House Floor Session, 4/9/26, 10:30am

Will the House please come back to order

under debate,

amendment number 31,

Representative Schroge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rising in hesitant support for Amendment 31.

Hesitant because just in talking with fellow members and with my own knowledge of this issue,

I know that there are some concerns in

I guess isolating one part of this education funding and directing it towards a specific purpose,

in this case being pupil transportation and the fact that that could have disparate impacts across the state and to various school districts.

That said, we've looked into whether this would impact the disparity test. I believe the answer to that is that no,

it would not impact the disparity test. I've heard concerns around some school districts not having the same reliance on pupil transportation,

but I do know that many school districts take advantage of flights for academic purposes and sports purposes and that these funds should be applicable to those.

And I would also note that this among other items are being looked at by the Education Working Group and I believe

and I believe that this amendment actually moves us closer towards that end and towards something that might at the end of the day have a more broad and bipartisan level of support in terms of getting support to our schools.

So again,

I have some hesitancy with this amendment and probably – and acknowledge that there will probably need to be some additional work done in broadening this out and fleshing it out. That work can be continued in the other body, but I do think this moves us in the right direction.

And I'll be supporting this amendment today.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Representative Jimmy.

Boyana,

Mr.

Speaker.

I oppose Amendment 31.

We already worry about the failing of the federal disparity test for Alaskan students.

Students in my district don't usually take a bus to school,

so my school districts would get less money overall from this change.

If we were solving a transportation problem, that would make sense.

But this is not solving a transportation, but we are n are solving a basic education problem so it doesn't. I will pose this amendment which makes an unfair situation even less fair way up.

Representative Foster.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unless I'm persuaded otherwise,

I'm leaning toward opposing Amendment No.

31.

I know in Nome,

Bethel, some of our hubs, we have buses, but our villages do not. If I knew for sure that the transportation money could apply to the flights that students take to go to different activities between our...

our villages,

then I would be supportive.

But at this time, I don't know if those funds could apply to that.

So with that, I'm likely to oppose Amendment 31.

Representative Costello.

Thank you. I want to thank the maker of this amendment for looking at our transportation needs in our districts. I know they vary throughout the districts.

I have always been interested in doing Uber for schools and calling it SCOOBER.

I know many parents drive their children to school in the Anchorage school district, and I've always thought there could be a more innovative way to provide transportation.

We just heard the previous.

speaker talk about airline flights.

And so I will be supporting this amendment and encourage everyone else to also.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I support this amendment.

Mat-Su school or school district has the largest probably users of buses of any of the school districts,

oftentimes my,

and the Denali borough school district as well, but oftentimes students in the Mat-Su travel for up to an hour on a bus to get to school and to get home. So this would.

go a very long way towards solving a significant increase that they are seeing or that they would see if there wasn't a teamster strike going on right now.

But I would say that I was home.

uh this last weekend and in the three days i was home the price of diesel went up almost 30 cents 30 cents in three days 10 cents a day that's crazy so i can imagine what the uh the school district is going through and and what the parents are going through right now so i fully support this amendment and i appreciate the maker of the amendment bringing it forward

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in support of this amendment.

I know the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District has complained to me for several years that the transportation funding formula and the whole school funding formula, the way it works, doesn't work.

But they have been using...

general fund money to pay for bus service transportation service for many years and the increased price in fuel is just going to exacerbate that so I hope that helps them out somewhat and I hope everyone would join me in supporting this amendment.

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I too rise in support of this amendment.

My district is significant in size.

It's about the size of West Virginia,

actually, and we've got students on both sides of the Cook Inlet. We've got them all over the Kenai Peninsula.

We do a lot of transportation,

and so we actually augment out of the general fund transportation costs just because of some of this. We just closed down four schools.

We're going to be transporting a number of students a lot farther. So.

I appreciate the the member from Ketchikan bringing this one up thank you

Thank you.

Representative Rupridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm torn on this amendment.

I happen to think very similarly to the member from Tuksek Bay.

I think that this is probably the wrong way to go about funding transportation.

But I know it's a big need,

and so I'm torn on this one.

What we do need to talk about, Mr. Speaker,

is the need to have,

again,

I'm going to keep putting my plug in for updates to and changes to how we fund education as a general rule,

one-time funding and continuing to have this as a line item that we discuss and have no real mathematical way to say this is what it costs to take kids to and from school.

cool,

which is shocking to me. It should be actually a relatively simple equation that gets funded.

And yet we don't do that. So we have it in statute as a funding formula. It's a funding formula that's not working.

And so when we come down to this and say, you know, is this what we're going to do every year?

It's just appropriate some sort of additional random set of dollars.

I think we can do better than that.

I appreciate the member, though, from Ketchikan bringing it forward because it is a need.

So I don't know what I'll vote on 31,

but those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Representative Fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It's harder to work in a bipartisan way than to remain in factions,

and we also know that we will not be successful on adequately supporting our schools unless we work in a bipartisan way.

So this amendment is not comprehensive.

