HFLR-20260511-1630

Will the House please come back to order? We still have members arriving in the chamber, but we left off debating Amendment Number 3. The maker of the amendment had provided the introductory comments, and I will next turn to the sponsor of the bill if she wants to make corresponding comments. Amendment number 3, unless there is additional debate.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose amendment number 3. The bill originally had 3-year averaging for intensive needs students. The committee removed it and added $32 million to the bill. Did not seem the way— the best way to count the intensive special needs students.

We have really strict eligibility, correct, criteria on them each year. So we felt if we used the previous year or the current year and then the true-up on February 15th, that that would be very, very adequate.

And I think that it's important, especially in rural districts, in all districts actually, intensive students are 13 times the— this 13 times student for the BSA. And so it's real important to have it as accurate as possible. It ensures our most vulnerable students, learners, receive the specialized resources they need, and it's important to follow either the previous student count or the current year student count for intensives or the TRUA.

Additional debate on Amendment Number 3? Representative Costello? At ease. I will take a brief at ease. I know we're waiting for other members to come, but my hope was to get through the debates and then I will take an at ease before we actually get to voting, because I think we're short at least a handful of members.

So I'll take a very brief at ease here, and then we're going to resume if members don't arrive here shortly. At ease.

Will the House please come back to order? Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment Number 3. I know that the, you know, I mean, like, it may seem complicated.

However, this just aligns funding with the actual students that are actually sitting in the seats in the actual year. And so I think that the representative from Ketchikan did a good job with his charts, and I think they're laid out well, and we're all intelligent enough to interpret them. So I think this is a good amendment that if currently, if a school had an increase in students that were actually in the seats by 4.9999 repeating percent, they wouldn't get the increase. However, if there was a significant decrease, their funding potentially could, you know, continue. So I think this is a good amendment as we look at education and trying to spend dollars wisely.

I think this is a good amendment to the bill before us. So I urge members to vote in support of Amendment 3. Representative Ruffridge. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of Amendment No.

3. I think the underlying bill has a problem that the previous speaker just, I think, was speaking to, which is not having a great way of understanding what happens if a school decides or a district is growing just moderately for a course of a period of time. And I think that's a concern that we should, at least looking out to the future, take a little bit seriously. If this amendment does not go into effect, as the previous speaker said, there's a real opportunity that a school district or schools that grow moderately over the course of a period of time actually end up decreasing school funding, which I think is maybe the opposite of what we would want to do there. So this amendment, I think, helps to clean that up, and I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in support of Amendment Number 3, and I thank the member from Ketchikan for bringing it forward. I too have been contacted by a few of my districts that are very concerned about potential growth that they are seeing that might be in the form of 2, 3, or 4% per year. And as this bill is currently written, we would not see the associated increases in funding because of it and just how it's written. So I'm actually very concerned about that and I think it shows one of the weaknesses with the bill and some of the significant changes that it's trying to make.

I also wanna say thank you for putting the new language in the end of this amendment because I do think that it addresses what would happen with a 3-year average given a change of this magnitude. So I'll be supporting the amendment.

Representative Ylo.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hai rai in support of the amendment. One of my concerns specifically with the bill has been what happens when we have an upswing? What happens when we are looking at growth of any significance? The economy here in the state of Alaska has kind of the boom or bust thing that goes on.

We have sharp peaks and valleys whenever we're looking at industry. I think we're kind of in the midst of a bit of a dry spell, and I think that everybody here is doing everything they can to get us up out of that hole and into a curve of growth. And my concerns would be around growth. I appreciate the modeling, and then also just the effort that the sponsor of the bill has put into to trying to solve the problem.

My biggest concern, and I intend to stay on the topic of the amendment, but my biggest concern is that the amendment is trying to fix something that the bill is trying to fix, which is actually a core problem with our foundation formula, which in and of itself kind of creates these problems that get magnified. Particularly in, in times of decline. And so I think this takes us a step towards that. I'm not sure if it actually gets us all the way there because I think the underlying problem is actually the foundation formula. Thank you.

In wrap-up, Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Effectively, what this amendment is doing is it is providing a level funding source for our students. Through all the modeling that I did through this, and that I've demonstrated a few cases in the paper that was handed out, it actually does what we intend to do in the law without providing resources or funding where it's not necessarily needed. And we're making sure that we're putting those where they're needed.

The other thing that this amendment is doing is, is that it is including the SPED intensive needs in the bill, which currently we don't do. And I did offer that component within Finance. I was told that it was not something we were interested in doing because it provided too much money for schools. So I feel like that this is a compromise between what the bill was originally drafted to do and where we probably should be going. I urge your support.

Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment No. 3 Pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote. 19 Yeas, 21 nays. By a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment Number 3 has failed to pass. Brief it is.

Order, Madam Clerk. Amendment number 4 will not be offered. Amendment number 5 by Representative Bynum, beginning page 6, line 25. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I move amendment number 5.

There is an objection. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 5 does a very similar thing that amendment number 3 did, with the exception that it removes the SPED intensive portion out of the, the amendment that I had offered.

Will the House please come back to order? We believe we have addressed our sound issues. Amendment, and we will find out here in a moment. I really appreciate once again the quick response from Legislative Affairs. Representative Bynum, would you stand up and give a quick overview once again of your amendment?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 5, what it does is it basically does what Amendment 3 did, with the exception of it removes the SPED or intensive student portion of the amendment. That was offered in 3. I'm removing that because there was concerns listed both from the sponsor of the bill and in Finance about the additional cost of adding the intensive students to what my amendment was.

Representative Story. Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise for a clarification Um, what I see on page 14, line 27 is that it deletes the student count data reported in the previous fiscal year. And so, um, because of that, I would have to oppose this amendment. And I'm just wondering if I am reading that interpretation correctly because it is so important that we're allowed to take the previous student count And why that is so important is we have a 3-year averaging, an option to take the 3-year average, average daily membership, and then we have the option to take the previous student count, which was the most recent count that was verified by DEED, and that will show you if your district is growing or not. Granted, most districts are declining, so they're probably gonna take the 3 private, the previous 3-year average.

But if they are growing, they're going to take the previous year because it's going to help them meet those students in real time and help provide for their educational program. So I— this amendment.

I think that brings us right back to you, Representative Bynum, with wrap-up comments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To answer the bill sponsor's question is yes, this amendment removes the option for the previous year selection, and the reason why it does that is because when a school is declining, or can have one-year spike, and then they give the school the choice to pick the previous year, they're gonna pick the higher number, which doesn't represent the students in their classroom. This bill is supposed to levelize the funding for the schools. It's supposed to be giving that 3-year average.

That's what this amendment does. But not only does it do that, It reduces the cap from 5% in the current year down to 2.5% so that it can better reflect what's actually happening at the school. When I modeled all of these scenarios, Mr. Speaker, this provided the actual funding necessary to meet the exact demand in the schools with almost no deviation in most cases. So appreciate support on the amendment. Thank you.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 5 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her votes? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. By a vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays, Amendment Number 5 has failed to pass the body.

Madam Clerk. Amendment Number 6 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 1, line 1. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move Amendment Number 6.

