HJUD-260501-1300

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

I would like to recognize the staff supporting this meeting: Sophia Tenney from House Records, Kyla Tupou from the Juneau LIO, and my committee aide Dylan Hitchcock Lopez. We have two items of business on today's agenda: SJR 2, Constitutional Amendment, Votes Needed for Veto Override by Senator Clayman, and HB 299, Veterans Sentencing Program Clinical Procedure by Representative Stapp. Our first item is SJR 2, Constitutional Amendment, Votes Needed for Veto Override, for its second hearing in our committee. At this time, I would like to invite the sponsor, Senator Clayman, and his staff, Carly Dennis, to the witness table. I would note for the record that an amendment deadline of Wednesday, April 29th, 2026 at 5:00 PM was set at the last hearing and our office received no amendments.

Senator Clayman, do you have any additional comments on the resolution at this time? Mr. Chair and members of the committee, I have no further comments. Thank you for hearing the bill today. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Senator Clayman. We will now take up public testimony. Public testimony on SGR 2 is now open. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify? Please come forward, put yourself on the record, and begin your testimony.

Seeing no one, is there anyone online? We do. Mike Coons in Wasilla, if you'll take yourself off mute, place yourself on the record, and begin your testimony.

Yes, sir. My name is Mike Coons from Wasilla, and I'm speaking for myself. I oppose SJR 2. I find it funny that the Democrat socialists scream that our republic is unfair when the votes don't come. Mr. Coons, we've lost you.

You hear me? Yes, we can hear you now. Do you hear me? Yes, sir, I can hear you now. Okay, so my name is Mike Coons from Wasilla.

I'm speaking for myself. I oppose SCR 2. I find it funny that Democrat socialists scream that our republic is unfair when the votes don't come. Republic is unfair when votes don't go their way, yet are totally happy when their version of democracy helps them to harm and degrade our state and nation. What SJR 2 does is erodes our republic by reducing the number of votes to override the veto by 5 votes.

The veto override, as in the Constitution today, understands the importance of the executive in being the oversight of the legislature from writing bills that harms our state. The legislature has had the opportunity to put forward, bring in witnesses, and to hear from the people on the bill. And then during that process, to ensure it meets the Constitution, and then to vote with a simple majority. The executive has only the ability to review the bill, consult with the HEE staff, and to hear from the people that this bill should be signed into law or veto. Thus the bar is raised, and thus if the executive decides to veto, than to override that veto, our founding fathers raised that vote from a simple majority to a supermajority.

That has stood since our statehood. The veto override has worked this session with this— with the education bill. Sadly, there were not enough minority members to support the excessive spending. In the case of SB 64, will that happen again? Not sure.

Will the governor veto defined benefits? I hope so, and have called on him to do so. Will that stand because not enough of the majority will support the veto by voting yes? Again, don't know. Can the majority make the case to get 45 votes to override either of these bills?

I hope not. If that is the case, then our republic and Constitution has worked as envisioned. The bottom line is to override a veto, it takes hard work and excellent persuasion. To pull off. What this resolution does is to lower that standard and, yes, strip away the power of the executive, then place it before the voters to accept or not versus doing the hard work.

Thank you for your time. Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no further, um, people online or in the judiciary room to testify, public testimony on SJR 2 is now closed. I will note for the record that we were joined by Representative Underwood at 1:03 PM. Are there any questions or comments from committee for the sponsor?

Seeing none, uh, any final comments from you, Senator Clement? Nope. Um, can I have a motion? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, at this time I move that Senate Joint Resolution 2 Work Order 34-LS0175/A be reported out of the House Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, I note for the record that we were joined by Representative Mena at 1:05 PM. Senate Joint Resolution 2, Work Order 34-LS0175/A is reported out of the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. I authorize Legislative Legal to make any necessary technical and conforming changes.

We will take a brief at ease to sign the paperwork. At ease.

Back on the record. Our next item of business is to bring HB 299, Veterans Sentencing Program Criminal Procedure, up for its first hearing in our committee. At this time, I would like to invite the sponsor, Representative Stapp, and his staff, Bernard Ayoto, to the witness table. Please put yourself on the record and begin your testimony.

