HSTA-260507-1515

I'd like to call this meeting of the House State Affairs Committee to order. The time is 3:17 on Thursday, May 5th, and we're here in Room 120. Please remember to silence cell phones today. Members present include Representative St. Clair, Representative McCabe, Representative Vance, Representative Holland, Representative Himschute, Vice Chair Story, and myself, Chair Karich. Let the record reflect we have a quorum.

Our record secretary is Cecilia Miller, and our moderator from the Juneau LIO is Renzo Moises. Our committee aide for today's hearing is my staff, Stuart Relay. Thank you all for helping us. We have a few items on today's agenda. We're going to start with SB 26 from Senator Merrick relating to daylight savings time, then go to Senate Bill 163 from Senator Kaufman on repealing inactive funds.

After that, we have a presentation on transboundary mining that was requested And then we have SJR 30 from the Senate State Affairs Committee on military infrastructure to finish our day today. Since we are relatively time sensitive today, we're going to try to hold some of the questions and discussions that might crop up for a potential future meeting. So we're going to start today with SB 26 from Senator Merrick, who has joined us in the room. Thank you. Relating to daylight savings time.

This is our third hearing on this bill, and at our last hearing I set an amendment deadline for Wednesday, May 6th at 5 PM. We received no amendments, and we have had quite a lot of discussion on the committee substitute that we adopted at our last hearing. Is there any final discussion on Senate Bill 26 at this time?

Hearing and seeing none, Vice Chair Story, do you have a motion? Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee pass House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 26, also known as 34.LS0267/H, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And hearing and seeing no objection, House Bill— or Senate Bill, rather— Senate Bill 26 has moved from committee, and we're going to take an addies to sign the paperwork. At ease.

¡Hola! House State Affairs is back on the record, and next up we have SB 163 from Senator Kaufman and his staff. They have also joined us here in the audience. Thank you for being here. Relating to repeal of unused designated funds.

This is our second hearing on this bill. At our last hearing, I set an amendment deadline for Wednesday, May 6th at 5 PM, and we received no amendments. Before going to final discussion on this bill, we are going to open public testimony. And so public testimony is now open on SB 163. Is there anyone in the room here to testify on SB 163?

Seeing none and seeing nobody online, I'll do one more quick Scan anybody to testify on SB 163.

Seeing no one, we're going to close public testimony on Senate Bill 163. And at this time we are under final discussion. Is there any additional discussion on the bill? Representative Sinclair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And it's just to say, as I spoke with the sponsor earlier, we need to do more of these We need to— funds that are just sitting there, not really doing anything, we need to remove them, get them off the books. And I appreciate the sponsor bringing this forward. Thank you. Thank you, Representative St. Clair. Likewise.

I'll go to Vice Chair Story. Thank you, Chair Herrick. I just wanted to say to the committee and to the bill sponsor that since I started serving with you in the House, several years ago now. You have been true to your word about trying to find efficiencies and free up funds that maybe could be best spent elsewhere, go back to the general fund. And so I appreciate your efforts on this.

Thank you. Representative Vance. Yes, thank you. I too want to thank the bill sponsor for the diligence to continue to do this and apologize. I, I been pretty busy with other things and missed the amendment deadline, but I would like to put for the record that the legislature should look into the Vaccine Assessment Public Health Response Fund.

It's inactive, but it, uh, and it has been for quite some time, but it currently has, you know, between $8 and $12 million sitting in there. And then the Alaska Microloan Small Business Legacy Funds has in between $5 and $10 million and that's sitting there as unused accounts. And so if they're unused but with millions of dollars in them, they could loosely be referred to as slush funds that we should have an account for. I mean, we should be knowing what are we doing with that money, that those accounts are no longer serving that original purpose, much like these that are being deleted in this bill. So where should those dollars, those millions of dollars, be going to serve the public purpose that they are no longer serving their original intent?

So there's probably so many more other funds like that, and I appreciate that the history of the bill sponsor mentioned that there were more funds, but there were still other uses that, you know, alerted the departments. And I appreciate that by the legislature doing this, it gets the deeper interaction with the departments that we're supposed to have and that I think the public expects us to have so that every dollar is being used for the public good rather than sitting in an account for years at a time and not getting the active use. So I just want to put that on the record and appreciate this work. Thank you, Representative Vance. And I will just say too, I would be really open in a future legislature, most likely at this point, to a bill that's more comprehensive.

I know the sponsor had talked about trying to move forward a few bills that would accomplish some of those goals, and, um, just given the lateness of session and the short time frame to turn this one around, it wasn't necessarily possible to do a deeper dive, but I would really support that effort as well in the future. Representative McCabe. Thanks, Chair Carrick. So yeah, I was just kind of hopeful that we would get $2 million for Talkeetna Trooper Post out of this, but apparently the Senate saw fit not to do that. So there's that.

You know, we just got to get that comment in there. I don't know what he's talking about. Representative Hemmschuh. Well, I think we could use gold and silver specie to pay for the Talkeetna Trooper Post. That said, I just want I'm going to use that word cruft one more time because I love the word, and I think there's more we could do as a legislature on that sort of expansion of statute with no real, like, look back to see what we're not using.

And so it's the— the accounts would be one thing, but also how much do we have written in the books that isn't useful anymore? So, cruft. All right, any more discussion on this bill to eliminate some cruft? Not seeing any. Vice Chair Story, do you have a motion?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the House State Affairs Committee pass Senate Bill 163, also known as 34-LS0798/G, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. And hearing and seeing no objection, SB 163 has advanced from committee, and we will take an addies to sign the paperwork. And get our presentation set up. At ease.

House State Affairs is back on the record, and the next item on our agenda today is a presentation regarding transboundary mining that was initially requested by Vice Chair Story, and we've worked to set it up with our presenters today. Today we will start by hearing from the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game. We will also be hearing today from staff from the Department of Natural Resources and stakeholders. My office had shared the list of testifiers with committee members yesterday. The goal is to just discuss this issue affecting the state of Alaska and the province of British Columbia in relation to transboundary mining.

And it's my hope that we will keep this presentation in total to about an hour so that we can get to the final item on today's agenda before the meeting concludes. So we will start with the first 20 minutes or so including testimony from the department, the two departments, Fish and Game and Natural Resources. And then the second half of this presentation will include some invited stakeholder testimony. And I would ask that our stakeholders keep their comments to between 3 and 4 minutes today. And I just want to start the discussion by allowing Vice Chair Storey to provide any opening comments she would like.

Thank you, Chair Carrick, and thank you, committee members. For being here today and for putting our attention to this matter. I think as State Affairs Committee, it's just so important that we have a good discussion about our transboundary waters and making sure they stay healthy. And we are so grateful for our Canadian partners, our Canadian— the Canadian government, and how we want to work together on protecting our rivers and our salmon and the way of life here. And I think we also know, on the other hand, that minerals and metals are critical to the U.S. economy and to our natural defense.

And it's important that we are aware of longstanding impacts and any concerns from our Canadian mining projects that we have that are just upstream from Alaska. And so I felt it was very important that at some time this year State Affairs should hear and get an update upon about our efforts to work with the Canadian government. To, um, I know in our packet today we had several letter— letters over a span of a few years. We did have a memorandum of agreement at one point in time with the Walker and Millot administrations, and I was just glad to have the Commissioner here today and to get an update on how we have tried to work with and what we are doing with currently right now to work with the Canadian government to have some agreements to protect our waters, our fish, and our tourism industry, keeping things wonderful— wonderfully beautiful around here. And so I'm grateful that we can have some information from our departments and then also hear from our partners who are working on this very, this very issue.

It's very important to all of us, I think. So thank you for allowing me a few comments. Yep. Thank you, Vice Chair Storey. And our first invited testifier is here with us, the Commissioner of the Department of Fish and Game, Doug Vincent Lang.

If you could please try to keep your comments to about 10 minutes or so, that would be phenomenal. Thank you for joining us. Thank you. For the record, my name is Doug Vincent Lang. I'm the Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

As Vice Chair Story said, the State of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia have established a Memorandum of Understanding under the Walker administration in a statement of cooperation for the protection of transboundary rivers that was established in 2015. Governor Dunleavy has accepted that and continued moving on that, and we have been having, per the MOU and statement of cooperation, a bilateral working group was established consisting of the commissioners of the the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Department of Fish and Game, and the Department of Natural Resources. And from Canada, the Deputy Ministers of British Columbia Ministries of Mining and Critical Minerals and Metals and Environmental and Parks. This working group meets twice per year and is complemented by monthly staff meetings by junior staff underneath the commissioners and the ministries. The agency staff use the monthly meetings to share information on specific projects and legislation of mutual interest.

I didn't bring along the website, but if you look at the Department of Environmental Conservation's website under their Water Division, you'll find the transboundary link there, and you'll see all the work that's been done over the last 8 years in terms of meetings, progress that's been made on addressing issues, as well as the open houses that we've conducted on both sides of the border to address transboundary mining issues. You'll be impressed. There's quite a bit of work that's been done to address these issues. These meetings really have fostered new legislation in Canada regarding financial assurances. One of the first things we brought forward when, when I got involved with it is the bonding requirements on the Canadian side of the border were not similar to the bonding requirements we had on our side of the border.

And there was— we all remember Telsikot Chief Mine, which has failed and has not been cleaned up. Since that time, Canada has had new legislation under their provincial requirements, and they now have new bonding requirements which largely mirror our bonding requirements on our side of order. That's been a very good success. And I'll tell you a quick story here. It's not in the transboundary river systems in Southeast, but they had a mine failure up in the Upper Yukon last year, Eagle Mine.

