in the garage, on the patio, or in the driveway.

So it, it creates a narrow, carefully tailored exemption for retail cigar stores under Alaska's indoor smoking statutes. This amendment is not about cigarettes. It's about bars. It's not about bars, and it's about— not about broadly weakening Alaska's smoking policy.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, cigars are a nicotine delivery product as well. The difference between cigars and cigarettes is cigarettes have about 1,500 cancer-causing, known cancer-causing chemicals. Cigars have 3. So it's carefully, it's specifically drafted for premium cigar retailers operating in controlled environments with controlled bars and basically specialty clubs, Mr. Speaker. Plainly, it allows cigar shops, specialty cigar shops, that have cigar— to have cigar smoking lounges, but only if they meet strict statutory requirements and do not allow cigarettes.

Specifically, the amendment defines what qualifies as a retail cigar store, requires the businesses to derive at least 60% of their business— of its revenue from cigars and humidor rentals, prohibits cigarettes and cigarette tobacco entirely, requires a built-in or walk-in, stand-in humidor, allows cigar smoking only within the business itself, and requires the establishment to either be freestanding or physically separated so smoke cannot travel between neighboring businesses. It prohibits these establishments from operating inside pull-tab facilities and general public retail spaces. Such as a mall. Mr. Speaker, these restrictions matter because premium cigars are fundamentally different from mass market cigarettes. Different products, different customer behavior, and different business models.

These are specialty retailers, Mr. Speaker, small Alaskan businesses serving a niche adult market in a controlled environment for lawful adult consumers. The question before us is whether adults in a limited and regulated setting should be allowed to engage in a lawful activity activity without regulating these businesses out of existence. This amendment draws a clear line between premium cigar culture and cigarette smoking while preserving Alaska's overall indoor smoking protections. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, some adults just want a nice quiet place to go enjoy a nice premium cigar. Mr. Speaker, there are these types of clubs all over the United States, from Washington, D.C. to New York City to Chicago all over the United States and places that have banned smoking, such as Alaska has, in indoor facilities.

I've been to many of them, Mr. Speaker. It's a good place to sit down, just enjoy a quiet smoke. It's a good place to negotiate. We've negotiated many deals in Washington, D.C. at a little cigar bar called the Shelly's Back Door Lounge.

Mr. Speaker, they exist in Alaska right now. Not necessarily legal, but they exist. This would make them legal, Mr. Speaker. It would be a sort of a club environment, membership club, lots of them. And I think that it's time that we update our smoking regulations to allow premium cigar smoking.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Hanna.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I won't start with the imagery of backdoor deals and cigar smoke-filled rooms and instead go to the fact that in 2018, when the Alaska Legislature passed 1833.301g, there is a carve-out for private cigar clubs to exist. The issue is employees. The issue in passing smokehand— Smoke-free workplaces that Alaska struggled with and passed is that secondhand smoke is always carcinogenic. Cigars contain the same toxic characteristics of all other combustible tobacco.

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.

Um, people are free to smoke cigars, in their own location, in a place with no employees, or out in their backyard.

Alaska is still one of the states with very high rates of tobacco-related health risks, diseases that are preventable, and we should do nothing to water down the protections we currently have in law to protect Alaskans from secondhand inhalation. You can go smoke on the Kenai River while you're fishing for reds. You can go smoke in your airplane where you're flying around Talkeetna, but you should not be smoking in a building with a commercial license in Alaska. And I oppose this amendment. Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in strong support of Amendment Number 4. You know, I think this is something that a lot of people find down in the Lower 48, which is pretty shocking to some when they come up to Alaska. You know, I will make it pretty short because we have other things coming down the pipeline, but I do encourage everyone to support Amendment Number 4. I spent my 20s in politics, and who knows, if this amendment were to pass, I may turn my 30s into a cigar connoisseur.

So I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there's no secret how I'm going to support this amendment, Mr. Speaker.

It's a great amendment. Thank the member from Big Lake for making it. It's a cigar lounge amendment. I would just offer comments from a member earlier that if you choose to work inside a cigar shop, you are probably okay with cigars, Mr. Speaker. I know that in Fairbanks there's a thing that they do at the cannabis places.

It's called on-site consumption. I was opposed to on-site consumption, Mr. Speaker, because I I was upset that I couldn't have a cigar on site and consume one, but you could do that with the marijuana. So all this bill does is allow— this amendment allows for cigar lounges, which are super popular, super cool, and you get some tax revenue out of it too. So I ask members to vote yes. Representative Josephson.

Uh, yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the amendment. You know, part of it is, um, what we're doing in this bill is trying to conserve and preserve health. And boy, it'd be a sad experience if this bill, which is about health and particularly health of young people, were turned into something else. It'd just be sad to me, genuinely. Um, and I would note that the reforms that the member from Juneau talked about, uh, referred to grandfathering in the e-cigarette stores and private clubs dating back to 2017.

So that was the grandfather period. Now we're asked to extend that grandfather period for cigars, or, or to invite more It's really not an extension, I realize that, but it's a similar result. Um, you know, I'm struck by the language at the top of page 2 because I think there's some sort of admission internally in the amendment that you can separate one business from another with a wall, um, and try to assure that cigar aerosols aren't traveling But it isn't going to work, and that's why there's this further carve-out that, well, it won't be this thing and the other, because I think there's an acknowledgement that, that, that isn't how this works. I'm reminded of being a child on an airplane, and, you know, after row 17 you could smoke, and somehow that made row 16 safe. What a, what a silly concept that was.

I understand that there's a little more demarcation here than on the jets of the 1970s. But this just isn't what the sponsor has in mind. He doesn't want associations with this.

I think it weakens workplace safety laws. And I appreciate what the member for East Fairbanks said, but if you look at 1835.301 and , and see there's much more sort of consideration given to separation, separation to maintain air quality than this amendment does. And so I think the amendment's inadequate. I oppose it. Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 4. I think the member that sits behind me spoke very well about some of the reasons why I support it. Mr. Speaker, I'm actually surprised when I, in my district, hear about two different facilities that offer on-site consumption of cannabis, and yet if an individual who wishes to consume some other sort of product that is also smoked and it contains tobacco, they are not allowed to do so. Mr. Speaker, that seems very strange to me, particularly if you have guardrails around that.

It's adult behavior in an adult location run by adults. This is asking whether or not people should have the freedom to run a business and do so in a way that might actually increase their ability to do business in that place, as well as a social atmosphere that they make the choice to be a part of. Right now, uh, we're allowing smoking in facilities that serve cannabis, which is also carcinogenic, by the way, and we don't seem to really care about that while we restrict the same behavior for small cigar stores and retail cigar spaces. And I think that although the amendment is probably, to the member from District 13, not entirely in line with the totality of the underlying bill, I think it is a good conversation to have and I think it benefits within this reduction of cigarette and vaping, but allowing people to make choices in the places where choices can be made to actually restrict outdoor spaces and other spaces where other people would be breathing in the smoke where they may not want it. This is a place where people would be expecting it to be, and so I'll be in support.

Thank you.

Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to start by talking about, um, the member from Big Lake saying of course people wouldn't be allowed to smoke cigarettes there. Well, what we know is that cigar smoke has the exact same carcinogenic and toxic compounds that you would find in cigarettes. Um, but no, these are only for very expensive cigars, it's special.

They're not special. It, it provides the exact same health harms that cigarettes do. When I hear, well, if somebody works at a cigar— at, at one of these specialty cigar smoking rooms, well, they must be okay with it. Maybe not. Maybe you're a young person who just needs a job, and maybe that's the job that's available to you.

And the bottom line is, is in 2018, this body said that we were going to have smoke-free workplaces in Alaska. Finally, I'll just address the member from Seldovna. We should not be having indoor spaces where we allow cannabis smoking. We should outlaw that. We should pass that bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have to rise in support of Amendment Number 4, notwithstanding the previous comments. We allow cannabis, we allow alcohol, we allow greasy cheeseburgers, but we don't allow tobacco.

And, uh, I think it's an appropriate amendment. I think that it allows people to run legitimate businesses, which are legitimate businesses ran in, I don't know if it's every other state, but I have been to many of those states in the lower 48. And so let's not dictate to business what they can or can't do. And I am an outlier because when we do smoke cigars, I suck that magic down. I'm not a puffer, so I'm in full support of Amendment Number 4.

Representative Elam, full disclosure.

I appreciate the honesty of my colleague from Sutton. And so, no, I appreciate The representative from Big Lakes Point here is, you know, I think really kind of what we're getting at is the hypocrisy. You know, you go down here just a couple blocks from here, you're gonna get a contact high just walking down the street because of the, the smell of, you know, the cannabis that's going on in these shops and the consumption that's going on inside of these facilities. Facilities. And, you know, I know that cannabis isn't necessarily the topic at hand, but it is hypocritical to not allow products like tobacco, or, you know, specifically cigars, and then to allow, you know, these other products, and then, you know, to say that, you know, well, the carcinogens for the employees— well, it doesn't seem to matter if it's a cannabis shop.

There's employees in there. Are they only just allowed to have one employee? You know, so, you know, so I think that some equal access to services would be in order.

Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, the only thing that I really don't like about this amendment is that I wasn't the one to come up and offer it.

And for full disclosure, Mr. Speaker, I did not inhale.

But I want to speak a little bit on freedoms. And Mr. Speaker, if I walked into a restaurant and they allowed smoking there, I would probably turn around and eat somewhere else. That's my choice. If I go into a hotel and everyone's smoking in there, I'll probably go to a different hotel, but it's my choice. You know, we have allowed the consumption of some products in some instances and some businesses and have denied others.

And Mr. Speaker, I think that's— it comes right down to a matter of choice. And For me, I think there is nothing wrong with allowing a business to operate with strict guidelines. Of course, Mr. Speaker, today's technologies and today's cigar lounges and different businesses, they have very controlled, specific air quality ventilation that works really well. I have sat around with a group of guys and had cigars and the air quality was terrible. But I've also been in cigar lounges in other areas, in other states, and the air quality was really good.

And so, you know, Mr. Speaker, if we look at this and we actually think about it and we consider what exactly we are talking about, We're talking about someone's choice to actually enter an establishment that they know is going to have cigars in there and cigar smoke. And it also creates jobs that, you know what, Mr. Speaker, if someone applies for a job at a cigar lounge, they're probably going to hear, or they're probably going to know that there's going to be smoke in that establishment. And that would probably give them the freedom to whether they want to work there or not. It would give them the freedom of choice. And so, Mr. Speaker, I am highly supportive of this amendment, and I think it's time to really take Alaska in a way that, you know, looks at more freedom and more choice for those who live here.

So I am supportive of it. Thank you.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With the body's indulgence, I'm going to tell you a little story and indulge my inner Abe Lincoln. There's a story of a man, a cigar smoker, who went and found the Dalai Lama at the top of a mountain. He wanted to know the secret of eternal life.

He said, oh, great Dalai Lama, what's the secret of living forever? And the Dalai Lama said, don't drink martinis, don't chase loose women, and don't smoke cigars. And the guy said, well, that's great, Dalai Lama, I appreciate that. If I don't drink martinis, I don't chase loose women, and I never smoke cigars, will I live forever? And he said, no, my son, but it will seem like it.

So, you know, Mr. Speaker, life is going to kill you. I'm just going to tell you, no one gets out alive. You might as well enjoy it along the way. And if your way of enjoying yourself is to have a cigar and have a special place to carve out for those that enjoy cigars— I don't myself— I say let them go. Let them have a place to do it.

I heard applause in support of freedom. Yeah, let's have this one carve out so a guy or a gal can have a cigar in peace and safety and comfort.

Well, I think we are done dispensing wisdom. Wrap-up comments. Rep. McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So in answer to a couple of questions, I did talk to the sponsor of this bill this morning, and I invited him to the next opening of the newest cigar lounge in Alaska.

To which he responded that he didn't care if I put this amendment in and he would gladly join me for a cigar. So there's that. Some of the cigar bars that I have been in have the best ventilation, better than any other sports bar that cooks hamburgers right there behind the bar. They have great ventilation. They have to, or they don't attract customers.

Most of the people that work there, and usually it's just the owner, sometimes it's the owner and one or two other guys that might come in and work there. You walk in, you pay a fee to get in, you have your humidor there, you put a key in, you get your cigars out of there. Usually the other, the staff, either the owner or somebody else are also cigar smokers and they want to be there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to address one thing. It's something I've read recently.

Number one, the smoke is not the same that comes out of cigarettes. It's just not. A cigar is made strictly out of tobacco leaves. There's no plastic filters, there's no paper wrapped around it. The chemicals in a cigarette— there are 1,500 chemicals, each one has determined, been determined to cause cancer.

Cigars have tobacco leaves, that's what they're made of, that's what they're filled with, and they have one little tiny bit of glue to hold them together that is basically made out of natural products. Cigars are a natural product, Mr. Speaker. I will tell you that there is scientific investigation right now about the ability of nicotine to strip, um, the, uh, the receptors out of the protein receptors out of from the, uh, the COVID shots from the mRNA COVID shots for, for those of us that have had long-term COVID issues. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, it seems to have worked for me. I mean, look at me, right?

So I think this is a great amendment. I will tell you as well that these cigar bars are usually freestanding buildings. If not, they are not just separated by a wall. They are separated from the other business or building in a manner that does not allow cigar smoke aerosols to travel into the other business or building. Hence the great ventilation that they usually have.

And frankly, Mr. Speaker, these places are cash cows. A glass of brandy or two and a cigar and a tip for one guy is $200 to get out the door. And they make money, Mr. Speaker, or they wouldn't still be in business in many of the big cities around the country. So I would urge your support for this. I think it's a great opportunity to increase enjoyment for us older gentlemen that like to smoke cigars and not have to do it out in the parking lot in the rain.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 4 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. With a vote of 21 yeas, 19 nays, Amendment No. 4 Has been adopted. I'd like to take just a moment to let the body know that the governor has officially called the legislature back into special session starting on Thursday at 10:00 AM here in Juneau on subjects pertaining to— germane to the title of the following bill, House Bill 381, which is the natural gas taxation, certain natural gas pipeline projects.

Properties, et cetera, et cetera, bill. So I offer that to you for your consideration. Brevities.

Will the House please come to order. Thank you. Under consideration is Senate Bill 24 and amendments. Madam Clerk, will you please Please read the next amendment. Amendment number 5 will not be offered.

Amendment number 6 by Representative Bynum, beginning page 1, lines 2 through 3. Representative Bynum, I move Amendment 6. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And for a technical conforming change to Amendment 6, I move Amendment 1 to Amendment 6.

There is an objection. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Mr. Speaker, there was an omission of a duplication of a sign in the original amendment, and that's what Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 does, makes that correction. Is the objection maintained to Amendment 1 to Amendment 6?

Could the representative repeat? Did he say there was a removal of a what? Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There was an omission of a sign sign language for a sign on page 5 in the bill under the amendment.