Thank you, uh, Chair Gray. For the record, my name is Will Stepp, representative for House District 32. Happy to be at the quote witness table today. My staff, for the record, Bernard Auto, staff to Representative Stepp.

And with the permission of the chair, I'd just like to give a kind of a bird's-eye overview of the bill and then kick it over to Mr. Oyoto for the sectional analysis. Permission granted. Yep. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

To the Chair and committee, well, the big picture of HB 299, the Veterans Justice Act, is to help kind of codify in law things that the state of Alaska already does and put some guardrails and guidelines around it. So the overarching goal is to help veterans avoid involvement in the criminal justice system by directing them to the existing therapeutic court that exists. It's called the Veterans Court. There's one in Fairbanks, one in Anchorage. And basically around 200,000 active duty— there's around 200,000 active duty service members leave the Army or the military about every year.

And many of these veterans struggle with the mental health issues that might stem from substance abuse based off their service record. And these Factors often lead to initial kind of misdemeanor criminal behavior that develops into more serious criminal behavior. And around a third of these veterans report at least one significant interaction with the criminal justice system after they leave their service, right? And currently there's about 181,000 veterans that are currently incarcerated in the United States. And 41% of those folks have challenges with drug or alcohol abuse, right?

So basically, the way the Veterans Justice Act works is it takes the therapeutic court systems that the veterans can already go to, and it tries to codify an actual process for a low-level misdemeanor charge, right? So the way veterans court currently works is the prosecutor or the attorney, or the prosecutor or the DA in the example, has effectively total veto power over the entry of the participant, right? So there is no guideline that says, hey, you know, you get to go into the treatment therapeutic court if you meet these certain conditions or these certain guidelines. Right now the individual can apply, but the application entry is solely based on whether or not the DA allows them to attend the court or not. And that'll certainly come up in the hearing, it will before when we talk with court system.

And basically what I wanted to achieve in the bill was just to put some sort of rubric in state statute that said, hey, like, for the very de minimis crimes, and we're talking misdemeanors only, not actual felonies or anything like that, like, if you're a veteran and you get— you meet the criteria of the already established veteran court, then you should have the option to go to the veterans court if you want to. You should not have a way that someone can veto your ability to do it. To attain the court. That's kind of the nucleus of the bill, and I'll move it over to Mr. Aoto for the sectional analysis. Thank you.

Um, thank you, Representative Stapp. Again, for the record, Bernard Aoto, staff to Representative Stapp, and through the chair to the committee, I will now go over the sectional analysis, Mr. Chairman.

So under HB 299, work order 34-LS1386/A, under Section 1, it adds a new section under Alaska Statute 12.26 425, which is the arrests and citations statute, and directs an arresting officer to determine if an individual in custody has veteran status as defined in AS 47.55.900. Section 2 adds a new subsection to the bail release procedure statute, and that states that a judicial officer upon first appearance shall inform the defendant that is identified as a veteran of the veteran sentencing program that it exists and that they are eligible for it. Section 3 amends AS 12.55.015, which is the authorized sentencing and forfeiture statutes, to allow the court when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense, allows them an opportunity to set aside the conviction or reduce any misdemeanor charge under the Veteran Sentencing Program. Section 4 adds a new section under the sentencing and probation statutes to establish the Veteran Sentencing Program under AS 12.55.057 and essentially the way The way this works is that an individual participating in the program will plead guilty to the offense and agree to participate in a program by which they complete— once upon completion, their charge is either reduced, set aside, or otherwise expunged from their record so that it does not follow them upon completion. Section 5 adds a new paragraph to AS 12.55.155, which is the factors in aggravation and mitigation, specifically in mitigators, to allow a court to factor in an individual's veteran status and combat record as a mitigator in criminal sentencing.

