House Judiciary, 4/27/26, 1pm

—Of the House Judiciary Committee will now come to order. The time is now 1 PM on Monday, April 27th, 2026. We are meeting in the Grunberg Room, Capitol Room 120. The following members are present: Representative Costello, Representative Eichide, Representative Vance, Vice Chair Kopp, and myself, Representative Gray, Chair. Let the record reflect that we have a quorum to conduct business.

I would like to recognize the staff supporting this meeting: Sophia Tenney from House Records, Zach Longhorn from the Juneau LIO, and Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, my committee aide. Our first and only item of business today is House Bill 384, Deficient Victim Counseling Center, sponsored by myself, Representative Gray, uh, for its first hearing in our committee.

I will give introductory comments for our first item of business. House Bill 384 remedies a shortcoming in Alaska statute. Currently, a victim of domestic violence or sexual assault who seeks help from a victim counseling center run by a tribal government does not receive the same confidentiality protections that they would get from a victim counseling center run by any other entity. With the addition of two words, "or tribal," to AS 1866-250, HB 384 ensures equal confidentiality protections for all victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in Alaska. Alaska law provides robust confidentiality protections for communications between victims of domestic violence and sexual assault and a victim counselor advocate.

These protections are vital. Survivors must be able to seek care and counseling without fear that their communications could later be disclosed if their case is ever in a court of law. As the U.S. Department of Justice Office for Victims of Crime has found, when "services are not confidential, victims are clearly hesitant to seek the help they need and deserve." These protections apply only to victims served by organizations that qualify as a "victim counseling center" under state statute. The definition was drafted to include the organizations providing counseling and advocacy services at the time of enactment in 1992. As the landscape of service providers has expanded, it has become necessary to update the statute accordingly.

The legislature last recognized this changing landscape in 2013, when confidentiality protections were extended to include military organizations, either those operated directly or contracted by a branch of the armed forces. More recently, tribal governments have become essential frontline providers of victim services in Alaska. With expanded federal support, tribal governments now offer counseling and advocacy services to victims of domestic violence and sexual assault all across the state. But our current statutes do not honor or reflect the broad victim service work and assistance provided by tribal governments. Tribal governments are not included in the current definition of victim counseling center, meaning victims who receive care from a tribal counseling center lack the same confidentiality protection afforded those served by a nonprofit, local government, or military-affiliated organization.

HB 384 remedies this failure with the addition of two words, "or tribal," to AS 1866-250, ensuring equal confidentiality protections for all victims of sexual assault and domestic violence in Alaska. At this time, I would like to invite my committee aide, Dylan Hitchcock Lopez, to come forward, put himself on the record, and walk us through the sectional analysis of HB 384.

Good afternoon. Dylan Chuck Lopez, staff representative of Gray and the committee. As you may have inferred from the chair's opening comments, the sectional analysis is very short. So Section 1 adds 2 words, "or tribal," to the definition of a victim counseling center in Alaska statute, and Section 2 is the applicability. Happy to answer any technical questions.

We also, I believe, have folks online. Thank you. I was going to say we have some invited testimony. Let's hold questions until after. I will state for the record that we are joined by Representative Jubilee Underwood at 1:01 PM.

Let's go first to Rick Haskins Garcia, the Director of Law and Policy with the Alaska Native Resource Center. Mr. Haskins, would you please take yourself off mute, put yourself on the record, and begin your testimony?

Thank you. Rick Haskins Garcia, Director of Law, Policy, and Tribal Justice with the Alaska Native Resource Center. Good afternoon, Chair Gray, Vice Chair Kopp, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in support of House Bill 384. My name is Rick Haskins Garcia, and I serve as the Director of Law, Policy, and Tribal Justice for the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center.

In that role, my staff and I provide policy advocacy, education, and support on the state, federal, and international levels to our 229 federally recognized tribes, tribal coalition, and organizational partners. But we also work hand in hand with tribal leaders and tribal justice systems across Alaska on issues of violence, sovereignty, and justice. Currently, Alaska law protects confidential communications between survivors and victim counselors, but only if those counselors work for private organizations, military programs, or local government agencies. Tribal governments which employ advocates doing identical work with identical survivors are excluded. This is a legal gap that directly harms survivors in our communities.

