Senate Judiciary, 3/23/26, 1:30pm

To call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order, it is 1:31 p.m. on Monday, March twenty third, twenty twenty six. Before we begin I wanna thank Julian and sing the Senate Judiciary Secretary, who make sure we have a transcript of our meetings and Doug Bridges from the Juneau LIO who make sure we have sound. This time I wanna remind committee members and all those in the room to please silence your cell phones. Present today we have Senator Tilton, Senator Stevens, Senator Tobin and myself, Senator claiming we have a quorum to conduct

next business.

The first item on our agenda is House Bill 101,

Crimes Against Minors, Page of Consent to 18,

sponsored by Representative Gray.

This is the third hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

I would recognize that Senate Representative Gray is here with us today.

It is my intention to take public testimony today, but before we begin public testimony, we have one invited testifier,

especially if I hit the buttons.

And that is Sean Case,

the Chief of Police for the Anchorage Police Department.

Chief Case, if you would please put yourself on the record, you may begin your testimony.

I'd ask that you limit your testimony to three minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair,

Vice Chair,

Teal, and members of the committee.

My name is Sean Case.

I'm the chief of police for the Anchorage Police Department. I'm the president of the Alaska Association of Chiefs of Police.

I did put in some or submit some written testimony earlier, so I will not go through all of those same points that I have.

They have already submitted by written testimony,

but what I will add is some information that was not in the original written testimony in communicating with our detectives who investigate these crimes that impact House Bill 101.

They reviewed the proposed language and they believe that the impact on our department and workload will be minimal.

Based on our experience,

we anticipate only a handful or two of additional cases per year as a result of this legislation.

The majority of our offenders in these types of cases are typically in their late 20s to early 30s.

They're adults who knowingly exploit the vulnerability of minors.

These are not pure relationships.

They're predatory dynamics that take advantage of youth who are still developing emotionally and cognitively.

By raising the age to protect those up to the age of 18,

this bill provides law enforcement and prosecutor with stronger tools to hold offenders accountable and to intervene before further harm occurs.

It sends a clear message that Alaska values safety,

dignity,

and well-being of our young people.

And with that, I will take questions.

Any questions for Chief Case?

I have one question which actually is pretty specific to what you've already provided,

but if we adopt legislation that raises the age of consent to 18,

do you believe that we will see an increase in criminal cases because of that change in the law?

Yeah, I believe,

you know, again, based on the analysis from our detectives, I believe that you're going to see a handful or two cases, at least in the Anchorage area,

increase in cases because of the change in the law.

Absolutely.

And have you received any information from any out-of-anchorage jurisdictions police chiefs that you work with on the same topic?

Yeah,

there are some of our rural jurisdictions that have concern that it will increase their workload a little bit more than in Anchorage, and primarily that they believe that will come from smaller close-knit communities.

Where families of impacted minors will be more likely to report to law enforcement in those rural jurisdictions versus what we anticipate seeing here in Anchorage.

So I have that feedback from some of the other law enforcement agencies.

Okay.

Thank you very much. I don't see any other questions from members of the committee.

Last chance.

All right. Thank you very much, Chief Case.

Seeing no other questions for invited testimony, I'm going to open public testimony on House Bill 101.

Is there anyone in the room wishing to testify?

Please come forward.

And if there's more than one, I'd ask that you come to the front row, not the one at the desk, but get to the front row of seats so I know you. Please come forward.

And either of the seats there.

No,

no, no. You're the first up.

No,

Am I?

Come to the seats, please.

Sorry.

And you get to sit down. Just identify yourself for the record.

And we limit public testimony to two minutes.

My name is Joey Telson. I'm currently residing in Ketchikan, Alaska. Previous law enforcement of seven years as evidence officer for the Ketchikan Police Department, and I have was born in Ketchikan,

raised in Juneau. I myself was a victim of underage, well, I was age 16 and was there was predatory behaviour that occurred with a person in a position of authority.

and Juneau and many of my friends also had encountered similar situations being in vulnerable positions based on our home life situations and that sort of thing.