It wouldn't suffice as standalone education policy,

but is one positive step in a bipartisan way to support our schools as part of a broader package.

I am going to support it with the acknowledgement that we have a lot more work to do.

Representative story.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I wanted to rise and acknowledge the concerns of our members from District 38 and 39.

Appreciate their comments.

I did want to comment that airplane travel is allowed underneath the transportation budgets. We have heard comments on that several times in House Education Committee.

And also we have heard that the disparity test,

we will come in at a 19. You have to have 25 or below.

And because of the increase in the base student allocation,

our current year will be around that amount.

So I do support this amendment and again I appreciate members'

concerns.

Representative Vance.

I rise in support of this amendment because one of the things that I think we've failed to communicate to the public is that the transportation is a separate line item than the BSA.

And a couple of years ago, when addressing transportation to Nikolaiwas,

they had suspended bus service out there because they needed a four-wheel drive bus.

And they have four-wheel drive buses that they use throughout the Kenai Peninsula Borough, but it was more affordable to give parents a transportation stipend than to pay for the four-wheel drive bus to be able to get out there.

And there was a particular hill that DOT redid that was so steep that the grader would slide backwards on it.

And I asked him...

I asked the man in our borough who makes the decisions about transportation,

I said we increased the BSA,

you know, can't you use that?

And he said,

I don't feel in good conscience that I should be taking money from the classroom to be able to continue to provide supplement our line item on the transportation services.

And so this tells the school districts.

We see the need in transportation.

We're going to do what we can.

This is one tool.

I agree with my member from Kenai that we need to continue to take a look in how we can more comprehensively address this issue because of the fluctuating rising cost of a fuel,

but also it's been harder to get bus drivers.

And we need to work out.

How those of us on the road system with large districts use bus services more than the other rural districts that members talked about.

How can we better address that?

But one thing that I want the public to understand is that.

The BSA does not address all of the needs in education and I want to be a part of making sure that we can look at education holistically.

So I'm going to be in support of this because it's one tool that we can do right now while we work out a better way to properly fund all of the needs in education.

Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just rise in support of this amendment.

I share the concerns with the District 7 representative.

One-time funding in general is not the way to fund education.

Broad increases like this.

subsequent amendments that come to us that highlight very specific needs for certain districts it really highlights the fact that our current formula is not working for all districts like the former speaker just noted and so I I rise in support specifically because this amendment highlights one real

problem that we have along our road system district so whether it's Fairbanks Denali Alaska Gateway Delta Copper River Mattsu Kenai we all bore some pretty high costs for transportation of our pupils granted I know those costs aren't borne by more rural districts that don't have bus routes but it's something that we absolutely have to address going forward and so I for that reason I'm in support

In support of the amendment,

I also do want to thank previous members for noting that these dollars in particular are not coming through the transportation statute or formula,

so I do believe they could indeed be used for flights for individual students in some of the rural districts.

So thank you.

And wrap up repetition.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order, and I am being asked to call another at ease, is that correct,

just a very brief at ease, so at ease.

Would the House please come back to order?

Under debate on Amendment No.

31,

I believe we are at closing comments,

unless I see any additional mics raised.

I do not.

The floor is yours, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I just wanted to address a few things. While we were at this nice little break,

I had staff go contact two folks.

One was ledge legal and one was legislative finance to try to answer.

clarity on some of these questions.

The first question was, can these funds be used for other forms of transportation other than busing? And the answer is yes.

So if your school district is using alternate modes of transportation,

these funds are qualifying for that purpose.

The second question that came up is,

does this impact our disparity test?

Talking with both of those folks,

they said no.

The reason why is because this is based on the formula set in statute,

and the formula in statute is defined as being an equitable distribution of those dollars for equity,

and the amendment before us does that based off of the statute distribution.

So even if for some reason the federal government were to find that that is not applicable,

although I'm being assured that it is and I can get legal memo on that,

that the amount that it would increase is not sufficient enough to put us in a failure state. I would hope that the members would support the amendment.

I believe that it is an important conversation that when we talk about.

these escalating costs for our schools that this does provide some level of relief.

I do look forward to, as the member from District 7,

had indicated that we need to look at the formula.

We need to look at this. And I was hoping that when we passed previous legislation in 57, this would have been something we would have done because we did address the numbers in that bill.

But I do look forward to the further work coming ahead.

I also believe that I'm trying to find mechanisms that are in statute that we can actually try to help with these costs.

There were other members that brought forward to talk about energy costs.

The problem with many of those is how do you actually apply them?

This is one simple way to apply it that's already in statute through a grant program that's already there.

I urge your support.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Are you ready for the question?

The question for the body is.

Is whether we pass amendment number 31 or not. 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?

Thirty-three yeas, seven nays.

Will the vote of thirty-three yeas to seven nays, amendment number thirty-one has passed the body. Madam clerk.

Amendment number thirty-two by Representatives Vance, Johnson,

McCabe, Elam, St.

Clair, D. Nelson,

Costello,

Allard, Moore,

Cologne,

G.

