HMLV-260423-1015

This meeting of the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs will now come to order. It is 10:20 AM on Thursday, April 23rd, 2026. We are in Capitol Room 124. Members present include Representative Gray, Representative Hall, Representative Fields, and myself, Representative Aishai Chair, and also Representative David Nelson and Representative Sadler are present. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let the record reflect we have a quorum to conduct business. Please remember to silence your cell phones for the meeting. I would like to extend thank yous to the staff who are supporting us today. Kale Brown from House Records and Renzo Moises from the Juneau LIO and my committee aide, Erin Callahan, who has done a bang-up job today getting ready for this meeting. So thank you, Erin.

We have 3 items on the agenda today. The first item is.

House Bill 382, an act relating, relating to the Joint Armed Services Committee and providing for an effective date, by the House Judiciary Committee. The second item is Senate Joint Resolution 30, expressing gratitude for the United States military and supporting increased defense readiness through infrastructure development and public-military partnerships, and that's sponsored by the Senate State Affairs Committee. The final item on the agenda is House Bill 299, an act creating a veteran sentencing program relating to release procedures, amending Rules 35 and 43, Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, and providing for an effective date. We anticipate a hard stop at 11:45 AM. We'll begin with House Bill 382, This is the second hearing on this bill.

I'd like to welcome Representative Gray and his staff person, Kyle Johansen. Please come forward and give us any brief summary or testimony, or summary of the bill, I guess I should say. Thank you, Chair Eichide. House Bill 382 updates the statutes governing JASC to make them more relevant to today. Thank you for allowing me to do this brief introduction.

Thank you, Representative Gray. Are there any questions for Representative Gray on House Bill 382?

Okay, seeing no further questions, we did receive 9 amendments to House Bill 382, and I'd like to invite Representative Nelson. Would you like to move your amendment? Yes, uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. I move Amendment Number 1, H.1.

H.1. I will object for purposes of discussion. At ease.

I don't have that amendment.

Back on the record. I would— I had objective to H1, Amendment H1, for purposes of discussion, and I wanted to give Representative Nelson a chance to speak to his amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This amendment is pretty simple.

It is about the Alaska Declaration of Honor. This has been a program that's really been passed around in between differing levels of attentiveness over the past 20 years it's been around. So I think having it in statute and having it a serious look will reemphasize the importance of having the Alaska Declaration of Honor. The sacrifices that Alaskans have endured and their families. And I think this will be a worthwhile amendment to add if we are going to reemphasize how important JASC is.

Thank you, Representative Nelson. Representative Gray, do you want to speak on the amendment? I do. Thank you to Representative Nelson for bringing forth this good amendment. I support it.

Thank you, Representative Gray. Representative Sadler. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Real briefly, too, having been the chair of JASC, co-chair of JASC, and put us a a lot of effort and time and resources into identifying and getting the decorations of honor to the recipients, their families.

I think this is great. It needs to be emphasized. That's an important part of JASC's mission. So I support the amendment as well. Thank you, Representative Sadler.

Any further questions for the amendment maker? Then I would just make a statement. I really appreciate this amendment. One of the things I appreciate on this committee is some of the experience. Some of our younger members and some of our more wise older members bring.

You both bring a lot of experience, and I really appreciate that. So I will remove my objection. Are there any further objection?

Seeing no further objection, Amendment H1 is adopted. Okay.

Representative Sadler, would you like to move your first amendment? Yes, Mr. Chairman, I move amendment— I've got listed number 2, but amendment H.3. Okay, Representative Sadler moves H.3 amendment. I'll object for purposes of discussion. Speak to your amendment, sir, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I appreciate that. I'll make a brief understanding of our time constraints. JASC— I think it's been understood that one of the things that JASC can do is to facilitate meetings meetings between senior military commanders inside the wire with civilian leaders outside in the economy and the world. And this just makes that requirement explicit that the committee would have to issue invitations to such a meeting.

Of course, we can have no obligation to impose on these military advisors, but I think having this more formally part of JASC's mission in statute will be beneficial and just make sure it does happen. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Representative Gray. Thank you. Through the chair, Grateful for this amendment.

I support it. Thank you. Are there any further discussion on Amendment H3?

Seeing none, I remove my objection. Are there any further objections to Amendment H3?

