House Floor Session, 4/21/26, 10:30am

Will the House please come to order.

Members, please indicate their presence by voting.

Has any member failed to vote? Appears, uh, Representative Gray about to vote. Will the clerk please tally the board? 38 Members present. With 38 members present, we have a quorum present to conduct business.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I have no previous excused absences today. Leading the invocation today is our very own Aaron Parfait, House Page. Will members please rise.

With the deepest respect for the beliefs of all Alaskans, I offer the following prayer in alignment with my own faith and traditions. Heavenly Father, King of the Universe, we come before you today with humility and gratitude, recognizing that all wisdom, justice, and authority comes from you. We thank you for the land of Alaska, for its mountains, forests, rivers, and seas, and for the many people who call this remarkable place home. You see every community and every life represented across this great state. Lord, we ask for your presence to rest among the members of the Alaska House of Representatives gathered here today.

Grant them wisdom that rises above personal interest, courage to do what is right even when it is difficult, and humility to listen to those they serve. In moments of disagreement, Give them patience. In moments of uncertainty, give them clarity. When the work becomes heavy, remind them that leadership is a calling to serve others with integrity and care. Guide their decisions so they protect the vulnerable, steward Alaska's lands and waters responsibly, and pursue laws with fairness and compassion.

May the work done in this chamber strengthen families, encourage honest opportunity, and build a future filled with hope for the next generation. Teach us all that true strength is found in compassion, mercy, and love for our neighbor, and that lasting prosperity comes from truth and integrity. Bless this assembly with a spirit of respect, even when perspectives differ, so that the common good may always rise above division. May your peace rest upon Alaska, from the smallest village to the largest city. And may your wisdom guide the work done here today.

In the precious and holy name of Yeshua HaMashiach, Jesus Christ, our Savior and Messiah. Amen. Representative Hempstead, will 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.

Representative Stohry. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that the prayer be spread across the journal. Hearing no objection, the prayer will be spread across the journal. Will the clerk please certify the journal for the previous legislative days?

I certify as to the correctness of the journal for the 91st legislative day. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the journal of the previous day be approved as certified by the Chief Clerk. Hearing no objection, the journal stands approved.

Are there guests for introduction this morning?

Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Once again, we'd like to welcome our guests in the Taylor Gallery. I was just reminded that you were introduced yesterday, and we're pleased that you could be here again with us today.

Madam Clerk, are there any messages from the governor? A letter dated April 20th was received regarding the 2024 West Coast storm disaster. An updated finance plan was attached, and the governor requests concurrence from the legislature to increase the funding limitation on the federal authorization and the State Disaster Relief Fund pursuant to AS 2623-020 and AS 2623-025. The letter, federal disaster declaration, and updated finance plan were copied to the Finance Committee co-chairs and are on file in the Chief Clerk's Office. Also received was a revised finance plans and accompanying letter dated April 20 regarding the 2025 October West West Coast Storm, 2025 August Storm, and 2023 Juneau Flood disasters.

The finance plans and letter were copied to the Finance Committee co-chairs and are on file in the Chief Clerk's Office. I have no further messages from the governor this morning. Are there any messages from the other body?

A message dated April 20th saying the Senate has passed and is transmitting the following committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution number 28, Labor and Commerce, by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, recognizing the vital role of workers serving in the state under the J-1 exchange visitor program and the H-1B program for specialty occupations and the H-2B program for temporary non-agricultural workers in supporting the state's economic security and continue— continuity of critical services. Labor and Commerce Committee.

Committee substitute for Senate Bill number 187, Education, by the Senate Education Committee, entitled an Act Prohibiting Certain Food Additives in Public School Meals and Providing for an Effective Date. Education Committee.

Senate Bill number 258 by Senator Keele, entitled an Act Relating to Contracts for the Licensing of Software Applications. Labor and Commerce Committee. I have no further messages from the other body. Madam Clerk, are there any communications? There are no communications this morning, Mr. Speaker.

Any reports to standing committees? The Resources Committee held a hearing on the appointee to the Regulatory Commission of Alaska, Julie Vogler. Signing the report: Representatives Colombe, Hall, Sadler, Elam, Prox, Mears, and co-chairs Dybert and Freer. The Resources Committee considered House Bill 321, Fish and Game Wildlife Refuges, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 321, Resources, with the same title, attached one new fiscal note. Signing the report: do pass, Representatives Fields, Hall, Mears, and co-chairs Freer and Dybert.

Do not pass: Colon, Sadler, and Prox. The bill has a further referral to the Finance Committee.

The Education Committee considered committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 20 Finance CPR Curriculum, recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 20 Education with a technical title change. Attached one previously published zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Elam, Daivert, Eichide, Underwood, and Co-Chairs Story and Hemmschulte. No recommendation. Schwanke, the bill has a further referral to the Finance Committee, and I have no further reports of standing committees.

Are there any reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees this morning. Are there any citations or resolutions for introduction? Honoring Deborah Corbett by Representative Gray and Senator Dunbar. Honoring the Pacific Community of Alaska 5th Anniversary by Representatives Mena, Gray, and Senator Tobin.

Honoring Glenda D. Ledford by Senators Tilton, Yunt, and Representative Underwood. Honoring Deborah Brewer by Senator Clayman. Honoring Fairbanks Art Association 60th Anniversary by Senator Kawasaki. In memoriam Amber Dawn Wright by Representative Carrick. In memoriam Tony Dean Peter by Senators Kawasaki, Cronk, and Representative Dybert.

In Memoriam Richard Dick Ferris by Senator Kawasaki. I have no further citations or resolutions for introduction. Are there any bills for introduction? There are no bills for introduction this morning. This brings us to consideration of the daily calendar.

Madam Clerk, please read the first item on today's calendar. House Bill number 262 by the House Rules Committee by request. Entitled An Act Increasing the Number of Superior Court Judges in the Third Judicial District and Providing for an Effective Date. The Judiciary Committee considered the bill, attached 3 new fiscal notes. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Underwood, Kopp, Costello, Mena, and Chair Gray.

The Finance Committee also considered the bill, attached 3 previously published fiscal notes and 1 new fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Hannon, Stapp, Allard, Bynum, and co-chairs Josephson, Schrag, Foster. No recommendation, Tomaszewski. There are no committee substitutes.

Mr.

Majority Leader. Where are the minutes? At ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that House Bill 262 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There is an objection. Brief it ease. Brief it ease.

House, please come back to order. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I withdraw my objection. Mr.

Majority Leader. Would you restate that? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that House Bill 262 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There is an objection, so the bill will be held in third reading the next day's calendar. Madam Clerk.

Committee substitute for House Bill 133 Finance amended payment of contracts is in second reading. Amendment number 10 by— excuse me, Amendment number 9 by Representative Elam beginning page 2, lines 19 through 20. Representative Elam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment number 9.

There's an objection. Representative Elam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I may reference my notes. Thank you.

What Amendment Number 9 does is this amendment— first, I'd just like to start out by that, you know, not all contracts and not all grants are the same, right? And so there is some specificities between the variety of different ones. And so what this amendment does is allows some flexibility if different payment terms are already agreed upon to in writing. And so this amendment allows the state and a contractor, nonprofit, or municipality to agree to different payment timelines or interest terms in their contract instead of strictly allowing the deadlines or following the deadlines set in the bill. A couple of reasons why this is an issue, right, is this preserves the flexibility of unique or, unique or complex agreements.

One of the ones that kind of comes to mind is like a Microsoft contract. It's not an easy-to-navigate contract. Sometimes those require a little bit of flexibility. Prevents conflicts with existing contracts and allows both parties to negotiate terms that will fit the specific situation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Himschoot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the 13 hearings that this bill had, at no point did any of the municipalities, tribal organizations, or nonprofits ask to have this kind of flexibility. In addition, I'll just mention that I heard conversation that they welcome a clear 30-day timeline. And to be clear, the effective date of this bill is now 3 years out, so any contract going forward can easily adapt to the 30-day timeline. So for those reasons, I oppose the amendment.

Thank you. Representative Holland. Great, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just briefly, I oppose the amendment. You know, my experience working with large organizations is that they have a tremendous tremendous amount of power and sway over the terms.

And in the case of these type of contracts, I'm afraid that this flexibility, while it might seem beneficial on the surface, is really setting up many small nonprofits for a situation where they're going to have terms dictated to them and they're not going to be able to establish what we're trying to do here, which is a fair and timely payment. So I oppose this amendment. Representative Ruffridge. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 9.

A couple of reasons. One, I think the sponsor of the amendment did a good job of describing the importance of being able to have flexibility. What we are attempting to do in the underlying bill, I think the speaker right before me said very eloquently, which is to dictate terms and to dictate terms potentially to everybody that the state or a nonprofit or other organizations choose to do business with. I think in many cases that might prohibit potentially an opportunity going forward, especially if a company of some sort has different terms that is their company policy. I think this at least gives us the option to say when necessary, And according to law, we should have a contract that requires a payment within at least the first year, 45 days, second year, 30 days.

And if not, and if there is a specific reason for a different payment term, that can be something that we talk about in the process of doing business. I think this opens up the state for the opportunity to do business with any company. I think This also puts some sort of, I think, shift from the bill being super prescriptive to being something that allows for the state to say, and all of these organizations to say, we want to be as open as possible for the potential of doing business with the entity that provides the, the best service. I think the other thing that this allows, uh, Mr. Speaker, is for flexibility an opportunity. Uh, let's say that there is a, uh, a battle for a certain contract, uh, and one offers a better payment term than the other.