The current substance abuse issues that occur within the state also puts an additional challenge to our youth especially those that are not hormonally balanced.

age 16 and I am in support of passing this bill to raise the age of consent in regards to all of that and based on what Chief Chase was stating about the minimal change that would happen for them in a rural community like catch can being it being close-knit ties like that the enforcement is extremely supported in our community there as well as at Metlakala

and Prince of Wales Island that they they do a lot of agency assist things in order to help get that um a lot of the victims happen to be you know family members of others and then when those people get released after sentencing they go back to those communities they live within those households and and such that we really need to be protecting our youth so thank you very much for your time.

Thank you very much.

Next, I don't have a list, but I know Brenda Stanfell is here and I'm sure she's here for testimony.

Welcome.

Thank you. My name is Brenda Stamfill. I'm the Executive Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault.

The Alaska Network,

we're a membership organization. We represent 24 direct service programs across the state who provide services to survivors of domestic and sexual violence.

The membership of the Alaska Network supports the passage of HB 101,

adding 16 and 17 year olds into the definition of minors in criminal statutes and joining 12 other states and the District of Columbia by raising the age of consent to have unlimited sexual contact to the age of 18.

The question we have heard from many parents who have had con who have contacted our programs is how they can protect their 16 or 17 year old boy or girl from someone older that they believe are in a sexual relationship with their child.

their child and who they believe they're exploiting them.

What we have had to respond back for many years is there's really nothing you can do.

This means that a parent could be watching their 16 or 17 year old being sex trafficked and there would be nothing they could do to stop that.

This bill changes that answer to the question of what can I do. We would now be able to say, respond that if there is a six year age difference between the parties, they can call the police and they will investigate it as a sexual assault. This bill is not intended to say that 16 and 17 year olds cannot make their mind up about who they see and who they have sex with. It just requires that who they have sex with is not six years older than they are. It may re it may require some relationships to wait until a

Until a person is older before they start engaging in sexual behavior,

but once again if it's a good relationship they can wait

What this bill is intended to do is to stop predators from preying on 16 and 17-year-olds who may find themselves in situations that they do not know how to get out of. This bill will send a message to individuals who exploit 16 and 17-year-olds that this behavior is not acceptable behavior in Alaska and it will be prosecuted as the unacceptable behavior that it is.

We urge you to pass HB 101 out of committee so it can become law this year.

Thank you. Any questions for Ms. Stanfield? I'll ask you the same question that I asked you of case. If we adopt legislation that raises the age of consent to eighteen, do you believe there will be an increase in criminal cases because of that change in the law?

I believe there will be increase in investigations.

It would be my hope it would also increase prosecutions,

but we know that sometimes that isn't necessarily the same.

I think on the investigation side,

you're going to have mandatory reporters who are going to know of relationships that are exploitive. Right now, if I'm a therapist and a 16-year-old who comes in and talks to me and is talking about their 30-year-old boyfriend that they're having consensual sex with,

with,

that's not a reportable right now. Right now I wouldn't have no requirement to report that to law enforcement.

If this was to pass, I would then have a requirement to report to law enforcement.

So I do believe we will see more investigations looking into whether this is a relationship that should be further explored as a crime.

So I do believe investigations will go up to say how many, you know, when something isn't a crime,

it's really hard to really determine is it going to be a lot, is it going to be a little.

little. I know we've received a lot of phone calls from parents who don't know what to do.

So I do believe that we're going to see an increase across the board, or I don't think we'd be asking for this change.

And then just in terms of, in addition to your professional role with the Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, you also serve on the Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission?

I do.

And before that, did you serve on the Criminal Justice Commission?

Yes, I have.

Any other questions from Ms. Stanfill?

Seeing none, thank you very much. Is there anyone else in the room who would like to provide public testimony? Hearing and seeing no one else in the room, we're going to turn to online. In Fairbanks we have Chavez Woody.

If you would like to identify yourself for the record,

and I would note that please make sure you're not on a speakerphone because the sound quality is not as clear and it's often difficult to hear what you're saying,

please proceed.

You have two minutes.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is Jabez Woody.

a person on probation in Fairbanks.