A tailing heap pile failed. And within 2 days, they took control of that mine using the mitigation bonding requirements, and I think they acted probably quicker than even the State of Alaska could have acted with a mine failure and taking control of that mine. And basically stopping the water pollution associated with that mine tailing waste. It was very impressive how quickly they responded and even more so how open they were in terms of how their response occurred and talking to us daily. We also have more funding for more robust water quality monitoring on both sides of the border.

Staff from the three state agencies work together. We really do. Work on feedback to address issues of mutual interest. And I'll talk about the Telusco Chief mine. That is a sore point.

That meeting— every one of our meetings starts with and ends with the Telusco Chief mine. I can tell you that it was— there has been a lot of frustration by user groups over that mine and the failure to make significant progress. It was really tied up in receivership questions in Canadian court systems that really prevented the government from taking action to responsibly clean that mine up. But now, for the first time, that has been— those court issues have been resolved and there is progress being made. And I know I and a couple other commissioners, and I think some of the congressional delegation, is going to tour that mine site this summer to see what progress is being made and how we're— what the timeline is moving forward.

But for the first time, I'm actually seeing significant movement for moving forward. I'll tell this committee that every time we meet with Canada, we talk about Telskil Chief. It's a black eye, and whatever they do in any other mines is going to be influenced by the inability to make progress on Telskil Chief. So they've heard us loud and clear, and they're committed to taking action on that mine. Um, DEC reviews annually the transboundary water quality data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey Alaskan agencies and British Columbia agencies.

We publish that every year. I think the DEC published the reports from the last 2 years' monitoring in March of 2026. DEC and EPA Region 10 staff meet on a regular basis to discuss transboundary projects and issues of mutual interest. Both DEC and EPA participate in technical advisory committees hosted by British Columbia during the development of mine permits. In British Columbia, this ensures both agencies are sharing technical— expertise on issues of concern.

In FY '26, my department received a 3-year, $318,000 grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to support aquatic biomonitoring on 4 major BC-Alaska transboundary river systems: the Salmon, the Eunuch, the Sekine, and the Taku Rivers. These rivers are among Alaska's highest-value salmon-producing systems supporting all 5 species of Pacific Pacific salmon as well as other important resident and management fish populations. Using this funding, staff initiated field.

This spring. The project includes annual collection of data on stream productivity as well as the analysis of elemental concentrations in juvenile fish, specifically Dolly Varden and river sediments. The primary objective of this work is to document existing environmental conditions in these transboundary rivers and to generate datasets that can be compared to information previously collected by our staff at hardrock mines and mineral prospects within Alaska. At the project completion, we will prepare a comprehensive technical report summarizing the study findings. This report will contribute to the broader body of scientific information used in transboundary mining discussions and support the state's participation in the bilateral working groups.

One of the big questions— we've never found violations of water quality on our side of the border from DEC's water quality sampling, and we've never seen contamination in fish on our side of the border. One of the questions we always get asked is, "What is the baseline?" You know, "What are you comparing against?" A lot of these river systems have baseline levels of metals in them from natural seepages and other things. So we're trying to establish that baseline so that if we do have a mine failure or something else, we can compare it to the baseline to figure out whether we need to take additional actions in the systems.

So, go through a couple questions we always routinely get asked. Are Alaskan water quality regulations as protective as Canada's?

Once an EA certificate is received, a project applicant— okay, wait a minute. Here it is. There are similarities and differences between each territorial approach, but in general, the metrics of U.S. and Canada are very close to one another. That's another thing we've made progress on over the last 8 years. Does Canada's approach to permitting differ from Alaska's?

Canada's project must go through an initial process called an environmental assessment process before seeking permits specific to parts of a project, like a discharge permit. This operates very— in a manner very similar to NEPA analysis in the U.S. context. It takes a holistic approach to looking at multiple facets of a project, many of which have their own permits associated with them. EAs have multiple points in which a project proponent can provide information in response to technical comments from agencies. And EAs have at least 3 time periods where public engagement and comments are accepted.

And they do accept comments from Alaska, I know that. Often has more tribal engagement than U.S. and Alaska due to Canadian and B.C. Law.

Is there evidence that Canadian mining projects are impacting transboundary waters? As I said earlier, not right now. DC and BC water quality monitoring programs to date have not detected any sign of BC mining projects impacting transboundary waters in the United States. In fact, DC reviewed more than 15,000 data points on the Taku River this year and was unable to detect a signature that certain pollutants were present above natural conditions. And state agencies also receive notices of violations from BC when Canadian mining projects discharge into transboundary rivers and they exceed their permit levels.

This helps increase Alaska's awareness when problems arise and how BC and the project leaders respond to those problems. And if I can close on one thing is we understand the concern in Southeast Alaska about the Telsko Chief Mine. We truly do. And we've worked with Canada. I think last year or 2 years ago, we had a meeting in Southeast Alaska here where we brought the mining company down, had an open house, and had an opportunity for people to engage and find out what Canada was doing and not doing.

And then finally, from my perspective, I believe it's best handled between the state of Alaska and provincial levels because that's where the technical expertise is rather than getting this into Ottawa and D.C. I firmly believe that we have good working relationships with the Canadian government both in the Yukon as well as the British Columbia provinces and territory of Yukon. And we have really sound working relationships. And again, we have our technical staffs working to address issues that come up. So thank you for the opportunity to testify.

I'm glad to have any questions you may have. Thank you very much, Commissioner. Um, so for each of our testifiers, we're going to have time just for between 1 and 3 questions, and I'll just ask members to try to, as much as possible, keep the questions fairly concise and the responses fairly concise as well. But I have Representative McCabe and then Himchute and Holland, I believe. Thanks, Chair Carrick.

So welcome, Doug. Appreciate you being here. So, um, you— somebody must have sent you all my questions, so, because you pretty much answered them all. But I want to reinforce what one thing you said. You talked about the DEC and monitoring and how they've detected no increase in minerals.

Um, I mean, we have some of the best fisheries biologists and scientists probably on the planet here at in Alaska. And so no impact to fish, no impact to the water so far. How long have we been doing the monitoring? Well, we started the monitoring through the chair when we started the MOU, so we have very close monitoring. The other thing that we can have is if we end up with an issue, we have this mechanism to address it with Canada, but we also have the Pacific Salmon Treaty where we can address it with Canada.

And I just met For instance, yesterday or two days ago with the head of Department of Fisheries and Ocean about a potential barging from the Canada Gold mine down the Taku and finding out what the plans were with respect to that in terms of both water quality and wake damage. So again, we have a very good working relationship with them. So follow up. Follow up. So I mean, the MOU has been in place, what, a couple, couple of years?

10 Years. 10 Years. And we found in the last 10 years of monitoring, we have found zero impact to fish and zero increase in mineral deposits in the water. So essentially, the water is as clean now as it was 10 years ago, even though the Tulsiqua Chief has been sort of allegedly seeping or leaking into the river. We have not— through chair— we have not seen any violation of water quality standards.

Thanks. I think I have Representative Himschute next. Thank you. Through the chair, I attended a noon webinar yesterday, I think maybe put on by DEC, I'm not exactly sure, about Tulsiqua Chief and the steps they're taking finally to do some remediation cleanup. And it all sounds really good.

Through the chair, I'm wanting to know why are they— why is it finally happening? And, yeah, what are our expectations on this side for what they said yesterday they will be doing? Through the Chair, I think the reason they are taking it seriously is we hound them every meeting that we have with them about how this mining activity at the Telusco Chief, or remediation of that site, is impacting their ability to develop new sites and have confidence in the ability to, to deal with a mine failure at any of these new sites. So, and I think they're also getting pressure on their side of the border from, from different groups that want to see that Canada can take steps in the event that a mine fails and restore it and keep it from polluting the water column. Or $4,500 an ounce gold.

Yes. Helps too. Okay. Thank you. But I can say through the chair that There was a lot of issues regarding receivership that they wanted to take action, but they were prohibited from their court system from taking action to remediate, so.

And then I think lastly, Commissioner, I have Representative Holland, and I would just ask the Commissioner to stick around if possible, and if time allows, we will bring him back for questions, and if you can't stay, no worries. I can stay around until about 4:20. Okay, great. Representative Holland. Okay, anybody else?

Vice Chair Story. Yes, thank you, and I'm sorry I am not more aware of the meetings through the chair to the commissioner about the monthly meetings. I'm— and your two, is it in-person meetings that you have had before, and how are those reported out to the public and what is public opportunity with those. Yeah, so through the Chair, there's two meetings of the principals, which are the ministers and the commissioners. They occur twice yearly, and there's— I think there's summary reports on the D.C. website, Water Transboundary Mining.

You can find it at— I can provide that website if you want. And then the staff meetings, I'm not sure if they have accurate reports or meeting reports on those. I have to go back and look at that website. We hear as commissioners back from our staff that are doing the technical analysis. And one of the things that you'll find on the website is an updated status report of all the mining activities on both sides of the border.

So we tell them mining on our side of the border, they tell us mining on their side of the border and what the status of it is. And every time we meet twice yearly, we get an update as to what the progress is or not, lack of progress on a specific mine. Follow-up? Follow-up? Ah, yes, thank you.

