HFLR-20260512-1030

Will the House please come to order. Will members please indicate their presence by voting?

Has any member failed to vote?

Will the clerk please tally the board? 35 Members present. With 35 members present, we have a quorum to conduct business. Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, there are no previous excused absences today. Leading the invocation this morning is Pastor Terri Stage Harvey, the Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church. Will members please rise.

Respecting the beliefs of all Alaskans, I invite you to imagine there is a heaven. Imagine a place where all are fed, loved, and housed. Imagine a time where instead of destruction and division, we witness creation and reconciliation. And now imagine that it begins here and now. May your feet be wrapped in shoes for the gospel of peace.

May your hands reach out humbly to help, and may your hearts be open to the spirit of eternal love at work right now. Bless your time together, the sacrifices you make, and the hard decisions before you.

Let the vision of a time and place where healing and wholeness reign guide your feet, your hands, and your hearts. Amen. Representative Nelson, will you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move and ask unanimous consent that the prayer be spread across the journal. Hearing no objection, the prayer will be spread across the journal. Will the clerk please certify the journal for the previous legislative days?

I certify as to the correctness of the journal for the 112th legislative day. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the journal of the previous day be approved as certified by the Chief Clerk. Hearing no objection, the journal stands approved.

Are there guests for introduction this morning?

Mr. Majority Leader.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very excited this morning to introduce, uh, Miss Sue Johnson. She is behind me in the Taylor Gallery. Su is a longtime Alaska resident, 52-year resident, resides in the beautiful Bayshore area of South Anchorage. She is one of our retirees who has chosen to stay in Alaska after retirement, something we love to see in this body. And Mr. Speaker, she is continuing to work in her post-full-time advocacy life of advocacy and service to continue to work for good justice policy, currently with Alaskans Against the Death Penalty.

She is here in Juneau today, enjoying tour guide. I think she actually brought the sunshine with her, and she's accompanied by her dear friend from Eagle River. Please join me in welcoming Sue Johnson. Mm-hmm.

Representative Josephson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it's a great honor to recognize a constituent and a former member of this body. If Tiffany Zolkowski would stand— she's standing. Tiffany served for several years here, and she brought so much to this body.

She was a tremendous thinker and public speaker on this floor. She was the inaugural chair of the Tribal Affairs Committee, a sponsor of state recognition of tribes legislation. She's currently senior vice president of communications for Tribal Health Organization. She's the proud wife and— a proud wife and mother of Wesley. And I wanted to note that during difficult times for this country and the state, She was the architect of House Bill 76 on COVID policy, broad policy, and she stood by science.

And that's what I remember about that effort. Um, please help me welcome her to the Capitol.

Representative Zolkowski, first It's great to see you, but as a former member of this body, it's my privilege and honor to offer you the floor. Waka, good morning, Mr. Speaker. It's great to say that again. It's great to see my representative on the floor today. Representative Jimmy brings a class all her own.

It's great to see the women of this body keeping the earring game strong in the legislature. I just want to thank everyone for the warm welcome back. It's fun to have them taking your panoramic photo. I have to admit that the photographer for those panoramic photos is quite handsome. Um, and Mr. Speaker, I know everyone is trudging toward the final days of session, and I just want to encourage everyone in these last few days I know in a sine die session you're ready to get home, you're ready to do all of the election year activities, but I also just want to encourage everyone to be politically courageous in reaching across the aisle and finding compromise in building good policy that, you know, works well for the people of Alaska and bring those, um, those good public policy bills home.

That's really what impacts this institution, impacts the state of Alaska. Koyaanissoomuch, Mr. Speaker, and best of luck in your last few days of session.

Are there any additional guests for introduction this morning? Not seeing any. Madam Clerk, are there messages from the governor? I have no messages from the governor this morning, Mr. Speaker. Are there any messages from the other body?

Messages dated May 11th stating the Senate has passed and is returning the following: Committee Substitute for House Concurrent Resolution Number 9, State Affairs, Amended Declaration of Independence Anniversary, and House Joint Resolution Number 44, Support Native Corporations Business Development Program. And the Senate has passed and is transmitting the following for consideration: committee substitute for Senate Bill Number 111, Labor and Commerce, amended by the Senate Labor and Commerce Committee, entitled An Act Relating to the Diagnosis, Maintenance, and Repair of Consumer Products That Use Digital Electronics to Operate, Adding an Unlawful Act to the Alaska Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and Providing for an Effective effective date. That will be referred to the Labor and Commerce Committee. I have no further messages from the other body.

Are there any communications? There are no communications this morning. Any reports to standing committees? The Judiciary Committee considered House Bill 367, Consumer Data Privacy Act, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 367, 57, Judiciary, with a new title, attached one new indeterminate fiscal note and one new fiscal note. Signing the report do pass, Representatives Mena, Eichide, and Chair Gray, amend Castello and Underwood.

The bill has a further referral to the Finance Committee.

The Finance Committee considered House Bill 388, Bulk Fuel Loan Cap, recommends it be replaced with committee substitute for House Bill 388, Finance, With the same title. Attached one new zero fiscal note and one new indeterminate fiscal note. Signing the report, do pass, Representatives Jimmy, Hannon, Galvin, Bynum, and co-chairs Josephson, Schraggy, and Foster. No recommendation, Stapp, Allard, Tomaszewski, and Moore. The bill has no further referral, and I have no further reports of standing committees.

Are there any reports of special committees?

The conference committee considering Committee Substitute for House Bill 263 Finance Amended—Amendment—and Community Substitute to Senate bill H265 finance amended; And senate substitute for house of Representatives amendment on HB 263 financials ammendement: Senataid committees substituted by subcommittee substitutes from both houses bills; Respectfully requests limited powers or free-conference under Rule 28(b)(6). On the appropriations and language that are not identical in the House and Senate versions of House Bill 263 and the House and Senate versions of House Bill 265. Signing the report: Senators Hoffman, Chair, Steadman, and Cronk; Representatives Andy Josephson, Chair, and Schraggy; and staff. I have no further special committee reports. Are there any citations or resolutions for an introduction?

Honoring Dan White by Representative Carrick and Senators Myers and Tobin. Honoring Pat Pitney by Representative Carrick, Senator Myers, and Keele. Honoring Denali Industrial Supply 40th Anniversary by Representative Carrick. Honoring Lemongrass Thai Cuisine 30th Anniversary by Representatives Carrick, Stapp, and Senator Kawasaki. In memoriam, Michelle Stagg Stadler by Senator Kawasaki and Representatives Dybert, Garrick.

In Memoriam Patrick John PJ Giesen by Senator Kawasaki, Representatives Dybert and Stapp. In Memoriam Lynn Stewart Basham by Senator Kawasaki. In Memoriam Colleen Wilson by Senator Wilkowski and Representative Eischeid. I have no further citations or resolutions for introduction.

Madam Clerk, are there any bills for introduction? There are no bills for introduction this morning. This brings us to consideration of the daily calendar. Madam Clerk, please read the first item on today's calendar.

Senate Bill number 41 by Senators Gray Jackson, Clayman, Giesel, Dunbar, Tobin, Kawasaki, Hoffman, and Cronk, entitled An Act Relating to Mental Health Education. The Finance Committee considered the bill attached to one previously published fiscal note and two previously published zero fiscal notes. Signing the report: do pass, Representatives Jimmy, Bynum, Galvin, Hannon, Moore, Staff, and co-chairs Schraggy, Josephson, and Foster. Do not pass: Allard, no recommendation, Tomaszewski, I have no House committee substitutes. Madam Clerk, are there any amendments?

Amendment number 1 by Representative Schwanke, beginning page 3, lines 10 through 12. Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move amendment number 1.

There's an objection. Representative Schwanke. Yeah, this is actually just a really simple amendment. Doesn't change the intent or the structure of the bill at all. This particular, um, line within the bill, page 3, lines 10 through 12, I'm asking that we delete language pertaining to establishment of a new DEED, um, school health education specialist.

And it specifically states that it will be established and funded. There are 3 fiscal notes on this bill, none of which cover establishment or funding of a new position. Quickly, permission to read. Permission granted. One of the fiscal notes describes what this bill does very specifically.

It's to develop guidelines for mental health instruction in schools to be created by the Board of Education in consultation with Department of Health, regional tribal entities, representatives of mental health organizations that it then requires local school boards to adopt. Policies that promote parent involvement in the education. It continues on by stating that this bill will encourage the implementation of health education programs in schools. Nowhere in here within the bill does it require a DEED position, a standalone established position. And because there is no fiscal note that goes along with this particular position continuing on past the initial establishment of the curriculum in the first year, I feel like the language should be removed from the bill.

[SPEAKING NATIVE LANGUAGE] Will the House please come back to order? We're under debate on Amendment Number 1. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I I stand to encourage a no vote on number 1.

And the reason for that is this bill has been seen for many, many years and in both the House and the Senate and with the Department of Education along there. They do have staff there who are experts in all of the different content areas, including health. And so I, I think that we need to not get into micromanaging how this is done.

This bill, the intent is to build curriculum that will fit throughout our state. And so it's not to get into all of the micromanagement of how it's going to be implemented. And if they, Department of Education needs some support, they will come back to us for that. But in all of our hearings, they did not. So I am going to encourage a no vote.

Thank you. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 1.

And I think that whatever side you come at it, this amendment makes sense. If, as the speaker from District 14 said, that there are these positions, already in place, then this language is not needed. And words matter. And we are making law. And so if this position exists, this is unnecessary language.