At the age of 16,

I committed a terrible crime.

I sexually abused my six-year-old niece.

There is no excuse for my actions.

It was truly a terrible thing,

and I have only ever fully accepted the burden of my sentence as a necessary service to justice.

I self-reported, confessed,

and was immediately waved into the adult system,

eventually pleading to a Class B felony.

I am now 33.

For most of my life I believed my sentence was purely just,

even when professional counselors told me in no uncertain terms that I should have been tried as a minor.

I felt I was fulfilling my service to justice and the debt I owed to my victim.

But recently,

my complete acceptance has wavered.

It wasn't because of what happened to me.

It was watching the repercussions of my teenage decisions tearing at the lives of my own children.

No 16-year-old can imagine what it is like to be 30 with a wife and kids,

and I do not believe that any victim who has truly walked the path of healing would desire the suffering of infants who hadn't even been born yet as a part of their restitution.

Waving a child into the adult court,

especially automatically,

serves a specific purpose. It looks at a child who has done a terrible thing and acknowledges that they might be a monster.

who would do it again.

So in the interest of public safety,

the system acts as if that child can consent like an adult.

But if we are going to make that heavy decision,

I believe we have an obligation to close the loop.

My proposal is straightforward.

If a child is waived into the adult system,

let them be able,

after a reasonable amount of time, to petition for their record to be returned to the juvenile system.

I suggest something like a five-year review or perhaps when they turn 25.

This allows for consideration of who they have become once their brains have fully developed.

It gives the state time to see if they are.

Mr.

Woody, you're at the two-minute mark. If you would conclude your remarks, that would be great.

I just,

I appreciate.

The committee hearing my testimony and I know that this isn't directly as directly related to the main thrust of the bill But I would just appreciate if the committee would take some consideration and reach out to me if they have any additional questions or thoughts

Thank you very much.

Next in the queue we have on the off net, we've got Lauren Norton Cruz.

Ms.

Norton Cruz,

please proceed.

Hi,

my name is Lorna Ruiz. I'm calling in to testify just as a concerned member of the public as a mother,

including a mother of a 12-year-old daughter who will be 16 in a few years,

and as a social worker and public health expert who's worked most of my career focusing on interpersonal violence,

child sexual abuse prevention,

and so on.

I'm calling in support of HB 101,

and I know I have limited time, so rather than focus on the merits of the bill, which I know that the bill sponsor has already done and many in the DDSB field will do,

I want to just talk about why I think this moment is so important to move this forward quickly out of committee and in front of the Senate for a vote. It was still passed unanimously in the House,

and we are at a moment of reckoning in the United States right now with

with the release of the Epstein files,

we things in many ways have gotten worse since I was a teenager.

As a teenager,

I was very concerned about issues of grown men preying on and trafficking and sexually assaulting girls my age,

and those problems in some ways have gotten worse as evidenced by who we have elected for president. But in other ways, we're at a moment of reckoning where we're trying to take accountability and

change the culture that has allowed grown men to prey on and assault teenagers for so long and that I think the fact that the house passed it unanimously is evidence of that and I believe that the Senate will pass it it just needs to move out of committee and it needs to move quickly enough so that it can pass so that it become law so that Alaska can finally have more tools at its disposal to as the state with the highest rate of child sexual abuse and rape in the country

thing. We need to do something about it and I think as a state we are poised and ready to do something about it so please do not let this be languishing committee any longer please move it forward to the rules committee so it can be voted on.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next in the queue,

Randy Bredegar.

Ms. Bredegar.

Chairman and members of the committee,

my name is Randy Brigger.

I am calling to you from Anchorage as the executive director of Abuse Women's Aid in Crisis.

In combination,

I bring over 20 years of experience in domestic violence and sexual assault work with half of that career being spent at Department of Public Safety.

I have reviewed countless cases and worked closely with law enforcement and prosecutors for many years, and I can tell you with certainty that I understand.

understand the dynamics of sexual assault cases,

particularly these ones.

In most sexual assault cases, the question is not whether sexual activity occurred.

Both parties often agree that it did.