Nelson,

Schwanke,

Stadt,

Sadler,

Tomaszewski,

Proks, Underwood,

Bynum, and Ruffridge. Beginning page twenty-four following line twenty-six.

six

Before we get to the sponsor of Amendment number 32,

I'd like the body to be aware that the plan is to take a break from 1 to 3 this afternoon,

and we will, that is to accommodate pre-existing schedules from a number of members in both caucuses, and the plan would be to come back and continuing on amendments.

I would also like the body to be aware that we are on amendment four after almost two hours of debate. We have just a mere

fifty or sixty amendments left.

So let's keep charging forward troops. Um

So with that uh Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I move amendment number thirty two.

There's an objection.

Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This amendment says that no money should be appropriated, expended for abortion that is not a mandatory service.

This is what we refer to as the traditional Hyde Amendment.

And I'd like to emphasize that life is precious,

Mr. Speaker.

It is estimated that a third of Gen Z was lost to abortion.

One-third of an entire generation.

And last year in 2025,

that meant that there were 1,220 Alaskans who did not make it through birth.

475 of them were paid for by the state.

Representative Vance, I'm going to very kindly ask you to stick to the amendment. This issue is highly, highly divisive and it's controversial.

It's emotional.

Every year that I've been a member of this body,

we have got this debate.

I respect your right to put it forward.

I grant you the floor certainly to the time that you need to speak to it but I would please ask you to speak to the amendment itself and I'm also keeping an eye on the time as well going forward with other amendments so please continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

475 of these abortions last year were paid for by the state, and this is what this amendment seeks to address.

The state pays approximately half a million dollars every year on these state-funded abortions, and that's specifically why I'm addressing this. And I know that this is a highly sensitive topic,

and I want the public to know that I understand that many people feel like they're in a situation that they can't get out of, and I've chosen abortion.

But I just do I just want to take a moment to remind people that we do have other options,

but this specific amendment is one that is been traditional in this body for the legislature to speak about this issue specifically regarding funding,

and so I ask for your support.

Representative Mina.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I pose Amendment Number 32.

The legislature has a duty to protect and promote public health,

and we also have a duty to protect Alaskans' constitutional rights.

The right to health care,

then the right to reproductive choices, including abortion services,

is a right that has been protected.

By the Alaska Supreme Court, that has been determined in a 2001 ruling and in a 1997 ruling in 2019 as well.

It is about protecting the right to privacy and additionally protecting the Equal Protection Clause.

And I just want to quote from that 2001 ruling,

the legislature's spending power does not.

not create license to disregard citizens'

constitutional rights.

Thank you.

Representative St.

Clair.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, and I'll keep it short.

I support this amendment.

I've seen it go through over numerous years when I was staff.

I support it.

You know, Roe versus Wade was based on a right to privacy when it was overturned.

The state hasn't taken a stance on it yet because there isn't a willingness to,

like you said, it's a divisive topic that we really can't come to consensus on as a whole, as a body here or in Alaska.

But I please ask that you support this amendment.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the amendment.

Just to remind everybody,

Mr.

Speaker,

this amendment doesn't take anyone's rights away. It just says, hey,

we're not going to pay for this out of state funds, specifically through Medicaid.

That's all the amendment does.

People can still do whatever they want that's within state law and federal law.

But it just says, hey, we're not going to go cut your PFD and pay for it. Thanks.

Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I too support this amendment and I too want to reiterate this doesn't take anybody's rights away.

I just don't believe as a taxpayer or any taxpayer in our state of Alaska, any resident should be forced to fund aborting babies.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'd like to echo the statements of the previous two speakers.

This does not affect constitutional rights in any manner.

It just says I don't want to have to pay for it through funding that's supplied for in our budget.

I might also mention, Mr.

Speaker.

This just seems kind of circular to me.

We argue all the time about children and about children in our schools and about out migration from our schools and yet we're providing funding to actually take the lives of those children before they're born.

It's just, to me, it's hard to stomach. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

wrap up Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it amazing how over the course of time members are too afraid to speak on this issue because of it being considered divisive.

And yet every one of us are impacted by it, every one of us.

And I want to emphasize that I am not diminishing the place that women are at when they make this choice.

Looking at...

exploitation and things like that,

I know that women are put in this position and they look to the state to be able to help them.

There are other areas that the state can help them and that's what we have in this budget,

Mr.

Speaker,

and yet there are other options for them that I want them to know about.

I want them to know that we have a safe surrender law.

They can call 911 if they cannot keep their baby,

that Denali KidCare pays for their birth and even postpartum, and they have WIC to be able to help pay for food.

But this amendment specifically, Mr.

Speaker, says that the legislature is going to use the power of the purse to say we support life.

And that is a priority to us because

According to our First Amendment,

everyone has life, liberty,

and the pursuit of happiness.

So I ask for your support.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment No. 32 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?

Twenty yeas, twenty nays.

Will the vote at twenty yeas to twenty nays. The amendment has failed to pass.

Madame Clerk?

Amendment number thirty three by Representative Vance,

beginning page ten, line nine.

Representative Vance.