And the amendment to Amendment 1 to Amendment 6 makes that correction by adding the language back in the amendment. So it's an informative message in the bill. The objection to the amendment to Amendment Number 6 has been withdrawn. So amended and Amendment number 6 is before the body. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We had some technical drafting errors with legislative legal. They're working very hard and there's a lot of other things happening. So they were very gracious in working with me and trying to get the language together for this amendment. What the resubmission of the amendment— this was very similar to the prior amendment that I'd made with the exception that it made 2 corrections in the bill, leaving in the lower fines, not having the mandatory court appearances, but ultimately removing 19- and 20-year-olds from the penalties that would apply by having possession. And I'll answer any questions.

Under debate, an amended amendment number 6. Representative Josephson.

Well, I, I can appreciate that there's an interest in, in a laissez-faire, meaning hands-off approach, as to 19 and 20-year-olds. But they are not allowed to consume alcohol, uh, under Title IV, and this is potentially as dangerous a product as alcohol. I mean, we could have a debate about that. I know there's concern that there will be some sort of abuse of— by law enforcement of 19- and 20-year-olds. I, I could only respond by saying you could— one could say that about any interaction police have on any issue, right?

If, if somebody is driving and they're speeding, are they drunk driving? Would that be cause to stop someone and allege they were drunk driving? I would say no. Not without further evidence. Could they be stopped for speeding?

Yes, they could. Could a police officer then see that they're bleary-eyed and red-eyed and with slurred speech? They could. That's the nature of how criminal law enforcement goes. Um, there were, according to legal counsel from the court, there were a total of 55 actual, uh, well, there were about 78 citations and 55 of them resulted in a fine.

So this is 55, presumably in 2025, spread throughout the state, and most of them were probably when a principal looked across the street and got fed up with the upper class, or the freshmen and sophomores if you wish, smoking and not reporting to class. That's the belief upon some evidence. I just think that I'm— frankly, some of this comes from frustration with the industry and the way it markets its product. And as I said earlier, they— how do they get you? They get you when you're 19 and 20.

They also get you when you're 15, but they get you when you're 19 and 20. And I oppose the amendment. Representative Jimmy.

Koyaanis Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday, we shouldn't be posing consequences for young youth. We shouldn't be creating fines, penalties, court dates with our young adults who are interacting with police.

Permission to read. Permission granted. 18 To 20-year-olds can vote, sign contracts, and serve in the military. Penalizing their personal choices is inconsistent with how state law treats adults. Formal processing does not deter.

It labels official contact, redefines a young person person's self-concept, reduces pro-social opportunities, and increases associations with delinquent peers. Criminal justice system involvement mediates chronic criminal behavior. Prior delinquency leads to a system contact increase in deviant peer association and future offending. My biggest concern is And I'm not encouraging our young adults to be consuming tobacco products of any sort. My concern is with— to give an example, say there's a young couple who have a child on the way and they're working around the clock trying to keep up with their rent, their bills, and the father is working two jobs.

He vapes. He's working on his way to delivery. He drops a vape in front of a police officer. Officer. That's going to give the officer precedence to say, hey, show me your ID, prove me your age.

Now, what is that going to do for the young father that's trying to prepare for his child coming into this world? It's going to create more fiscal restraints on them. They're not going to be able to provide as well. And another one is opening up, like I said yesterday, to the minority, where the minority will be easily targeted, where it usually ends up in unpleasant situations. So I will be voting yes for this amendment, and I encourage you all to.

Further debate, discussion?

If not, Representative Bynum, wrap up. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I offered this amendment because I truly believe that it creates harm potential harm, and I don't want to do that. But I have also had an opportunity to talk with some of the members in the room, along with members that were on Finance when I offered a very similar amendment, and the bill sponsor. And the bill sponsor has graciously requested that I remove the amendment, as he'd like the bill to stay intact as it is.

And I'm going to respect that wish and withdraw Amendment Number 6. Object. 6 Is withdrawn and there is an objection, so therefore we will vote as a body here momentarily.

Very brief, it is.

All right, well, the House, please come to order. I just clarified with the Chief Clerk's— the Chief Clerk next to me that a yes vote will allow the motion to be withdrawn. A no vote will object to it being withdrawn. So if you're ready for the question, the question being, shall Amendment No. 16 Be withdrawn?

Members, proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please state the vote? 27 Yeas, 13 nays. With a vote of 27 yeas to 13 nays, Amendment Number 6 has been withdrawn.

Madam Clerk, are there additional amendments? I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Bill 24 Finance be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage.

Hearing no objections, so ordered. Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time. House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill number H.R. 724, Financed by the House Finance Committee, entitled an Act Relating to Tobacco, Tobacco Products, Electronic Smoking Products, Nicotine, and Products Containing Nicotine, raising the minimum age to purchase, exchange, or possess tobacco, a product containing nicotine, or an electronic smoking product, relating to the Tobacco Use Education and Cessation Fund, relating to retail cigar stores relating to the taxation of electronic smoking products and vapor products and providing for an effective date. Representative Hannah.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Nicotine and tobacco is a leading cause for preventable health diseases, for issues like cancer, heart disease, and stroke. Senate Bill 24 has two central policies. First, it raises the minimum age to purchase tobacco products and electronic smoking products from 19 to 21 to bring Alaska into alignment with the federal law that passed in December of 2019. Representative Hannon, I'm going to hold you to the same standards as everybody else.

Can you ask permission to read, please? Permission to use my notes, Mr. Speaker. Okay. Well, I saw you reading, which is permission to read. Thank you, Representative Hannon.

This bill would enact for the first time a tax on electronic smoking products. By the construct of our statutes currently, they are a tobacco nicotine delivery device that has evaded tax under Alaska statute. We know that tobacco and nicotine are highly addictive drugs.

The younger you start, the more severe your addiction is likely to be. And if we can delay your introduction to the product, the less likely you are to become addicted. We also know that young people are price sensitive. So the new wave of smoking products in the United States, as we've seen a decline in combustible cigarettes over the last 40 years, is electronics.

Some people actually say they're health products. If the FDA authorizes any electronic smoking products as a smoking cessation device, the FDA and our statutes already allow for non-taxation of those. Nicotine patches are not taxed under our statutes. Um, so we have carve-outs in Protect. For the growth of it as an industry.

Um, the annual proceeds from this tax will continue to go into the Tobacco Cessation Fund that is already used for smoking education and prevention programs and can be used by schools to help put smoking— electronic smoking product detector devices into schools. Ah, we've had a lot of discussion over smoking in the last couple of days, and I would urge you to think about the cancer rates, the heart disease rates, and the stroke rates in the U.S. and the rising costs of healthcare. And we know that preventable diseases are things we should address. I would urge your support of Senate Bill 24.

Not seeing any discussion until this very moment. Representative Dapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I don't like this bill. I think everybody knows that.

There's a few reasons why, Mr. Speaker. I kind of view that type of sales structure or the tax structure is basically precursor to having a sales tax because it's at the retail end. That's why I would hope that the structure would have not been that way. But, you know, the primary reason I don't like the bill, Mr. Speaker, even though it has an awesome cigar lounge in there now, so this is a bit of a challenging speak, is I just fundamentally believe that the state should not be in the business of punishing people who are 19 and 20 years old for using tobacco. Mr. Speaker, I have so many stories about having a cigar when I was 20, or having a cigarette when I was 19.

And there are plenty of reasons why. I represent the second largest military base in the state, Fort Wainwright. I have an entire brigade there. It's an air assault brigade, 1st Brigade, 11th Airborne Division. You have 3 infantry battalions in that brigade, and a ton of those 19-year-old and 20-year-old kids actively vape.

They can't purchase the vapes under federal law, which is mirrored in this bill. But the fundamental difference between the T21 federal law and this bill is the state, if you pass this, is now actively going to punish people who are 20 and 19 years old. Mr. Speaker, those kids are going to go to war someday, okay? That's why they joined the Army. That's why they're in the infantry.

And they, they're going to get back to Alaska, and maybe not a lot but a handful of them are going to get fined by the state for using tobacco products. And I just think that's fundamentally wrong. And I think when the average person figures out that we decided that we're going to punish kids in the military for using vape products, they're going to make— tell us that we're kind of crazy people. So I ask the members to vote no. Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And the My former colleague here from Fairbanks, I couldn't disagree more. Sorry, I'm just going to put that out there. My concern is that this isn't a tobacco bill. This is a tax bill.

This is tax, tax, tax. That's what this is doing. They mentioned the word tax in here 15 times, if not more. So for me, it's about freedom. If you're 18, if you're 19, I already know.

I've already heard it numerous times. When you're 19, you can't smoke in the state of Alaska. I get it. Under 19. My point is that it's not an impairment.

Tobacco is not an impairment. It is not marijuana. It is not alcohol. It is not an impairment. You could drive, smoke all day long in your car.

You can walk down the street, smoke all day long in your car. In fact, in the Municipality of Anchorage, and I know this because I was on the Anchorage Assembly, you can't smoke in a bar. You can't smoke in a restaurant. But you can drink alcohol in a bar, consumption right on site. The same with marijuana.

My point about this whole thing is freedom. They're not doing anything wrong, and now you're imposing a law to take people's freedom away that doesn't impair them. So what's next? We need to stop. These are adults.

I've heard it from everybody across. They can vote, they can drive cars, they can go to war. They can do all sorts of intercontracts. They can buy a house, but they can't drink or smoke a cigarette and they can't vape. We already tax those little vapey things in the municipality of Anchorage.

Huge tax. So I want everybody to know and the public to know who's watching, this isn't about tobacco. This is about taxing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill, um, not because of taxes or health or anything else, but I remember being in high school and I've met a lot of high school kids since I was in high school till today. And what this does, the downside of it, is that it breeds a general disrespect for law and for authorities. And I think the consequences of that exceed the, the health benefits of trying to prevent people from smoking or vaping. So that'll be it.

Thank you. Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the bill. I'd like to address some of the comments that we've heard.

As the former medical provider for the 297th Infantry Battalion, my job was to make sure that my service members were ready. And being addicted to any substance impairs readiness. And so I just want to make it clear that yes, the military had a long history of putting cigarettes in MREs, and that was sponsored by the tobacco company, and that was to get lifelong consumers, lifelong customers, get them addicted in the military. They come back They buy cigarettes for life. That's a good business model.

We don't do that anymore. And when people are talking about freedom, addiction is not freedom.

Addiction is not freedom. The more we can emphasize preventing young people from starting an addictive substance, the more freedom we're giving them in the rest of their lives. And I know people say it's expensive. They're like, but it's my money. It's my freedom.

I can spend my money how I want. Addiction is not a choice, and people are spending their money on expensive products for the rest of their life, and it's hurting them economically. It is bad. It's bad, bad, bad. And this bill is good, good, good.

Please vote yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Josephson.

Well, I sense there may be some wavering for some members, so I want to remind folks of important features. The first is this would be the adoption of T21, a congressional act that says effectively you can't distribute to people under 21. All right, that, that's important. And compliance with it, to my memory, this couple years ago, brings the state in the low, admittedly low, I think it was like $3 million per year in one grant or another. I, I can't I can't remember what it is, but there's some money that benefits the state.

So T21 compliance with Congressional Act. The next part is it brings some parity to the way we treat vaping and cigarettes, um, both in terms of the way we tax it and the way we say to children, you can't use that. And that's because vapes are dangerous just as tobacco is. And in fact, much of the debate where people said, oh, vape, it's a cessation device, we don't even hear that anymore. They sort of gave that up because they know we have the evidence.

The other thing is, if you vote against the bill, and that's your right, I mean, I get that, but if you vote against the bill, we lapse back to the current law, and that means cigarette fines for kiddos can be up to $500. Instead of $100 with a mandatory court appearance. So this is the only bill we have this session on tobacco. This is it. We don't have like another bill we could choose.

It's not à la carte. And if you, if you don't like the bill, you're putting kids back in the court system at a fine up to 5 times greater than this bill. So I want you please to meditate on that. I urge your support.

Any wrap-up comments, Representative Hennett? No. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 24 Finance amended House pass the body? Members may proceed to vote.

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

The clerk please announce the vote. 24 Yeas, 16 nays. By a vote of 24 yeas, 16 nays, Senate Bill 24 has passed the House. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move the effective date clause With no objection, are you ready for the— yeah, that's what I'm doing. With no objection, be ready for the question. The question is, shall the effective date clause pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Call the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 1 nay. With a vote of 39 yeas to 1 nay, Senate Bill 24, the effective date for Senate Bill 24 has been adopted.

At this time, I'm moving Senate Bill 180 to the bottom of the calendar. Yes. Yes. If there is an objection, do you wish to speak to your objection?

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I— we took this up, we spent a lot of time on it last night, and I would like to spend, uh, give it a fair chance today. So the motion will appear on the voting board here momentarily.

So, brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order?

The question before the body is whether Senate Bill 180 should be moved to the bottom of the calendar. 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. By a vote of 21 yeas to 19 nays, Senate Bill 180 has been moved to the bottom of the calendar.

Will the House please come back to order. Madam Rules Chair. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to please send Senate Bill 180 back to Rules. So there's a motion before the body to send Senate Bill 180 back to the Rules Committee. It's got a 21-vote threshold.

Representative Johnson. I object to that, Mr. Speaker, because we spent, like I said, a significant amount of time yesterday on this. Potential of doing more good work on it and not having to have a complete and new special session. So I think sending it back to rules just essentially is going to kill the bill. I think that's the intent.

And I don't know exactly because where is it going to go? We're going to go back to rules and then we have one day left in the session. Well, we have an opportunity to take it up before us today, at least take some action on it, Mr. Speaker. So for that For that reason, I am objecting to sending it to Rules. And I would, I guess I'll just say I heartily object, because we're going to set ourselves up for a lot more expense at the gas, on the gas line.

So the motion before the body is to return Senate Bill 180 to Rules Committee.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the acknowledgment. Yeah, we did indeed spend a lot of time on this bill today. A lot of amendments were offered.

God, it seems like one long blurry day. Someone— some passed, rather. Some did not. But we made progress in the legislative process. We have a little bit of time left in this regular session.

I don't see a reason why we need to delay this by pulling it back another committee where it may or may not come out in time to make progress and reach some resolutions. So I disagree with this motion to take a bill that's been before us, we've been working on, and put it to someplace where I as a member cannot touch it. So I object to this. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Senate Bill 180 be returned to Rules Committee?

Representative Freer. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just, uh, I just want to note that we were just called back into special session to work on a bill, House Bill 381, that has gone through the process that the previous speaker, uh, what did serve on the committee on and did participate in that process. Um, and so I—. We have very few time— I mean, very, very—.

There's, there's very little time left in the regular session, and so I just support returning this back to rules. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order.

The motion before the body is to return Senate Bill 180 Back to the Rules Committee. 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. By a vote of 21 to 19, Senate Bill 180 has been returned back to the Rules Committee.

Madam Clerk.