Uh, that also allows for negotiation. If the payment term is prescribed for in law, you take away an option for negotiations and contracting, and I think that might drive up cost in the future. So already this bill has a fiscal note attached to it that's driving up cost. Without flexible language, I think the cost might drive up even further in the future. So I'm in support of Amendment 9.

Thank you. Representative St. Clair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also support this amendment for, for several reasons. As brought up by a previous member, that large corporations, this would not really benefit and they could actually abuse it. However, when you talk about small organizations that have a a very small profit margin, if that, or they need the money at certain times to make payroll, this flexibility would allow an agreement between whoever is offering the grant and the grantee to work out a deal to make sure that they get paid on time. 'Cause that's the biggest beef, or the genesis of this bill is nonprofits not getting paid in a timely manner.

If they were able to work out a plan, then they could go in there and it wouldn't be, it wouldn't really be an issue anymore. And on, like I said, the previous member that they spoke about large organizations, maybe there could be a conceptual amendment or something that would minimize it and only leave it to small nonprofits. I don't know what that range would be or how we would delineate, but I don't know if the amendment sponsor would be amicable to that. In wrap-up— sorry, Representative Sadler. Pardon me, Speaker.

A little late to that meeting. I'm rising in support of Amendment 9 on some of the same grounds you've already heard. This amendment would provide flexibility. You know, the state has lots of contracts and grantees with a huge variety of different kind of organizations for a lot of different goods and services and a lot of different conditions under which those grantees operate. One size fits all does not— you know, they work for hats and gloves, I guess, but it does not work for the contract provisions.

This amendment provides for some flexibility and allows the state and the grantees to work out conditions that are amenable to both and does not subject them to pretty severe sanctions that we would pay if we're not able to comply with those. So if the desire is to make it better for the state to work with contractees and grantees and make it more satisfactory and make them able to comply with the terms of their agreement. I think this is a good amendment to accomplish that end. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to rise in support of the amendment. Permission to read? Permission granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the amendment, page 1, line 14, this clearly says that, that these organizations may provide terms of payment and deadlines or interest that differ from the requirements of the section.

So this not only allows for there to be an agreement for a different timeline, but it also allows for a different agreement on interest terms if those payments aren't met, which could be higher than what's in statute. Again, these are things that are positive for creating these agreements when these organizations are coming forward and talking about what's in statute and what works for their organization. And there may be cases where having higher terms of interest agreement are actually a good thing for that agreement. So I support the amendment. Thank the member for bringing it forward.

I think we're at wrap-up. Representative Ehlund. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate everybody's input, and I would be definitely open to the ideas of Maybe doing some kind of changes if need be.

Bringing this amendment forward, really it is about having flexibility, right? Like I said early on, not all contracts are the same. Not all of that works. I think that, you know, the state of Alaska needs to pay its bills. We need to make sure that if we've committed to paying a grant, we need to make sure we're paying that.

We need to be doing our business. There are times though where maybe not all the terms are the same. And so this would allow the grant, you know, the members involved to be able to define those parameters. And so with that, I appreciate the conversation and ask for your support. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment Number 9 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Representative Moore? Aye. From yay to—.

I'm sorry. Okay. Will the clerk please tally the board? 18 Yays, 22 nays. With a vote of 18 yeas to 22 nays, Amendment Number 9 has failed to pass.

Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 10 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 2, line 19. Representative Ruffridge. I move Amendment 10. There's an objection.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So Amendment 10 deals with, again, the underlying fiscal note potential with this bill. The underlying bill deals with interest payments on grants that don't meet the timeline. I think some of the early amendments that were adopted potentially shrink that fiscal note amount. And so potentially this amendment doesn't have as great of an effect as it would have without some of those amendments.

But what we heard in committee is that if the underlying bill was to be adopted, that the departments would, potentially be focusing on paying the larger grants first, or prioritize which ones were paid, because those would be the amount that would generate the greatest amount of interest and penalties in the long run, and that they would really just kind of take it in regards to smaller grants and accept the interest payment because it would be smaller. And so in the interest of trying to have there be some offset of that, This amendment seeks to say that a contract for less than $500,000 is exempt from the requirements of this section and also exempt from the reporting requirements. So this would start this payment program for grants that are larger in nature. Representative Hemmschuk.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this amendment would be fairly contrary to what we're trying to do with the bill. And the reason I say that is many of the nonprofits that we're trying to support with prompt payment would be under that $500,000 threshold. So surely in the reporting we need to hear about everyone who's not receiving the benefits of Alaska being a good business partner. And I'll just give some examples. The Kachemak Bay Heritage Land Trust is not going to be receiving more than $500,000, and they are still waiting for some payments.

The Hope Community Resources is $150,000 they've been waiting 90 days to get. The Tundra Women's Coalition has been waiting 60 days. Not only should we get the report on them, they should be paid on time. So I'm opposed to the amendment. Thank you.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is designed to force the state to make its payments. As the maker of the amendment said, they sometimes will have to prioritize which payments they make. The payments that they prioritize typically would be those that are most expensive to them because that makes sense.

So the issue that I see with the smaller businesses or nonprofits that are underneath this limit is that they will not get paid, maybe even longer. Sure, they'll get the interest eventually. So are we trying to get them more money, or are we trying to make sure that they get paid on time? So this bill clearly tells the state that we want them paid on time. What's gonna happen in my fear, and I've heard it actually from some of the state liaisons, that what's going to happen if this bill goes through is they are going to have to prioritize paying the very large contracts and the very large amounts of money first.

And the people that we actually are targeting with this bill, those that we want to be paid on time, those that are operating near the margins, are going to suffer. And that's a problem. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 10.

You know, we are— this legislation underneath it will impose penalties for payment of less than on a schedule, less than arbitrary deadlines that can have perverse side effects. Mr. Speaker, it's going to create an additional layer of accounting and bureaucracy and tracking if we're going to impose and collect and account for these fees. We may inadvertently be in a situation where it's costing more in compliance and paperwork than we're ever going to receive back in penalties and interest fees. So the intent of the bill to try and incentivize better payment just is not going to work. We have to make sure that we don't spend a dollar to collect a dime.

So by amending this legislation to exempt smaller contracts under $500,000, which is still pretty big, I think we are going to be properly allocating state resources to collect the most important ones. And although I will grant that there are other objections, that maybe this is going to incentivize us to just not pay small, smaller countries at all. So there's some problems with the underlying legislation. This amendment tries to fix them. So let's do it.

Representative Elam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 10, and I appreciate my colleague from the Kenai bringing this up. During my time on the Borough Assembly, we actually provided a lot of dollar pass-throughs for a variety of the small nonprofits and groups ranging from libraries to contractors. I realize this amendment specifically is focused for state contracts, but there are dozens and dozens and dozens, if not hundreds, of contracts that the state is responsible for that are below the $500,000 limit here.

And so I think this is a really good tool for those small organizations to have priority, to have a seat at the table whenever these contracts are being prioritized. And so for that, I support this amendment. Thank you.

In wrap-up, Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the conversation. I will say The attempt with Amendment Number 10 is actually not to be contrary to the bill at all. I think the right statement would be attempting to implement this in a progressive way, a stepwise way. If you say, well, there is a way that we can do this that has the least negative effect potentially to the system as a whole initially, And then if you start getting down through those bigger dollar amounts and ensuring that those are paid on time, and then you can attempt to implement some of these lesser dollar amounts at some point in the future, I think that that might help alleviate some of the potential cost to this bill as well as some of the potential negative side effects.

And I urge your support. Thank you.

Brief it is.

House, please come back to order. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to withdraw Amendment Number 10. Amendment number 10 has been withdrawn.

Madam Clerk. Amendment number 11 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 1, line 8. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment 11.

There's an objection. Representative Ruffridge. Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. This again, I think, is an amendment that sort of is attempting to soften some of the language in the bill currently in an attempt to reduce some of the penalty costs that potentially this underlying bill will generate and allow for some of the flexibility that's within some of the contracts for these organizations. And this is saying that an agency, instead of shall pay a contractor for satisfactory performance, it will say an agency shall make reasonable efforts to pay a contractor for reasonable or satisfactory performance.

And this will, I think, allow the department at least In our testimony that we heard, there is many times cases where they ask for documentation or some sort of information back from the grantee in order to make a payment, and then those things are either not gotten on time. There's reasons for some of these delays, and I think the departments in many cases are making reasonable efforts but still show up on the late report. This amendment would take care of that. Representative Hempschutz.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think giving a glide path of just over 2 years to come into compliance with what we're asking for— so I oppose the amendment. And the reason for that is I think we're giving plenty of time for our state agencies to be able to come into compliance. I don't want to make reasonable efforts, I want to pay on time, and I don't think that's asking too much. And I think If you were to ask the Boys and Girls Club if they'd like to be paid on time, pretty sure they'd say yes.

If you ask the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence if they'd like to be paid on time, pretty sure that they would say yes. I think if you ask the Presbyterian Hospitality House if they would like to be paid on time, I'm absolutely confident that they would say yes. And I think as a good business partner, we owe that to the folks who are doing the good work on behalf of our state. I want to make really clear that all of this effort to save money, to save money, to save money save money means that we are shifting the burden of late payments to the nonprofits. I don't want to make a reasonable effort, I want to pay on time.

In addition, I will just point out this bill in fiscal year '25 would have cost just over $1 million. So when we talk about how much it costs, think of our investments in all the things that we pay for in this state. I think a $1 million investment in making sure that we are a good business partner is a reasonable investment. So I'm not looking to reduce the fiscal note, though I believe the glide path we're on will reduce it substantially. So I want to hold ourselves to a higher standard.

We are talking about prompt payment parity. What we are talking about is respect. Thank you.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment. I believe the amendment is making a reasonable effort to improve the bill. Thank you.