The amendment and improvement found in HB 384 is straightforward, adding two words, "or tribal," to the definition of victim counseling center found under Alaska law. Two words would expand the same protection Alaska already provides to other advocates. It requires no new appropriations and no new programs. It simply recognizes that tribal governments are sovereign entities deserving equal legal standing as local governments under Alaska law. This amendment is also about partnership.

Alaska's public safety is not the state's responsibility alone. It is not a tribal government's responsibility alone. It is a shared responsibility. We build safer communities when state and tribal systems work together. We build safer communities when survivors have trust in the advocates who serve them.

We build safer communities when tribal advocates have the legal standing to do their work effectively. This amendment supports that partnership. I urge this committee to support this bill. Tribal advocates deserve the same legal standing and protections as other advocates, and most importantly, survivors in Alaska Native communities deserve legal protection for their advocacy relationships. Thank you, and thank you for having me today.

Thank you, Mr. Haskins Garcia. We'll now call forward, uh, Ms. Brenda Stanfield, who is the Executive Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Please come forward, put yourself on the record, and begin your testimony.

Thank you. Brenda Stanfield. I am the Executive Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. Mr. Haskins Garcia wrapped up very, very clearly what it is we're trying to do. As the last 10 years, we've really been working in partnership with the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center and some tribal coalitions where we can start looking at how to provide services on the ground in small communities.

We have 24 established programs across the state But oftentimes, for instance, the Fairbanks program I was the director of for a long time, we served 42 villages, but I can't say I understood all 42 villages or the nuances of how to set up a safety plan in one of those villages. Oftentimes I didn't hire staff who'd been in a village before, so there was always a challenge in being able to serve. And so having tribal advocates right there on the ground has been extremely helpful. One of the challenges though is that if someone knows that their information is not going to be held privileged, they're going to have a very hard time talking about a safety plan, that that safety plan may end up in a protective order proceeding, a civil proceeding, or a criminal proceeding. They're going to have a very hard time talking about maybe some of the more embarrassing parts of domestic violence because a lot of times domestic violence victims will not talk about the sexual violence they've experienced on public record, but they will tell an advocate about that.

And we we can try to figure out how to help them navigate through it. It's a very embarrassing thing to talk about that maybe happened with your intimate partner. So, we really support the ability to offer this privilege, this confidentiality privilege to all of our partners that are doing this work on the ground every day in our tribal organization, through our tribal governments in their locations. So, thank you for hearing our testimony today and look forward to seeing you support this bill. Thank you, Miss Stanfield.

At this time, do we have any questions for Miss Stanfield, Mr. Haskins-Garcia, or my staff, Dylan Hitchcock-Lopez? I'm Representative Vance. I have a question for your staff, uh, because we don't have a Department of Law online, do we?

We do not have Department of Law at this time. It's, it's, um, it's just a simple question. I appreciate— we have conversations about about this bill and concerns that I had. Um, obviously this is intended to protect those communications when someone's seeking help. Very clear.

That's— let's do that. Um, at one point, and maybe Ms. Stanfield can help and answer this, um, would the person who's seeking justice under these counseling services, do the— does the counselor that we would be allowing these protections, do they have insight to say, hey, you know, as you're in court, this is confidential between you and me, but this bit of information right here, you may want to consider sharing this with your attorney because I think it may help you.

Is there that type of advocacy going on where a person— like you said, there's a lot of shame involved, there's a lot of unknown. I want that protected, hands down. Let me be very clear, I don't want that used against them. But what if it's something that could be used for them? Is that type of advocacy happening that's going to be protected and lets that victim be able to choose, hey, this might be helpful to you, would you consider this, and then let them choose that.

Is that type of advocacy going on to help them in the next step while it's what we do, what this bill wants to do? Through the chair to Representative Vance, that advocacy does happen. I think the thing to remember is the story is the victim's, and the privilege is the victim's to waive. And so at any point in time, if they felt like, you know, I know that I've been coming here for 8 years I've been sharing these stories with you and now I'm ready to maybe go forward. I want you to come and share that information.

They themselves can waive that privilege and ask the advocate to come into court to testify about what they've seen over the years or that, or maybe there was something specific like that they documented that was a picture and they want them to say, "Yes, I took that picture." And one of the things we always talk about to them is that the benefits and the positives and the negatives of waiving that privilege, and so that is a conversation we always have, but it is their privilege to waive, and once they waive that privilege, that would mean that as an advocate, I could be called onto the stand to testify for that individual. Follow-up? Is it a partial waiver or a complete waiver? Through the chair to Representative Vance, they could do a partial. So if you look at the, the wording— I don't have it here in front of me— but let's say that they disclosed to someone about something that was happening that they had shared with the advocate, and they said, oh, I told the advocate about this.

