HCRA-260515-0900

Good morning. I call this meeting of the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee to order. It is Friday, May 15th, 2026, 9:06 AM. Present in the room are Representative Kai Hollen, Representative Mike Prox, Representative G squared Nelson, Representative St. Clair, Steve St. Clair, Representative Carolyn Hall, Co-chair Donna Mears, and myself, Co-chair Rebecca Himschutz. We have a quorum to conduct business.

I'd like to remind members and staff to please silence your cell phones. And before we get started, I would like to thank Sophia Tenney from House Records, who's here documenting today's meeting, and Doug Bridges, also known as Doug Burgum, from the Juneau LIO, assisting us with the meeting recording. Thank you very much for being here. And of course, Talia Ames and Thatcher Brower, who, who make it all work. Okay, we have one item on our agenda today.

It's HJR 46, Typhoon Halong, supporting community relocation. We have both invited and public testimony today. Before we discuss the resolution, we have a committee substitute to adopt that makes one small grammatical change we saw an "is" that should be an "are." And so we got that fixed in the committee substitute. Representative Mears, would you please make a motion on that? I move that we adopt the work draft committee substitute for HJR 43, work draft version N, as our working document.

I object for the purpose of discussion, and Thatcher Brower can come to the table and explain what I just said. Okay.

Just make sure that makes sense. Okay. Mr. Brower, could you comment on the record? Yes. Thatcher Brower for the record, staff for Rep. Sayhimsuth and the House Community and Regional Affairs Committee.

As Chair Sayhimsuth said, the change is on page 1, line 14, and following funding, we changed it from "is" to "are." And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions. Truly a grammatical change. So, um, I will remove my objection. Are there any other objections to adopting the committee substitute? Representative Prox?

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just wondering if this is approved by the Society of English Majors. Um, I called Garrison Keillor on this one. Yeah, we'll take it. With that, I'll remove—.

He wasn't available, he was, uh, eating ketchup or something. Okay.

Seeing none, the committee substitute for HJR 46 has been adopted. And now I would like to invite Representative Jimmy's staff to the table to come forward and present the resolution. If you could come up, put yourselves on the record, and I think Representative Jimmy is tied up elsewhere today.

So welcome. Thank you, Chair Himchute. For the record, I am Rachel Gunn, staff to Representative Jimmy. And my name is Keenan Miller, staff to Representative Jimmy. Thank you.

Um, for the record, last October, Ex-Typhoon Ha Long slammed into the YK Delta, causing unprecedented devastation in the area. The village of Kitbuk was 90% destroyed, and the village of Kwagumiak was 30% destroyed, devastating infrastructure, homes, and This resolution that we're here to present today comes from the voices from Kitnaak and Quiguliak, their tribal leaders. Although about 50 residents in both villages remained in the village, the vast majority of residents have told us over and over again in meetings and Zoom calls, on the record in front of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, that their villages are no longer safe to return to. In fact, Director Brian Fisher, on the record many times in committee, has told us in his 30-year career as a director of Division of Homeland Security that this was the worst event that he's ever seen in his tenure. And quite possibly— I gave this to my staff, Keenan, when this event happened last October— is this the first trigger event by climate that has forced relocated a community on the planet Earth?

And quite possibly that is true. We have not found— although other communities have been encroached by flood and other disasters, a community that was previously safe to inhabit that is no longer safe, completely wiped. Kipnuk and Quiguliak has faced this. And their residents have told us, their tribal leaders have told us that they want to move. They want to be together, whether it's an interim village or a permanent site.

We have a federal trust responsibility to these communities, and we must listen. Koyaanis. Okay. Thank you. And I just— I always bring up Perryville because of the volcano.

And so they could no longer live in Perryville. So that was a mass relocation of a different time, over 100 years ago. But okay. So we are going to consider this resolution. I think there is an amendment and it's not here yet on paper, right?

So we'll do it conceptually. Okay. Representative St. Clair, would you like to move your amendment? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move conceptual amendment number 1.

And I'll object for purposes of hearing the amendment and discussion. Thank you, Madam Chair. All I want to do is move all the Alaska congressional delegation together. So instead of it saying, uh, Senator Lisa Murkowski, Chair of the U.S. Senate on Indian Affairs, the next one should be, um, Senator— or the Honorable Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senator, and the Honorable Nicholas Begich, U.S. Representative, members of the Alaska delegation in Congress.

That's kind of the standard, kind of the norm via customs and courtesies. So I'll answer any questions. Okay. I'll turn to the sponsor's staff. How do you feel about this conceptual amendment?

