House Floor Session, 4/20/26, 10:30am

Will the House please come to order. With thanks to our staff, LAA, for getting the IT system back up and running, we now have the mics restored. With that, will members please indicate their presence by voting.

Will the clerk please tally the board? 40 Members present. With 40 members present, we have a quorum present to conduct business. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, may the journal reflect that no members have excused absences for today. Leading the invocation this morning is Father Maxim Gibson of the Saint Nicholas Russian Orthodox Church. Will members please rise.

With deep respect for the religious belief of all Alaskans, I offer the following prayer. Let us pray to the Lord. Lord, have mercy. O Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of the Eternal Father, thou hast said, "Without me you can do nothing." In faith, I embrace thy words, O Lord, and bow before thy goodness. Help all to complete the work they are about to begin for thine own glory In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.

Amen.

Representative Hannan, 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 Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that the prayer be spread across the journal. Hearing no objection, that 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 87th through the 90th legislative days. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the journal of the previous days be approved as certified by the chief Hearing no objection, the journal stands approved. Are there guests for introduction this morning?

Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a couple of guests here today from the AP Government Politics class at Career Tech High School in Wasilla. So if those guests in the Taylor Gallery would stand when I say their name. Kai Beck.

Sam Evan, Allie Hensley, Tristan Tweedo, Seth Wargo, and their wonderful teacher Christy Shea.

Uh, please help me welcome these students to the Capitol as they learn about state politics and government, and good luck on those upcoming AP tests.

Representative Schwocke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to introduce 4 guests today, um, if they can stand when I call their names, behind me in the Taylor Gallery. This delegation is here today on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference TCC Emerging Leaders Program. So Shannon Earhart, she's working with our emerging leaders to bring awareness to issues that are very important including health, behavioral health, supporting hunting and fishing issues for rural Alaska, and education.

She's currently the Tribal Development Deputy Director for TCC. She volunteers for the Alaska Dog Mushers Association, sprint dog mushing, very important in the interior. Mother of 3, grandmother of 4, born and raised in Alaska, 59 years. This is her first trip to the capital. I'm going to go through them one at a time here.

Next is Mackenzie English Shoe. She's from Gwich'in, currently living in Fairbanks attending UAF to learn her language. She's an emerging leader, Youth Advisory Council member. She's also here representing Gwich'in Nation and Tanana Chiefs Conference. She's here to advocate for Senate Bill 210, Indigenous Cultural Education Stable funding and support for Alaska Native Language Center.

Mackenzie is the chair of the Emerging Leader Youth Advisory Council, and she represents here the 42 communities within the Tanana Chiefs Region. She also serves as the elected youth advisor of TCC e-board, and the great— she is the great-granddaughter of Scully James, who was the first Alaska Native electrician, and Marguerite Miriam James, and Chief Stanley and Madeline Jonas. She's been in advocacy for Indigenous rights, traditional knowledge, learning, land, water, and animal protection since she was 15 years old. She was also raised at camp and Chandalar Lake. Next we have Hannah Ikeda.

She's originally from Nulato, but she currently lives in Tok. She's here representing TCC Emerging Leaders. She's also here to represent the Yukon-Koyukuk Subregion. She's here in Juneau today in an advocacy and emerging leader role. She's lived in 3 different subregions across Alaska.

She currently attends the University of Hawaii at Manoa pursuing a major in marine biology and a minor in political science. And last but not least, we have Natalie Newman, who is returning to the capital here again along with Mackenzie. She's from Rampart, Alaska. She's also here with TCC Emerging Leaders Youth Advisory Advisory Council. Her advocacy is focused on awareness on the thoughts and opinions of the entire Tanana Chiefs Conference youth.

She works as a health aide in her home community, and she's been in youth leadership since she was 14. She's the current vice chair of the Emerging Leaders Group. Please help me welcome them to the Capitol. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Brief eddies.

Will the House please come back to order. Representative Moore. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have one more guest with us from Career Tech that I want to introduce. We didn't get her on the first round, so if you would all welcome Rachel Nakshu to the Capitol.

She's also with our group of students from Osceola.

Not seeing any additional guests to be introduced this morning. Madam Clerk, are there any messages from the governor? A letter dated April 16th was received regarding the 2025 Madnuskesisitna windstorm. Storm disaster. The letter, federal disaster declaration, and updated finance plan were copied to the Finance Committee co-chairs, 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? There are no messages from the other body this morning, Mr. Speaker. Are there any communications? Department of Law, monetary terms of agreement between state and the public Public Safety Employees Association representing members of the Department of Public Safety, as well as monetary terms of agreement between the state and the Public Safety Employees Association representing members of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities.

Monetary terms will be referred to the Finance Committee. I have no further communications this morning, Mr. Speaker. Madam Clerk, are there any reports of standing committees. The Judiciary Committee considered House Joint Resolution number 28, Support Kids Online Safety Act, Act Attached 1, Previously Published 0, Fiscal Note. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Underwood, Ayeshaid-Vance, and Chair Gray.

No recommendation: Mena, Costello, and Kopp. The resolution has no further referral.

The Judiciary Committee also considered House Joint Resolution number 31, Constitutional Amendment Corporations and Rights, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Joint Resolution number 31, Judiciary, with a new title. Attached one new zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Mena, Eichide, Vance, Kopp, and Chair Gray. No recommendation: Costello and Underwood. The resolution has a further referral to the State Affairs Committee.

The Judiciary Committee also considered House Bill 74, Crime: Counterfeit Non-Functioning Airbag. Recommends it be replaced with Committee Substitute for House Bill 74, Judiciary, with the same title. Attached 6 new zero fiscal notes. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Costello, Underwood. No recommendation: Mena, Eichide, Vance, Kopp, and Chair Gray.

The bill has no further referral.

The Labor and Commerce Committee considered House Bill 244, CNA training, attached 1 previously published zero fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass: Representatives Freer, Calhoun, Sadler, Nelson, and co-chairs Hall and Fields. The bill has no further referral.

The Education Committee considered committee substitute for Senate Bill number 144, 43, Community and Regional Affairs, Municipal School Board Terms, City Councils, attached one previously published zero fiscal note and one new zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass, Representatives Underwood, Eichide, Schwanke, Daibert, Elam, and co-chairs Story and Hemphill. The bill has no further referral, and I have no further reports of standing committees. Madam Clerk, are there any reports of special committees? There are no reports of special committees.

Any citations or resolutions for introduction? There is the first special order citation calendar. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the notice and publication requirements be waived and the citations on the first special order citation calendar be to special order of business.

Without objection. Once again, Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House approve the citations on the first special order citation calendar. Hearing no objection, the first special order citation calendar is approved.

Madam Clerk, are there any bills for an introduction?

I have no bills for introduction this morning, Mr. Speaker. This brings us to the consideration of the daily calendar. Madam Clerk, please read the first item on today's calendar.

House Bill number 133, Finance. Excuse me, House Bill 133. We need ease. At ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Madam Clerk. House Bill number 133 by Representatives Hemshoot, Fields, Cobb, Mears, Mena, entitled an act establishing a 30-day deadline for the payment of contracts under the State Procurement Code, establishing deadlines for the payment of grants, contracts, and reimbursement agreements to nonprofit organizations, municipalities, and Alaska Native organizations relating to payment of grants to named recipients that are not municipalities, and providing for an effective date.

The Community and Regional Affairs Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 133, Community and Regional Affairs, with a new title, attached 8 new fiscal notes and 5 new zero fiscal notes. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Holland, Hall, and co-chairs Hemmschulte and Mears. No recommendation: Prox and Ruffridge. The State Affairs Committee committee also considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 133, State Affairs, with a new title, attached 7 new fiscal notes and 8 new zero fiscal notes. Signing the report: do pass, Representatives Holland, Hemmschulte, and Chair Kerrick.

Do not pass: McCabe, Sinclair. No recommendation: Vance. Amend: Story. The Finance Committee considered the bill, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute substitute for House Bill 133 Finance with a new title, attached 6 previously published fiscal notes and 8 previously published zero fiscal notes and 1 new fiscal note. Signing the report: do pass, Representatives Jimmy, Hannon, Galvin, and co-chairs Schrag, Josephson, and Foster.

Do not pass: Allard. No recommendation: Bynum, Tomaszewski, Moore, and staff. There are 3 Committee substitutes. Mr. Briefities.

Will the House please come back to order? We are under amendments— or no, we are not. We need to Mr. Majority Leader, go back to—. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 133 with the new title be adopted in lieu of the original bill.

There is an objection. Do you wish to speak to your objection, Representative Ruffridge? Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like for the maker of this bill to give us a brief synopsis of the changes made between the original bill and the finance version. Thank you.

Representative Himschoot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill has had a long path. So the basic changes are to standardize the payment timelines to make it 30 days for everyone. We removed Section 3, which required a 20% advanced payment.