If it does not exist, then it should be reevaluated. It, it, I mean, like it clearly says it's making a new position and which is not addressed in other places in the bill of the fiscal notes. I think this is a good amendment that I— like I said, I think whatever, whatever direction you're coming from, it just addresses the reality. Either the position exists, so the language is not needed, or it doesn't. And so then we need to evaluate it further.

So I rise in support of Amendment 1 and urge the House to adopt it. Thank you. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'm just raising basically for a question for the maker of the amendment. I had heard from the member from District 14 that said that we shouldn't be micromanaging the department, to let them do what they need to do, and they will come to us for requests. It appears to me that the amendment is actually doing just that, and I want clarification from the sponsor of the amendment. Permission to read? Permission granted.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It says to delete the language in the bill that says that a school health education specialist position shall be established and funded. So I just want clarification on what the intention is. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative McCabe.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So many of you know I was an airplane mechanic for 20 years in the military. One of the things we did when you were working on an engine is you were responsible not just for the little piece you were working on— fuel control, built or something, but for the entire engine around you. So when you see a problem, it was your responsibility to fix it as a mechanic.

I believe that it's our responsibility as legislators when we see a problem, when we see something that's superfluous, when we see something that's no longer used, when we see a piece of legislation, we should be removing it. Otherwise, 10 years from now, somebody's gonna have to go through all the legislation similar to one of the senators in the other body and ferret out all these pieces that are no longer used, no longer needed, no longer paid for, and spend a bunch of time doing that when we could have done it when we see something right now. So I think this is a great amendment. I think this is a legislator doing their job, and I urge a yes vote.

Wrap-up comments? Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also rise in support of this amendment.

Imposing a mandate on our public school system has consequences. Things don't happen by themselves. We can't just pass a law that say, let's go out and impose this new program and deprive the program, the system, the education system of the resources and staffing necessary to impose that. You know, our departments are good soldiers. We often hear in the fiscal notes and read them saying, you know, the department can absorb that.

And I think sometimes they're just kind of gritting their teeth and saying, we can do that, we understand the need. But this does impose an obligation and the responsibility to provide resources to accomplish the mission. It just doesn't happen by good intentions and good wishes. This reflects just reality. If we're going to impose a new curriculum responsibility on our education system, then we have to have the staffing to do it.

Otherwise, you overload teachers and really don't get what we're trying to accomplish in the first place. This is smart legislation.

In wrap-up, Representative Schwabke. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the debate on the floor. To me, this is just common sense. This is what we're supposed to be doing here as legislators. To, uh, to answer, uh, the representative from Ketchikan's question about micromanaging, I feel like our job is to ensure that when we pass policies, we also pass appropriate appropriations to go along with it.

This bill has a disconnect. There was an error in it, clearly. If there was the intent to have the new position added in statute, which is odd in itself. We probably should not be prescribing individual positions to be created in statute, which is in itself micromanaging. Then it should have had a fiscal note attached to it that would actually support the creation and the continuation of that one position.

But that is not in the packet with the bill. It's not on basis. There's no fiscal note for it, so there is no funding or appropriation to go along with it. So, so to me, I'm, I'm very confused why we wouldn't just do this very simple bill language cleanup. There is no need for an actual standalone individual within DEED to administer this piece of curriculum.

This is not a program. This is a piece of curriculum that would be added underneath of a required half credit health component of our high school graduation requirement. It's not a program. It doesn't need a staff person, which is likely why Deed did not put a fiscal note attached to the bill to require a full standalone position. This is just really an unfunded mandate if we leave this language in here.

And I know this body talks over and over and over about not having unfunded mandates. So it's kind of common sense that we adopt this amendment and delete this language from the bill. There are plenty of other curriculum components we have talked about this session. Civics is one of them. Creating curriculum that will be available for districts to pull from the district website so that they can determine how to implement it locally.

It's, it's being done right now with all different types of curriculum pieces. There is no reason whatsoever that we need this language in this bill. There's no money for it. It's not necessary. I hope you vote for the amendment.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 1 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote. Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote?

Will the clerk please announce the vote? 19 Yeas, 21 nays. The vote of 19 yeas to 21 nays. Amendment number 1 has failed to pass. Madam Clerk.

Amendment number 2 by Representative Colon, beginning page 3, following line 14. Representative Colon. I move amendment 2. There's an objection. Amendment 2, um, requires that the curricula the school district is going to put in place be first approved by local school board at a public meeting of the board.

And so this and another amendment is just trying to get increased transparency to parents. Now for Anchorage, we already— the school board already is required to approve curriculum. So I'm not sure this would change much in Anchorage, but there are some school board or school districts where the board doesn't approve curriculum. It might be a different group. This is trying to increase the public process, make sure parents know what's coming down.

They do— the bill does have an option, you know, an option for parents to opt out. But I think that if they get— if they understood the curriculum that they're trying to implement, you might actually have more parents opt in, maybe not. But this is just trying to increase transparency, make sure that the school board does a public meeting on what they're about to adopt and be able to receive input and approval from their school board.

Representative Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I very much appreciate the intent of the maker of this amendment. I know that we certainly have issues around public trust throughout our state. The concern I have and the reason I'm urging a no vote for this amendment is that this bill is meant to be a little bit more high-level.

In other words, we're putting together a curriculum in case districts choose to use it, and, and that's it. It's that simple. And the, the design of this bill is really to make sure that it is inclusive of many tribes and other experts around what children need in age-appropriate ways for mental health. And, and I respect that. I respect that the maker of this bill truly didn't want to get into the fights and wars over local control.

Wanted to let local control decide how they're going to implement things should they choose to use it. If they decide it's an issue they want to approach on their own and figure out a way to do that on their own. And I think this gets just a bit too prescriptive. And so that's why I will be a no vote on this particular amendment. Thank you.

Representative Nelson. Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 2, and, uh, I homeschool my kids, so I find this kind of ironic. However, based on what the previous speaker was saying, is that she thought it was too prescriptive, and I guess that that is true if the prescription is that the people closest to the children being educated have the most impact on what is actually being taught. And so in that case, I rise in support.

There's a difference between a school district and a school board. And I think that this amendment brings that out where a school district may approve something that potentially, you know, a district can encompass many individual school boards as a lot of us experience, and the school board may want something different representing the parents of the schools of the kids that are actually in the seats than the district. So I, I don't see this as prescriptive other than saying that the people that are closest to the children, their own children being educated, have a say in what is actually put before them. So I rise in support of Amendment 2. I do not see it as overly prescriptive.

I see it as us taking a step back and providing more local control. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Tomaszewski. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. Local control is something that we often talk about in this body, in this state, and there is nothing more unreasonable than having a public meeting and having that in front of the public, in front of teachers, in front of those who may be concerned at a local school board to be able to approve these, these instructional materials. And so this is a completely appropriate amendment, and I rise in support of it. Representative Josephson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the amendment. You know, the whole Section 2, which comes from 14 03:16 is about parental rights. The whole thing is about parental rights. This is an expansion of parental rights.

As written, parental rights would be— or notification would be provided not less than 2 weeks before, and presumably that's parent by parent by parent. And the statute as written says the local school board shall, in consultation with parents, teachers, and school administration, administrators adopt the following policies. And then it goes, as I said, there are 6 subsections on parental rights. This bill is written with respect for parental rights. I just don't see what this adds.

The local school board is on board. They must consult. I don't support this amendment. Representative Ruffridge.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of Amendment Number 2. I actually read Amendment 2 maybe a little different than the, uh, member from District 13. I didn't read this as, uh, an increase of parental rights. Uh, I read it as an increase in, um, understanding that Alaska is a very different place, um, no matter— depending on where you live.

And so if the goal is to adapt a statewide curricula that may be implemented, I actually think Amendment No. 2 Strengthens the bill's intent, which is to say we've developed this curriculum, but in order to adopt it, we should probably bring it in front of the members of the community in which it's going to be adopted in order to get their buy-in first. It's not about parental rights, it's about fact-checking the curriculum if it meets, uh, the local expectations and maybe some of the differences that might be present in that, uh, that local community. I think it would be really difficult actually to come up with a curriculum that covers every different community in the state of Alaska and how they might be talking about mental health. And so I think this amendment strengthens the ability of people to have that discussion at their local level.

There might be pieces of the curriculum that is adopted that maybe doesn't meet the expectations of those communities. That would be a great way to get feedback is at this district level. And maybe would encourage the state board to make some changes or adopt some changes along the way. I think it's a good feedback mechanism and I'll be in support. [Speaker:CHAIR] Representative Mr. Sattler.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also support this amendment. I'm certain all of us here need a reminder that the citizens are sovereign in our system. Public schools are responsible to the citizens of their local district, and the people with the most interest are clearly parents who have the most vested interest in their students. If creating a new curriculum for possible use or possible not use is important for students to, to have, parents, parents need to have the opportunity to review and approve and consider that through their elected representatives, the school board.

Consultation is great, to the member from District 13. Consultation is great, but it can be done in other than public forums, and it does not mean adherence. There's no decision, there's consult— we consulted, we heard what they said, we don't like it, we're going to ignore it. That's too often my experience what consultation means. It's a box you check without meaning.

Where accountability really works is in a public forum. In the school board meeting, there's a public process. It is transparent. There's open debate. There's a clear decision.

That is good process. These are public schools. These are not the private domain of the curriculum directors and superintendents and teachers. They are responsible to the people they serve, the parents. They exercise that view through the school board process.

They deserve the opportunity to review and approve new curriculum like mental health curriculum. It's a good amendment. Vote for it.

Representative Schwanke. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in strong support of this particular amendment. I would like to draw your attention to Section 3 within this bill. This suggests that this is not just randomly voluntary for a school district to utilize.