I move amendment number thirty three.

There's an objection.

Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This one's a little less controversial,

but it is having to do with roads. So if there's anything that gets controversy in my district,

it is definitely road maintenance.

So what this amendment does is it increases

Two million dollars to the central region highways for road maintenance,

plowing, things like that, and it becomes cost neutral by taking the two million dollar increase to DOC's personal services.

There was a roughly two million dollar increase from last year to this year and I know that we have had a lot of consternation in this body about that and so I'm making this a cost neutral by addressing the needs.

In the central region,

which includes Anchorage,

parts of Mat-Su, all the way over to Glenallen, the Kenai Peninsula,

it directly impacts road maintenance.

I have seen my road crew down on the lower Kenai Peninsula standing in a rainstorm filling dangerous potholes.

I felt for them, but the roads have become so dangerous that they're having to go do those things that would seem temporary.

When I asked them what they need,

what's happening there on the very basic level,

they said they would put in a request for six shovels and they would get two.

They would even have to contend for a printer to print the pay stubs there at their maintenance facility.

They are needing basic things to be able to provide for road maintenance there in central region and specifically the lower Canine Peninsula.

I also took a look at how much our DOT crew is getting paid and it is anywhere from 20 to 60 percent lower than the private sector.

sector.

We've had a hard time filling these positions.

These people get out there early morning,

are plowing our roads, they're filling in the potholes that are happening right now.

Breakup is called breakup for a reason and our roads are a mess.

So this is a very,

very modest increase to be able to address the needs saying,

hey we recognize you, we understand the need and this is roads that people use to get to work, to go to school and to do everything in between and so I ask for your support.

Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I first want to say that Amendment 33 takes the money from the Department of Corrections' physical health.

So that is a cost we are legally obligated to provide the health care to inmates who are in our custody. And the increase in their budget of $2 million is because

The health conditions of the inmates are not improving and the health care costs delivering those service continue to go up.

And I would say there is no Cadillac health care service for our inmates.

And as a footnote, there is a lawsuit against the department about the standard of health care coverage that we are providing.

So this $2 million doesn't abrogate that.

doesn't abrogate us from our obligation and I would say it would be a bad place to take money from because it will likely result in a bigger supplemental in that specific line item to the department next year.

As far as maintenance of the Department of Transportation road conditions in the central region,

hear, hear,

every one of our regions.

I would say I had a

had a townhall last night, and a D_O_T_ retired employee said the road conditions in Juneau are the worst he's ever seen in the spring. And uh wish we could fill all the vacancies in that department and keep that equipment operating and wish we were putting more money into maintenance. And I will tell you that the D_O_T_ subcommittee

funded all of the requests from DOT.

And I would think across most of our districts,

we are still going to hear complaints and I think that we should be putting more money.

But they have a lot of vacancies in that department,

as the member before me spoke.

They have a hard time keeping employees.

They have a lot of vacancies,

especially in maintenance and competing with it.

So I urge you to make sure we are keeping those employees.

is employed, their equipment funded, but uh we have a legal obligation, the Department of Corrections budget, having chaired both of these subcommittees, I would say this is not a place that is gonna result in better maintenance or in uh less supplemental. So I would urge a no vote on this amendment.

Further discussion on amendment number thirty three.

In wrap-up, Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the other member of my caucus to highlight these.

For those of you who didn't catch on, this is Sarah Caucus.

It's gotten pretty thin lately,

hasn't it?

There were more of us at one point.

She does.

It took a minute.

It took a minute,

Mr.

Speaker.

I just want to emphasize,

I appreciate the previous speaker looking at both of these committees,

but what I continue to hear is, well, they didn't request more.

And I'm for smaller government,

but I tell you, there's some basic services that clearly is not, that are not being properly funded or we need to look at some organizational things.

Something needs to change. And I tell you what,

our roads have been severely neglected.

And maybe we need to look at the salaries of obviously we need to look at the salaries of our DOT crew because I was surprised at how discouraged they were.

They get yelled at, fists shaken at them that they aren't doing enough. And yet in my district,

we have to our crew has to wait to get instruction from Saldana before they can do anything on the entire lower peninsula.

And they feel like they're often forgotten and neglected.

They're out there working hard, and I know that's probably the same across all of our districts,

except they're the ones that's taking the brunt of our lack of inaction to make sure that everything is adequately maintained.

And this is the thing that people interact with the most, out of all the things that we can do the most. And so, obviously,

I'm feeling in the room this isn't going to have the support.

But I do want us in the future to take a look at what we can better do to help DOT be able to fulfill those basic services even when they don't ask for it.

So I will be withdrawing this amendment at this time.

So Amendment number 33 has been withdrawn.

At this time I would like to roll Amendments 34 to 43 to the bottom.

of the amendment stack,

which in turn brings Amendment number 44 before the body, represented by Bynum.

Uh, thank you Mr Speaker, I move Amendment forty four.

There is an objection, represented by Bynum.

Thank you Mr Speaker, permission to read.

Permission granted.