There's an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment Number 6 does the following. If you remember back to HB 57, there was a section in there which we passed last year that put in an increase to career technical education funding as well as a reading grant. Initiative.

Uh, those items were contingent upon the passage of SB 113 or a substantially similar bill that would effectuate the sales factor. Mr. Speaker, those things did not take effect or pass, and so those reading grants and career and technical education measures did not end up being implemented. This amendment would seek to decouple those two items and allow those to move forward as they were written in HB 57. Any further comments or debate?

If not, brief it is.

House, please come back to order. Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support this amendment and urge the members to vote for it. Thank you.

Is the objection withdrawn then on Amendment Number 6? I remove my objection. The objection is removed. Hearing no further objection, Amendment Number 6 is adopted. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 7 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 11, line 24. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 7. There's an objection.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, amendment number 7 seeks to do, uh, the following. Uh, if, uh, members would, uh, I guess reference some of the handouts that I had sent over There is a, a bill in the other body, SB 78, that, that works, uh, on changing what we call required local contribution and setting, uh, that required local contribution for the preceding fiscal year as a measure of, uh, the requirement for a municipality, uh, to fund their schools at no more, uh, than 2% increase every year. Uh, what we're seeing right now, Mr. Speaker, is a cost shift that that is occurring from the state to local jurisdictions with the large increase in property tax assessments. And so as you see, there's letters of support from Fairbanks North Star Borough, the Matsu Borough, as well as the Municipality of Anchorage for an assessment change in this way.

What this will do is shift, as you see on the very last page, the estimated impact of 278 on the required local contribution. That's the bill in the other body. As reducing the amount of local contribution that is shifted from the state responsibility for education funding to the municipalities. What this is resulting in right now without the underlying— or without the amendment passing is local jurisdictions having to either raise property taxes or other versions of taxes to meet that full requirement of the required local contribution, where the state and their funding, if you noticed in the budget this year, for example, the amount of state funding actually, even with a large BSA increase, is going down. And so this is a measure to attempt to fix that.

And I will certainly answer questions in the debate and hope to earn your support. Thank you. At ease. Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order. Under debate on Amendment Number 7. Representative Storey. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the Miakrs' desire to save their districts possible funds.

However, there's no guarantee that those state funds, by capping the required contribution, will go towards education funding.

This amendment to me seems like it would benefit the most fast-growing municipalities, and it may harm rural districts. That's a big concern for me. And how so? By capping what is paid by local municipalities, it's projected to cost the state about $30 million more. And I think as the state pays more money for education, they are going to be less apt to increase the base student allocation at some point.

In our deliberations. Again, because that's our body, that's our body's choice on whether to increase the base student allocation. But this bill is about student count averaging and providing— getting off the roller coaster and providing stability for districts. And the bill— the amendment is talking about a different bill that's before the other body, and I think it needs more vetting. And I do— I think I'm very concerned that will have a long-term negative effect on funding for education.

So I oppose the bill. Representative Fields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the amendment. Under current law, if property tax assessments rise faster than the BSA then perversely that cuts state funding for schools.

That makes no sense. That is the current law. This amendment in the proposed bill in the other body would fix it. I learned about this after we restored some of the value of the BSA last year, and then my mayor's office staff came and told me, "Hey Zach, did you know that state funding for schools actually went down in Anchorage because property tax assessments rose faster?" It makes no sense. If I might refer to my notes, I want to illustrate that this is absolutely a statewide issue, um, and I'm going to go alphabetically, not in order of importance.

Anchorage— the amendment before you would have the effect of restoring $13.9 million in state support for schools, uh, by FY27. Anchorage has a tax cap, so in our community, raising the BSA without doing this doesn't actually increase school funding. We have to do this and raise the BSA. I want to reference some other communities. In FY27, this amendment would have the effect of restoring $412,000 in Bristol Bay, $47,000 in Cordova, $1.4 million in Fairbanks, $4.6 million in the Kenai Peninsula, $917,000 in Kodiak, $3.8 million in the Mat-Su, uh, $89.6 thousand in Nome, $1.9 million on the North Slope, $50,000 in Unalaska.

And some of the other rural communities that are affected by this include Craig, Galena, Haines, Hoonah, Hyderburg, Cake, Klawock, Ninana, Pelican, Petersburg, St. Mary's, Sitka, Skagway, and Yakutat. And I named these and I listed some of the numbers to show this is major money in these rural communities. So is fixing the local contribution problem sufficient on its own? No, it's not. We also have to keep pace with funding with the BSA.

But I just don't understand why we would leave in place an antiquated statute that even when we restore the BSA in the real world forces cuts in our district. This is a very good amendment. I will confess to being ignorant about the underlying issue until the mayor's office brought it to my attention. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the member of the other body who has been championing this policy. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill in the other body and now this amendment is being sold in certain respects as a property tax relief, and frankly, it's not. Nothing could be further from the truth. It doesn't cut anyone's taxes. It just lowers what boroughs are required to contribute to schools and shifts roughly $29 million to the state.

That's to our state treasury. That money comes out of the same pot as your PFD, Medicaid, trooper posts and the capital budget. For District 30, Matsu and Denali, the math is rough. Matsu's required contribution will go down by $3.9 million, as the previous speaker said. Denali's will only go down by $59,000.

Um, meanwhile, every Alaskan from Wasilla to Healy pays a state-side cost in a smaller PFD. I support predictability Municipal budgeting, I won't support a permanent subsidy with no offset. Mr. Speaker, I would support this if we could have a resolution from the boroughs saying that they will absolutely relieve property taxes, if that's how we're going to sell the bill, because that's what's being told to the folks in the boroughs, that, hey, we're going to save on your property taxes, we're gonna lower your property taxes, not give the money to the school as the previous speaker said, but lower your property taxes. And yet there's no guarantee that the assembly's going to do that. Do it.

The member from Juneau also said that, that it may not even go to the schools. It may not go to the schools. That's up to the assembly. So what we're doing right here is just giving the boroughs a bunch of money and saying, well, here you go, this might go to the schools, might go to property tax relief, might— could go anywhere. Frankly, Mr.

Speaker:GREGG] Mr. Speaker, we've said earlier today that this should be a bill. This should be a bill. This one should actually be a bill. We need to clearly understand what's going to happen, and we need to clearly understand what the boroughs are going to actually do with this money instead of just shifting the cost to the state. We're already in fiscal trouble, and as I mentioned, I mean, I can't hardly get $2 million for a trooper post in Talkeetna.

And yet we're going to just give $29 million to the boroughs and, and, uh, in cities and school districts, supposedly. I would be a no vote on this one, Mr. Speaker. Uh, there is no doubt. Thank you. Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This amendment, much like the bill, much like several of the other amendments, have actually pointed out more of the flaws that we're having within the foundation formula. Last year, there was a shift from state responsibility and how the funding mechanisms go to the boroughs. My borough, Kenai Peninsula Borough, did lower the mill rate. They did attempt to try to lower the property taxes, and they did, and they actually have been holding back on some of the, the funding within the formula, trying to kind of normalize the numbers based off of CPI. What happens though is currently we're finding greater disparity that gets accentuated through our foundation formula based off of lack of growth in certain areas of the state and growth in certain areas of the state.