A SART exam may be conducted and DNA collected,

but what does it actually prove when it tells us what we've already been told, that sex occurred?

It does nothing to establish whether that act was consensual and that's where these cases fall apart.

In cases with this age group,

many of these incidents are already being reported,

but they're often reduced to a quote-unquote he said,

she said because we cannot prove lack of consent beyond a reasonable doubt.

It's incredibly difficult to prove grooming behaviors,

coercion, threats.

trafficking or simple manipulation especially when drugs and alcohol are involved and this bill changes that it HB 101 gives the criminal justice system another tool by removing the burden of proving non-consent with 16 and 17 year old victims a tool that can make investigations faster and easier to prosecute it is also a cultural statement of our state's values which in light of countless high-profile examples it is more important than ever

where we recognize that there is no scenario in which a middle-aged adult engaging in a sexual activity with a 16-year-old child is a healthy or safe relationship.

It's recently asked whether I believe this bill would lead to more cases being prosecuted with the insinuation that there would be concerns about costs and resources.

Simple answer is I certainly hope so.

Alaska has the highest rates of sexual assault in the country,

yet our prosecution rates remain in the single digits.

It is absolutely within the favor of people who perpetrate these crimes and the odds of them being held accountable are very slim.

HB 101 helps close that gap and

Ms. Brigger, you're

it gives

at

us a way to hold offenders accountable.

the two-minute mark. I'll give you a little bit longer to conclude your remarks because you already answered the question I was going to ask you.

That was the end of my remarks, but I'm happy to answer your question.

I think you already did. Any other questions for Ms. Brager?

Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much.

Next up we have Samantha Mintz-Gentz.

Ms.

Mintz-Gentz.

Hello,

my name is Samantha Minsky and I live in Anchorage, Alaska.

Having grown up and spent most of my life in Alaska,

I implore you to please support HB 101.

With a yes vote, you can imagine that a 16- or 17-year-old is on equal footing with a 25- or 45-year-old in the confines of a bedroom negotiating sex is ridiculous.

Please consider the thoughts and motives of the adults who are targeting 16- and 17-year-olds. It is disturbing and should not be supported by law.

Please vote to protect our teens.

Please vote yes on HB101.

If the concern is available funds and fiscal notes,

your concern is misdirected.

Please find the funds to protect teens from predatory sex.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. I don't see any questions.

Next in the loop is Lila Johnson or Lila Johnson.

Ms.

Johnson, if you want to identify yourself for the record,

calling from Hooper Bay.

Hello, my name is Leila Johnson.

I serve as the Director of Behavioral and Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Shelter in Hooper Bay.

I'm also a survivor of DV and child sex abuse.

Every day, our program works with individuals and families impacted by violence, and we see firsthand how early exploitation can shape the course of a person's life.

Many of the survivors we serve were first harmed as minors.

Often in situations where there were clear imbalances in age, power, or influence,

these experiences do not affect childhood,

do not just affect of childhood, they carry forward into adulthood impacting safety,

health,

and stability.

As both a professional and someone with lived experience, I understand how difficult it can be for young people to recognize coercion, manipulation,

or grooming.

or what it is, what may appear to be content on the surface is often influenced by fear, pressure,

or unequal dynamics.

Strengthening protections for youth is not about limiting their voices,

it is about ensuring they are given the time,

safety, and support to grow without exploitation.

Our responsibility as a community and a state is to create clear, consistent standards that prioritize their well-being.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak on this important issue and for your commitment to protecting Alaska's youth.

Thank you very much. I don't see any questions from others on the committee.

Johnson,

I did want to ask the same question I've asked a couple of others. If we adopt legislation that raises the age of consent to 18,

from your perspective working in one of the shelters,

do you believe there will be an increase in criminal cases because of that change in the law?

I do hope so.

We don't need men thinking that it is legal to be able to do that to young women or men.

Thank you very much.

I don't see any other questions.

I don't have anybody else online.

I'll ask again,

is there anyone else in the room that would like to provide public testimony? Online? Yes, sir. Okay,

we'll take a brief at ease.

