SFLR-20260516-1300

Will the Senate please come to order, and will members please signify your presence by voting.

The roll shows 18 members present. Senator Steadman is excused from a call of the Senate today. Thank you. We have 18 members shown as present, so we have a quorum to conduct business. The invocation this morning will be given by the Reverend Kristi McGuire, Conference Superintendent for the United Methodist Churches in Alaska.

Members, please rise.

Good afternoon.

I invite you, as you are comfortable, into a posture of prayer or reflection.

For a moment, imagine the mountains that surround surround and hold this Capitol building in their care. The peaks visible from windows within the building and from the front steps. The Tlingit names for these mountains tell stories about what they look like, what they offer, and how people have related to them across generations. To the southeast stands Wooshkinadee'i. Mt.

Roberts, meaning trails going up together. May we remember that no one walks alone and that the work of governance is shared work.

Now turned westward, physically or in your mind, toward Sayeh, Mt. Bradley or Mt. Jumbo, meaning spirit helper. May wisdom, courage, and compassion guide every conversation held in this chamber. Moving north, envision Klok Sétan Dzun, Heinzelman Ridge, or Thunder Mountain, meaning hands at rest.

May there be moments of stillness amid difficult decisions. And space to listen before speaking.

And now return your attention to this place gathered beneath Yeda'a K'ale, meaning beautifully adorned face.

May we see the dignity and beauty in one another and in the people and communities represented here today.

With deep respect for the religious beliefs and traditions of all Alaskans, I offer this prayer.

Holy One, we give thanks for this day, a day we have never seen before. Be present with these senators as they carry the responsibilities entrusted to them by the people of Alaska. Grant them patience in debate, humility in leadership, and wisdom in discernment. Invite them to listen deeply, to seek the good even when the path forward is unclear. Remind them to serve not for personal legacy, but for the well-being of communities across this state.

Remind them that many of the decisions made here today will bear fruit in generations they may never meet. May their work be grounded in hope for the future care for one another, and love for this remarkable place and its people. Amen. Amen. Thank you, Reverend McGuire.

So there, Gisa, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Senator Giesel. Will the Secretary please certify the journal? I certify as to the correctness of the journal for the 116th legislative day. Thank you, Madam Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the journal be approved as certified by the Senate Secretary.

Hearing no objection, the journal has been approved. Senator Hoffman. Good morning, Mr. President. I move and ask unanimous consent that the prayer be spread on the journal. Thank you, Senator Hoffman.

Seeing no objection, the prayer has been spread upon the journal. Senator Cronk. Thank you, Mr. President. I move and ask unanimous consent that Senator Yunt be excused from the call of the Senate today. Without objection, so ordered.

Are there guests for introduction? Senator Cronk. Thank you, Mr. President. I have a guest in the Ziegler Gallery. He's the oldest child of my staffer Dave Stanclyff.

Byron Stanclyff, could you please stand? Byron was born and raised in Alaska. He retired from the Air Force as a Lieutenant Colonel. Byron is a top-notch pilot and type-tested in 6 different aircraft. We are glad to have him here today with his dad.

Mr. President, as you know, several of our senior staff are retiring. Dave Stanclyff will be retiring this year also. He came to the legislature in 1981. His institutional knowledge has been invaluable. However, I'm pretty sure Dave would prefer to be remembered for his music over his politics.

Mr. President, please join me in welcoming Byron and Dave to the Senate today. Thank you, Senator Crocker. Are there further guests for introduction? Seeing none, Madam Secretary, are there messages from the Governor? I have no messages from the Governor this afternoon, Mr. President.

Thank you. Messages from the House. A message dated May 15th stating the House passed and returned CS for Senate Bill 187, Education, School Nutrition Meals, Prohibit Food Dyes. The bill has been referred for enrollment. Concur message dated May 15th stating the House passed CS for Senate Bill 143, Community and Regional Affairs, with the following amendment.

CS for Senate Bill Number 143, CRAW, amended House Municipal School Board Terms City Councils, and it is returned for consideration. Concur message dated May 15th stating the House passed Senate Bill Number 230 with the following amendment: House CS for Senate Bill Number 230, Resources, Jonesville Public Use Area, with title change HCR 16, and it is returned for consideration.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. This item, a concurrent message on Senate Bill 143, will lay on the Secretary's desk.

Welcome back, please. Madam Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Senate concur with the House amendments and recommend a vote— the Senate vote yes for Senate Bill number 230. Thank you. On Senate Bill 230, Senator Rauscher, would you please explain the changes?

Thank you, Mr. President. Good morning. So, um, as a brief wrap-up— I mean, I'm sorry, as a brief recap— SB 230 in Jonesville Public Use Area addresses a critical piece of land that was inadvertently omitted from the original legislation passed in 2018. Now, on the House side, in the House Resources Committee They worked with a member from the other body as well as I did. This was a— I guess it's across the aisle and across bodies we worked on this project together.

So what we came up with, there was some decisions on what amendments should go in and what amendments should not go in. What we came up with from the other body was that South mit— uh, the other body, uh, member from South Midtown, number 5, District 13, uh, incorporated several of his amendments in this bill. The amendments that were incorporated are a mix of critical habitat areas and wildlife state refuges that align with the intent of SB 230 because they are technically boundary fixes and address these areas that were omitted in error in prior legislation. These 8 critical habitat and wildlife state refuges are following, uh, in this order: Cape Newham State Refuge, Eisenbeck State Refuge, Palmer Hay Flats State Refuge, Port Moller Critical Habitat Area, Igigik Critical Habitat Area, Pilot Point Critical Habitat Area, Fox River Flats Critical Habitat Area, Ketchumac Bay Critical Habitat Area. The committee process also worked with Department of Fish and Game to ensure that the added boundary corrections were accurate.

To be clear, the added changes do not add or extend any land that has been recently acquired, nor does it make any policy changes. It simply corrects boundaries that were previously done in error, as well as the Jonesville bill which originated this, and I encourage the colleagues to vote yes. Thank you, Senator Rauscher. If you are ready for the question, the question being: Shall the Senate concur in the House amendment to Senate Bill 230? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 18 Yeas, 0 nays. And so by a vote of 18 yeas to 0 nays, the Senate has concurred in the House amendments to Senate Bill 230.