Seeing none, Amendment H3 is adopted. Representative Sadler, do you have another amendment? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move Amendment identified H.4. I will object to— for purposes of discussion, Representative Sadler, discussion please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Amendment H.4 would set it up so that of the 5 members of the House and 5 members of the other body— we can say Senate here— there would be 2 members from the minority caucuses as opposed to 1. I think that's a more important balance. It still provides a majority for the majority parties in each caucus, and currently when we have such a narrowly divided body, I think it's more appropriate that the minority representation be increased on JASC.

Thank you, Representative Gray. Thank you for this friendly amendment. I support it. Thank you, Representative Gray. Any further discussion?

I would like to make a comment. I was really pleased to see this amendment. I thought it created better balance, which to me means better work from that joint committee. So I'm not— I'm not saying I want this to be on the— but maybe I will. Maybe I will.

There's no conflict here. Understood. Seeing no further discussion, I will remove my objection to Amendment H4. Is there any further objection? Seeing none, H4 is adopted.

Representative Sadler, do you have additional amendments? Indeed, Mr. Chairman. I move to Amendment H.5. I will object for purposes of discussion. Representative Sadler?

Thank you. H.5, Mr. Chairman, would just remove the requirement that the Legislative Affairs Agency should notify the presiding officers when there are civilian vacancies or upcoming vacancies. Upcoming vacancies, I mean, every, every term has an expiration date, so there are upcoming vacancies by definition. It just seems like this should be a mission for the committee itself and just odd to impose that obligation on the Legislative Affairs Agency. I don't believe they have that obligation for other boards and commissions, even those that do have legislative participation.

So that's— I think it just streamlines things. Thank you. Representative Gray. Thank you, Chair Eichheidt. I object to this amendment, and I can explain why.

There is a lack of continuity in JASC. It just— it's a lot of people from two different bodies and a lot of civilian members, and the result has been over its 27-year history that I would say the first few months of being co-chair of JASC, you're just trying to figure out who is on JASC. And so having an agency that is always here, that doesn't have the turnover that this committee has, maintain an accurate, up-to-date roster is in the best interest of this committee so that you begin session knowing who exactly is on the Joint Armed Services Committee. And that is the reason for my objection. Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I support this. I understand where Representative Gray is coming from specifically, but I do believe that since there is both a House and a Senate member, that the Senate member could always take up the mantle, or the House member can always take up the mantle on providing a good avenue to direct for the incoming co-chair. I think it's also just the earnestness for the co-chairs whenever they get into a new role to really dive into the JASC and really understand what the vacancies are or what the upcoming vacancies are.

So I'll be in support of this amendment. Thank you. Any further discussion? Representative Sadler. Thank you.

And I respect the sponsors of the bill's views on this. I would.

I would note that the chairmanship of the committee of the joint— there's two chairs, so the responsibility is shared. That carries responsibilities to know who is on the committee you lead, and I also think there's a pertaining obligation on the outgoing chairman to make sure you have a good pass-off, handoff to the next chairman. So, okay. Representative Gray, thank you. I will state that in this case, the outgoing chair was no longer in the body.

Um, so sometimes, you know, when you're done serving in the legislature, you don't feel obligated to do an in-depth handoff. Number 2, the reason why we have this bill before us is thanks to my diligent staff, Kyle Johansen, uh, doing the work as our first time taking over this committee of actually reading the statute and seeing the deficiencies there. So, um, But I will just say that I think that finding a solution to make it easier for a new incoming co-chair who doesn't have that warm handoff for the committee is the purpose of the LAA being included in statute. I support keeping the LAA in the statute. Further discussion?

I will make my final comment. I find Representative Gray's rationale to be logical. You know, there's a saying, we all need a little help from our friends, and, and, uh, I think this might help this joint committee operate better. So I maintain my objection. Would the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Gray? No. Representative Sadler? Yes. Representative Nelson?

Yes. Representative Hall? No. Representative Fields? No.

Chair Eichorn? No. 2 Yeas, 4 nays. On a vote of 2 yeas and 4 nays, Amendment H.5 has— fails. Uh, Representative Sadler, did you have additional amendments?

Uh, yes sir, I move Amendment H.6. I will object for purposes of discussion. Please present Mr. Chairman, H.6 would reinsert, would preserve language that directs the committee, the Joint Armed Services Committee, to work with the congressional delegation on base realignments and closures and also to attend meetings and hearings related to such meetings and to review the effects of realignments and closures. Again, I'm sure we'll hear testimony, we have heard testimony that the original focus of the Joint Armed Services Committee was as a base realignment and closure issue engagement vehicle. I'll say that.

I think it's important to maintain that involvement of our congressional delegation where so much of the federal missions and so much of the federal money comes from. So I think it's important that they be required to participate. Thank you. Representative Gray. I object to this amendment.