Senate Bill number 181, by the Senate Rules Committee, by request of the Joint Legislative Task Force Evaluating Alaska's Seafood Industry, entitled an Act Relating to Disclosure of Information Obtained by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to other state agencies. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Suits. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read from my notes, Mr. Speaker?

Permission granted. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure today to bring Senate Bill 181, an act relating to disclosure of information obtained by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to other agencies, before the body today. Senate Bill 181 came from an Action Point 22A of the final report, final report of the Joint Legislative Task Force Evaluating Alaska's Seafood Industry. The bill allows more efficient and responsible data sharing between the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and the University of Alaska by contract agreements when it's in the best interest of public policy.

Current status limits data sharing, creating silos that slow down permitting and hinder other policy decisions. Senate Bill 181 updates these statutes, creating a more connected, transparent, and effective system for the sharing and collaboration of scientific, economic, labor, and educational data. Senate Bill 181 is an important addition to our toolbox, providing cross-sector information to economists, scientists, and policymakers like us. This cross-sector data sharing will assist us in the ability to consider not just program costs and input, but also program outcomes, helping us to decide where to invest our funds in a more efficient and targeted way. This bill takes a meaningful step towards moder— modernizing Alaska's data sharing infrastructure to better serve our state workforce, fisheries, education system, and policymakers.

Senate Bill 181 will provide enhanced access to data that will support timely, impactful research that the university can leverage to understand the commercial fisheries workforce and the contributions to maritime industries to coastal communities. Mr. Speaker, I encourage members to support this economically sound piece of legislation, and I am happy to answer any questions.

Not seeing any debates and/or wrap-up comments. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Senate Bill 181 pass the The 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? 40 Yeas, 0 nays. With a vote of 40 yeas, 0 nays, Senate Bill 181 has passed the House.

Mr. Majority Leader, I'm looking at my notes here. We do not have an effective date clause nor title change clause, of course. So this brings us, when the clerk is ready, to our next item on today's calendar.

House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill number HB 200, Community and Regional Affairs, amended House, by the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee, entitled an act relating to service areas relating to municipal assessments of farm or agricultural land and providing for an effective date. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Moore. Thank you, Speaker. SB 200, Farm and Agricultural Land Assessment uh, permission to read.

Thank you. Senate 200, um, Senate Bill 200 strengthens Alaska's agricultural sector by improving the municipality property tax deferral for farms. This will support Alaska's agricultural industry and better ensure in-state food security. Specifically, SB 200 clarifies that farms organized as S corporations are eligible for existing muni property tax deferment, and it also expands eligibility to include agricultural operations that do not directly produce food for Alaskans, such as peony farms and hay producers. Marijuana operations would not be eligible under this bill.

Previous statute changes limited eligibility to farms that produce food, but the agriculture industry is very integrated. All agriculture operations must be supported to maintain the supply chains, services, and economies of scale that produce— that food-producing farms depend on and remain viable. This bill, SB 200, has a zero fiscal note, and I urge the body for support.

Not seeing any debate or discussion or wrap-up comments, are you ready for the question? Question being, shall House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute Senate Bill 200 CNRA, amended House, pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Clerk, please lock the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 1 nay. By a vote of 39 yeas to 1 nay, Senate Bill 200 has passed the House.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Mr. Speaker, I move to ask unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolution 24, the title change resolution for Senate Bill 200, be taken up as a special order of business.

Without objection. Are you ready for the question? Question being, shall House Concurrent Resolution 24 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Representative Foster.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 1 nay. So the vote is 39 yeas to 1 nay.

HCR 24 has passed the House. Madam Clerk.

House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 282, State Affairs, by the House State Affairs Committee, entitled An Act Relating to the Joint Armed Services Committee and Providing for an Effective Date. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read my notes?

Permission granted. Thank you. Um, Mr. Mr. Speaker, when I became the co-chair of the Joint Armed Services Committee at the beginning of this legislature, um, I asked my staff, what is JASC and what are we supposed to do? And he had never been staffed that committee before, so we went around the building and asked questions, and the answers ranged from nothing to photo ops. And we felt that was not a satisfactory answer.

And so my very good, uh, staff member decided to read the statute, and reading the statute actually made it even more confusing because it was a long series of basically the same thing over and over, that this committee was tasked with base realignment and closure debate. And that's not what it's been doing for 20 years. And so this bill is a rewrite of the JAST statute We became experts in the history of this committee. It was created in 1999 by legislation introduced by, at the time, Alaska State House Representative Lisa Murkowski, and it was in response to the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990. During the rewrite, the other co-chair from the other body and I worked closely with the JAS Committee Specifically, Colonel Bob Dole and Colonel George Vukelis, civilian members, and the initial staff to the committee from 1999, Chris Nelson.

We also worked with the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Alaska Municipal League, the Legislative Affairs Agency, and others. And most especially, I would say that this new write of the JAS Committee was informed most especially by the member from House District 18 and the member from House District 24. So here's what we've done. We have not taken BRAC out of it. BRAC could come back at any moment.

We should be concerned about base realignment and closure, so that's still in the statute. We ensure that at least 2 of the members of the committee are from the minority, so 2 from this body, 2 from the other. It used to be 1. We, uh, there was a shared seat between the Alaska Federation of Natives and the Alaska Alaska Municipal League. They now each have their own seats.

We direct the JASC to engage with local government organizations and community groups. We recommend an annual hearing of senior military commanders in the state. We tasked the Legislative Affairs Agency with roster management. Figuring out who was actually on this committee was a challenge. The legislative task— the legislature tasked the JASC with review and recommendation for state policy responses to the National defense initiatives and Arctic security initiatives.

We define those by the member from HD 24, super grateful. We also will keep track of the Alaska Decoration of Honor program, and that was from our member from House District 18. The bill also restarts the appointment process. And finally, Mr. Speaker, Senate Bill 282 sets a sunset date of June 30th, 2036, so we will be forced to reassess the duties, scope and purpose of this standing committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Ellard. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I read this bill thoroughly, and there is a whole lot of changes that I wanted to do on this particular bill, and I just decided not to because really it's just going to be a lot more photos and a lot more, um, people that just don't understand what the federal law and what the military truly does. So the bottom line is I do appreciate the sponsor of this bill leaving BRAC in there. What I would have done and would RECA have amended is to get completely rid of JASC and to develop more of BRAC and add 3 more members to BRAC board, and they know what they're doing.

The JASC board is just not— it's a waste of time, money, and energy, but it's here and it's going to be here for a while to stay. So You get— you got to have more military folk on there that understand what's going on. You have people on this JASC that are calling up active duty generals to testify in front of them explaining what we're doing in Iran. And that's just kind of ironic to me that we would even consider doing that. That's not what JASC is here to do.

So I appreciate the sponsor of the bill, but I will be a no on it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rep. Delson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of Senate Bill 282. My colleague from House District 20 touched on one section that is close to my heart and close to my district a couple of times, and so I really want to highlight it. And for me, this is, this is personal. The Alaska Declaration of Honor JASC, according to state statutes, JASC should make arrangements for the design and the awarding of the honor.

And in my first term when I was on JASC, I was told that the Alaska Decoration of Honor really hasn't been awarded, and there it has been shifted around between co-chairs of JASC, and, and so it's been lost and shuffled around. And for me, that was personal. And so when I heard that the representative from District 20 was wanting to have a reform to JASC and wanted to alter it, I wanted to make sure that Alaska Declaration of Honor for Alaskans who are citizens or were stationed in the state who were killed in action deserve to have at least some recognition from the state, an award for their sacrifice, Mr. Speaker. And so I'm glad to see that when it came down to it, we were able to put this in both the House and the Senate. Senate version of the bill, um, because I truly do believe for all the military personnel that are stationed across Alaska or are from Alaska that having something for their ultimate sacrifice is something, uh, well deserving.

And so I appreciate, and hopefully future legislators can make some more reforms to JASC and really turn into a strong committee. And so I encourage everyone to support this bill, and I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Madam Rules Chair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just briefly, in response to the member from District 23, not being a military member myself, however, being a member of the JASC Committee is incredible. And I think it's wonderful that we have people on there that aren't military because we get an exposure to it, we learn about it. We see the importance of it. And this was my first time serving on that committee, and I feel honored to have been a committee member. I think it's a very critical, important committee that this legislature has to offer to its members.

Thank you. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to take some exception to comments I heard earlier. As a former co-chair of the Joint Armed Services Committee and member, we did far from nothing.

In addition to tracking down, spending a lot of time, a lot of money, a lot of staff resources tracking down everyone we possibly could who was a survivor or who was a recipient and qualified to receive the Decoration of Honor or their next of kin. Spent a couple years doing that. So I'm proud of the work we did there. We supported, advocated efforts to get the F-35 squadron at Eielson. We advocated expansion of the Joint Alaska-Pacific range complex up in the interior to get more training and flying.

I supported the expansion as chair of the ground-based midcourse missile defense facilities. We protested the construction of Joint Base Söldner-Frichardson, which is in my district. We advocated the bridge over the Tanana River to expand access to training facilities. We did far from nothing, Mr. Speaker, and I'm not— in addition to the facilitation of the annual meetings between Alaska's interested legislators in military affairs and the top leadership. And I think the work we did in JASC bought us some credibility and integrity, made it advantageous and interesting and rewarding for the top military leaders to come to Juneau and speak to us about issues and to answer our questions about those issues.

So, Mr. Speaker, I did hear this bill in the military veterans affairs committee. I'm not exactly sure what actually it's going to accomplish. I'm not sure I'm not sure if it's actually going to make things better or worse or do nothing. So I'm going to kind of read the room, but I'm going to say either way, the JASP committee is what the chairs make of it.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of the bill today, and I have one specific reason. It's on page 3, line 20. And it says maintain a list of previous recipients awarded the Alaska Declaration of Honor by the legislature and a list of members of the armed forces who are eligible, um, for the Alaska Declaration of Honor. Mr. Speaker, if you come into my office, you will see next to my plaque for my first deployment to Iraq with the 3rd Battalion, 509th Parachute Infantry Regiment And I have one of the declarations of honor next to that plaque.

That is one that was specifically for Sergeant Ryan John Baum that was never delivered to his widow or his 19-year-old daughter, Mr. Speaker. And that's a responsibility of our legislature that for 19 years we failed to issue an award and deliver it to the next of kin, to soldiers who died in combat. And my hope is that one day after this bill is passed, that folks at the JAST Committee might do a service to those individuals, especially the ones who have been waiting almost 2 decades to receive the award. So I appreciate the member from UMD for making sure this was a change to the bill. Thank you.

And wrap up, Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I just wanted to say I, I apologize to the body and to the member from HD24. I was making a joke. It is true that when I first became the co-chair that there were people in this building that didn't know what JASC did and made a joke and they said it did nothing, and I'm very, very sorry.

I am sure that when he was co-chair he did a lot of valuable work. I want JASC to continue to do valuable work I think it's important that our statute accurately reflects what the purpose of a committee should be. And the purpose of this bill is to update our statute so that it accurately reflects what this committee should be. And I would encourage a yes vote. Thank you.

Not seeing further debate, of course, and in recognition of our members who have served in the military, thank you for your service. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House Committee Substitute Committee substitute for Senate Bill 282, State Affairs. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 1 nay. With the vote of 39 yeas to 1 nay, Senate Bill 282 has passed the body.

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

House Joint Resolution number 46 by the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee, recognizing the sovereign decisions of of the communities of Kipnuk and Kwagilignak to relocate in the wake of the devastation caused by Typhoon Halong, affirming the right of Alaska Native communities to self-determination and urging full state and federal support for relocation of those communities. The Community and Regional Affairs Committee considered the resolution, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Joint Resolution number 47, 46, Community and Regional Affairs, with the same title, attached 1 new zero fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Holland, Prox, G. Nelson, Sinclair Hall, and co-chairs Hempschulte and Mears. I have one committee substitute. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Community and Regional Affairs Committee substitute for House Joint Resolution 46 be be adopted in lieu of the original resolution. Hearing no objection, Community and Regional Affairs Committee Substitute has been adopted. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute for House Joint Resolution 46, Community and Regional Affairs, be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. Hearing no objections, So ordered. Madam Clerk, please read the title for the third and final time, and we want to hear your pronunciation of Kwikwetlekuk again.

Committee substitute for House Joint Resolution number 46, Community and Regional Affairs, by the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee, recognizing the sovereign decisions of the communities of Kipnuk and Kwikwetlekuk to relocate in the wake of the devastation caused by Typhoon Halong, affirming the right of Alaska Native communities to self-determination and urging full state and federal support for relocation of those communities. Representative Jimmy.

Kwéyánim, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read? Permission granted.

Mr. Speaker, as ex-Typhoon Halong passed over my village, I knew we were lucky to be built on high bluffs. Later that night, I saw what was happening to Kipnuk on TikTok. People posting live as water came through the floor, as houses came off their foundations and started moving across the tundra. Families trapped inside calling for help with no one to respond.

I watched it through my phone.

I couldn't speak.

Later on, I flew to Anchorage and sat with families in shelters, people who evacuated with what they could only carry, who did not know if they were ever going back home.

Eventually I flew to Kipnuk and Gwigilnuk and walked through what 90% of destruction actually looks like from the ground.

Kipnuk and Gwigilnuk have voted to relocate. That sentence does not come close to carrying the weight of what it actually means to say.

It means accepting that your land, your family has known for thousands of years, is gone.

The water didn't just take our homes, it took our dead.

After all that, those villages still had to find a way to make a decision about where the living go next.

They made it themselves.

And this resolution asks us to honour that.

I'm going to be honest about what we are standing behind a resolution costs us if we don't mean it. Newtok started planning to move 30 years ago. Decades later, people arrived at Mukhtawik to find their homes that didn't meet the code. No running water. Sewage backed up into school basement.

The people who spent decades working on that effort call it a cautionary tale. There is no federal framework for relocating a community. And this spring, the federal administration froze the money that was supposed to finish housing in Maktovik. Funding that was already committed, already promised to people who had already moved.

Kipnuk and Kwiiglenuk have voted to relocate.

What they need is an interim village, a place to be a community again while the permanent site is developed. They need a governor to build a real relocation framework with dedicated appropriations and someone whose job is to make it move. They need our congressional delegation to go to Washington, D.C. and fight for the relief that was promised and to stand in the way of any action that redirects or delays it.

This resolution is not a funding bill. This does not build one single house, but it is the legislators going on record clearly with all of our names attached, saying we knew what happened, we understand that these villages decided, and we are not going to let them disappear into 30 more years of bureaucratic process while they wait for someone to act. I strongly urge your support. Ho'iana.

Not seeing any debate, and I'm going to take your opening comments as wrap-up comments. Representative Jimmy, are you ready for the question? The question being, shall committee substitute for House Joint Resolution 46, Committee on Regional Affairs, pass the body? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 39 Yeas, 0 nays. With a vote of 39 yeas to 0 nays, HCR 46 has passed the House. Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order. I would like to move back up the calendar to reports from standing committees for the purposes of two pieces of legislation, Senate Bill 167 and Senate Bill 174. Without objection. Objection. Representative Vance, do you wish to speak to your objection?