Representative.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment as well.

I do think that there needs to be some accommodations that allow— again, I want to go back and make this— make the statement we need to pay our bills. We need to be making sure that we're taking care of our obligations and commitments that we have. I have run into numerous times where there are challenges sometimes getting the information needed because it's— contracts are mutual, right? It's binding on both people. We have our responsibility to do stuff as well, but if an organization isn't necessarily as responsive, you know, there needs to be some accommodations for how we do that as long as we're acting mutually respectful.

And so, uh, I think this amendment does a good job at bringing forward some of that. And so I, I rise in support of it. Thank you. Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to remind folks, um, you know, there are many of us that would like to support the underlying bill. We all believe that the state should be making their payments on time. How we get them to do that is another story. I might remind the body of 13 huge fiscal notes 6,000 nonprofits, more than any other state in the country, and I think that we are setting ourselves up for an issue. I think that there must be a better way to do this than to penalize ourselves for what might be issues coming from either the nonprofit itself or from the pass-through funds from the federal government, whether it be paperwork or signatures or whatever.

So I think we need to allow the state some flexibility, and I think this amendment does that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment.

I allow that there's been a lot of work into this, but this is— setting things up by statute can be very difficult, and I don't know what can happen. Well, COVID is an example. Things happen that totally disrupt functions of any organization. And what we really are asking for is reasonable effort. And definitely it needs to be improved.

Definitely we need to keep more track of it, but we also need to put some latitude in a statute that accounts for unforeseen circumstances. So I support this amendment and ask for others to support it as well. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I just want to be so crystal clear. We're a body that makes laws, and we understand very well the difference between shall and may. And I know we're using the words make reasonable efforts to here to substitute for may, but essentially that's what we're doing. And honestly, if you want to get to a zero fiscal note, pay your bills on time. That's good government.

And if we support this underlying bill and the departments are able to bring themselves to— with higher efficiency, I think we'll get there. In fact, we heard in Finance, when we heard several of those who were presenting the fiscal notes, when we heard their comments about how they want to get better. I think it was a big message to me that many of these departments would like to work toward getting this done. I didn't hear, "We don't think we should do that," or, "Gee, we're just making every effort and that's the way this bill should be written." I think that, again, I can't say enough that I think the public wants to see government operating, getting the trains on time, getting the buses on time, getting the roads plowed on time, all of that. And part of that is many of these services that are being presented to Alaskans, whether it's Boys and Girls Club.

And by the way, yes, mine did shut down in my district. And these nonprofits—. Point of order, Mr. Speaker. We need to confine the debate to the item in front of the body. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is Mason's 101. Representative Galvin, would you please confine your remarks? You bet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the Rules Chair to remind me that we are on this amendment that's changing the language from shall to make reasonable efforts to. And when we change it, then we essentially— I'm not sure why we would have a bill.

Let's pay our bills on time and let's make sure that we have clear language in this bill, and that's why I do not support this amendment. Thank you. Representative Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just heard pay your bills on time.

That's good government. I appreciate my colleague from Anchorage stating that, but if you can't pay your bills on time with taxpayer dollars, I'm not quite sure that you should be in business. No business should rely 100% on taxpayer dollars to continue to be in business. Accountability is very important, Mr. Speaker, and I do support this amendment. Thank you.

And wrap up, Representative Ruffridge. Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker, um, and I appreciate the comments from my colleagues here. I actually think they address in many cases some of my concerns that Amendment Number 11 attempts to address. We heard the following phrases. We heard business partner and pay your bills on time.

Those are two pieces of language that we use, I think, often within the business community for people that are, one, for-profit, and two, required to do work that is for their own benefit. In many cases, House Bill 133 seeks to require the state to pay a nonprofit organization or an organization that is receiving grant funds like they are a for-profit entity. And the, the language that's used in opposition to Amendment 11 I think highlights that. Now, why is that important, and why should make reasonable efforts to be inserted into the bill? It is not actually changing may to shall, or shall to may.

What it is doing is saying that grants are functionally different than paying for service. A grant is something that an organization in many cases seeks out on their own for a very specific purpose that they have, uh, essentially, um, organized around that purpose. So let's take some of those organizations that the sponsor of the bill mentioned. Each one of those organizations actually run a program that they themselves started for a specific purpose that is often outreach or caring for a community member. And we the state have said, we have a grant program that's available to you, you should apply.

And then when they apply, we say, hey, that looks like that meets the requirements of the underlying program. We would like to grant you money to offer that service, but it comes with strings attached. Any government money always comes with strings attached. And then when our department says, we'd like to make sure that you followed the rules of the grant, because they have a requirement to make sure that the T's are crossed and the I's are dotted. And then when that back and forth, that exchange of information, runs into two things: a lack of personnel, and the fact that that lack of personnel is on both ends of the spectrum.

It's at the nonprofit side and it's at the government side. And so then you have a delay. Everything here is delayed. And so everyone is trying to make a reasonable effort to, but we live in a small state with limited resources. And we are going to sit here and act like these are the same thing, that a nonprofit entity is the same as a for-profit entity and should be paid the same.

I don't see how those are the same thing. And I think if we are going to hold a government department to the statement of pay your bills on time, then we're gonna have to start saying that a nonprofit entity is just like a for-profit entity, and they are not. Or we should create a grant program that has less strings attached. I don't see that anywhere in the bill either, and I think the public would generally be unsupportive of that. And so— [Speaker:INTERPRETER] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Once again, we need to maintain the dialogue on the amendment before us, Masons 101. Thank you. Representative Ruffridge, I presume you're about to wrap up your comments, and I'd ask you as well to confine your remarks to the amendment. Yes, sir. Thank you, uh, Mr. Speaker.

Uh, I, I, uh, make those points specifically because the underlying bill is ultimately seeking to make a change to organizations that are functionally different than the language that is already in statute that's dealing mostly with a for-profit entity. The making reasonable efforts to highlights that difference and says that the department does still have a requirement. It's not a may. The department— it's not saying the department may try hard. It's saying that they need to prove that they are making an effort to pay these things on time, uh, and when they don't, they have to have a very clear reason as to why not.

In many cases, Mr. Speaker, what we heard in committee They do. And so we have to be able to highlight that those two things are functionally different, and that's what Amendment No. 11 Does. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Amendment No. 11 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? 18 Yeas, 22 nays. With a vote of 18 yeas to 22 nays, Amendment Number 11 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 12 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 2, lines 19 through 20.

Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment Number 12. There's an objection. Thank you.

I wish that we could title this Amendment 33 for my friend from North Pole. This is an amendment that deals with what these contracts with nonprofits look like. And I think this gives, again, just a little bit of an out clause for some of these grants and other things that may not be meeting the expectations that we have in statute. This ties the contracts that are in this underlying bill to the Executive Budget Act, requiring us to receive information as to how the grants or reimbursement agreements comply with the Executive Budget Act and what goals and metrics that we are asking for and how, how the grant is achieving those metrics. The Amendment 12 links those two things together.

Representative Hempschutz. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose this amendment. I think one thing that we know is that our state agencies are doing their level best to pay on time. They are making a reasonable effort.

This amendment would provide a loophole for an agency that was somehow acting in bad faith. So I think that's one reason, but the main reason is that the grantees don't have control. The Legislative Budget Act really is geared to the legislature. It's our job to set standards and to put measures in place to make sure that the agencies are doing what we want them to do, what the people of Alaska want them to do. That does not trickle down to the folks delivering the services.

So, uh, I think in that case you're going to use tools like an audit or budget controls or oversight within the agency to check the grant. Recipients. So the Executive Budget Act— I think I called it Legislative Budget Act earlier— but the Executive Budget Act, it's a great document, a great law. We should be doing more with it. I don't believe that it applies here.

And finally, I think that it does a disservice to the folks who are delivering services on behalf of the state because it shifts the risk from the state onto the recipients for the interpretation of compliance with the Executive Budget Act. So for those reasons, I oppose the amendment. Representative Elam. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 12.

Been learning a lot, actually, more about Executive Budget Act, and I think that it really kind of outlines wonderfully what this amendment is trying to do. And, you know, ultimately, I think this whole thing kind of comes down to to priorities. You know, how are we going to prioritize the systems that make sure the payments are getting out in time? How are we going to make sure that we're actually making sure that we're doing the things that we're saying we're doing, or at least telling the executive branch what we're wanting done as a priority? So I think this is a great step towards it.

Thank you. Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 12.

It does fit in with the whole contracting process for nonprofit organizations or any organization. Quite often organizations will go to state— the state for part of the funding, the city, the borough, the other organization that's getting funding. And they're used— getting funding from some is used to leverage the state for more funding. And it works the other way. Getting the state to fund something leverages something else.

And we don't have clear expectations. And often the money sits around— the state money sits around idle. For quite some time, and that also needs to be addressed. So I think that should be part of paying bills on time, but also should be knowing what you're getting, when you're going to get it, and get that on time as well. So I support this amendment, number 12.

Thank you. Senator McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm a bit unclear on if the state agencies are doing their level best to pay bills on time, how this bill will help. Frankly, if they were doing their level best and if they were getting the job done, we wouldn't need this bill.

I made a comment in the last one about fiscal notes. There are some pretty big fiscal notes associated with this, and I'm not so sure that paying our bills on time would make a zero fiscal note. The Executive Budget Act is actually how we pay our departments. It's what we deal with —in the budget. Point of order, Representative Stutes.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, we must define— we must confine the debate to the question before the body. That's Mason's 101. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Representative McCabe, I would advisedly tell you the same thing, to please confine your remarks to the amendment at hand.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment at hand deals with the Executive Budget Act. I think those words were out of my mouth in the last sentence, but I will attempt to tightly combine it for the, uh, for the rules chair.