Um, the reason why is, well, currently there aren't any meetings to attend related to federal realignments and closures of military bases. In the bill itself, we do ask the Joint Armed Services Committee monitor the military base realignment and closure activities of the federal government. But I could imagine that if there were a concerted effort to start closing bases, that there may be many, many meetings. And I think requiring the Joint Armed Services Committee members to attend every meeting and hearing related to federal realignment and closure, uh, may be an undue burden for folks who are currently serving in the legislature. I could imagine, for example, in the last week of a sine die session of, um, if there's 5 base realignment enclosures but you need to be on the floor for 12 hours a day, um, you know, it might be difficult to follow the law if the law is requiring you to be in 2 places at once.

So I think that the current bill asking that the JASC monitor those meetings is sufficient, and I would not encourage putting into law that JASC has to attend all of those meetings.

Any further discussion on the amendment? I will maintain my objection. Will the clerk please call the roll? Representative Hall? No.

Representative Fields? Representative Gray? No. Representative Sadler? Yes.

Representative Nelson? No.

Chair Eyeshide? No.

1 Yay, 5 nays. On a vote of 1 yay and 5 nays, Amendment H.6 has failed. Representative Sadler. Mr. Chairman, I move amendment H.7. I will object for purposes of discussion.

Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment would remove from the JAST mission the requirement that they work with state and local government organizations and community groups in addition to the congressional delegation. And my concern here is that local government organizations and community groups is a very broad category and there's no definition of that. So I'm not sure— this is a large committee as it is, and to expand its mission to consult with the local government organizations, community groups, just broadens the mission, I think, a little bit too much.

I would note also that this includes 5 members of the House and 5 members of the Senate who are charged with representing their local communities and probably community organizations, local government organizations. So I think the box of checking for local participation and views is fulfilled is checked by having these representatives and senators on the board. So I think this requirement is unnecessary. So I encourage members to consider it carefully. Thank you.

Representative Gray. Thank you. I object to this amendment on the Joint Armed Services Committee. If this bill were to pass, we would have a standing member who is a member of the Alaska Municipal League. We have a standing member who's from the Alaska Federation of Natives.

There is value in having folks who are very intimately connected with local groups. And if there were military activity that were affecting local groups, I want those local groups to have a voice on JASC and through their representatives on JASC to be able to participate in some level. I do not think that this is burdensome. I think that it makes sense that, uh, if the Joint Armed Services Committee is to not only receive information from DOD but to also give information to DOD that we be communicating closely with local groups, and I would not support removing it from this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Further discussion on Amendment H.7? Representative Sadler. I'm sure— thank you. I'm not sure if it's worth repeating, but I just again would say that I think it is important that there's local community input and local government and community group participation.

And again, I think it's provided by the large number of state legislators who are by nature and character and mission closely informed about what's happening in their communities, and our job is to advocate for them. So it's a matter of policy. We'll have the vote. Thank you. Thank you.

Representative Nelson. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, to the amendment sponsor, um, with this, uh, amendment, so your intent is to, uh, just have the legislators and other members on the board be the voice for the state and local governments, community organizations, and then have them, if the JAS needed, have testimony from those community groups or governmental organizations. Correct.

Representative Sadler. Thank you. Through the chair to Representative Nelson. That's absolutely correct. I in no way want to diminish the role or to silence the voice of local communities and local government organizations to participate and to give input.

There is no— I just want to— they're still going to be allowed to through the vector of their state representatives. And there is nothing in the language of the amendment of the bill which would prohibit JASC from consulting with state or local organizations. This amendment simply removes that mandate. Fine. Rep. Sam Nelson.

Thank you. Through the chair, to the amendment sponsor, if I may ask, where did this amendment come from? Did you see it in, say, like the Tiger Teams up in Fairbanks or in other states or—. Representative Sadler. Well, the amendment came from Leg Legal.

No, that kind of came up out of my own head. I just thought—. Representative Gray. Thank you. So to get back to the purpose of the underlying bill itself, which was to really look at what JASC should be doing, and I'm going to say some things that may be controversial, but I think in some ways JASC has been a ceremonial committee that has done historically one meeting a year, a big photo op.

I have wanted to try to make JASC be more than that in this bill, and I think stating in statute that JASC should work with state and local government organizations and community groups related to military and defense issues, I think, is, is in the spirit of the bill itself. To make JASC more relevant and to do more meaningful work. And so I would argue that deleting that from, from this may be just— it, it's the most antithetical to the spirit of the underlying bill, and I would recommend a no vote.