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The decision was made to go down the calendar, to skip over those items, to hold other items, and to send, uh, the LNG bill back to rules. We still have other business to take care of that I imagine that everyone wants to get to, um, that was considered more important. So I maintain my objection.

I'm going to ask the clerk to configure the voting board, and we're going to vote on this.

Representative Himschutz, we're going to vote. Do you need to speak?

Uh, sorry, Mr. Speaker, could you please just restate what you said? Thank you. So I ask the body for— I ask— we'll get all members here before we vote. I ask the body to move up the calendar to reports from standing committees so we could consider two bills from the other body in terms of time management here.

And there is an objection on the floor, and I'm asking the body to vote on it.

And we are down a member who is— we're down several members as they're entering the chambers. Brief adieu.

Will the House please come back to order?

The motion before the body is to return the reports to standing committee. I would remind the body that the voting threshold is 27.

You ready for the question? The question being, shall the House return back to reports to standing committees? 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? 27 Yeas, 13 nays. With a vote of 27 yeas to 13 nays, we are back under reports from standing committees.

Madam Clerk. The Finance Committee considered committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 167 Finance, PFD Eligibility, PFD for Overturned Conviction, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 167 Finance with the same title. Attached 1 previously published indeterminate fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Hannon, Allard, Moore, Bynum, Co-Chairs Schrag, Foster, Josephson, and Foster. No recommendation.

Tomaszewski, the bill is on today's calendar. The Finance Committee also considered Senate Bill number 174, invasive species management, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill number 174, finance, with a new title forthcoming. Attached one previously published fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Jimmy Galvin, Hannon Moore, Bynum, Stapp, Co-Chairs Schrag, Josephson, and Foster. No recommendation, Tomaszewski and Allard.

The bill is also on today's calendar.

So bringing the bills before the calendar in the order mentioned by the Chief Clerk, the first bill would be Senate Bill 167. Without objection, Madam Clerk. Please.

Will the House please come back to order. With indulgence of the body, I'd like to reverse the order. We may have an amendment to Senate Bill 167. So I'd like to do Senate Bill 174 first. And thank you, Madam Clerk, for bearing with us.

Senate Bill number 174 by Senators Dunbar, Yunt, Wilkowski, Bjorkman, Tobin, Kawasaki, Cronk, Merrick, Clayman, Tilton, Rauscher, Gray, Jackson, Kaufman, Steadman, and Stevens, entitled an Act Establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council in the Department of Fish and Game Relating to Management of Invasive Species and Providing for an Effective Date. The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 174, Finance, with a title change attached 1 previously published fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass. Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Hannon, Moore, Bynum, Stapp, and co-chairs Schraggy, Josephson, and Foster. No recommendation, Tomaszewski and Allard.

There is 1 House committee substitute. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 174 with a new title be adopted. Adopted in lieu of the original bill.

There's an objection. Representative Hempshootz, can you speak to the changes? Mr. Speaker, I think the member from District 12 can better speak to the changes. Representative Schragg. Thank you, Speaker Edmond.

So in finance, it was amended to allow for the creation of a statewide spay and neuter assistance fund to support spay and neuter services throughout the state, in addition to allowing trap, neuter, and vaccinate and return. I'd note that this was amenable by the sponsor, and there's letters of support by the Anchorage Municipal Department of Health as well as the SPCA, and the bill received 9 do passes from committee members. Thank you. Representative Stapp. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of adopting the finance CS. There were changes to the bill that I worked with the member co-chair from Anchorage, and I think they're overall good changes, adding provisions for statewide spay and neuter and different funding mechanisms for that, as well as provisions regarding feral cats. And I ask the members to support the adoption of the CS. Representative Mayers. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I speak in opposition of adopting the Committee substitute from Finance this morning. Permission to read? Permission granted. Um, I support the, um, measure from the member from East Fairbanks for the spay and neuter program. This policy passed out of House Resources, but I want to note that has an effective date of July 2028, so delaying it now We're not looking at pushing it out any further, but also of note, it has a fiscal note of more than half a million dollars, so I think other members might be willing to wait with me to look at that more carefully.

But my broader concern is the policy allowing for Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return. TNR allows for the trapping of feral cats spaying or neutering, vaccinating them, returning them from where they came. Mr. Speaker, TNR— the TNR policy is under the jurisdiction of the Board of Game. In 2017, the Board of Game turned down this proposal and was opposed by all of the advisory committees as well as numerous advocacy groups. Although the legislature has the authority to set statute contrary to decisions from the Board of Game.

I decline to do so and do not suggest supporting the adoption of the CS.

Speaking further to the adoption of the CS, Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to align myself with the comments from the previous speaker. This is an issue that absolutely belongs within the purview of the Alaska Board of Game. They have taken up the issue, has already been As I stated, this is not something that bodes well for wild birds across our state.

This seems to be a municipal issue, a municipal request. I would ask that we do not adopt this CS at this time and this particular issue come from people within the municipality to the Alaska Board of Game so that they can address this very specific issue if it is necessary in their urban area. Being able to trap, neuter, vaccinate, and release feral cats is the single worst decision that urban areas around the United States have made when it comes to urban bird populations. They are a predator. This is a feral animal, and it should not be addressed right here today in the legislature, not in a packed bill like this.

I hope we do not adopt this. Yes. Representative Elam.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the really honestly the statewide spay and neuter program. I realize there are some communities in some rural areas that may need some of this, but it's really an urban issue from my perspective. While I served on the Kenai Peninsula Borough, we consistently had a large groups of people from a variety of different spots that would want us to adopt animal services, animal control services. And that's usually where this area goes because then it turns into who's going to do this work in places like Cooper Landing, in places like Moose Pass, like who's going to do this work and is it going to be the state's fiscal responsibility? In my opinion, these are city issues.

And so within the cities, they have the powers to be able to really take care of a lot of these issues. And so I'm going to be a no. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to adopting the finance CS, and the member from District 8 said everything I was going to say.

Thank you. Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also speak in opposition. I would like to speak in opposition to adopting the finance CS.

I guess personal observation in our neighborhood, there is just a significant decline in wild birds, songbirds, little bitty birds, all kinds of birds. And we have lots of cats running around. There must be some sort of connection to that. And a friend of mine— well, several friends of mine actually— run capture and then adopt out the animals. But they should not be just returned to where they were because of the impact on the bird population and wild animal populations.

Representative Kline. Yeah, I rise in opposition as well, mainly for the fiscal note. So the underlying bill is $84,000, about $84,000. The addition is $536,000. That's a pretty substantial note.

And also, I think what, what is trying to be done with the bill, I guess it was mentioned before, they're taking feral cats and dogs, spaying or neutering them, and then putting them back out. My issue in my district and in the city of Anchorage is the predator problem. So you can spay and neuter them, but we still have cats killing all the birds. So I will be voting no. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise and say that I was a do pass on the committee report. The underlying bill about invasive species is an extremely important issue for southeast and much of the state. So I do strongly, strongly support that. And the other components that were added in finance, I was not a supporter of that.

But the body will have a say on whether or not they want to accept the finance version. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't echo those comments from the member from Ketchikan more strongly. The underlying bill, this invasive species bill, is of utmost importance to Alaska.

Alaska. If you've ever seen what the zebra mollusks do, or the green crab do, or the, or the pike do, or elodia— any of that is very, very important to get on top of this right now, Mr. Speaker. And putting the spay and neuter bill in there with a $500,000 fiscal note will kill this bill, and we cannot afford that at this point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Allard.

Um, thank you, Mr. Speaker. So in Finance, I heard both the bills. I like both the bills, and we have to address the situation. It's not just urban cats. Gary, my cat, would disagree.

We have feral cats all over the state. We have them in rural communities too. We have issues with dogs as well. So I'm going to go ahead and support this, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important that we address it.

I like both bills, and you know what, the best The best part was that the sponsor of the invasive species bill supported it too. Thank you.

And wrap up, before we get to wrap up, in the far corner, Representative Josephson.

Well, I think the sponsor was neutral, actually. I could be corrected, but I think his His statement was that he was neutral. Representative Schraggi. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And wrap up.

Look, we are trying to provide municipalities and other entities another option in controlling wildcat and dog populations. This is an opt-in opportunity with a funding source that's volunteer-based. If you want to get a specialty license plate or otherwise, you can help fund these services. Whether it's a rural community that has an outbreak in dogs or other animals. It's another option for municipalities to be able to control wild animal populations.

We'll see what the votes are today. I'll say the sponsor was in support. They said they liked cats, that they were amenable to this amendment. Trying to again work with the member from East Anchorage to just provide municipalities with another option. We'll see what the votes are.

Want to save some extra cats if we can, where it's appropriate. It doesn't mean that you can't still put down animals that are beyond a quality of life where that's not a good option anymore, or that you can't adopt out other animals that you think are a good fit for adoption. This is just another option for municipalities to control these pet populations and to bring in additional funding streams for trying to be able to control what is a fairly significant problem in some communities more than others. We heard testimony in Finance that there are some really acute issues in certain areas and that this would be a good tool in being able to address that. So, again, putting this out for the body's consideration and, of course, look to the will of the body.

Thank you.

The motion before the body is to adopt the Finance House Committee substitute. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? The clerk please announce the vote. 16 Yeas, 23 nays. By a vote of 16 yeas to 23 nays, Finance Committee Substitute will not be adopted.

Brefidez. Brefidez.

Will House please come back to order?

The original committee substitute has been adopted for Senate Bill 174. We rejected the Finance Subcommittee— or Committee substitute, pardon me. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Bill 174 be considered engrossed, advanced to third read and placed on final passage.

Hearing no objection, so ordered. Will the clerk please read the title for the third and final time?

Senate Bill Number 174 by Senators Dunbar, Yunt, Wilkowski, Bjorkman, Tobin, Kawasaki, Cronk, Merrick, Clayman, Tilton, Rauscher, Gray Jackson, Kaufman, Steadman, Stevens, entitled An Act Establishing the Alaska Invasive Species Council and the Department of Fish and Game relating to management of invasive species and providing for an effective date. Representative Himschute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm really honored to carry this bill for the member from the other body. It is the companion bill to my legislation, HB 191.

Permission to use my notes? Permission granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Senate Bill 174 is a kind of a yes and bill. One thing that people ask about this bill all the time is, "Aren't we already working on invasive species?" And yes, we are.

So the "and" part is we can do better. So the "yes" part is we have federal agencies, we have nonprofits, we have NGOs, we have state agencies. There's a lot of uncoordinated effort going into it. And I don't mean that to be any kind of negative connotation with the folks who are doing the work. They're doing excellent work.

What they need is for us to get to the "and" part where we join our neighbor states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana by forming a council. And that council, the 11 members of the council that this bill will form, will work together to do a number of things. But the primary goal of having this council is for us to coordinate our efforts between the agencies and organizations working on invasive species. Very briefly, I want to talk a little bit about invasive species and the threats that we're seeing in the state and the increasing threat that they're bringing to us. Northern pike, I think folks are well aware of where they are not in their natural habitat are devastating salmon runs in south central Alaska.

We have invasive chokecherry trees that live up to their name and they choke out stream banks and they're also toxic for moose.

Is— I don't have current information but a year ago We knew that we had Elodia in 50 water bodies in south-central Alaska, and it chokes out the, the natural flora and fauna and is decimating populations of sockeye salmon. Of those 50 water bodies, the state is currently treating 20. So when I say this is a yes-and bill, the yes is we're already working on this and there is more we can do. And to be able to do that better, we need to get coordinated, and we need to confront this situation of invasive species head-on and in an efficient, coordinated way. I just want to point out one of the reasons I'm so interested in this bill and eager to see success is we have green crabs, the European green crabs.

I've monitored for those green crabs for the last 20 years. So far we have not found them in my hometown of Sitka, but we are finding them within District 2 for the first time. It's probably been 5 years or so. The member from District 1 could speak better to when we first found European green crabs in Southeast Alaska, but they're coming from his district towards mine. And we need to get our act together and make sure that we are working in a coordinated way to mitigate and prevent as much as we can.

The estimated negative economic impact of invasive species nationally is $26 billion. Alaska is doing a pretty good job, but there's gonna be more. And it's going to be more of a problem. So by passing Senate Bill 174, we will create a council that will create a 5-year strategic plan that takes into account all of the different organizations and agencies. They will have an invasive species response fund.

There's no money going into it, but it'll be there so that when money is available, we'll have a place to put it. And then they will meet quarterly and, um, make sure that the right hand is talking to the left hand and that we're getting everything done that we can to address the threats of invasive species. So I ask for support. Thank you.

Representative Schwanke, your mic has been up for some time. I thought that might have been—. I just wanted to say—. An oversight. Are you wishing to speak on this bill?

Yes. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to talk a little bit to the body about good governance. I've noticed, obviously, over the last two sessions that this body tends to put a lot of effort into councils, committees, commissions, but I wanted to highlight a little bit about the work that is already done by agencies in the state of Alaska. So invasive species is something, as the sponsor mentioned, it's very been on people's minds for a very, very long time. Northern pike, people have known about it as an invasive species for probably 40 years now.

It should not be in certain water bodies, but it is. Elodia is absolutely moving around the state. We've known about that for probably 20 years. Obviously the European green crab. There's a couple other little organisms that are also on people's list.

White sweet clover, it's, it's —so invasive across our highway systems now that everybody is aware of it. I'm afraid that it's even making its way up into the Sheep Mountains and the Talkeetna Mountains because it's so obvious along some of the sections of Sheep Mountain along the Glenn Highway. I went and talked to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Tetlin Refuge last summer about white sweet clover that was on the banks of the Tanana River. There are invasive species biologists and programs in every agency in the state of Alaska, and they've been working on this, on these issues for many, many years.

And I'm not going to list all of them, but I do want to describe the fact that everybody understands what the EDRR is within the wildlife community and fisheries, the Early Detection and Rapid Response. It's an effort that everybody is involved in. There's already the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership out there, and there's the Alaska Exotic Plants Information Clearinghouse. So I just ask that the body consider moving forward— less councils, less dedicated meeting time. Let's actually appropriate money to handle the problems that we already have professionals in place to handle.

So, um, I'll probably be voting against it today because I feel it's not good governance. Thanks. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to echo the comments.

In fact, I almost could have made the comments that the previous speaker made, but perhaps not as eloquently or with much as much professional authority. But I will say that I oppose this because the state does indeed already have in statute the authority and ability to deal with invasive species. This is not something that has recently been discovered, and these agencies do coordinate with stakeholders. She mentioned the organizations and the councils that do a good job with what they have to coordinate responses. If we want them to do better, perhaps the thing to do is not to diffuse the responsibility, but to simply provide additional funding so that they can do what they are charged with to do already.