In Section 3, permission to read? Permission granted. It says each district in the state public school system shall be encouraged to initiate and conduct a program in health education for kindergarten through grade 12. The program should include— goes on to list numerous items, and we are adding mental health. So this bill is written to strongly encourage districts to add mental health curriculum to their lineup within their schools for kindergarten through 12th grade.

I've served on a school board. I've served on a curriculum development committee. I've served with individual parents that decided to come out and participate in those committees. But when you are talking about a curriculum that's so monumental to individual communities, it differs community to community and what people think on this topic. Having an open public school board meeting where this is discussed is absolutely necessary.

Necessary. I urge a yes vote. Thanks. Representative Vance.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment. I think we need to stop and reflect on what has been considered the most, uh, successful schools in Alaska, and that's our charter schools. Our charter schools have been nationally recognized, and one of the key things that make them successful is the parent and community participation in the process of selecting the material for instruction and the community involvement of that. And this is what that amendment does.

It says, we want you to know, we want you to be a part of this process. Mental health is something, this is brand new educational material going to be introduced in our schools. And as, uh, the representative Keeney mentioned, we want people to be a part of the introduction of this process so that they can be on board as it's being introduced and considered a part of a curriculum. I understand that there's, uh, parental rights, that, that parent notification, they can say, no, I don't want my child in it, but wouldn't we want them to be a part of the process that they at the very beginning of introduction of saying, this is what this curriculum is about, this is what it's gonna look like, and they get to be a part of shaping it from the very beginning because my district in Homer, they like to be a part of the process at the very beginning, and if they're not, they will automatically reject it. And I think parents feel the same way about mental health education.

It's something that is a lot of unknown. There's a lot of suspense. Suspicion about what is going to be taught, and many feel will be pushed. And so this allows the school board to have an open meeting, fully transparent, and say, this is what it can look like. What do you think?

We want to be partners with you as parents, as teachers, as community members to make sure that as it's coming in, that it's not something to be feared. I think this is more than reasonable. This is a brand new area that we're trying to make headway in. This is the way to do it, so I support this amendment. Representative Himschoot.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to read a couple sections of the bill. Permission granted. Thank you. On page 1, section 2, subsection A says a local school board shall, in consultation with parents, teachers, and school administrators, adopt policies to promote the involvement of parents in the school district's education program, and then it goes on to talk about the procedures that have to be included.

And I just want to mention, if anything, we should be amending that to say parents and caregivers, but I'll go on. There's another section under Section 2, subsection 7 says providing for parent notification not less than 2 weeks before any class or program that provides instruction in mental health is provided to a child. I think these sections kinda cover what this amendment is trying to do, but I want to point out more importantly, when we talk about local control, the most local is, uh, that local school board and the policies that they're gonna set up with parent involvement. That's the whole point. And so I think what the amendment is trying to do is pretty much already covered in the bill, and I think we're just adding more and more and more statute, more and more language into our statute books.

So it— and finally, I would just urge any family who is not happy with what's happening in their school absolutely should get involved and make the changes they need to locally. Thank you. Representative Elam.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 2, and I appreciate the maker from Anchorage bringing this up because I think it's a really important conversation. One of the more controversial topics that come up whenever I have conversations throughout my communities is really around curriculum, what's going on in the classroom. And so we can delegate some of our responsibilities, but at the end of the day, the, the legislature and the, the state of Alaska here within this governing body is ultimately responsible for making sure that this is happening. And so some school districts do, some don't.

There's a variety of interpretations of it. This language really helps solidify that the public process and engagement with the community is more there. And so I think that's a really important part of the process, particularly around curriculum. So I, again, I appreciate the amendment. Thank you.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to speak in favor of the amendment. I guess my concern with the whole bill is that mental health curriculum comes very close to religious instruction, in my opinion. And there's all kinds of ideas and viewpoints about what should happen. I don't know that you can separate the two, frankly.

And what the, what the bill will do is prejudice that discussion at the local boards and the local school districts towards whatever the state has decided. And so I think we need to be very careful and very explicit to let parents know that they can be and should be involved in the discussion. So I think that strengthens the bill, will make it better in application if we have an explicit requirement in this section of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Fields.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Listening to the debate, I think there's confusion about existing law and what the bill does. The bill does one thing that's very simple: it develops guidelines on mental health instruction. No school district is required to adopt them. In fact, because of existing law, a school board must go through a consultative process with parents before adopting any mental health guidelines and permission to read.

Okay, so existing law, AS 14-03061A, says a local school board shall, in consultation with parents, teachers, and school administrators, adopt policies to promote the involvement of parents in school districts' education program. The policies must include procedures. Then it lists 6 ways that the district has to consult with teachers. Above that, this bill says it is the intent of the legislature that the Board of Education and Early Development developed guidelines for instruction in mental health. So all the bill does is guidelines.

Existing law says that they're not going to be implemented until the school board consults with parents. And then this bill adds further notification for parents already before the amendment. And again, permission to read, um, what this bill says is an additional protection for parents, providing for parent notification not less than 2 weeks before any class or program. So before the amendment, let's say the amendment fails, the existing bill, number one, already protects the school board's right to adopt any policy. Number two, already adds parental notification.

So I don't understand the need for this amendment because the underlying statute and this bill already leave it to the school board about whether they want to adopt these guidelines.

In wrap-up, Representative Colon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for the really robust discussion. I won't go through everything everybody said, but there's two things. Obviously, I like the parts where there's consultation with parents and parents can opt out of the curriculum, and that's a great section.

But in my opinion, consultation with parents by the local school board is very vague. It's not necessarily a public meeting, and I'm not sure why everybody's so afraid of a public meeting where they adopt the curriculum. I don't— I'm really surprised at that. All this is doing, it's not increasing parental control or anything. It's giving Transparency to a brand new idea, mental health education.

We're making sure that parents have an opportunity to attend a school board meeting and listen to what the school board is going to do, and that we help them know whether they should have their kid opt in or opt out. That's, that's all it is. It's just educating people more. It's getting the community to buy in more. I think it's a plus.

It doesn't do anything to the bill in any significant way. And it's true that this does not make districts do this, but my amendment and the following amendment is if a district chooses to do this, I want to make sure that everything— they're doing everything possible to educate the parents about what's coming down the pike, because it's very easy to say, well, just get involved in your your school if you want something different. Well, people are working 2 and 3 jobs. They can't sit and, and be in the classroom all the time. So this would give them an opportunity, be one meeting where they would discuss the curriculum and they would know it was coming.

And then let's say they adopt the curriculum and the parent gets a letter, you know, 2 weeks before it actually starts, then they may know more about what it's about. And like I said, You may have actually more parents on board if they know what it is, if it's culturally sensitive, if it's adjusted from a kindergartner to a, you know, a 10th grader, if it's age-appropriate. Those things are important to communities, and I think parents should have the access to a meeting where it's public, they're talking about it, and then the school district can either adjust it from feedback or just adopt the curriculum. So it's not anything about parental control. It was just more information, more transparency, and more, more buy-in by the community.

Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 2 pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 20 Yeas, 20 nays. By a vote of 20 yeas to 20 nays, the amendment has failed.

Madam Clerk. Amendment number 3 by Representative Colon, beginning page 3, following line 14. Representative Colon. I move amendment 3. There's an objection.

So Amendment 3 is kind of in the same lane as the prior amendment. This would require a school district to provide the instructions on the curriculum that they want to adopt onto their website, the district website. If you don't, I guess if the district doesn't have a website, you don't have to do that. But again, this is, it says at least 14 days before a school district provides the instruction, which is in line with what's in the bill. So I'm a parent, I get 2 weeks to decide, or I get a letter 2 weeks prior before the curriculum is implemented.

Do I opt my kid in or out? This would allow me as a parent to go, let me go look at the website, what is this curriculum? Because we're not going to do a public meeting now, so now we're on the parent— the parent's going to have to try to figure out what the curriculum is, and this amendment just makes the districts provide the information if they adopt it. I know they don't have to adopt mental health curriculum. That's not what the bill does, but if they do, I want as much information and transparency to parents as possible, and so that's what the amendment does.

Representative Fields. Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I oppose this amendment because it's an unfunded mandate. The only reason I'm voting for the underlying bill is doesn't actually make districts do anything. It gives them an option.

I'm categorically opposed to unfunded mandates. Most districts throughout the state have slashed their administrative overhead in response to low education funding, which is necessary. But here we are telling school districts to have their staff post things on a website. And I mean, I realize it's a fairly small unfunded mandate. I don't support any of them.

If we, you know, this is more money into administration, less money into teachers in the classroom. Representative Schwacke.

Wow, Mr. Speaker, that was interesting. Okay, um, why would we fear transparency? There's no reason to fear transparency on this issue.

I think this is an excellent amendment. If we want parents to trust our schools, If we want parents to keep their kids enrolled in our public schools, trust is huge. We have declining enrollment across a lot of our schools because parents don't trust our schools.

This bill is going to make it worse.

This bill is not about general curriculum like math. We're not teaching a different way to to, you know, we're not talking about different way to do fractions or teaching geometry, even though Common Core was absolutely awful. But this is mental health education. Like the representative from Homer said, this is all new. This is something that our parents are going to want to be involved in.

A lot of people want to see mental health education in schools, and I completely understand that. But there are a lot of parents who are scared to death about someone else teaching their children about mental health education. Why not post it on the website? I build websites. It takes 5 minutes to post something new.

This is not an unfunded mandate. Why not post the curriculum on the website? Because if a parent says, Well, I've read through it. I don't really agree with the school teaching my child about this particular mental health curriculum, whatever it is. Maybe they pick up a few tricks, tips.