Madam Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the vote on concurrence be considered the vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. We also have a title change.

Madam Secretary? That brings the title change, HCR 16, before the Senate on final passage. Thank you.

If you are ready for the question, the question being, shall the title change to HCR 16 pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 18 Yeas, 0 nays. And so by a vote of 18 yeas, 0 nays, the title change resolution HCR 16 has passed the Senate.

I have no further messages from the House this afternoon, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Are there communications? I have no communications today. And are there reports of standing committees?

The Labor and Commerce Committee considered Senate Bill 268, Sick Leave Exemption Fish Processors, and recommended it be replaced with a Community and Regional Affairs Committee substitute. New fiscal note signing due pass. Senator Bjorkman, Chair, Senators Dunbar, Gray, Jackson, Yunt. Thank you. I'm adding a fiscal Finance referral to Senate Bill 268 because it has picked up a fiscal note.

Madam Secretary.

The Education Committee considered Senate Bill 278, Local Contributions by School Districts, and recommended it be replaced with an Education Committee substitute. New fiscal and zero fiscal notes. Signing do pass— signing no recommendation, Senator Tobin, Chair, Senators Keele, Stevens. Signing do pass. Senator Yunt.

The bill has a further referral to the Finance Committee. The Finance Committee considered House Bill 14, repeal catastrophic illness medical assistance, previous zero fiscal note. Signing do pass: Senator Hoffman, co-chair, Senators Cronk, Merrick. Signing no recommendation: Senator Olson, co-chair, Senators Kaufman, Keele. The bill has no further referral.

It is in the Rules Committee. The Finance Committee considered CS for House Bill 23, Labor and Commerce, applicability of Human Rights Commission and recommended it be replaced with a Finance Senate Committee substitute, new title with SCR 32. New fiscal note, signing do pass, Senators Olson, Hoffman, co-chairs Senator Keele. Signing no recommendation, Senators Kaufman, Cronk, Merrick. The bill has no further referral.

It is in the Rules Committee. The Labor and Commerce Committee considered CS for House Bill 225, Labor and Commerce amended, disposable food serviceware. And recommended to be replaced with the Labor and Commerce Senate Committee substitute. Previous zero fiscal note. Signing no recommendation, Senator Bjorkman.

Chair, Senator Yunt. Signing do pass, Senators Dunbar, Gray, Jackson. The bill has no further referral. It is in the Rules Committee. The Finance Committee considered CS for House Bill 52, HESS amended, minors and psychiatric hospitals, and recommended to be replaced with a Finance Senate Committee substitute.

Previous fiscal and zero fiscal notes. Signing do pass: Senator Hoffman, co-chair, Senator Merrick. Signing no recommendation: Senator Olson, co-chair, Senators Kaufman, Cronk, Keele. The bill has no further referral. It is in the Rules Committee.

The Resources Committee considered House Bill 79, naming Vic Fisher Shoop Bay Marine Park, and recommended it be replaced with a Resources Senate Committee substitute, new title with SCO. SR 30. New zero fiscal notes, signing do pass, Senator Giesel, chair, Senators Dunbar, Kawasaki, Wilkowski. Signing no recommendation, Senators Myers, Rauscher. The bill has no further referral.

It is in the Rules Committee. The Finance Committee considered CS for House Bill 96, Labor and Commerce amended, Home Care Employment Standards Advisory Board. Previous fiscal note, signing do pass, Senators Olson, Hoffman, co-chairs, Senator Cronk. Signing a recommendation, Senators Kaufman, Merrick, Kiel. The bill has no further referral.

It is in the Rules Committee. The Labor and Commerce Committee considered CS for House Bill number 363, Military and Veterans Affairs Alcohol Patriotic Organizations Club Licenses. Previous zero fiscal note. Signing do pass, Senator Bjorkman, Chair, Senators Dunbar, Gray Jackson, Yunt. The bill has no further referral.

It is in the Rules Committee. The Education Committee considered House Joint Resolution 28, Support Kids Online Safety Act, previous zero fiscal note, signing no recommendations, Senator Tobin, Chair, Senators Keele, Stevens. Signing do pass, Senator Yunt. The resolution has no further referral. It is in the Rules Committee.

Those are all the standing committee reports this afternoon, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Secretary. Are there reports of special committees? I have no special committee reports at this time. 5.

Thank you. Are there Senate resolutions for introduction? Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 30 by the Senate Resources Committee, suspending Rules 24C, 35, 41B, and 42E, Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning House Bill Number 79, naming the Vic Fisher Shoup Bay State Marine Park. Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 30 will lay on the Secretary's desk. Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 31 by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee suspending Rules 24C, 35, 41B, and 42E, Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature, concerning House Bill number 93, changing the residency requirements for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing privileges.

Senate Concurrent Resolution number 31 will lay on the Secretary's desk. Senate Concurrent Resolution number 32 by the Senate Finance Committee suspending Rules 24C, 35, 41B, and 42E, Uniform Rules of the Alaska State Legislature concerning House Bill Number 23, renaming the State Commission for Human Rights, the Alaska State Commission for Civil Rights, relating to removal of commissioners of the Alaska State Commission for Civil Rights, relating to reports from the Alaska State Commission for Civil Rights, relating to the definition of employer for the purposes of the Alaska State Commission for Civil Rights, and relating to local civil rights commissions. Senate Concurrent Resolution Number 32 will also lay on the Secretary's desk. I have no further resolutions for introduction this afternoon, Mr. President. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

Are there Senate bills for introduction? I have no Senate bills for introduction today. Thank you. Then let's move on to the first item on today's calendar. Madam Secretary.

See as for House Bill number 133, Finance, amended by the House Finance Committee, an act establishing deadlines for the payment of contracts under the State Procurement Code, establishing deadlines for the payment of grants, contracts, and reimbursement agreements to nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and Alaska Native organizations relating to reports from state agencies to the legislature detailing late payments made during 2026. Relating to the state financial transactions internet website and providing for an effective date. The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommended it be replaced with a Finance Senate Committee substitute. New fiscal and zero fiscal notes. Previous zero fiscal notes.