You know, Alaska is distant from other states. I really don't think that our approach to invasive species within our state is going to be enhanced by having Idaho on a council that joins with us. And The authority to manage our state's resources, land, waters, lies with the state agencies. It does not rest with nonprofits and organizations that may have their own agenda that could come into state policy under the aegis of invasive species. I would also add that certainly pike, northern pike in our waters, lodia in our lakes, chokecherries on our lawns, zebra mussels in the water, again, are not new.

They have been known. And there are programs in place to address them. This legislation creates a designated fund, which is a common feature of a lot of— let's create a fund which may be populated by money, but we have an operating budget, we have agencies, we already have funds to which we can dedicate resources to address these issues. Diffusing the authority for invasive species, which I agree is a significant problem in our state, is, uh, diffusing that with another council is not the best way to make things happen. So I will oppose this legislation.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I could not disagree with the previous two speakers more. There is one person in the state that deals with invasive species when he needs help. They have one boat.

They work out of the Palmer Plant Materials Center. They get people from other departments— Fish and Game, DNR— to go with him to clean elodia, to clean pike out of the lakes. But what concerns me, Mr. Speaker, is the zebra mussels and the, uh, or the quagga mussels and the zebra mussels that are not actually in Alaska yet. They're not in Alaska because one Border Patrol guy happened to catch a trailer going through the border on the way into Alaska that had quagga mussels on it. So if you've ever been to a conference in Idaho or in somewhere in Washington, in one of the lower 48 states that is infested with these things, they will show you a 4-inch piece of PVC that they put in, I think it was Lake Mead or one of the lakes in Washington, that is completely closed off in one year with the zebra mussels and the quagga mussels.

I have pictures on my phone if anyone ever wants to see it. It will cause hundreds of millions of dollars of damage in Alaska, especially if it were to get into Bradley Lake, if it were to get into Eklutna, if it were to get into Terror Lake, one of our hydroelectric lakes It would be devastating to us. We must get control of this. We must be able to relate and get information from the other councils in the, in the lower 48 to understand this. We must start to develop a program to stop these at the border.

They can live on a trailer dried out for 3 or 4 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have got to stop them before we get there. I don't know that we're going to be able to stop green crab because they're in the in the marine environment. These we could stop, and we need to do everything possible to do that. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. One of the things that happened in Finance, it was an interesting discussion because invasive species were talked about and chokecherry trees were brought up, and one of the members from Fairbanks asked the sponsor of the bill and said, Wait a minute, my utility gives you an option when clearing your utility right-of-ways of plants to replenish it, and one of them is a chokecherry.

How can they be doing that? So I took the opportunity and Googled on my phone chokecherry invasive species in Alaska, and it goes to the Department of Natural Resources Division of Forestry where they have an information page, and it says They do not have the regulatory authority to ban chokecherry trees that are invasive statewide, but the municipality of Anchorage has. So one of the things I know at DNR, there's one person who works on invasive plants, but they don't have the authority to do statewide recommendations. At ADF&G, they have one person one invasive species statewide person, and then I think they said 4 full-time people that work on pike and some 4 seasonal working on pike. What the council provides is the opportunity for the disparate agencies at the state, the federal, the groups that are working on it to coordinate and say, "Legislature, we need authority for some invasive plant policies statewide, and we think it's got a budget ticket item of X." to eradicate Elodia.

And zebra mussels isn't something we're working on because we're reactive and ADF&G is working on pike because there's already a pike problem that's gone on for 20, 30 years. What's the council give us? The oversight and guidance and recommendations to us of where we need to staff up and what we should be doing to work with other entities. So, I urge your support. For Senate Bill 174 and making sure that we have the authority to ban an invasive species like chokecherry trees statewide.

Any wrap-up comments, Representative Himschoot? Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the work of the Alaska Invasive Species Partnership. They are by hook and by crook coordinating themselves the best they can. Their one request of us is please give us a formalized a council where we can coordinate with other states and coordinate within our state, bearing in mind that Alaska is so much bigger than any other state. So yes, we are protected somewhat by our borders, but not enough.

The quagga mussels are coming, the zebra mussels are coming, and the green crabs are already here. So I would appreciate support to get our invasive species coordinated through a council. And please push the green button on SB 174. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Senate Bill 174 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? 35 Yeas, 5 nays. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous Having consent to the roll call vote on the passage of the bill, consider the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. Madam Clerk, I believe this returns us to Senate Bill 167. Rickety's.

Will the House please come back to order. Madam Clerk, committee substitute for Senate Bill number 167, Finance, by the Senate Finance Committee, entitled An Act Relating to Eligibility of Criminal Offenders for Certain Benefits, including the relating to a permanent fund dividend for an individual whose conviction has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed, and relating to the calculation of the value of the permanent fund dividend by including payment to individuals eligible for a permanent fund dividend because of a conviction that has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed. The Judiciary Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 166, 167 Judiciary with the same title, attached 1 previously published indeterminate fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Mena, Eichide, and Chair Gray. No recommendation.

Costello, Underwood, Vance. The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with committee— House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 167 Finance with the same title, attached 1 previously previously published indeterminate fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Hannon, Allard, Moore, Bynum, Co-Chairs Schrag, Josephson, and Foster. No recommendation: Tomaszewski. There are 2 committee substitutes.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Judiciary Committee substitute for Senate Bill 167 Finance be adopted in lieu of the original bill. I object for purposes of an explanation of changes. Can you speak in your microphone, Representative Johnson? I object for purposes of an explanation of changes. Representative Mears, brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? I think we have some confusion about the committee substitute. Mr. Majority Leader, with new information, do you want to restate that? Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the previous motion to adopt the House Judiciary Committee substitute for Senate Bill 167, and I make the motion to move and ask unanimous consent that the House— that the Finance Committee substitute for Senate Bill 167 Finance be adopted in lieu of the original bill. And Representative Johnson, I will just turn to Representative Mears to speak to the committee substitute changes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Permission to read? Permission granted. Thank you. We do have an explanation of changes in our packet from previous bill changes, and there was another change made this morning in House Finance, hence making changes as we go today. I'll do a highlight of changes.

This change makes— there's a change that made it clear that individuals whose cases have been dismissed because they took a plea agreement would not qualify for this legislation. A new section amends PFD eligibility statutes to disqualify somebody who has been convicted of murder in first or second degree but is not incarcerated. It specifies that back payment of a dividend is not prohibited because of a deposit of an equivalent amount of money into the restorative justice account. And then this morning, the time for folks to file has been extended from 1 year to 2. Thank you.

Hearing no objection, the Finance Committee substitute has been adopted. Mr. Majority Leader?

Oh, I'm— pardon me.

Madam Clerk. Amendment number 1 by Representative Elam, beginning page 1, line 1. Representative Elam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thanks for hearing my amendment.

And so what amendment does— oh, I move Amendment 1. I apologize, it's late in the day. There's an objection. Thank you. So Amendment 1 is, is pretty simple.

We've, we've talked about PFD-related topics for quite a while, probably since the PFD was created. But what this amendment seeks to do is a very simple change to the process of applying for your, your PFD. And, and really what it does is that whenever you opt or go to apply for your PFD currently, there's an opportunity to automatically get enrolled for voting. What this does is it changes it from automatically enrolling to an opt-in option. Basically just says, hey, do you want to vote, or do you want to opt in for, for voting, for, you know, voter registration?

And what the goal here is, is to clean up the data we have. Everybody here knows that we've had some issues with the voter rolls, with the content of the data, and And everybody wants to, to support cleaning up the voter rolls, but the problem is, is if you have dirty data that goes into the system, you're always going to have dirty data going out. And so what my goal here is, is if we can change the structure of how that data is getting into the system, we will not have so much burden on the other end of it with data that's getting in there that shouldn't be in there. And so it'll— this help clean clean up the voter rolls a lot. Thank you.

I have no shortage of selections here.

Starting with Madam Rules Chair. Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I'm just going to speak briefly. I have a little concern about this amendment because I believe this amendment has had no public hearings whatsoever. And as we all know, when you're dealing with either an election issue or a PFD issue, there are always unforeseen circumstances that arise.

So it makes me very uncomfortable to see an amendment that pertains to both of those items rolled into a bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I actually have some—.

I take issue with this, and I apologize to the maker of the amendment that I didn't speak to him because I just I just saw it. It's on the dividend application. You make that selection. So if you get disapproved for a dividend, you're still going to be registered to vote, opt in or out. It doesn't do— okay, I'm being told it doesn't do that.

Disregard. Representative Kerik. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in respectful opposition. Opposition to Amendment Number 1.

Contrary to what the member from Nakiski talked about, having an opt-out versus opt-in provision is challenging because I think a lot of voters have now come to expect, since our current system where you can be automatically registered to vote on the PFD application, that that will register them and update their voter registration, and it's a great opportunity for Alaskans. And having folks on the voter rolls that don't end up going to the polls on a regular basis doesn't make the data dirty, doesn't change the voter files at all. One could opt in and then still choose not to vote in any particular election. So I would just rise in opposition to this amendment. The current system is working very well.

We have actually vetted this concept in various elections bills, and it has been pretty roundly disregarded once you look at the actual impact on voter registration and voting behavior since we've added the automatic voter registration to the permanent fund dividend application. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment.

Um, you know, the principle that there should be a preliminary step before voting which is the most sacred expression of our civic duty and opportunity, is there with registration. You must meet some certain requirements to register to vote. So, and you register, and you're qualified to vote. That's not too high a hurdle. But what we have with the system with automatic registration and no opportunity to make it an opt-in means we have no— there's no consideration.

It's a freebie. So you don't value what's there for free. Which is frankly one of the factors that's contributed to our large, inflated, overinflated, bloated voter rolls, which leads to confusion and cynicism and fear about the integrity of our voter process. We've heard that clearly. The question that we haven't talked about voter registration, I have to laugh.

We have talked about elections this year. We have talked about elections in past year. We've— legislation has been before us. That issue has been vetted. And I think this is a common sense policy that will make it— those who want to vote, those who want to exercise that civic franchise will very easily be able to check a box and opt in.

Those that don't know, don't care, don't want to, just want the dividend, they won't be bothered. They'll get their money, they won't have to vote, they won't be registered, they won't be bothered. This is a good solution to an intractable problem. I hope you vote for it.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 1.

Several years ago, I guess going on about almost 10 years ago, there was an election downtown Fairbanks. Was close and they got to looking at things and it came down to one vote. And it was somebody that had on their— when they applied for their permanent fund dividend, they had put their business address instead of their residence address. And so that person wasn't paying attention. And by George, that decided the election.

So it's very important. And then I've just noticed wandering around door to door, this and that, there are quite a few people that do move from one district to another. And when they're filing their dividend, they're not paying attention to where they are, or I am not sure. But we have a serious problem with inaccurate I would argue, I would argue that we have a serious problem with inaccurate voter lists and we need to do whatever we can to tighten that up. And so if you're filing your PFD and you just skim through it now, you're going to leave your old address there and you might be somewhere else.

And so this is a good bill. You should pay attention when you're changing when you're wanting to make a deliberate decision that you want to change your registration. Senator McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Sure, one of the unintended consequences that the rules chair mentioned is the fact that every time you file for your PFD currently, it counts as a contact with the Division of Elections. So if you file for one PFD and you're registered to vote and you don't vote, and then you file for next year's election and you don't vote, and then you are— next year's PFD and you don't vote, you're still registered. It counts as a contact with the Division of Elections. And then you move and you file a PFD again, it counts as a contact again.

One of the issues we're having, and the reason it takes 8 years to clear people off of our voter rolls, is because of this. Because not only does it count as initial application, but our unintended consequence was that it also contacts or counts as a contact with the Division of Elections. Forgive me, I must be getting tired. So I think that this is a is a good thing. You file for your PFD, you check the box, you opt in.

Then the next time you file with your PFD, you're already registered, you don't need to check the box. But yet again, 2 years down the road when you move, you file for another PFD, oh, I need to re-register, check the box. It seems to fit pretty well, and it seems to fix the unintended consequences that we created when we put this on the PFD in the first place. Place. And I think that it has been thoroughly talked about in this session, and I would urge a yes vote.

Representative Josephson.

Well, I oppose the amendment. The, um, the rules chair in the other body, either in the press or on the floor or in committee, noted that this was part of a negotiated item This was on a list of negotiated items with the former Judiciary Chair who sits in the front row, as I understand it, and this was a non-starter on down the hall in the other chamber. So this would likely kill the bill. It probably won't get calendared in the other chamber in the next 30 hours. Um, that's the underlying bill is a bill that the Senate State Affairs Chair in the other body has been working on for 10 years.

I have basic principle, which is if you are, as I call it, unconvicted because you never should have been found guilty, um, then you're entitled to your back PFDs. And you know, that's a thing. I think I can support that. Um, I would also note that the, the PFD, uh, automatic registration, that came from the voters. Admittedly, it's not super fresh, maybe it's a decade old, but the Alaska people said we want this.

And I'll tell you, when I go door to door and I meet with someone who says, well, I don't vote, or I'm not registered to vote, I say, are you John's— John W. Smith? Yes, I am John W. Smith. Well, you're registered. Do you get a PFD? Yes, I get a PFD.

You're registered to vote. And I end up engaging in them, with them, in a conversation and inviting them into the democracy, as it were. Um, so I think there's some value in that, uh, but this amendment will be the end of the road for this bill, I suspect. I oppose it.

Representative Hannah.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too am opposed to Amendment 1's adoption, and I want to talk about— sometimes we talk about the voter rolls and the PFD automatic registration. We talk about people who get registered when they're not eligible for the PFD, and one of the pieces that's sometimes talked about as evidence of our overinflated voter rolls is that we have Census data that doesn't match our PFDs. Well, that's not a problem of the registration, that's all the allowable exemptions that we have. So you're eligible for a PFD even if you are not currently in residence in Alaska, if you work for our congressional delegation, if you're in the Peace Corps, if you're on a military deployment.

So you're not gonna show up on our census rolls as being in that district, But you are eligible to receive a PFD and an eligible voter in Alaska. So the disconnect between the number of people we have in a district isn't a function of fraudulent registration. And, uh, anything and anytime we can keep Alaskans registered to vote and securing their democratic rights, I think that's a good thing. So I'll oppose this amendment because I think It potentially makes it more cumbersome for people who are away at college. Also an allowable excuse.

Still eligible for your PFD. Away on medical treatment. Still allowed as a PFD application. And you get to continue to be a registered voter participating in Alaska's election. I'll oppose this amendment.

And wrap up. Representative Yllam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the conversation. This is actually an issue whenever I was talking to folks in my community and around the Kenai Peninsula, that was really something that they had concerns about.

I got to serve a couple of times as a chair for the Sterling elections precinct, and I got to use the voter rolls, and I got to help people as they were coming and going throughout the election cycle and everything. And, you know, one of the things that you start seeing is You know, there's some interesting information in our voter rolls, and I think this is a really good step, and it's not burdensome. It says that you just simply have to click yes or no. It's no— nothing extra to it. It's a very simple process.