And the reason for that is some payments were getting somewhere greater than that, and it just seemed like it was unnecessary. And then we added a report to the legislature at the beginning of the 35th legislature, which will tell us all of the delayed payments, the length of the delays, and the reason for the delays, so that we'll have that information going into our next session. And we added that Rural Health Transformation Program funds can be used for a technology update to make the upgrades that are needed in the departments. That is intent language. And that July 1st, 2027 is the effective date for the bill.

Is the objection maintained? Yes. Representative Ruffridge, could you stand up and speak in your mic so you're—. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And permission to just speak to the objection generally. Representative Ruffridge. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe, uh, the House Finance version of House Bill 133, uh, is in many ways, um, is a substandard version of the bill for a couple of reasons, uh, and I, I would ask that the body not adopt this one. The first is the intention of the legislature found on page 5, uh, which is Section 4, to use, uh, rural healthcare transformation funds in order to to fund, uh, the technology upgrades inside of the Department of Health.

It's my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that that is not something that we in the legislative realm have the ability to really direct those funds in any way, shape, or form. The Department of Health, I think, has been working tirelessly to figure out how they want to move forward with Rural Health Care Transformation Program funds, and adding this into this section somehow seems to indicate that we're supposed to prioritize this over top of any other rural healthcare transformation program funds. And I think that moving back to a version of the bill with that not in it would be in our best interest. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Speaking to adopting the Finance Committee substitute, Representative Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And exactly what the speaker prior to me had said. This is the reason why I had— one of the reasons I had voted no for this particular version to leave the House Finance, and I would also ask the body to vote no on this version. Thank you.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So we put those funds at risk if we actually use those funds in that section that the member from Soldotna was talking about. Um, that, that's a huge problem. I get that it's intent language, but we're directing them, um, to do so.

I'm also very concerned, Mr. Speaker, that of all the 8 or 10 fiscal notes in this, we don't seem to have one from the Department of Transportation, which would seem to be our biggest, um, payer of bills in Alaska. It's a, it's a huge amount, and I'm concerned that we, we don't have any idea how much this is going to cost them. So for that reason, I would like that we do not pass the House Finance Committee substitute for this bill.

Representative Stutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to correct something on the record here, being on the RHTP, the Rural Health Transportation Committee, I do not believe in fact it would be putting those funds at risk. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? There's a motion before the body to adopt committee substitute for House Bill— the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 133.

Representative Mena. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to note that, uh, as a member of the Advisory Council for the Rural Health Transformation Program, the language that's currently in the bill is intent language for the department. While the legislature is the appropriating entity for these federal funds, the Department of Health has the ability and option to use these RHDP funds, as with any other department that is looking to use, use the RHDP money. It doesn't put the funding at risk, and there is also a process of oversight between the Alaska Community Foundation, the RHDP Advisory Council, and also CMS to ensure that the funds that are being utilized are compliant with the RHDP goals.

At ease. Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order.

Given the discussion at hand, I'm going to offer the sponsor of the bill closing comments. Representative Hempschulte. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to point out that the intent language was added in State Affairs, so not adopting the CS out of Finance would not have the effect that some folks seem to think it would have. So I just wanted to make sure that was clarified.

And states who are able to pay on time generally have a unified grants management system, and that's what we're aiming for. Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall the Finance Committee substitute be adopted? 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? 21 Yeas, 19 nays. With a vote of 21 yeas to 19 nays, the Finance Committee substitute for Hospital 133 has been adopted.

Madam Clerk, are there any amendments? Amendment number 1 by Representative Sadler, beginning page 1, line 10. Representative Sadler. Mr. Speaker, I move Amendment 1. There's an objection.

Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. Amendment 1 simply adds a clear definition of exactly when a state agency receiving a payment request is. If we are going to to fine an agency for failing to meet an arbitrary deadline imposed upon it, it's only right that there be a clear timeline to avoid confusion. The amendment, again, clearly just says payment request is occurring to either of two points in the process, either the date that the agency receives the physical invoice or solicitation for payment, or the date the agency's electronic bulletin board or accounting system gets delivery of that.

And this is important because It prevents confusion and disputes about the timing of the start of the shot clock, and it also creates a clear, fair starting point for the payment delivery. Ignoring the question of whether limits and deadlines are fair, if we're going to have them, we should have a fair clock. So I encourage members to push the green button on Amendment 1. Representative Himschute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the deep look folks are taking at this bill. I am opposed to this amendment. In the original statute that we are aligning this statute to, which is the prompt payment statute created in 1990 for private contractors working on public works, in that statute, none of this is spelled out. We trust our departments to figure out what the appropriate level of completion is or how to set the standards that they want their organizations to work to. So as a result, I don't think that we need to do this.

I think it's reaching a little further than we need to. Thank you. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 1.

Uh, actually, I think, Mr. Speaker, we don't trust our departments, which is why we have HB 133 to begin with. Um, this actually adds a level of clarity that I think is necessary considering that the underlying bill deals with a number of things that are just quite a bit different than what the original statute is dealing with, which is private contracts with dealing with the private sector. This is dealing with essentially nongovernmental organizations and other sort of grant programs. And I think that this is a very important distinction to make, because if you say that this payment request must have a definition of how it's received, it's because these are oftentimes grants or other things that are not contractual in nature. They are a service potentially that the state is trying to offer, but doesn't have a way to offer it inside their department currently.

And so there's this idea of, well, we've offered you this grant service, and now you have to perform the service, and then once it's done, you either request for the receipt or have some sort of, I guess, requirement for payment. Showing that you did the work. And so that is really when that request for payment would be implemented. Under the bill currently, I think that there is a lack of understanding of when that will be. In fact, an earlier version of the bill directed an upfront payment in a grant of upwards of 20%.

I'm glad that's removed from the bill, but I think the intent of the bill is to really direct payments sometimes almost earlier than what they would be be required to pay now. So I think that this amendment really directs the underlying bill in a way that says, no, you have to request the payment, here is the way to request it, and then the clock starts ticking. And I think that is an important distinction to make. Thank you. Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too support this amendment. This just helps streamline when the requests are made so we can understand how they're doing it, when the— the timelines. And I do appreciate this amendment coming through. And then I would also rise to ask the question to the sponsor of this bill: if we trust the departments, why do we have HB 133?

Thank you.

In wrap-up, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate the chance to respond. You know, we are changing the contract payment regimen for the state of Alaska. And to address the sponsor's statement, notwithstanding the previous statute and how it operates, we are changing the statute.

We are changing how things happen. I see no reason at all for not providing some additional clarity to all parties concerned. You know, if you're going to penalize agencies, and by that I mean reaching into general fund money to pay for, for late payment of contracts, you know, let's set it up so it doesn't take So let's set it up so it's clear to know when those clocks start. And if we're going to be holding the lash hand, let's make sure everyone knows the schedule. This comports with the purpose of the bill.

And so I encourage members to vote yes. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 1 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? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. With a vote of 19 nays to 21 yeas, Amendment No.

1 Has failed to pass the body. Madam Clerk. Amendment No. 2.

Will the House please come back to order? Just for clarification, Amendment Number 1 did fail by a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays. Happy Monday, everyone. Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 2 by Representative Sadler, beginning page 2, line 21. Representative Sadler.

I move Amendment Number 2. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know, if we're going to, again, impose a deadline and impose sanctions on agencies for failure to achieve a certain goal, it's only fair to describe how you know whether that goal has been met or not. And by doing— it does that by defining what satisfactory performance of the contract is.

Now, it means that performance substantially complies with the material terms and conditions. The contract, the grant or reimbursement agreement. So based on the objective criteria set out in any applicable agreement or contract, and again, I think the objective measurable standards against which performance can be assessed is important. Subjectivity is not our friend. It's going to expose us to a lot more penalties, a lot more costs.

So why does this matter, Mr. Speaker? It prevents subjective or arbitrary delays in payment. It ensures decisions are based on applicable contract terms, which between the state agency and the nonprofit or grantee, and it provides fairness and predictability for an agency and contractor alike. So again, this comports with the purpose of the original amendment, and I'm sure— I have confidence that the vote will go the right way. Representative Hampshoot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose this amendment. Again, this is a fairly straightforward bill, and what we're looking to do is to match what we do already for private contractors who work on public works. And we don't need to spell out any further what performance should look like. We just need to make sure we pay our bills on time.

Thank you. Minor Leader Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to rise in support of this amendment because it makes— just makes so much sense if, especially if you're saying that you have to pay crisply and on time, that you also So you should have a performance metric that you are following. Obviously some of this is grants and some of this is other payments, but I think this is a good amendment and it makes sense and I'm going to press the green button.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of Amendment 2. You know, I think that it's interesting the conversation that I think we're gonna have with this bill Bill, which is aligning how we pay for grants or how we pay to a nonprofit and aligning it with how we pay for other contracts for private sector work. And we're going to say that those two things are the same, but they're not the same. And Amendment Number 2 actually really gets at the heart of that issue.