We do provide money to these departments, um, Mr. Speaker. That's our job. Requiring this would seem like a small ask for what we're trying to accomplish here because we actually all do want the state to pay their bills on time. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any wrap-up comments? Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, repeat, please.

Will the House please come back to order. Representative Kahlom. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to rise in support of this amendment. So if we are making sure that we pay our bills on time, we are raising the standard.

I think it's appropriate for us to raise the standard and make sure that the money that we're giving to nonprofits is actually effective. I've talked about this many times. There's, there's It's one thing to just ask for more money and give out money, but it's really important to have those key performance indicators. What is the goal that the money is achieving? Is it achieving the goal?

And so we can reassess as a body whether that money needs to go to that nonprofit. So I support the amendment.

Wrap-up, Representative Ruffridge. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. And actually, representative that just spoke did a good job of Taking some of my notes here. The bill sponsor mentioned a loophole that this creates, and I disagree. So the statement was that we would be mandating that a non-governmental organization suddenly comply with the Executive Budget Act, but that would assume that the money didn't first come to us and we didn't own and manage the grant, which is exactly what the underlying bill seeks to accomplish, which is the payment of those grant funds on time.

What this does actually is it say there's certain rules that apply for paying things on time. The number one rule is that you have to comply with having a mission statement, a strategic plan, and measure your performance results. That would be a requirement of the grant funds to be paid on time. That doesn't prohibit a department or an agency from entering into a grant arrangement with an organization that doesn't meet the Executive Budget Act. It's just saying that this section doesn't apply to them.

If they don't have a strategic plan, a mission statement, and measurable performance results, then, well, then, I mean, I think we should ask the question, does that— is that something we need to be paying on time? Should we be asking more questions? Should we be asking whether or not that grant should have been granted to that organization to begin with? I think this is an accountability measure to ask questions of grant payments. And payments to nonprofits.

If we have a responsibility as a legislature, and if the executive has the responsibility to ask these questions for state funds, and if state funds are going to be used for payments as the underlying bill talks about, then I think, I think that the Executive Budget Act should probably apply to those specifically if we are going to be attaching these ideas of interest payments and other things I think we should also be asking for these measurable results in return. And so I urge your support on Amendment 12. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall— did I hear?

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 12 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Clerk, please lock the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. For the vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment No.

12 Has failed to pass. Brief it ease. Brief it ease.

Well, the House, please come back to order. So if I didn't, let me once again ask the clerk— or make sure I ask the clerk if there are any more amendments. Madam Clerk. I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Brief it ease. Brief it ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 133 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There is an objection.

This bill be held to the next day's calendar. Madam Clerk.

Free fit ease.

Will the House please come back to order.

Madam Clerk. Committee substitute for House Bill number 25, Labor and Commerce, by the House Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled an act relating to disposable food service ware and containers provided by customers and providing for an effective date. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning— still morning for a moment or two— to my colleagues. Mr. Speaker, it's uncanny that we have before us today House Bill 25, which would restrict the use of polystyrene in restaurants and in state— essentially state restaurants. As well, and, and sort of restaurant-related industries. The uncanny part is that the other body has a resolution on marine debris today, so both sides are looking at the issue of, of plastics today at the same time.

Polystyrene is a toxin. It's linked to a number of health concerns, and it stands out among all plastics in that respect. It leaches its chemicals into food products and those chemicals can increase the risk of cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma and they damage white blood cells like lymphocytes. An oncologist from Juneau wrote in support of this measure and noted other concerns like concerns with reproductive health, the disruption of endocrine function, and the triggering of inflammation and cellular toxicity. Um, the National Toxicology Program called styrene reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.

So that's the product we're dealing with. Where is the product located? Well, I have more on this than the chamber may want to know, but it's ubiquitous. Uh, it is in 22% of all U.S. takeout and food delivery orders, although not in 31% of the population because 12 states have banned it, as have 250 communities. It, uh, it, due to currents and wind, is found in the Arctic in what's called the Arctic Hemispheric Sink.

Mr. Speaker, there's enough foam produced every year to fill the Dallas Cowboys Stadium 5 times. That's, that's what's at issue here. The main issue, along with its toxicity, is that it is not recyclable. And I wanted to note that it's friable, it breaks down, it goes into the environment, it's lightweight, and it blows away. And when fragmented, it can simply not be recovered.

The US Plastics Pact, which includes a list of of voluntary industry-driven folks as well, listed polystyrene as a problematic and unnecessary material. It's on that list. So that's some basic sort of background of what we're dealing with. Polystyrene is 25 to 30% of landfills. There are affordable, non-toxic alternatives.

And I produced to the body during the debate phase, I produced two documents, one that my staff took right off of Amazon. It is 5, or rather 8 days old, that shows, for example, that there are compostable items that are cents less expensive than the products our restaurants give us. And I, I gave a second document that, for example, noted that a paper plate can be exchanged— that is, a polystyrene paper plate— can be exchanged for as little as 3 cents per unit markup. So that's— those are some backgrounds. I wanted to talk about who supports this bill.

We have letters of support from the Mid Valley Recycling Group and the Big Lake Recycling Center, particularly if Yvonne Cone and Patricia Fisher. We have letters of support from the Glacier View area of the Mat-Su Borough. We have letters of support from Valley Community for Recycling Solutions, Miss Suzanne Hayes and Miss Tamara Bovee. And Miss Bovee notes that the Mat-Su— or rather, the Valley Community for Recycling Solutions— diverted over 2,000 tons of material by recycling. And again, other substitute products could be recycled.

This product cannot be recycled. So that's the interlink there. The Whittier City Chamber of Commerce supports this, as does the City of Gustavus. And we have 3 communities that have banned polystyrene formally: Bethel, Seward, and Cordova. There's yet another group in the Matsu that supports this, the Matsu Zero Waste Coalition.

And we took testimony from a Brittany Robbins, a Wrangle restaurateur, who twice testified in favor of the bill. If questions come up, does this work? The data says that it does work. In Charleston, South Carolina, there was a 20% reduction in beach cleanups after a ban. In Chesapeake Bay, the Baltimore Inner Harbor, there was an 80% reduction in foam pollution collected by trash interceptors.

Along the Anacostia River in D.C., there was a 50% reduction in year 1 and an 88% reduction by year 5. There are other communities like that. And finally, I wanted to take on some of the criticism. The first thing is I want to thank the American Chemistry Council. You might say, that's weird, but they identified in our, in our original bill that The way it was written, it would have banned all plastic foodware service items.

And we— that wasn't really our intent. So the Labor and Commerce Committee and its CS fixed that and targeted what we were going after. Also, in the previous version, the American Chemistry Council noted that we would have required all foodware items be biodegradable or compostable. That's no longer part of the the bill either. So the American Chemistry Council, a lead critic, has already had some success in more narrowly tailoring this bill.

Just a couple other items. I do take issue with some of the criticism. This is the first time in 14 years where continuing criticism says that the fiscal notes you have in your packet couldn't possibly be right, that the state of Alaska's ASD ASDs, Administrative Services Directors, and bookkeepers simply don't know what they're talking about. That the impact on state government is going to be much more vast. And I got to tell you, I just haven't experienced that.

And I also haven't experienced critics saying, wow, the state is underestimating those sorts of impacts on a narrow bill like this.

So, and finally, the other thing I would say about critics is And watch for this, the critics never, they never ever contend, because they can't, with the fact that polystyrene is toxic and that polystyrene is not recyclable. So they talk around those issues because they can't talk to them. They claim that they want to, uh, aid in some comprehensive solution, but I, I just haven't seen evidence that they mean that. Finally, there was a lot of comments on the floor during debate about enforcement. And I wanted to say that some of it I thought, well, I don't want people to be alarmed by the issue of enforcement.

In fact, one member of the body, I don't remember who, said that they were concerned that the consumer, him or herself, walking away from a food truck would be attacked by some enforcement agent. For having polystyrene. That is not what this bill does. What the bill does is it uses the existing Food Waste and Cosmetic Act that exists right now, and it says, you know, once a year, or when— whenever they have the time, they will go to a restaurant or establishment, probably in an area in the state that doesn't have, for example, its own enforcement like Anchorage and Juneau, And just in the same way that they will check to make sure that the kitchen is clean and that the goods are fresh, they'll take a look around and make sure there's no polystyrene. That's the enforcement.

So it's not— there's nothing Gestapo-like about the enforcement, I assure you. And as I noted during debate, the department says that, first of all, they're going to start with an education and assistance campaign with written notices, follow-up actions, and a corrective action plan, etc. But then they go to what they do in the other circumstances, where, for example, there's food spoilage that someone's trying to serve in a restaurant, which doesn't sound very appetizing. And in that circumstance, the first offense would be $0, the second offense would be $200, the third offense would be $400. So this is sort of handled with care.

This is not men in black boots. It's not that sort of thing.

I really encourage the members to, to vote for this. I really do. You know, as we age, when— if you get to about 2050, this problem is going to triple the plastics problem. We're just dealing with a very narrow slice, very narrow slice, and The problem isn't going to go away, and it's being discussed in the other body. It's being discussed here.

This would be, I think, a powerful statement to make, and I urge your support.

Representative Sadler followed by Representative Prox. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I looked around, I didn't see anyone to put their mic up, so I got to make sure and do this. So, Mr. Speaker, uh, the passionate disclaimation by the sponsor notwithstanding, I'm going to oppose this bill on a lot of grounds.