Representative Nelson, thank you. Uh, through the chair, uh, to Representative Gray, no, I appreciate that. It's good seeing, uh, the intent of what you're trying to do for the.

Time, Bill, and why you added this section in there. Kind of sounds like you want to make JAS great again, so it is interesting to see. But I appreciate it. Got it. Yeah.

Okay. I love the brevity, levity. Further discussion?

I will maintain my objection to Amendment H.7. Clerk, please call the roll. Representative Nelson? No. Representative Hall?

No. Representative Fields? No. Representative Gray? No.

Representative Sadler? Yes. Uh, Chair— Chair Eichide? No. Uh, 1 yay, 5 nays.

On a vote of 1 yay and 5 nays, Amendment H.7 has failed. Representative Sadler? Mr. Chairman, I move Amendment H.8. I'll object for purposes of discussion. Well, Mr.

Chair, the bill right now calls for JAST to work with— I'm not even sure who exactly, but specifically on Arctic security initiatives and national defense initiatives. Again, as a word guy, my concern is what is the breadth of the definition of national defense initiatives and Arctic security initiatives? You know, a lot of times we kind of think we know kind of generally, viscerally what they mean, but this is going to put in the statute that this committee shall be dealing with those issues, I just thought it appropriate to have a more clear definition of what those things are. If indeed the purpose of the bill is— I respect the purpose, and having served on JASC, I want it to be effective. Let's just provide them a more focused target to shoot at, so to speak.

So this simply adds more clarity as to what Arctic security initiatives and national defense initiatives are, and by implication are also not. Thank you. Representative Gray. Thank you. Big thanks to Representative Sadler for bringing forth this good amendment.

It is friendly and I support it. Further discussion? I'll make a comment. As somebody myself who loves the English language and the nuance of meaning, I really appreciate this amendment and I think it helps strengthen the bill. So thank you, Representative Sadler.

With that, I'll remove my objection. Are there any further objections to this amendment?

Seeing none, Amendment H.8 is adopted. Representative Sadler. Just for the record, I'm not going to offer Amendment H.9. Okay, H.9 has been not offered. And I offer Amendment H.10.

I will object for purposes of discussion. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This would removed from the amendment and therefore eventually from the legislation. The curious requirement that the membership of the Joint Armed Services Committee would be vacated and then the opportunity to rehire.

I'm not quite sure what the intent of flushing the membership and then rehiring them. I can kind of see the practical effect of that, but there's certainly the process of appointing people at the appropriate time and we try to honor the terms and let people continue their terms and forget. I just don't see the benefit of— there's an implied criticism. It's like, you're not doing a good job, and so you're all— thank you very much for good luck in your future endeavors. I just think that's not especially respectful, and so I would amend that and let people cycle in and out on the normal cycle of their terms.

Uh, Representative Gray, thank you. Um, I would— if it be the will of the chair, I'd like to call forth my staff, Kyle Johansen, to address that question. Yes, Mr. Johansen, if you could address the amendment before us, H.10.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Kyle Johansen, staff to Representative Gray.

In investigating the roster and talking to the members and throughout the history, Some of the members— actually, one of the members was under the impression they were appointed by a governor. A couple members didn't remember when they were appointed. That's no criticism to them, but, you know, these people have put a lot of hard work. And like Representative Sadler said, they literally did put their heads down and just went to work and didn't ask another question. I've asked every member, when were you appointed?

And you know, again, not to be critical of them, because they work extremely hard on behalf of this committee, but they just weren't necessarily sure. Some of them, of course, did, but a couple of them weren't sure. Representative Stapp, in a past legislature— it is not legislation that is alive in the building right now, it's actually statute— created a similar committee within the executive branch. We've reviewed that, and in that we saw a brand new— what you would do when you started a new board from scratch. And Representative Gray, when I presented him with this information about the cloudy history of these members, he thought it was a good idea to maybe we just restart it and invite the members who serve to reapply and start from zero.

That way, when the Legislative Affairs Agency is keeping track of the roster from zero point, we wanted to create a point in time where we just started over again. They keep the roster from now on. We know what the roster is. When there's going to be a new person appointed, LAA sends a memo to the presiding officers. It's really that simple.

Thank you.

Representative Great, thank you. Um, I oppose this amendment. I, I, as my staff stated, I think— and there's nothing prohibiting all current members from being reappointed, so we're not punishing anybody. It's just that we're literally— it's kind of like zero-based budgeting. Um, you know, we're just gonna build it from the ground up so that we know exactly what we have in front of us.