Signing do pass: Senators Olson, Hoffman, co-chairs. Signing no recommendation: Senator Steadman, co-chair. Senators Hoffman, Cronk, Merrick, Kiel. There's a Finance Senate Committee substitute. Thank you, Senator Hoffman.

Thank you, Mr. President. I move and ask unanimous consent that the Senate Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 133 be adopted in lieu of the original bill. Thank you, Senator Hoffman. Would you please explain the changes? Yes, uh, the bill changes exempts the division within the Department of Department of Military and Veterans Affairs responsible for Homeland Security and Emergency Management from the provisions of the bill.

Removes language that is not enforceable on non-state recipients. Fiscal note, the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs fiscal notes have been removed. No changes to other notes. Thank you, hearing no objection, the Senate Finance Committee substitute has been adopted. There is an Amendment Number 1 by Senator Keele on members' desks.

Thank you, Senator Keele. Thank you, Mr. President. I move Amendment Number 1.

Is there an objection?

Senator Keele, then, uh, would you please explain the amendment? Certainly, Mr. President. Um, Amendment Number 1 is just a technical cleanup amendment. Present in the bill, there's an unintended misalignment between when payments are due and when the interest under the bill starts to accrue. This cleans that up.

I've discussed it with the sponsor's office, and they are fine with the amendment. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Keele. Hearing no objection, amendment number 1 has been adopted.

I have no further amendments.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Brief at ease.

Please, uh, this bill will advance to third reading, uh, on tomorrow's session.

Madam Secretary, CS for House Bill number 214, State Affairs, by the House State Affairs Committee, an act relating to proof of financial responsibility for suspension of non-payment of judgments. The State Affairs Committee considered The bill signing do pass. Senator Kawasaki, Chair, Senators Bjorkman, Gray, Jackson, Tilton. I have no amendments. Thank you.

This bill will advance to third reading on our next legislative calendar. Madam Secretary, please, please read the next item on today's calendar.

CS for Senate Bill 250, Community and Regional Affairs, an act relating to data centers and relating to utility service for data centers, before the Senate in third reading on final passage. Thank you, Senator Tobin, to carry the bill. Thank you, Mr. President, and good afternoon here on this beautiful Saturday that we get to spend, hopefully, one last Saturday with you. Senate Bill 250 at its core is a bill about consumer protection. One of the things I believe we all enjoy here in the state of Alaska is new investment, innovation, and economic opportunity, and we will welcome data centers, of course, if they are done right.

There is a facility in Cordova, and I think it's a great example of a data center done well. It worked directly with the city of Cordova, and it is utilizing existing renewable energy generation and utilities and integrating a new important business within the community. Now, across the nation, we have seen data centers expand, and there is a rapid increase in hyperscale data center facilities. We know that here in Alaska, there was a recent newspaper about our military thinking about how they might build a hyperscale data center facility right in one of our largest cities, We know of another data center that has been proposed to be built in Amatsu. And of course, we all have heard about the data centers that may be built on the North Slope utilizing our excess natural gas.

Now, we know that data centers have the potential of bringing jobs, infrastructure development, technological growth. And unfortunately, we have seen what happens when data centers are built in communities and the consumers are left left unprotected. In Lower 48, there has been billions of dollars proposed for data centers that unfortunately have stalled or even been canceled. And that economic risk is creating incredible instability in that particular growing economy. So what Senate Bill 250 does is take a balanced approach.

It takes a fair approach. It takes a focus approach on consumer protection. What SB 250 does is it does not allow for cost shifting. It protects our reliability in our energy generation systems, and it requires data centers to work with communities to negotiate an agreement that works for both the community in which it would like to build its facility and, of course, for the local ratepayers. It requires utility contracts that most— that must fully account for all of the infrastructure costs that the data center itself will incur, and of course not pass those costs on to existing consumers.

The contracts cannot increase risk of inadequate fuel supplies, and of course it cannot impact that any public utility in the state to have access to fuel supplies. Now, before the project is approved and construction begins, the data center must have a community benefit agreement under SB 250, and that must outline its responsibilities to the community. It must account for excess waste heat that it might be able to use in recovery to help the local community. It must talk about local digital infrastructure and connectivity. And of course, it must have a water usage plan.

There was a recent story about a data center reducing the water tables in a community. And the community had no idea what was happening until a year later when they had low water pressure. We do not want Alaskans to experience that. SB 250 focuses specifically on the construction phase and also requires data centers to have a decommissioning and recycling plan when it reaches its natural end of its life. And that ensures that those resources brought into the community do not incur unintended consequences of filling up the community's landfill.

SB 250 is not anti-development. It's about smart development. This legislation sends a clear message that Alaska is open for business and we want to do it responsibly, predictably, and with stability. We encourage innovation. And of course, we want our communities to be able to protect their interests while also creating an economic climate that is vibrant.

I urge you to support Senate Bill 250. Thank you, Senator Tobin. Is there additional discussion? Seeing none, if you are ready for the question, the question being, shall CS for Senate Bill 250, Community and Regional Affairs, pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 13 Yeas. 5 Nays.

So by a vote of 13 yeas, 5 nays, CS for Senate Bill 250, Community and Regional Affairs, has passed the Senate.

Madam Secretary, please read the next item on today's calendar.

Senate CS for CS for House Bill 117, Resources, an act relating to electronic monitoring of fishing vessels using trawl gear in a fin fish fishery relating to administrative areas for regulation of certain commercial setnet entry permits and providing for an effective date before the Senate in third reading on final passage. Thank you. Senator Bjorkman to carry the bill. Thank you very much, Mr. President. House Bill 117 does two things.

One of them we already did. So it'll be super great. The first thing that the bill does is it enacts a new administrative area on the east side of Cook Inlet for setnet permits, so that those setnet permits on the east side of Cook Inlet can have their own self-determination and be managed uniquely with the number of permits that exist there, because that fishery is managed very uniquely, Mr. President. Also, what the bill does is it provides for mandatory electronic monitoring at the discretion of— let me just make sure I get this right, Mr. President— the commissioner. So the commissioner of Fish and Game can mandate that electronic monitoring will happen on in-state trawl vessels that fish for finfish.