In my home community, we happen to be in one of the ones that actually is growing. Property values are going up. As you bring in additional infrastructure, it actually shifts that responsibility from, you know, around the state so that it becomes more, more equal. And so the whole Foundation Formula's purpose is to create equality across the state, but it's doing so at the cost of areas that are growing right now. Which again shifts the burden back onto the local municipalities.

And so while you're trying to bring down your mill rate, ultimately you're requiring your local contribution, your tax dollars, to go higher. So again, I hope that the working group for education funding comes up with a good solution, but right now we have some pretty big flaws in the foundation formula. Representative Bynum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand in strong support for this amendment. I think that this is well thought out. I think it's much needed. Mr. Speaker, you may be aware there's a court case that was brought forward in 2016 called State v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough, which specifically talked about RLC being a state-imposed tax. The Superior Court agreed with the Ketchikan.

Unfortunately, when it went to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said that the technical merits of the case, that they wouldn't uphold it and try again. Fortunately, they haven't done that. But this amendment, Mr. Speaker, doesn't harm rural communities at all. This amendment actually helps rural communities if they're paying property taxes. If you're in a community that doesn't pay property taxes, this does not impact you at all, zero.

REAAs don't pay an RLC. Only city and boroughs that are organized do. And this is, by virtue of the RLC, some level of a cost shift from the state to the school district. When we continue to, when the state tells the local borough, that they must raise their evaluations, it has a direct negative impact on the borough. It puts more cost on the borough and it lowers the amount of money coming from the state for education.

That isn't happening in the REAAs. They're fully dependent on the BSA, where our city and boroughs are obligated to pay this required local contribution. And as those costs continue to go up, the taxes on our local citizens go up, and their ability to then spend additional dollars on education and much-needed local infrastructure go down. So I think this is a good amendment. This does not harm rural Alaska.

If you're paying property taxes, this helps you. This is good for your community. Urge a yes vote. Representative Himschute. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm opposed to this amendment, though I would certainly like to see it go through a full committee process and considered and studied in more detail. Thankfully, we have the Education Funding Task Force to do exactly that. I just want to remind the body that in territory days, it was only the local municipality that funded education, and then they could submit for reimbursement, and it was never full reimbursement that local municipalities received. Localities got in the education of children back when Alaska was still a territory. And then I just also want to point out, if you cap that, that amount, we should be really careful with something like that.

Again, because none of us here is an expert in how all of this works. We hire experts to help us with things like the formula. But also because if you cap what you're able to put in locally, an issue that you can run into is if you have a sudden increase in students locally, You can't count on us to increase funding. I think we've made that very clear. The state may or may not increase what we put into our schools, but locally you will make that increase that's needed to help deal with additional students in a time of extreme growth.

So we don't want to limit what you can do locally. At the same time, I think that the Education Funding Task Force is well positioned to consider something like this in more detail and with greater depth than we can do here on the floor. Representative Stapp. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this amendment.

Thank the member from Soldotna for bringing it forward. I actually agree mainly with the member from Downtown Anchorage in his assessment. Obviously, this type of restructuring required local contribution has been a big priority of my borough for a very long time. Fairbanks operates under an actually voter-imposed tax cap. So that's very different from other communities where, because our individuals vote on this every 3 years, our required local contribution effectively acts as a negative multiplier on our ability to fund schools.

So when there is increases in school funding, basically that cost just gets obstructed, as really the member from downtown Anchorage pointed out, based on the natural growth of, of individuals' property taxes. And like Anchorage, we also don't have a sales tax to offset that. So effectively, The one question I had for the maker of the amendment was I don't think this is a cap on required local contributions. It just says it can't increase by more than 2%, which I think is a very effective measure. So yeah, I support it.

I think it's great for the community I live in and ask the members to vote yes.

In wrap-up, pardon me, Representative Ruffridge, Representative Schwanke had her mic up in the back. I didn't see it. Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment.

I look at growth in urban areas as an opportunity to understand that there's more industry, there's more people, there's more things happening. And I do think that there are problems with the foundation formula that we do need to address. And I think the task force will hopefully be able to tackle some of those things. But I do want to point out that this does actually affect REAAs inadvertently, because while it doesn't get said on the floor very often, the funding that goes to REAAs for schools comes from property tax on TAPS, which brings in about $64 million a year in the unorganized borough. That—.

Those dollars go directly to the state, and then they flow back into the REAA budgets. So echoing what my colleague from Big Lake said, these dollars all come from the same pool. And so by reducing the amount of the local contribution and capping it at an arbitrary 2% above what their growth is, I feel like those dollars will inadvertently end up coming from the same pool and it will hurt our EAAs. So I, I I don't believe that this amendment is a good change at this time. Thanks.

[Speaker] Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? We are under debate under Amendment Number 7. Representative Hall.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read? Permission granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to Amendment 7.

This amendment caps growth in the required local contribution at 2% per year. When property values grow faster than that, the amendment breaks the link between local property values and local education contributions and shifts the difference to the state. My first concern is equity. Our regional education attendance areas rely solely on state and federal funding. They have no property tax.

They cannot backfill. When the state's share of the formula grows but the appropriation doesn't keep pace, REAA communities are the ones who lose. This legislature spent 9 years unable to increase the BSA by more than $30. That is the track record we are asking rural Alaska to bet on. Our long-term structural deficit means we already debate cutting education funding when— where possible.

Without growing our ability to fund education, this amendment will lead to inequity. Communities with less property and our REAAs will struggle to secure state allocations that exceed the bare minimum. I also want to be clear about what this amendment does not do. It does not increase education funding. It does not save programs.

Framing it as a win for schools misrep— misrepresents what the formula actually produces. The Anchorage School Board declined to write a letter of support, and members of the board have expressed concern to me that this would allow legislators to say they have increased education funding without carving out funding from other state services, but without actually increasing education funding. Without a real plan to increase revenue, the state will be unable to absorb the additional costs associated with the decreased required local contribution and provide additional funding to maintain schools. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, my understanding is the bill in the other body that this amendment is has received just one hearing in Senate Education, and I feel very uncomfortable voting on an amendment of this type of policy shift that has not been properly vetted. So while I appreciate the maker of the amendment and the attempt to stabilize education funding, I cannot support the legislation's long-term impacts, and I am a no vote.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Addis. Who called the Addis? Addis.

[FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Will the House please come back to order?

I believe we are at wrap-up comments.

Representative Ruffridge. Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly appreciate the robust discussion. I want to go through just a little bit of how we get to required local contribution. So the foundation formula, as many people have mentioned, and I happen to agree very strongly, is fundamentally outdated and it needs some, some work.

That's not work that I think we're going to get done in the next 10 days. So what we have instead is those mistakes kind of piling up on each other as we attempt to solve some of the issues that are in front of us. The underlying bill seeks to make an adjustment. What happens if your schools across the board are not growing and you have to consolidate them? How do you deal with that?

But this amendment deals with the local contribution of what happens with property taxes in districts where that is a requirement. So at the beginning of every year, the complex formula comes out with something called a basic need, Mr. Speaker. That basic need is a very specific number. It's somewhat of an estimate.