Thank you Mr Speaker. Uh

Amendment 44 is designed and specifically put in place here to address some of the things that we've been talking about over the last couple days,

and that is the high energy costs that Alaskans are seeing due to the cost of oil.

This amendment is a $500,000 one-time energy relief grant for the IFA,

the Inner Island Ferry Authority.

The IFA is locally driven.

It's a publicly owned transportation system that serves as a vital link in Southeast Alaska.

It connects Prince of Wales Island to Ketchikan through the reliable Hollis-Ketchikan route.

It was formed in the late 1990s by the communities of Craig,

Kowak,

Coffman Cove,

and Thorne Bay.

The IFA represents a successful regional solution built by Southeast Alaskans to ensure dependable ferry service where it was needed most.

Today,

the IFA delivers consistent daily service for both passengers and vehicles,

supporting residents,

small businesses,

tourism,

essential access to health care,

education,

and government services.

The IFA works in close coordination with the Alaska Marine Highway System,

has repeatedly stepped up to maintain service between communities when disruptions in the Marine Highway System occur.

When the Alaska Marine Highway system vessels,

particularly the MV Latoya,

are unavailable,

the IFA steps up and it operates the routes between Ketchikan and Metlakatla.

These routes,

Mr.

Speaker,

are vital to these communities.

The only way to get to them is via small aircraft or by ferry.

And the Alaska Marine Highway System does not serve Prince of Wales Island.

It is the IFA that provides that service. And many times, Mr.

Speaker,

transportation to and from the island is unavailable via air due to weather.

The IFA goes out there and bravely makes that crossing daily.

With the annual ridership of between 70,000 and 100,000 passengers,

the IFA delivers meaningful regional...

service that is a big impact to those communities.

It's complementing our broader marine highway system that serves statewide hundreds of thousands of passengers.

The IFA operates efficiently on a modest budget.

The F-Y 27 budget for the I-F-A is fifty or five point eight. Let me correct that five point eight million.

With those funds rep with the funds in this amendment representing less than ten

percent of the total operating cost.

The IFA has demonstrated very frugal operating budget while providing reliable service.

It is actually a model of ferry service in Alaska,

probably the country.

It demonstrates strong fiscal discipline and with this targeted investment it ensures that that service will continue.

and provide reliable service and step in when necessary.

These funds will not only help offset significantly higher anticipated fuel costs,

which are already being seen,

but it will also position the IFA to leverage other opportunities, specifically federal opportunities,

when we talk about matching dollars,

because they will have those dollars available instead of spending them on these higher fuel costs that are impacting our communities.

It's worth every dollar, Mr.

Speaker.

We know right now with fuel surcharges, we've seen an 18.5% surcharge on shipping.

Air cargo is 25% to 30%. Diesel is 55% to 65% increased cost.

I urge your support.

Representative Hannon.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in opposition to Amendment 44.

I'm probably the person in the body who's bought more tickets on that IFA route than anyone else,

having traveled it over the last 20 years since its inaugural run on many days when I've had a plane ticket and still couldn't fly and getting there for the holidays because my family lives on Prince of Wales.

With that said, when that route was created, it was previously one of AMHS's nearly profitable routes.

It is daily service with some holiday holdouts.

AMHS

You might note, because you have many communities in your district served by the AMHS part of the year,

has announced that on May 1st, because of partially the increasing fuel costs,

their rates will be going up.

The daily service on the AFA,

a surcharge of a temporary basis could be instituted while the price of fuel for that service is there.

We are not increasing AMHS's budget for cost recovery.

So I can't in good conscience say this one route that is one of the more profitable has one of the highest fare box recovery.

It is the highest fare box recovery route that we're going to subsidize it.

But in our lower fare box recovery routes of AMHS,

we're not going to give them any fuel surcharge relief.

So with that, I oppose Amendment Number 44.

Representative Eli.

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I rise in support of the amendment.

I don't have any.

Marine Highway really in my district specifically.

Now you get over to Homer,

you get over to Seward, and we start running into that, but have a lot of highway.

And what I have learned in being here in the legislature is that really at the end of the day, we've all got to support each other here on this stuff.

Critical infrastructure for being able to make safe passage to and from each of our homes is critical.

And there's so much of our system here in the state of Alaska where we don't have highway.

And so we're going to have to support each other on these things. And so I appreciate the maker from Ketchikan bringing this up and bringing an amendment that brings about the fact that we just need to be able to do basic things like travel.

So thank you.

Representative Hamshoot.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I rise to a question. The line in the bill that this addresses does not say anything about the Inner Island Ferry Authority,

so I'd like clarification from the sponsor, from the maker,

on how exactly we know that this funding would go to the IFA. Thank you.

In wrap-up, Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I will address the...

Previous question from District 2.

When we talk to...

legislative finance about this.

Standing on the floor here talking about this particular increment being added to that line item is sufficient for legislative finance to make that directive code change for that money to be directed in that way.

There are many other ways we could put this in the budget,

Mr.

Speaker.

We could put in capital budget items,

but I think this is the most appropriate way to put in this one-time increment.