In, in a private sector contract You're going to have actually set out within the contract what satisfactory performance indicates. Now, in this process of having this discussion specifically within the Department of Health Subcommittee budget, I asked the question of how do we know whether or not the measures or the metrics were met with a number of healthcare grants that we grant out. The response back was, well, Those grantees, they send us a one-pager that says this is what we spent the money on. Nowhere inside of that one-page memo is really a deciding factor as to whether or not it met the objectives of the Department of Health, whether it met the objectives of the legislature for granting those funds. I think you look no further than the conversation we had on the budget than with the child advocacy centers and ask that exact same question.

Question. Those are grant funds that we are putting out from the legislature to a thing that we say is very, very important. And yet we don't really ask the question of, are they— is the performance, as it says in Amendment No. 2, Substantially complying with the terms and conditions of the grant and contract or reimbursement agreement as determined based on an objective criteria set out in the applicable agreement? If we had language like this that said we're going to try to pay for a service, we should have the requirement to ask, is that service going well?

Do we like what we're getting for the money that we're appropriating? And we don't do that. Uh, it's sort of a loophole, I think, within that. So if we're going to say you must pay your bills on time, if that's going to be the, the, uh, the line that's attached to this bill, I want to attach another line, I think, which would be why I support Amendment Number 2. We should pay our bills on time, and we should ensure what we're paying for is working.

Uh, I think that's a really important distinction to make, and that's what Amendment Number 2 does, and I'll be in support. Thank you. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of this amendment. Uh, the reservation— I certainly get the intent of this bill. Pay your bills on time. But we're talking about any number of contracts and we don't have any real idea or definitive idea of what those contracts might be.

One nonprofit agency could be doing very specific tasks. Somebody else could be doing a general thing. And so this would then require the payment, the performance specifications in the contract, and that is very important to straighten this out. Otherwise, it's going to create a lot of confusion if that's not specified up front. It's kind of like building your house.

If you want the roofer to do a certain quality of work or provide all kinds of specific things, And they don't do that and they demand the contract payment, then it goes to court. So we need to straighten this out in the contracts ahead of time. So I strongly encourage the body to vote for this amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Hannan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment, and I want to remind the body that although much of the dialogue has been about nonprofit, one of the most compelling arguments for this bill was heard in Finance by an IT consulting contractor. Right now, statute only provides for DOT public works projects. So an IT firm working for a department redoing their computers and then submitting a bill— it's up, it's operational, And then they wait for their bill to be paid. And then they wait for their bill to be paid.

And then they wait with no concern that the work has been completed. And as that contractor was asked about it, a contract for services to the state lays out very specific deadlines of which they must complete the work, beta testing, et cetera. And at the completion of that, they expect that their bill should be paid in a timely fashion. And it puts them at risk to work on government contracts if they don't know whether it will be paid 30 days, 60 days, 90 days, 120 days. So putting all of our contracts on a timeline that says they will be paid in a timely fashion is how we should do business if we expect to have people doing business on our behalf.

Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 2. First, I would have to agree with everybody else here that's speaking, is that we need to pay our bills. We need to pay our bills on time, and we need to be timely about it. Like, we should not be taking so long.

I've heard countless people complain about this. I will say, though, that not all contracts are the same, Mr. Speaker. Satisfactory performance means performance— but what you guys can read it, I don't have to read it to you— being able to do this in a way that clearly identifies and outlines what we're actually trying to do here, you know, in addition to it. Thank you. Representative Stapp.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of this amendment, and it actually is quite a good amendment from the member from Eagle River, and I'll tell you why. It basically clarifies, in the event that this time clock starts ticking, when are we regarding to pay. The state has a huge problem with third-party vendor contracts that do a crappy job, Mr. Speaker. One of the examples of that is we appropriate created back in 2012 millions of dollars to upgrade the state's permanent fund dividend software.

That project was not complete by the vendor until a year ago, and the only reason it was completed by the vendor is because the state decided just to stop paying, because the contract that they had with the third-party vendor had no satisfactory performance clause. So I would just encourage members to vote yes on this amendment because in the event that you want to write blank checks to people without any accountability, that's something the state's been doing a long time. And if we're going to say we're going to pay folks on time, we should actually demand that the work that they provide the state government using the people's money is done in a way that at least somehow fits the performance metrics that are in the request that's asked. And there are countless examples of that not happening currently. So I just encourage the members to vote yes on this very substantial amendment defining satisfactory performance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm opposed to the amendment. I think it's very important to point out that people who are doing this non-governmental, doing the contracts with non-governmental agencies, they realize how important the state is as a client.

They want their work. They have goals that they are to meet. It's understood that they will be delivered on, and they are very well aware of that. Their performance is expected to be exemplary. Thank you.

Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. Actually, I'm very thankful for the member from Eagle River for bringing this forward. I think it actually probably might be one of the most important amendments that is in front of this body here today.

The amount of money that we spend that goes out the door through grants and reimbursable agreements, it's alarming. It's astounding. There are very few checks and balances on those grant award recipients. All this amendment does is add to those individuals that we are requesting some form of performance metrics from. In addition to those with contracts with agencies, we're asking for that metric to also extend to grant award recipients and those with reimbursable agreements.

So I would very much encourage the body to think long and hard about the realities of the volume of grant dollars that leave our state treasury every single year. We need to be reviewing those. We need to understand that there were some sort of expectations, some benchmark of satisfactory use of those grant funds. There is no reason anybody should be voting no against this amendment. I encourage you to push the green button.

Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of the amendment. I just only wish I would have thought about it, this type of an amendment, when we had this in front of us in Finance. Unfortunately, we didn't.

I heard a lot of our speakers got up that said they didn't support the amendment, and then they proceeded to tell us exactly why it is a good amendment based on the language that they were telling us about needing to pay and completing work. And I think that this amendment exactly exactly does that. It tells us exactly what is acceptable for satisfactory performance so that we can make sure that we're paying on time. So I support the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And wrap up, Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To first respond to the sponsor of the bill's speech against the amendment, you know, she said it was— this is a straightforward bill, Mr. Speaker. I agree absolutely. Yeah, generally.

But this is more important. This is a straightforward amendment. I heard several arguments from people who indicated predilection to vote against the amendment saying, I'm not quite sure. I think they argued the bill and not the underlying amendment. If the goal of this legislation, the basic legislation, is to make sure state bills are paid on time to contractors and grantees, it's only fair to all concerned that we have clear standards of whether the conditions of the contract have been satisfactorily met or not.

I'm saying the same thing many people have said. The state cannot afford to open up its checkbook and agree to pay penalties for, for failure to meet satisfactory completion standards if we don't define what those completion standards are. If you like the bill, you should like this amendment, Mr. Speaker. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 2 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? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. With a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment No.

2 Has failed to pass the body. Madam Clerk. Amendment No. 3 By Representative Himchoot, beginning page 1, line 4. Representative Himchoot.

Move Amendment 3. There's an objection. Representative Hemschews. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As this bill was headed to the floor, legislative legal reached out to our office and said they caught something in the title that they wanted us to fix.

And so this is a simple cleanup on the title to make it match the bill. Is the objection maintained? Brief at ease.

Back to order. Minority Leader Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to ask the maker, the, the bill sponsor, or the maker of the amendment, to just explain a little bit more about what the what was necessary and why this amendment was necessary. Thank you.

In doing so, in wrap-up, Representative Himschutz. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The— in House Finance, we added in a report, and the goal of that report is for departments to be able to tell us how many late payments they had, the reason why, and the duration of the payments. Of the delay in the payments. So with the addition of that report, we had to add this language into the title to reflect that report.

Please vote yes. Thank you. I remove my objection. The objection has been removed. Not hearing additional objection, Amendment Number 3 has been adopted.

Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 4 by Representative Costello, beginning page 1, line 4. Representative Costello. I move Amendment 4. There is an objection.

Representative Costello. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So this is a transparency amendment. It would be shown on the state checkbook website. Essentially, what I was interested in accomplishing here is transparency to show which contracts are paid late and which contracts have not been paid so that the public public is aware, the legislature is aware of the status of the contracts.

And it has to do with all, all contracts, not just nonprofits or grants. And I urge support for the amendment. Representative Stapp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is actually a really important amendment for the bill.

When we discussed this in finance and talking with folks, We had fiscal notes on the bill that basically said departments are just basically not going to pay the contracts on time. They're just going to rather get fined. This amendment basically would allow the state checkbook to track who we are paying on time and who we are not paying on time, Mr. Speaker, because I can tell you if this underlying bill is to pass the legislature, what's going to happen is the department is going to prioritize prioritize big contract vendors and pay them on time, and they are going to deprioritize small contract vendors. So the intent, what I heard of the bill, is we want to pay our small nonprofits on time. If you pass the bill, the testimony that's already been given has already indicated that they will most certainly not only not pay them on time, but probably pay them much later than they are already because they're prioritizing other vendors.