It can change a little bit over the course of a year. Of that number, for each district, for example, the Kenai's basic need is somewhere north of $150 million. There is a requirement in statute. A member said this is somewhat of a state-imposed tax, and that member would be correct. There is a required local contribution of that basic need, and that required local contribution is also a math equation.

And that equation is: what is the real and true value of your property? And then you are required to give a certain percentage of that value. What happens when property values increase by drastic amounts, which is what is happening in many of the boroughs and municipalities that sent letters of support, is it essentially breaks that whole thing apart. And as the required local contribution grows dramatically, because that's a math problem, No matter what, if you still continue to raise the requirement for basic need, which is the formula beginning, the required local contribution eats up all of that. And no matter whether you raise the BSA or not, your requirement shifts completely to your borough.

One of the members speaking in opposition says that this doesn't cut taxes. No, that's not up to us to do. But municipalities are actively increasing taxation in order to recover the math problem of required local contribution. They can't actually spend the money that is required of them without raising property taxes. Also, Mr.

Speaker, the conversation is somehow we're going to take money from some.

This doesn't actually go to the school, it's gonna go to the municipality. That's not true either. Basic need is basic need is basic need. That money is gonna go to a school. We set that in the formula with the BSA and the formula amount.

What we need to change with Amendment Number 7 is the ratio of who spends what. Right now, the ratio is shifting. Away from the state paying for 65-ish percent to going down, down, down, down, down. Soon, Mr. Speaker, if we go down this same path, those lines will eventually almost intersect where municipalities are required to pay for almost the same amount as the state is. I think that's the wrong direction, and actually it does build inequity into the system.

And not in the way that you've heard members speak about. And REAA actually never has to go through this calculation. They just get basic need and then they get the state aid. They get that number and there is no conversation really about any sort of cost shifting or anything of that nature. This amendment seeks to actually stop what is a real negative practice happening right now, which is large-scale property tax increases and boroughs having to shift and absorb that internally and raise property tax increases to meet that.

That is only in our boroughs and only in our municipalities and only if property taxes continue to increase at the level that they are. That's not just a Kenai problem. That's certainly a Fairbanks problem, an Anchorage problem, a Matsu problem. It's a problem across the state right now in anywhere that— imposes a property tax, that those assessments of our real and true value continue to go up at an unforeseen rate. Does that stop the need to change a foundation formula in the future?

No. Does that change how we fund our EAAs? No. What this does is impose a very simple cap. It's not a cap on the increase of local contribution.

Or a cap on the required tax of a local municipality. It just says that when the property assessments go up, let's say it goes up by 20%, each year the required local contribution cannot go up by more than 2%. Eventually this will level out, which is why I think it fits nicely in the underlying bill, which is talking all about leveling out these peaks and valleys. The underlying bill seeks to do that with average daily membership and the calculation of basic need. Amendment No.

7 Seeks to do that with the peaks and valleys of required local contribution, and I urge your support. Thank you. I read it for the question. The question being, shall No. 7 Pass the body?

Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 24 Yeas, 16 nays. With a vote of 24 yeas to 16 nays, Amendment No.

7 Has been adopted. Amendment number 8 by Representative Ruffridge, beginning page 6, line 29. Representative Ruffridge. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 8.

There is an objection. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment number 8 is doing something very similar to previous amendments offered by the member from Ketchikan. This one, though, seeks to delete the line, but only if the school's ADM reported in the current fiscal year under AS 14-17-600 exceeds 5% or more and actually just insert language that allows a school district to use that fiscal year's ADM if it just increases, period. So what we heard in the previous amendment was that there is an issue in schools that grow under the underlying bill.

If you grow and you grow by under 5%, there's a potential that you actually don't have a mechanism by which to say, I might be in need of some additional funding. This takes that element away. If a school is growing, they're allowed to have that increase in their student count, even if it's just a percent higher than it was previously. Thank you.

Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is something similar to what I talked about with this student averaging bill, because I know in our smallest districts, if they get a 1% or 2% student increase, that it does make a significant difference for them. And so I am standing in support of this amendment. Representative Bynum.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I strongly stand in strong support of the amendment. The maker, the sponsor of the bill supports it, so I'm assuming that's a good thing. I just wish I would have thought of this while I was drafting my amendments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Is the objection maintained to Amendment 8? I withdraw. The objection has been withdrawn. Not hearing additional objection. Amendment 8 has been adopted.

Madam Clerk, Amendment Number 9 by Representative Bynum, beginning page 1, line 1. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Amendment Number 9 will not be offered at this time. Madam Clerk, are there additional amendments?

I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee substitute for House Bill 261 be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. Rep. Johnson.

Brief it ease, Mr. Speaker. Brief it ease.

Will the House please come back to order.

I believe the motion to move to the third reading has been properly stated. There is an objection. This bill will be held to the next day's calendar. Madam Clerk.

Committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 86, Finance, by the Senate Finance Committee, entitled an Act Relating to the.

Business of money transmission, relating to licenses for money transmission, licensure requirements and registration through a nationwide multistate licensing system, relating to the use of virtual currency for money transmission, relating to authorized delegates of a licensee, relating to acquisition of control of a license, relating to record retention and reporting requirements, authorizing the Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development to cooperate with other states in the regulation of money transmission, relating to permissible investments, relating to violations and enforcement of money transmission laws, relating to exemptions to money transmission licensure requirements, relating to payroll processing services, relating to currency exchange licenses, amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and providing for an effective date. The Finance Committee considered the bill Recommends it be replaced with House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 86 Finance with a new title, HCR 17, attached one new fiscal note. Signing the report do pass: Representatives Jimmy, Galvin, Stapp, Hannon, Allard, Moore, Bynum, and co-chairs Schrag, Josephson, and Foster. No recommendation. Tomaszewski, there is one House Committee Substitute.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Finance Committee substitute for committee substitute for Senate Bill 86 Finance with a new title be adopted in lieu of the original bill.

There's an objection. I would like—. I would object for purposes to go back to the summary of changes. Representative Fields, would you please address the changes in the committee substitute? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Permission to read. Permission granted. Uh, there were several changes. Those included removing overly broad exemptions that would have created a regulatory loophole because of evolving federal treatment of virtual currency. So a more precise exclusion clarifying that virtual currency is only a permissible investment of assets when it's held to back virtual currency.

Separating the civil legal penalty into two parts. Removing blanket licensure exemption for payroll processors while providing guidance and authority for the department to exempt small payroll processors by regulation, adding provisions to ensure virtual currency is covered by Alaska's unclaimed property statutes with abandonment period of up to 5 years, and updating an effective date for the Alaska Uniform Money Transmission Modernization Act. The objection has been removed. Then the Finance Committee Committee substitute has been adopted. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments?

I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Committee substitute for committee substitute for Senate Bill 86 Finance be considered engrossed, advanced to third reading, and placed on final passage. There's an objection.

This bill will be held to the next day's calendar. Madam Clerk.

Senate Bill number 63, as amended by Senators Cronk, Keel, and Rauscher, entitled an Act Relating to the Local Boundary Commission and Providing for an Effective Date. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Howard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent to roll back SB 63 from the third reading to second reading for the purposes of the missing fiscal note.