Again, I, I cannot overstate the frustration with taking over a new committee and, and having to spend a really long time figuring out who is on the committee. This just means that next year we really do know who is on this committee. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, to Representative Gray, now I, I understand where you're coming from, especially as a co-chair of JASC, and I would refer to your earlier comments where you talked about how JASC, for the largest part of the past decade or two has really been ceremonial, where, hey, we just had, uh, commanders be brought in and then they give, you know, an update, and then that's all JAST does. So it's understandable why, uh, some of the members of the committee thinking, hey, this is a very important committee, we're going to meet a lot, we're going to do a lot of suggestions, uh, that have had a deep history with the military, only to turn around and then be like, oh, you only call me once a year and, you know, it's not really that important for you, so why should I put a lot of importance in it? Which is understanding why some, you know, may be thinking, oh, I got appointed by a governor or something of that nature. I do think that there is merit though in keeping or in supporting Amendment H.10 just on the idea of there's a lot of in-depth knowledge and history, as was demonstrated when Mr. Nelson called in that exists currently on the JASC or around the JASC that I think if we were to keep the bill as is would remove a section of that, which— I mean, it's always good to bring in new blood, but they may not have the same deep institutional knowledge about bringing the missile silos up at Greeley or why the naval base out in Adak was closed, or a multitude of other different things that may have been before their time. So I, I appreciate what the amendment sponsor is trying to do, uh, and I, I hope everyone supports Amendment H.10.

Thank you, Representative Gray. Thank you. I'll just state for the record that Chris Nelson is a wonderful repository of historical information about JASC. He does not, and as far as I know, has never served on JASC.

But he would be a wonderful person to add. And I think, again, just to state for the record, every current serving civilian member of JASC could be reappointed to serve on JASC. So, this isn't in any way a judgment on the folks who have been and continue to serve in the civilian roles on JASC. This is more about starting the roster from scratch. Everybody knows what date they were appointed and by whom.

Thank you. Representative Sadler. I'll make my final comment, Mr. Chair. Having served as a deputy director of boards and commissions in the executive branch, responsible for about 137 boards, I know that roster maintenance is a challenge, but with diligent staff work, it can be done.

And I would also note that out of the 16 members, 10 are legislators whose terms are up and there's a fair amount of news coverage about who wins those races and who don't. So for 10 members are going to be real clear who's on, who's back and not. But, uh, um, so we'll see. Thank you. Okay, further discussion?

Okay, I will maintain my objection. Would the clerk please call the roll? Representative.

Saddler? Yes. Representative Nelson? Yes. Representative Hall?

No. Representative Fields? No. Representative Gray? No.

Chair Eichide? No. 2 Yeas, 4 nays. On a vote of 2 yeas and 4 nays, Amendment H.10 has failed. Representative Saddler?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I would like to offer a conceptual amendment. I had a thought that did not come in time for a getting it properly drafted. So with your indulgence, I'd like to offer a conceptual amendment to House Bill 382.

Yes. Thank you. And that amendment would be to require— this applies generally to page 2, line 8 through page 3, line 5. It's the membership of the one-seat based on recommendations or consultation with AFN and AML. And Representative Stanley, can you say the page and line number again?

The conceptual amendment applies to the general provisions of the bill on page 2, line 8. Page 3, line 5. Thank you. And the intent of my conceptual amendment is to first to retain the current language which says that one member of the committee shall be appointed after consultation with AFN and AML and not as the current bill says one member each upon recommendation from AFN and a separate member on recommendation of AML. I'll leave that.

And the second part is to provide— to add an additional member to the JASC who Who would be the chairman of the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council? So two parts. One, to make sure there's one seat on AFN and AML or AML recommendation. And the second, to add a seat for the AVEC. And if the desire of the underlying bill is to reenergize and encourage more involvement and make JASC more active and relevant, I think you could do no better than adding a member of the Alaska Veterans Advisory Council, the chair.

You'll find no more committee, no more populated by and led by active, motivated veterans than this one. A lot of old veterans who have gotten out of service have strong ideas and a lot experience they would like to draw on. And I think that might be something, a perspective that would be worthy having. Okay. Thank you.

I would like to try to summarize what you said. To make— change that section so that one seat would go to either AFN or AML. Is that correct? Recommendation by them, yes. And then the second part was create a seat for AVAC.

Is that correct? For the chairman of the Alaska Veterans Madam Secretary, uh, Council, the Chair. Okay, so discussion on the conceptual amendment. Representative Gray. Thank you.