Mr. Speaker. So if you add that to public disclosure and individuals can track that, you know, you're going to be able to see that in real time with obviously a little delay for updating. And the maker of the amendment, amendment on number 4, would let the general public know that, hey, not only is our state agencies not paying their bills on time, but they're also intentionally deprioritizing small vendors in order to not incur fines. So I think it's a great amendment. I hope the members vote yes.

Representative Hemmschutz. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I view this as a friendly amendment. I want to point something out, that is that the report that's been added to the bill is a one-time report in January, and that gives us a sort of a baseline starting point to explore what the issues are in all the late payments. This amendment allows ongoing reporting, and so for that reason I I hope folks will join me in supporting it.

Given we have agreement from the bill sponsor and the maker of the amendment, is the objection still maintained?

The objection is removed. Seeing no further objection, Amendment Number 4 has been adopted. Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 5 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 3, line 3. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment Number 5. There is an objection.

Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is pretty straightforward. All it says is payments made under the section cannot be used in a way that conflicts with Article 8, Section 1 of our Constitution, which is the requirement that our resources be developed for the maximum benefit of our people. This body already adopted this language, intent language, in the budget, Mr. Speaker.

We made it clear that compliance with that standard is a condition of those receiving the funds. That's it. That's all the amendment does. We're not changing payment timelines. We're not restricting who can receive the funds.

We're simply saying if you receive state money, you shouldn't be using it to work against the state, against this body, the state of Alaska, to develop our resource. So the question today is really simple in my mind. Do we really mean it? I ask for your support. Representative Hempschulte.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose this amendment, and not because I philosophically agree or disagree with anything that the previous speaker just said. What I oppose is that the language that was added, the intent language added to the budget, is a one-time, one-year thing. If we're going to set policy, we should set policy through committee as much as possible. So I'd like this amendment to be something considered through a committee process.

So I oppose the amendment. Thank you. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, akin to the previous comment from the member from Sitka, my concern with this amendment is that it would embed in statute that all of these nonprofits receiving these contracts could not do something— well, as the maker of the amendment said, that works against the state. Well, that's in the eyes of the beholder. First of all, I, I don't know what that means, that works against the state. That's why we have a gubernatorial election in November, in part, um, to develop its resources.

Well, the state has decided to have a Denali State Park and critical habitat areas and sanctuaries. So again, what does it mean to say to work against the state? I mean, if you're working in support of those, those areas, are you working for the state? I think you are working for the state. The other problem with this is that I think a court would have to look at this and say, all right, so they can't do anything with their receipts for these contracts, that undermines maximum development, but can they do things that undermine Section 1 of Article 1 on civil rights?

I guess they can. How about on freedom of religion? I suppose so. Freedom of speech, searches and seizures, right to keep and bear arms. We're not protecting any of those in this language.

And you could also add public education, public health, and public welfare. Now, if you reform the amendment and include all the items I've just mentioned, then you're basically just taking the Constitution and appending it to the bill. You could do that. It's a lot of clutter. I just oppose the amendment.

Representative Stapp.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I mean, I support this amendment because we've already— I mean, we put this exact language in our budget already. It's pro-resource development language. To the last speaker's comments, um, the issue that we're having in the state is individuals that are on state dole, on state contract, are turning around and using state money to undermine our constitutional obligations, Mr. Speaker, uh, which we have a constitutional obligation to maximize Alaska's resource development for the betterment of the people of the state because the resources are socialized in this state, Mr. Speaker. The amendment very clearly states that a payment made under the section to a nonprofit organization, municipality, or native organization may not be used in a manner that conflicts with the constitutional provision on resource development and that they should comply with that.

Mr. Speaker, we don't really want the state to be in business of granting individuals for the purpose of contracts and grants and then turning around and blocking a project. You see this all the time, especially through projects through ADA. You shouldn't be funding individuals who are anti-resource development with state money because that's in conflict with our state constitution. So if you believe in resource development, Mr. Speaker, and you believe in timely payment of contracts, you should vote yes on this amendment. But of course, if you don't like resource development, I guess you can vote no.

Thank you.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 5. The member from House District 13 actually just gave a pretty rousing description of why, one, Amendment Number 2 should pass, and two, why the underlying bill has some concerns. And also, I think Amendment Number 5 starts to address and poke at what those concerns are. Mr. Speaker, we have an issue right now that the member behind me just, I think, spoke to, which is when we grant out money and then we say we must pay the grants on time, but we have no idea how those payments are being used, none whatsoever.

I would challenge all of the members of this body to work through, do you know what the money is being used for that we grant out every single year? And I think the answer would be a big question mark.

The member from District 13, I think, brought up an excellent point. Should we require, should we ask the question of, are the monies that we're granting out, are they complying with the Alaska constitution? I think the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, would be sometimes no. Are we okay with that? I think the member, uh, from Big Lake is just bringing one forward that says, you know, we all here I think value resource, uh, development because it's what pays our state's bills.

And if this bill is about paying your bills, then we should probably encourage resource development because that's how we pay our bills. But I agree with the member from House District 13. We should probably have an idea of, are these things that we're paying for in a grant program complying with the mission of Alaska and the laws of Alaska? And I think right now the answer to that is no. I'm concerned that we voted down amendments to actually help us answer that question.

Um, maybe it will happen in this report that we're going to get. I'm going to guess that's no to that as well. And then what happens, Mr. Speaker, when we tie ourselves to just continuing to pay regardless of whether or not these metrics are being met. This is saying we as a body value the organizations and entities that we are making payments to use state dollars in a way that follows state law. I don't understand why we would be against that.

Thank you.

Representative Eva.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. And actually, I think that it's pretty easy to, to see, particularly at whatever context and time you're looking at the interests of the state. And so when it says that this may not be used in a manner that conflicts with Article 8 or with the state constitution, I think both of those are pretty easy to understand. It's going to that they're going to be using funds in compliance with state statute and with the Constitution of the state.

So it's very easy to support this one. Thank you. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm frankly abashed that we would even feel the need to include this kind of language into a bill, but I'm sad to say that I have— I understand the reason why and the motivation, I believe.

You know, I've seen so many nonprofits operating in Alaska, friends of this, protect the that, And a lot of them, I believe, do work against the state's interest in developing our resources for the maximum benefit of the people, as our Constitution demands we do. The co-chair from Anchorage said he— what constitutes the best use of the maximum benefit is in the eye of the beholder. Well, Mr. Speaker, I would— you know, there's a certain benefit to having clarity and clear definitions and timelines, but apparently we're not so interested in that. To put a fine point on this, If we're going to give state grant money to organizations, it is not inappropriate. It is appropriate to make sure to put a condition on them.

Our body English is that it should not be used to frustrate our constitutional goals. I think everybody in this building understands what's going on with this. And if you're— well, I'm just gonna say everyone should understand the reason for this. And I'm sad that it has to be in there, but I think it should be.

Representative Fields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would love to see some evidence that, you know, the senior centers who are suffering from delayed payments are somehow out there beating the bushes against resource development. I haven't seen any evidence of that. The, the good organizations that are out here providing core services are, as far as I can tell, not in the political realm at all.

They're simply providing services, and the departments are long overdue paying for those services. This seems both entirely unnecessary and a little silly when I think about the senior centers. We just need to pay them on time. They're just not political at all. Representative Schwacke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. What is a good organization? That is most definitely in the eye of the beholder, isn't it? So I wanted to read Section 1, if that's okay.

It's very short. Permission granted. It is the policy of the state to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest. The reason I felt that it was important for us to read that section of Article 8 is because that might not necessarily mean what you think it means. When something is in the public's best interest, best interest, that could mean a lot of different things.

It doesn't necessarily mean ultimate destruction and whatever it is that is in your mind, think broadly. We have just had the discussion that there are no bounds on grant dollars that are given out by the state through our hundreds of different grants that come through our state treasury. So this to me seems like a really good amendment. It's a really good starting point for some of our nonprofits to be thinking about when they receive state grant funds. If you are working against the best interest of the state, perhaps you should consider not applying for that grant in future years, and maybe we should consider not issuing those same grant funds in future years.

Thanks. Representative Schrag.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just very briefly in opposition to this amendment, just want to remind folks I'm hearing today on the floor that there's members of this body that believes the administration is approving grants that are going towards purposes in violation of our Constitution. I'm having a hard time understanding that. But the Constitution— our governor is beholden to the Constitution. The governor is therefore responsible for the administration of our government.

I don't think putting something in statute that says follow the Constitution is going to require the governor to follow the Constitution if he's not currently following the Constitution and paying out grants that go against our Constitution. I just don't understand. This amendment seems very silly, and I don't understand what it does. Does. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 5. Frankly, I think it's maybe even a little bit too narrow, but I think we do have a number of nonprofit organizations, non-government organizations, whatever they're called, that are receiving state money and then turn around and use it either for political campaigns or lawsuits against something that the legislature has decided to do.