I know that, I think the most recent letter by our congressional delegation went out in, I want to say, March 20th of '26 of this year, and it seems like they are not informed of what's happening. Who responds to them?

Who is making sure the congressional delegation is aware of progress. It sounds like that's being made. Interesting you say that, through the chair. I'm going— that's why I'm leaving here at 4:20 to go back to my office, meet with Senator Sullivan's staff on this very issue. So thank you.

Yeah, thank you, and thank you for joining us, Commissioner.

And I would just ask if there's questions for the commissioner after he has to leave us today to please send them to my office if you'd like, and we can get the committee responses back. Thank you for the opportunity. Thank you. We're going to go to our second testifier, which is Stephen Buckley, who is the Division of Mining, Land, and Water with the Division of Natural— Department of Natural Resources. He is joining us on the phone today.

And similarly with the Commissioner, Mr. Buckley, if you could please try to keep your testimony to between 5 and 10 minutes, we would very much appreciate that. Thank you for joining us.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you hear me, first off? We can. Thank you.

Okay, great. I'm Steve Buckley. I'm Chief of the Mining Section at the Department of Natural Resources. I have 40 years' experience in mining, hydrology, and reclamation. And I represent DNR on the Technical Advisory Committee to the Transboundary Bilateral Working Group.

I've been part of the Technical Advisory Committee for 8 years, almost since its inception in 2015. But at the time in 2015, I was working for Sea Alaska, so I was also involved at that time with transboundary mining issues. I provide technical input to the working group along with my colleagues at Fish and Game and DEC, and specifically related to issues around mine hydrology and reclamation. Thank you for having me and open to any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Buckley.

Do we have any questions for DNR this time? Vice Chair Storey. Thank you. And thank you through the chair, Mr. Buckley, for being here today. When you talk about you make recommendations on reclamation, can you tell me a little bit, for what you know about how it's come to be with the Tussocka Chief Mines is now moving towards having more robust reclamation?

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah, thank you, Representative Story, through the chair. The Tulsiqua Chief, of course, is a legacy mine. It was developed before any kind of mining reclamation statutes were on the books. And in Alaska we have a few of those, luckily not very many. But the work that they're doing at the Tulsiqua Chief, of course, involves a lot of mine hydrology.

The area is unsafe. So first of all, The number one thing is safety of the personnel that got to be available to inventory and assess it. So what they're doing is looking at reopening, stabilizing the portals, reopening those areas so that they're collapsed so they can get a drone in there to evaluate the collapsed mine workings so that it can have personnel in there to develop a plan. So that's kind of where they're at in the status of that. Follow-up.

Follow-up. Um, and so, Mr. Buckley, through the chair, are you aware of the amount of resources they've had to put up to take care of, um, uh, what has been going on for a long time of unsafe leaching from that mine, is what we hear? Can you tell me anything more about the assurances that they're giving? And when we hear that the water sampling around there has not shown shown impacts. How can that be?

Representative Story, through the chair.

Yeah, the— I can't speak to the water quality monitoring. My role is mainly related to the mine hydrology itself and the reclamation. I think Commissioner Lang already spoke to what they found at Fish and Game and DEC. Like I said, I can only say that the condition of the mine is a legacy mine and they're working hard after getting through the court system to get that thing sealed up.

Just one follow-up, if I may. Follow-up? Yeah, one follow-up. So in your opinion, is what they have set aside for reclamation adequate?

Representative Story, through the chair, yes. The commissioner mentioned that they had a major rewrite of their reclamation laws in about, I think, 2018. That they used our— actually Alaska's model for doing their financial assurance, their bonding, and their reclamation. And so now they're— They're basically operating just like we are to ensure that there's no impacts offsite from the mining and that the area is put back into a stable condition. Of course, all this activity occurred well before any of the— even Alaska's reclamation standards were put into effect or British Columbia's.

They're playing catch-up.

Thank you.

All right. I have Representative Holland. Great. Thank you. Through the chair to Mr. Buckley, I guess I know more about the mining in other parts of the state.

I'm just curious, how would you characterize the current level of development and exploration activity going on in these transboundary regions? Is there a fairly high level or low level of activity, and particularly with the increased interest in critical minerals. How would you characterize the level of transboundary activity beyond the remediation that we've been discussing so far?

And that was Representative Holland, correct? Yes, sir. Thank you. Yeah, Representative Holland, through the chair, yes, high levels of activity in Canada and Alaska right now, of course, with the prices of commodities. Have a lot of, a lot of exploration going on both in Alaska, and that's a particularly mineral-rich part of British Columbia.

Great, thank you for that, Mr. Buckley. And just brief follow-up, in terms of the retreat of glaciers and potential access to new areas, is that creating new exploration of areas that were previously inaccessible, or is it areas that were perhaps lower-grade mineralization areas that because of the price of commodities are going back and reevaluating those?

Representative Holland, through the chair, yes, I'm, I'm aware of at least a few projects where retreating glaciers have exposed bedrock, which has allowed people to do more exploration in those areas. Previously covered in ice. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Um, I don't see— I'll go back to Vice Chair Story, and then I think after this question we'll move on.

Vice Chair Story. Sure. Thank you, Chair Carrick. And through the chair to Mr. Buckley, it's sort of a follow-up to Representative Holland's question about the activity that you're seeing right now, the increased activity on both sides of the, uh, our rivers. So are you saying that right now Canada has put into practice what we have into practice, that everyone in all the industry in these new mines are putting up the reclamation that they— as required under this new agreements?

Yeah, Representative Story, through the chair, you're correct. As the Commissioner outlined, when they changed their reclamation laws and their bonding, They basically mirrored our system, which is robust. We have over $1 billion we hold in bonds right now for the state of Alaska in case some operation can't go through with its reclamation obligations. Follow-up. Thank you, Chair Carrick.

Another question, I— having to do with the oversight of all this new activity. How are you also seeing our departments and on the Canadian side, do we have the staff to do all the oversight, the monitoring quality of the waters, the tasks that are needed for the oversight? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Yeah, Representative Story, through the Chair.

We are fully staffed to do our part.

British Columbia also has a robust group. They've got several people. We meet with them monthly. I'd say it's a group of 8 or 10 scientists. The group that we have in Alaska is some of the most top-notch scientists that I've I've been around as far as DEC and Fish and Game, and like I said, I've been doing this for 40 years.

So, um, yes, I'm confident in our technical ability.

Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr.

Buckley. I'll do one more question. Representative McCabe. Thanks. So, Mr. Buckley, with all this increased activity in the last couple years and in the monitoring programs and the permitting programs and all the programs that we, we have and the scientists and everybody out there, have we seen any, any indication that there's excess mineralization of our rivers or that anybody's trying to sort sort of get past the regulations or they're dumping into the water or they're polluting or harming our salmon in any way or fish or environment?

Representative McCabe, through the chair, yeah, I would just concur with the Commissioner of Fish and Game. He's pretty much the expert on fish and water quality. Like I said, my background is mine hydrology. And Reclamation, but yeah, I would concur with the commissioner. Thanks.

We are going to move on at this time, but I do want to ask Mr. Buckley, if you can, to please stick around for any further questions as time allows. We'll just open it up at the end of this presentation period for any of our testifiers today. So thank you very much for joining us. We are at this time going— Thank you. Thank you.

We are at this time going to move to our stakeholder testimony, and each presenter will have approximately 5 minutes, which is a really short period of time. I really want to thank everybody who is going to present today, and I would just ask that they try to contain their comments to that timeframe and that members try to contain their questions. And we will try to get through everybody and make sure we hear from everybody. Our first testifier today is Brianna Walker with Salmon Beyond Borders, who is on the phone and is going to start us off with a short presentation. Our committee aide will advance the slides in the room, so Miss Walker, all you need to do is say next slide and we will have that taken care of for you.

Please go ahead and put yourself on the record and begin your presentation.

Thank you. Can you hear me okay? We can, thank you.

Okay, good afternoon, Chair Carrick, Vice Chair Storey, and members of the House State Affairs Committee. My name is Brianna Walker. I'm a Juneau resident, and I'm the director of Salmon Beyond Borders, an Alaska-based campaign that's worked for 12 years to defend and sustain our transboundary wild salmon rivers, jobs, and ways of life. Next slide, please. The Taku, Stikine, Munich, and Salmon transboundary rivers have been centers of culture, commerce, and biodiversity since time immemorial.

Today, these rivers represent some of the last remaining salmon strongholds in North America. Thousands of miles of new salmon habitat are predicted to emerge here as glaciers melt, unless British Columbia industrializes them first. As you can see on this map, over 20% of these shared watersheds are currently staked with Canadian mining claims. Canada and BC are now incentivizing over 100 mine projects here, most of which are gold mines. Next slide, please.

3 Large-scale BC mines with earthen tailings dams are currently operating along transboundary rivers. 2 Of these mines, the Red Chris Mine in the Stikine and the Premier Mine in the Salmon River, along with the abandoned Tulsko Chief Mine, are continuously polluting transboundary waters with heavy metals, acid mine drainage and other contaminants. In fact, the Premier Mine, which is less than 20 miles from the Alaska border, has a permit from DC that allows it to discharge contaminants above allowable, allowable levels indefinitely. Additionally, there are multiple documented technical concerns regarding the stability of the tailings dams at both the Red Crest Mine and the Premier Gold Mine. Just last week, BC Premier David Eby announced plans to fast-track the permitting and construction of 6 of BC's 100 transboundary mining projects, including the SK Creek and the Unuk River, KSM and the Unuk River, the Red Chris expansion in the Stikine, the New Polaris in the Taku, Red Mountain in Portland Canal, and the Premier Gold Mine tailings storage expansion in the Salmon River.