Through the Chair to Chair Himschoot, staff to Representative Jimmy Rachel Gunn, that would be a friendly amendment and I apologize. I'll chalk it up to staff sleep deprivation at this late stage in session and it would be a welcome amendment. Okay. Is there any other objection to the amendment? Seeing none, I will remove my objection and Conceptual Amendment Number 1 is adopted.

Thank you for that, Representative St. Clair. So that brings us to the main resolution. Are there questions or discussion? All right. I think we'll start with Representative Nelson and then Representative St. Clair.

Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. On just the process of this, when they vote to move the community, do they vote on where they want to move to? Because my question boils down to, if they want to move to state ground, and I don't know what the makeup is of their— like, let's just, let's get it done, or something like that. But if it's a federal deal, I've discussed this a little bit, but I would like to understand that process. They vote to move, Do they have a specific area they want to move to, these, these communities?

And yeah, that's— yeah. So, so there's concern around do we need to do some sort of a land swap or whatever? Like, what is the latitude? I want to do it as fast as possible. Yeah, 100%.

Okay. Ms. Kwanna, through the chair, Rachel Gund to Representative Nelson. Yes, you've touched on the most difficult part of the question out in Southwest Alaska, there's a mosaic of land ownership between federal, state, tribally owned land, and they— there have been village sites identified near Chefornik and near Kongiliak. And the ball's kind of in our court as to how— what land swaps are needed. This resolution is saying they want to move somewhere safe, and how that happens, I'd say the ball's in our court between our congressional delegation and the state.

Unfortunately, the state's not ever been able to fund a move. The most easy move that we could reference would have been the Nuu-Tok to Muktevik move, which took over 25 years and a lot of hiccups, a lot of lessons learned there. It's, it's for us to meet and decide. I say us, you the representatives and the congressional delegation, to see how we can shake loose an agreement that works for everyone. And this is kind of acknowledging that next step.

Okay, Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Miss Gunn, it is my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that these sites were, uh, most of the village sites were positioned, they were there, whatever, and Bureau of Indian Affairs came in and said, okay, this is, this is your area. That, that's my understanding. Based on that Bureau of Indian Affairs, have they?

I don't know if I saw them included in here.

Yep, they are. Indian Affairs.

Senator Murkowski, what this seems like, a village to federal government, and I understand why the state needs to be in there. I'm just trying to find out what was the genesis of where did this resolution come? I understand the need for it, but I just want to know what the genesis, where did it come from? Ms. Gunn. Koyaanisqoyaanis, Representative St. Clair.

This resolution, you're right, the village to federal government, but we have an important— my representative's area is 24,000 square miles. It's a very large district. She's the link between the tribes and the municipalities and the federal government. We were out last week in Bethel for the Senate Indian Affairs hearing. We've been a part of the storm response since day one.

Representative Jimmy stood up the shelter. She went through the storm herself. She stood up the shelters at the Alaska Airlines Center, at the Egan Center. She's been ground level with those displaced by the storm. So she's here as an elected official to elevate the voices of her family members and her neighbors.

Where we come in is where the mid-level state government link. We're here to elevate the voices of our community members.

Follow up? Thank you, Miss Gunn. And So more of an intermediary than, than, um, just passing information. I, I, I understand. Thank you.

Additional questions from the committee? Representative Holland. Great, thank you. Through the chair, um, I wanted to ask about item number 4 on the resolved section. So this is page 2, line 11.

As I read through the resolved section, the primary call that I see for federal funding shows up, I think, in this section. However, it seems to be focused in on funding for community relocation on an emergency basis and to oppose the federal actions to cancel or delay the disaster relief. And that all sounds appropriate. What I didn't see, but I'm just curious if you could clarify maybe if I'm missing it or how you view this. So I'm not seeing the call here for the federal funding for the relocation efforts.

Um, thank you. Through the chair to Representative Holland. So an item for to restore and expand federal funding for community relocation on an emergency basis. I would say hopefully your query One of the biggest communication disconnects that we've had throughout this process is it must be very traumatic and confusing to be a community member affected, displaced by the storm, when some of our state organizations under federal authority, under the Stafford Act, have been working in our communities that the residents view as inhabitable. So FEMA, primarily under Stafford Act, has authority to spend federal funds, and we've got a 25% cost share under the current agreement there, to build these communities back in place.

Unfortunately, under the Stafford Act, that doesn't cover relocation. Currently, there is no federal framework, or there's no measure, bill, act to relocate storm-affected communities or emergency-affected communities. Um, the Stafford Act allows federal authority— there's a plan in place when something happens, you can build back better, but you can't build back elsewhere. So I would hope that number 4 would cover the need for, for this. We didn't call for it specifically in the resolution because we wanted to focus on elevating the voices of those tribal leaders and community members that have told us that it's time to move and they want to be somewhere safe.