This is not continuing ongoing money.

When we talk about transportation in the state,

we talk about how we spend our money.

The IFA generally receives little to no money from the state for their operation cost.

Prince of Wales Island relies on the IFA for this daily service.

It is a lifeline for those community members.

So when we talk about, well, we're going to just absorb all of that cost in those ferry tickets,

I already know,

Mr.

Speaker,

that those community members trying to make that commute are already feeling a high level of pressure to be able to make that much needed travel,

whether it's for medical,

because most of the major medical,

they have to come to catch a can for that.

Major travel,

they're going to come to Ketchikan for that.

And most of those community members are using the IFA daily service for that purpose.

It is a lifeline.

Wouldn't be asking for this,

Mr. Speaker, if I didn't feel like it was necessary.

I know the IFA wouldn't be asking for it if they could get by without this.

But one of the important things that's also happening right now, Mr. Speaker,

is that sometimes or from time to time we do put a small increment of $250,000, give or take,

into the budget.

Many times that is vetoed out of the budget.

Like I said, the IFA operates on a very tight fair box recovery for their operational cost.

And they have many needs that are going to be coming up with safety equipment on their vessels.

They're looking to go out there and make sure that they're going to be wise with those spending,

but much of the safety equipment on those vessels is expiring and getting retired out.

And that's an immediate impact on their financial state.

And with fuel cost,

diesel fuel 55%.

To ask us to try to pass that along,

when we spend millions of dollars,

Mr.

Speaker, millions and millions of dollars on many other things. We go through this budget. There's over $200,

$300 million of ads for different grants and different things.

This is a vital life safety issue here.

This is vital for our community.

This is vital for southeast district one and district two.

And I have to stand here and fight for my community,

Mr.

Speaker.

I have to tell the story of why this is important.

IFA is vital,

vital to us.

I urge your support.

I urge your support.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being,

shall Amendment No. 44 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?

Representative Stapp?

Yay to nay.

Representative Allard?

From nay to yay.

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

Nine yeas, thirty-one nays.

The voter nine yeas to 31 nays, Amendment number 44 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 45 by Representative McCabe beginning page 34 following line five.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I move amendment 45.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I have a series of these amendments,

so I'll do this background once to save us all time. They're all virtually the same.

In May of 2025,

the executive office issued administrative order 358.

Which places a freeze on all out-of-state travel regardless of funding source?

I'll say that again, regardless of funding source.

It applied to all departments and it remains in effect until rescinded. As of today,

this AO has not been rescinded.

The directive was clear.

Limit travel and prioritize core services.

And yet travel costs in multiple departments are still increasing as we can see in this budget and which we'll see in the next series of amendments.

Members may hear that some of this travel is paid with different fund sources,

but these are total travel expenditures that are required to be reduced by this AO.

Under the Administrative Order 358, this distinction doesn't matter.

Travel was restricted regardless of funding source.

These amendments simply bring traveling spending back to the fiscal year 2025 actuals that were achieved under that directive.

No impact to staffing,

no impact to core services,

just restoring travel discipline.

This approach has precedent.

The Legislature has used unallocated reductions for travel before,

most recently in fiscal year 2020.

2016.

This First Amendment,

Mr. Speaker, is for Department of Revenue. It reduces travel from $2.17 million to $1.32 million,

aligning with the fiscal 2025 actual expenditures.

It applies to travel expenditures only.

The figure reflects total travel expenditures across all fund sources and provides a consistent baseline based on recent actuals.

And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Representative Sadler.

I can support this and others, but I will ask a question.

Does this reduce the ability of the departments affected to reallocate what travel funds they do have to most essential services and travel?

And wrap up Representative K.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It does not, in answer to the question,

it does not change their abilities to change or move the travel around as they need to prioritize under the AO.

So, Mr. Speaker,

as I said, I have four or five of these amendments for the different departments rather than spend a whole bunch of trees to reprint the whole budget. I thought I'd do each separate amendment.

This is an important way to save money.

This is what I'm here for.

This is what I told my constituents I would do is try to find places in the budget where we could reduce money and I appreciate your support.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

Are you ready for the question,

the question being shall amendment number 45 pass the body members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the rolls.

Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote?

19 yeas, 21 nays.

For the vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, member number 45 has failed to pass.

Madam Clerk?

Amendment number 46 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 29, following line 22.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I move amendment 46.

There's an objection.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just look at us go.

We're doing great.

So this amendment addresses travel spending for the Department of Natural Resources.

I guess we'll see how folks like the different departments.

It reduces travel from $6.29 million to $2.30 million,

aligning with the fiscal 2025 actual expenditures.

Once again,

it applies to travel expenditures only and reflects the total travel expenditures across.

All fund sources,

even federal fund sources,

and provides a consistent baseline based on recent actuals. I urge a yes vote.

Representative McCabe, I'm going to take that as sufficing for wrap-up comments as well in terms of brevity.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being shall amendment number 46 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?

19 yeas, 21 nays.

Will the voter 19 yeas and 21 nays. Amendment number 46 has failed to pass the body. Madam Clerk?