The first ground is economic. This bill would actually mandate that private industry must use more expensive alternatives to polystyrene, which is already known to be inexpensive and effective and has been the industry standard. It says that the alternatives that we have to use— we have to accept alternatives which may be more expensive, and I think the evidence shows they are more expensive. And may themselves create problems and frankly themselves might not be 99.44% and 100% pure themselves. I oppose this bill on logistical grounds because the bill presumes that Alaska's waste management stream can handle the influx of new recycled material.

And I'm not sure, again, notwithstanding the citations by a couple of recycling organizations, that all across Alaska we have the capacity to deal with those recycling needs. I oppose this on the philosophical grounds. Forgive me for using the term nanny state, but it is. This is using the power of government to force people to do things the government believes are best for you. We're the government, we're here to help you, we know best.

And I just don't agree with that. Government seldom knows best in these kind of things. I oppose these on, yeah, I guess some political grounds too. I frankly, I'm sure that Gustavus doesn't like, you know, likes this bill, but I don't really much care what Gustavus says about what happens in my borough, my community. I understand that the sponsor's intentions are well stated and probably well intentioned, but this is a mandate on the private sector.

It is a cost to the public. It is a cost to our environment that I just don't think is warranted. I oppose this vehemently. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, I don't disagree that this could be a problem. I think that when we solve problems, we need to have honest conversations. For instance, the price list that we were given has different sizes, but it attempts to say that biodegradable or compostable are not all that much more expensive. So we need to have honest conversations with equal examples of this.

The fiscal notes need to come back true. For instance, I don't believe the fiscal note that we have talks about the entire cost to the state of Alaska or the entire cost to our businesses. So $1.8 to— sorry, $1.8 to $2.6 million possible to cost to the state. This is how we increase our budget without even noticing it. So we need to be honest with each other.

We need to be honest with the with the bills when we bring them out and deliver them on what the true cost is going to be. I totally understand. We've done this many times, whether it be regulating cigarettes or alcohol. We've done all sorts of things to help regulate industries that have harmful things such as polystyrene in our environment. And I don't necessarily disagree.

But the problem is, is I don't believe that we have necessarily had an honest conversation. For instance, have we talked to the cruise ship industry to see what the impact to them will be? 5 Restaurants on every ship, maybe as many as 5 restaurants. Are they using polystyrene? How are we going to enforce that?

Are we going to go on to the cruise ships and make sure they're not using polystyrene? They're not a brick-and-mortar in downtown Juneau, for instance. We can't go investigate them. So How do we do that? My guess is they're probably already using a biodegradable or not using it at all.

But how do we know? We don't know because we haven't had an honest conversation, Mr. Speaker. I think it's important in all of these things that we talk honestly and openly about what the issue is instead of this emotional, um, sort of— I hesitate to say manipulation because it's not, but it's an emotional conversation. And I get that. It's an emotional subject.

We're talking about our health, our children's health, the health of our planet. We're talking about all these things. But we need to be honest. What does it do? What does it do to our businesses?

What does it do to our state? How much money does it cost us? You know, how did it get started in the first place? It got started because businesses were looking for a cheaper way to do things. Well, maybe that's the root problem.

Maybe we need to find a better way or a better path for the businesses to do that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, uh, rise in opposition to this bill, uh, not that I am opposed to the goal of the sponsor, um, or that I'm in favor of having more polystyrene laying around in the ditches, and et cetera. But it's how do we go about solving these problems. As he pointed out, as the sponsor pointed out, people are voluntarily transitioning. And that's the way we should do it.

And before I get to a point of objection, I want to talk about something else that happened in Fairbanks that illustrates the point. There was federal regulation that caused a local regulation on air quality for PM 2.5, and it was said to be a health hazard. I don't know, it— fine particulate pollution bothers me, but we were talking about how to solve that, and it was gonna come down with a federal regulation, and that was causing all kinds of consternation. And people just reacted to being told to do things. And another fellow and I went around and figured out how could we do this voluntarily, and we made quite a bit of progress towards that end, but then the law came down to be enforced, and then everybody just resisted.

And the way we should solve these problems is talking to our neighbors and going about it in a sensible manner. And also, I went around to a couple of the places in Juneau that do quite a bit of takeout business, and it looks like they are complying with this already. They have plastic containers or they have a biodegradable container, but the biodegradable container, A, it doesn't work for moist You know, if you put lasagna in a biodegradable container, you'll have lasagna, lasagna in your hand by the time you get home. And also, there was no indication or thought about the liners, the other plastics, what sort of toxics are being introduced by these new containers. We're not thinking about that.

We could be creating a bigger problem. And so the biggest problem is the emotional reaction you get when you force people to do something. And thinking about it the other way, if we go to people, go to the restaurants, if they're using a polystyrene container, let them know. If you're picking up polystyrene containers along the ditches like I do every year, I take the bag of junk to the corner convenience store and let them know that this is a problem. And they say, oh, thank you.

And they change their way of doing business by just in a nice way asking people, there are better alternatives and we can, we can advance society in a much friendlier and civilized way. So that's my concern, is not what the sponsor is trying to do. It's going about things coercing people into action that is good for themselves. That's what education is about. That shouldn't be what laws are about.

So for that reason, I oppose this bill, but I thank the maker, the sponsor, for, uh, the diligent work that he put into it. Representative Hannan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of House House Bill 25. Saturday this weekend was cleanup day in Juneau, a community volunteer cleanup. And you'll see across our community a slight downturn in the waste that was becoming apparent as the piles and piles and piles of snow in ditches and mounds melted. But the one thing you'll see in every one of those, and still today, remnants of Styrofoam, spread around by its breaking down and the breeze is picking it up.

And as the sponsor of the bill has spoken to, it never goes away. It just breaks down into smaller and smaller and smaller parcels and finds its way into our diverse ecosystem, primarily waterways. I live in a community that has a private landfill that's approaching capacity and a lot of community tension about the need What are we going to do? And where is— we are looking in 5 to 10 years needing to ship our waste out. So we're not going to resolve our problem.

We're going to just shift it to being someone else's. And I'm always reminded of the saying, when we know better, we should do better. And we now know that many of the things that we have accepted in our food system as good cost-saving ones, convenience foods, takeout foods, now contribute to many of our health conditions. And we now have very clear science that microplastics contribute to significant health risks for us collectively. So when we talk about what's the cost, what's the cost to our collective?

What's the cost to our health system? What's the cost to our landfills? What's the cost to our people? And it's not the extra quarter at the takeout. It's what's the cost to increasing rates of microplastic in long-term health conditions.

You don't have to accept that. Some of us aren't going to live long enough to see what we now know are long-term health consequences of things we've accepted into our food system.

But we should all be voting against it because we know the science is there that it contributes to cancers, endocrine disruption. And I'm happy to support a degree decrease in Styrofoam in my community. Representative Ruffridge. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in opposition to House Bill 25 for a couple of reasons.

In the introduction, the bill sponsor listed a large number of ills that polystyrene has on human health, and I will say that I agree with all of them. And then he listed the large amount of polystyrene that's everywhere, and it's somewhat a ubiquitous substance. And yet, as we see on the board, this bill is about one specific thing, and that is disposable food service ware. And so we've taken in many ways what I think most of us would agree is that it's a harmful substance that we should probably do everything in our power as just good citizens of society to not use. And we've said it's now our responsibility to, I guess, for lack of better terms, start somewhere.

So the thing we decided to start with is just local businesses. And I have a hard time with that one.

I think that, uh, this bill does actually not— contrary to what we're hearing on the floor today— it does not ban polystyrene. It doesn't. It is not a polystyrene ban. This is a ban on certain— one industry, food service, not using polystyrene. This is narrowly— and I think the key word here is targeted— is targeted for Alaskan businesses specifically.

So the bill does not ban polystyrene. What the bill does do is implement potential fines against local businesses. It actually asks for us as citizens to maybe not just be personally responsible and not maybe take a polystyrene container to go, maybe ask a local facility to change, as Representative from District 33 said, Hey, this is a problem. Can we not do that?

This, this bill, I think, takes a problem, a knowable, real, actual problem— polystyrene equals bad. That's a knowable thing. And then says, well, let's just start with local businesses.

But I think what we'll still find, as the member from Juneau just said, I think we'll still find polystyrene on the side of the road. I think we'll probably still find polystyrene in the ocean. Why? Because it's still going to be used in a whole bunch of other substances, uh, particularly meat packing. It's going to be used in coolers.

It's going to be used in, uh, buoys and other sorts of marine equipment. Why? Because polystyrene floats. I think that, uh, this bill, in seeking to do a good thing, unfortunately targets the, the one group of people potentially we should be sent here to advocate on behalf of. That's why a number of the amendments that were offered were, hey, maybe should we try this first with the state?

Let's see how the state does. We can probably govern the agencies and the bodies of the bureaucracy and tell them, how about you not do it first, and we'll see what happens there. Nope, we didn't do that. We decided to look at the Alaskan people and what the Alaskan people are doing in food service and attempt to dictate to them what they can and cannot do, uh, in that industry. And it essentially— in that industry alone.

I'm not certain why that is the approach that is taken within this bill. Somehow it's become about polystyrene. But look at the board again. The board says this bill is about disposable food service ware. This is about us as a body telling a business what they can and cannot do.

That is what this bill is about. If this bill was actually about polystyrene, I think you might actually— you probably would have more people interested in that conversation. But I think for me, and certainly for the people that I represent, We take it seriously, uh, this idea of the role of government not walking into a place and, uh, and sort of, uh, tweaking the needle, uh, and I, I would say it irresponsibly, to say we are going to penalize you if you don't comply and then watch as others, other entities essentially get away with the same thing. For those reasons, I cannot support HB 25.