Next slide, please. Despite this, the state of Alaska under Governor Dunleavy has largely been publicly silent for the last 7 years about BC's polluting mining boom upstream. The state of Alaska has failed to hold BC accountable to commitments made over 10 years ago in the BC-Alaska Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Cooperation, the MOU and SOC. Some of these failures include that the administration has dropped Governor Walker's 2018 direct requests to British Columbia to ensure that BC transboundary mines meet the state of Alaska's reclamation bonding requirements, specifically that these mines, um, should be required to post full reclamation bonds prior to the start of operations. They are not currently required to do so.

The administration has also failed to engage tribes, fishermen, federal agencies, and community members in consistent, transparent, and collaborative dialogue as outlined in the MOU and SOC, resulting in tribes and Alaskans often learning about BC mine-specific updates such— and new pollution events such as the ones I've already listed in my testimony in the media. This is a violation of Section 4 of the SOC. Under Governor Dunleavy, the State of Alaska has also not submitted formal public comments on proposed new or expanded BC transboundary mining projects. This is something that tribes and stakeholder groups in Alaska do consistently. We feel the state should also be doing this.

And despite how almost every municipality in Southeast Alaska, several tribes, commercial fishing groups, Alaska state legislators, and others have formally called for a permanent ban on tailings dams in transboundary rivers, the Dunleavy administration has not held BC accountable for the multiple failure-prone earthen tailings dams and the potential financial impacts of BC mine pollution on Alaskans, which could be done under Section 6 or Section 5, excuse me, of the statement of cooperation. Next slide, please. We're grateful that the Alaska state legislators have long called for binding transboundary watershed protections. Here's an excerpt from a letter that Representative Storey, Representative McCabe, and other legislators sent to former BC Premier John Horgan in 2021. Quote: Binding international agreements, water and wildlife monitoring, and reclamation bonds are important steps forward.

We urge this committee to now direct this same message to the state of Alaska. Next slide, please. As you've heard from state agencies here today, there is work that has occurred at the state level, and that work is appreciated. Yet there are clear gaps and areas for improvement, including more engagement with tribes and Alaskan stakeholders. Additionally, um, Salmon Beyond Borders requests this committee and all Alaska state legislators to strongly urge the Dunleavy administration, as well as the next state administration, to do several things.

First, please defend and protect Alaska interests under the Transboundary MOU and SOC to the fullest extent possible, including publicly pushing BC to immediately clean up Telkwa Chief mine pollution in the Taku and also ensure that there are funds available to pay for that cleanup. Additionally, we request that there be notifications to Alaskans of transboundary pollution events as outlined under Section 4 of the SOC and that the state advocate for Alaskans on broader concerns as detailed in Section 5 of the SOC, including holding BC accountable for the risk posed by their tailings dams. Additionally, the State of Alaska should and could submit formal comments on proposed expanding BC transboundary mine projects that are upstream of Alaska, just as tribes and stakeholder groups do. And finally, the state of Alaska should unite with and support the longstanding requests of Senators Murkowski and Sullivan, tribal governments, municipalities, and thousands of Alaskans, which include ensuring that transboundary mines meet or exceed Alaska's mine reclamation bonding requirements and urge for the creation of a binding international agreement for transboundary salmon watersheds under the U.S.-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, Pacific Salmon Treaty, or a new binding framework. Next slide, please.

Thank you very much for your attention and for dedicating one of your last committee meetings of this session to a hearing on the transboundary mining issue. In addition to my verbal remarks today, you will see in your packets a detailed written testimony along with copies of previous letters that have been sent on this issue and a letter signed by hundreds of Alaskans to the Alaska State Legislature urging them to take the actions I've outlined here today. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Walker. I have a question from Representative McCabe.

Thanks, Ms. Walker. I actually have a couple questions, if that's all right, Madam Chair. So the first thing I'm curious of is there seems to be a disconnect here. So we just questioned Commissioner Vincent Lang about any water quality issues that he's found since the MOU was signed 10 years ago. 10 Years ago, asked him if he had scientists that were monitoring it, if we trust the state scientists, and he said there have been no issues.

No issues. No issues to salmon, no issues to pollution, and yet you just said that there is a whole pile of pollution, that the TulsiCo mine and other mines are constantly.

Putting pollution into the river. So I'm, I'm a little curious where the disconnect is there. What's— why the difference? Do you have scientists out there that are monitoring this that are differently trained or somehow getting different results than the state scientists?

Thank you for the question, Representative McCabe. I appreciate it, and I think the nuance and distinction here is really important. So thank you for the opportunity to add more details here. So the pollution events that I'm referring to have occurred on the BC side of the border, and my understanding is that the representatives from the state of Alaska, including Commissioner Vincent Lang, were speaking to samples that have been taken largely on the Alaska side or the US side of the border, and that their understanding is that pollution has not crossed the border downstream into Alaska. That may be true.

That being said, given the number of pollution events that have occurred, especially as I said with the Premier Mine, which is less than 20 miles from the Alaska border and has a permit to continue allowable discharges or discharges that are above the allowable levels in British Columbia, there are concerns about what may cross over the border. And as we all know, the fish do not recognize borders, and the salmon are— that we often are relying on downstream in Alaska are swimming potentially into parts of these watersheds where there is pollution occurring. So again, that is my understanding that Commissioner Vincent Lang's remarks were regarding samples taken on the U.S. side of the border, and the pollution events that I am referencing occurred on the B.C. Side of the border. Thank you very much for the opportunity to distinguish the difference.

Follow-up? Follow-up? I know where you're going. Okay, so I'm a little confused about how pollution stops at the border, but I guess I'll just leave that. What I'm curious of mostly is this— you're a fairly new group.

I've never heard of Salmon Beyond Borders, so I did some research. You're funded by the Salmon State, which is also in turn funded by the New Venture Fund, pretty much out of Alaska. Is that correct?

Thank you, Representative McCabe. You and I actually did engage back in 2021 when I believe yourself and other legislators signed on to the letter that I referenced earlier in my presentation. So I appreciate the opportunity to engage with you again, and Salmon State is an Alaska-based entity We do not take any funding from the New Venture Fund. We are a project, but we do not take funding from them. So just because they are a fiscal sponsor does not mean they provide any funding of any kind.

Myself and my colleagues live in Alaska. I'm a resident of Juneau. I have been for many years and plan to be for the rest of my life. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have additional brief questions for Ms. Walker? Vice Chair Story. Oh, uh, if you want to jump in. Uh, thank you, and thank you very much for, um, testifying today and bringing forward your concerns. Um, I wanted to talk about— you said there's active pollution happening right now in the Premier Gold Mine.

Um, and just talk— if you could talk a little bit about, um, how you are getting this information and how you possibly reach out to our divisions. I know that you are trying to, you know, work well as a stakeholder with the State of Alaska, and so I'm wondering the efforts that you have made to draw this to our department level's awareness.

Thank you for the question, Vice Chair Story. Um, so regarding the pollution events at the Premier Gold Mine, those are events that, uh, myself and other stakeholders found out about through media coverage. So I can follow up with the committee. I do believe that some of them are linked in the written comments that I provided, but there have been several different media pieces that have covered some of the pollution events specifically at Premier Gold Mine. And regarding the pollution events that I referenced at the Red Chris Mine in the headwaters of the Bistekin, there was a recent report that was conducted by, um, researchers in British Columbia where they went through a variety of different reports and came up with some inconsistencies including ongoing pollution at the Red Crest mine site.

And I can also follow up and ensure the committee has access to that full report. Thank you. Hi, through the chair, we'll do one follow-up and then we do need to move forward. Yeah, I was just going to say thank you for that information, and I think it's very good recommendations about closely working together with our partners and working with our department So thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair Story.

Also, thank you, Ms. Walker, for joining us today. And if you'd like to stick online, again, we will open it up for questions as time allows at the end. At this time, our next testifier is Paulette Moreno, who is the Vice President of Tlingit and Haida. Thank you very much for joining us today. In the room, if you'd like to come on up to the committee and put yourself on the record.

And if possible, contain the comments to about 5 minutes.

Good afternoon, Chair Karuk and members of the House State Affairs Committee. For the record, my name is Paulette Moreno, 6th Vice President of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska. I live in Sitka. Gunaxchiiizh for the opportunity to testify. Clinkit Naida is the regional tribal government of Southeast Alaska, representing more than 38,000 tribal citizens.

Our traditional homelands and waters span these coastlines. Our people have lived with, relied on, and stewarded the Taku, Stikine, and Unak Rivers since time immemorial. These rivers are not just waterways. They are our food systems, our economies, and our identity. Long before an international border divided this region, these rivers connected us to our relatives, and they still do.

For nearly 15 years, we have called for stronger state and federal engagement to secure binding protections for these shared rivers. Yet today, Southeast Alaska remains exposed to the risks of mining in British Columbia, where projects are being fast-tracked and tribal consultation is limited. At the same time, these concerns are not confined to Canada. We expect the same strong protections and meaningful tribal consultation here at home, including for projects like those proposed near Burners Bay. At the same time, we continue to hear from the N'dunlevi administration that they have it under control.

