Senate Labor & Commerce, 4/22/26, 1:30pm

Good afternoon. I'd like to call this meeting of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee to order. The time is 1:35 PM. We're in Belz Room 105 of the Thomas Stewart Building in the nation's most beautiful and pigeon-filled capital city of Juneau, Alaska. Today is Wednesday, April 22nd.

Members present are Senator Young, Senator Dunbar, and myself, Senator Bjorkman. Senators Merrick and Gray Jackson are in Finance. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business. Welcome everyone to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please join me in turning off or silencing your cell phones and recognizing our recording secretary, Kerry Tupo, and our L.A.O.

Moderator Jude Augustine. Our agenda for today is H.J.R. 38, Public Safety Telecommunicators, and S.J.R. 25, Supporting the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. First up, we will take up House Joint Resolution 38, sponsored by the Honorable Representative Carolyn Hall.

This is our first hearing on the bill. To present the resolution, we have the bill sponsor, Representative Hall herself, and and her trusty staff. Ladies, welcome to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please join us at the table, put yourselves on the record, and begin your presentation of the bill.

Good afternoon, Chair Bjorkman and members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. It is a privilege to be here today. Thank you for your time and this invitation. For the record, my name is Carolyn Hall. I am representative for House District 16, the West Anchorage neighborhoods of Turnigan, Spinard, and Sand Lake.

I appreciate the opportunity to bring this resolution before you today because currently the federal government classifies emergency response dispatchers as clerical workers. However, the work emergency dispatchers perform as part of our local first responder system is anything but clerical. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] HJR 38 urges Congress to pass the Enhancing First Response Act, which would reclassify emergency dispatchers from clerical to the protective service class, joining their fellow first responder colleagues. The reclassification would acknowledge dispatchers' critical role in our first responder system, providing them access to the same federal training, grant opportunities, and wellness resources their first responder colleagues have access to. Dispatchers are the first contact a distressed person has when calling 911.

They quickly calm people experiencing the worst day of their lives, obtain an accurate address and critical details, give instructions, and coordinate other first responders within just a few minutes. Many dispatchers are EMT or medically trained or received specialized crime reporting and de-escalation training. The difference is that dispatchers using The difference is that dispatchers use these skills over the phone. They coach callers through performing CPR, delivering babies, controlling severe bleeding, and they provide emotional assurance until physical help arrives. But it wasn't always like this.

The first 911 call was in Haleyville, Alabama in 1968. The second 911 call was 6 days later in Nome, Alaska. Back then, the dispatcher would answer the phone, Learn the location of the emergency and send help. The profession's evolution over the last 60 years added extensive life-saving training for the dispatchers to dispense over the phone during these critical times of life or death. Nowadays, once the dispatcher hands off the response to emergency crews on scene, the dispatcher hangs up with their first responder colleagues continuing to render the aid the dispatcher initiated.

And then the dispatcher answers the next call for help. And the cycle repeats. There is no closure. This never-ending cycle of psychological trauma bears its course on the profession. Filling emergency dispatcher positions is difficult and the turnover rate is high.

The bottom line is that emergency dispatchers are not clerical workers nor administrative. Emergency dispatchers are our first, first responders. 60 Years ago made sense for these dispatchers to be classified as clerical, but that is no longer the case. Reclassifying the profession at the federal level not only acknowledges their importance in the first responder system, but it offers dispatchers access to federal training, grants, and wellness resources their fellow first responder colleagues have access to, offering respite during a difficult career. Emergency dispatchers deserve this dignity for the life-saving role they perform in our communities.

Communities. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Representative Hall. Are there any questions from for committee members or from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, thank you for the excellent opening on your resolution. We have invited testimony from Erin Kawara, public safety manager with the Juneau Police Department. She is on Teams. Ma'am, could you please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony?

Yes, sir. I'm Erin Kallora, the Public Safety Manager for the City and Borough of Juneau, and I work at the police department, but I support both the police and fire department responders in my position, and I manage our communications center where our public safety dispatchers work. I just wanted to share that 911 is a vital part of —of our nation's critical infrastructure. And currently, our public safety dispatchers who answer and manage 911 calls are classified as office and administrative support federally. This does not reflect the critical lifesaving work that they perform daily.