It is technically, once they release that information to a third party and they know that that advocate has— there's a, there's a privileged. There's 8 exceptions to that, and that could be one of the waivers that a judge could say, "I would like that to come into court," and then they could compel the advocate to do that. They also could do a partial waiver. The one thing about doing a partial waiver, once you get on the stand, you may, you may be there for just a partial waiver, but then some kind of door is opened up and you may end up being compelled to testify about a lot more. So there, it's, it's a challenge to just come in and say, "I only want to say these 2 words." So again, that's where we think about the pros and the cons in having us as an advocate on the stand.

One more question, Mr. Chairman. So this bill adds tribal for these protections. Just for our indulgence, what's the scope of the issue here? I mean, how many— how many cases are would fall under a tribal organization? I mean, are we looking at, um, you know, a third of our, our victims, um, organizations could be tribal?

Are— like, help us understand the numbers here about the impact of this bill.

Through the chair to Representative Vance. So the way that each center is set up is up to the tribal organization. So some may specifically say, "Our funds are going to be for a domestic or sexual violence specific organization." They may set up under the guidelines and then they would be covered. Others may say, "We're serving all victims of crime," and so that would not look the same as being specific to a victim counseling center that is specifically specifically about domestic and sexual violence. And so all of our tribal governments could, if they wanted to, set that up.

I mean, we have 229 tribes, but not all tribal governments will set that up. It would be up to them in order to do that. And then if the committee would, I think Rick Haskins Garcia from the Alaska Native Women's Resource Center might have some specific numbers. I'm not sure on that. [Speaker:KATHLEEN_HALL_JAMIESON] Okay.

I think that would be great to get it on the record just so that we, we know the scope. Mr. Haskins-Garcia, can you answer Representative Vance's question about the number of clinics that this affects, or the number of advocacy centers?

Yes, and again, for the record, Rudy Haskins-Garcia, and through the chair to Representative Vance, um, it's a good question, and I would echo what Brenda Stancil has, has already portrayed. There are 229 federally recognized tribal governments in Alaska, and each tribal government has the authority and the jurisdiction to set up their own victim services, domestic violence, sexual assault advocates establishing relationships with clients. And so, there could be a possibility of 229 programs. But again, I stand by what Brenda has shared that each tribal government is different in their capacity and their funding ability. And in their human capital in their villages, whether or not they have established programs.

To be quite honest, I am not sure what the exact number is. But what I do know is for our tribal survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, currently because our Alaska tribal justice systems do not include broad criminal justice responses, meaning criminal cases that have been prosecuted in our tribal criminal courts, We are relying on our state criminal courts and justice systems as good partners to receive the justice and accountability for survivors, tribal survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault. Now, that may change. I think, Representative Vance, you and I had a conversation the past couple of years where we have expressed that there are a number of tribes that are moving towards criminal jurisdiction over their own citizens, other Alaska Native American Native Americans, and hopefully in the future over non-native defendants. But that is still relying heavily on infrastructure challenges.

It's relied heavily on human capital challenges. So for the time being, those cases are largely being prosecuted and handled in our state criminal justice systems.

Thank you. Thank you. Other questions for invited testimony? For the record, we were joined by Representative Mina at 14 PM. Seeing no further questions for invited testimony at this time, we will open public testimony.

Public testimony is now open. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify? Seeing no one, we'll move online. We'll go first to Tracy Charles Smith. If you can take yourself off mute, identify yourself and your affiliation, and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] My name is Tracy Charles Smith. I am the president of Dot Lake Village. I am here to respectfully urge your support for House Bill 384. Dot Lake Village operates a tribal sexual assault response team, behavioral health services, and a victim advocacy program that serves our community and our region.

In many cases, those services are the the first and only place survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault can turn. However, under current Alaska law, tribal advocates are not afforded the same confidentiality protection as other advocates. Communication between our advocates and survivors can be subpoenaed and used in court. This creates a serious is a barrier. Survivors in our community often hesitate to seek help because they cannot be assured that what they share will remain private.