This is not what we are seeing. Engagement with British Columbia is limited. The state does not consistently submit technical comments on major projects that directly impact our salmon-bearing waters. And there is no reliability or transparent flow of information to tribes. Mining projects are not short-term.

They come with long-term risks that can last forever. We cannot forget the human impacts.

Increased extractive activity is linked to higher rates of violence against Indigenous women across Alaska and Northern British Columbia. Any policy response must account for the realities of missing and murdered Indigenous peoples, and invest in tribal public safety and prevention.

If the Dunleavy administration is going to say that it has it under control, it must demonstrate through action, transparency, and partnership with tribes. Right now, it is not. Tlingit and Haida calls on the state to.

Step up by working with tribes, our federal partners, to pursue enforceable international solutions, including a pause on new mining in transboundary watersheds until protections are in place. We urge development of a binding agreement that establishes clear safeguards identifies no-go zones, ensures full bonding and liability, and prohibits high-risk practices like tailing dams in salmon-bearing systems. Further, the state must work with tribes to design and implement monitoring and restoration practices grounded in indigenous knowledge and long-term stewardship. Anything less is not under control. It is a failure to act in the face of known risk to some of the most productive salmon rivers in the world and the indigenous communities that depend on them.

Our people have stewarded these waters for generations. We are more than stakeholders.

We expect decisions that affect them to be made with us, not around us. Gunalchéesh hawa. Thank you. And I am open to questions or comments. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Vice President Moreno. And I'll I know we have a question from Representative McCabe. Do you have other questions as well? We'll go Representative Vance and then Representative McCabe. Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I thought I was listening closely, but I, I missed what you said because we're clearly talking about rivers. How does the violence against women in missing and murdered Indigenous persons, how does that tie into the mining and the impact on these rivers that we're clearly discussing? Thank you so much. Through the Chair, Ms. Carrack. I would like to thank Representative Vance for your question.

So through the Chair, it has a direct impact on our communities. So when there is extraction, resource development, or mining, there are outside agencies, employment opportunities, mining companies that come into communities. When they come into the communities, the potential for increased violence or unsafety amongst their families increases because they come into communities that may have a very strong cultural component in safety and may know of each other. So, when extraction companies come into communities, I believe through the chair that violence can occur and does occur in many of these places. So the comment is in regards to making sure that when extraction companies, if they are to come into the communities, there is the opportunity that the State of Alaska has at this time, and it is strongly encouraged that there is not only prevention, restoration, but also programs, if it be through taxes or through other services, that would provide training for people who are extracting resources to be aware of the safety and the levels of safety that should occur and that we as the First People of the State of Alaska have the right to live safely in our own home communities.

So there's an opportunity there and I believe through the chair that it has directly impacted families in British Columbia in Canada. And with this being what is said by previous speakers of a high activity, it could also affect our families in our traditional homelands. So in closing with that question, the state of Alaska representatives has a unique opportunity to encourage the protection of our families. Thank you.

I'm going to go next to Representative McCabe. I see that there's a follow-up, and I, I, um, I— we have 3 more testifiers to get through. We do have another item on today's agenda, so I'm gonna maybe ask that we try not to have follow-ups if we can, just for the next couple of minutes. But I'm gonna go to Representative McCabe, and then—. Thanks, Chair Carrick and Ms. Moreno.

Thank you so much for being here. I love your your neck piece. It's awesome. So I'm curious, who is the Tahltan Nation? And I don't see too much discussion there.

They're part of the First Nations tribe in Canada, from what I understand, close to you, Athabaskan. And they support mining, and they don't seem to ever be included in this discussion. So I'm curious if you mentioned earlier that there was a binding agreement that you were looking for, would they be part of that as well?

Madam Chair, I would like to introduce our government affairs specialist Jill Wise, who will help answer Representative McCabe's question. Thank you, Miss Wise. Thank you. Through the chair, for the record, Jill Wise. I live here in Juneau, Alaska.

Thank you for the question, Representative McCabe. The Taltan First Nation is is definitely a First Nation in Northwest British Columbia whom we have relations with directly through primarily the Stikine River watershed. And our goal absolutely would be to work with the First Nations in British Columbia towards these binding agreements, if that answers your question. Oops. Thanks.

I'll leave it at that. It's fine. OK. Do we have additional questions or discussion? Um, comment? Okay.

Comment from Vice Chair Story. Sure. Thank you very much, Chair Carrick, and thank you very much, Ms. Moreno and Ms. Weiss, for being here today. I just really appreciate the comments about— and we can get some questions to the commissioner who I know had to leave right now, but just why They're not making technical comments that you have asked for and expect to see is what I am— that implied from that. So I'm curious too.

I don't know if that's typical or of a department. I mean, I appreciate the importance of the state working with the tribes and your comments on that. So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Storey. And I think just in the interest of time, we are going to move on to today, but I want to thank Vice President Moreno for joining us and Ms. Weiss for hopping in there as well. Thank you. Ahklayn. Gonaasheesh.

Gonaasheesh. Thank you for being here. We're going to move on to Dr. David Chambers, who is calling with the Center for Science and Public Participation on the phone. And again, just given the interest of time, we're going to try to keep it to between 3 and 5 minutes for testimony. Um, Mr. or Dr.

Chambers, if you could just put yourself on the record and begin your testimony.

Yes, yes, can you hear me okay? We can, thank you. All right, thanks. My name is David Chambers. As you mentioned, I work with an organization called the Center for Science and Public Participation, which is a nonprofit.

And for about the last— since 2019, I've worked with tribal and conservation groups in Southeast Alaska on transboundary mining issues. I've given the committee a short note, and what I'd like to do with my testimony today is just get some of the highlights of that. So I think the time limitation will be fine. I'd like to begin by providing some background on the technical considerations involved in transboundary mine permitting. Major project design considerations for developing a project permit or for developing an environmental impact statement are debated in meetings between cooperating agencies during the preparation of the draft permits and the environmental review documents.

These discussions and the decisions that follow determine the major project design features, the elements to be proposed in the environmental analysis, and the proposed terms of the permits.

When a mining project document like an EIS or a draft permit is made available for public review, the sidebars on the project design have been set. It is difficult, if not impossible, to propose major changes or even to suggest significant changes for conditions on the proposal after the coordinating agency meetings have been completed. If you are not in those agency meetings to participate.

Participate in the discussions of project alternatives and to propose and defend changes to those alternatives. There's very little chance of influencing or changing the decisions that come from those meetings.

Although the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Alaska and the Province of British Columbia is still enforced, and even though it mandates coordination between BC and Alaska on transboundary mining projects, From a practical perspective, the work plan created under that MOU has proved to be ineffective. The Alaska Department of Natural Resources is unable to, or does not, commit the personnel and financial resources necessary to actively participate in the cooperating agency meetings that are held to discuss individual mine design and environmental reviews. At the present time, ADNR is the only U.S. entity allowed to participate in transboundary mine development discussions. First Nations in British Columbia are given government-to-government status and are invited to participate in the development of mining permits in British Columbia as cooperating agencies. However, in British Columbia, as well as for mining proposals considered by state and federal agencies in the state of Alaska, Tribal governments located in Alaska are considered to be members of the general public.

At the present, there is no firm policy commitment by ADNR and no commensurate commitment of manpower and financial resources to actively participate in the BC transboundary mine permitting and environmental review process. As a result, Alaska fishing, tourism, tribal and conservation interests are not presently being properly represented by the state of Alaska in these deliberations. Thank you very much for your opportunity to comment on this process.

Thank you, Dr. Chambers. Appreciate you joining us. Do we have questions for Dr. David Chambers?

Seeing none, thank you for calling in today, and if you are able to stick around, we would definitely appreciate that for the next few minutes. At this time, we are going to turn to Brian Lynch from Rivers Without Borders, who is joining us on the phone. Mr. Brian Lynch, if you could put yourself on the record and please, again, try to keep the testimony to between 3 and 5 minutes. Thank you for joining us. Yes, thank you very much.

Can you hear me okay? We can. Thank you. Yes. Good afternoon, Chair Carrick and House State Affairs Committee members.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. For the record, my name is Brian Lynch and I am representing Rivers Without Borders, a small NGO with employees in Alaska, Washington, and British Columbia. I have worked for Rivers Without Borders in Petersburg for the past 10 years. I am also a retired biologist with Alaska Department of Fish and Game with a 30-plus year career in Southeast Alaska. During my careers, I have been directly involved with the transboundary members and associated Pacific Salmon Treaty meetings and negotiations as a member of the Transboundary and Chinook Technical Committees and the Transboundary Panel.

I have provided the committee with a copy of a letter I recently sent to Fish and Game Commissioner Vincent Lang. In this letter, I urged him as Alaska's representative on the Pacific Salmon Commission to encourage the commission to add transboundary mining discussions to the commission's annual meeting To be clear, the letter was not meant as criticism of the Commissioner or the Department. This letter was prompted by the Canadian Minister of Environment's approval of the Eskay Creek mine project located in the Eunuch River watershed because, in her words, it was justified in the public interest despite acknowledging the risk of significant environmental— potential environmental harm. Unfortunately, her interpretation of the public interest seems to have overlooked Southeast Alaska's salmon fishing interests that operate under provisions and directives of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. It was my hope such discussions would increase the Commission's awareness of the magnitude of the existing and potential threats from the transboundary mining to the water quality of the habitat of the salmon stocks under the Commission's jurisdiction.