And that just doesn't seem right. If somebody wants to use their own money or take up a collection and file a lawsuit against something we did, well, that's just fine. Fine. But I don't know that the public through the legislature should appropriate money to organizations that are essentially working against what the legislature has decided to be in the public interest. So I wish it was actually a little bit more broadly applied, but this is a starting point and therefore we should have— we should vote in favor of Amendment Number 5.

And wrap up, Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, to answer one question, um, this amendment is clearly tied to one small section of the Constitution. It's Article 8, Section 1. So thinking that it would somehow apply to— I'm not sure I've ever seen a senior center go out and protest against resource development actually, or have that in their mission.

So a few facts, Mr. Speaker. There's 5,688 tax-filing nonprofits in Alaska. Government grants, federal, state, and local, make up 45% or more of the nonprofit's revenue. We rank— Alaska ranks among the highest states nationally for nonprofits receiving government government funding.

8% Of those nonprofits, Mr. Speaker, are considered environmental nonprofits. So that's 275 to 450-ish. They are nonprofit organizations that deal with natural resource, water quality, pollution abatement, environmental education. Some of those are good, Mr. Speaker, but some of those, some of those have a mission. Their mission is to shut down resource development in the state of Alaska.

To think that it is not being done, I, I have witnessed it personally, Mr. Speaker. We did it. We did it through our Community Assistance Program. We send money to communities and it's pass-through money, and then they grant it out to whom they wish. That's why we put intent language in the budget the other day, because I frankly heard a a grant go to from a community that goes to a nonprofit that I know works against roads such as Ambler, roads such as West Sitka Access.

They are working against us and we are funding them to do so, Mr. Speaker. You know, if you're in support of labor, labor unions, project unions, you should be voting for this amendment. It makes sense. We want to keep Alaska working. We want to keep our resources being developed the way the Constitution says we should, Mr. Speaker.

And I think that this circular funding where we are giving money for— to people that are going to work against us is just plain wrong. We shouldn't be funding efforts that work against us, Mr. Speaker. It's that simple. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 5 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 Freer. From yay to nay. Nay to yay. Nay to yay.

Pardon me.

The clerk, please announce the vote. 21 Yeas, 19 nays. For the vote of 21 yeas to 19 nays, Amendment Number 5 has been adopted. Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 6 by Representative McCabe, beginning page 1, line 4. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment Number 6. There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's really pretty simple.

This amendment just removes Section 4, which assumes Federal Rural Health Transformation Program funds can be used for Department of Health technology upgrades. Permission to read, Mr. Speaker? Permission granted. So I put this email on your desk. It's from the assistant executive assistant with the Department of Health.

Section 4 of HB 133 is problematic. It is unlikely that the RHTP funds could be used to placed Department of Health's Grant Management System. Expenditures under RHTP are designed to explicitly support Alaska's healthcare goals. The program is really designed to move most of that money out of the government and into the healthcare system. System here means healthcare, Mr. Speaker, it doesn't mean, uh, IT.

Alaska's RHTP goals are promote lifelong health and well-being of rural, remote, and frontier Alaskans, build sustainable outcomes-driven health systems. Once again, systems means healthcare, it doesn't mean IT. Drive workforce and technology— drive workforce and technology innovation is the last thing. So, Mr. Speaker, these funds are not designed— I think 10% of them can go to administrative. They're not designed to build out a new, completely new IT system for the entire state.

They're designed to go to rural portions of our state. I believe that this could risk future funding with the federal government. It could risk this funding. We have seen it before where federal government has clawed back funding because we have spent it inappropriately. We've seen it many times, Mr. Speaker.

Section 4 is unrelated to the core purpose of the bill, which is payment timelines and accountability. It—. This really doesn't even belong, in my opinion, in this bill, other than it has the word health in both of them. If technology upgrades are needed, they should be funded transparency through the budgeting process, Mr. Speaker, not through a federal grant program.

I think with that, Mr. Speaker, I'll sit down and listen for questions. Representative Himchute.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to speak in opposition to this amendment. I have just a little background information of the 13 fiscal notes, and I appreciate the members' patience with the great number of fiscal notes, but when we're talking about all of the departments, we need to hear from all of the departments. So, and there's one department we could not really get information from despite many efforts. So of the 13 fiscal notes we received, 7 indicated that it would come with some impact, some fiscal impact to be able to implement this bill.

6 Of those are from the Department of Health. When we reached out to other states or checked what other states are doing when they are paying on time, those prompt payment states are able to pay on time largely because they have a unified grants management system. So being able to use the gift of this funding to be able to unify our grants management system or make other technology upgrades would benefit rural Alaska and the entire state. But one of the reasons it benefits rural Alaska so much is a great deal of the Department of Health funding goes to rural places. So being able to get that funding to rural places in a timely way through an upgrade to technology feels to me like it could be a good use of that funding.

And we're just saying we want that to be considered with the language that's in the bill. So I oppose this amendment, and I am going to listen to the debate, but I appreciate this amendment coming forward. I don't think it's the right thing to do. Thank you. Representative Stapp.

Yeah, Mr. Speaker, this language should be deleted from this bill. It's really simple.

The state can't pay its bills on a timely fashion. And rather than do fix that through the appropriations process, we're going to ask the federal government for a handout to help us pay our bills on time. That's absurd, Mr. Speaker. This, this language in this bill, it says we're going to use— we're going to request the technology upgrades that are going to go help us pay our bills on time. We need to take from the Rural Health Transformation Fund And that money should be money that we actually use for rural health transformation.

We have discussed modernizing our IT systems for our Department of Public Assistance and Health many, many, many times. We have appropriated $53 million in the capital budget for upgrades to IT technology in the Department of Health 2 years ago, 5 years before that, there was a $37 million appropriation to upgrade the software system, Mr. Speaker. But it boils down to the money for the Rural Health Transformation Fund, um, should be used to actually transform healthcare in Alaska. It shouldn't be used by the state government to say, hey, um, we're so backwards we can't pay our bills on time, so we need the federal government to give us a little, uh, bit of extra cheese this year so we can upgrade something and do that. It's the wrong use of the money, Mr. Speaker.

Shouldn't be in the bill. Thank you. Senator Rutledge.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I obviously rise in support of Amendment Number 6. This was my biggest concern with the language of the bill that— well, there's other concerns as well, but this one is specifically problematic.

I'm, I'm actually not even certain we should do this or can do this. Um, I guess it is on some level just intent language. So, you know, the saying on this floor is, uh, we can write all this language that we want and then it means nothing. So in my opinion, why would we put something that means nothing into a bill? But, uh, it's there.

And it's there for a very specific purpose. It's saying we know that it's gonna take some money to implement this program. Now there are a bunch of fiscal notes, as the sponsor of the bill has stated, but there is a fiscal note that's missing, which what is the cost of the technology upgrades that are needed in order to implement a grant management program? Well, I happen to remember for the last few years, we've gone through iteration after iteration after iteration of new IT management, and frankly, Mr. Speaker, I'm not certain anything has gotten better after the tens of millions of dollars that we've spent on all of these things. Some of these take a long time to implement, some of them take a lot of money, some of them actually just take, uh, well, some personnel.

All of those are represented in the fiscal notes, but the thing that's not is what does it cost to actually implement that grant management software. I think if this language goes through, I frankly think the Department of Health probably doesn't seek to use funding for that. I think the right way to do this is for the Department of Health, if they want to have grant management software, that they should come to the legislature with a request. This is what it will cost. This is why we're going to implement it.

And actually seek to take it out of general funds. If that is the intent, important thing for them to do and that they can have a, I guess, a greater ability to pay for things on time.

The process by which to use Rural Health Care Transformation funds in order to fund this in here is actually a little complicated to me. The rest of the state of Alaska, if you were a healthcare provider or a municipality or any sort of organization that sought to use Rural Health Care Transformation funds, you had to fill out an application, a letter of interest. You had to then put that letter of interest into the state. The state then graded those and said, here are some things that meet our metrics. Then they put those forward to the community found— Alaska Community Foundation, and they went through a whole process.

Are we saying that now with this bill— this is my biggest concern— We're going to undercut all of that and we're going to say, actually, we want you, according to this bill, Department of Health, to just go in and say this is actually our highest priority item because we are going to prioritize this with this bill. It's the intent that the legislature will use some funds for technology upgrades. We are going to take some of that money and we are going to say this is going to be allocated for that. Now, who doesn't get a grant Now, who, who gets told no because of this language? I think somebody does.

I think somebody that was maybe slated for a behavioral health grant or some sort of grant to implement a new program in rural Alaska will get told no this year because of this language. And I think that's the wrong approach. I think if they— if there is a need for a technology upgrade, then we should have that request from the Department of Health in our budget subcommittee and we should actually know what that's going to cost. This language is very vague. It just says, well, the Department of Health is going to implement this act and it will just be funded with random funds for a random amount.

Um, actually, that would be a question that I have, uh, both for the maker of the amendment and the maker of the bill. Do we have an idea of what it costs? Because I actually think a grant management software, from my time in municipal government, is a monthly fee. And again, RHTP funds cannot be used for ongoing operations. There's a lot of concerns I have with this language.