This resolution could certainly be expanded greatly to cover more needs, but We'd hope that it's doing just the bare minimum to get things going as quickly as possible. And sometimes the more you write, the more prescriptive it becomes. If you can leave it a little more general—. Follow-up? Follow-up?

Yeah, I— that helps me kind of understand a little bit more of the framing of this one, and it makes some sense. I was expecting to see some language that might have spoken a little more directly to the need for long-term funding. This, I think, properly puts the context into this relocation funding support within the context of the emergency. But once the emergency is done and we are not on that basis anymore, then I am— I was thinking that this may be needed to bring voice to the longer-term funding need also, and I don't see that longer-term funding call for action in the resolution, just the emergency basis. So I think this call to action in a resolution makes sense, but I just would observe that there's a longer term.

But I think that's part of what you're saying, is this is a first step, not the whole journey. Kwena, and through the Chair, Chair Representative Holland, you're absolutely right. This is going to be decades in the making. And I will say that the relocation let's call it emergency relocation of Nutok to Muktevik is 25 years in the making. It's still not ironed out.

A decade of the brunt of the relocation there and many lessons learned. So if we're calling for the emergency relocation, that process certainly isn't a one-step process. That will be decades. In fact, this isn't broken down here, but the tribal leader, Raina Paul from Kipnuk, has said an interim village— I recognize is the need for an interim village. So this isn't prescriptive in whether this would be a long-term permanent move.

Again, there's no federal framework for legislation that would facilitate that. But an interim village where folks can be together and retain the souls of the two communities most severely affected out of the 50 communities impacted. These moves are not short one-step processes. Thank you. Other discussion?

Representative Prox. Yes, through the chair. Which I'm guessing that it's Department of Military and Veteran Affairs. Is that the correct state agency to be talking to? Ms. Gunn.

Kwana, through the chair, to Representative Prox. Yes, Director Brian Fisher has been overseeing this operation since the storm hit in coordination with other state agencies, but DMVA has taken the lead on this. Also involved Department of Transportation as they have contract authority, Department of Environmental Conservation, has been doing testing across the villages affected. But lots of interagency coordination, but you're absolutely correct, DMVA is at the helm.

Follow-up?

Well, I guess it's kind of late in the session, but would it be worthwhile to invite them in for a hearing to get it direct update of where they're at. I think, um, we, we did have a joint committee hearing early in the session. I agree it is late in the session, but these villages were mass relocated, dispersed in urban areas, and have only recently decided what they want to do. So I mean, we could try to pull a hearing together, or you could probably reach out individually.

Given— I'm going to call it the shambles of the end of session. It's organized shambles, but as we go through the next few days, I don't know that we could pull something together that we could actually commit to the people we invite in. So, but, you know, if you are able to make contact, I wouldn't mind an update myself. But I know that this has been an ongoing process apart from what happens in this building. There's a lot still going on out there.

Rep. Prox. What I'm thinking, I don't even know— comes right down to it— if this is the correct committee. And, you know, in bureaucracy, the first 10 years is figuring out who you're supposed to talk to.

Through the chair to Representative Prox, there will be a hearing Senator Hoffman is carrying the same resolution on the Senate side, so there will be a Senate Finance hearing very shortly on the same resolution. And it was requested by our federal delegation that this resolution would be helpful. Okay. And then just similar hearing, there was or has been multiple discussions on the floor about needing a bill. And I've heard that some sort of bill is in the works.

Does anybody else know anything about a bill for the funding— continued funding, I guess, of the response? Through the chair to Representative Prox, I believe what you're discussing is a bill or resolution to extend the disaster, which would be state-federal funding cost share for rebuilding. This resolution deals with a separate issue. This is just recognizing the tribal leaders moving. Moving a village affected by any emergency is not covered under the Stafford Act, so the funding that we're speaking of in the bill or resolution that extends disaster would be a separate issue.

Okay. Follow-up? Well, yeah. Just a comment, I'm anticipating that this is going to cost hundreds of millions.

Minimum, and then figuring out the funding, federal share versus state share. I don't know that that is decided in statute somewhere. Is that the problem? Ms. Dunn? Through the chair to Representative Prox, you're absolutely right, and we're looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.