On the record. We have Suki Miller, executive director of Victims for Justice. Ms. Miller, if you want to identify yourself for the record, please proceed.

Hi, my name is Suki Miller. I'm the executive director at Victims for Justice. I'm calling in in support of HB 101.

Oh, sorry, I'll turn that.

There, sorry for the echo.

I'm calling in support HB 101.

help me protect adolescents from predatory relationships.

And our line of work, we have seen some issues where teens are in relationships and end up

as victims of crime and so I'm calling in support to help keep our kids safe from 16 and 17 so they can finish high school and graduate from high school and not be at the risk of being trafficked and pulled into drinking and all the other substance abuse issues that we have here and also any issues of housing homelessness.

Please support HB 101 and also put it forward so that we can have it be law this year.

Thank you.

Ms.

Miller,

I don't see other questions from the committee. I'll ask you the same question because you're very involved in victim services. If we adopt legislation that raises the age of consent to 18,

do you believe there'll be an increase in criminal cases because of that change in the law?

I truly hope so.

And I also hope that it will help prevent crime by keeping kids out of predators.

Thank you very much. I don't see any other questions.

I'll ask again,

is there anyone in the room that would like to provide public testimony?

And no one else online.

All right, with that we're going to close public testimony on House Bill 101.

And with that we will put House Bill 101 aside for further review.

The second and last item on our agenda is House Bill ninety three, Residence Requirements Hunting, Trapping, Fishing, sponsored by Re Representative Himschoot. This is the third hearing of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. During our last hearing we adopted a committee substitute as our working document. Today we have the Department of Revenue and the Department of Fish and Game and available, actually I'm going to make sure who's here.

Looks like

So off record for a minute back

on record we have representatives from the Department of Revenue

to the Department of Fish and Game and the Department of Public Safety available for questions.

And before we go to those comments,

anything from the bill sponsors they want to add today?

Good afternoon, Chair Clayman and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thatcher Brower, Staff Director. For the record, unfortunately, Representative Himchute

has another bill hearing at this right now and is unable to attend. I'm more than happy to answer any questions or provide a brief recap if you'd like that.

I don't think we need a recap.

No, I don't think I don't see any questions at this point. If they come up, we will call you up. We also have Wildlife Troopers,

Revenue and Fish and Game. Why don't we start with revenue?

So we had we had when at our last hearing, there had been I think three questions that I had said we would get answered and so the first two are to revenue.

If we adopt the amendment that is part of the CS that adds an exception for pilots, will there be fiscal impacts?

For the record,

Genevieve Whatusek, Director of the PFD Division.

Good afternoon.

Yes, there would be an indeterminate fiscal note, just like on HB 295. It's indeterminate for programming costs.

It is a change to our system.

We are in the middle of a system upgrade,

so we don't have the actual cost of what it would take.

That would be forthcoming, but it would be indeterminate at this time for programming.

And what about if we added not only pilots but flight crew?

And flight crew without a definition in the question,

it would be something more than flight attendants.

Chair,

yes,

for the record.

It would be an indeterminate note. We might also need to request PCNs. We need to see what the language would look like.

With the pilot allowable absence, the sponsor of the bill on the other side has said it would only affect a couple hundred of the pilots.

Flight crew is a much larger group,

and so we need to see what the numbers would look like and if there is available FAA numbers for how many are registered through being Alaskan.

That would be helpful,

but indeterminate at this time.

Okay.

Other questions for Department of Revenue?

Senator Tobin, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the bill, it also identifies that spouses and dependents who might fit underneath that allowable absence could be considered also exempt from meeting particular residency requirements. When you talk about the indeterminate understanding of if it was expanded to flight crews.

And in the current legislation where it also talks about families and dependents, how would you go about trying to ascertain what that number may look like as well?

Through the chair, Senator Tobin, a bill like this had come up previously and our...

Thoughts with that, with the family's independence was if it's the pilot or flight attendant or crew,

we would get official lists from FAA.

And with families or dependents, we don't have official lists. It would have to be through airline tickets. It's a messier situation. I'm not saying it can't happen.

It would just take a lot more effort, I think, from both the applicants and their families and the PFD side,

but we'll need to.