Such discussions have never been officially included during treaty meetings. Since this is an existing international treaty focused on the conservation and management of Pacific salmon, it only makes sense to use it to inform member parties of any threats to its guiding principles. A prime example of those threats is the Kerr-Sulphuritz-Mitchell, or KSM, line at the summit of the Coast Range east of Ketchikan within the upper watersheds of the Unuk River and the Nass River. This mine is recognized as the largest undeveloped gold mine in the world. Both of those rivers play integral roles in the Pacific Salmon Treaty catch sharing arrangements and salmon stock assessments.

A particular concern with this mine project is the amounts of overburden and tailings waste projected to be produced during the life of this mine. According to the latest KSM mine plan, for every metric ton of metal projected to be produced, approximately 1,400 metric tons of overburden and tailings waste will also be produced, the majority of which is potentially acid-generating. During the life of the mine, the cumulative amount of waste is estimated to reach between 4.5 and 5 billion metric tons. That's billion with a B. Managing and treating this waste will require ongoing water treatment that could span centuries.

Due to the large amount of waste expected, this mine, in my opinion, is probably better called a waste rock generator than a metals mine. The high projected waste-to-metal ratio and potential contamination of rivers makes this project environmentally risky. Unfortunately, the KSM mine is only one of several projected or operating mines that present similar environmental threats to the transboundary rivers. While I touched on the KSM mine waste issue, it is but one of several potential issues that represent very real threats to the water quality of the transboundary rivers. I have provided several documents to the committee outlining those issues.

This mine is now on British Columbia's list for fast-tracking permits and approvals. What could possibly go wrong? Anyway, again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lynch, for joining us.

We have a question from Representative McCabe. Thanks, Mr. Lynch. So, yeah, the thing that interests me is, you know, you use words like produced and it's not actually produced. It's dug out of the ground, so it's natural. You use words like waste and you equate overburden with waste, which is actually natural, dug out of the ground.

I get that there could be acids released in there, but you know, we could have a big storm come through and rip it up and release the acids at the same time. So, but barring that, I'm curious if there's any scenario at all where you would support a mine such as the Big Gold mine. I mean, what, is there any way we could do it? I have a mine in my district right now that reclaims, they know how they're gonna reclaim their digging and their mining before they turn the first shovelful. And they're experts at it.

They've developed their own seeds. So I'm curious if there's any scenario at all where you think that a mine such as you just focused on could be done safely, responsibly.

Yes, Representative McCabe, thank you for that question.

It's possible this mine could go in. It is not operating now, and the numbers I mentioned here are projected numbers that come from the owners of this mine, Seabridge Gold, provided in their latest mine plan. You know, the idea of being across the board against mining is kind of ridiculous because almost everything we use on a daily, you know, minute-by-minute basis is dug out of the ground. The problem with these mines, as I look at it, and I'll address that first, is that these are gold mines. These are massive, huge, open-pit gold mines of very low grade, so they generate a lot of waste.

Now, you mentioned the possibility of acid being generated in existing rock up there that hasn't been mined. Okay? If you look— if you take the mine— that rock, you— crush it up into smaller pieces. You kind of— I compare that to making a cup of coffee. That trying to make a cup of coffee with whole beans is not very good, but if you grind that, that those beans up into smaller pieces, it increases the surface area, so it allows the extraction of that coffee to a greater extent—.

Excuse me—. To a greater extent than if it was whole beans. So, to answer your question, because this is a massive gold mine of very low grade, no, I find it almost to be probably improbable that there won't be some sort of problems develop by there. I mean, after all, any large industrial operation.

Operation rarely operates perfectly. The problem with that is just how— what the extent of that problem is and how long it takes you to fix it. In the case of water quality and fish, it could be either a chronic or acute release of contamination, could be a tailings line disaster that puts a lot of waste in the river system itself. And it might bring up too that there's some possible— there's a landslide area on this mine that they are actually going to dig one of their pits in and start mining. You know, it's just there's a lot of things that could go wrong here if this mine ever goes in.

I hope none of that occurs. But you also have a situation here, too, that the quantity of water that needs to be treated by this mine projected will be greater than anything attempted in a mining project anywhere around the world. So, yeah, there's a lot of things that could go wrong here. I hope— like I said, if it goes in, I hope they don't happen. Anyway, thank you.

Thanks, I appreciate it. I grew up in the, at one time, the largest open pit mine in the world in northern Minnesota, and I used to swim in the tailings ponds, and I'm all right, I think. How's that hair doing there, friend? So I struggle a little bit with that, but I appreciate your explanation. Thank you, sir.

One might dispute whether you're all right, Representative Chamberlain. Do we have additional questions? Representative Holland. Just for clarification, Chair Carrick, are you ready for some broader questions or is this specific to the particular individual we've got right now, Brian Lynch? We have about 10 minutes total left and one more testifier, and so maybe it would behoove us to go through the final testifier and then, as time allows, take any additional questions.

So if you could please stick around with us, Mr. Lynch, we would appreciate that. And at this time we're going to move to Linda Benken with the Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, who is joining us in the room. Ms. Benken, if you'd like to put yourself on the record and provide your testimony in 3 to 5 minutes, if you could. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Linda Benken with Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association. I appreciate this opportunity to testify. I'll try to be brief. I am the executive director of Alaska Longline Fishermen's Association, or ALFA. ALFA is a multi-gear group fishing organization based in Sitka, Alaska, but we do have members who live throughout the state with a real concentration in Southeast Alaska.

I'm here today to urge the House State Affairs Committee and all of the legislature to do everything in your power to ensure The Dunleavy administration and the administration that comes in behind them defends Alaska's fisheries and the watersheds that sustain our fisheries. For years, ALFA and many other fishing organizations, including United Fishermen of Alaska, have weighed in on threats to Southeast Alaska's transboundary rivers from British Columbia's mining boom. We understand that healthy fisheries depend on healthy habitat. Which is why the growing threat of upstream mining development in BC is so troubling and a real priority for our organization and our fishermen. Commercial fisheries are an economic driver in Southeast Alaska, as I'm sure you know.

These fisheries generate over $800 million in annual economic impact and support up to 15% of regional employment, with 4,400 resident commercial fishermen, and 2,900 seafood processing jobs. Salmon are especially vital to our region's economy, to the stability of our communities, to our identity, and to our way of life. Our region's fisheries would not be possible without the Southeast Transboundary Rivers, in particular the Taku, Stikine, and Unuk Rivers. These rivers support all 5 species of Pacific salmon and produce Alaska's Pacific Salmon Treaty fish. These rivers have historically produced the majority of king salmon returning to Southeast Alaska.

The Taku River also hosts one of the largest coho salmon runs in the world. Coho are a species of particular importance to our troll fishery that is over 80% resident permit holders. All of us have expressed specific strong concerns and made some very clear requests to the state of Alaska. None of that has been reflected in the Dunleavy administration's materials, approach, or assurances. Instead, the Dunleavy administration has been silent on much of these issues.

In fact, to our knowledge, no state agency under Governor Dunleavy has submitted any public comments on any proposed BC mine along Alaska's BC shared rivers. Neither have they submitted public comments in reaction to BC's transboundary mine pollution events.

We cannot afford to stand by and watch BC threaten the health of Alaska's fisheries, transboundary rivers, and our communities. It's time for the state of Alaska to protect Alaska's interests. I urge this committee and all of the legislature to call on the state to stand with our U.S. senators, municipalities, tribes, commercial fishing groups, sport fishing groups, and thousands of Alaskans, and engage publicly and transparently on proposed BC mining projects to advocate for stronger safeguards and financial assurances. And to prioritize the long-term health of our salmon rivers. Thanks for the opportunity to comment.

Thank you very much, Ms. Benken, for being here with us today. And we have about 5 or so minutes left, probably time for just a couple questions. I'll open it up to questions for Ms. Benken or any other of our testifiers, and I start with Representative Holland. Great, thank you for that. And through the— Thank you, Chair.

And I'm not sure if this question— if there's anybody in particular that would like to pick it up, but as we look at the transboundary watershed mining concerns, I'm curious if your groups have looked critically at the Kensington Mine and Greens Creek Mine, which operate regionally in the same general area in terms of hydrology and geology. What lessons are we learning from those mines that might teach us about transboundary concerns in terms of environmental concerns, Fish and Game wildlife and fishery concerns, and as well as jobs and economic opportunities, because those are kind of the newest mines that would teach us what can be done and how our current regulatory processes are working. What can we learn from those mines? Through the Chair, I am happy to take the first um, staff at answering that question and then to turn it over to others in the room who may have more expertise on that. Um, I would just say that these— the mines that we are concerned about, these transboundary mines, are located in rivers, up rivers, as opposed to up salmon rivers, as opposed to the mines that you were mentioning, and that those rivers are the rivers that are supporting the king salmon that our region depends on.

So some of it is location. Some of it is what those mines are targeting. And then also of concern to us is how they will be regulated and what some of the bonds will be that would be in place to protect us, our fisheries, our communities for any long-term damage. And with that, I will give the chair up to someone else who may want to help answer that. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you, Representative Holland. Do we have additional questions?

Vice Chair Story? Thank you. My question has to go to Mr. Lynch through the chair. Yes, Mr. Lynch is online, and go ahead, Vice Chair Story. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.

You had said— and thank you for your service for so many years, for working for Fish and Game. I really appreciate that. Appreciate your history and your knowledge. You had talked about a request that I don't remember if you had made that request on behalf of the organization you are with, which— about possibly being able to serve on one committee talking about Transboundary Mines and your concerns, things to make sure that we are having oversight on. Could you let me know what that committee was?