There is an objection.

Representative Stutes. [Speaker:STUTES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I object for the reason that the fiscal note number 3 was moved with Senate Bill 63 as it passed out of its last committee on April 24th, and it is a zero fiscal note, which members can confirm in their packet. Beyond that, there is no fiscal impact note in the fiscal note section. System.

No changes were made to the bill that would necessitate a new note beyond what members have in their packet. For these reasons, adopting a new impact note that is not in the fiscal note system to the bill that has been in House Rules since April 24th is out of order. Representative Ellard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate you giving the moment to speak.

So this fiscal note is actually dated on May 4th, 2026. I'm not really sure how the House Rules missed it, but there is a fiscal note in here and it does need to be rolled back so that the body can vote on whether this fiscal note should be sent back or this bill should be sent back to the Finance Committee for discussion. May I? Thank you. Permission granted to read, if that's what you're asking.

Yes, please. This amends AS 4433810 to change the number of Local Boundary Commission members from 5 to 6. This bill also adds a requirement that the commission members from each judicial district must maintain a principal place of residence and be registered to vote in that district. The Division of Community and Regional Affairs anticipates an increase to the travel of additional commission members should this legislation pass. Mr. Speaker, I can't, I can't say why.

I don't know how it happened. I'm sitting on a fiscal note that was missed by the Rules Committee or the rules chair. I don't know how that happened, but I have it right here, and I do ask the body to, to make this happen and that we roll back so that we can further discuss. Are you ready for the question? Brief it is.

Are you ready for the— Will the House please come back to order. Motion before the body is to return a second for the adoption of a fiscal note as it pertains to Senate Bill 63.

Will the House please come back to order.

Once again, we have a motion before the body to return to second for adoption of a fiscal note as it relates to Senate Bill 63. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 16 Yeas, 24 nays. With a vote of 16 yeas to 24 nays, the motion returns to second reading, has failed to pass the body. I believe that brings us back to the bill being in third reading.

Thank you. Madam Clerk. Yes, the bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Stutes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Permission to read from my notes. Permission granted. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Appreciate that. I'm carrying this bill on behalf of the member from District R in the other body.

Senate Bill 63 is the reintroduction of House Bill 279 from the last legislature, which passed this body unanimously, went through the Senate committee process and was calendared for a floor vote. And unfortunately, we all know if you don't get it out, it didn't pass in time. Senate Bill 63 does 3 main things. First, it adds a seat to the Local Boundary Commission and requires that at least 1 commissioner be appointed from the unorganized borough. It also changes the mechanism by which the chair of the Local Boundary Commission is selected.

Rather than being a member from the state at large default, um, the LBC, which is the Local Boundary Commission, will elect a chair from amongst its members. Other boards and commissions in the state do it that way as well. Lastly, it establishes the statutory requirement that the LBC commissioners actually live in and are registered to vote in the district from which they are appointed. The Unorganized Borough is a vast, diverse, and sparsely populated region that spans across the state of Alaska. The people who live there would bring a unique perspective to the LBC deliberations and would make the commission a well-rounded body as it decides its issues.

There is a zero fiscal note for this bill as the LBC usually meets online. If there are travel costs, however, the Division of Community and Regional Affairs indicated that it's prepared to absorb those costs with existing resources. I would appreciate your support in this, and this is good government and reform for this region. Thank you. Representative Sadler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this bill and with some objections that are philosophical in nature and some that are practical. And I guess I should ask to read, but I'm going to refer to my notes and read as necessary. First of all, background for those that don't know, the Local Boundary Commission has 5 members. 4 Of them are appointed from each of the state's 4 judicial districts, and the 5th one is appointed statewide.

At large is the actual technical term. I've actually heard concerns from 2 of these commissioners, including one who is the chair and at-large member, who have concerns with certain elements of the bill. This bill was up before us on Friday, and I did pass out a letter from that chairman. I'm sure you'll have it in your packets and will follow along with me as I list those. I just want to bring some of those points to you members' attention before you vote on this bill.

The first concern I have with this bill is that designating a separate seat particularly for a person who lives in Ananarais Borough It undermines the Local Boundary Commission's statewide objectivity, which is an intentional feature of this structure. There is no seat right now designated to advocate the specific interests of either the organized or unorganized boroughs. And some may say that the unorganized borough does not have its own representative. But I would counter that it does have representation in the current structure, as do— represents all parts of the state. It's already a well-rounded board.

I just would note that each of those 4 judicial districts includes within it organized and unorganized sections, so the unorganized borough does have representation. Adding a member specifically for the unorganized borough creates a dedicated advocacy position in a body which is designed by its nature to be free from it. The second concern with this bill is that it— growing the board from 5 to 6 members on a very practical basis makes it a challenge and risks creating gridlock. Most deliberative bodies, including ours, operate by simple majorities for most decisions. We reserve supermajorities, more than the simple majority, for the most special cases: constitutional amendments, uniform rules changes.

But with 6 members instead of 5 on the LBC, it will now take a supermajority of 4 to 2, or 2/3, to make any decisions whatsoever. That 2/3 vote threshold will make it very difficult for the board to make decisions about anything, including establishing new local governments or even just adjusting the boundaries of existing local government agency authorities. My third concern, and a concern I share with the chair, is that making the board pick its chair instead of the governor pick the chair diminishes our executive's authority. Now, we all know that our executive is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, in the country, and we do that by the Constitution, which we wrote and the people approved. Our Constitution gives our governor the power to implement policy by appointing members of boards and by appointing leaders of many of those boards.

This provision would dilute that authority on a board responsible for fundamental issues of how to establish basic local governance in a new frontier state just setting its rules of engagement, rules of government. I would instantly acknowledge that the requirement that the board make a decision by two-thirds could make it a lot harder to select a chair. Which is just a basic organizational function and shows the gridlock that is at risk by adopting this legislation. To sum up, the current commission structure represents a time-tested statewide perspective that has proven that it works. No one's imposing government on anybody else.

The system is not broken. It don't need fixing.

Representative Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll just make it quick. One, I— there is a fiscal note on it. It was just completely disregarded.

The other thing is I actually do like this bill. But because there's a fiscal note, there needed to be longer discussion in regards to it. Mr. Speaker, if this bill passes, Eagle X, it will happen. So I, I do encourage everybody to push the green button. Thank you.

Any wrap-up— excuse me, before we get to wrap-up comments, Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read. Permission granted. So I looked at some of the, uh, the verbiage in the letter from the commissioner, actually.

And he makes several claims which the member from Eagle River referenced. First off, he says SB 63 creates a dedicated advocacy role within a body constitutionally designed to be free from it. I think that's pretty ironic considering he submitted his testimony advocating against this bill. The seat's not an advocacy role. It simply aims to promote inclusivity and diversity of view pertaining to local boundary changes.

So it sort of refutes— I mean, it's a, it's a hypocrisy if you ask me.

As far as the votes, uh, you know, 6, 6 members. So, so let me read this off. 6 Members are present. 4 Out of 6 are required, which is 2/3 for a for a majority. If 5 members are present, 3 out of 5 are required, which is 60%, close to two-thirds.