I think if the underlying bill is going to be moving forward, I think it would be responsible of us to remove this language, deal with whatever cost it is going to take to implement the bill in a very transparent and knowable way. And so I will be in support of this.

This. Who's—. Who called the brikkadis? Rep. Sammida.

Please come back to order. We have an amendment number 6 to House Bill 133 before the body under discussion. I'm going to next go to next in the queue, Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and welcome back to everybody. On Amendment 6, I think this amendment raises the very basic question: do we want to put the rural transportation— excuse me, rural transportation RTF, Rural Telehealth Transformation Funds, at risk. We have a letter from the Department of Health saying that Section 4 of this bill is problematic. You know, these are hundreds of millions of dollars for the state to provide healthcare to rural Alaskans. Let me emphasize, to rural Alaskans.

The federal RTF funds have very strict, very clear metrics and scorecards for how that money is going to be allocated. I've seen the scorecard. Passed bills and even introduced bills in an effort to try and improve our scores. So obviously it's a big deal. Obviously it's important funds for Alaska.

So I'm scared that we might put that at risk. The implications for present and future generations of rural Alaska are huge. You know, money is being taken away with one hand from the federal government and offered with another. And if we try to put conditions on this, we lose that money, lose that opportunity. Again, do we want to risk losing the Rural Health Transportation— Transformation Funds.

Can't talk for minutes. So I think this amendment reduces that risk and will be beneficial to rural Alaskans. So I'm looking forward to the vote on this one. I withdraw my objection. The objection to Amendment Number 6 has been withdrawn.

Is there an additional objection?

Not hearing any, Amendment Number 6 thusly is adopted. Adopted. Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 7 by Representative Johnson, beginning page 1, line 1. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move Amendment Number 7. There's an objection. Representative Johnson. All right, thank you, Mr. Speaker. We've all heard, I think, in this body from members in our district, probably constituents that we're doing business with the state, about the slow pay on contracts that the state often does.

And I don't think this is a, this administration situation. I think it's been going on for a long time. Oftentimes I think that probably gets confused a little bit between payment contracts and payment of private businesses doing business with the state. But I'm certain that when we hear from people, it's, you know, probably been going on for a long time. Some of the most egregious offenses, most likely.

But that doesn't mean that the state is behind on all of its, its contracts. And I also want to say, just because we pass another bill or pass another— pass anything doesn't mean that the state's going to change its behavior. So first of all, We need to get our administration in front of us and sort this out. Probably— I don't know that this bill is going to make a big difference. But anyway, this amendment changes the deadline of the payment contracts for state agencies from 30 days to 45 days from the state, from the date that invoices are received by the agencies.

Presently, the 30-day time required in this bill has produced 15 fiscal notes. So 15 fiscal notes from the various departments with cumulative 6-year projected cost of in excess of $7 million. And that's just for 15 days. 15 Days extra. This includes processing late payments, interest paid to vendors at the rate of 10.5%, the cost of at least 10 added positions across all affected agencies.

Agencies, and additional costs provided by the imposition of— what this additional cost is, is generated by this imposition of a 30-day restriction. With few exceptions, according to most of the respective agencies, contracts are currently being paid with an average turn time of 40.75 days. That's the average. 0.75 Days. While late payments do occur, they are the exception and not the rule.

It should be noted that the Consumer Payment—. Johnson, I've asked all members to seek permission of the body before their reading, and I'm going to ask the same of you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So it should also be noted that Will the House please come back to order. Continuing on under debate on Amendment Number 7, Representative Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So I just want to make note that it's typical for a consumer loan to be about 30 days, but for commercial contracts and payment, it's actually closer to 90 days. So we're really talking about trying to make— put the state on a more of a— something that we would consider to be a consumer type of a schedule, not something that would be a commercial contract. So there's a number of reasons that I think that this bill isn't quite ready for prime time. And one of those is the fact that just by making this short, small change, we could— it costs us $7 million, and just by making it go from 30 days to 45 days, we can make that fiscal note go away.

So for that reason, Mr. Speaker, I would urge a yes vote on Amendment Number 7.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Hampschute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose Amendment Number 7.

I would dispute the not ready for prime time a little bit. It's certainly ready for more discussion, but it did have 13 hearings, so we've been working on this bill for quite some time. The average of 40 however many days, I think, masks that some payments are over 90 days. Payments, which we could call outliers, and some payments are clearly within 30 days. In fact, I would say a lot, or even most payments are within 30 days.

Our departments are getting done a lot of what we're asking them to do. What we're doing with this bill, uh, without this amendment, is to push our departments to do even better and to make sure we're within 30 days for everyone, no matter what. Um, I'd also note that the numbers that we're talking about are fiscal year '25 and the effective date of this bill is some time out. So there's time for departments to make correction. There is another amendment coming from the minority leader.

I've really appreciated working with her and that's an amendment that I would support, but I do not support Amendment Number 7. Representative Ruffridge.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will rise in support of Amendment Number 7. I appreciate the comments from the maker of the bill, and she's absolutely correct. This bill had a lot of hearings. I happen to be part of a number of those hearings, and it really is surprising to hear actually how many grants and other things that the state manages.

And I actually think for the most part they tend to do pretty well. I think the biggest issue that I have with the underlying bill is this idea of parity between, uh, contracts that are made for certain types of work and then contracts that are made for, uh, everything else in this bill, which is dealing with grants and nonprofits and a few other things. Those two things really aren't the same, uh, and this, this amendment and then the one that comes up following it sort of takes that on to say sometimes there is a need for a, um, a little bit of a delay whether that is proving that the action happened, whether that is the entity itself when requesting for reimbursement is a little bit delayed in getting information to the departments. There's a whole host of reasons why these things can happen, and this sort of takes that on its face and says we understand. If it's taking 90, 120 days to, to get a payment, I agree, I think that needs to be an issue that we address very seriously and ask question as to why.

This amendment does, I think, bring the cost down, which I think should be important to all of us here. And I'm happy to hear that potentially the next amendment, which I think does something similar, will be potentially taken up with a little more understanding of that, of the need to do that. So I'm supportive of that concept for the reasons that I just mentioned. Thank you. Representative Josephson, brief at ease.

Represent— Will the House please come back to order? Continuing on our debate on Amendment 7, Representative Josephson. Yes, in the interest of time, I'll speak very fast. My concern with some of these amendments is that we lose our goal of achieving parity, and I hear some language in terms of the scrutiny that's applied to contracts in a previous amendment. Of course, scrutiny can be warranted, but I'm just worried that we're back to this sort of caste system where the, you know, a nonprofit contract is the other, they're different and not as important.

For example, we heard the word dull, that these folks around the state dull. They're not unemployed. They're actually fully employed. They want to pay their bills on time, and they want to ask the state to help them do that. I, you know, we heard, and in fact the representative from North Midtown celebrated fiscal notes where there was compliance, and we just want all the agencies to comply.

I understand that, I'm told from the maker of the amendment, that the average or the mean is somewhere in the low 40s, but boy, you look at these fiscal notes and you see 57, 88, 59, 65, 98 days. Um, let's set a high goal and let's ask the agencies to get it together and meet their obligations. I oppose the amendment. Representative Sadler. Why, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in support of Amendment 7. You know, I don't believe there is any current limit in statute. I'm not a finance, so I don't know the issue thoroughly, but I don't believe there's any limit right now on the timeline given to state agencies to pay their contractees and grantees. And that truth is the underlying premise of the goal of this legislation, as unamended, to place some limits, some arbitrary time limit, 30 days, in statute. You know, given that the average payment of grants, as we've heard, and we heard that there are 5,600 nonprofits or more in Alaska, Given that the time— the average of time payment is 45 days and a 45-day limit which would be imposed by this amendment is not an onerous burden on those agencies that pay their bills on time and it's not an unfair limit on those agencies that are not paying their contracts on time and are the outliers in calculating that average.

So again, if we're trying to impose limits, let's have fair limits that have meaning and don't expose the state to excessive penalties, which we are gonna pay out of one pocket into our other pocket. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. I think it's a good idea to give the departments a little extra time to see if they're actually, if the grant applications actually are sufficient satisfactorily performing their duties and what their grants are supposed to be accomplishing, giving them a little extra time to do that is a good thing. We don't want to rush payment on grant applications and grant invoices that haven't got their job done properly. So same reason I supported Amendment 2.

So I would encourage the body to support this amendment. Representative Holland. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to oppose this amendment. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you have run nonprofit organizations, perhaps served on boards of these organizations, or perhaps worked as an executive director of those.

I have. These organizations struggle to manage their cash. They spend months preparing applications for the grants. They go through onerous cycles of review of the grants. And then finally, when they get awarded that grant, they begin working on those projects.

They hire people. They pay people. They buy supplies. They buy computers. They perhaps set up office spaces.