So this does not apply to shrimps, it doesn't apply to other things that aren't fish that have fins.

What this means is that the trawl fishery will be under tighter regulation and that they will have more scrutiny as to the fish that they catch, as well as any bycatch will be recorded and captured by those cameras, Mr. Mr. President, this is what House Bill 117 does. I urge members to vote yes. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bjorn. When is the discussion?

Senator Cronk. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate this bill coming forward, and I really do appreciate the electronic monitoring of in-state trawl. That's finfish only. I think this, you know, resulted from some work that we had with the prior bills that may be a little bit controversial, but We do appreciate— appreciate the compromise of getting this in there.

I think, you know, every Alaskan wants to know what's going on out there, and this is a good step forward. So thank you. Thank you, Senator Cronk. Senator Likowski. Thank you, Mr. President.

There's been a lot of concern about trawling in Alaska, and I am very pleased that we were able to come together with a compromise, worked with all the stakeholders to add the electronic monitoring for the fishing vessels using trawl gear in fin fisheries. This is at the discretion of the Commissioner. This stems from an issue in state waters. The vast majority of trawling occurs in federal waters and we have no authority to do anything about that. But for the trawling that does occur in state waters, this will make a difference and this will allow us to monitor.

Right now there is no authority at all for the Board of Fish or the commissioner to require electronic monitoring. The ships that are using, that are doing the trawling under this bill already, they already have the electronic monitoring on board. They just need to flip the switch. But right now there's no legal authority for them to, for the commissioner to require that. This bill changes that.

I think it'll provide us with a lot of data, a lot of valuable data, and help ease Alaskans' concerns or, or maybe elevate future policy discussions about how we deal with the trawl fisheries. I'm very glad to support this bill, Mr. President. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bullockowski, for the discussion. It appears that all the speakers have agreed with you.

Senator Bjorkman, do you want to wrap up or are you fine? Okay. If you are ready for the question— the question being shall Senate CS for CS for House Bill 117 resources pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 19 Yeas, 0 nays. And so by a vote of 19 yeas and 0 nays, CS for— Senate CS for CS for House Bill 117 Resources has passed the Senate.

Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the vote on the bill be I think hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted.

That brings the title change, SCR 29, before the Senate on final passage. Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the title change resolution SCR 29 pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The Secretary will lock the roll. Do any Senators wish to change their vote? The Secretary will announce the vote. 19 Yeas, 0 nays. And so by a vote of 19 yeas and 0 nays, the title change resolution SCR 29 has passed the Senate.

Madam Secretary, please read the next item on today's calendar.

Senate CS for House Bill number 36 Finance An act relating to treatment foster homes, relating to the placement of foster children in hospitals and residential psychiatric treatment centers for psychiatric care, relating to the duties of the Department of Family and Community Services, relating to the care of children in state custody placed in psychiatric residential treatment facilities outside the state. Amending Rule 12.1, Alaska Child in Need of Aid Rules of Procedure and providing for an effective date before the Senate in third reading on final passage. Thank you. Senator Dunbar to carry the bill. Thank you, Mr. President.

I'm honored to carry this bill on behalf of the member from District 20 in the other body. HB 36 is an effort to address a difficult chapter in Alaska history and create a more just and accountable system for our foster youth. In February of 2024, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that waiting 30 days to assess whether a child should remain in psychiatric care was too long. In its opinion, the court stated, quote, there is no doubt the children in OCS custody are at substantial risk of being hospitalized for longer than they need, or when they do not need to be hospitalized at all. Clarifying the legal protections for a vulnerable population of children in state custody is of the utmost importance.

Mr. President, HB 36 is a direct response to that ruling. At its core, we are talking about here are foster youth who are being placed in a more restrictive environment than they need to be. For too long, these placements have occurred with insufficient oversight, limited recourse for the children involved, and inadequate advocacy on their behalf. House Bill 36 helps ensure meaningful due process protections for those in foster care. The bill does a few specific things.

First, it would require a judicial hearing within 7 days of a foster child's admission admission to an acute psychiatric hospital. Second, the bill mandates that the court appoint an attorney to represent a foster child who has been placed in a short-term psychiatric facility, which is current practice, but this bill would codify it. The bill also creates a new license type for treatment foster homes under the Department of Family and Community Services. While those services exist, Alaska is the only state without a defined program or licensure for treatment foster care. Finally, this bill requires that if a child remains in short-term psychiatric facility for an extended period, which should be an extraordinarily rare occurrence, that their case is reviewed every 30 days.

Mr. President, due process is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed to every person in Alaska— adults, children, especially the children in custody of the state. Alaska's history has shown that the state has not always sufficiently advocated for foster children admitted to short-term psychiatric facilities. HB 36 addresses these issues for foster youth by establishing safeguards against unnecessary placements and restoring the dignity and rights that all foster youth deserve. To my colleagues, I respectfully ask that you vote yes. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Dunbar. Is there further discussion? Senator Clayman. Thank you, Mr. President. I just wanted to rise and speak in very strong support for what we have in Senate or House Bill 36.

It went through a fairly extensive committee process, particularly looking at some of the really technical procedural issues that we wanted to have lined up appropriately so that the foster kids that are in psychiatric care are actually known about in their hearings and they aren't essentially lost in the system. I think this—. These provisions do that, so I strongly support the legislation and urge a yes vote. Thank you. Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Clayman. Is there further discussion? If you are ready for the question, question being, shall Senate CS for House Bill 36 Finance pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 19 Yeas, Nays. And so by a vote of 19 yeas and 0 nays, Senate CS for House Bill 36 Finance has passed the Senate.

Madam Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move that the vote on the bill be considered the vote on the court rule change. Thank you. Hearing no objection, the court rule change has been adopted. Madam Majority Leader.

Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the vote on the bill be considered I consider the vote on the effective date clause. Thank you. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. Madam Secretary. That brings the title change SCR-10 before the Senate on final passage.