Um, look through that.

Thank you.

Follow. Okay, thank you. Any other questions for revenue?

All right, next we'll go to, we will go to Fish and Game.

And

and,

And I'll ask,

there was a question I think I presented when I met with you.

What does, if we adopt this legislation,

what does that look like in terms of the license application,

both online and in person in a shop that sells fishing and hunting licenses?

Yes. So for the record,

Joe Felkel, Deputy Director,

Division of Administrative Services for the Department of Fish and Game.

To the chair,

essentially,

overall,

the changes in this bill are expected to have minimal fiscal and programmatic impact on the Department of Fish and Game.

It would not change how the department issues issues are licenses.

It only changes the statutory criteria for residency.

So in your packets is a copy of the online application certification and purchasing agreement that all residents

resident applicants need to complete.

Currently,

when you go and apply for a resident license,

proof of residency is not required at the time of application.

Applicants self-certify that they meet the legal requirements for residency as determined by statute.

This legislation does not change the Department of Fish and Game's ability to do that.

So with this certification,

licenses require very minimal staff time to process.

It would not impact our ability to utilize vendors across the state with this certification.

Through this certification,

applicants review the statutory requirements for residency,

and then they certify that they meet those requirements.

So Fish and Game would implement this bill by updating that certification to reference the new law or reference the Fish and Game's connection to the permanent fund dividend allowable absence statutes.

And so an applicant would certify that if they were gone from the state more than 180 days that they meet.

meet one of those allowable absences.

And so overall,

correct,

And that would be on the application saying that if they're gone for more than 180 days,

they would meet one of the exceptions in the permanent fund law?

Correct. It would be in the certification and purchasing agreement that is before you.

Senator Tobin.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So what happens if someone is out hunting and fishing and another individual sees them and knows that they are in violation and they go to make a complaint,

who would they make a complaint to and then how would your department follow up on that?

So the enforcement piece or violations,

that's actually under the Department of Public Safety,

Alaska Wildlife Troopers. So I would defer that question to them on how they may handle those types of tips.

From the licensing side,

we do often work with the wildlife groupers to provide certified records and participate in that investigation process,

but again they would be the more appropriate agency to answer enforcement related questions.

And Major Aaron Frenzel is online and he's next in line to answer our questions.

Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I think I may have interrupted you before you finished all that you were saying. Did you complete everything or did you need to say more?

To the chair,

I think that pretty much covers it. It would not change how we issue our licenses.

We would simply be updating the applicant's certification when they go to apply for a license.

And that application would clearly state, they'd be stating that they met the permanent fund requirement.

If they were gone more than 180 days, they would meet permanent fund exemptions to be checking the box that they are eligible.

Yes, to the chair,

correct.

Other questions for Ms.

Sofalco.

Senator Hilton.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um

just questioning on how uh so the person is self-certifying and the only time that would come into question is if law enforcement, the wildlife troopers or some, I mean, what would be any circumstance where you would question the certification?

For the record,

Joe Felkel through the chair,

Senator Tilton,

from a licensing standpoint,

we often don't.

Somebody applies for a license and they receive that license on the spot.

So we are not requiring any proof up front.

So the department typically does not question those licenses up front unless given a reason, you know, from the troopers or law enforcement to suspect there has been a violation and then we can pull those records for the investigating it.

I don't see any other questions.

Thank you very much.

And next we have Major Aaron Frenzel.

Major Frenzel, he is online and not in the room.

Major Frenzel, I believe Senator Tobin has a question for you.

Thank you. Thank you,

Mr.

Chairman.

I'm just curious,

Major,

around enforcement and what is the process when a complaint has been made?

Thank you. For the record, this is Aaron Frenzel, Deputy Director of Alaska Wildlife Troopers, through the chair, Senator Tobin.

It kind of depends on how the complaint comes in.

Some, again,

through our online reporting,

sometimes it's in person,

sometimes it's just our troopers out doing day-to-day contact on a river or out in the field where they might get a hunt that someone may not resident. But once we get a complaint that we have.

People are questioning somebody's residency.