They then perform that work. And at some point, they finally get to to a milestone point where they can send in an invoice. And at that point, they have already expended months of cash, of money, to be able to pay their employees to provide the work that our communities need. This 30-day clock is a very reasonable expectation given that these organizations have already put months into actually delivering and doing the work and paying Alaska Alaskans that they've hired to get this work done. The idea that we need to give the agencies more time to think about it, I think, is underestimating the amount of effort we have asked our nonprofits to contribute to their communities to do this work for us.

This bill and this amendment are very clear that we are asking folks to pay within 30 days when they have supplied a invoice showing that they have satisfactorily met the terms of the contract. At that point, I think they should be paid in a timely manner. I oppose this amendment.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment.

It isn't— well, I think they said that the average was 40-something days, the departments.

I guess I want to use another problem as an analogy to just explain what's going on. The state also has problems of sometimes paying employees on time or resolving pay disputes on time.

To me is even more significant. And I've spent a lot of time checking into that. And although it is— my expectation would be 100%. You don't fool around with employees' pay. But from when you look into it, there's outliers.

It's very important to the person who is not having their paycheck squared away on time. But it's an outlier when you look at the whole picture of paying employees. And I kind of think the same thing might be going on here, that it's in fact an outlier. So we should insist that the departments improve their performance, at least down to the 30-day level. That should be our responsibility to look at audits and do something about that in the subcommittee hearings, really.

But to set— well, they're always arbitrary. Any deadline is arbitrary. In 30 days, it could cause the departments to not scrutinize the bills well enough. We could bring up another problem. So I think giving them the 45-day limit is more reasonable than a 30-day limit.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Wrap-up comments, Representative Johnson? Representative Galvin, did you wish to speak? I'm sorry. I would like to if I could.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just briefly wanted to share that I am standing against this amendment. I think the primary thing we're trying to do here is grow trust in government. And what we've decided, I guess, is that government needs more time to pay off bills.

And I just don't see it like the rest of you, or some of you who have spoken today, I guess. To me, it's not arbitrary. 30 Days is something that a lot of businesses use. That's a whole month. Pretty standard, if you ask me.

And I know that some of us maybe don't think of those who are delivering services like special education or vocational rehab or— I mean, there's so many services that we are delivering as the state of Alaska. And with that, oftentimes it's using grant funds or other funds, or maybe it's related to Native corporations or Native nonprofits. There's a lot of different ways that these funds are going out, and each and every one of them have employees who have families, who feed their families, who pay their rent, and they want to pay it on time. And that means government needs to do its job. That's the underlying point of the bill, and this particular amendment is saying, hey, let's give government a little more time.

And I think you've got to draw the line sometimes, and this one, uh, to me hits at home. I very much appreciate that we're looking after quality control, but that's written in, it's embedded into whatever grant opportunities are out there. It's very clear. They give very clear instructions about what needs to be done or not done. So what I heard from the Department of Health, and I want to commend them because when they came to the table in finance, they were absolutely as transparent as I've ever seen.

In saying, yep, we've now done some research around this bill, and I can tell you the 30-day deadline is something we haven't met in division after division. It was very interesting to hear them speak. In some cases, they were suggesting the amount of funds in their fiscal note to cover the fines that they think they're going to get because they didn't think they could deliver this on time? Because some of them were, you know, 120 days behind. Why were they that far behind?

Well, they gave mostly the reasoning that they didn't have— they didn't have the resources there. They didn't have— oftentimes is they hadn't hired enough employees. So I think that, again, I cannot say enough that you've got to draw the line somewhere. Somewhere. And in this case, Department of Health said they would love to come back and explain to us exactly how to get to the 30 days because they think they can do it.

But right now what they're doing is giving us a, a quote for many of the divisions that were just saying, here's what we expect we'll have to pay in fines. That is not good government. So I, I vote against this one. Thanks so much.

In wrap-up, Representative Johnson. Mr. Speaker, look, Mr. Speaker, no notes.

I just wanted to say for the member behind me that I have been the executive director of a nonprofit and I have sat on the board of nonprofits. I've been the president of a board of a nonprofit and for many years. So it's— I'm no stranger to the world of nonprofits, receipts, and payables. However, most of the— anyone will tell you in business that they can deal with a lot of problems as long as there's consistency. So to me, one of the important things is, is I don't think the state should be held— so they're not held accountable.

I certainly think that they should be, and they should be a consistency about how they do the payments. So, but I don't think that we should make an arbitrary arbitrary deadline just because of, you know, whatever reason that we've picked. But 45 days keeps it from us from having the $7 million fiscal note. And to me, that clearly makes good sense. And this is a reasonable amendment, Mr. Speaker.

And I would urge members to vote yes. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 7 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? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. By a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment No.

7 Has failed to pass the body. Madam Clerk. Amendment number 8 by Representative Johnson, beginning page 1, line 1.

Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 8.

Thank you. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So what this amendment does, it takes an increment— more of an incremental approach, starts with 45 days and moves it to 30 days after after 1 year. And what this will do is it actually makes it so the department can have a little bit of time shifting their payables into the new system.

I don't want to set the department up for failure to try to get this done this quickly by this year. I think would be just a mistake and it would cost us money that can't— in fines and overdue interest. So this is an attempt. Worked with the sponsor to make it so they will really have the same— they'll have to set it up in the same way, the 45 days, then moving to 30. They'll have the same software.

It will follow the same schedule, but it does give them a little bit of a— or follow the same procedure. It will give them a little bit of time to implement this, and it really gets where the sponsor wanted to go but gives the department just a little more time to to do it. And so I would like to hear what others have to say. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Hemschutz.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think this is a really great compromise amendment because it does allow a stair-step to get there. So we have a report coming to us from every department in January so we know what's going on. We have continuing reporting in the open checkbook, and then we have a 45-day deadline, which again is that mean average that they say they need. And then following that, 1 year later, the 30 days is there.

The one downside to this amendment is for those departments and divisions who are paying on time, this gives them the latitude to not do that. So I want to say right here and right now, you know that the following year you are back to 30 days. So thank you for the good service. Please keep it up. Don't use this as latitude to increase your payment time.

Keep it at 30 or below, and then everybody's gonna be at 30 shortly after that if we're successful. So I appreciate this amendment. With that, I withdraw my objection. So the objection has been withdrawn to Amendment No. 8.

Not hearing further objection, Amendment No. 8 Has been adopted. Representative Stutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to move an amendment deadline of 2:00 PM today That would be April 20th at— for committee substitute for House Bill 133.

And that would be all amendments to the clerk's office by that time. Not hearing any objection, the amendment deadline has been adopted. At this time, I would like to hold over to the next day's calendar House Bill 133 in second reading. House Bill 262, which is yet to be addressed, will of course come before the body in second reading. House Bill 25 is presently in third reading.

And SCR 19, the disaster declaration concurrent resolution, will be back before the body as well tomorrow. Madam Clerk, are there any items on today's calendar? 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 the following members be excused from a call of the House on the following dates and times: Representative David Nelson from Thursday, April 30th at 7:30 AM to Sunday, May 3rd at 5 PM, and from Sunday, July 12th at 7:00 AM to Sunday, July 19th at 8:50 PM. Representative Ruffridge from Wednesday, April 29th at 11:00 AM to Thursday, April 30th at 11:00 PM. Representative Himschoot from Thursday, April 23rd at 8:30 AM to 9:00 PM. Hearing no objection, the members are excused on the dates and times indicated by the Majority Leader.

This brings us to committee announcements. Are there any committee announcements? Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Judiciary will begin at 1:30 today.

Thank you. Representative Dybert. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. House Resources will begin at 1:30.

Under other announcements, Representative Stutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be very quick. We have two senior senators who will be retiring, and there is going to be a big shindig this Sunday at, uh, let's see, what time is that going to be, 4 o'clock or 5 o'clock at the Centennial Hall. Tickets are available in room 122.

We will— it will be a rare occasion where we can put these two gentlemen on the hot seat and have some good laughs all together and enjoy a bipartisan fun evening. So please join us, and it will— oh, excuse me, I was off an hour. It starts at 4 PM, Centennial Hall on Sunday. Thank you. I might mention there could be a little bit of live music as well.

This brings us to special orders. Are there any special orders? Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief.

31 Years ago—. Oh, I'm sorry. Birthday. Birthday. Birthday.

31 Years ago tomorrow, my wife and I were blessed with our daughter who actually went through the public school system in Wasilla. We— she's made us very proud. She's going through the PA program, getting her certification, and we just wanted to wish Gabby a happy 31st birthday tomorrow. Thank you. Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of National Home Visiting Week. Representative Galvin. Thank you, and permission please to refer to my notes. Permission granted.

Thank you. I'm honored to stand here today to express our deepest gratitude to an extraordinary group of people, our home visitors across Alaska. And today begins the week of the National Home Visiting Week. And in a state as vast and uniquely beautiful as ours where communities can be separated by mountains, rivers, or even hundreds of miles of wilderness, home visitors are the vital bridge that connects families to care.