I oppose the amendment. Rather than going into, uh, deep discussion, I would state that, uh, in part it's late, it's difficult, it's, it's, it's got two parts to it. I think it would best be, uh, taken up in the next committee of referral, which would be State Affairs, if that there would be an opportunity to discuss this. However, through input from the Alaska Municipal League and input from the Alaska Federation of Natives, they both want their own seat. It has been a shared seat for the past 27 years, and without getting into detail, the sharing system didn't work that well.

Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, uh, just to the amendment sponsor, would you be willing to, um, talk to Ledge Legal and have it drafted? I imagine that's something you can work with, uh, the underlying bill sponsor with for State Affairs.

That way we could bring in AFN and AVAC, because I do believe AVAC should definitely have a seat. As you've described, it is very important, and they are as my prior knowledge with them, they are very highly motivated. So it would be good to have a seat in there. Um, but then I also understand just off of the prior history of the importance of, uh, Alaska Natives in the military, not just from Vietnam but also their service during World War II and the Cold War. So would that be something that you'd be interested in?

Uh, sure. Uh, Representative Sadler. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Um, in response to Representative Nelson's request, I think I would be willing to do that. I understand the conceptual amendment is —come over the transom late in the process with— I'm looking quickly at my committee list to see if anybody serving on this committee would be in a position to offer an amendment in the State Affairs Committee. I don't see that.

With an assurance that members might— the sponsor would encourage that to the chair of State Affairs to engage and entertain such an amendment, I would withdraw my conceptual amendment with that assurance. Representative Gray. Thank you. I am not opposed to this amendment being brought forward in State Affairs. Give it a good funeral, right?

I think out of respect for the committee process and the hard work that's been done on this legislation so far, I will withdraw my conceptual amendment. Thank you, Representative Sadler. I appreciate the discussion. Conceptual amendments that are kind of large, you know, always kind of scare me. So I like the fact that there's another option.

I appreciate Representative Nelson with some of his testimony. Okay. Is there any further discussion on House Bill 382?

Okay. Seeing none, I would accept a motion to move the bill out of committee. Mr. Chair, I move House Bill 382, Military Joint Armed Services Committee, work order 34-LS1201/h, as in hotel, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendation and attached amendments. Are there any objections?

Seeing and hearing none, House Bill 382 moves out of— out from committee as amended with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. I authorize Legislative Legal to make any conforming changes. We will take a brief at ease to sign the committee report. At ease.

House Military and Veterans Affairs is back on the record at 11 o'clock AM. Moving on now to Senate Joint Resolution 30. Here to present is Senator Scott's Kawasaki staff, Matty Hall. Mr. Hall, please put yourself on the record and begin your presentation. And I would like to hold questions until after the invited testimony.

Through the Chair, Mattie Holes, staff to Senator Scott Kawasaki. Thank you for hearing Senate Joint Resolution 30, version N, expressing gratitude to the United States military and supporting increased defense readiness through infrastructure development and public-military partnerships. As many of you know, Alaska is home to the greatest proportion of U.S. veterans and the second greatest proportion of active active duty personnel. This is an incredibly crucial population, uh, that is set to grow as military expansion materializes in the form of new squadrons and installations. However, many of.

These military assets and personnel require support for their infrastructure to keep us safe.

Much of the infrastructure is dual use, which consists of infrastructure through local partnerships that allow the facility to meet multiple functions. For example, the National Guard Training Center that functions as a university recreation center for most of the month.

Uh, we believe that the, uh, supporting the active duty personnel as well as the veteran populations across Alaska is a large priority for most, if not all, of the communities across Alaska, and I ask you support Senate Joint Resolution 30. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hall. I had in my notes that there was invited testimony. Is that your understanding?

Through the chair to Representative Eichcheid. No, sir. Okay. So there's no invited testimony. So I would invite questions for Mr. Hall.

Representative Sadler. Can't let that empty space not be filled. I agree with every everywhere as clause, and there are many of them. I think I'm not going to count, but there's 2 full pages of them. And the result is that the state legislature recognizes and expresses gratitude for the service and sacrifice of the men who protect and The legislature supports expansion of military bases.

Who could argue with that? I think it goes without saying. And often resolutions do just that. They do things that could go without saying. But I will support this because I support the mission of our military.

And I think one more backpack, back pat, and expression of desire for additional federal investment and involvement and protection, it cannot help but be a good thing for the state. And sponsors and all who vote for it. Thank you. Uh, Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr.