Thank you. And if you are ready for the question, the question being, shall the title change resolution SCR-10 pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The Secretary will lock the roll. Do any Senators wish to change their vote? The Secretary will announce the vote. 19 Yeas, 0 nays. And so by a vote of 19 yeas and 0 nays, the title change resolution SCR-10 has been adopted.

Madam Secretary, please read the next item on today's calendar.

Senate CS for House Bill 93, Judiciary, an act changing the residency requirements for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing privileges and providing for an effective date before the Senate in third reading on final passage. There is an amendment on members' desks that will not be offered. Very well. We are in third reading. Senator Mr.

President, this bill updates our residency standards for those who wish to hunt, fish, and trap in Alaska as a resident. HB 93 will provide the same standards for our Fish and Game resources as we provide for the permanent fund dividend. Why is this bill needed? Well, the current standards for a resident license allow an individual with a domicile as simple as a rented room to claim residency in Alaska, even if they're only in Alaska for less than a month each year. Many of our Fish and Game resources cannot support unlimited harvest.

The legislature and boards of Fish and Game have taken actions to prioritize harvest for, for residents. This bill ensures that those who benefit are here most of the year. HB 93 helps make sure Alaskans who who are here volunteering, supporting local businesses year-round, shoveling snow, sending their kids to local schools, can continue to fill their freezers and feed their families with our Fish and Game resources.

The current definition of residency allows someone to spend very little time in state and still qualify for a resident license. It also complicates the investigation and execution of residency cases. The state has a compelling interest to protect the higher bag limits residents enjoy, as well as the reduced cost licenses and tags, by setting a clear enforceable standard for residency that prioritizes these resources for those who spend at least one half the year in the state. This legislation uses the court and time-tested standards of the permanent fund dividend to set enforceable law for residents and troopers to know if they qualify for the higher bag limits that Alaskans enjoy. With this bill, we are not creating a separate class of Alaskans, but instead asking Alaskans to choose to be in-state for half the year if they wish to hunt, fish, or sport— hunt, trap, or sport fish as a resident.

Here's how this bill would work. To qualify for resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license, an Alaskan must still maintain a domicile residency in the state for 12 months before getting a license and not hold residency in another state. With HB 93, you will also need to be physically present in the state for 12 consecutive months prior to obtaining a license, or absent as allowed under the permanent fund dividend standards. Unlike the dividend, this could be any 12 consecutive months prior to the time you purchase your license, not just January through December. This means to get a resident hunting, fishing, or trapping license, you will need to commit to being in the state 180 days during the 12 months before you purchase a resident license, or absent for an allowable reason if you are gone longer.

An allowable absence that currently applies for a dividend will also apply for a resident license. An Alaskan who's out of state serving in our military or going to school or who becomes a merchant mariner will still qualify as a resident. As exemptions are added to the dividend, they will also apply to fishing and hunting. This will not impact our state sportsmen who already enjoy Alaska's resources as a visitor. We continue to welcome them.

HB 93 will not change how you get your license. You will still self-certify that you meet the standards when you purchase your license. You will still be— also still be able to use your permanent identification card for hunting, trapping, and sport fishing as long as you meet the new standards. As Alaskans, we protect our Permanent Fund dividend as a privilege for sticking it out when winter is hard, and we should provide the same protection to our moose, salmon, deer, crab, and other fish and game that are so essential to families across the state. The impacts of our existing residency standards are felt statewide, and this legislation has been supported by a variety of organizations statewide, including the Alaska Board of Game, Fish and Fishing Game Advisory Committees in Anchorage, Sitka, Upper Tanana, Forty Mile, Ketchikan, Craig, East Prince of Wales, Minto, Nenana, Juneau, Juneau Douglas, Eagle, Wrangell, and Homer; and a host of organizations across the state, Mr. President, including the Alaska Federation of Natives, Tanana Chiefs Council, Alaska Regional Coalition, Alliance of Sovereign Tribes of Southeast Alaska, Delta Sportsman's Association, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes.

Residency is defined for 26 different purposes in Alaska statute, with different standards for everything from homesteading to qualifying for resident tuition. Folks who don't meet this, the enforceable standard in this legislation, can still vote in Alaska and they can still carry an Alaska driver's license. This bill would create an enforceable standard that provides clarity to sportsmen, law enforcement, and the courts, and protects fish and game resources for families in Alaska filling their freezers by aligning the standards of residency with court-tested qualifications to be eligible to receive the dividend. I urge your support. Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Senator Wilkowski. Under discussion, Senator Myers. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. President. So we often talk around here about how many jobs we have in this state where non-residents come up and work, whether it's a two-on-two-off on the slope or folks that come up work seasonally in tourism or fishing, something like that.

There's not a lot of talk around here about people that do the reverse, that live here in Alaska and end up working outside of the state for a significant period of time. And that's one of the groups of people that would be affected by this legislation, Mr. President. Not that long ago, I was one of those people that was working outside the state. In 2018, I could not find a trucking job in this state to save my life. Oil prices were down, oil industry is depressed, that meant that the trucking industry was depressed.

So about the middle of February of 2018, I ended up going out of state Washington State and working for a company based outside of Chicago, driving coast to coast for a few months. A little bit later on, I ended up starting to drive between Washington State and Alaska bringing up groceries. Did that for a few months until about the— near the end of August or so when I found an employer here, which is now my current employer.

At no time was I in any state long enough to attempt to claim residency there. My driver's license still said Alaska on it. That was always fun to hand to some of the people when I was delivering down in the States. Um, my house was here, my family was here, my wife and my kids. I was still paying my mortgage and my property taxes here.

I still voted here. I, I was still an Alaskan. There was no way that I could be considered a resident of any other place. The following year, I went to do my PFD application like the rest of us do, and I added up in those about 6 months the, the times that I was gone out of state, and I was out of state 89 days in those 6 months. Now, if I had been working in that situation for a year, I could have easily bumped over that 180-day mark that that was mentioned, that's in the statute.