Representative Carrick.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of House Bill 25 today, and I was grateful to get to hear it in both committees of referral. Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker just mentioned tweaking the needle, and I would agree that that is what's happening with House Bill 25. We are tweaking the needle towards businesses offering alternatives that are becoming more readily available, more widely available, and which in some cases, and a growing number of cases, are cheaper. But Mr. Speaker, all of the potential challenges for businesses in the short term are deeply outweighed by the public health impacts, and I, I just want to talk a little bit about that.

So I have a background in public health. This is what I do, my area of interest. And Mr. Speaker, there are just so many examples where when you change the conditions, it does change the behavior and it changes it for the better. Whether it's putting seatbelt laws, seatbelts in cars, requiring manufacturers to have them and then requiring people to use them. Whether it's having smoke-free workplaces.

There are so many examples where at the federal level and then at the state level as well, we have made some small environmental change that initially had some cost, but ultimately protected hundreds of thousands of lives. And this is going to be one of those things where generally, generationally, we could look back and see the impacts. Mr. Speaker, the polystyrene takeout container that any one of us used to 20 years ago, 20 years ago, is still in our environment today. That polystyrene container has probably decomposed into teeny tiny little pieces that marine mammals in particular end up eating. The bioaccumulation in those marine mammals passes from mother to offspring, crosses their blood-brain barrier, and it crosses through breast milk from mother to offspring.

Our communities across Alaska in particular who rely on these marine mammals, then subsistence or traditional use practice hunt for these animals, and that same polystyrene impact crosses the blood-brain barrier of infants after passing between mother to infant through the breast milk again. This is an extreme health hazard, and it's an extreme health hazard in particular for coastal communities in Alaska who rely on marine animals for subsistence or for traditional use. Mr. Speaker, any polystyrene that any one of us uses today will not just be present tomorrow or 20 years from now, it will be present in our environment 200 years from now, and our children's children will be the ones who suffer the consequences. So when we talk about tweak to potentially impact public health, let's keep in mind how big the impact that we're talking about is for public health. And Mr. Speaker, ultimately I recognize that there are, uh, potential challenges in the short term for some small businesses in Alaska.

I recognize that there's a transition period in this legislation to help with that, but I also recognize, and every one of us here should recognize, that our communities in Alaska are disproportionately impacted impacted by this public health issue, and we should stop that public health issue to the best of our ability from continuing to disproportionately impact our small communities. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Colon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I rise in opposition to this bill, and it's not that I like Styrofoam, and I understand the impacts of it, but my, my issues with it are a bigger picture.

Um, issues, one being local control. So we heard that we have 3 communities that have already banned this. Why are— why is the big state telling every community in Alaska that they have to ban this? Because it's a health issue. We have lots and lots of health issues.

We have a lot of things we could be banning from the state level because it's healthier. I don't understand why we feel like we need to tell every community in Alaska that this has to be banned when they can do it themselves. 3 Have already done it: Bethel, Seward, and Cordova. It burdens business, and there's been some comments about, um, about, um, the direct hit to our local businesses. It's not just businesses, it's just restaurants.

So we're, we're taking a very specific disposable food serviceware from a specific business, which is a restaurant. That is not going to remove polystyrene from the environment. Costco will still be selling those huge piles of polystyrene for people's picnics, for caterers, for everybody else. And so for me, having a very specifically targeted bill to a specific business, I have a problem with that. I think the market should decide.

Not everybody agrees with me, but It's already happening. Businesses are already moving into a different kind of food serviceware because their customers demand it and they ask for it. And if you have a successful business, you put your customer first. And if you have customers concerned about that, that's what you do. That's how you stay in business.

But also, it's interesting, the fiscal note is a zero fiscal note because the burden The fiscal note goes on the private sector. It's not on the state. It's the private sector that has to pay. And I know people say, well, it's just cents on the dollar. It's just $0.10 here.

Well, if you're buying 1,000 containers at a time, those cents add up. And as I've said before, restaurants have been under a lot of pressure. And we're losing a lot of restaurants. I know in my town of Anchorage, we've lost a lot of restaurants. They can't seem to make— the bottom line.

So this is not going to help them. Although I would say most of the restaurants, um, that I go to in Anchorage do not use the Styrofoam for the reasons I previously said. And if you want to, if you want to use the state to address a public health issue, the number one public health issue in Alaska is alcohol. So why don't you just ban that? That's a lot more impactful than clamshells.

Styrofoam clamshells are such a small part of the bigger plastics problem and the bigger health problem. This is very narrow, it's very targeted to small businesses, which I have a serious issue with. It takes away local control and it makes it sound like this is the number one health issue, and we all know it's not. This is a very small part of what's going on in our environment. And I guess in these issues that we struggle with, I would prefer for the market to decide.

So I oppose the bill. Representative Stapp.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in kind of somber opposition to this bill. And I'm going to question what members have said on the floor because the bill quite frankly doesn't have the intended effect that people say. Mr. Speaker, if polystyrene is harmful, it is harmful no matter where it is packaged. Mr. Speaker, the fundamental problem with this bill is on page 1, line 14, and page 2, line 1.

All these things, Mr. Speaker, don't apply if you manufacture and ship the polystyrene into the state if you don't live here. The only thing this bill does is it punishes an Alaskan business for using polystyrene. Had a member talk about cruise ships. Guess what? All that polystyrene you see dumped in the ocean, Mr. Speaker, that comes on a cruise ship.

That's someplace that was packaged outside the state. That doesn't going to solve the problem. If polystyrene is harmful, It's harmful if it's brought up on a cruise ship as opposed to given an Alaska restaurant. There's amendment, Mr. Speaker, to ban polystyrene out of state so people couldn't traffic their polystyrene into the state. That failed, Mr. Speaker.

That tells me that this is environmental performative, Mr. Speaker. It's putting lipstick on a Styrofoam polystyrene pig because the bill doesn't actually ban polystyrene. All it does is punish Alaskan business. Mr. Speaker, every year I'm in this building, somebody has a bill that all it does is punish Alaskan businesses. This bill not only does that, it applies a tax on Alaskan businesses by making them have a controlled cost that it doesn't even provide for companies out of state.

Mr. Speaker, we're going to ban polystyrene because it's environmentally unfriendly. Might it be toxic, it's less conducive to the consumer, then you got to ban it for everybody. Don't disadvantage Alaskan business at the expense of mega corporations from outside. Mr. Speaker, I don't know why we decided not to close the polystyrene loophole in this bill, but it's going to remain open if this bill passes this body and the other body. Know that the only people who are not going to be able to provide polystyrene are hardworking Alaskans who operate small businesses.

Major chains get to ship as much polystyrene from out of the state into the state as much as they want. There's never a regulatory burden that's going to stop them. We specifically exempt them in this bill, Mr. Speaker. That makes the bill a bad bill. Should apply to everybody.

If polystyrene is harmful, it's harmful no matter where it's packaged, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. Representative Fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to reference why is the legislature considering a bill on polystyrene and health and the environment. Article 7 of the Constitution— just permission to glance at the Constitution, refer to it. Permission granted. Article 7, Section 4, public health.

The legislature shall provide for the promotion and protection to public health. And actually, the next article, Article 8, is natural resources, and there are multiple sections including 8.3, common use, 8.4, sustained yield, which refers to fisheries, which talks about, um, these resources which belong to the people. So I have never been here to vote on a bill that was perfect and addressed every overarching challenge of the state of Alaska. This bill is no different. It addresses one problem.

Um, it addresses a serious problem. Human health issues that this bill addresses, um, in America, in Alaska, and in the world, there is increasingly early onset of puberty among girls by years. There's a sharp decline in sperm count among men. There are sharply rising rates of infertility with— of couples who want to have kids. And by the way, there's very significant cost of all those things.

So decades of science make it clear that polystyrene, microplastics, and PFAS are among the leading causes of these healthcare issues. And again, these healthcare issues have costs. So will this bill solve all those problems? No, there are other bills on PFAS, but this bill solves one solvable problem. Now I think it's reasonable to ask, well, why would you address polystyrene use in food service containers.

Well, the science is pretty clear. Heat releases endocrine disruptors and carcinogens in polystyrene. So yes, if you put hot food in a food service ware, that is a direct way to put a carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor in the human body. So would I like to reduce all polystyrene? Yes.

But the most direct way to get poison out of human bodies is to not consume it through your mouth. So this bill is targeted. It is targeted in a logical way There are numerous other types of containers available, and I think addressing these very serious human health issues is very appropriately within the purview of the legislature based on those articles in the Constitution I mentioned. So I will be voting for it. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise and say I appreciate the co-chair of District 13 for bringing up the topic of the resolution in the other body. A member in this body is also carrying a resolution for the cleanup and removal of marine debris in support of Senator Sullivan's efforts in that very important issue. Specifically about this bill, there was discussion about the use of polystyrene in the restaurant setting or food services setting.

This accounts for less than 10% of polystyrene being introduced into Alaska. The remainder of that, Mr. Speaker, really comes from 50— up to 50% from packing materials. We depend heavily on items being shipped here to Alaska, specifically in our remote communities. So I believe that if we said we were going to ban all polystyrene, that this is an area where there'd be a challenge for our communities. But I do want to point out that I know the industry is making massive improvements in this area.

Building and construction materials is up to 35% of polystyrene in our environment. Specifically, when we talk about our waters and pollution of polystyrene or Styrofoam in our oceans, a lot of this, Mr. Speaker, is coming from polystyrene floats on docks. So I think there's an opportunity for us to not only highlight this issue that this bill is bringing forward— there's a problem— but that if we want to make those reductions of polystyrene in our oceans, this body probably should be considering fully funding our Harbor Grants matching program so that we can get those styrofoam floats off of the docks that are then breaking apart and putting that polystyrene in our waters. So that's something I think we really should look at, Mr. Speaker. A member had brought up the idea that cruise ships are contributing to this.