Amendment number 47 by Representative McCabe beginning page four following line 18.

Representative McCabe?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker,

I move amendment 47.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

This amendment addresses travel spending for DCCED.

It reduces it from $4.16 million to $2.08 million,

and once again aligns with their fiscal 2025 expenditures.

This is a significant cut. I'm not quite sure, given the AO,

why these continued to expand in the governor's budget, but they did,

and I think that we need to give them a haircut.

Representative Rutledge.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I actually I rise to a question, but not for the maker of the amendment.

I actually—

And I obviously am supportive of these amendments. I guess I I would like to know in the budget as it's currently written,

what what the proposed dollars are that are.

Here to be cut are going to be used for if they're not going to be used for travel And I'm wondering if anyone in this budget making process has asked that question

Thank you. Mr. Speaker

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise to a question, and haven't been involved in the process, but on the increase,

as the representative from Big Lake was speaking from,

roughly two million an increase to four million uh that's a that's a lot of plane tickets so i would like to understand what the increase is actually being requested for if it has been requested and as of right now i stand in support of the amendment thank you mr speaker

In wrap-up, Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

I'm not quite sure why it increased other than maybe the increasing price of plane tickets. We've all seen them just coming down here.

I get that. But I also get that the governor had an AO that said you will limit travel and it doesn't appear like they are doing that.

This money would just lapse back into the general fund. And I suspect that Alaskans would.

would like to see maybe a little bit more money in there as we're coming up on our well I know we would because we're coming up on all the PFD amendments and there would be a pool.

I urge support for this. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Are you ready for the question? The question being shall amendment number seventy forty seven 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?

19 yays, 21 nays.

Will the voter 19 yays to 21 nays? Amendment number 47 has failed to pass Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 48 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 13,

following line 3.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I move Amendment 48.

There's an objection

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I think we've now doubled in the last 10 minutes the number of amendments that we've gone through today,

so I appreciate it.

This amendment addresses travel spending for the Department of Environmental Conservation,

DEC. It reduces them from $2.03 million to $1.78 million.

Once again, this aligns with the 2025 actual expenditures and aligns with the Governor's AO.

I urge support.

and probably wrap up.

Representative Roughridge.

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

You know, I'd like to just ask for a second for us to consider what we're doing in the underneath here.

This is a tiny dollar amount by the general comparison to the whole budget.

And I think if you were to take the budget in its entirety.

where it balances out for price of oil,

I think we would all agree is probably not ideal.

I think the only way to claw that back is through incremental changes.

I mean, $250,000 is probably not going to really harm this department in any way, shape, or form.

They would still have a close to $1.8 million travel budget.

I think most folks in Alaska would say that's probably enough.

May be worth considering, but I just wanted to make note that this is if we're going to make changes that I think our folks back home want to see, we're going to have to do it slowly but surely, and here's a great way to do it. Thanks.

Thanks.

Wrap up Representative McCabe.

Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Sadler.

Hey, I didn't have my mic up before. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to support this amendment,

Thank you.

but I just want to say this amendment may be somewhat counterintuitively does support the mission of DEC.

What better way to improve air quality than burn less kerosene, diesel,

and gasoline?

Representative McCabe, wrap up.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I couldn't have said it better myself.

So I think we need to keep the AO in mind.

There's a reason that this was issued.

I also think that this is minor,

but I also think that we have learned something as a country and as a society that we can use Teams and Zoom for a lot of these meetings,

and I certainly think that we can find a way to limit our travel by this small amount in this department,

Mr. Speaker,

so I urge a yes vote.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being shall amendment number 48 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?

19 yeas, 21 nays.

By vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment number 48 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 49 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 17, following line 12.

Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment 49.

There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This one reduces travel at the Department of Fish and Game from $5.83 million to $3.48 million,

once again aligning with the...

2025 actuals and I urge a yes vote

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of this amendment and, you know, for the sake of brevity,

I have stayed seated a little bit as well. But I just really want to express my appreciation to the maker of these amendments from Big Lake because...

If you start running down the math,

all these little moves actually add up to some pretty good-sized numbers.

And so I do think we need to start somewhere.

And so this is a great place to start.

And so I would urge a yes vote as well.

Thank you.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I support this amendment for a few reasons.

One, it's based on the actuals of the expenditures.

But really, the other reason,

Mr.

Speaker,

is yesterday a majority of this body decided to close the hatcheries that the fish and game folks, they go around the state and they stock all those lakes.

So it's pretty reasonable to think they will not need $2 million in travel money because they will not be traveling around the state stocking all those.

Fish and lakes because we won't have bathrooms anymore.

So I hope you should support the amendment in the cut.

Thanks

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of amendment 49.

In the last three minutes,

we've passed almost $5 million in money that was not spent last year.

And we...

are not asking but like just by de facto Alaskan citizens are taking haircuts my family's not here anymore and fuel is expensive and so this is not even the the amendments that the members bringing from Big Lake are not even demanding or asking for haircuts it's just saying don't spend any more than you spent last year and this is not it's the same one that we just talked about a couple minutes ago and I will not

Not to get into it so I don't get point of ordered,

but this one right here, once again, is a $2 million increase.