Maybe it makes them think more about how to talk to their own children about mental health issues.

Maybe we accomplish more more of what we want with this amendment. So I thank the, the maker of the amendment. I do not think we should fear transparency. Adopt the amendment. Representative Galvin.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And again, similar to the last amendment, I want to thank the maker of the amendment. I think that the Representative from South Anchorage has really good ideas about how to ensure that this has more public buy-in. And I encourage districts to do this. I hope that they do, but they're going to do it in their own ways.

I have done a lot of work around family engagement in schools in Stebbins, in St. Michael's, in Kotzebue, in the North Slope. Up in Utqiagvik and then also in Fairbanks. And I'll tell you, each and every one does it differently. Whether they put something on a website, that might be very appropriate for some communities. For others it might be, let's gather around a meal and let's talk about what our children are going to be exposed to and let's learn about the same language that they are learning, etc.

All of those are really good ideas. Again, I am fully supportive of making sure that families understand what's happening with their own precious child in the school environment. They need to know that. But how that's done is really, I think, it's important that we maybe let go of that a little bit on the state level and instead say, listen, you will be reaching out to families, but to say exactly how I think is, again, a little bit in the weeds. I'm not sure that we want to get there.

And I do agree with the member from North Anchorage that we might be getting ourselves into prescribing things that not everyone has the capability or the resources to do. And I just want to again reiterate that this bill, the underlying bill, is about bringing together experts because we know we have a problem with mental health among especially 15 to 24-year-olds. So I hope that folks will appreciate that the greater bill is putting together curriculum and that's it. And the details of that hopefully will be decided by local communities. So I'm a no vote.

Thank you. Representative Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of Amendment 3 once again. I, like, my children are— I call them homeschooled.

One, I want to give a shout out to Alaska. It's one of the reasons we moved here, because we have a tremendous, we have a tremendous education system. And so I say my kids are homeschooled, but technically they're through a charter school, and my wife is the one who is involved, Mr. Speaker, in quarterly meetings with teachers. And so, uh, to the previous speaker's point, there's nothing in here that's prescriptive. If there's a school district that doesn't have a website, I'm not aware that that exists.

It might. But what this is saying is that if there is one, they will publicly post on the district's website the materials and the names of the instructors or speakers.

I don't see this as an unfunded mandate. This is the job. Updates are continually sent from the school that my children attend to us all the time on— I mean, It is, they're continually sent on the instructors that are going to be teaching classes that my children have attended, whether it's robotics, whether it's drones, whether it's math or science. These updates are already sent. So I also think that this is just adding to transparency.

When we talk about something like mental health, this is, it's a different deal. It's what we're debating. They're going to do in their own ways. Direct quote, agreed. Give the districts or the districts.

There's a difference between consultation and public meetings or communication to all the parents. So I just, I think this is a good amendment for transparency that would apply to my own family. And applied to many of the families that are already, you know, I guess that they're already in the education system. It's not saying that it has to do, they have to do anything new. It's just saying that the job that they're already doing on updating, they have to update on new instructors for new material and then giving parents the option to include their children or not based on however they feel.

So I support Amendment 3. Representative Sadler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Again, I'll rise in support of this common-sense amendment. Is this an excessive burden?

Absolutely not. Our public schools are awash, maybe too deep, in technology. ProSchools, Canvas, online homework, online grades, notation of deportment of behavior— everything's digital, everything's online. New curriculum will be in a digital format. It will be an easy thing to make that available.

So the argument this is an unfunded mandate is just not persuasive to me. It should not be to anybody else. If the mental health curriculum was— were to be— if this passes and this curriculum were to be developed, as I'm assured, in close consultation with parents, then they should be proud to make it known to the parents. The whole point of the digital online homework, all this stuff, is to make things available to the public. And if there's new curriculum you're proud of, let it be known.

Tell the world. Put it online. Give the parents 14 days notice. Give them the opportunity to make that decision. Decision.

If the bill, as I'm told, includes an opportunity for opt-out from the parents, then this amendment serves that purpose nobly and effectively. It gives parents advance notice of curriculum, and it recognizes their authority to let their children engage in that curriculum or not. Advance notice online is the way to implement this bill. I cannot for the life of me see how— well, that's computing motives— this amendment serves the purposes of this underlying bill. It makes clear sense to me that if you want the bill to pass, you want it to be known to the public.

And you know, I have to say this, I hear, this is a great idea, that's a great idea. I've heard that on a lot of amendments, and every time one of those great ideas goes down, it gives me more and more suspicion and less and less trust in the underlying intent of this bill and makes it less likely I'm going to support the final thing. So there you are. Representative Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So I think we— I've seen this bill, maybe this is the third round for this one. It looks like it might pass this time. But a lot of things come to mind that were concerns in the past. I don't think it's changed a whole lot. But I don't think that the— I think the intent of the makers of the bill is good.

I think we know, and someone said, we know we have a problem. Well, we know we have a problem. We have a problem with teen suicide. And I think that's the goal of this bill, is to— one of the goals of this bill is to maybe bring some help and provide something for, for some of our kids to maybe find a way out of that. In that way, I would applaud the intent of this legislation.

And for this amendment, Mr. Speaker, it just makes sense that Unfortunately, mental health education, it doesn't specifically say suicide. It says mental health education, and that is such a broad brush. We don't— we have a child that comes home with a broken leg from PE class, we're pretty sure that we know there's a problem and that they probably should fix that. If they come home maybe a little more depressed or picked up some ideas from their mental health education, we don't necessarily have any way of knowing where that came from or what that curriculum is. And so it just makes a lot of sense to be able to publish this.

There's no problem with transparency. And especially I like the part where it talks about having the names of the instructors and the speakers, Mr. Speaker, because if they're a member of the school district, we know those folks have been vetted. We don't know who someone might bring in. Like Representative from North Pole said, this could, it could drift off into almost It could drift off into religion. It could be a religious perspective, and maybe that wouldn't be a problem for some, but maybe that would be a good thing to put out there.

Maybe it would be something that has something that might be more offensive to parents. Nothing wrong with letting parents know what's going on, Mr. Speaker. I know one of the things that when I had teenage children, I thought, was the most important thing was to guard their mind and help them get through their teenage years. Teenage years, we should never forget how difficult that time is for, for people, for all people. I think it's a transition time and there's a lot of physical and mental changes.

And so we need to be very, very careful. We know that especially in the area of suicide, and unfortunately I have personal experience with that, that if you don't do it right, it can actually encourage ideation. So I would say we need to be very careful, Mr. Speaker, and for that reason I think this is just a cautionary and transparent, uh, and common sense thing to do. So for that reason, I will be a yes vote.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to rise in support of Amendment Number 3 as well. You know, as a parent, I have had good experiences and bad experiences with what we would call the notification component and finding information. And I want to applaud for just one minute, the Juneau School District for the notification that they provided just last week. I think they did a very good job of providing exactly what Amendment Number 3 is talking about.

They sent home a piece of paper with information about what was going to be provided in class with a link to the information online and the curriculum that was going to be provided where my wife and I could go on and actually look at that curriculum. I think that's a really great thing. And in other cases, it's been relatively difficult to find. I hear that complaint from parents inherence often. About the amendment specifically, when I look at the underlying bill, I see a request to create a, a large-scale curriculum that could potentially be adopted by districts.

If they do adopt it, I'm, I'm under the impression that that curriculum probably is not going to change a whole lot. And so a district that adopts it could, in theory, place that curriculum on their website and it will just be there for a long time. And they can just send home a flyer like they are required to do in the underlying bill saying go to the link and you can find it there. That seems like a simple solution for a thing that I think could cause some consternation amongst parents if they are not aware of what's happening.

The idea, I think, that this is going to be a thing that has to happen every year year where the curriculum is maybe going to be updated or— I don't see that happening. I see that as being a thing that is set by the underlying bill and then adopted by districts that wish to. And then I think it should be posted in an easily accessible place for the reasons I just described. So I'll be in support of Amendment 3. Thank you.

Representative Vance.

I rise in support of this amendment for all of the reasons stated above, but the member from Tok really laid it out pretty clearly.

There is an incredible break in trust with our public schools. We just— we've been debating this of of how there's been a shift to homeschool. And on the topic of mental health, we need to keep in mind that this is instructing kids on how they think about themselves and how they think about the world.

This is a deeply personal thing to families. If I received a notification that my child was going to receive instruction on mental health typically a one-pager, hey, we're going to do this on this day, I would likely automatically pull them out because I feel that it's my job as a parent to help guide my child on how they see themselves in the world. That is fundamental parenting. However, our district— our representative from Palmer indicated that we're identifying— we have a a problem that our kids need help. They're struggling with depression.

They're struggling with suicide. They— their life has been turned upside down, especially since the COVID years when there was just so much fear in the world and their, their, their school years were completely wrecked. And, and they're having to reevaluate things. In ways that we didn't have to process as kids. We recognize that, but we shouldn't be afraid of being fully transparent because I'm remembering that there's been cases across the nation where schools didn't want to tell the parents what they were teaching.

That doesn't build trust in any way, on, on any level. But when you're talking about mental health, this is fundamentally the, the right of the parent to know exactly what's going on, because this could change everything for that student. Everything. If that student is having issues with mental health, wouldn't we want the parent to be a partner in that learning process? Because most likely if a student is struggling with their mental health, when they receive this instruction, there's going to be a crossroad of decision.

Either they're going to be enlightened and cause a shift towards the good, or it's going to cause a deeper reflection where they're going to need that partnership with their parents and teachers in a deeper way that they failed to recognize before. By having the instructions and the instructors transparent for the parents, that builds trust automatically. That says, we know exactly what your intent is. We know exactly who's teaching it. And maybe we want to be a part of that conversation in a much deeper level.