I haven't seen any evidence, Mr. Speaker, that cruise ships are actually creating the problem in our waters, but I would look forward to hearing any additional information that could be provided. But I don't believe that's really where the problem lies. With this particular issue. I do have a question for the maker of this bill that's in front of us, the sponsor of the bill, and it specifically revolves around the idea of fines. Currently, we have fines listed in 18 AAC 31915, or 915, that define fines that may apply.

And I just want to make sure if that's what the, what the maker of the bill was referencing when he was talking about fines, or are there other statutes or regulatory codes that are in place that would apply? So appreciate the opportunity to speak on the topic and ask the question of the maker of the, of the bill about fines. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Mina. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in very strong support of this legislation. Uh, oh, excuse me, permission to read from my notes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this legislation. Microplastics is not just a potential that it is a problem, it is a problem.

And by 2050, there's going to be more plastics in the ocean than fish. There's a recent study in South Central Alaska that tested 39 waterways microplastics were found in all of them. And people have already talked about how in our Arctic Basin there is more concentration of these microplastics than any other ocean reservoir around the world. Our people are particularly in the Arctic, and our wildlife are most impacted by this issue. But I don't know quite what else the state is really doing about this situation besides some soft consumer behavior.

Other members have spoken to the detrimental public health impacts, wildlife impacts, as well as the long-term irreversibility of expanded polystyrene. So I wanted to talk more and respond to the concerns related to, uh, economic costs, local control, and this very targeted strategy. First of all, on the cost to consumers, the— sure, it is true, I think, in some cases where expanded pilot polystyrene is a little bit more cheaper than other alternatives. But let's take a step back and think about how much money we're spending on waste management. I know that Senator Sullivan has pushed for strong bipartisan unanimous support for the Save Our Seas Act, Save Our Seas Act 2.0, and this— these acts initiate millions of dollars, $15 million for NOAA's ocean debris annually.

We are spending so much on waste management and we're not thinking upstream, pun intended, about how we can help to try to make sure that we are producing less of these wastes in our environment. But moreover, the concerns about local control— I know that it's great that there are certain communities that have been able to ban expanded polystyrene, expanded polystyrene moves past Bethel, Seward, and Cordova, and because they're so tiny and weightless that they move a lot more easier through the air and through the ocean. We already have this state role that's important for public health, but it's also to note that this local control doesn't prevent these microplastics from moving to other communities. So it's not just a local issue, it's a state issue. And then this other critique about how this bill is bad for small businesses And honestly, I agree.

It would be great if we could broaden this bill so that it also includes retail sales. And at that point, let's broaden it to the production of expanded polystyrene themselves. Let's expand it to these producers. And I hope that if there's a bill that's related to expanded producer reliability so that we can decrease the production of styrofoam in the first place, that all of this legislature can get on board so we're not just targeting our small businesses in this fight. I think when we're talking about this huge, huge issue of microplastics, we need to be comprehensive about the solution.

It's not just more education and research about the harms of microplastics into our environment, but it's making sure that we are just reducing the productions of these plastics in the first place, that we're helping to invest in better reuse systems, but we're also redesigning how we think about both waste management and how we package all these materials. And for me, I I think that means more accountability on the producers that are creating Styrofoam and all of these microplastics in the first place, so that we don't have to just target these small businesses. This bill is small, but find me another policy where we can do something about microplastics that is more than the status quo. And finally, I just hate Styrofoam. It is so, so squeaky, and I think this bill is a good step forward because Styrofoam is awful.

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too rise in opposition to this bill. I will say that the sponsor of the bill is right. It can't be recycled. It is toxic.

He's absolutely correct. The struggle that I have is the, is really kind of the implementation, how we're looking at this. It's, it's targeting honestly some of the smallest businesses that have some of the smallest margins. You know, the— I've heard a number of times, you know, rules for thee but not for me, but in this case it's rules for me but not for thee. Meaning everybody except Alaskans.

It's rules for restaurants, the small businesses that, you know, bring out the coffee cups and stuff. And so when we talk about what is toxic and what is healthy, what is not healthy, our responsibilities, it's such a narrow amount that to apply these rules specifically to the small the small restaurants and the, you know, the takeout diner, you know, and we have to make them find some kind of another alternative. Well, are those other alternatives all that much better? You know, when we talk about alternatives, you know, there's a variety of things where you wind up with an alternative system that is no longer, you know, what we had before. You know, I mean, whether that's a solar panel, windmill, or Styrofoam cup, you know, what, what happens to all of this other waste when we start looking at all of these other plans?

And so to narrow this down to say that it is just the small business, the small restaurant, the coffee shop that has to bear the burden of us all making poor choices to have Styrofoam cups— I hate styrofoam. Those little plastic peanuts, they go blowing around if they ever get out of the box when you ship it. That's the worst thing on the planet. It absolutely is. And you know, when the little shipping things— it's just, they make such an incredible mess.

But to put all of that burden on just a handful of small business owners, I really struggle with that. So, so I'm gonna be a no vote. Thank you. Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Um, permission to glance at my notes? Permission granted. I am going to labor to, uh, express myself with no emotion. What I've heard today is that emotion has had an impact on this debate, and it would be best if we did not allow emotion into this discussion. I'd like to begin by pointing out that the member from Chugiak said that he does not represent Gustavus.

I would like to say that I too do not represent Gustavus. But Gustavus, if you're listening, I care what you think. I do not have beaches in my district, but I care about beaches. I do not have oceans in my district, but I care about oceans. I heard the minority whip state that the one group of people that we were sent here to advocate for were small businesses that use disposable food serviceware.

I would argue with the minority whip that we may have been sent here to argue— to advocate on behalf of other groups as well. But Mr. Speaker, I do have small businesses in my district that use disposable food serviceware. Most of them do not use polystyrene, and I want to thank those businesses for making that change. But Mr. Speaker, I do have a few, a very small number of businesses that are using polystyrene. And to those business owners, I say, I'm sorry, you cannot do that anymore.

That disposable food serviceware made out of polystyrene is not healthy for you. It is not healthy for your customers. It is not healthy for our beaches. It is not healthy for our oceans. And I, Mr. Speaker, care.

Please vote yes.

Representative Hall.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read from my notes? Permission granted. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I rise in support of HB 25. I— and I appreciate the member from District 13 for bringing this legislation forward. HB 25 helps to address the amount of landfill waste generated by businesses that use these toxic, non-recyclable, non-biodegradable styro— polystyrene products. Polystyrene's unique chemical properties break down into microscopic particles that leach into the ground and water systems, posing serious health risks to people and animals and our environment.

I have serious concerns with toxics negatively impacting our environment, food, and drinking water, and banning the use of this harmful This product will help stem the ever-growing piles of plastics in our landfills, mitigate litter on the side of our roads, and help address serious health risks. And I would like to echo the arguments from the member from House District 16. He beat me to the punch, actually, when it comes to— there may be a constitutional argument in support of HB 25, and in particular, I would point out Article 7, Section 7.1, 1.4 regarding public health. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I kindly urge a yes vote. Thank you.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, here we are, it's been a whole day on plastic containers, and I would say that this is a feel-good bill. Maybe even some would say it was virtue signaling, and sometimes we do that a little too much here. But, and I won't go into all the different things. I mean, I certainly don't like Styrofoam. I don't like the fact that this is really targeting inside of Alaska businesses.

All the packing peanuts and so on probably doesn't come from here. All the ones that are blowing around the highway, they're probably, you know, that's not in this bill, but probably coming from somewhere else. So what I guess my question as I listen to debate, really, what are we trying to accomplish here? Are we really trying to accomplish something? Are we just, you know, it's just something that we can say that we did?

And because the niche is small and the benefits seem minimal because we have so much other styrofoam microplastics that were— whether it's fast fashion or every storage unit is filled with stuff that someone bought from a big box store and then they put it into another— to put it into another big box. That's kind of my theory. Maybe I would like to talk about overconsumption, but I can't write a bill about that. One of the things I do recognize though, that we make some— make a lot of problems. We make problems here.

Maybe we don't think ahead. One of the things that we don't have, or we do have laws about, is making sure we don't have cross-contamination in food service, one use in restaurants. If you bring in your own item for to take, you do your own takeaway with, and this bill actually has to address that. It actually has to. We have to have a little piece in this bill to say, well, we're, we're going to have someone in the department come up with some procedure that we can now possibly bring in our own item and have it used.

Apparently there's a law that we can't do that now, and because of that we have created this need for single-use items, and part of that is the Styrofoamware. So You know, we just continue to make little laws and then make more problems for ourselves. And I think perhaps sometimes that's one of the reasons that people wonder what we're accomplishing here. So with that, Mr. Speaker, I will be a no vote because our problems with Styrofoam come from much bigger sources than inside the state and putting the onus on our small businesses We need to address overconsumption and huge Styrofoam use all over the place, not targeting just the little guy. So I'll be a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be opposing this also for a myriad of reasons. We talk about that the primary thing that's come up is health.

Why don't we just ban everything? Let's ban sugar because it gives people diabetes. Let's ban water because it's got arsenic in it, and that arsenic is bad for the environment and bad for people. This, uh, this is a very tailored bill for a specific industry and actually brings up the question of, um, equal protection under the law. Everyone's bringing up the Constitution.

We're targeting a very small— I think someone said 10% of restaurants use this in Alaska. Remember back about 10 years when plastic bags were the big thing? We had to ban those. We had to go with plastics because they get in our landfills, they blow around, take forever to decompose. If I go get my lunch from the lounge, guess what they put it in?