And Section 6 amends AS 44.19.645, which is the power and duties of the Alaska Criminal Justice Data Analysis Commission, to include tracking the efficacy of the veteran sentencing program to ensure that participants are evaluated to see how they're doing after participating in this program. To ensure there's no recidivism or reentering into the criminal justice system. Section 7 adds an indirect court rule amendment to the Alaska Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 35 and Rule 43, to account for the Veteran Sentencing Program. And due to this, under Section 8, it adds a conditional effect based on that indirect court rule amendment, which would require a two-thirds majority vote from each house. Section 9 sets the effective date at July 1, 2027.

And then that concludes the section analysis. I want to assist, Mr. Chairman. We also have on— online and available for questions Brock Hunter from the Veterans Defense Project who can answer some questions on the model legislation that this is based off of. Thank you. At this time, we'll just move to invited testimony, and we'll have Brock Hunter take himself off mute, place himself on the record, and begin his testimony.

Chair Gray, can you hear me? We can hear you. Okay, for some reason my camera is not coming on, but I'll go ahead and start without it. Um, Chair Gray and members of the committee, my name is Brock Hunter. I am co-founder of the Veterans Defense Project, a national nonpartisan policy and education organization dedicated to restoring veterans in the criminal justice system to the communities they served.

I'm also a veteran and an attorney focusing my practice for the last 27 years on defending veterans in the criminal justice system. I have served as president of the Minnesota Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and as a board member of All Rise, the nation's leading organization of therapeutic courts. Since then, I've been recruited— or I should also say, the Veterans Defense Project led an effort to successfully pass legislation like HB 2299 in Minnesota in 2021. And since then, we've been recruited as advisors to the Veterans Justice Commission, a project on the Council on Criminal Justice chaired by former U.S. Secretary Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel, where we helped to develop a model legislation, the Veterans Justice Act, that is embodied in House Bill 299. We are grateful to Representative Stafford for introducing this bill, uh, and it's— and we also grateful to Senator Tobin for introducing its companion SB 236 in the Alaska Senate.

This bill builds upon existing veterans treatment courts to efficiently and economically expand access to therapeutic interventions for veterans who face criminal justice charges all across the state of Alaska, recognizing their service and sacrifice, reducing recidivism, and protecting public safety while also creating cost savings for the state. Today, I'd like to briefly address 3 key issues related to this bill. First, the factors that make this modern generation of veterans a unique challenge in our criminal justice system and in reintegrating them back into their communities. Second, how this legislation builds upon Alaska's current system of veterans courts. And finally, our experience in Minnesota where policies have been enacted and already delivering positive outcomes.

Addressing the first of these three issues, the unique challenges of this modern generation, I would start by noting that most veterans return home from their military service stronger and wiser from their experience and are immediate assets to their communities. Some though, particularly those who have served in combat, have returned home with invisible injuries such as post-traumatic stress and traumatic brain injury that untreated can manifest in self-destructive, reckless, and violent behaviors that reverberate through society, destroying not only the lives of these heroes, but victimizing their families and the communities that they fought to protect. In this way, large numbers of veterans in past generations have fallen into and often been left behind in the criminal justice system them upon their return home. Over the past 20 years, our military have fought the longest wars in our country's history in Iraq and Afghanistan simultaneously, making this generation the most heavily deployed in our country's history. Many have served unprecedented numbers of combat deployments, translating into higher rates of post-traumatic stress and higher rates of criminal justice involvement.

It's also important to note that this generation is also the most lethal in our history, with sophisticated modern combat training often honed over the course of multiple deployments, they pose a unique public safety risk if their trauma goes untreated and they're not properly reintegrated back into their communities. These dynamics have combined to create a public health and public safety crisis across the United States. And the work of the Commission has recognized that the best and most directive way to respond to this crisis is in the criminal justice system where we have a unique opportunity and leverage to ensure our troubled veterans receive the intervention they need to address their invisible injuries and join the rest of our veterans as assets to their communities.

Next, in addressing the existing intervention models in Alaska and nationwide, I would note that the rise and growth of veterans treatment courts have been a welcome response to the challenges of reintegrating this most heavily deployed generation of veterans. However, they are too few in number, intervening with only a small fraction of the veterans coming into our justice system. System. And while Alaska leads the nation with the highest proportion of veterans per capita, it has only 2 veterans courts in Fairbanks and Anchorage. And while they're doing great work, most jurisdictions in Alaska lack any tool for a therapeutic intervention with veterans who often live outside of these larger urban areas.