We shouldn't fear this. We shouldn't make excuses. I've heard a lot of excuses about why we can't adopt this amendment and tell the school districts, you will put this information on your website and notify parents who's going to be instructing your kids about how they think. This isn't just math and geography. Like the member from Tok said, if we truly want this to work, we need to go all the way, all of the means of communication on why this is a good thing.

Otherwise, it's going to, build, uh, it's going to break even more trust, and that's what we don't want in education right now. So I support this amendment.

In wrap-up, Representative Colon. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. So again, thank you for the robust conversation. So this amendment is just trust and transparency. It doesn't change the bill.

I'm not telling people what they should be putting in their curriculum. I'm not telling districts that they have to or not have to provide it. All this is, is when you do that, if you do adopt a mental health curriculum, it needs to go on your website. So me as a parent don't have to go chase down the curriculum. I can just go on the website and decide, do I want my kid in that or not?

That's all it does. Press the green button. Are you ready for the question? The question being, shall Amendment Number 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? 20 Ayes, 20 nays. The vote of 20 ayes to 20 nays, Amendment No. 3 Has failed to pass. Madam Clerk, Amendment number 4 by Representative Colon, beginning page 3, line 1.

Representative Colon. I move amendment 4.

There is an objection. Representative Colon. Yeah, so amendment 4 just puts a little bit of guardrails on these guidelines that the department is developing. So it's just saying that should be medically and scientifically based, and it cannot include political, ideological, or advocacy-oriented content that's unrelated to student mental health. And so this is just making sure that whatever is— whatever comes out of this is not to sway opinions politically or ideologically.

We are just addressing the mental health needs of the child. Representative Galvin. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I, uh, I speak in support of Amendment 4.

I think that this, uh, finds a space where people can feel more comfortable with, uh, the underlying bill, and I think it's a good, a good call. And I thank the member from South Anchorage. I remove my objection if I had one. Representative Stutes had the objection. Representative Stutes.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will in fact remove my objection. Hearing no further objection, Amendment Number 4 is adopted. Madam Clerk. I have no further amendments, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that Senate Bill 41 As amended, be considered engrossed, advanced to 3rd reading, and placed on final passage. There is an objection. This bill will be held to the next day's calendar.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order. At this time I'm rolling Senate Bill 237 pertaining to data sharing to the next day's calendar.

At this time, under Uniform Rule 42A, I'm granting limited powers of free conference for House Bill 263, Operating Budget, and House Bill 265, Mental Health Bill. And I'm doing that a little out of order because I want to make sure that this is— administered before the Operating Budget Conference Committee commences their work later on this afternoon. So Madam Clerk, please read the next item on today's calendar. Committee substitute for House Bill 261, Finance, amended by the House Finance Committee, entitled an Act Relating to Education Funding Providing for an Effective Date by Amending amending the effective date of Sections 10, 11, 13, and 15, Chapter 5, SLA 2025, and providing for an effective date. The bill is in third reading, final passage.

Brief it is.

Will the House please come back to order? Under third reading and final passage, Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read from my notes? Permission granted.

Alaska's education funding process is broken. School communities routinely do not learn their final funding levels for the upcoming school year until late May, after critical staffing and program decisions must be made. This backward budgeting forces districts into guesswork, creates annual instability, contributes to outward migration of teachers and families, and undermines our education system. This timeline forces districts to deliver a notice of possible non-retention, what we call pink slips, causing educators to be left in limbo, unsure whether they have a contract for the following school year. Community, staff, and administration, their time and energy are spent on multiple re-budgeting efforts rather than focusing on student achievement.

This bill fixes a flawed funding process timeline. This matters because education operates in a competitive labor market in the middle of a national teacher shortage. Alaska cannot wait until the rest of the nation has already recruited the best teachers. If we want to compete, if we want to keep our beloved teachers, districts need the ability to offer contracts when teachers are making employment decisions, not months later. Right now we are asking school board members and educators to improve student achievement while giving districts unstable last-minute funding information that sets them up for failure.

House Bill 261 uses multi-year averaging of the student count, a common and responsible budgeting practice being used in 26 other states to smooth volatility in education and improve educational planning and budget predictability. School districts will know and be able to use their prior 3 years' student count average or their previous year's student count number for the school year. This helps avoid expected budget changes in October if the student count enrollment comes in lower than projected. The stability that averaging provides helps districts absorb major resource shifts, allowing them to reset resources levels as they decline, or in some cases increase, plan for their academic offerings, and offer contracts to teacher— teaching staff earlier. This is a critical component of the bill.

It says to teachers, we want you back with our students this fall. You have an income you can count on. We know you must pay for groceries and housing and cannot wait for our budget and last-minute contracts. In addition, this bill ensures a more accurate count of intensive needs special education students, since these students have complex needs and by law we are required to provide the support and interventions they need as outlined in their individual education plan. Alternative schools will be adjusted as their own school, a longtime request of the community and districts.

The Alaska Association of School Administrators, in consultation with Legislative Finance, provided modeling. Results show decreasing costs in fiscal year '28 as all districts in Hold Harmless will finish being grandfathered out since prior 3-year averaging removes the need for Hold Harmless in the future. That is grandfathered out in the bill. Yesterday in the amendment process, this body adopted 2 significant amendments. One is to the limit the amount of required local contribution by municipalities to 2% of the full and true property value The other is to increase funding for the READS Act and career and technical funding by increasing the CTE factor.

In closing, House Bill 261 is a change in policy that helps create stability based on verified student count data, gives Alaska a competitive advantage in recruiting and retaining our beloved teachers, allows school communities to focus more on student achievement than budgeting and increases public confidence in education. House Bill 261 is a true education policy reform, and I respectfully encourage a yes vote. [Speaker] Representative Schwacke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand what this bill is trying to do, and, and I do appreciate the maker of the bill for trying to figure out how to soften enrollment declines by school districts. Um, but I want to address something that keeps getting brought up, and that's this pink slip concept. Why are pink slips given out in the first place in school districts?

The current funding model for districts relies on a projected enrollment year to year. We've been doing this for a really long time. When enrollment's stable, this works just fine. Districts are well aware of the dollars they are going to get each school year. I know because I sat on a school board for 6 years.

We knew exactly how many dollars we were going to get the following year, and we created we created a budget that fell within those parameters. If we ended up having more students, we had a true-up. The current law allows for a true-up when it comes to education funding at the end of the year. If we ended up having less students, if it was a significant enough drop, it fell within the hold harmless provisions. Are established provisions in state law where we have stepped-down funding if you lose enrollment year after year.

Hold harmless works fine.

There's no reason to issue pink slips unless you have overhired or you're using vacant positions to threaten the public and parents.

I have a significant problem when I keep hearing that pink slips are issued. My school districts don't issue pink slips because the school boards plan accordingly with the dollars that they know that they're going to get from projected enrollment and a stable BSA, which is in statute.

My biggest concern with the bill is that we're addressing a symptom of declining enrollment. We're not addressing the root cause of why enrollment is declining. We're trying to slow the decline in funding that is coming to school districts alongside lower enrollment. Why are we trying to put a Band-Aid on a situation when we could be addressing the root cause?

Parents are walking away from our brick-and-mortar public schools because they are not happy with what's happening. They're walking into charter schools. They're overflowing with applications. They're walking into our correspondence programs. They're overflowing with parents interested in taking on that task because they get to control the curriculum opportunities, the educational opportunities for their kids.

We have a lot of reasons why Parents are walking away from school districts. Could more money fix some of those reasons? Sure. We could fully fund the theater programs. We could fully fund the sports programs.

Yeah, we could throw more money at some of those things. But there are other issues that are happening in our schools that we are just not willing to talk about and address with good policy. Think my final concern I'll mention is that I feel like one of the most fundamental problems and flaws with how we're going about trying to revamp the education funding opportunity through this bill is that we're, we're not even addressing the big elephant in the room for, for all of my district rural schools, and that's the increased costs with utilities, fuel costs, energy costs, they're completely consuming the school budget that comes through the BSA.

Every time the fuel bill doubles, Mr. Speaker, you know this well, those dollars have to come from somewhere else within your school district budget. Teachers get cut, but they have to pay their fuel bill. If we really want to help stabilize our school districts, we will address separating the cost of instruction from the cost of heating and providing electricity and paying our water and sewer bills in some of our most difficult rural school districts.

I think we have an education task force that's about ready to finish up their work. They've met multiple times over this last year. I would really like to see what comes out of the ed task force. It was very specifically designed to revamp education funding through statute. I don't think that this bill is right at this time, and it's certainly not addressing some of our biggest concerns with education funding.

So I will not be supporting it today. Representative Vance.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the member from Tok is my hero today because I, I couldn't say it any better than what she has. I share, I feel the very same way, but I want to just highlight some issues that's been happening in my district.

I recognize that in my district, schools having to be closed, consolidated into other schools, and that's no fun for parents. I don't want to diminish that at all. What I'm hoping is that we're able to address the real problem and I think talking about the symptom of decline in enrollment was a very precise and excellent statement. I respect that the work of this is reforming intensive services funding. I support that.

You know, trying to make adjustments on the hold harmless, but I think it is just trying to find We find a way to pad up the funding so that we can give more funding thinking that that's going to solve the problem.

But I have an example in my district in Village of Nikolaevsk for, for years that was an excellent school in a small village. It was the center of the community. They respected the Russian Old Believers. They had implemented their calendar. They had Russian language a part of the school and highly respected that community, and it was really integrated.