A plastic bag. So it's— again, I've said this time and time again, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Um, educational costs. I can— in the plan it says that we will educate them before we start fining them. Okay, what's the cost?

There is a cost associated with developing it, printing it, having it available at different locations, and actually someone to sit there and say, hey, you shouldn't use this, and this is why.

The municipalities that have— it should be powered down to them. I think this is an Anchorage problem, and I think Anchorage should, you know, assembly should go in there and say, hey, we don't want to use these and impact your businesses. You know, the Matsu can do the same, but putting a blanket policy on all a very small demographic is not really what we should be doing. Okay, and we're gonna shift the paper. What about deforestation?

What about taking all of our trees that are sucking up the carbon monoxide and changing it into oxygen? Just saying, I'll be a no on this.

Galvin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill. I think that it's an important bill that actually we're taking science and what we've learned of late, and just like with other bills related to healthcare implications, we've, we've made policy around it, whether it's tobacco whether it's alcohol, whether it's seat belts. We've listened to the data and we've made policy. And for that reason, many Alaskans and many citizens are living longer.

And I think it's a pretty good idea that they're— that's exactly why we're here. I especially want to thank the maker of this bill because they've done the homework. They understand all of the science behind it. They understand how other communities have implemented targeted approaches that have worked. Um, should there be other approaches?

Probably. But this is one that we know has worked in other areas, so I appreciate that. My constituents, and frankly my children and my grandchildren, are on my mind right now as I take this vote. So I want to thank, um, again the sponsor of this bill because it takes guts, bravery, to stand up and say, listen, we need to do something differently. And there are going to be some small implications on some folks, and hopefully we will catch up to how we design products differently.

That's part of what happens when policy drives good decision-making around making change for the future of our children, particularly for the health. And so I rise in support of this bill and thank the sponsor. I believe we are finally at wrap-up. Representative Schwanke, are you wrapping up? I'm getting hungry.

Let's talk about food. Mr. Speaker, I want to weigh in on this from a little different perspective. So we've heard about all sorts of different sources of polystyrene and all sorts of plastics and contaminants and what we should do and what we shouldn't do as this body. I have one regret that I did not bring an amendment to add packing peanuts, because I think we can all agree they're a problem. Mr. Speaker, 12 states have already banned polystyrene for this purpose.

3 Of our Alaskan communities have already banned polystyrene. I heard about local control and why it's really important, but I want to mention that 50% of our state falls in the Unorganized Borough. There is no local government there. That It's this body that makes decisions for the unorganized borough.

Polystyrene never breaks down. It does break up into small pieces and it ends up in our waterways and on our lands. It ends up in fish. It ends up in wildlife and it eventually ends up in us. It'll end up in the bloodstream of our children and our grandchildren and their grandchildren.

So I think that we are actually at a critical juncture when it comes to this particular issue.

10 Years ago, I would not have supported this bill because I, I don't think that at that point we had all alternative viable affordable alternatives.

Not broadly available, but we do now.

I can say that as a small business owner who has actually faced this issue.

I have products that I sell. I went through a process a number of years ago whether or not I was to choose a clamshell for one of my products.

I made the decision to, at that time, look for alternatives. And I did. I found an alternative that actually looked better, felt better, and it was cheaper. But only because I decided personally as a business owner to go down that path.

One of the things that we're not talking about here is the fact that we do have alternatives already, things that have been around a really long time. We have tin foil. It's waterproof. We have wax paper. It's waterproof.

I think there are a lot of straw man arguments about not passing this bill because it would impact small business owners.

We're talking about food service providers that provide prepared food.

These are, these are materials, these are packages that we dispose of, sometimes in a matter of minutes or hours. There are alternatives. There are affordable alternatives. They are available today and they'll be available tomorrow.

We are lawmakers. We make hard decisions. This is a hard decision. I get it.

I appreciate the maker of this bill.

I think this is the right bill at the right time, and I will be voting yes. Thanks.

Wrap-up, Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of with lunch and committee hearings, I'll be quick. But I do want to touch on some items.

Just quickly, the cruise ship industry was mentioned. I heard nothing from the cruise ship industry, either pro or con. Not nary a word. I really want to talk about the member from Sault Ste. Marie and his comments.

The member from Sault Ste. Marie said the bill isn't actually about polystyrene. It really is about polystyrene, and I want to emphasize that. I think that he and others said that the bill is imperfect because I'm not doing enough. Well, I'm not omniscient.

I wish I could fix all of the world's environmental problems, but I'm told that you eat an elephant one bite at a time, and that's all I'm trying to to do. The member from East Fairbanks said that we're not targeting the industry itself. Really, we are targeting the industry. As the member from Glenallen Tok District noted, 31% of Americans— that's about 100 million people— no longer have the dubious privilege of using polystyrene. And I'm sure the industry has taken note of that, and I'm sure they'll know about Alaska's efforts as well.

The member from Ketchikan wanted reconfirmation on the fine schedule. He, uh, got it right. It's in 18 AAC 31.915. It's very graduated. Frankly, it's quite gentle, if that's the right word.

I want to reiterate what the member from Downtown Anchorage said, that one of the reasons this product is targeted where it is is that it leaches, particularly with hot foods, particularly with milk, I'm told, or any milk product.

I would note that for those who feel umbrage that— or take umbrage that we're not targeting out-of-state businesses, in fact we are in a slight way through Amendment 9, which included grocery deli items. So, so we've expanded the reach in to some degree Um, again, the minority leader said, what are we accomplishing? We do this one step at a time. I am retiring from the legislature. This is my step, uh, in that effort.

The member from, um, the Middle Hillside of Anchorage, I'll say, noted that there are other greater concerns like alcohol. She's 100% right. Now, some of us use it in moderation and enjoy its use. But I am not here to tackle that battle. I've chosen this battle, and I— and the battle can be chosen when it comes to consumptive items in different ways.

The other body's looking at red dye and blue dye and yellow dye. That's not what this bill is about either. So I ask you to support the bill, and I think it's a reasonable first step, and I appreciate your support. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Committee Substitute for House Bill 25, Labor and Commerce, amended, pass the House?

Members may proceed to vote. Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 25 Yeas, 15 nays.

By a vote of 25 yeas to 15 nays, House Bill 25 has passed the House. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that— Mr. Speaker, I move the effective date clause. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the effective Effective date clause passed the House. Members may proceed to vote.

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

At this time, I am carrying over Move forward to the next day's calendar. SCR 19, extend West Coast storm disaster. Madam Clerk. There are no further items on today's calendar, Mr. Speaker.

This brings us to unfinished business. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Representative Moore be excused from a call of the House on Wednesday, April 22nd, from 4 PM to 5 PM. Hearing no objection, the member is excused on the dates date and time indicated by the Majority Leader.

Are there any committee announcements? Representative Holland. Mr. Speaker, House Energy will start at 1:30 today. Representative Eichide. Mr.

Speaker, House Transportation will start at 30 minutes after floor adjourns. This brings us to other announcements. Are there any other announcements? Any other announcements. We are now at special orders.

Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, permission to read? Permission granted. Um, the topic is going to be purple.

Kind of an odd topic, but in 1986, April was designated the Month of the Military Child by Defense Secretary Weinberger. There are more than 1.6 million military children today who have one or both of their parents in the military. As many of you know, my wife and I, uh, retired from the military after 20-plus years, and both of our children were born into the military lifestyle, not necessarily by choice. There was at least one birthday or holiday, um, that we missed every year based on the needs of the Army. Between going to the field, Joint Training Readiness Center at Fort Polk— I love that place— training events, schools, we were gone at least 25% of their lives.

We were stationed in South Korea twice for a year. I was in Germany in the mid-'90s for 90 days for Kosovo backup, and my wife was deployed to Honduras in support of recovery efforts from Hurricane Mitch, all while our children were in military school. Because we missed so many of the milestones, we made sure that when we were present, we were present. We were involved and we coached them in sports, other extracurricular activity like field trips, did a lot of camping, fishing, and a lot of things that they wanted to to do. Children can be resilient.

They adapt. They roll with the punches, not always with a smile. Our kids lived in 17 different homes, attended 9 different schools at 9 different duty assignments.

Imagine how a child has to deal with moving every couple of years.

How difficult it is to make friends, to attend a new school.

So what happened in 2010, I decided to retire from the military so that my kids could have more stability in their final years, um, in high school. Our son spent his sophomore and senior years at Wasilla High. And was a UA scholar. Didn't do much with it, but he was a UA scholar. Our daughter spent all 4 years of her high school at Wasilla High.

She completed her bachelor's degree and master's degree in health and has graduated from physician assistant school. We're pretty proud of who our kids are, but I just want to emphasize the struggles that the military children experience because of people that have chosen to defend this country. And as a reminder, I said yesterday a special order on my daughter Gabby's birthday. It's actually today now. So happy birthday, Gabby.

Thank you.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker. Rep. Sadler. Your mic comes up at the very last moment.

So very well, did that mean that, Mr. Speaker, I request permission to speak on referring to notes? Representative Satter. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to look— try real hard not to look down, but I just— I'm hearing a lot of talk on the floor asking permission to refer to notes. I would just like to remind members that under Mason's 112-7, members are entitled to refer to their notes.

There's no permission required. That's your inherent right as a legislator. Now, as it goes to reading your notes, that's another issue. You need to ask permission of the body, um, and that's where that permission resides. It is my desire not to have it become precedent and therefore binding on us that we need the speaker's permission to refer to our notes.

And I didn't look down once. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will fixate on the motion to adjourn. I move and ask unanimous I ask consent that the House stand adjourned until Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, the House will stand adjourned until Wednesday, April 22nd at 10:30 AM.