If 4 members are present, which is still possible under current statute and under this bill, 3 out of 4 required, which is 75%.

As far as the governor's authority, Mr. Speaker, the governor determines the entire membership of the, the Local Boundary Commission. The bill doesn't change that. The chair being elected from amongst its members is common amongst boards in the state, commissions like the State Board of Education. On the State Board of Education, the governor appoints the entire membership of the board, but the board elects its own members. So, Mr. Speaker, I worked on this bill with the, the member from the other body from District R last year, and we talked about it 3 or 4 years ago, and this actually has been a problem.

It hasn't been updated in years, and I think with our failure to organize the unorganized boroughs, which is what we probably should have done a long time ago, I think that this is definitely needed for some updating of our board in this case. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Representative Stutes, any comments and wrap-up? Just quickly, Mr. Speaker, thank you, I appreciate it, and I appreciate reading, checking with my notes. The sponsor, insofar as 6 people, the sponsor was very careful not to upset the balance of the board or pack it, so to speak, with people from the unorganized borough. Throughout the committee process, members felt as though 1 seat would be appropriate to give the voice from the unorganized borough.

While not detracting from its purpose of evaluating municipal boundaries. The Unorganized Area is immense and sparsely populated. Having a perspective from those that live in that area is incredibly important. Um, Article I, Section 2 of the Alaska Constitution states, "All political power is inherent in the people. All government originates.

Originates with the people and is founded upon their will only. Senate Bill 63 would ensure that voices from all across Alaska are heard in LBC's deliberations by providing a voice to those who are currently voiceless. And I would like to add, there are, um, 100 unincorporated communities with no municipal government, and they would have finally a seat to be involved. So I think it's important. I think it gives everybody a seat at the table, and I hope you press the green button.

Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Senate Bill 63 amended pass the House? Members may proceed to vote. [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Will the clerk please lock the roll?

Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Representative Allard first, from yay to nay.

Representative Elam, from yay to— or from nay to yay.

Does any other member wish to change their vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 37 Yeas, 3 nays. With a vote of 37 yeas to 3 nays, Senate Bill 63 has passed the body. Mr.

Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the roll call vote on the passage of the bill be considered a roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted. Madam Clerk.

Committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution Number 30, State Affairs, by the Senate State Affairs Committee, expressing gratitude for the United States military and supporting increased defense readiness through infrastructure development and public-military partnerships.

The House Special Committee on Military and Veterans Affairs considered the resolution attached, one previously published zero fiscal note, and Signing the report do pass, Representatives Sadler, Allard, Hall, D. Nelson, Fields, Gray, and Chair Eischeid. The State Affairs Committee considered the resolution attached 1 previously published zero fiscal note. Signing the report do pass, Representatives Vance, McCabe, Sinclair, Hemmschuetz, Story, Chair Carrick, Amend, Holland. I have no House committee substitutes. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments?

I have no amendments, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the committee substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 30, State Affairs, be considered engrossed, advanced to 3rd reading, and placed on final passage. There is an objection.

This resolution will be held to the next day's calendar. Madam Clerk.

House Joint Resolution number 28 by Representatives Eichide, Underwood, Elam, Galvin, calling on the United States Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. The resolution's third reading, final passage. Representative Eichcheid.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read. Permission granted. It is my honor to present House Joint Resolution 28, calling on the U.S. Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act. HJR 28 urges Congress and the president to pass Senate Bill 1748, the Kids Online Safety Act, known as COSA.

This legislation already has broad bipartisan support with 75 co-sponsors in the U.S. Senate, including both Alaska's senators. This bill addresses a growing crisis facing our children and teenagers, namely the harmful effects of social media and online platforms on youth mental health. Today, nearly all young people use social media pro— platforms, including over 95% of teenagers and 40% of children 8 to 12. At the same time, rates of anxiety, depression, eating disorders, self-harm, and suicide among young people has risen dramatically. These platforms are not passive tools.

They are intentionally designed to maximize engagement and keep users online as long as possible. Their design features keep kids scrolling and online because that maximizes revenue for these big tech companies. Algorithms track behavior, collect data, and push content designed to hold attention, especially for young users who may not yet have the maturity to recognize from manipulation or unhealthy behavior. We have seen tragic examples of children being drawn into harmful content, some close to home. Despite years of watching these harms accumulate, big tech companies have not taken meaningful actions to protect minors.

This is a problem. COSA is a common sense effort to change that. It would regulate social media platforms by establishing a duty of care. Specifically, it would regulate design features that encourage addictive and habitual use. It would establish corporate responsibility for product designs that cause harm to minors.

It would limit the collection of data from children, protecting their privacy. It would require greater transparency about how platforms affect young users. It would provide parents with tools to protect their children from online abuse. And finally, it would create a Kids Online Safety Council to recommend best practices moving forward. Importantly, COSA does not censor lawful content, nor does it require platforms to collect additional personal, personal data for age verification.

Instead, it focuses on accountability, transparency, and protecting children from harmful platform design. Mr. Speaker, online platforms have become deeply embedded in the daily lives of our children, but oversight and protections have not kept pace. HJR 28 gives voice to the concerns of Alaskan families and joins other states calling on Congress to act. This effort is aligned with earlier actions this body has taken to protect children from the harms of excessive online platform use. I respectfully ask for your support of HJR 28, encouraging Congress to pass the Kids Online Safety Act, Senate Bill 1748.

Thank you. Any debates? Not seeing any until I turn to my far right, Representative Vance.

Mr. Speaker, you got to keep that head swiveling all the way to the corners. Your two favorites will always raise their mics for you. Reps in advance, the floor is yours. There we go. Okay.

I rise in support of this Kids Online Safety Act for obvious reasons. But one year ago, I was in Washington, D.C., participating in a forum on exploitation and human trafficking with Senator Marsha Blackburn, who, who has sponsored this bill. She's done incredible work in D.C. around exploitation and sex trafficking and trying to protect our kids. But I would like the body to, to recognize that this bill has not received quick movement in Congress because of First Amendment concerns. However, the states have been pushing this issue, and recently New Mexico, a judge in New Mexico ruled that Meta was going to be held liable for not addressing the concerns about exploitation for young people.

So the, so the needle is moving when it comes to these big tech companies not being, acting responsibly on addictive material and the content that is exploiting our children. I find that exceedingly promising because they've been able— the big tech companies have been able to hide behind our First Amendment and get away with a lot of things that bring a lot of trouble to our kids. So this is our way of saying we want them to continue this work, but I do want to send a message to big tech that Alaska is going— and other states are going to continue to press this issue on protecting our kids and holding them accountable to the content that they allow on their platforms. We will not let this issue die. This may be a resolution, but we have, uh, legislation that we are going to continue to put forward year after year, and hopefully we will continue to see progress and changes with these companies and how they interact with our kids on social media and the content that they allow, because our kids deserve safe safety in whatever environment that they're in.

So I stand in full support of this resolution. Representative Jimmy. Wayáada, Mr. Speaker. Before I read, I'd like to note to the body that I distributed a little packet on why I oppose this bill, why I oppose this House Joint Resolution. Permission to read?