Had great basketball program and just very full, a lot of joy. And over the years, depending on the principals and the administration, that eroded, and families began to leave. And they told me some of the issues that they had there, and they would go to the school district and plead for more of the respect and the integration of what the parents were seeking. They didn't have the bus service out there anymore. You know, there were just a variety of things that really eroded the trust.

And the school numbers declined to below 20, and they were really getting close to that. They kept crouching in that next to the 10-student mark.

Families got together and said, "Hey, we want to start a charter school." They went to the district and they asked for help, and they asked for help, and they asked for help. There was just so much pushback because there was contention already around the school. They said, "Hey, if we can make this a charter school that is run by the parents, the people in the community, then I believe that we can fill up the school again. And they didn't believe them. And after a number of years, finally this year, Nikolai was closed.

And last year, the parents who wanted to start the charter school did have a homeschool co-op, but this year they finally were able to get approved as a charter school. Their pre-enrollment includes more than 65,000 students. And this was the same school that the district said, no, there's no more students here in the community, it's gone, we just can't, you know, there isn't a need here anymore. But the parents said, no, we know that there's families who want to participate in public school right here, but we want to do it that is respecting the culture and the way of life that we have here. And they are proving that the numbers exist, the students exist.

And I think that's how we need to look at the changes that are happening across our entire school system. We have this mentality here that if we just give them more money, that everything will be better. A significant aspect of this story of Nikolayevus is that teachers left. Because they didn't feel supported. They went and taught other homeschoolers and actually made more money and were able to have the flexibility that they needed and respect.

I think we're failing to recognize those issues in how we're educating our kids, thinking that if we just, if we just fudge the numbers and if we move money around, that somehow that's going to solve the issue and that we'll, we'll have more, more money that we can keep educating our kids. But the parents are walking their kids out the door to other means of education.

What are we doing about that? I don't feel that this bill, although was incredible work, there's a lot of great elements about this bill. I don't think it's addressing the real problem here that our parents are asking of us. There's no reduction in savings. We— I, I had the amendment to that could save our school district millions of dollars in healthcare, and that was rejected again.

Why aren't we asking how we could save money? Energy costs, healthcare costs, the huge ones that are sucking the, the air out of the room of the school district's funding. And we think if we can adjust a few little things with the ADM that, that magically that's going to to solve our problems. It's not.

This bill, I know it involved a lot of great work. There's a lot more details that I'm missing here, but our parents are asking us to respond to their demands. They're saying, please look at how we think about education, what we're offering our students, and, and make those adjustments. Because we're falling behind. We're fall— we're so far behind what we could be offering as far as education, and we keep trying to pick up the pieces and we can't move quick enough because we're not listening.

So I won't be supporting this bill today because I don't think it's really getting to the heart of the problem, and it's unfortunate that, that we keep failing to do that. So I'm going to be a no vote because I truly care about getting to the heart of educating and supporting our teachers and our parents and our students. But I want to thank the people who put a lot of work into this. I know it's no small thing.

Representative Ruffridge.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I appreciate the discussion thus far, and I think there's a lot of good points brought up about the trends in education and where we're heading as a state. I, I think a little bit differently about HB 261, and I'm going to tell you why I support the passage of the bill today. I appreciate the amendment, uh, amendments that were adopted into the bill. I think it helps the bill move a little bit in a direction that helps our municipalities, and the cost shifting that is going on within school funding.

But I also want to discuss another reason why there's a cost shift. We talk a lot about declining enrollment, but I think we miss one key aspect of that. There's a declining enrollment among one sector of our public school system, but there's an increasing enrollment in the other sector. The thing we discuss a lot in this this topic is that one group of people in that sector of funding, the homeschool community, is funded at a significantly less dollar amount than the people that are attending a brick-and-mortar public school. So in my district, a student can enroll at Soldotna Elementary and go right across the street halfway through the year into the Connections Homeschool Program, and that student is now costing the district an amount of money.

We have a flaw in our foundation formula that has not been addressed. And that's because the foundation formula hasn't been looked at since the large increase in correspondence students have— has occurred. So when I look at the data from the Department of Education, I see that there is actually a very minimal decline in the number of students that we've had. We've averaged somewhere between between 128,000 and 130,000 students for a really long time in the state of Alaska. But what we have seen change is we've seen the average homeschool number hover around 2 or 3% for almost the entirety of the, of the 2000s until about 2012.

You start to see an increase. And now here we are in 2026. There's a huge number of people homeschooling their kids, and I support that choice. I think many of us in this room support that choice. But what we've, what we've failed to address is the disparity in the funding that, that costs the entire system.

And for a whole host of reasons, mostly political, we're never really going to address that issue in this legislative session. But this bill goes a long way, I think, to addressing both two things that are happening. One is the cost shift that is happening from raising the BSA less than you raise property, or less than you raise the property tax assessments. That's problem number one. Problem number two, your average daily membership does not really mean as much as it meant before because that happens first in the formula.

That happens first in the formula and then it goes to the BSA. When you calculate correspondence students, it's actually outside of all of that. It's just how many students do you have 90% of the BSA. That's the place where the problem lies. So to the speaker from Glenallen, she's right.

The foundation formula is not working. This bill doesn't fix the foundation formula, but what it does address is the fact that There is a way that we can address that without going into the foundation formula right now, because that is, for all the political reasons we all know, untenable. We need to do that later. In the meantime, we need to address that there is a disparity that's occurring right now, because those two things are not the same. This bill goes a long way to addressing that, and I appreciate the member from Juneau for bringing forward something that helps to address The fact that we're not exactly having declining enrollment, we're having a shift of where students are attending school in our public school system, and those are funded differently.

So we have to address how we fund those. We should do it in the Foundation Formula. I think you know, Mr. Speaker, that's my position. This bill doesn't do that, but it does go a long way to addressing the fact that we are funding those things differently and we count our ADN differently. So So we should address that by that fix that's in the bill.

Required local contribution is a measure in here that I think we've all talked about, and I won't reiterate that. I think that's very important for a huge number of school districts in the state with massive increases to property taxes over the course of the last 4 years. I appreciate, again, that amendment being adopted, and I think that goes a long way to helping shift the cost away from property tax owners back into the place where I think it was initially intended, which was to be a little bit more to the state and a little less to our municipalities and property taxpayers. Third, I think the amendment that was adopted that allowed there to be a little bit of growth, and that a little bit of growth in our, in our schools will be incentivized by having that count towards the towards their adjusted daily membership is also a win. I felt like the bill before adopting that amendment might have encouraged school districts, you know, to maybe celebrate decline.

I don't know. It just sent the wrong message, I think. So this message is now, listen, if you're growing, you're okay. If we're having a decline and students are attending a homeschool program, We're also going to make sure that that doesn't take a massive hit out of the thing that we're asking you to do right now, which is to educate our kids across all three platforms. And I think we have an obligation to do that well.

I think this bill goes a long way to helping that in the now, and that we have a lot of work to do in the future. Thank you. Representative Bynum. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of HB 261.

I don't think this bill will solve every problem that we have in our education system, Mr. Speaker, but it does do one thing that is very important, is that it provides some level of certainty and level funding to our school districts so that they can make appropriate planning. There were some amendments that were offered in this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that were accepted that I think were very good for the bill. One of those was creating a solution for the current year growth. I appreciate the bill sponsor for letting that amendment come through into the bill and the body for voting for that. Mr. Speaker, with fund balance that is available for our school districts, I think that the prior year component is no longer necessary.

However, it still remains in the bill. That's okay. I think it's a de minimis problem that's in the bill. I think it's something something that we continue to look at. There's some very good things in this bill, Mr. Speaker, which really get me excited about supporting this bill, and that was putting the component in the bill for the required local contribution.

That has been an extremely important issue for my district, Mr. Speaker, so I'm very happy that's in there. We have reading grants in this bill, Mr. Speaker. We have career technical education in this bill, Mr. Speaker. Those are all very good things for our schools. We have more work to do.

We have to deal with how we deal with our SPED intensive students. This bill doesn't address that. It's definitely an issue for our school districts. It's definitely an issue of instability. So I look forward to the continued work on that.

And Mr. Speaker, this bill doesn't really take care of the problem of treating our teachers like ad hoc employees on these year after year, single year contracts. I hope that at some point in the future we'll be able to solve that problem. But overall, Mr. Speaker, this is a good start. Urge the members to support the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representative Prox.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think there's some advantages and disadvantages to adopting this bill. It's— I guess it is a Band-Aid. As previous speakers have mentioned, and there's many other causes to the challenges of funding schools because parents are choosing other options. On the other hand, we do have the immediate problem of the uncertainty that our inability to adopt a budget in a timely manner creates.

We could and should adopt the budget in 90 days. Technically, I suppose we should get all of our business done in 90 days if we wanted to follow the statute. But we should at least do the budget so that it can be transmitted to the Governor. He can veto or not, but we're still around. And we can start out the finalized decision before we adjourn on the 120th day.

We don't do that. We could. We don't. I don't think we will in any time soon. So this bill does give more certainty to the teachers.

They're the ones that really are taking the hits here, bringing— keeping that uncertainty about school funding. And it works out a little different. I appreciate what the member from Glenallen said about this isn't as big a problem in the rural education attendance areas, but it works differently, at least in the Fairbanks North Star Borough. There just is no certainty about funding education. And it can go on and on and on and on, well past October.

Before it dies down. And that makes it more difficult for teachers to focus, if they stay on, to focus on their work, because there's an ongoing debate. And this problem takes a step in the right direction to solve that. It also takes a step in the right direction to solve the local contribution problem. We have a long ways to go.