And by reclassifying our dispatchers, we will acknowledge their role as first responders in emergencies. It will improve federal reporting and statistical accuracy for workforce planning, policy decisions, and such. And one example is that, uh, statistics are not kept related to post-traumatic stress and suicide rates of dispatchers because they are not categorized as first responders, but they should be. This act will support eligibility for benefits and recognition similar to other public safety personnel, enhance recruitment and retention by formally recognizing their profession's importance, And that's a big deal. It is very difficult in 2 minutes to explain to you the changes in technology and the changes in the job in the last 30, 40 years.

But 911 has gone from having no 911 in the '50s to having some 911 in the '60s, to having a callback number. And at this point in 911, we have mapping information, caller location information, and all sorts of information that dispatchers have to act on. It is a far cry from the work that the positions did in the '60s, '70s, and '80s where they were taking notes on a piece of paper and later having someone transcribe them onto a 3-part carbon copy form for archival. It is a work that they conduct, has repeated exposure to tragic events, has lasting mental effects, and I believe dispatchers should be in the protective service occupational category along with other first responders.

Ms. Kawhara, thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from committee members?

Seeing and hearing none, Representative Hall, do you have any closing remarks? Mr. Chair, I think, um, the only thing I would like to add is that In prior hearings for this resolution, we've had a variety of dispatchers from across the state participate, and I just want to, I guess, say thank you very much for this opportunity. And if anybody has additional questions offline, I'm very happy to work with them to help answer any questions. Thank you.

Hearing and seeing none at this time, we will set aside HJR 38 for further consideration at a future meeting. We'll take a brief at ease while we set up for the next bill.

We're back on the record now. It's 1:46 PM here in Senate Labor and Commerce. Our last item on our agenda today is Senate Joint Resolution 25. This is our second hearing on the bill. During our first hearing, we had a presentation of the bill and took invited testimony.

I would like to invite the bill sponsor, the Honorable Senator Scott Kawasaki, and his staff, Samuel Marquardt, to the table to provide a brief recap of the resolution. Gentlemen, welcome back to Senate Labor and Commerce. Please put yourselves on the record and begin your brief recap of the resolution. Thank you. For the record, State Senator Scott Kawasaki, District P, representing the city of Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright, and Badger.

And I just wanted to, before I defer this over to my staff, just thank the members of the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee today. I'd like to thank also Conrad Jackson's staff to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee for the work that they did in presenting the kind of version and a committee substitute for your consideration today. For the record, Samuel Marquardt, intern to Senator Kawasaki. Thank you for hearing this resolution again. As a brief recap, this is supporting continuation and modernization of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement ahead of its 2026 review.

These reviews only happen every 6 years, and it's important to capitalize on these opportunities. So this is incredibly, especially important because of the relationship between Canada and Alaska. It's our only land border, and a massive amount of trade, tourism, and shared culture crosses back and forth. It's important for our economy and for jobs to support this resolution.

Very good. Are there any questions for the bill sponsor or his excellent staff? I have a question. Mr. Marquardt, as we're preparing this resolution, um, what research and what did you find in your research as you looked at kind of historical trade and tariff actions taken by the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and how, how, how do those actions affect the overall economies of these countries. Absolutely.

So one of the things that is sometimes, I think, a misconception is that there were no— there— so part of the original tariff, part of the original agreement included tariffs, tariffs on specific industries critical to national defense, especially steel, many metals. So our resolution is not does not discourage the use of all tariffs, but merely those harmful to trade. Since the USMCA's adoption, we've seen increasing numbers of tariffs, right? Most recently, fairly expansive tariffs. And as the language in the resolution reflects, those have had fairly negative consequences in many cases.

So in my opinion, it's really a case-by-case situation. There are tariffs that are necessary, critical for national defense, for protecting certain industries. But we need to be careful. Any tariff introduces friction. Friction between one of our largest trading partners is something we just need to be very aware of and careful of.

Very good. Thank you.

Any further questions?

Hearing and seeing none, we will now open public testimony on SGR 25. Is there anyone in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item?

We'll go online to Mr. Mike Coons. Mr. Coons, please state your name and affiliation for the record and begin your testimony. You have 2 minutes, please.