And because of that, I would no longer be considered a resident under this legislation to hunt and fish in Alaska. Again, even though I would not be considered a resident of any other place.

I know that there's been some concerns brought up previously about pilots. You know, the transportation industry is going to be full of people that are in this situation, Mr. President, whether we're talking about pilots or trucking or anything else. You know, just the guys that haul groceries between here and Washington State, it's about a 7-day round trip, and about 5 of those days you're out of the state. So that can add up pretty quickly to the guys that are trying to keep us fed, and then we're not going to allow them to go out and hunt and fish to keep themselves and their families fed. So it's not the only— transportation industry isn't the only industry where this is going to be a concern.

I got an email a few days ago from a gentleman from Ketchikan who is a consultant for the U.S. Navy. His work takes him all over the world, and he said he is often gone for more than 180 days. Post-COVID, Mr. President, one of the ideas that was floating around here as we all figured out how remote work worked was that one thing that we could do to try to help our economy around here is, is focus on quality of life issues and trying to get people to live here but maybe work, either work remotely or commute to work. You know, the, as I said, kind of the reverse of what happens up on the slope with those two-on-two-off situations. And what this bill does is it removes a significant portion of one of those quality of life issues that that can help keep people here as we're trying to build our population and build our workforce that could potentially be moved to in-state jobs when those in-state jobs become available, Mr. President.

So for those reasons, I'm going to have to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Meyer. Senator Rauscher. Thank you, Mr. President.

So, Mr. President, I'm going to be a no. On the vote, but I want to thank all that worked very hard on this bill and debated over it. For years we've worked on this bill here, committee after committee, so it's a lot of work has been done. But I'm going to speak in favor of those who believe that this bill is not needed and it will only add the confusion for hunters, and the permanent fund division will have a little bit of angst and the legislators from this point on if the bill passes. So, Mr. President, this bill— those that believe it's not needed, I'd like to read from the Fish and Game Code of Definitions, page 53, Notes to Decisions, Permission to Read.

Mr. Speaker, without objection, so ordered. Thank you. So it says, determination of residency. It says, number 1, is physically present in the state with the intent to remain in the state indefinitely and to make a home in the state; has maintained— number 2— has maintained the person's domicile in the state for 12 consecutive months immediately preceding the application for the license; number 3— is not claiming residency in another state, territory, or country; number 4— is not obtaining benefits under a claim of residency in any other state, territory, or country, and, uh, establishes, uh, claims of residency in other state or country is not allowed. So the, uh, the suggestion that this will make it easier for wildlife troopers to identify the offenders if we align it with the PFD may be somewhat true, but it will also cause some more problems for the honest residents, the Permanent Fund Department.

And so we're going to talk about that. 74,000 People did not apply for the PFD last year. 85,000 Did not apply for the PFD last year. And there are many reasons why people don't apply for the PFD. Some feel they are making too much money and they should not have to apply for a $1,000, $1,500, $1,200, $1,100 PFD.

Some believe that more government— more money should go to government, that they could spend it better. Some people believe that it should go to education. There are a lot of reasons why people don't want to sign up for PFD. PFD is not really a constitutional right to get X amount of dollars, but hunting in this state is definitely part of the constitutional right to share in those. So I get at least a dozen letters as a representative, and I know I said representative because for the past 9 years I was a representative and not a senator.

So I got dozens of letters every year, people who are waiting for a determination on their PFD because something was left out, they didn't include the right amount of this, that or the other. I have one of my staff call, write letters, find out what's going on with it. There's— we look into it, we find out there's some amazing things about our permanent fund dividend process. Okay, uh, 46,000 applicants last year alone were not granted a PFD. 46,464 Weren't granted a PFD.

Why? Well, because some of the information, or all, or whatever, was not aligning with the PFD process. But they have to go through that many times too, just to get to those that are not going to be able to get a PFD. So you're going to be in this line waiting now if you're one of the 85,000 that wants a hunting license, and now you have to apply for a PFD because that isn't your norm. So, um, so the people that call me are basically the desperate ones.

They need their PFD, they need their, their wood stamps, they need whatever it is that, that they're entitled to every year because they're coming on hard times. I don't hear from the ones who have kind of given up and they just throw the paper away, or they miss the email, or they missed the mail in the, in the garbage saying that they need more information. But those 85,000, if they want to hunt this year, part of them— and I know there'll be a large part that are now going to want to sign up for a PFD because this is how we're aligning the hunting permit— are gonna have to go through the rigors of proving that residents— that they're now residents to the state. And if you first start up when you haven't That's a long, arduous process for those that have tried to do it. So airline pilots who work out of town, like hundreds of the pilots and, uh, the, their pilot crew, uh, have written my office, whether they're cargo or passengers, saying that they're afraid that their rights will be taken away under this program because they may be out for 180 days or more.

So Construction workers and consultants like Ron Arvid of Wasilla will not be able to hunt because he spends a lot of time. But these folks have spouses, they have homes, they pay property taxes, they have home insurance, they buy everything for their families here in Alaska because their families live here. They raise their kids, they buy their sports gear here, their kids attend school They buy clothes for their kids. Their wives attend— or their husbands— their spouses attend PTA meetings. They work to better their community.

They're involved in their communities. They have projects that are outreach. They get involved in those. Their spouses may be teachers in Alaska. They don't leave the state, but their husband's out working or their wife is out working in another state.

Because a large amount of money they receive while they're working out of state gets spent right here inside the state of Alaska. They're contributing to the economy. They're contributing to a better life.

And they still vote here. So how do we reward them? We're going to take away their constitutional hunting privileges because they're not in-state. For 180 days or more, and we're going to tell them that they're now non-residents, and we're going to reward them with having to get maybe a $20,000 or $30,000 guided hunt, which you or I could do for the price of the permit. They're going to pay thousands for hunting licenses just to get those licenses that aren't included in guided hunts.

We need to find a better way than this to solve the problem, which is in the Southeast from what I've heard of most of the groups that were listed here. We're constantly throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, sir, and the only thing I'm hoping is that we aren't making that mistake here again. Thank you, Mr. President, for your time, and I urge a no vote. Thank you, Senator Rauscher. Is there further discussion?