The state has never been able to the state has not chosen to do something of this endeavor in all of the move— let's use the move from Utaktuk to Muktivik. That was— cost over— well over $100 million, and that was federally funded through BIA, FEMA, Denali Commission, HUD, Department of Education, USACE. So the appetite in the state legislature for funding this kind of move or the revenue needed hasn't been there in the past. And we do anticipate these storms are the new normal. We're going to see more of these.

And in this, we're not asking the federal government to, to pay for anything yet, but we've got to move forward. And like I said, the ball is in the court of the elected officials, whether that be federal or state. But the people have spoken. Once again, something that we struggle with in this building is prevention. We respond to things and we don't prevent.

And it's, it's hard to invest in things where you're not absolutely sure it's needed. When you're responding, you're absolutely sure it's needed.

And so the move for MECTEC, it was done in stages with bits and pieces of funding. And I like how you said that with lots of lessons learned. Co-chair Mears, you wanted to add something? Thank you, Co-chair Himchew. To Representative Prox, I think community and regional affairs is absolutely appropriate, but there are plenty of other committees that have touch with this work.

The brunt of impacts will be felt by our rural Alaska Native communities by geography, by that, which is why we had our initial hearing with, with Tribal Affairs, because that's where those impacts are being felt the greatest. Transportation, resources. There's plenty of other committees that have pieces of this, but I think that ability to look a little bit more about our communities— we're not talking about infrastructure, we're talking about our communities. This is a spot. We also have the ability as a standing committee to have a little bit more, you know, towards the session.

We've got more tools available to us. This is— this resolution came from the committee as a standing committee. Our special committees don't have that opportunity. So I think it's a privilege that we get to do this work, and it is a long time. I also want to point out we are not leading we are supporting.

Follow-up, Rep. Prox? I get that, but this isn't a new event. This is a second event, and, um, what do they call that? Incident command system. Figuring out the structure of who makes the decisions and how to talk from the bottom to the top and in between.

But that should be recorded and written down so really everybody in the legislature has some idea of what everybody else is talking about.

Not to criticize, it's difficult to handle these, but I recall the boat hitting the rock in— was that '89? Now I forgot the date. '92, '93. 80, 90. And, um, the response was tested and the response plan was found lacking and nobody could take charge.

And then the weather decided what to do next.

And we're sort of in the same position to get something done. And I don't know, just need to figure that out so that we can get stuff expedited a little bit for this. I don't have any trouble with the resolution. We'll just get that done. That's what they're asking for.

Okay. And I just want to point out on page 2, line 8, urges the governor to develop a clear community-centered relocation framework with a reliable timeline, dedicated state appropriations, interagency coordination. That's kind of getting ahead of it a little bit. We need to take a really— if you can hold that for a second— really brief at ease.

We're back on the record. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Madam Co-Chair. I'll be very brief. I think the money obviously is going to be the hard thing.

And as we talked, there's a patchwork of different property ownerships, and it sounds like there's going to be other committees that are held in the other body. And I don't know if, if the elders in the communities— it sounds like maybe they're looking, but like, if they have a piece that they want to move to, I think that'd be great to know, because if it— like, if the property's locked down, it seems like you know, the other pieces would fall in place. That's my opinion, but it would be nice to know. I'm in support of the amendment because the money's going to be a drawn-out thing, but I'd like to know the property because if it's something that we as the state control, then that makes it way easier as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, so we can wait.

That's my last comment. Yeah, we have—. Yeah. Okay, seeing no further discussion, I'm going to open public testimony on HJR 46, and I'm looking online and seeing no public testimony there. Would anyone in the room like to testify?

Seeing no public testimony, we will close public testimony.

Okay, um, is there any additional discussion? Otherwise, I'm going to look to Co-Chair Mears. For a motion. I move HJR 46 work draft version 34-LS1715/n as amended out of committee with the attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. And are there any objections?

Okay. I just want to express my gratitude to the committee for being willing to work on this today and still giving it a deep enough look that we did find some things to change, but getting this on its path. I think we're all happy for that. So seeing no objection, HJR 46 work draft version 34-LS1715-N as amended moves from committee with the attached zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. I give legislative legal authorization to make any necessary technical or conforming changes.

So, Kleiner-Czek, Thank you for presenting this morning. Thanks for bringing this to us. And, oh, okay, that is going to conclude our business this morning. Don't know if this is our last one or not. We still have a few days, but I have really appreciated you guys.

If this is the last one, it's been great working with everyone. And we will let you know if we schedule anything. And I probably need to get a cell phone number here and there, because if we're on the floor until 11, I don't check my email. Emails that late, and so I want to be able to reach folks to let you know if we do have a meeting. So thanks for everybody's work.

Seeing no further business before the committee, this meeting is adjourned at 9:33.