Chair. Uh, I join in, uh, support of this resolution. Um, House District 18 not only encompasses Jaybear, uh, but also the Port of Alaska, uh, which is, uh, um, definitely needing some infrastructure dollars from the federal government, as that is how Jaybear gets all their jet fuel, uh, coming in from. But it's also just important for any deployments or, uh, um, national security for Jaybear and all of Alaska, that the Port of Alaska is well maintained for their dual use. So I appreciate the bill sponsor and the bill and the underlying bill.

Thank you. Representative Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Hall, I'm curious, on top of page 3, line 1, the word infrastructure is used.

And I'm wondering, how encompassing is infrastructure? Does that include energy or the use of energy? Mr. Hall? Through the chair to Representative Hall, to my best knowledge, I do believe so, yes. Thank you.

Okay. Further questions? Oh, Representative Sadler, I'm sorry. Just a comment, not a question. As I read through the whereases, I'm reminded in my first term I was co-chair of Military Affairs with Steve Thompson of Fairbanks.

We got legislation passed, I think it was House Bill 214, to create military enterprise zones around bases which fulfill some of the desires expressed in this resolution for increased housing and infrastructure development and infrastructure support for the civilian and military bases. So I'm going to check in to see to what degree that bill is being implemented, but since there are overlapping goals, certainly that doesn't change my view of this resolution. Thank you. Further questions? Okay, see no further questions.

I'm going to open up public testimony at this time. Public testimony is now open on Senate Joint Resolution 30. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak? See none. I'm going to look online.

Is there somebody online? Yes, it does look like there is.

Okay, I have Mike Coons online. Mr. Coons, if you could unmute yourself, put yourself on the record, and begin your testimony. And I'm looking for no more than 3 minutes, sir.

Yes, my name is Mike Coons from Wasilla, and I'm speaking for myself. In addition, I am a retired United States Air Force Tech Sergeant. I was stationed at Elmendorf Erdorf Air Force Base from '75 to '81, so I'm very aware of the impact the civilian public has on us, be that off-base housing, utility costs, and services. Since I didn't have any kids, I didn't get to see that impact. Yet today, specifically in Anchorage, I'm hearing the frustration of military parents about the poor quality of education.

Our military spouses and children move from base to base a lot. In my 20-year career, I had 4 moves: Turkey, Massachusetts, Elmendorf, and Ohio. I know that many of— I may have more than that since two of those stations were 6 and 12 years each, not necessarily normal. I don't know an average number, but I'm sure depending on the career field, the moves are more. What happens is that a family moves from different states that have better or worse education standards and prospects.

Since Alaska is the worst at 50%, 51% in the nation, that means we have military kids that are coming into our schools with much higher knowledge, and I hear many times above grade level they go into. I'm hearing the frustration from military parents that their kids are bored and yes, appalled at the woke that is going on within our schools. This is not supporting our family, our military families by any means. The way to do that is to end DEI, woke, LGBTQ in the classrooms, put forward increased viable standards of learning and reading, writing, and arithmetic versus just throwing money. I know this.

If I was a parent today in the Air Force and I saw the dismal education that Alaska kids get, I would never put Alaska on my dream sheet. Then add the cost of living, much less the radical socialist bent of Anchorage. No way would I want to come to Elmendorf. In closing, Kyle Carpenter, Medal of Honor recipient, came up with a response to people thanking him for his service. That is, "You're worth it." We who serve or did serve have some issues when we are thanked because we volunteered.

This is to show that the individual thinking— thankiness has worth, and that we serve because Americans have individual worth. The intention of this resolution is good and shows that Alaskans are worthy of our sacrifice. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Coons, and thank you for your service. I see no one else online.

Online public testimony is now closed.

I know— any final questions for the bill sponsor or resolution sponsor?

Okay, seeing none, I'm going to set an amendment deadline for Monday, April 27th at 5 PM, and we will now put SJR 30 aside. The next item on the agenda is House Bill 299. This is the bill's second hearing. Here to present another summary is Representative Will Stapp's staff, Bernard. Bernard, please put yourself on the record and any kind of summary and any kind of comments you want to make before we take some questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Bernard Otto, staff to Representative Stapp. HB 299 simply creates the Veterans Justice It's the Veterans Justice Act, which establishes a veterans sentencing program to allow those who are of veteran status who enter into the or interact with the criminal justice system to have some sort of opportunity for some leniency and deferment for their sentences as they navigate the system. This bill was heard a while back. We received testimony from Phil Hulkinson, who is the chair of the Alaska Veterans Advisory Advisory Council, as well as members from the Veterans Defense Project, as well, and the one other organization that is not on my mind right now.