Permission granted.

We all want to protect our kids online. The question is whether this bill actually addresses the real problem, because the real problem is not a lack of surveillance. The real problem is a business model built on addiction, engagement, and ad revenue. Big tech profits when kids stay on longer online, longer. Their algorithms are designed to maximize attention outrage and screen time because more engagement means more advertising dollars.

If this bill were truly about privacy, Congress would ban targeted ads, limit data collections, and stop platforms from tracking us across the internet. Instead, this bill pressures platforms to collect even more data through age verification identity systems and expand monitoring of users and speech. That creates real risks, Mr. Speaker.

Once companies are required to know who everyone is online, anonymous speech becomes harder, and history shows that surveillance systems built for one purpose are eventually used for others. Americans already worry about governments targeting people for what they say online under any administration, Republican or Democrat.

We should be cautious about building systems that could be used to identify critics, monitor dissent, and pressure platforms to censor lawful speech.

Other countries without strong free speech protections have already shown how quickly online safety systems can expand into broader surveillance and censorship. We should regulate big tech companies. They have absolutely failed to regulate themselves. Protect children by limiting data collection. Protect children by banning manipulative advertising.

Protect children by increasing transparency and accountability, but do not mistake more surveillance for more safety. I urge a red vote. Wayana.

Who called Eddies? Eddies?

Will the House please come back to order?

Representative Carrick.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to speak in support of House Joint Resolution 28 today, and I'm going to do so as someone who has voted against age verification measures in the past. And I do really respect the concerns that have come from the prior speaker, but Mr. Speaker, this resolution before us is simply a resolution. We are asking Congress to support legislation which will change the market dynamics that the as the previous member spoke about, and the way that users interact with these platforms. And Mr. Speaker, in this resolution we talk about things like the addictive design features, the compromised privacy inherent in some of these platforms, the mental health harms and exploitation.

We also talk about requiring online platforms through congressional action to implement tools and safeguards like designing better privacy protections. Limiting those compulsive design features and those harmful algorithmic recommendations. And Mr. Speaker, while this resolution is limited to current legislation before Congress relating to youth, I'll just point out for myself, I kind of wish if there was one thing I could change about this resolution is that it was not limited to legislation currently pending about children. I think we should have these kinds of restrictions and Congress should take action on these kinds of protections for all users on social media, not just youth. So that would be my only change in this resolution, is that we would not limit it to specific age groups.

These market practices and these interactions are extremely harmful to all individuals. They are having an outsized impact of harm on youth, though, and that's why I am standing in strong support of this resolution, which is simply asking Congress to take action on these pervasive harms. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Ehle.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support. I signed on as a co-sponsor as well. It's probably no surprise I've got a bill wandering around doing very similar work. You know, one of the big things I think that's actually really important about this is that it actually highlights that it's The current bill is in the Senate and it's moving over to the House.

We had a bill here that moved over to the Senate that had similar language. It got removed from over in the Senate, from the other body, I apologize.

I think that it's important. We've got a problem. We have a problem right now and our children are the product. We're the product too. We seem to be able to stop ourselves, which I dare you to challenge most of the adults in the room if they can actually realistically take a thought 30-day break from social media.

But the realities are, is we have a problem. We're a product. We are currently having so much addictive behavior that— common, you can't get people to focus for more than 5 or 10 minutes. We have a problem and we need to address it. I think this is a really good conversation.

I actually, I really appreciate the chair of the Judiciary Committee for, for having multiple hearings about this and other legislation that was pending, because it is a very, very important issue and it, it needs to be addressed. Thank you. Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a really tough issue.

I am not a fan of big tech at all. I don't think any parent in here is a big fan of big tech, especially when it comes to our children. But I don't think I'm ever going to vote for a bill or even a resolution that asks for the government to regulate the way that I parent. So I'm going to have to vote no. Representative Ruffridge.

Yeah, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of this resolution. And a couple of things I think important to highlight, and I appreciate the comments from the other member from the North Kenai and his support for this type of issue. The issue that I come up with is there's a distinction between online activities that are for some reason assumed to be private and conversations that— or activity that are assumed to be not monitored and then suddenly requiring those activities to be monitored. Mr. Speaker, I think A lot of the things that happen on the internet, we would be shocked to know, that are neither private, uh, nor not tracked.

Mr. Speaker, many of the companies that own, uh, these software and online entities know very well who we are, what we do, what we buy, um, whether we're kids, whether we're not kids. Uh, they know probably more about us than we know about ourselves. In fact, I read a book not that long ago that used Google searches because Google has that available for us to— they sell what we Google to tell us about our own selves as a society. It was frankly disturbing, but also a little bit hopeful. But it is.

Disturbing on the level that some of these companies know more about us than we, than we really think that they do. And they're using it. That's the other part. They're using it, they're selling it, and they're using it actually to fundamentally shift our own way of thinking. They're using it to drive our shopping habits, using it to drive how we think about things.

They're using it to affect elections. They're using it to do a whole lot of things, some of it really not great. So I think we have a, a necessity, uh, to take this seriously, um, and, and to ask the questions: what do you know, why do you know it, and what do you do with that information? And I think the underlying bills that this resolution talks about ask those questions. And so I think we should support asking those questions, working towards some answers from those companies.

I do not think that this is them trying to to tell me how to parent. I think they're trying to set some guardrails for an otherwise very concerning trend that we're seeing inside of those things online. I'll be in support. Representative Ballard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Permission from the body to reference my notes? You don't have to. Just please do. Well, there you go. Thank you.

So a couple of things that this bill actually does is it has It's linking the social media with the use of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, cyberbullying to adolescents is substantial. And in Alaska, we already know that we have elevated mental health issues and suicide rates, particularly in certain areas of Alaska. So this bill is targeting the algorithm in which certain content on social media targets our children. This also strengthens parental tools and parental support. It also has accountability and mechanisms for transparency, and voluntary industry self-regulation has consistently failed us.

This is a low cost to the state because it's, it's a resolution. There's nothing that should prohibit us from wanting to make sure that our children are not targets on social media for all the cyberbullying and and, well, just being attacked in general. So thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be supporting this resolution.

Any comments to wrap up? Representative Eichide. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, thank you for the conversation. I appreciate everyone weighing in.

A couple things. The member from District 38, I appreciate her concerns. If I had the same concerns, I would not actually support this. But I'm happy to say a couple things. First of all, on the handout that was given from the member from District 38, it criticizes COSA, but if you look at it, it talks about House Resolution 7757, and my resolution is Senate Bill 1748.

They are quite a bit different.

Different. Specifically, when folks say they're concerned that Senate Bill 1748, COSA, this resolution would violate freedom of speech, specifically COSA has Section 102(b)(1) that makes clear online platforms are not to limit any content protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. That's a value I have, and I'm happy to say it's in this Senate Bill 1748. Secondly, there's a concern about that COSA could jeopardize privacy for everyone because of age verification. Actually, Section 112(c) states that for the purposes of age verification, online platforms will not be required to collect age verification data they are not collecting already.