Yes, this is my— my name is Mike Coons from Wasilla, and I'm speaking for myself. I oppose SJR 25. First off, Canada and Mexico have not been good neighbors dating back to NAFTA all the way through USMCA. Canada has been hitting the U.S. with high tariffs well prior to USMCA and since. Mexico has not been a good partner as to stopping the illegals coming into their country with the express reason to cross into the U.S., not to mention the cartels.

The cartel attacks have put Americans in jeopardy just a few short months ago and now the deaths of two CIA members, then of course the pushing of dope into the US. The negotiations by President Trump in upcoming renewal with Canada and Mexico will be straightforward and direct. Make no mistake, President Trump has thrown out the past diplo-geek ways of nice and compromise for compromise sake. We do not need to be putting ourselves into this at this point. I can see a resolution maybe after the major negotiations are done, and supported President Trump's final USMCA.

This is political, specifically from the socialist majority who opposes President Trump and his excellent use of tariffs that have worked. Canada has proven over this last year, especially, not to be a friendly neighbor. The last resolution did no good, and this will show to President Trump that as much as he personally loves Alaska, that our legislature is not about Alaska first, much less American first. That potentially harms Alaska. So I, I urge a no vote on SGR 25.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Coons. Is there anyone else in the room or online who wishes to testify to this item? Seeing and hearing none, we will close public testimony on SGR 25.

That brings this resolution back before the committee. Members have in their packet a draft proposed committee substitute. May I have a motion, please? Mr. Chairman, I move committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 25, version 34, Lima Sierra 1404 backslash November as the working document. Object for purposes of explanation.

Mr. Conrad Jackson Jackson will come and explain the changes made in the committee substitute proposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Conrad Jackson, staff to the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee. The changes made in CS version backslash N are as follows. On page 2, lines 19 through 28 of the original resolution were deleted and replaced with the lines: Whereas free trade between the United States, Canada, and Mexico makes goods cheaper, expands markets, and creates opportunity for economic growth. And whereas smooth and efficient border crossings for commuters, regular travelers, and their pets will grow trust and mutual goodwill between North American countries and.

The second change is on page 3, following line 7. The following language is inserted. It says, further resolved that the Alaska State Legislature supports the creation of a program that will simplify border crossing for trusted commuters, regular travelers, and their pets, and be it. The final change is found on page 3, line 9, following the words administration to, we're deleting end disruptive tariffs on and inserting work toward a system of free trade, free trade with. There's also, Mr. Chairman, a conforming change to the title of the resolution.

Very good. Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson. Are there any questions for Mr. Jackson?

Hearing and seeing none, I will remove my objection. Is there further objection to the adoption of the Committee substitute? Hearing no objection, version 34-LS1404/n as in Nepaskiak is before us as a working document. Senator Kawasaki. Mr. Marquardt, do you have any additional remarks or comments on the committee substitute or the testimony you've heard today?

For the record, Samuel Marquardt, staff to— or intern to Senator Kawasaki. I believe that this committee substitute improves the language of the resolution. One of the most important things that we're doing with continuation of USMCA is improving our relationship with Canada. And this committee substitute helps to do that. More efficient travel, less delay is good for both parties and helps increase the mutually beneficial relationship.

And for the record, Senator Scott Kawasaki, I'd concur. I appreciated, uh, the work with, uh, staff in the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee in, uh, making these changes. I also just wanted to point out that the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement was something that was done first under the Trump administration. It was even supported by the 32nd Alaska Legislature by a resolution very similarly drafted. Um, again, we hope that we can continue modernizing the USMCA, uh, for the benefit of all of North America.

Very good. We'll take a brief at ease.

We are back on the record. Is there any further committee discussion, questions, or comments on SJR 25? Seeing and hearing none, what are the wishes of the committee? Mr. Chairman, I move to report committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 25, version 34, Lima Sierra 1404, -11 from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note.

Is there any objection? Seeing and hearing no objection, committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 25, version 34-LS1404-N, is reported from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. Please stay after and we will sign the committee report. The Senate Labor and Commerce Committee will meet again on Friday, April 24th, when we will hear a presentation by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development on the 2026 AK LNG workforce trends and opportunities, including the pipeline training plan. As there is no further business to come before the Senate Labor and Commerce today, we are adjourned at 1:58 PM.