If you want to be elect— or you don't want to be able to vote, click. It's right there. We're already right in the middle of doing all of that. But what it also does is is it kind of, you know, and several people spoke to it, it does clean up some of that information. You know, it's interesting when you find multiple people residing in the same residence, in, you know, the same community, or maybe they've moved just a little ways and then their data stays the same, and then they're outside of their actual precinct anymore.

And so I do think that there are some things that we could do not to make people's access to being able to vote burdensome. This is still very easy to do, but what it would do is it would give us good data hygiene in how we're handling the voter information. And so I just ask for everybody's vote. Thank you. Are you ready?

We are missing the minority leader. I'm going to take a brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 1 pass the body? Members may proceed to vote. Will the clerk please lock the The roll.

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 20 Yeas, 20 nays. By a vote of 20 yeas to 20 nays, Amendment Number 1 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 167 Finance be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, placed on final passage. Hearing no objections, so ordered.

Will the clerk please read the title for the third and final time? House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill Number 167, Finance, by the House Finance Committee, entitled An Act Relating to Eligibility of Criminal Offenders for Certain Benefits, including the Permanent Fund Dividend, Relating to a Permanent Fund Dividend for an Individual Whose Conviction has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed, and relating to the calculation of the value of the permanent fund dividend by including payment to individuals eligible for a permanent fund dividend because of a conviction that has been vacated, reversed, or dismissed. Representative Mayers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Commissioner Reed. Commissioner Granite. I'm grateful to have carried the companion bill and present this legislation on behalf of the member of the other body from Fairbanks. The state of Alaska has a responsibility to ensure that those convicted of crimes are prosecuted fairly and justly.

If an offender is wrongfully convicted, the state has a duty to restore some of what they've lost. Incarcerated Alaskans are not eligible for the Permanent Fund Dividend. This bill seeks to return unawarded PFDs to Alaskans who did not receive their dividend during their time of their wrongful incarceration. This legislation is about restoration, not compensation. The transition back to society for formerly incarcerated individuals can be difficult due to the loss of education, training opportunities, meaningful experiences, and the forfeiture of time with loved ones.

These unfortunate circumstances are only exacerbated by the loss of income otherwise earned. Although we cannot give them back lost time, this bill would restore the monetary sum of foregone dividends from the state who— to those who have been wrongfully convicted. This is one of the few things that we can do as the state of Alaska to help right a wrong and give back to these Alaskans, which is rightfully theirs. I look forward to the discussion.

Any debate?

Representative Colon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the bill. I just— I wanted to—. I was going to ask the sponsor or The one carrying it on the floor.

I kind of missed how this intersects with the restorative justice account because I know those permanent fund dividends that they don't get when they're in prison goes towards that account. So if you can kind of just explain, if you take money out, is it put back in by the general fund or is the restorative justice account affected in any way? Representative Carrick. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wish to rise very briefly to say I strongly support this bill.

I'm very grateful to the member from the other body and to the member who's bringing this forward here on the floor. We have had some rare but extraordinary circumstances, Mr. Speaker, of wrongfully incarcerated individuals having convictions overturned, and there is no case more prominent than the case of 4 Fairbanks men whose convictions were later overturned. Returned for a murder that they were associated with wrongly and did not have anything to do with. Mr. Speaker, I just really respect the advocacy that's gone into this legislation. I'd also like to note that, as with those Fairbanks Four individuals and so many others, we had a report that was brought to us in Tribal Affairs and the State Affairs Committee from the Alaska Federation of Natives that the rates incarceration for Alaska Native people in this state are extraordinarily high, and they're disproportionately high.

And a number of convictions, whether Alaska Native or not, will turn out to be wrongful convictions. And so this legislation really provides justice for those individuals that we know of in Fairbanks, as well as future individuals that could experience this exact situation. So I'm just very grateful for those that have brought it forward and And I ask for your support. In wrap-up, Representative Mears.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read? Permission granted. In response to the member from the Hillside, I have a little Q&A that was— a little FAQ that was supplied to me about— so should people get back pay even if their PFD was already used for victim compensation?

Is this effectively paying twice? In statute it states, shall transfer from the dividend fund to the restorative justice account each fiscal year an amount equal to the amount that would have been paid during the previous fiscal year to the incarcerated individuals had they been eligible. So it does not— the statute does not direct an individual's actual dividend to be deposited into the account as the person was incarcerated and wouldn't have been eligible for the PFD. Whether the funds from the restorative justice account paid for the person's wrongful incarcerations, it was legally not their PFD and they should still get their personal property.

I guess my final wrap-up: I appreciate the support of the member from the other body and the work that's been done on this over these years, and I really am looking forward to supporting support for it on the floor today. Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 167, Finance, 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? 38 Yeas, 2 nays. By a vote of 38 yeas to 2 nays, Senate Bill 167 has passed the House.

I don't believe there is an effective date or a title change to this.

So looking at my tally here, we do have a few more things to get done before the evening can come to a close.

I would like to bring before the body SJR 20, cleanup marine debris.

Without objection, Madam Clerk, when you are ready.

Senate Joint Resolution Number 20 by Senator Bjorkman, supporting federal, state, and local efforts to clean up and remove marine debris from the state, urging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide additional funding for those efforts and to remove barriers faced by tribes and rural communities in accessing those funds, and urging the Alaska congressional delegation to advocate for increased federal funding and support for marine debris prevention prevention, cleanup, removal, backhaul, and education. The Resources Committee considered the resolution attached 1, previously published 0 fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Fields, Colon, Hall, Sadler, Prox, Mears, and co-chairs Dybert and Freer. I have no House committee substitutes. Mr.

Bree, please.

Will the House please come back to order. Madam Clerk, where did we leave off? The bill is in second reading with no amendments. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolution 20 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. Hearing no objection, will the clerk please read the title for the third and final time? Senate Joint Resolution number 20 by Senator Bjorkman, supporting federal, state, and local efforts to clean up and remove marine marine debris from the state, urging the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to provide additional funding for those efforts and to remove barriers faced by tribes and rural communities in accessing those funds, and urging the Alaska congressional delegation to advocate for increased federal funding and support for marine debris prevention, cleanup, removal, backhaul, and education. Representative Dybert. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. It's an honor for me to carry this bill on our floor, this Interior Girl, for my friend from the area where there is a marine shoreline. So just to tell everyone, I learned about this bill in Resources. It's a great piece of legislation. Piece of legislation.

Senate Joint Resolution 20 supports— oh, permission to read. Permission granted. Um, Senate Joint Resolution 20 supports efforts to clean up and remove marine debris from the rugged Alaskan shorelines and urges federal agencies to dedicate funding and remove barriers to accessing funding that would support prevention, cleanup, and backhaul of marine debris. A healthy ocean is central to all of us here in Alaska. Communities across the state depend on the ocean for food.

We depend on the ocean for work and way of life. Remote uninhabited islands around Alaska have been taken over by foreign debris. It is estimated that since 2006, Mr. Speaker, only 6% of the coast line in the state has been cleaned up. Just last year, more than 1.5 million pounds of debris was removed from Alaska shorelines in documented cleanups. Cleaning up marine debris in Alaska takes a lot of work.

It requires collaboration, expertise, and resources. In that uniquely Alaska spirit, people from all walks of life and backgrounds backgrounds have worked together to clean up our beaches and remove debris from our communities. Continuing these successful partnerships will require continued funding and collaboration. SGR 20 addresses this need by urging the state to work with coastal communities, our tribes, our nonprofits, and others to address the challenges of our marine, um, challenges of marine debris and supports federal, state, and local efforts to prevent marine debris, cleanup of marine debris, and removal of marine debris in our state. And I look forward to any discussion.

Rosenbainum. Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this this legislation or this resolution. Strongly support it. This is in support of a very needed, very needed infrastructure and financing from federal government to support our coastal communities.

This is also in support of Senator Sullivan's legislation, the Save Our Seas 2.0, and this is the Marine Debris Infrastructure Programs Reauthorization Act. I know this is something that our delegation has been asking for, and I hope that we can have a 40-0 on the board to support them. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Not seeing further debates, no closing comments. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Senate Joint Resolution 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? 40 Yeas, 0 nays. By a vote of 40 yeas to 0 nays, SJR 20 has passed the body.

Next, I would like to bring up SCR 17, Regional Educational Attendance areas. Hearing no objection.

Senate Concurrent Resolution number 17 by the Senate Education Committee, recognizing the 50th anniversary of the state's regional educational attendance areas and celebrating the enduring contributions of the state's regional educational attendance areas of public public education, local leadership, and community life in rural areas of the state. The Education Committee considered the resolution attached, one previously published zero fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Underwood, Eichide, and co-chairs Hemmschuetz and Story. Amend, Schwanke. I have no House committee substitutes.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Madam Clerk, I'm supposed to ask you if you have any amendments. Amendment number 1 by Representative Bynum, beginning page 3, following line 2.

Representative Bynum. Brief it ease. Brief it ease.

Come back to order. Representative Bynum, can you please speak to your—. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 1 will not be offered. Amendment number 1 will not be offered.

Madam Clerk, are there additional amendments? I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader.

Come back to order. We have SCR 17 in final passage. So Representative Schwanke.

It's an SCR. It's in second reading. Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We'll try to be quick at this late hour.

It's an honor to carry SCR 17 on the floor here today. Today for the other body. Mr. Speaker's permission to read, please. Permission granted. Mr. Speaker, Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 celebrates the 50th anniversary of the creation of the Alaska Regional Education Attendance Areas, otherwise known as the REAAs.

The year was the year that I was born in 1976. The Alaska Legislature established the AAAs as part of our responsibility to provide an equitable system of public education that allows students to attend public schools close to home. This model was built by influential Alaskan leaders in education, including past Department of Education Commissioner Marshall Lind and Alaska Native leaders including Roger Lang, Byron Mallott, Susan Murphy, Harold Esmelka, and Sidney Huntington, common namesakes in rural Alaska. REAAs are run by local elected school boards and funded primarily through the state foundation formula, but also supported by many grants and community volunteers. Mr. Speaker, for the last 50 years, the REAA framework for public education in the unorganized borough has given communities a voice in the education of children and young adults.

The creation of the REAA system is a historic milestone in Alaska's history. Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 celebrates that milestone, 50 years. Perhaps most importantly, Senate Concurrent Resolution 17 reaffirms the Alaska State Legislature's commitment to strong and vibrant public schools that serve students where they live, whether that be the Yukon Flats, Bering Strait, Copper River, or or any number of our rural regions. Thank you.

Seeing no debate, are you ready for the question? The question being, shall SCR 17 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? 40 Yeas, 0 nays. With a vote of 40 yeas to 0 nays, SCR 17 has passed the House.

At this time, I would like to bring Senate Bill 237 before the body. I will turn to Representative Underwood to explain the bill and the process that she is going to propose. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that we receive to rescind our previous action on passing Senate Bill 237 in order to return to second reading to take action on a specific amendment, number 6. And just briefly, amendment number 6 was my amendment, and apparently I tried to do something amazingly out of this world that no state in the United States does that may cost over $100 million.

So for the record, I love children and I was trying to do the right thing, but I am working closely with the administration to get the actual intent of what I meant to put in the bill, um, corrected and done. So I'm excited about that part, but I do not want to kill the other person's bill with that fiscal note. So I would ask that you push yes. No objection to the motion.

Number 6, I believe. Do we need to copy and distribute that amendment?

Representative Jubilee? Okay, I'll take that, I'll take that. I can do a different motion that just says I move that we rescind, or I move that I withdraw that amendment at this time. Representative Underwood, so we have a— we are— I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. Rescind previous action and adopting Amendment Number 6.

I did not hear an objection to doing that, so you are moving. We are back in second reading. You have now moved to— can you please restate your motion so we're all clear? Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

I move that we res—. Oh, I'm sorry, I'm going to the next script. I move that we withdraw Amendment Number 6. Hearing no objection, Amendment Number 6 has been withdrawn.

I believe we now return back to third reading.

Mr. Senator Belton. Yep, Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent That committee substitute for Senate Bill 237, Judiciary, be engrossed, advanced to 3rd reading, and placed on final passage. Hearing no objection. Representative Jimmy, do you wish to speak to this at all?

Otherwise, I'm going to take it that the body is familiar with the bill and we're gonna move to voting on the bill itself. Representative Jimmy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to thank the member from District 27 for trying to do something out of this world. Well, the $100 million vote coming up here.

The question before the body is: Shall committee substitute for Senate Bill 237, Judiciary, amended House, pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the Call the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Madam Clerk, please announce the vote. 40 Yeas, 0 nays. With a vote of 40 yeas, 0 nays, Senate Bill 237 has passed the body.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objections, So ordered. Next, I would like to bring before the body HCR 32, which is a title change resolution pertaining to a bill that we passed earlier, Senate Bill 24, dealing with tobacco, nicotine, and e-cigarette tax.

Hearing no objection, are you ready for the question? The question being, shall HCR 32 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? 36 Yeas, 4 nays. By a vote of 36 yeas to 4 nays, HCR 32 has passed the body. One more title change. Title change resolution to bring before the body, HCR 30, which pertains to Senate Bill 211, extend occupational licensing board.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that House Concurrent Resolution 30, the title change resolution for Senate Bill 211, be taken up as a special order of business. Without objection.

Are you ready for the question? The question is, shall House In current resolution number 30, 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? Madam Clerk, please announce the vote. 40 Ayes, 0 nays. By a vote of 40 ayes to 0 nays, HCR 30 has passed the House.

Body.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come to order. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent members go into the limbo file to take up House Bill 23.

Member from District 13 will explain the changes made by the other body.

Representative Josephson. Ah, yes.

So I'm happy to report that first as a reminder, this body a year ago thought well of this bill and passed it 39-0. The other body added an amendment that the Commission sought to allow for predetermination settlements if all parties agree and the agreement is signed by the Commission. Complainant, executive director, and respondent. Think of this as an early settlement of the matter before a formal process begins, saving everyone time and money. That's the essence of it.

It's like a— it's an expediting of a claim against, for example, an employer of discrimination. I ask for your support of the changes. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments to committee substitute for House Bill 23, Labor and Commerce, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 23, Finance, effective date added Senate, and recommend the members vote yes.

Are you ready for the question?

Will the House please come back to order. By my account, we have all 40 members present with the exception of Representative Freer. Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? We are merely going to go forward forward and vote. We have members, at least a couple who are outstanding. I feel like— okay.

Representative Stutes, thank you. Representative Freer.

So Mr. Majority Leader, did you make your motion? You did? And so are we ready for the question? The question being, shall the House concur in the Senate changes to committee substitute for House Bill 23, Labor and Commerce, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 23 Finance, effective date added Senate?

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? 40 Yeas, 0 nays.

By a vote of 40 yeas, 0 nays, the House has concurred with the changes to House Bill 23. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objections, so moved.

And Madam Clerk, I don't— I think we did the title change on this earlier. We don't need a title change. Okay, we do. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Concurrent Resolution 32, the title change resolution for House Bill 23, be taken up as a special order of business. Without objection. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House/Senate concurrent resolution 32 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? 40 Yeas, 0 nays. By a vote of 40 yeas to 0 nays, SCR 32 has passed the body.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the members go into limbo file to take up House Bill 25. The member from District 13 will explain the changes made by the other body. Hearing no objection, House Bill 25 is before the body.