Uh, in terms of, uh, the comment, uh, about parenting, actually this COSA, what it does is it said it gives parents tools and creates accountability and gives them some options to be more involved in their children's online platform consumption. So I think it actually gives parents choice and empowerment. And finally, I would like to just give a shout out to the members of this body who provided leadership to help protect our Alaskan kids from online harm. That includes the member from District 6, Homer, the member from District 8, Nakiski, and the member from District 17, Anchorage, these last two sessions. I think Alaskans should be proud of our collective work protecting children.

And I would like to say, because we did talk about online harm, um, if anybody out there is feeling bad, remember, dial 988 for help. And the last thing I'd like to do, Mr. Speaker, is I'd like to read a quote Last year, I think most members of this body got a book from the Commissioner of Department of Education and Early Development by Jonathan Haidt called The Anxious Generation. And there's a quote from there I think that really hits this issue on the head. We do not need more machines promising to optimize childhood. Instead, we need more adults willing to protect childhood from Big Tech.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, I hope we light up these boards green for kids today. Thank you. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall House Joint Resolution 28 pass the body? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce— Representative Freer, from nay to yay? No, Mr. Speaker. Okay, the nay will be maintained. Madam Clerk, will you please announce the vote? 37 Yeas, 3 nays.

With a vote of 37 yeas to 3 nays, HGR 28 has passed the body. Madam Clerk, please read the next item on today's calendar. There are citations on today's calendar. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House approve the citations on today's calendar. Hearing no objection, the citations are approved. This brings us to unfinished business. Once again, Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I have no excused absences to read at this time. Are there any committee announcements?

Are there any other announcements? This brings us to special orders. Representative Bantz.

On the topic of missed opportunity. Representative Bantz.

If there's one thing that I should be known for by now is Persistence. I continue to introduce the same policies year after year that I'm hoping will receive hearings and full consideration. I'm not afraid of arguments. I'm not afraid of great deliberation. I want good policy for Alaskans.

And today I introduced House Bill 29 as an amendment to the education bill, and and highlighted that it's a great opportunity for us to save our school districts and municipalities and even the University of Alaska millions of dollars in healthcare costs. Unfortunately, that amendment failed to pass the body once again.

So I asked my office to run some analysis on some of the bigger policy changes that this body has recently passed to the governor. And I asked, we asked the question, would the healthcare pooling bill of House Bill 29 save money in the defined benefits plan of House Bill 78 that recently passed the legislature? We know that that bill is still under consideration of the governor. I oppose the bill on a couple of measures because of the current what is it, $7, roughly $7 billion that we still own our, on our previous defined benefits, but also unsure that the, the full benefit to our teachers specifically will really be warranted as, as what is promised. And so if you plug in the healthcare pooling into the defined benefits program as an option for what we offer our school districts and our employees, according to the analysis that my office came up with, is that it could potentially reduce the cost of the divine benefits and the full healthcare plan roughly to a quarter of a third of its current cost.

Now I ask that you don't believe me and don't take my word at it because we're just running some analysis. I ask you to to do the same. Because after all, we have been running state deficits for about a decade. And we're— we've been talking about fiscal plans, but the need for great benefits, great healthcare, retaining teachers and employees,.

Increase on pressure on our school districts, on our municipalities has only increased. Cost of healthcare has only increased. That's all, seems like that's mostly what we talk about in this body. And I find it greatly unfortunate that a bill that is permis— allows school districts, municipalities, university the option to join in savings. It's a purely permissible option, nonpartisan, still is not receiving its just due.

I'm hoping that we can change that soon, Mr. Speaker, because I know that while we have a lot of pressure in these last days of session, we often do our best work. So I have full confidence that this body wants to save the state money, save our municipalities money, and save our teachers money by keeping them here, offering them the best plan that we can, reducing the burdens from our school districts and our municipalities, and ultimately doing what's best for Alaskans. And so I ask that however we can analyze House Bill 29 And let's pass this policy in some form so that we can do what's best for all of our constituents in every way possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Gray. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of $16,500. Representative Gray. Mr. Speaker, today on the floor, uh, there was a kerfuffle about a fiscal note for $16,500.

And there was a suggestion that an entire bill should go back to Finance for thorough debate on a $16,500 fiscal note. And I don't think that it needed to go back for that, but it points to a real problem in the way we do business. And that is that we do have bills with $16,500 fiscal notes going through our Finance Committee. Brian Fechter, who was the Deputy Commissioner of Revenue from 2021 to 2023 for Governor Dunleavy, and then in 2023 he became the budget advisor for Governor Inslee in Washington State, and he was there for a year, and then he went and worked for a university in Idaho where he was also working with the Idaho legislature, wrote an article earlier this year about what Alaska's legislature could learn from Washington and Idaho, and one of them is that their finance committees do not hear bills that have less than $100,000 fiscal note. And I strongly believe that that's the direction we should be going.

We shouldn't be having every tiny little fiscal decision going through one single committee. It means that we have way too many bills going through one single committee. For example, if we did it differently, Washington in 2025 passed 422 bills. Idaho passed 341 bills, and the great state of Alaska passed 33 bills. And so a way to do it differently is to not send every single bill to one committee where they get bottlenecked and they don't make it to the floor.

And I would be interested in helping make that change. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of parental encouragement, Representative Nelson.

First, University of Idaho was mentioned by the previous speaker, so I want to say go Vandals. And real quick, I was going to say this in the debate on the resolution, but I didn't know if it was appropriate in House debate to accept a challenge or maybe a bet from the member from District 8 when he talked about avoiding social media for 30 days. So parental encouragement, that I've done with my own kids. Just buy 'em a cheap flip phone. There are dangers that we all recognize, and I go through them as well, and children want the coolest gadgets, but guess what?

Phones are cheap at Walmart, and so are phone plans that do not include an internet plan. So text, phone call for emergencies, go parents, Avoid the internet, rep from North Pole, and, uh, yeah, there we go. Raise the next great generation. Representative Hannon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the topic of 30 years, some of you have heard me tell the story, and if you want the long version, you can go to mudrooms.org where I tell a 10-minute version of it, that 30 years ago I met a man I went on 3 dates and we eloped. We're coming up on our 30th anniversary. It was the best darn decision I ever made. His 4 sisters have often said that if I dated, I probably would've never married him. 'Cause he's a man who, we only buy disposable phones for him because he can't keep track of anything for very long.

He thought when I put an AirTag in his wallet, that was a little bit 21st century stalking. I decided I was just tired of having to change change everything related to the credit cards that he regularly lost because he loses his wallet again as often as he loses phones. I've served in this body 8 years. He's never been introduced here. Some of you— he's required to attend a couple events a year.

He gets his choice of which ones. Some of you may have met him on the boat to Hoonah where he needed to walk into town because that was his idea of a good time, is to go to the store in Hoonah and see how the prices have changed since we last pulled in there at their dock 5 or 6 years ago. He just needed to make sure that Folger's coffee was still as exorbitantly priced as it was the last time he bought it in Hoonah. But sometimes I'm impulsive. Sometimes I'm extremely analytical about making decisions.

But deciding to marry that man after 3 dates was the best damn decision I ever made.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand adjourned until Tuesday, May 12th, at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, House is adjourned until Tuesday, May 12th, at 10:30 AM.