Thank you for that question. Actually, when I was working with the department, I sat on both the Transboundary Technical Committee and the Chinook Technical Committee. The Chinook Technical Committee dealt with coast-wide Chinook issues, which also included transboundary rivers. I also sat on the Transboundary panel. What I was mentioning there was that the transboundary mining issues have never really been officially part of any discussion, particularly.

Particularly with the Transboundary Panel. As a matter of fact, back, I believe it was during the 1999 treaty negotiations, the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans actually gave a presentation to the Transboundary Panel, and they actually got their wrists slapped for it, and they had to take that discussion off campus, away from where the treaty meetings were being held to have that. What I was getting at here is the commission, the Salmon Commission, which has jurisdiction over the salmon returning to these, or the harvest sharing relationship with Canada, they have jurisdiction over these rivers and they really need to be aware of the potential hazards to those stocks that they have jurisdiction over. Basically, what the one entity within the treaty process where these discussions should start is in the Transboundary Panel that has stakeholders as representatives to that panel from both Alaska and Canada. I hope that answered your question.

It was a long-winded answer, I guess. Thank you for that, and I appreciate your observations and your call for action. Thank you. All right, I have Representative Himschute next.

Thank you, Chair Carrick. Through the chair, I think my question— it could go to Ms. Banken, it could go to Ms. Moreno, but I think maybe Ms. Weitz is the person best positioned to answer this question. Through the chair, I'd like to know if do you think state legislation is needed? And if so, what would that look like?

Thank you through the chair, Ms. Karlik, and thank you for the— Karlik, and thank you for the question, Representative Hemmschulte. State representation is very important on these issues because what that would look like in Central Council Tlingit Haida, President Peterson, the executive team, and the staff in government affairs have been looking and doing a deep dive into that. And you are correct, I would like to give this moment of time to our government affairs representative, Jill Wise, to represent the tribe's direction on this. Thank you. What would the state involvement look like?

Representation through the chair. Through the chair, thank you, Jill Wise. For the record, thank you for the question, Representative Himshoot, regarding state legislation. I think I think that could go a lot of ways. As has been mentioned in the existing Memorandum of Understanding and Statement of Cooperation, those agreements are there as far as transparency goes and the frequency of meetings between the state and British Columbia.

However, both the Statement of Cooperation and Memorandum of Understanding are non-binding agreements, unfunded agreements. So working towards legislation that would ensure that there is a process for recourse should damages occur. There is currently no process for recourse. British Columbia's financial assurances, they're— it's currently in an interim status that actually has not been adopted into legislation. And so I think that establishing that binding agreement that is both consistent with existing federal and international law, as well as expanding upon the existing memorandum of understanding that the state and province has that also includes tribes and First Nations.

I think there's a lot of great work that we could do to introduce some innovative state legislation, but most importantly, recognizing the international nature of this issue and getting an international agreement that is consistent with existing agreements that unfortunately do not establish binding protections for Alaskans and recourse if damages were to occur. Thank you. Okay, last question, Representative McCabe, and then we are going to move on today. Representative McCabe. Thanks.

So not really a question. I just want to say, you know, we've, we've worried about transboundary. We've been told that catastrophe is right around the corner for a decade or more, and yet we've been monitoring all the fish, we've been monitoring all the water. You heard Doug Vincent Lang say that so far at least the pollution hasn't decided to cross the border because it's not in our rivers, although it apparently is in Canada rivers. And after decades of campaigning, lobbying, fundraising, lawsuits, letters to Washington, demands federal intervention, the fact really remains that there's been no demonstrated impact to Alaska waters or fisheries caused by transboundary mines.

In fact, there's been more damage to our fisheries in Alaska by the fishermen themselves than there has been by mines, whether it be bycatch or, um, overfishing. So I am curious when we're going to have the mines come in here and talk about how the fishermen are damaging their own industry. Frankly, this is— I signed a letter in 2021. It was on Representative Tarr's committee, and I was very frustrated because we only heard one side of the story. So I'd like to hear the other side of the story.

And when I said that, the Transboundary Canadian Mines sent us a box, each one of us a box, in the Fisheries Committee. This big with binders in it. So don't do that. But I think if we're going to continue this, there needs to be an honest conversation from both sides, from both sides. And we need to hear from the mines.

What are you doing right? Are you actually trying to mitigate? Maybe the Canadian mines want to come. Maybe the First Nations, the Tahltan Nation, wants to come and talk about their side of the story. We're only hearing one side of the story.

And it's frustrating to me. Fishing, commercial fishing, is a resource extraction play, just like mining is a resource extraction play. I hate to see them fighting amongst each other. So let's come to an honest, transparent agreement on how we're going to fix it instead of seeing one side of the story and reacting emotionally to something that has never happened. Thank you, Representative McCabe.

So at this time, we are going to move on. I know there's probably quite a few more comments or discussions. I first want to just thank our presenters for coming today. All of our presenters, really appreciate everybody's willingness to call in or be in the room and testify. I know there's a lot more discussion, and this could get very intense if we wanted to go down that road.

I just had a quick statement. You know, I appreciate all the testimony today because what I heard in summary is that the impact is currently potentially very minimal, and we heard that from our departments, and I appreciate that they were able to come and testify. But what I'm also hearing is that the concerns downstream are very real, and they have been real for a very long time, and there's a need for additional action. And then in the event that there is a major accident, truly accident, on the part of the mining corporations, I think the concern is, are we prepared for that? Are our rivers prepared for that?

And are our stakeholder groups that are impacted downstream prepared for that? So that's kind of why this conversation is coming forward today. I do want to acknowledge that there, there is a disparity to some extent in what we've heard. But what I also heard is a call to action around a need for more consultation. Being paramount, having a more comprehensive regional approach to these mining projects, as well as how we look at the data surrounding these areas, and for the U.S. and Canada to actively participate in this conversation.

So I don't think that— I don't think that folks should necessarily walk away with an idea that this is opposed to all mining efforts. I think that there's just a desire for additional international cooperation, additional consultation efforts, and ideally preserving these resources downstream. But I, I do just want to thank folks again for testifying. If we are in the same committee next year and we pick up these issues again, it would really be my intention to make sure we hear from the mining industry as well, how they work with their Canadian partners. And I do invite the mining industry if they want to send us a limited amount of content as a follow-up, we would definitely welcome that as a committee.

But, you know, I also just encourage members to continue keeping an eye on these issues and doing their own homework as well. And, yeah, thank you for everybody's participation today. That was a long statement, but I didn't ask any questions, so. Okay. So again, thank you to our presenters.

And we are going to move on for our final few minutes here to the last item on today's agenda, which is Senate Joint Resolution 30 from Senator Kawasaki. We have Senator Kawasaki's staff, Maddy Hall, joining us today. And the intention today is just to hear an introduction of this and take— we had invited testimony. I'm not sure if they're still online. But definitely open public testimony, and then we will likely take an addies to see what the committee is thinking and feeling here.

So, Maddie Hall, if you could put yourself on the record.

For us. Thank you. Thank you so much, Maddie Hall, uh, staff to Senator Scott Kawasaki. For the record, first off, thank you so much for hearing Senate Joint Resolution 30, um, a resolution expressing gratitude for 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 duty personnel. And this crucial population is only set to grow as planned military expansion materializes in the form of new squadrons, cutters, and installations. However, these military assets and personnel require supporting infrastructure to keep us safe. This resolution supports two measures to expand infrastructure for our growing military and our service members and their families. The first is a dual-use infrastructure.

Yes, absolutely.

This resolution supports two measures to expand infrastructure for our growing military and our service members as well as their families. The first is a dual-use infrastructure, which consists of infrastructure partnerships that allow a facility to meet two functions at once. For example, a National Guard training center that functions as the university recreation center for most of the month and then is used for training when needed.

Partnerships such as this save state dollars while meeting shared infrastructure needs. The second is an Enhanced Use Lease Agreement. That is when a military installation leases underutilized land to private developers for 50, um, to 75-year contracts. This enables developers to create cost-effective housing conveniently located near the base. This helps bring down housing costs for military and civilian buyers alike and helps ensure that military families have the home they need to perform their mission.

Ultimately, this resolution supports common-sense partnerships between the military and our communities to increase defense readiness through infrastructure buildout and ensure our communities maintain capacity to host our nation's heroes. Thank you. Thank you. Um, and I think if it's okay, before we go to questions, the senator is also on his way over here as well. Um, we're going to go ahead and open public testimony and get that part taken care of.

So I'm going to at this time open public testimony on SJR 30, and there is nobody online, and I also do not see anyone in the room for public testimony. So we are going to promptly close public testimony on SJR 30. I'll also note we had an invited testifier who had planned to join us today, and I think probably due to time constraints had to hop off. So we are back under general discussion, and I'll go to Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Madam Chair.

This isn't— this isn't a question for you. It's more of a comment. I was stationed at Fairbanks in 2000, 2001, and housing was an issue. They converted it, civilianized it, and then it went back to military. They leased some property or some housing developments and put military in there.

There's just not— and this was 20 years ago— there wasn't enough room then and there isn't enough room now. So anything that— I mean, if they can lease out some property, developers come in, put some housing, and that's one of the biggest things especially up north in Fairbanks, is housing. It's expensive if you can find it. So I'm in full support of this. Thank you.