There's a multiple databases we look at. We look at their driving license history,

where they get it or when they get it in Alaska.

We might ask them some questions.

We have a relationship with the PSP.

Investigators will contact them, see what their PFD application history has been and then the state where they came from. They might even reach out to game wardens, troopers, whoever it might be in that individual state on what their license history is down there to see if they're gaining a benefit from another state.

Follow up.

Um

I do have a follow-up. Thank

you, Mr.

Chairman.

Major Frenzel,

what's the anticipated impact of this statutory change that we are anticipating or that we're contemplating?

Thank you for the question.

This will change what it looks like

Alaska resident is for the purposes of hunting and fishing.

This will make it so some people who currently qualify as Alaska residents for hunting and fishing could potentially not qualify any longer.

At the same time, it will provide us an exact number of days someone could be gone for.

Right now, as the law is currently written,

there is no exact date.

People will ask us, well, how long can I be gone for?

Well,

there is no answer.

You have to maintain your primary domicile in Alaska. You have to have the intent to return here and the intent to remain indefinitely.

So that will change that. Where our guys can give specific dates to how long someone could be gone for unless they have exemptions.

Thank you.

And a slightly different question.

What is involved in a typical investigation when you get a report for somebody that is believed to have improperly claimed to be a resident? What does that investigation look like?

Thank you to the chair.

That is,

that can be very complex or it can be very simple.

If we get someone who we have a feeling they're not

or claiming Alaska residency when they're not, and we get what I would call a smoking gun, they're getting that resident benefit in another state. Those are pretty quick investigations. Those are the ones our attorneys really like because we show resident benefit in another state and they're getting it here. Other ones, when we're going off somebody's intent that is very hard to prove in court and ones the Department of Law

looks at and goes, well, do you have everything? Is there anything else? And those can get very large. I've had attorneys tell me at times that you guys put more into a residency investigation at times than some homicides. That's how complex these things can be. The benefit to being an Alaskan for resident hunting and fishing purposes outweighs the PFD, I would say, by tenfold. Where you can take

unlimited resources at times, you don't have to pay for guide services at times.

There's a large financial gain outside of just the amount of resources that you can put in the freezer.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions for Major Frenzel?

Hearing and seeing none, thank you very much, Major Frenzel.

The last question that we'd asked before is, is what is a United States airline? And my office had communications with the both the bill sponsor's office as well as Representative McCabe, who is the sponsor of House Bill 295 that addresses the airline question. Ms.

Karkarek, if you would come forward and tell us what we learned about what is a what is a United States airline.

Good afternoon, for the record, this is Breonna Kacaric, and I'm staff to Senator Klayman.

Yes, we spoke with Representative McCabe's office who sponsors House Bill 295, which is the provision that was amended into House Bill 93's working draft.

So they were able to give some examples of United States airlines.

They gave examples of major passenger airlines,

domestic and low-cost carriers,

cargo air carriers,

and regional Alaskan.

Alaska relevant carriers. So um some examples of major passenger airlines include American Airlines, Delta Airlines, United States Airlines. Examples of domestic and low-cost carriers include Southwest Airlines, Alaska Airlines,

JetBlue Airways, Frontier Airlines, Spirit Airlines.

Um examples of cargo air carriers include FedEx Express and UPS Airlines.

and regional and Alaska relevant carriers include SkyWest Airlines and Horizon Air.

Do they also have examples of non U_S_ airlines?

I did get, yes. For the record, my name is Brianna Karek, staff to Senator Klayman.

Yes, we did get some examples of non-US airline examples. Those include Qatar Airways, Emirates, and Lufthansa Airlines.

Any questions with respect to both either United States airlines or non-US airlines?

All right. Hearing and seeing none, we are going to put House Bill 93 aside for further review and we're going to adjourn for the day.

Our next hearing, our next meeting will be on Wednesday, March 26 at 1:30 PM. I would note that as I announced on the floor, we'll be hearing

the bill number that I can't remember about the Uniform Commercial Code,

so that'll be part of what we get to hear on Wednesday,

and that we will stand adjourned. The time is now 2:12 PM.