In small rural communities where safety risks are already heightened, that lack of confidentiality has a chilling effect on disclosure and access to service. House Bill 384 addresses this gap with a a simple but critical change. It amends the Alaska statute, AS 18.66.2505, to include Tribal governments in the definition of a Victim Counseling Center. This amendment does not interfere with law enforcement investigation or prosecutions. It does not shield evidence of crimes.

It simply ensures that tribal advocates and the survivors they serve receive the same confidentiality protections already recognized under Alaska law. For Doughtlake Village, this is essential. We are actively building and expanding our victim service and justice systems. Those systems depend on trust. Without confidentiality, Trust is undermined and survivors are less likely to seek the help they need.

Two words, or tribal, will ensure that survivors in our communities can feel safe, can safely access advocacy services without fear. On behalf of Doughtlake Village, I respectfully ask for your support of House Bill 384. Thank you for your time and Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Charles-Smith. We will now move to Brianna Angulo. If you could please take yourself off mute, place yourself on the record along with your affiliation, and begin your testimony.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the chance to speak in support of House Bill 384. My name is Brianna Angulo, and I serve as the manager of Tribal History Tananach Chief Conference located in Fairbanks. In this role, I represent our interior community's work addressing domestic violence and sexual assault. I was born and raised in Alaska.

I have worked with children and families for over 20 years and worked specifically in providing direct victim advocacy to Alaska Native people for the last 7 years. I personally have supported many women, men, and families through the aftermath of the harms of domestic violence survivors of violence and sexual assault. I found it very comforting and supportive for those who are experiencing the most traumatic experience of their life to have someone from their own culture to help them navigate the challenges after this harm. It is crucial in the process of healing after these events. The ability to maintain legal confidentiality is important in maintaining the trust and safety of our people, helping them to navigate the justice system and supporting the long-term healing after criminal victimization.

The Tribal Protective Services Program is made up of 6 well-trained indigenous victim advocates who are from this region. The Tribal Protective Services Program provides direct victim services to our Interior Alaska tribal members who have been victimized. Tanana Chiefs Conference offers many programs that provide direct victim services, legal services, health services, family services and assistance, Workforce development and early childhood services, behavioral health services, and educational support. I'm here to respectfully urge your support for House Bill 384 and for amending it to extend protections to tribal victim advocates. Under current statute, protections are afforded to advocates employed by private organizations.

However, tribal governments, despite operating leading vital advocacy programs and serving survivors every day are not included. Our tribes employ trained advocates, administer comprehensive programs, and provide culturally grounded support to our people. Yet Alaska law does not recognize our work in the same way it recognizes that of other entities. This amendment is simple— is a simple but meaningful step forward. By including tribal governments, the law would acknowledge the crucial role we play in supporting survivors and strengthening public safety in our communities.

Ultimately, this is about equity and recognition. It's about affirming that tribal governments matter, that our advocates matter, and the survivors we serve also matter. In many ways, just two words would make a profound difference for our survivors across our communities. I respectfully ask for your support. Thank you for your time.

[Speaker:MR. BOLL] Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. Angulo. We'll now move to Sadie Rose Worbelow. Please place yourself on the record and your affiliation and begin your testimony.

Sadie Rose Worbelow, law and policy specialist for the Native Village of Tetlin and advocate with the Tribe of Anvik. Good afternoon, Chair Gray, Vice Chair, and members of the House Judiciary Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of House Bill 384, which protects confidential communications between tribal advocates and survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse. My name is Sadie Rose Worbelow. I serve as the Law and Policy Specialist with the Native Village of Telen and work as an advocate with ANVIC.

I come before you today from both perspectives. When survivors reach out, and they are often in the most dangerous and vulnerable moments of their lives, What makes the first conversation possible is trust. The belief that when they share, what they share will remain confidential. In tribal communities, advocates are embedded in the community itself. Survivors may know us personally, be related to us, or see us in daily life.

What really makes confidentiality not just important, it is essential. If survivors are not certain their communications are protected, many will not come forward at all. Husqvarna 384 will address a gap in Alaska statute by explicitly recognizing confidential communications between survivors and tribal advocates. As it stands, those communications may not be clearly protected under our evidentiary rules. That creates real risk that an advocate could be compelled to disclose what a survivor told them in court or other proceedings.