Senator Bjorkman.

Thank you, Mr. President. This is a really hard vote for me. I carried this legislation, this, this very legislation last legislature, and I learned a lot about this issue and how it impacts people. Um, July 29th, 2009, I moved to Alaska and the year-long clock started ticking for me, and I couldn't wait till I got a resident license. Super important.

So what's, what's the— like, what's at stake here? The Senator from Sutton talked about it, but the benefit and the problem that this, this bill will solve if it becomes law is a very clear delineation to something that we do not have a good definition for currently. The current law is a problem, and it's a big one. The choice now that we have is, do we fix the problem with this solution and essentially create a catalyst that will drive further change to kind of fix the, on the, the current permanently unmitigated damage caused by this bill. We'll talk about that in a minute.

The problem of enforcement is clear because residency is simply an identity. It's one of feelings. It's an emotion in our current law. It's that simple. You can, you can move here with the intent to remain, kind of set up shop, move some stuff in and say, Mr. President, I feel like an Alaskan today.

You then can leave Alaska, and as long as you claim no other residency benefits in another state and you feel Alaskan—. You can feel it—. By our laws currently, after a year goes by and you haven't claimed residency in another state, You're it, you're in. You can dip net on the Kenai River, you can dip net on the Copper, you can shoot yourself a brown bear and a Dall sheep. You could do all the things that an Alaskan can do even though you, you hardly spent any time in the state.

That's our current, like, definition. It's not great. Fish and Game, when they go out and investigate violations and potential violations for people that have wrongfully claimed residency, it is very hard for them. It is very hard for them to establish proof and cause to go out and say, you are actually not a resident, you haven't met the standard, and so now you are guilty of a false claim of residency. That's the problem.

It's not imaginary. It's, it's an issue.

The converse that we're weighing here is, does this allocation issue that— and our ability to defend our resident bag limits, our resident opportunities to buy over-the-counter permits for the price of just our base hunting license for moose, for Dall sheep, for brown bear, black bear.

Is that worth then defending that system in an enforceable way, disenfranchising people from resident benefits that are actually Alaskans? People would recognize them as Alaskans. They have work, they have jobs that take them out of state.

That's the choice we're making. And so as the biggest then cost to people and why I was very interested in running the Flight Crew Amendment, which would, would have broken the bill today, which is why you don't see it before you, is to defend people's ability to hunt sheep and hunt brown bears, but their work takes them out of state.

It's a very small group of people, but that small group of people, they exist. Some of them happen to be my friends.

So then the choice is, do I tell those people You can't hunt a Dall sheep and you can't hunt a brown bear because it's going to cost you $30,000 or $40,000 because we passed this law.

That's hard. Do we solve this problem? We have it. We have an event here that if this bill becomes law, we will take up and we likely should anyway. We should make a system like other states have in Montana, where you have a Come Home to Hunt system, or you have a different level of access to Fish and Game resources because you have a connection to this state.

You were born here, you may be— you may have lived here and then have gone to college. There are other programs like that, the Home to Hunt, or whatever you want to call them. Those things are available.

Those are the, the main policy choices in this bill, and those are the things that I'm wrestling with. Our connection as Alaskans to Fish and Game resources is one that is special, and it's one that I think about a lot because I'm out there. And I'd like— this time of year especially, being able to sit in a tree as the leaves come out and you can watch pine marten climb on the trunk of the tree and lick the sweet stuff that you put out for the bears. You watch bears come by, watch moose walk by.

Sometimes you see a moose run by and then a bear chases the moose and you shoot the bear. It's fun.

Those opportunities under this bill would still be available to people that are impacted, but it wouldn't be the same.

Could have serious consequences. A person who would lose their residency status under this bill, they could kill a moose.

I like to eat moose, many of us like to eat moose, but brown bears really like to eat moose. And so situation could happen where a brown bear could come upon a kill, and non-resident would not be legally allowed to shoot the brown bear to defend his moose.

Resident can, you shoot the bear, bear season's open, shoot the bear.

So that's a That's a policy choice, and it's really not an easy vote for me. Um, the bill becomes law, we can definitely fix the currently unmitigated harm that the bill will cause. If it doesn't, we need to fix it anyway, and it has to be some serious discussion. It has to be a serious discussion about how do we allocate Fish and Game resources currently. I would argue, and many people would too, that it is too easy for a non-resident to get a moose tag in this state.

And we ship moose racks out by the thousands every September. And people like make lots of money simply transporting moose racks. And they fill up warehouses across the Midwest from people that come here on hunts and they love hunting. That's great. That's an excellent opportunity.

But how do we preserve opportunity for folks who actually live here, their families are here, and then we still allow that type of activity to happen? You can point to rivers across Alaska where there's too many people on the river and the hunting experience is not enjoyable. What I'm trying to impress on folks is there are lots of issues around residency and access to our fish and game resources that we need to fix.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bjorkman. Senator Cronk. Thank you, Mr. President. Yeah, that was like the former speaker said, this is also a tough vote for me.

Um, I've had lots of phone calls and lots of discussions over this, but, um, like the senator from District K said a lot of those groups he named are literally groups from my Senate district that they're, they're impacted. Some of them are— they fly people out for hunts and they're seeing the impact. And I think that's the, the key right here, is our resources are getting tighter and tighter. Social media has certainly not helped Alaska. It's actually brought a lot more people here to hunt and fish.

That could be good, it could be good for revenue, but especially when you're out in rural Alaska. I can tell you right now that we have a boat launch there that you literally cannot park in where I live when it comes fall season, and that's resident and non-resident hunters at the same time. So we do have issues, we do need to take care of these, and, and I'm reluctantly going to support this bill because of that, but I'm going to listen to a majority of my constituents that are asking for something like this. Do we need to work? We need further work like the former speaker said, but right now we need something.

So thank you. Thank you, Senator Krauch. Is there further discussion?

Senator Wilkowski, in wrap-up. Thank you, Mr. President. Just to clear up a few things. To be clear, if an individual for whatever reason is not eligible for a permanent fund dividend, they can still hunt and fish. They, they just might not be able to do it as a resident.