Representative Josephson. Thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker. Not long ago, we passed this by a vote of 25 to 2015. The other body adopted an amendment that we narrowly defeated by the representative from Northern Kenai Peninsula, initials B.E. And what that— what the other body did is they added a local opt-out so that a local government could say we want polystyrene foodware in our restaurants.

That's the change they made. I would argue the bill is arguably more conservative, more local government friendly. I support the changes. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments to committee substitute for House Bill 25, Labor and Commerce amended, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 25, Labor and Commerce, and recommend the members vote yes.

The question being, shall the House concur in the Senate changes to committee substitute for House Bill 25, Labor and Commerce, amended, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 25, Labor and Commerce? 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? 26 Yeas, 14 nays. By a vote of 26 yeas to 14 nays, the House has concurred with the changes to House Bill 25.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move the effective date clause.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the effective date clause 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? 35 Yeas, 5 nays. By a vote of 35 yeas to 5 nays, the effective date clause has been adopted. Madam— Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that members go into the limbo file to take up House Bill 27. The member from District 19 will explain the changes made by the other body. Hearing no objection, House Bill 27 is before the House. Representative Mena.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other body adopted one amendment that folded in Senate Bill 20 on requiring a hands-only CPR curriculum, and this is basically requiring that the department for that deed, adopt already existing curriculum related to CPR, that this would be distributed to school districts free of charge. This bill did move through House Education with 6-2 passes, and that bill had a zero fiscal note. I support the concurrence. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments to committee substitute for House Bill 27, Health and Social Services, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 27, Health and Social Services, amended Senate, effective date added Senate, and recommend the members vote yes. Are you ready for the question? We are.

Breathe at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? Representative Ruffridge. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I will not be concurring with these changes, and just for one reason. I feel like in this legislative session we have directed the Department of Education and Early Development to do an awful lot of curriculum doing— mental health education, civics education, and a whole bunch of other things.

CPR is something that is already offered in a number of our high schools already. This is just one extra step of, uh, the government again sort of directing a thing that maybe we don't need to be doing just this second. The underlying bill was very good, and I supported it in its current iteration, so I will not be voting to concur. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall the House concur in the Senate changes to committee substitute for House Bill 27, Health and Social Services, thus adopting committee substitute for House Bill 27 Health and Social Services, amended Senate, effective date added Senate. 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? 27 Yeas, 13 nays. With a vote of 27 yeas, 13 nays.

The House has concurred with the Senate changes to House Bill 27. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Concurrent Resolution 33, the title change resolution for House Bill 27, be taken up as a special order of business.

Can we do the effective date first?

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objections, so moved. And we do have the— we have the title change resolution before the body now. Are you ready for the question? Question The question being, shall the House concur with Senate— shall the House pass Senate Concurrent Resolution 33?

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. 40 Ayes, 0 nays.

By a vote of 40 ayes, 40 ayes to 0 nays. SCR 33 has passed the body. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that members go into the limbo file to take up House Bill 79.

The member from District 17 will explain the changes made by the other body. Hearing no objection, House Bill 79 is before the House. Representative Fields. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. As this bill left our body, it named Shoop Bay State Marine Park near Valdez, the Vic Fisher Chute Bay State Marine Park.

The other body added that the Institute for Social and Economic Research, also known as ISER, which was founded by Vic Fisher, will, if this bill passes, be called the Vic Fisher Institute for Social and Economic Research. And since it's been a while since this bill left this body, I'm sure members are aware Vic Fisher was the last living constitutional delegate He was very active in the statehood movement. He served in the other body. I do urge a yes vote on concurrence with the Senate changes, and Vic's widow Jane and daughter Ruthie are very appreciative to both chambers. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House concur in the Senate amendments to House Bill 79, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for House Bill 79 resources and recommend the members vote yes. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the members from the other bodies' changes.

I think renaming ICER is a very honorable designation. I ask the members support the bill. Thank you. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm not going to support this. I think the changing from naming a marine park where Vic liked to watch the ocean to Changing our state's premier education— economic research and science institute's a bit of a reach. That's not how it was pitched. I don't like where it's coming back, so I will be respectful now. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall the House concur in the Senate changes to House Bill 79, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for House Bill 79, Resources? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Representative Elam, from yay to nay.

Will the clerk please announce the vote? 29 Yays, 11 nays. By vote of 29 yeas to 11 nays, the House has concurred with the Senate changes to House Bill 79. Mr. Majority Leader, there's a title change resolution according to what I have before me.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Concurrent Resolution 30, the title change resolution for House Bill 79, be taken up as a special order of business. Without objection. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the House approve Senate concurrent resolution 30? 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 What's the vote? 40 Yeas, 0 nays. By a vote of 40 yeas to 0 nays, SCR 30 has passed the House.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the members go into the limbo file to take up House Bill 133. Member from District 2 will explain the changes made by the other body. Hearing no objection, House Bill 133 is before the body.

Representative Hemmschulte. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This Bill 133 is the Prompt Payment Parity Bill establishing prompt payment for nonprofits, tribes, and municipalities. It went over to the other body with a 27-10 vote from the House. In the other body, they made 3 changes. One was to exempt the Department— the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management from all provisions because they prioritize paying individuals prior to paying nonprofits, municipalities, and tribes, so the language in the bill would not work for them. And then they also removed the constitutional language that was added to the bill based on a memo from legislative legal that said the requirement had no teeth if it was taken out of context from the other constitutional provisions, and then— which were not added to the bill.

And then finally, it clarified language about the when interest accrual would begin for federal pass-through funds to clarify to the later of 45 days. So I agree with all of these changes and ask for support. Thank you. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move the House concur in the Senate amendments to committee substitute for House Bill 133 Finance amended, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 133 Finance amended, Senate and recommend the members vote yes. Are you ready for the question? The question being: Shall the House concur in the Senate changes to committee substitute for House Bill 133 Finance amended, thus adopting Senate committee substitute for committee substitute for House Bill 133 Finance amended Senate? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll. Does any member wish to change his or vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 22 Yeas, 18 nays. I voted 22 nays to 18 yeas.

The House has concurred with the changes to— Senate changes to House Bill 133. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move the effective date clause. Are you ready for the question?

Shall the House Pass the effective date clause. Members may proceed to vote. Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote?

35 Yeas, 5 nays. By a vote of 35 yeas to 5 nays, the effective date clause has been adopted. Brief piece.

Please come back to order, Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House take up the Conference Committee report for House Bill 263, which is on the members' desks or in the limbo file. The member from District 13 will explain the report.

Hearing no objection, the Conference Committee report is before the House. Representative Josephson. If you are ready to speak to it. Yes, sir, I am.

All right. So the FY27 operating budget concurrence report, here's what the conference committee did. Before the body's conference committee substitute for— first of all, may I read? Permission granted. Before the body is Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 263, the operating bill.

The total of all funds is $12,816,918,300. The breakdown of all funds is the following: $6,278,831,600 in UGF, $1,038,448,800 in DGF, $940,300,000 in other state funds. Let me retract that, there's a typo here. $940,959,300 In other state funds, $4,558,678,600 in federal receipts. The breakdown of just the unrestricted general fund appropriations in this budget are the the following: $5,003,204,000 for agency operations, $601,556,000 for statewide items, $17,507,200 for new legislation, and $674,071,200 for permanent fund dividends excluding emergency— or rather energy relief.

After all appropriations, the operating budget is in projected surplus of approximately $43 million. So let me say that again. As best we know, based on oil projections from DOR and DNR, uh, production projections, when you return in January, there should be $43 million surplus. This means that the budget balances at $73.75 per barrel of oil or $1.25 less per barrel of oil than the 2026 spring revenue forecast. Despite budgeting under the forecast, the conference committee version before the body considers the needs of all Alaskans, from our teachers and students looking for adequate public school funding to those impacted by high fuel costs and disastrous weather events, victims of crime and citizens who want to be safe, and those who are our most vulnerable.

We hear you and we delivered. Months of diligent work in the body and careful coordination with the other body produced a budget that does the impossible. It listens and responds to every one of our constituents. When you go back to your districts and your constituents ask, what did you accomplish for Alaskans this session and where were our state funds spent? You can say, this is what we accomplished.

This is where your state funds were spent. We fought for and achieved significant increases for education and child care, including for students and parents and teachers and staff. There is in this bill, and this is excluding a bill that we may still see that is in the fiscal note packet, um, I think it's called HB 28 perhaps, but so far in the conference committee report, uh, there's a combined total of $144.1 million million in one-time education funding. $115 Million of that will be paid using FY26 surplus and distributed as grants to school districts according to the average daily membership for each district. And I would note that oil prices today are $120, so we are absolutely on target to achieve the goals that I'm outlining here.

$29.1 Million will be paid using FY27 general funds and distributed as energy relief to school districts, calculated by taking 30% of the highest energy costs from FY24 to 26. So there's $115 million in 26 dollars. Remember, we have 6 weeks left of this year. And then there's, um, additionally $29.1 million in FY27 dollars. In addition, there's $41.6 million UGF to fully pay school bond debt reimbursement, $19.6 million UGF to fully pay for regional education attendance area programs, $6.4 million UGF for child care center recruitment and retention, $3.8 million UGF to meet the 20% Head Start federal grant match, $1.2 million UGF for University of Alaska student recruitment and retention across the three major campuses, $500,000 for the University of Alaska Fairbanks Critical Minerals Grant match to capture up to $15 million in federal receipts, $355,000 for Parents as Teachers, $400,000 for a public school funding adequacy study, $217,000 for the statewide library electronic doorway, which I think is also funded in part in the capital budget.

We focused on alleviating the burden of climbing fuel and energy costs in light of the war in the Middle East. A total of $75 million toward community assistance to achieve the following is in this budget. A remarkable, a remarkable amount, and I thank the other body for this, is funded into community assistance. They get the full money in the statute and what my old friend Adam Wohl would call a kicker. They get more than the statutory amount.

$30 Million for FY27 for a full distribution. And double base payments, and $45 million for FY28 for full distribution there. So when you come back in January, you're primed and ready to pay, uh, the full amount next two fiscal years from now. There's $15 million to capitalize the Bulk Fuel Loan Fund so the communities can take advantage of expanded loan authority to buy fuel through House Bill 388. There's $11 million UGF to restore the Alaska Heating Assistance Program that last served Alaskans in 2015.

My co-chairman from Nome spearheaded that effort. I thank him for it. We address disaster relief and the financial burden brought about by extraordinarily difficult circumstances out of Alaska's control. We're paying $16.6 million UGF to meet the 5-year average fire suppression costs. So if we have bad fire season, we're gonna pay for it.

$48 Million for disaster relief funds. We know that we've had multiple disasters over and over. We're ready to fund those. $3 Million UGF for temporary assistance for needy families and maintenance of efforts. $2 Million UGF for food banks and shelters.

$800,000 For utility disruption emergency disaster grants. $800,000 To the Cook Inlet Tribal Council for temporary assistance for needy families match due to Typhoon Halong. $300,000 For local emergency planning committees. A couple of these last items are courtesy the member from Tuksook Bay and the member from Nome. We made major impactful investments in public assistance, behavioral health, and senior services.

There's $272 million federal receipts the Rural Health Transformation Program. Of course, that was low-hanging fruit. Of course, we were going to approve that on top of the $272 million appropriated this year. There's $43 million for Medicaid rate match to capture $334 million in federal receipts. There's $14.7 million GF match to implement what are called guidehouse and Medicaid rate increases for employees such as Community First on Personal Care rates and direct support professionals.

We heard more public input, we had more public input, written and oral, from caretakers, caretakers who want to care for the infirm and the elderly and simply can't afford to do it on $18 an hour. This is designed to help that. We're also meeting the Guidehouse Medicaid rate on air and ground ambulance. And importantly, importantly, we are increasing funding for private duty nurses. I had the distinct honor to go with my colleague from downtown Anchorage and my budget coordinator, Mr. Schroeder, to see what parents go through who need 24-hour care in their homes.

There had been no increase in that item since 1998. We funded that. Adolescent-specific behavioral and substance use health services. There's a program, Volunteers of America, that for reasons that are complicated, uh, was actually recommended for a decrement by Guidehouse. We held them harmless.

There's $11.3 million to maintain public assistance information technology systems. There's $8 million to meet 75% of the administrative cost share for SNAP. There's $5.3 million for Pioneer Home Payment Assistance program increases. So when, when our elderly folks and people we care about are tapped out and cannot make these payments, they're going to be comfortably secure right where they should be. There's $3.7 million to maintain public assistance virtual contact centers.

Department of Health was insistent that they get this money. We did the best we could. And I think it's, it's perhaps just $3 million, but in that range. There's $1.4 million for senior benefits payment program adjustment. There's $1.3 million for adult day services.

This is a dementia-related item. There's $785,000 for student mental health services across the 3 campuses. I thank the member from District 14 for her work on that. There's $600,000 for UGF for Office of Children's Services staff training and bonuses. I thank former Representative Guerra and Adam Mativier of Facing Foster Care for their hard work on that.

There's $500,000 to stabilize senior centers, $382,000 for general relief temporary assisted living programs, $300,000 for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children incentive programs at farmers markets, We prioritize public safety as well and victims of crime. $20 Million for the Department of Corrections personal services costs. Remember, that was a disputed item, but they have, they needed the money. $5.6 Million to fully fund community regional jails. I thank the member from Sitka for this.

This is a big deal. The cities have been paying for our prisoners. We stopped that, at least for a year. There's $2 million for rural Alaska State Trooper housing, $1.7 million for Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault inflation adjustments. There's $3 million for the Department of Corrections medical staff costs, $2 million to address increased case costs to the Department of Law, $1.7 million for the VPSO retention and increased cost there.

There's $1.5 million to increase child advocacy centers. We debated that ad nauseam. I said that would be in the budget, it's there. $701,000 For public safety support across the 3 university campuses. So UAA said we've got to have more public safety support.

I thank again the member from District 14 for that. We made significant appropriations in labor and workforce development, $37.8 million to match Alaska Retirement Management Board recommendations. The ARM Board said the administration has it wrong. We need $37.8 million more. We said, great, we're going to do it.

There's $4.2 million for University of Alaska nonunion salary compensation healthcare. Yes, there is another cohort of university staff that have organized, but there's still a portion that are unorganized. They're getting a salary increase. There are $3.5 million for Alaska Marine Highway System salary adjustments, $1.1 million for the omitted court system requests such as inflationary cost increases, court visitor backlog funding, and centralized competency calendar salary and benefits. There's $800,000 for geographic pay differential study.

The member from Glenallen should be pleased about that. Um, there are pockets of places in Southeast and the Interior where people are noticeably not getting the salary they need relative to the, the end— the cost of living. There's $195,000 for legislative staff stipend increases. You may know some of these staff, you may personally know them, and they're going to get a slight bump in their stipend increases. And we appropriated a total permanent fund dividend of $1,200 to paid in October of this year.