But yes. And if there are any other questions from the committee, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Any questions before we move to public testimony? Representative Sadler.

I just want to say, I think we gave it a thorough hearing. The questions I have were posed and answered. Not that they don't have questions, but they're all taken care of. Thank you, Representative Sadler. Any other questions before we move to public testimony?

Okay, so, uh, we will now— I will now open public testimony.

Public testimony is now open. Is there anyone in the room that would like to speak on House Bill 299?

See none. I will look online, and it does look like I have somebody online. So, Mr. Brock Hunter— or excuse me, just at ease here, at ease.

We're back on.

Record. And still in public testimony online, I have Brock Hunter. Mr. Hunter, if you can please put yourself on the record, your affiliation, and please provide your testimony, no more than 3 minutes, on House Bill 299. Sir, go ahead.

Thank you, Chair Eichide and committee members. Can you hear me okay? Yes, loud and clear. Please proceed. Thank you, sir.

Again, my name is Brock Hunter. I'm the co-founder of the Veterans Defense Project. We are a national nonpartisan policy and education organization dedicated to restoring veterans in the criminal justice system to the communities that they serve. I previously testified on this bill, and I don't want to repeat my testimony, but I did want to touch upon some key issues that, that I think went unaddressed in my previous testimony. I would first like to thank Representative Staff for introducing this bill, along with Senator Tobin for introducing the companion bill, SB 236, in the Senate.

This bill builds upon Alaska's Veterans Treatment Courts to efficiently expand access to therapeutic interventions for veterans who face criminal charges all across the state of Alaska, recognizing their service and sacrifice, reducing recidivism, and protecting public safety while creating cost savings for the state.

In my previous testimony, I touched upon the fact that this modern generation of veterans is our most heavily deployed in our country's history. They're coming home with higher rates of post-traumatic stress and other similar issues, and they're coming into the criminal justice system in unprecedented rates. As I noted in my earlier testimony, Veterans Treatment Courts across the country and Alaska are a welcome intervention to these issues. And as we've seen across the country in Alaska, they are too few in number. While Alaska has the highest per capita percentage of veterans of any state, they have only, you only have 2 Veterans Treatment Courts, meaning that most veterans in Alaska are falling through the cracks and not getting access to a therapeutic intervention that could set them back on their feet heading forward in life and better protect their communities.

There were issues raised in the previous hearing regarding costs of implementation, and I think that's one of the main things that I wanted to focus on here. This bill is intended to use existing resources within the court system and to better and more efficiently tap federal resources from the Veterans Administration in a way that not only should not cost Alaska money, but could well, in fact, save Alaska money. In Minnesota, where we passed a similar bill in 2021 unanimously through our legislature with the support of key stakeholder groups, including the prosecutors and victims advocate groups. We have seen great effectiveness. Just this past year in Minnesota, of the 115 veterans who were sentenced under our version of this statute, 91 have successfully completed their program and entered a dismissal of their charges.

And in Minnesota, our legislature's fiscal note identified a net cost savings to the state of around $1 million a year, primarily through saved prison beds, and as well as reduced trials and other related criminal litigation. I thank you for the opportunity to testify again on this bill. We look forward to the opportunity to participate in conversations ahead with lawmakers and stakeholders as this bill hopefully makes its way forward. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your testimony.

I see no further testifiers online. I will now close public testimony. Are there any final questions for the bill sponsor? Representative Gray, um, can we go at ease? At ease.

Back on the record. Bernard, did you have some final things you want to say on House Bill 299? Yes, Mr. Chairman, thank you. I just wanted to clarify, um, that name of the organization that also testified during the first hearing. I just recalled it was was the American Legislative Exchange Council.

And that was the only thing I needed to clarify on the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you.

At ease. Thank you.

Back on the record, um, uh So having heard this bill a couple times and had invited in public testimony, I would entertain a motion. Mr. Chair, I move House Bill 299, Work Order 34-LS1386/A, as in alpha, out of committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes authorizing legislative legal to make any conforming changes. Are there any objections?

Seeing none, this bill is moved out of committee. I would like to thank the committee today for excellent discussion, and I really do actually appreciate the many amendments, Representative Sadler, that you provide. You're very careful with your work, and you're a role model for me, so I watch that. So thank you. With that, with no further business, this meeting of the House Military and Veterans Affairs Committee is adjourned at 11:19 AM.