This bill establishes a clear evidentiary protection, bridging tribal advocate communications into alignment with privileged frameworks already recognized for other victim service providers. It provides parity, reduces ambiguity, and strengthens the integrity of victim services. Confidentiality is the context— in this context is not a barrier to justice, it is a [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] When survivors trust that their communications will not be disclosed without their consent, they are more likely to seek help, engage in safety planning, and participate in the legal system on their own terms. In rural and tribal communities where privacy is limited and relationships are interconnected, the risk of compelled disclosure carries immediate and serious safety consequences. Clarity in statute is critical.

House Bill 384 strengthens that protection. It supports advocates, respects tribal systems, and most importantly, safeguards survivors. I respectfully urge your support. Thank you. Thank you, Ms.

Worvolo, for your testimony. And it looks like our final public testifier is Suki Miller. If you can, uh, take yourself off mute, put yourself on the record, uh, along with any affiliation, and begin your testimony.

Hello. My name is Susie Miller. I'm the Executive Director at Victims for Justice. Victims for Justice has been providing victim services to Alaskans for over 40 years, and we serve victims of all violent crime, including surviving gang members as homicide victims, victims of felony assault, victims of DUI crashes and hit-and-runs, victims of robbery, and other violent offenses. Because Alaska's rates of domestic violence, sexual assault are so So, although our numbers are not so high, we also regularly serve domestic violence and sexual assault victims, particularly when a domestic violence or sexual assault case becomes a homicide and the surviving family members are referred to us by STAR or AWAKE here in Anchorage.

Despite the overlap, our advocates don't have the same confidentiality protections as DV and SA advocates. This creates a significant barrier to safety and trust.

When we have someone come to our offices that might not need shelter services or just is deciding to go to a different agency, maybe because they already know someone who works there, we have to continue to warn them that domestic violence and sexual assault victims who come to us, they do not have the same level of confidentiality protections with our advocates as they would with SAR or OLAIC. It's an immediate and unnecessary barrier and it's not victim-centered, and it's not trauma-informed. Victims should not have to navigate which advocate is protected by statute. They should not have to censor themselves or flip and flow between agencies simply to avoid the risk of being subpoenaed. 16% Of our cases involve intimate partner violence.

Many domestic violence victims who do not need shelter come to us because they're trying to navigate the court system, and that's really one of our specialties. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] So sexual assault victims who need more in-depth support with criminal cases are often referred to us as well. And I just— the equal confidentiality protections matter. The level of protection should follow the victim and not the organization. Anything else really creates inequality and confusion at a time when the victims are already overwhelmed.

And if we can have the same protections between Victims for Justice, where we serve all victims of violent crime, with other domestic violence and sexual assault shelters, one, handoffs become more— are more safer and more informed. And also, in general, victims of homicide, assault, DUI crashes, and hit-and-runs, those victims also experience stigma and victim blaming, fear of retaliation, and deep concerns about privacy. Their trauma is not lesser. And their need for safety is not different. Victims need to feel safe telling their story.

Public communication protects their privacy, reduces fear of exposure, and supports healing.

Victim Services supports this bill expanding the confidentiality of suicide. And we would also ask for consideration to expand it to organizations like ours, We're the only one actually in the state that provides services to other victims of other crimes. And so that our advocates can have the same protections as domestic violence and sexual assault shelters. We are also a grantee of the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. And so we also have, you know, it's— we have these confidentiality policies that we're required to have by the CDDSA, but we are not actually covered in statute.

So that's Another issue that we do run into as well. Um, I thank you for your guys' consideration today, and, um, again, we do support this, uh, bill, and then we would also ask for consideration to expand it to our organization to include victims of violent crime and not just domestic violence and sexual assault. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Miller, for your testimony. Seeing no further folks online to testify nor anyone else in the room, public testimony on House Bill 384 is now closed.

Um, additional questions? Representative Mina. Thank you, Chair Gray. Uh, through the— or to the chair, um, just my apologies for coming in late, but thank you for introducing this. Actually had a constituent who was asking if tribal advocates were, um, uh, considered or protected under these confidentiality laws last year, so this directly addresses that gap.

I was just wondering whether there are any federal protections, maybe under the Violence Against Women Act, that might apply to tribal advocates, if someone could speak to that. Sure. Um, Mr. Haskins-Garcia, can you address Representative Mena's question?

Yes, thank you, Chair, and through the Chair to Representative Mena. Um, the Violence Against Women Act does provide some confidentiality protections if a program is funded using OVW, or Violence Against Women funding, from the Department of Justice. And, again, that really just covers the internal communications and the sharing of public information outside of that particular program. But it does not directly address the privilege statute that we see attorneys enjoy or that we you see doctors enjoy or clergy enjoy. And so, there are really kind of two separate issues.