$200 Will be paid as energy relief checks using FY26 surplus, which I'm confident will come because of the war in Iran. $1,000 Will be paid as a permanent fund dividend using FY27 dollars. Folks, this is what we accomplish, and we accomplish it on time and under budget. And if it's not noted in this outline, there is also the Infant Learning Program, uh, fully funded as I understand it in this budget. Lastly, this budget includes reverse sweep language requiring a separate motion from the concurrence of the bill.

So I'm hoping our Majority Leader asks us to reverse the sweep. Approval of this motion, which requires 30 members in this body, would appropriate the account balances of subfunds back from the CBR to their respective subfunds. The amount is minimal, totaling $8.7 million in FY25 and expected to be much smaller in FY26. However, approval would have a significantly positive impact on accounting functions, assisting the Division of Finance on completing the annual comprehensive financial report on time, something which they have not been able to do in a decade. In closing, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank the co-chair of the other body, uh, the retiring senior member there.

The conference committee process was smooth, with us coming to a quick compromise that both our bodies can feel proud to push the green button for. I want to thank the House conferees, the members from District 12 and District 32 who represented the diverse interests of the House well. Most of all, I want to thank all of you and your staff. Whether or not we agree on every item, your time and discourse, your diligent analysis and consideration on the state budget is critical to good governance. With that, I strongly urge you to vote to concur on the conference committee substitute for House Bill 263, the operating budget bill and send this great piece of legislation to the governor.

Thank you. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank the member from Anchorage for that near line-by-line overview of the operating budget changes in the conference committee, Mr. Speaker. Um, it does actually deserve it.

It was very thorough, Mr. Speaker, so not a lot left to talk about. I will say I'm going to be opposing this budget. And just really simply, Mr. Speaker, if we rewind the clock back a couple of months ago, we had a big battle over whether or not we needed to draw from savings. Mr. Speaker, we ended up not drawing from savings when we got the spring revenue forecast. The oil price has been over $100 a barrel for every single day since we have been in this legislature, and currently the ANS West crude price is over $119 a a barrel, Mr. Speaker.

The primary— my primary objective— objection to this budget is that the state in FY26 is swimming in money. We are absolutely swimming in money, Mr. Speaker. The windfall for state on our oil and gas tax revenue at $119 million is almost unquantifiable. 3 Months ago, we were staring at a supplemental budget that required an almost $500 million draw on the state's savings accounts. And because of changes in geopolitical situations, Mr. Speaker, we are now swimming in extra revenue for this current fiscal year.

And the member co-chair from Anchorage and the majority— and the majority of the conference committee decided that even though we have a massive surplus in our current year's budget, we would not direct that money toward individuals' permanent fund dividends in any type of meaningful relief, uh, because we decided we'd spend it on other state programs. Mr. Speaker, I think that's fundamentally challenging for individuals who are going to be able to explain that to their constituents if oil prices are over $100 a barrel this coming October and when it's gonna cost you thousands and thousands and thousands of extra dollars to pay your electric bills and heating bill, you get to go home and tell people that you spent it on a bunch of other government programs. So I'm gonna be a no because we should have waterfalled that excess money into the permanent fund dividend. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is always tempting to spend every last dollar when oil prices go up, but I'm actually very proud that we held the line and we kept spending under the spring revenue forecast. And I hope that if oil prices remain high when we come in next year, we will go on a savings spree. I think that would be the right thing to do for all future generations, grow the real value of the Permanent Fund, and achieve the promise of the 1976 creation of the Permanent Fund itself, as articulated by voters, that the Permanent Fund will be our perpetual endowment. So I'm really proud that we did not growth spending.

I want to— there's a lot of good work in the budget. I would argue it's a heroic effort by the operating chair, the members of the Finance Committee, and really this whole body. And something that makes me proud about this institution is this is the most bipartisan legislature in the entire country. And I just want to highlight one example that just makes me so proud. So for a long time, members of the legislature and the public have bemoaned the growth in spending on corrections and how it's growing out of control.

Well, this budget makes a meaningful step toward containing that spending, and there was a bipartisan amendment by a member of the minority, um, the member from House District 28 from Wasilla, in committee. It was for the infant learning program, and I highlight this— it was only $5.7 million in the budget. That program has the highest return on investment of any state program, and for years members of have struggled to fund that program. Because when you invest in the Infant Learning Program, it avoids 12 years of spending on IEPs, and it avoids a lifetime of spending on social services. There is no wiser investment, and that one program is so forward-looking, it will save money for generations.

There were other forward-looking investments in this budget— behavioral health, the direct care rates for in-home services, which are vastly cheaper than when individuals have to go into a nursing home. Um, the private duty nurses sounds obscure. When you take care of people in their homes, in the case of the private duty nursing, it saves hundreds of thousands of dollars per Alaskan who can be cared for in their homes. So I know these items can sound numerous, they might sound like a line in a budget. This budget is so forward-looking and positions us to save money for years, and it does but also in a way that honors the humanity of Alaskans.

And it was bipartisan work, and that makes me so proud. Thank you to all the members who participated.

Mr. Majority Leader. Representative Johnson.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adopt the conference committee Report thus adopting Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 263.

Are you ready for the question? Brief it ease.

Will the House please come to order. We did have a couple of mics raised, or at least one, in terms of speaking to the changes in the operating budget. Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There's quite a few things that I could highlight is, um, issues that I have with this budget. But the one thing that I've heard from my constituents the most is obviously the taking of their dividend. And so I want the public to know that we did sock away money into savings. $1.4, Almost $1.5 billion is appropriated from the earnings reserve account to the principal of the fund.

So that money will be for for future government spending. And it was done under the name of inflation-proofing for the permanent fund. And we have done that quite regularly here in the legislature. And I appreciate that in one sense because it's caused the fund to grow. I haven't looked at today's average, but I imagine it's more than $88 billion.

And it's because the— the growth is because the legislature continues to sock money away. I don't think it's because we paid so much money for the investors to do, to make, cause that growth. I've been disappointed that they haven't caused the growth as much as the legislature has deposited. Instead of putting that money in for future government spending, I would have preferred it to go into the hands of elastance, especially during this rate of really high cost and inflation. Only increasing the amount of the energy relief by $100 from the earlier version is the biggest disappointment out of all the things that we talk about, all the bills, all the increases in the base of government spending that we've had, not responding responding to the energy needs of Alaskans, recognizing that when they go to pay at the pump, there's many people who can't fill up their gas tank full because the cost is so high.

They can only put in a little bit at a time, amount that their paycheck will allow. The fact that the cost of heating our homes has gone up—. Representative Vance, I hate to interrupt you, but you're technically to be speaking to the changes in the measure before us as opposed to broadly speaking to economic conditions and what have you. If you might— if you could confine your comments to the bill before us and the changes in the conference committee report, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I said earlier, that there was a $100 increase in the energy relief portion that happened in conference committee totaling $1,000 PFD $250 and $200 energy relief, I found that disappointing because it did not respond to the needs of the people. And I don't mean disrespect by that, but Alaskans are so angry that we did not respond to that. We talk about filling so many other needs, but that is a basic one that we had the money as, as the, our as co-chair lead mentioned, the state is swimming in money right now, but we didn't see fit in increasing the dollars into people's hands for how they, how they need— know that they need to spend it for their family. And so I will be a no vote. Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very briefly wanted to say thank you to our House operating budget leader As a member who sat there for now it's been 4 years with this particular individual who will be leaving the House, I just think it's so important that we appreciate that this is a gentleman who is a true gentleman. The word gentle really fits for this gentleman, and I'm just so grateful that he looked after government programs that looked after the people. The changes that we've seen with regard to housing, fuel, food bank, care providers, disaster, fire, and really truly making sure that our next supplemental isn't as huge as it usually is, is largely due to his leadership, and I'm very grateful. Thank you.

I concur with those remarks. Representative Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciated the long and thorough explanation of the budget. It was very long and very thorough, and I appreciate that from the representative from the U Med district. What I do want to say is I do want to say that he has been a pleasure to work with. I want to just give a kind of a bipartisan shout out to the operating budget chair, and I know what a tremendously difficult job that is.

I would say one of the hardest jobs in the House. To really manage that budget from beginning to end. And so tonight, and I think on getting close to his last session, I want to just say that I appreciate having had the opportunity to work with him. And it's been— we disagree, I think, on a number of things, but it's not been disagreeable. I would also like to say is I will be a no vote on the budget.

And I do have my concerns, and people say they have a lot of challenges with one-time funding. And as the member from Fairbanks mentioned, we're at high oil right now, high today, and maybe higher in a couple days, but maybe lower, even though low won't probably be that low for a while. But because Alaska is a resource state, it's very volatile. This operating— the operating budget is a hard budget to write because we have things that are in the base and then we have things that are one-time funding. So while no one really likes the one-time funding, in a sense that we have such volatility, oftentimes that's necessary.

I would have liked to have seen, I mean, I think it's, we sometimes have a high amount of money and it got high from the beginning of the year towards the end of the year. Dramatic change, and some of that money got put into the base, even though I know that there was an attempt to keep that at a reasonable spot. But for that reason, I have some challenges with this budget, and I will be a no vote. But I do want to extend my appreciation for the members of Finance, and particularly a well-deserved Thank you to the operating budget chair. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Thank you, Representative Johnson. As a former operating budget co-chairman yourself, you know the incredible amount of work that goes into bringing this product not just through the body the first occasion, but through the other body and certainly navigating all the political aspects of the job. I'd like to thank Alexander Schroeder, who's behind the co-chair's there in the gallery. Job well done to both of you, and let's bring this thing home.

Mr. Majority Leader. I'm going to have a cigar when this is all over with. Representative McCabe. I think—.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for checking me out over here. So I just have to, with all due respect to the, uh, to the work done on this budget. There is one line item thing in this budget that receives the most, as a representative from Homer said, comments of Alaskans, and we don't pay it enough attention. We just gloss over it like it's nothing. We gloss over their comments like they're nothing.

We remove money like they're nothing. And I'm specifically speaking of the PFD, the full PFD. I understand the fiscal problems. I understand the problems of a co-chair. We spend almost no time explaining to Alaskans why we're taking it and where it's going.

We just take it. And I don't believe that that's the proper way to do things. I don't believe it's the proper way to treat Alaskans. And I will be a no vote. I would vote no on this budget twice if I could because of that reason.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All right, Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adopt the Conference Committee report, thus adopting Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 263. Are you ready for the question?

Question being, shall the House adopt the Conference Committee with limited powers of free conference report for House Bill 263, thus adopting Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 263? 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. With a vote of 21 yeas to 19 nays, the House has concurred with the Senate changes to House Bill 263, the FY27 operating budget.

Mr. Majority Leader. I got two more motions 2 motions to make here, Mr. Speaker. First one is I move the effective date clause.

Are you ready for the question? Shall the effective date clause be adopted? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote. 40 Ayes, 0 nays. By a vote of 40 ayes to 0 nays, the effective date clause has been adopted.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move the appropriations in Section 42 from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund, Article 9, Section 17 of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, be adopted, including the reverse sweep. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall the House adopt appropriations from the Constitutional Budget Reserve Fund including the reverse sweep. 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. By a vote of 21 yeas to 19 nays, The motion has failed to pass.

There is no CBR drop.

Let me retract my comment. It is late. Motion passes the body 21 to 19. Thank you. Mr.

Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask you—. Is that— That was the CBR vote required. Yeah, there is no— Speak at ease.

Will the House please come back to order? After consulting with people who know more than we do at the moment, The motion before the body did not reach the 30-vote threshold, thus it fails to pass. But I want to be very clear that the motion did not involve actually drawing from the Constitutional Budget Reserve. It just involved the sweep provision, which I will not get into. But Mr.

Majority Leader, to continue on with our business. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent Unanimous consent that the House take up the Conference Committee report for House Bill 265, which is on the members' desks or in their limbo file. The member from District 13 will explain the report. Hearing no objection, the Conference Committee report is before the House.

Representative Josephson. Yes, thank you. Before the body is the Conference Committee version of House Bill 265, the mental health bill. The total operating— may I read? I assume.

Permission granted. The total operating appropriations in the mental health bill are, are the following: $184,123,000 in unrestricted general funds, $39.6 million in designated general funds, $21.6 million in other state funds. The total capital appropriations in the mental health bill are the following: $12.8 million in the unrestricted general funds, $2. $285 Million in other state funds. Highlights of Mental Health Trust recommendations the governor requested and are in this budget include $756,000 Mental Health Trust Authority authorized receipts toward programs on the University of Alaska Anchorage campus, $573,000 MTAR for the Trust Lands Office facilities and maintenance, $151,000 MTAR for early childhood intervention and implementation of the Pyramid Model.

$130,000 MTAR for dementia education prevention. $75,000 MTAR for Project SEARCH. And then I, I misspoke earlier, uh, but it's sort of same, same. This budget, mental health budget item added by the legislature, uh, includes $5.72 million general fund mental health for the Infant Learning Program. Uh, that is more specifically the Infant Learning Program stabilization and expansion.

$3.75 Million for behavioral health treatment and recovery grants to offset a decline in designated general funds. $723,000 For behavioral health prevention and early intervention grants to offset a decline in designated general funds. And $500,000 for the Crisis Call Center in Department of Health. In addition, the mental health capital appropriations include $10.15 million for the Homeless Assistance Program, and they felt short-funded. They were short-funded vis-à-vis the previous year.

So if you, if you are concerned with homelessness for whatever reason, and there are many, the— we'll just say that the grantees received what they sought. And I thank the co-chair from Well, east of my district, uh, for getting that secured. $1.95 Million for special needs housing grants, uh, and $1.2 million for home modifications and upgrades called e-mods. $700,000 For coordinated community transportation. That concludes my remarks on the conference committee version of House Bill 265, Mental Health Bill.

Again, this is where the ILP resides. I strongly urge you to vote to concur. Thank you. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adopt the Conference Committee report, thus adopting Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 265. Are you ready for the question?

Brief at ease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Okay, we're back on the record. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the House adopt the Conference Committee with Limited Powers of Free Conference report for House Bill 265, thus adopting Conference Committee substitute for House Bill 265, 5. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her votes? Abreif at ease.

The roll will be voided. And thank you to the eagle eye of our Sergeant at Arms for pointing out that we needed to have Conference Committee report for the House Bill 265. So to repeat the question, the question before the body is: Shall the House adopt the conference committee with limited powers a free conference report for House Bill 265, thus adopting conference committee substitute for House Bill 265? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 35 Yeas, 5 nays. By a vote of 35 yeas to 5 nays, House Bill 265 has passed the body. Mr.

Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent to the roll call vote on the passage of the bill to consider the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous I move consent that the House stand adjourned until Wednesday, May 20th, at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, the House will stand adjourned until Wednesday, May 20th, at 10:30 AM.