This might frame somewhat the discussion that still needs to go on in this Education Funding Task Force. I would encourage everybody to focus on the work of the Education Funding Task Force throughout the interim. I know there's going to be campaigns. I hope there's a lot of public debate about that. But I think that this bill does solve some temporary problems until we can get on to some more important decisions.

So therefore, I think I will support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Brief at ease.

Will the House please come back to order under debate on House Bill 261 and third reading, final passage. Representative St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll be brief. I hear people's stomachs run— rumbling.

The main point of contention I have with this piece of legislation is that the fiscal note, $100 million, and when we have competing interests for that money, whether they be state employees, teachers, dividend, etc., we need to be a little more, look at it a little bit deeper and be diligent in the money we pass out. Now, the member from North Pole took my talking point pertaining to this building doing its job quicker when it comes to the budget. If we got the budget out much faster, then this wouldn't happen and we wouldn't need this piece of legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Hannan.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of House Bill 261 and want to remind the body that the goal of it wasn't new. It is an over-a-decade-old recommendation that the timing and sequence of when we count our students, which relates to how we fund our schools, was in a disconnect with the laws governing teacher contracts, the pink slip issue, which is set in statute when you must notify your staff if they're going to be terminated. And since the vast majority, depending on your district, 80 to 90% of your budget is is personnel costs. The idea that you don't know.

So if your fuel costs doubled, your insurance costs doubled, you had a fire in a building, and you have to look to where you can cut, it's personnel. And so that issue of timing has long been a problem for school boards to be able to run a district. So using— A previous year's averaging gives you the predictability for the next year of what your funding level will be. This bill never set out to be purported to rewrite the BSA and funding formula, much more complex. It did not set out to solve all education problems, but it set out to address a specific timing issue of knowing in advance when you are hiring and designing for the following year how much money you would have to spend on your largest cost, the personnel that run a district.

So to address that one issue, House Bill 261 deserves your support.

And wrap up, Representative— Representative Klobuchar. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, just quickly, um, I did speak to the bill sponsor. There's a fiscal note, Fiscal Note 5. It does explain that there are some districts that are not going to gain money.

One of those districts are actually in my district, so I had some concerns about that. I don't think that's enough not to vote for it, but I guess my question is, this is $113 million, where's that money coming from? I think we're pretty much done with the budget process, so I'm just curious on where that $100 million is coming from. Thank you. And wrap up, Representative Story.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that everyone made and that everyone thoroughly thinking about the possibilities of passing House Bill 261 and how it can give more stability to our, our school districts, all of our public school options. And I am very grateful that Alaska has a great public school options choice programs. I think we do a stellar job of that across the country. And I wanted to say that this adjustment, as one, as the member from District 4 said, was based on a report on our school funding review in 2015 by Augenblick, Palish and Associates, that they recommended we switch to a a 3-year averaging process.

And like I've said in the introduction, 26 other states do this averaging and they call it, it's been called in other states, a declining enrollment adjustment. It is true across our country that we are having less children. That is one of the main reasons. And nationally, while other districts have been providing for declining enrollment. I think it's important as we looked at our numbers in the task force this year, we have 80% of our students in our neighborhood schools and we have 20% in our correspondence programs, which has grown from 2012 to now.

I think it's important to note that this was the first year that our correspondence students took a decline. So we are having a decline declining in students. And part of what I feel is so hurting parents' confidence in our system is our broken timeline process, our backwards funding process. We actually are pitting families against each other within our schools about what programs are we going to not have or have. And that's really hurting our student achievement.

I think it is really critical that providing budget stability and allowing for a smoothing of the enrollment numbers, because how we fund education is based on student count, and it's based on whether we increase the BSA or do one-time hold harmless funding. And so this is one thing we can do. Policy is changing how we do the student count process. I have been involved in this for at least 23 years, and it has— it is— it's really painful to see how we have to let teachers get a notice of non-retention only to a month or two say, oh no, we want you back. So I really hope that this body supports this.

I think that when we talk about how we can fund this, we have put some money into our budget, one-time funding dollars, and I believe— and this body made a policy decision— that permanent funding is what is so important to our school districts. One-time funding is really hard because they're going to have to start projecting cuts at the beginning of next year because we know costs are going up anyway. I, I appreciate all the comments and I encourage taking a yes vote to help reform our education funding policy timeline. Thank you.

Will the House please come back to order? Question before the body.

Shall committee substitute for House Bill 261, Finance, amended.

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? 31 Yeas, 9 nays. With a vote of 31 yeas to 9 nays, House Bill 261 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 the roll call vote on the effective date clause. Hearing no objection, the effective date clause has been adopted.

Madam Clerk.

House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 86 Finance by the House 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 Multi-State 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 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, relating to abandoned virtual Currencies, amending Rules 79 and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, and providing for an effective date. The bill is in third reading, final passage. Representative Fields. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Appreciate the opportunity to carry this bill on behalf of the member of the other body from Juneau. We had partner or companion legislation in the House. It went through numerous, numerous hearings. As you heard from the— as the clerk was reading the bill for the third time, there's a lot of detail in this bill. I want to thank in particular the professional staff from the agencies who came in and shared with the legislature.

Hearings on this bill actually have gone over, I think, about 4 years now. So there's been extensive examination. I'm gonna summarize what's in this bill, this legislation, and permission to read. This legislation amends and modernizes the Alaska Uniform Money Services Act, which is a model law drafted by state regulators with— or by state regulators with input from stakeholders. And this act does provide the legal framework for money transmission functions, including currency exchange, transfer or wiring of money, loading and reloading of payment instruments, including stored value cards.

Given the prevalence of virtual currency, it is critical that we update our statutes so that our statutes mirror what is happening in the real world. I would say the number one reason to do that is law enforcement. Our state regulators work in partnership with law enforcement agencies to identify and stop things like money laundering, money laundering as it relates to drug trafficking, and activities like that. As I think many members have become aware this year, Updating our statutes to address virtual currency is essential to protect Alaska consumers. Um, this, um, just— I'm just going to give a brief summary of the consumer protections in this bill.

This, um, this bill requires licensees to comply with federal laws including suspicious activity reporting. It increases record retention for 5 years for greater transparency and compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and ensures that the Division of Banking and Securities can coordinate with other states in all areas of regulation, licensing, and supervision, because virtual currency, to the extent that criminals are attempting to use virtual currency, it's typically a multi-state or international crime ring. So it's important to have that multi-state coordination. This bill defines virtual currency money transmission and allows regulation of those activities, and it updates enforcement, um, provisions by allowing a broader, um, spectrum of orders to be issued. And I just want to give members a very brief picture of what we're seeing in the marketplace.

So in 2019 in Alaska, there were 84,700 virtual money— virtual cryptocurrency transactions. By 2025, there were 5.8 million. So this is an area where we have seen an explosion in use of virtual currency. We simply narrow statutes to keep pace with changing technology. Thank you.

Not seeing any comments or any wrap-up. Are you ready for the question? Question before the body is: Shall House Committee Substitute for Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 86 Finance pass the House? Members may proceed to vote.

The clerk, please lock the roll. Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 40 Ayes, 0 nays. With a vote of 40 ayes, 0 nays, Senate Bill 86 has passed the body.

Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the court rule changes. Hearing no objection, so moved.

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

Majority Leader, I think we've got one more item. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House Concurrent Resolution 17, title change resolution for Senate Bill 86, be taken up as a special order of business.

Hearing no objection, before the body is House Concurrent Resolution number 17. Are you ready for the question? Question being, shall HCR 17 be adopted. Members may proceed to vote.

Will the clerk please lock the roll? Does any member wish to change his or her vote? Will the clerk please announce the vote? 40 Ayes, 0 nays. For the vote of 40 ayes to 0 nays, HCR 17 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 resolution is in third reading, final passage. Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to read as needed. Permission granted. Mr. Speaker, today I am proud to carry this resolution for the State Affairs Committee of the other body. Senate Joint Resolution 30, in its essence, is expressing gratitude for the United States military and supporting increased defense readiness through infrastructure development and public-military partnerships.

A Mr. Speaker, uh, you know, the U.S. military is essential to the protection, the economy, and the culture of Alaska. Alaska is home to the greatest proportion of veterans of any state and the second highest proportion of active duty and reserve corps— reserve troops, uh, per capita. Moreover, the unique geography of Alaska makes a critical to national defense, and the military presence is greatly expanding in Alaska. However, Alaska currently lacks the infrastructure to meet the growing needs of service, placing strain on both military readiness and Alaskan communities. Military-private collaboration opportunities such as enhanced use lease agreements help resolve this issue.

EULs are a mechanism for military installations to lease out underutilized land to private developers. This ensures sufficient housing for both communities and service members. Military installations interested in these opportunities must demonstrate to their chain of command at the Pentagon that the state supports such partnerships. To that end, this resolution expresses support for the U.S. military and pursuing mutually beneficial partnerships to ensure service members have access to required infrastructure. These partnerships strengthen Alaska communities while enhancing military readiness, ensuring a resilient future for both.

I am proud to support our military in Alaska, and I ask for your support in this resolution. Thank you. Representative Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise today in support of this resolution. The only hesitation I have with it is Allison Air Force Base on page 1 is put in front of Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. I just believe that as the representative for JBear, being the largest military installation in the entire state, that should go first. But that's That's besides the point.