One talks about documentation and records within a particular program that is funded through the Department of Justice. And the one that we're speaking of today is really talking about our state criminal justice and our civil justice systems and the protections that are offered by the state. They oftentimes work hand in hand in states where there are broad confidentiality and privilege protections offered to tribal advocates. However, like the discussion that we're having today in Alaska, those are separate. So, the DOJ would really cover the records and sharing of records outside of the agency, but that really would have no effect on a state court proceeding.

Thank you for the clarification. And Representative Kopp. Yes. This may be for Ms. Brenda Stanberry. But the question of funding— so currently tribal counseling centers, which exist by every tribe that, that has one, they are funded through federal grants.

And how would this affect the block grant funding that the state provides for the victim counseling centers when we now have tribal counseling centers added to it? Do they just become eligible recipients also competing for those same grant funds, or are there fund sources through the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, or other areas? So that's my question.

You can come forward, Ms. Stanfield. I can also refer the question to Mr. Haskins-Garcia while you're coming forward.

Or Ms. Stanfield. Yes, once again, Brenda Stanfield, Executive Director of the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. The Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault is both the administrator of the state funds that come in and also the administrator of federal grants that come in that are population-based for the state of Alaska. For instance, the Victims of Crime— you'll hear VOCA sometimes— the Family Violence Prevention Services Act. Those funds come into the council along with a few other smaller pots of money that are specifically for rape education and rape prevention.

So then there's a granting process where you write competitive grants across the state, usually every 3 years that happens, and then the council board sits down and decides who it's going to fund. So the, the funds that are usually referred to as tribal set-aside that Mr. Rick Haskins Garcia could talk a bit more about, those are funds that are designated specifically for tribal organizations. Those are not available to to what we call our established programs across the state in many ways, except for now we do have some that are both. And so for instance, one of our programs in Prince of Wales, that is a program that has pulled tribal organizations together, and so there is some tribal funds coming in, there are some of the council funds coming in. Another one would be our program out in Hooper Bay that is also an organization that started with a combination.

So every program that starts, everyone is eligible to apply to the Council on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, and then it would be up to the council to decide how they wanted to distribute that funding that is both federal, specifically to the state of Alaska, and then the state funds that you all obligate to providing those services. Thank you, Ms. Stanfield. Mr. Haskins-Garcia, did you want to add anything?

Mr. Hitchcock Lopez, would you like to add anything? Uh, for the record, Dylan Lopez, um, staff representative Gray, through the chair. Uh, just one thing I want to highlight in, in light of Vice Chair Copp's question is a little bit about the interplay though between— to be very clear about the interplay between this particular bill and the statute we're talking about and other sources of law. And I think if Mr. Hassan Garcia is still on, he can, he can come in maybe with some more specifics, but just to clarify, you know, this bill is specific to Title 18, Chapter 66, which governs confidentiality. It doesn't inherently change, I believe, any of the sort of other considerations one would have for eligibility for pots of money or the way that these different systems work together.

It would just simply ensure that a tribal advocate agency center has the same confidentiality protections under this specific statute. So I do think that's, that's one thing I want to just clarify as a backdrop. Thank you. Any other questions for anyone?

Thank you, Ms. Stanfield, and thank you, Mr. Hitchcock Lopez. At ease.

Back on the record.

Representative Costello. All right, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move House Bill number 384, version 34LS1617, back /n/ from committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal notes.

Seeing no objection, HB 384, work order 34-LS1617/n, as in November, is reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note. I authorize Legislative Legal Services to make any necessary technical and conforming changes.

That concludes today's business before the committee. Before we adjourn, here is a preview of our upcoming meetings. On Wednesday, we had planned to hold the confirmation hearing for John Wood, the governor's appointee to the, uh, Alaska Judicial Council. However, as Mr. Wood has resigned from the council as of last Friday, we will be canceling that hearing, and we will send out an updated notice shortly of possible bills previously heard to bring forward. On Friday, we will have SJR 2 back before the committee.

That's the Constitutional Amendment Votes Needed for Veto Override, sponsored by Senator Clayman. And we will have HB 299, Veterans Sentencing Program Criminal Procedure, sponsored by Representative Stapp. The time is now 1:38 PM, and this hearing of the House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.