Great. Representative Holland. Okay, thank you. Through the chair, I'm interested in the consideration given here and any thoughts as it relates to the current plans that are being made for the Port of Nome and some of the expanded Coast Guard facilities around the state as a military activity. And then in particular, I believe there is more discussion around the perhaps— I don't know the right word— rebuilding, restoring, or the ADAC Naval facility and how you see this resolution maybe bringing voice to some of those emerging opportunities as a tool to bring focus to important issues.

I am wondering if you have given thought to that and how you see that fitting into this. And I'll also just welcome Senator Kawasaki to come up and join us or leave your staff here.

Through the chair to Representative Holland. Yeah, absolutely. So what we've seen is that the great state of Alaska has become an increasing military priority. We've heard this from military leaders, especially at the military conference earlier this year at the 8-star. Unfortunately, my— the name is slipping me right now, so my apologies.

What we've seen is that those that are our international rivals have started ramping up infrastructure such as icebreakers and military bases have become a huge focus for our federal government and trying to ensure that we have expanded infrastructure such as housing as well as energy needs has been a huge priority. And so trying to ensure that as we expand in the military base that you, you mentioned, ensuring that as it ramps up, that we are being proactive with meeting our service members' needs, I think is an incredible priority. Thank you. Representative McCabe. Thanks.

Yeah, so ADAC actually has the exact opposite problem. They have plenty of housing. They just need some Navy guys to fill it. So why don't we put that in this resolution to make ADAC great again? We can do it in one line.

But I'm curious, there's also an issue in my district in Clear Air Force Station. Where they have a ton of housing and they have decided, the military has decided that it's a 1-year unaccompanied tour. So all of those guys live probably in Fairbanks somewhere, probably maybe on the base. So I think maybe encouraging, maybe an amendment to encourage the Air Force to make, or Space Force to make clear a 2-year tour. Accompanied and open up the housing right there in Anderson would relieve some of the housing that those folks are taking up in, in Fairbanks, possibly.

Just, just an idea. I don't know. I just— I know that the mayor of Anderson has expressed that as well as, uh, as others. So I don't know.

Thoughts, maybe? Senator? Senator?

It's your bill. Maybe you'd be interested in an amendment to make it stronger and better and bigger. Senator Kawasaki, would you entertain an amendment to say make ADAPT great again? Well, good afternoon. This is a fun committee to be at at 5 in the afternoon on a Thursday.

Uh, for the record, Scott Kawasaki, state senator for District P, representing Fairbanks, Fort Wainwright, and, uh, Badger. And, um, I only caught the last half of the question, was whether it was It's right now a single-year unaccompanied tour. Right. Through the chair.

So CLEAR is a single— is a 1-year unaccompanied tour, and so the guys are coming from Fairbanks where they live, going to CLEAR for their 2 weeks or 2 days or whatever, their 2 on, 2 off. And if it was a 2-year tour and they had their families here, maybe it might relieve some of the pressure, whether it be housing or barracks. Some of the military bases on, uh, on, uh, in Fairbanks. Uh, through the chair, Representative McCabe, I, I mean, I, I think that the, you know, the military, as you know, functions the way it functions, and they send people based on lots of different reasons. What this resolution is just aiming to do is ensure that a place like Eielson or in Fairbanks doesn't become a single-year unaccompanied tour for our jet pilots, for instance.

And, but I mean, I think that's fair. I think it's actually a great idea if there were current housing needs or current housing that is already in at the Clear Space Force Station that folks would live there in on the station. I know there are contractors and stuff, some of whom do live in Fairbanks, but I know that there's contractors who live in the neighborhoods and live in the area. Just spitballing. Thanks.

Appreciate it. I also wonder too, and I'll just add myself to the queue. I know this resolution is kind of broad and sweeping, but it seems like in the Interior, at least one of the biggest challenges is not— well, we have a challenge around just housing volume in general, but we also have an issue with housing for the type of population that's coming up. It's not just single guys coming to the barracks. The real pinch point is families with a spouse.

And potentially a couple of kids. And the housing availability for that group of people is just so incredibly limited. And I guess if you have a comment on that at all and the resolution. Thank you, Chair Carrick. No, you've pointed out something that's been super important for the Interior.

Of course, there was a Tiger Team that was established about a decade ago. It was the borough trying to foresee what it would mean if Eielson were to expand. And, you know, they probably should have started earlier on that Tiger Team because now we're seeing the effects of these, there's 54 5th generation fighters that are there and all of them have pilots and all of them have the kinds of people that have families and the kinds that have kids. So when they come to Alaska, they're faced with this sort of hardship to try to find housing. Sometimes they're not even allowed to bring their families up until they establish a residence.

And I'll tell you, I mean, it's, it's not a shock for us because we're from Alaska, but it is a shock for some of these folks who maybe flew out of McCord and are now suddenly stationed in Eielson, 60 miles away. Fairbanks— or 50 miles away is Fairbanks. And there's not really the same things that they're accustomed to. And so it's much harder, I think, for military personnel. And if there's— if the colonel of the wing is here testifying, he might also mention that it's getting harder and harder for them to say, you must bring your family, you must stay up here.

And of course, if the families don't come, we, we miss out on a huge, on a huge benefit that these spouses, spouses and the kids being in our school, we miss out on that. And so again, EULs or enhanced use leases are just one of those tools that are going to be investigated a little bit more in the National Defense Authorization Act and the reauthorization of that. Thank you. Representative Holland. I think Vance might have been next.

Oh, Representative Vance and then Holland. Thank you. I just wanted to, you know, provide for the record that it was former legislator and legend Clem Tillian who coined the phrase "Make ADEC Great Again." He would wear a red hat with white letters that said that. And garnered a lot of attention in my community. But he was committed to all that Adak has to offer, the military base there, the fishery.

And it's exciting to see that our delegation is working to do that again. And it's a part of what is being promoted in this bill is— or this resolution is saying, hey, we really have to do something about providing housing for the military. This is not a new issue, as Representative St. Clair mentioned, is that we've known about it. We've known that these projects are coming and the increase of military presence. But what have we done in a very purposeful manner to provide the housing that's needed so that we can have these Alaskans, these military members become Alaskans, want to stay stay and live here so that they know that we're doing our part to look out for them.

So I appreciate this, but I just wanted to, uh, you know, bring back, reminisce about Clem a little bit because it was— made some great conversation with his red hat with white letters, Make ADAC Great Again. I have one of those. Uh, Representative Holland. Great, thank you, Chair Carrick, and through the chair to the bill sponsor, I'm interested in if you would consider, or maybe you have already and you want to have a little different focus, but the economic opportunities here when we start talking about dual use. It triggers an awareness that we have a lot of examples of dual use innovation economic development that's been going on.

The SPARC cells that are available in Elmendorf, JBEAR, as well as the Ilsen Arctic Man The university partnerships for hacking for defense, the business opportunities that come about from military personnel who are transitioning and are looking for a way to create businesses to stay here. I think this resolution does a lot to call to attention both the opportunity and some of the areas of focus. And I would love to see this also recognize the economic benefits and opportunities. And, um, curious if you've thought about that or if you would consider that as a part of the voice that this resolution is bringing.

Um, Kawasaki, thank you. Uh, through the chair, uh, Representative Holland, I think that there was some mention somewhere in this resolution. I'm actually trying to read it over very quickly. But, you know, with housing and with this sort of shared or enhanced use facilities between the military and communities, there's always that sort of economic benefit that's mutual. And I thought it was listed somewhere in this resolution.

Maybe we have to— and, of course, I'm always, you know, willing to entertain changes of the Chamber.

Through the chair to Representative Holland. I do not believe it is specified, but the word infrastructure was chosen as it's a broad term. During last committee's hearing on military veteran affairs, there was a question asked by Representative Hall on whether energy is, um, is considered infrastructure, whether energy costs are, of which it is. And so for the bill, or for the resolution, excuse me, it's all-encompassing. As stated before, we see that military families have changed and military people have changed over the years.

It's no longer just a single man coming in to Eielson. It is married families. Often both of them are service members. And what we need to ensure for this resolution is that this is advocating for infrastructure for all purposes to ensure that this is through dual use. There.

Okay. At this time, we are going to just take a brief at ease.

House State Affairs is back on the record. Are there any additional questions or comments from members at this time? Seeing none, Vice Chair Story, do you have a motion? Uh, yes, I do, Chair Karick. Um, I move that I move that the House State Affairs Committee pass Senate Joint Resolution 30, also known as 34-LS1598/G, with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes.

Okay, seeing and hearing no objection, SJR 30 has been moved from committee. And please stick around to sign the paperwork. As we adjourn today, our business is concluded. I just want to notice for members, we will not have a meeting on Saturday. Thank you all very much for helping us get through this work today.

—About it. And additionally, our next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, May 12th, here at 3— in Room 120 at 3:15.

As the session allows us to, we will have committee on Tuesday and Thursday next week. I anticipate those to be our last two committee hearings, but we will also likely be in the 24-hour rule. So if we need to schedule meetings for Senate legislation and only for Senate legislation, we will. Right now, next Tuesday, we have three items on the calendar. HB 371 from Rep. McCabe on out-of-state independent expenditures, HB 281 from Representative Sadler on penny transactions, and HB 303 under bills previously heard from Representative St. Clair.

And there will be a committee substitute on that bill forthcoming, which we will be able to discuss next Tuesday. And with nothing else before the committee, we are adjourned at 5:21 PM.