And to support and to honestly hope for some of them. They travel through snow across remote villages and into homes where your presence— their presence means more than words can say. They are the nurses, the educators, the therapists, the social workers, mentors, and advocates. And more than that, they're listeners. They are the encouragers and they are the lifelines.

They meet families where they are, sometimes during their most vulnerable moments, and they offer guidance without judgment, support without conditions, and compassion without end.

Whether it's helping a new parent feel more confident, ensuring a child is meeting developmental milestones, or simply being steady, a trusted face in times of uncertainty. Their impact ripples through generations.

Even, even 60 years ago, there was home visiting in Alaska. They make homes healthier, families stronger, and communities more connected. And so today, I'm pausing and I ask you to pause to say thank you, thank you. Thank you for their resilience. I thank them for their commitment.

I thank them for their walking beside Alaska families with such grace and purpose. They don't just make a difference, they are the difference. So here, here to home visitors of Alaska. Thank you for all you do. Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of haste makes waste. Representative Prox. Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Today or yesterday or sometime was the 90th day of the legislative session, and the people of Alaska in 2006 said, "Thou shalt get thy work done and adjourn." Excuse me.

And we have only met that deadline once or twice in my memory. And we should strive to do that. I understand that there's a lot of work to be done.

But the other side of it is we have over 380 bills to consider, and what we're seeing on the floor with these long floor debates is we're trying to push too many things through at once. And that prevents us, delays us from getting our primary job done, which is to set the budget. So I would just like to remind my colleagues of that and ask all of us to think about, are we adding too much work for— that can be accomplished, and are we prioritizing, and maybe reduce the number of bills to a manageable number so that we can get out of here in 90 days. Or at least get the budget out in 90 days so that the governor has time to look at it and veto it before we're kicked out of here by the Constitution. So just, just something to think about.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Schwocke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak on 2006. Representative Schwanke.

In 2006, a number of Alaskan voters, including myself, voted for an initiative to ensure that the Alaska Legislature adjourned within 90 days.

I just want to say thank you to those voters, and I look forward to the day when I have a voice in setting the calendar for the legislature. Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak on the topic of daughters. Representative Allard. Wow. Okay, so Mr. Speaker, I'm a proud mom.

So this weekend, my, um, one of my daughters is, um, they both go to Norwich University, and one of them has been promoted to be the cadre. So when the new rooks come in next year, as her junior year at Norwich University, she gets to yell at them. So she's super excited about that and keeping them all in line. The other daughter is going to be a senior next year at Norwich University, and I don't know why I always cry. Thanks for being part of the crying caucus, whoever is part of it.

Um, but she accomplished something really great. Um, She is the high— third highest ranking, um, cadet at Norwich University. Sorry, which is a big deal. And so if you're familiar with the military and the military colleges and universities across the country, you know, being the third highest military cadet, um, ranking cadet at Norwich University is a big deal. She's all of 5 foot tall, but she's a mini me.

So she's boisterous and very meticulous of what she does, and I'm very proud of her. But I'm very proud of the fact that my girls are on their way to become commissioned officers. Um, I was enlisted, um, so I kind of hold that part against them a little bit, that they're going to be commissioned officers. But I'm okay with that because I have two fine young ladies that are going to be serving their country in just a few years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak on the topic of DITTO. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to associate myself with the comments from my colleague from North Pole, District 33, who said it perhaps more gently than I would about haste makes waste. Overscheduling also makes waste, Mr. Speaker. I have seen some committees where there are 6, 8, 10, 12 bills referred to and scheduling juggling, which makes it very difficult for the public to see what's going on, makes it very difficult for the committee members to see what's going on. And it's not fair to the public, it's not fair to the process to overschedule. So time spent— I'm sorry, time wasted at the beginning of session is no more precious than time wasted at the end of session.

It's just at the end of session it's so much more parent. We can't do it all, and my concern is we're spending time on bills that have no practical opportunity to pass this body, let alone the other body, become law. And time's ticking, the clock is there, and we cannot expand time. Thanks. Representative Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of permission to breathe. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So, um, I think we, we all have our manuals in front of us, our Mason's Manual, our Constitution.

I have the Declaration of Independence. I have a How to Say It. I have— I actually have a statute book on, on the table on my desk as well.

Those laws, some of them are laws, some are, some are not, but much of what we have before us, Mr. Speaker, has has to do with making sure there's equity amongst the members, there's equality amongst the members, and there is a sense of— there's a sense that there's a check and balance. And Mr. Speaker, we as a body and you as the Speaker have a responsibility to make sure that we're all treated fairly and that we have our own voice and that we have an opportunity to speak within the rules, stay within the rules, bills. And first of all, I just want to say that the minority, I think, has been carefully working through the amendments as we should be, or working through the bills and amending them as we should be. We have not been dilatory. There has— you read through Mason's Manual, they'll talk about how the minority can be dilatory by doing a number of things.

We can, we could do this, we can object and we can do that. Well, that's not what we're doing, Mr. Speaker. We're actually just doing our work. The extraneous points of order that are being brought against the minority are being brought against the minority by the majority. So, Mr. Speaker, the minority has a rightful place.

The minority has a right to speak. The minority has a right to breathe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. Representative Stutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Topic? I'm thinking how to phrase this, Mr. Speaker. How about agreed? On the topic of agreed? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree. I think the minority has a right to speak. My question is, especially Special orders the place we're going to discuss this? I'm sure we've had this discussion on the floor before about special orders and they were going to be uplifting and make everybody feel good and happy and nice things.

I understand, having been in the minority myself, the concerns between the minority and the majority. I'm not sure that this is the place we want to discuss it. If there's a problem, I would believe that the leaders of the majority and the leaders of the minority need to come together and sit down and discuss it. But I think that special orders is not the place. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Stapp, on the topic of—. It feels a little weird to talk about each other in the third person, but I'm going to do it 2. Representative Stepp. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, that was it basically.

Thanks. Representative Eichide. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the subject of 3. Representative Eichide.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, um, I believe today is the 3rd Monday of April and That means a couple things in a couple states here in Maine and Massachusetts. They celebrate Patriots' Day, and it's also the traditional day of the running of the Boston Marathon. And I believe today is the 130th running of the Boston Marathon. About 30,000 athletes are participating, and if you've ever been to the Boston Marathon as a a participant or a spectator, it is certainly an event of joy. Folks spend a lot of effort qualifying for the Boston Marathon, most of them, and it's a great honor to run, and it's oftentimes considered a lifetime achievement.

Speaking of 3, though, it was 13 years ago that in the 2013 Boston Marathon that a couple bad actors decided to take away a little bit of that joy from some of the participants and family and friends. That was the famous Boston Marathon bombing. In that event, 3 people were killed, about 300 injured, Among the 300 or so injured, 12 lost limbs.

Mr. Speaker, I take this, as I think many people do, very seriously. For me, it's a little personal because I was there. I was a participant in my second Boston Marathon.

I witnessed the two explosions. I had finished, so I was not directly harmed.

But the response of individuals was very uplifting. For me, it was supposed to be my last Boston Marathon. I'd achieved my goal. It's hard to train for a marathon.

But I remember You can't stop people from doing what they love to do. And I remember I actually trained and qualified for my 3rd Boston Marathon. Unfortunately, I injured myself, was not able to compete, but I went and participated.

But I guess today's 130th running, the longest running marathon in America. People are back celebrating, and it reminds me of 3 other things, 3 words in that phrase: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today in Boston, life, liberty, and happiness is being realized once again. So my hat's off to all the athletes, their family, their their friends, all the future people that hope and dream to run the Boston Marathon. You can't keep a good runner down.

So, Mr. Speaker, thank you for celebrating the 130th running of the Boston Marathon. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand adjourned until Tuesday, April 21st at 10:30 AM. 10:30 AM.

There is an objection to the dates and times. If your comments could be— the date and time could be confined to that. Representative Tomaszewski, the floor is yours. Permission to read, Mr. Speaker, very briefly. Very briefly.

Statute versus Constitution. Alaska Statute 24-05-150B states the legislature shall adjourn from a regular session within 90 consecutive calendar days. However, Mr. Speaker, the state constitution has a different definition. Representative Tomaszewski, you're not speaking to the dates and times before the body. You are speaking more broadly.

That's in violation of your ability to speak to the motion before you. I've given you the floor to speak to the motion before you. Please confine your remarks. Very quickly, Mr. Speaker, the state constitution has a different definition. Article 2, Section 8 states the legislature shall adjourn from regular session no later than 120 consecutive calendar days.

Representative Tomaszewski, I am hoping to get us to a pretty smooth landing here. Almost done, Mr. Speaker. But you're speaking not to the amendment or the motion before the body, you're speaking to a whole different subject. Um, I'm speaking to the adjournment of, uh, what it states in the statute versus the Constitution. Yes, brief it is.

Will the House please come to order. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After further consideration, I remove my objection. Thank you.

With that, the House will stand in adjournment until Tuesday, April 22nd at 10:30 AM.