I know you were all watching the Joint Armed Services Committee on Friday because it was such an invigorating talk, but if you missed it, we had a nice conversation with members of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard where they talked about infrastructure needs in the state, specifically revolving around housing, port infrastructure, really wanting to expand the military presence out here in Alaska. And I think that is strategically important for the Department of War, for the nation, just because of where we are situated in the Indo-Pacific. Now, I don't want to go into a 4-hour diatribe about near-peer adversaries and the role of Alaska in the next 50 years, but shortly to say it is going to be strategically important that Alaska not only lean into or to accept infrastructure and the military in this state, but lean into it. From the new shipping routes out in western Alaska, the Port of Nome, to new missile fields out at Fort Greely protecting all of the western seaboard, to fishing areas that are being attacked by foreign adversaries. I think Alaska is in a prime opportunity, and I really do think that expressing gratitude for the United States United States military for all they have done from our earliest days, from the ALCAN Highway to really building up the state.

We really do owe a debt of gratitude for the United States military, and I encourage everyone to support this resolution. Thank you. Representative Allard.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to reference my notes if you don't mind. Thank you. So this resolution isn't aspirational. It's responsive.

It's real ongoing expansion. Eielson has already grown by over 100— or over 1,000 airmen. Coast Guard Base Kodiak has more than doubled its personnel. And additionally, KC-135 squadrons, icebreakers, and missile defense systems are planned. Without adequate housing, schools, and utilities to support these families, Alaska risks installation being designated as a hardship post, which would undermine the recruitment, the retention, and the long-term visibility of Eri Base, the anchor Alaska economy and security.

This resolution puts the legislature on record demanding that civilian infrastructure keep pace with our military growth. Mr. Speaker, this resolution we need to support. Let's tell Alaska, all our residents here, let's tell Washington, D.C., we are willing, we are able, and we are a piece of the real estate, and we are the best piece of real estate in the nation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Any wrap-up comments, Representative Tomaszewski?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ultimately, this resolution supports common-sense partnerships between our military and our communities to increase defense readiness through infrastructure buildup and ensure our communities maintain adequate capacity to host our nation's heroes. I proudly ask for your support. Thank you. Are you ready for the question?

The question being, shall Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 30, State of Affairs, 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?

Madam Clerk, please announce the vote. 40 Yeas, 0 nays. The vote of 40 yeas, 0 nays, SJR 30 has passed the body. Madam Clerk. 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. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the following May the following members be excused from the call of the House on the following dates and times.

Representative David Nelson from Tuesday, May 12th at 9:00 PM to Thursday, May 14th at 8:30 AM. Representative Sadler from Thursday, July 23rd at 5:30 PM to Sunday, August 2nd at 7:00 PM. Hearing no objection, the members are excused on the dates and times indicated by the Majority Leader. Minority Leader Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to serve notice of reconsideration on my vote for HB 261 and SB 86. This brings us to committee announcements. Any committee announcements?

Once again, any committee announcements? Not seeing any takers. Are there any other announcements? Representative Story. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A really fun event tonight at the local high school downtown here, Juneau Douglas High School, Yáda Akalay. They have the band concert at 6 PM, and tomorrow night is the choir concert at 7. So great opportunity to go hear some great music, see students singing and playing their hearts out. And relax. Thank you.

This brings us to special orders. Are there any special orders? Representative McCabe. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On, uh, thanks for an Alaskan industry.

Representative McCabe. Mr. Speaker, back in, uh, well, let's back up a little bit. When I first came down here, I was told never to get involved with the fish wars, and of course the first committee I got assigned was the Fisheries Committee. So go figure. Over the years, I've, uh, done research for many bills in the Fish Committee and for many bills that came through us and for presentations.

And one of the things I discovered was our U.S. Trade Representative did not list the economic impact of fishing in Alaska. And then this year in February, I was looking through there and I found that they had included somewhere in in the, in the dropdown links, there was verbiage in there for Alabama construction in Alabama. So I wrote a letter, and I wrote a letter to the U.S. Trade Representative, and I said, what the heck, over, um, why is this like this? Why aren't you including, uh, Alaska fisheries? And today I got a letter back.

So I would just like to, uh, read a little bit, if you wouldn't mind, Mr. Speaker. Commissioner McGrath. So it's a— it's not a long letter, but it is, it's It's extensive and it says— but I'd just like to read one clause in it. This year I'm happy to report that we have added a new section to highlight states like Alaska that have significant seafood exports. The trade data clearly show that Alaska's seafood industry is a critical component of the state's economy and international trade profile.

So I'd just like to say thanks to the U.S. Trade Representative for hearing us and for listening to us. Too often we write letters or we make phone calls and, and nothing happens. And in this case, the U.S. Trade Representative was very responsive, and our Alaska fishing industry has that much better representation in our federal database. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Vance, on the topic of ignored letters Representative Atchison.

I'd like to talk about the Board of Fisheries, Mr. Speaker. I tend to stay out of the Board of Fish decisions because the legislature created the Board of Fish. We gave them the authority to make allocative decisions, and I have respected that. When I write letters to the Board of Fish, it's about public process, and I feel that they have ignored that process. And today I wrote yet another letter.

About a month or so ago I wrote a letter complaining that they had gone out of cycle, and yet they did it again. So I wrote a letter opposing the replacement of set gillnets with beach seines in the Kenai River King Salmon Stock of Concern plan. Last week the board took an unusual move and they had a meeting online. They gave 5 days' notice to the public that this was going to be an online meeting. They did not allow public testimony.

They did accept written testimony. And overwhelmingly the fishermen opposed this change.

I spoke to the Commissioner of Fish and Game and he said that, he answered the question and said that if you replace set gill nets with beach seines during this low king salmon, then I can't have it as a, continue to have it as a test fishery. And they ignored him. They ignored the science-based information given by the department. On this decision. What this decision does is that— is it disenfranchises hundreds of my Alaskan fishermen in the Cook Inlet.

It was another out-of-cycle decision that they didn't listen to the science, they didn't listen to the department, and they made it anyway. They're making political decisions, in my opinion. And frankly, I'm tired of it. This week we will be confirming Board of Fish members, and I want them to know that I watch their votes. I interview them and I ask them one question: What's your views on Cook Inlet?

And I have a position of do no harm when it comes to the fishery because I represent every type of fisherman in my district, but I take it very seriously when they come before the legislature and they tell us that they're going to make science-based decisions, they're going to listen to the advisement of the biologists of the department, they're going to follow the Constitution. But I have seen them do otherwise. They take our concern as representatives of the, of the people of Alaska and they put it in the garbage. They have been run amok and I'm fed up with it. Fed up.

Because they have taken this historical fishery of Alaskans that have been fishing those beaches for more than 100 years and disregarded them.

And I think they need accountability.

So I'm committed to doing that work, working with whoever I can to develop good policy that provides boundaries to the Board of Fish. It may not be today, but I, I'm going to be working on this issue because our fishermen, the heart and soul of our coastal communities, deserve better. Everyone deserves a Board of Fish that's going to listen to the science and make sound decisions based upon facts, and I don't think that they've done that. They've disregarded the public process and disregarded the science. So I want to make it very clear that as we make this decision on the Board of Fish Appointments, I hope that you keep that into consideration.

They can come here and say all kinds of grand things, but I want you to look at the character and who's pushing them to be appointed to these seats and hope and pray that they make the best decisions for our fishery moving forward.

Representative Stapp.

Well, thank you, Mr. Speaker. On the topic of repeating the comments made during the entire floor debate for the day, word for word. Representative Stapp. I'm just kidding, Mr.

Speaker. 9 More days. Thank you.

Representative Schwanke.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought we're going to be here a while. Um, on the topic of—. Thank you, Representative Schwanke. Uh, I want to say thank you to our representative from District 3.

She may not have any more bills come to the floor because she's leaving the body after this year, but I want to say thank you. So I've gotten to know her, um, over these last 2 years, and I just want to express my gratitude for her commitment to public education, her passion for public education, and her love for her children. I don't think I've met another person that has been so dedicated to this topic and has put her heart and soul into what she has brought to the Education Committee over the years and to this body. So while we might make decisions on this floor that differ based on what our constituents need and what we bring to the floor from our backgrounds, I just want to say thank you to our representative for— from Juneau for bringing some very heartfelt, very in-depth, passionate pleas for public education in the state of Alaska.

I do believe she has a fisheries bill coming up shortly. Representative Sattler. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Request permission to speak on the topic of birthday boy one day late. Representative Sattler.

Permission to rhyme?

There's a colleague who's sitting in front of me an advocate for a full PFD. In finance, he's amazing, but I hear that he's aging. He's young, but not young as he used to be. As a state legislator from Fairbanks, he spends winters in Juneau and says, "Phew, thanks." He's conservative, true, has a generous heart too, and we're all glad he's here in our ranks. He's a family man, and it's plain to see.

At home, he enjoys peace, and harmony. When the birch sap starts running, he'll be going and coming. If he's tired, it's clear he's got a right to be. So it's my pleasure to call your attention to our colleague whose name I'll soon mention. He's from the Interior.

There's no one superior. Happy birthday to Frank Tomaszewski.

Representative Tomaszewski.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you all for that.

You know, I believe I have been blessed more than any one man should be. And I'd like to say a little rhyme of my own. Why, oh, why wasn't I born in July?

Well, here's to hoping you don't get to ask that question in July. Mr. Majority Leader. Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House—.

Mr. Majority Leader, I have to retract my invitation to adjourn. Representative Story, the floor is yours. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Permission to speak on decisions.

Representative Story. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say I have not made any firm decisions on whether I'm going to run again or not, but I appreciate the comments from the member from the interior. Thank you.

We have had an interesting floor session.

Mr. Majority Leader.

Mr. Speaker, I move and ask unanimous consent that the House stand adjourned until Wednesday, May 13th, at 10:30 AM. There being no objection, the House will stand adjourned until Wednesday, May 13th, at 10:30 AM.