Uh, as you've heard, we have limited fish and game in this state. I wish we had an unlimited amount, but we don't. Uh, and if you're working in Washington State or Chicago, you can— you have the luxury of being able to go to a grocery store and buy your beef or buy your chicken or buy your pork, whatever you want. But many in Alaska don't have that same luxury. And they rely on our Fish and Game to feed their families all year long.

The speaker from North Pole mentioned he was gone for 89 days in 6 months. He'd still be eligible under this bill. Because you can be gone 180 days. In fact, he could have gone 89 days in 6 months, another 89 days in the next 6 months, he'd still be eligible. Under this bill you can be gone for half the year and still be eligible.

Some would say that's still too expansive. This is a, this is a pretty lenient standard, Mr. President. We're not asking a lot of people. We're saying invest in our state, be, stay in our state. If you have an excusable absence, we heard, we heard someone, another speaker concerned about someone who was in the Navy.

Well, if you're in the military, you're exactly, you're, that's an excusable absence. You could be gone in the military for 11 months. You're still a resident of Alaska. You are not taken off the rolls. Um, the, uh, I, I guess I would just close by saying, you know, imagine, imagine you sign up for the right to hunt, go out and hunt moose.

Uh, your family needs it. You can't go to the store and get it in a lot of places in Alaska. And, and imagine if you lost out on that right to hunt the moose, hunt a moose, because someone who doesn't live in the state, who lives in the state, maybe a few weeks out of the year, has a summer home here, comes up in the fall to go hunt moose, you lose out to them. They don't need it like the person who's living here all year round needs it, particularly the ones in rural Alaska. Or imagine you go to the Kenai River and you want to go dipnet and you see people boasting, you see people shipping boxloads of fish outside.

They don't— they maybe have a summer home here. They come up for a couple weeks and they harvest dozens of fish. And I'll tell you what, my constituents in a lower income district, they don't have summer homes outside. They're living in the state, they're working in the state, they're doing whatever they can to get by. They need access to the resource.

And I know people in rural Alaska do. And I know it's a tough debate, but I think it's a decision that we have to make to create a clear, enforceable standard. So I urge the body's support. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Wolekowski.

If you are ready for the question. The question being, shall Senate CS for House Bill 93 Judiciary pass the Senate? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 13 Yeas. 6 Nays.

And so by a vote of 13 yeas and 6 nays, Senate CS for House Bill 93, Judiciary, has passed the Senate. Madam Majority Leader. Mr. President, I move the effective date clause. Thank you. If you are ready for the question, the question being, shall the effective date be adopted?

Senators may proceed to vote.

The Secretary will lock the roll. Do any Senators wish to change their vote? The Secretary will announce the vote. 17 Yeas, 2 nays. And so by a vote of 17 yeas and 2 nays, the effective date has been adopted.

Madam Secretary. There are no further items to consider on today's daily calendar. Thank you. Brief at ease.

Will the Senate come back to order, please? Under unfinished business, Senator Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. President. I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Bill 287, Alaska Native Languages Academic Task Force, be waived from the Senate Finance Committee and advance to the next Committee of Referral. The legislation authorizes task force to accept appropriations from the legislature, which could result in an indeterminate fiscal note for FY 2027 and FY 2028.

Because the task force is temporary in nature and meetings may occur visually, anticipated costs are expected to be minimal and absorbed within the existing budgets. Thank you, Senator Hoffman. Without objection, so ordered. Senator Myers.

Thank you, Mr. President. I serve— serve notice of reconsideration on my vote of Senate Bill 250. Thank you, Senator Myers. As moved to reconsider on the same day. No, no, reconsider not on the same day, to reconsider someday soon.

All right, thank you. Then, um, Well, let's say to come back to order, please. Is there additional unfinished business? Senator Tobin. I move and ask consent to have same-day reconsideration of Senate Bill 250.

Same-day reconsideration of Senate Bill 250.

Brief at ease.

Will the Senate come back to order, please? Senator Tobin has moved for reconsideration on the same day.

If you are ready for the question to take up reconsideration on the same day, the question being, shall reconsideration on CS for Senate Bill 250, Committee on Regional Affairs, be taken up on the same day? Senators may proceed to vote.

The Secretary will lock the roll. Do any Senators wish to change their vote? The Secretary will announce the vote. Um, be fed-ease.

I will ask the Senate to come back to order, please. We will void the roll. If you are ready for the question, the question being, shall reconsideration be taken up on the same day on CSRS and Level 250? Senators may proceed to vote. The secretary will lock the roll.

Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 15 Yeas, 4 nays. And so by a vote of 15 yeas to 4 nays, reconsideration will be taken up on the same day. We are now under reconsideration.

Is there discussion?

Seeing none, if you are ready for the question, the question being, shall CS for Senate Bill 250, Committee on Regional Affairs, pass the Senate on reconsideration? Senators may proceed to vote.

The secretary will I will lock the roll. Do any senators wish to change their vote? The secretary will announce the vote. 14 Yeas, 5 nays. And so by a vote of 14 yeas to 5 nays, Senate Bill— CS for Senate Bill 250, Community and Regional Affairs, has passed the Senate on reconsideration.

Senate, come back to order, please. We are under unfinished business. Senator Clayman. Thank you, Mr. President. I move and ask unanimous consent to be excused from a call of the Senate from May 21st through May 25th for state and personal business.

Objection. So ordered. Senator Clayman, additional unfinished business.

Are there committee announcements? Are there other announcements? Senator Kawasaki. Under— thank you, Mr. President. Under committee announcements, there will be a Senate State Affairs Committee meeting at 3:30 in the Belts Room to hear House Bill 217 relating to autonomous vehicles.

Thank you, Senator Kawasaki. Additional committee announcements? Moving on then to other announcements. Are there special orders? Madam Majority Leader— oh wait, was there about to be a special order?

All right, reconsider that one. All right, Senator Giesel. Mr. President, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment until 1 PM tomorrow. That's Sunday, May 17th, 2026. Thank you.

Hearing no objection, the Senate is adjourned.