I just think it's inappropriate for us to carte blanche give millions of dollars for travel in this day and age when Alaskan families are paying more for fuel and every single thing they have to do. We cannot.

not demand,

but we cannot,

when our citizens are taking haircuts in their daily budgets,

we cannot,

especially on something like this, which is not crucial in this day and age,

expect them to bear the brunt of millions of dollars of increases within 10 minutes.

I rise in support of Amendment 49.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a question for the maker of the amendment. I'm just wondering if any of these cuts will impact the agency's ability to carry out their mission.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fish and game obviously is a unique department in the fact that a lot of their work is not done from behind the desk.

And so I'm just curious what kind of impacts, if any,

this might impact the mission. Thank you.

Thank you.

Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm going to vote for this, but I actually have a question somewhat rhetorically,

but I think the sponsor might be able to address it.

A point we have neglected to recognize or emphasize is there is an administrative order to the members of the executive branch to limit travel for any purpose,

for any source.

So my question is, why if there is a travel freeze,

are we seeking an increase in funding?

And I guess this might be one more example of why we are an independent branch of government. We are a check in the executive.

executive branch they do what we tell them usually we think and they can only do what we give them money to do so I get the question stands why an increase in travel funding is necessary when a freeze on traveling is in face is in place Thank

And wrap up, Representative McCabe.

you mr. speaker permission to read permission granted

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Permission to read?

Permission granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is from a news release. It says today, and I won't mention his name,

but the executive issued administrative order number 358 directing all executive branch agencies to implement immediate cost control measures in response to declining oil revenue and tightening fiscal conditions. This was May 9th, 2025.

Under the order,

the state of Alaska will implement a statewide freeze on.

is on out-of-state travel hiring and the development of new regulations. The order is designed to reduce the impact on available funds,

streamline government operations,

and refocus state efforts on delivering core services that protect the health and safety of Alaskans.

This is still in place. It's less than a year old.

Just because our oil revenues are going up, I don't think it's a reason.

To increase so significantly in many departments,

especially with the restructuring that is coming under other AOs,

for instance, DOT or one DOT that they're calling it.

There's a bunch of restructuring coming and yet here we are in our budget increasing their travel.

Very frustrating for fiscal conservatives,

Mr.

Speaker,

and I urge a yes vote.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being shall amendment number 45.

At forty nine, past 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?

19 yays, 21 nays.

By vote of 19 yays to 21 nays, Amendment number 49 has failed to pass. Madame Clerk?

Amendment number 50 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 36, following line 26.

Representative McCabe?

Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I move Amendment 50.

There is an objection.

There's an objection.

So Mr.

Speaker,

this one's for the DOT.

Once again, one DOT has restructured them. They maybe don't need so much travel money.

This reduces them from $7.65 million to $3.99 million,

once again aligning with the fiscal 2025 actual expenditures.

I think this is another good amendment. I suspect I know where the vote's going to go,

but that's okay because it's my job to get up here and offer it anyway. So thank you.

Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to echo the comments that the representative from Juneau made earlier on the DOT's efforts to increase their efficiency or become more effective.

And once again,

here we are.

I rise in support of this amendment.

$3.6 million in increased travel.

How many plane tickets did they miss last year that they need this increase?

It's a lot.

And I would assume that it was not $3.6 million.

And so this increase goes, I think, against our role as responsible.

adjudicators or legislators and also goes against the governor's directive that was mentioned from the member from Big Lake so I rise in support of Amendment 50.

Representative Kerrick.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in opposition to Amendment 50.

But I did just want to point out that the one DOT consolidation that's in this legislation,

more broadly speaking,

is actually going to lead to an increase in travel because services are no longer going to be regionally based,

requiring employees in the Department of Transportation to actually travel much more than before. So while creating, as they say, efficiency in some areas,

something.

something many of our members do dispute.

They're actually going to be creating an increased need for travel to other regions as members will have to go to projects on site in order to do their evaluations. So I would encourage members to oppose this amendment.

DOT is going to need much additional travel funding in the future to accomplish their one DOT mission.

In wrap-up, Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I might remind the member from Fairbanks and the body that this was for out-of-state travel only.

They're supposed to be limiting so in-state travel,

one DOT would not be affected that much.

Effectively, under one DOT,

there will be less number of people traveling, say,

to Washington,

D.C., and I think that this is easily absorbed or mitigated by proper management techniques, which I know that the commissioner is.

is well capable of doing based on what I've seen so far.

I urge support of this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall amendment number 50 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 court please announce the vote?

Nineteen yeas, twenty one nays.

With a vote of nineteen yeas to twenty one nays, amendment number fifty has failed to pass the body. I would like to thank member McCabe for his efficiency. We just actually made some pretty good time there.

So as said discussed earlier the plan is to take a break till three p.m. and ask members to try to be punctual in terms of returning at three p.m. With that the house will stand at ease.