Establishing formal veterans courts in every jurisdiction is not realistic or financially feasible, but House Bill 299 provides a tool for judges in every corner of Alaska to to set up a therapeutic intervention sentence for individual veterans who appear before them. In jurisdictions that already have a Veterans Treatment Court, this bill would provide the courts with an additional therapeutic intervention tool for lower-level offenses, allowing the veterans courts to focus on higher-risk, higher-need veteran offenders. And this bill is intended to utilize existing resources within the court system and to more efficiently tap federal resources available through the VA. In fact, the Veterans Justice Act could save Alaska money as it has in Minnesota, where the Veterans Defense Project helped pass our bill in 2021. Minnesota's legislative fiscal notes identified a cost savings of around $1 million a year, primarily through saved jail and prison beds and reduced trials and other litigation in the system.

Our bill passed unanimously through the Minnesota legislature with the key support of stakeholder groups, including the prosecutors and victims advocates. Advocates groups. And early information coming back from the implementation of our statute shows that it's been effective. This past year, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines found that the act had been used in 115 veteran cases, and of those, 91 had successfully completed their program and earned the dismissal of their charges. We thank you for the intervention— or for the opportunity to testify today on House Bill 299, and I'm happy to field any questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions from— Representative Mina. Uh, thank you, Chair Gray. Through the chair to Mr. Hunter, thank you for your testimony. I just have a quick question.

When you talked about the Minnesota cost savings of $1 million per year, how is that calculated? And I'm just trying to figure out how the population of Minnesota and their veterans populations would compare to Alaska's.

Certainly, Chair Gray, Representative. The Minnesota Legislature did a detailed fiscal note analysis of our bill as it was making its way through the legislature and received reports back from all of the various stakeholder agencies, including the courts, corrections, and others, and to derive that million-dollar estimated savings per year. Again, the primary savings came through reduced prison and jail beds, but also anticipated streamlining of criminal proceedings, fewer trials, fewer contested hearings, because there is this available diversion opportunity. And so that's, again, it was more complicated than that, but that was the high notes. Thank you.

I'm going to follow up on Representative Mena's question. So, uh, Mr. Hunter, We have a fiscal note from Department of Law. I'm going to read from it. It says, because this is a new and undefined sentencing structure, the division expects significant litigation regarding whether a defendant qualifies for the program, whether the defendant has successfully completed a treatment program, and which party bears the burden of proof on eligibility and compliance. These disputes are likely to generate hearings, motion practice, and appeals beyond those associated with typical misdemeanor sentencing.

Would you agree that in states where we've done this, that it's resulted in lots of litigation and lots more time for the departments of law in those states?

Chair Gray, I would not agree with that. In fact, in Minnesota, I'm not aware of any significant litigation around this issue.

There have been questions about the application of the standards of our statute in individual cases. Our statute allows for a contested hearing, if necessary, before the judge to determine whether the veteran meets the criteria under the statute, and those do occur, um, but they are relatively simple proceedings compared to a trial, uh, and other types of contested evidentiary hearings. And to my knowledge, no case has gone up on appeal related to the application of the statute. Thank you. And another question for you about the bill and other states.

How does this bill compare structurally to those enacted in other states?

This bill— well, I should also, I should add, Minnesota is the only state where this bill has passed and been implemented. A version of this bill was passed in 2024 in Nebraska and and it is still in the implementation phase there. So there is no actual numbers yet coming out of Nebraska. This bill in Alaska, there are two versions of it. The House version is limited to misdemeanors only, and I believe the Senate version also includes some felony matters as well, lower-level felonies.

In Minnesota, it does include misdemeanors and mid- to low-level felonies. And so it is a little bit broader in application in Minnesota than the current house language version would be in Alaska. Thank you. One more question, and that is about allowing people to enter the program over the objection of prosecution. Can you talk about, is that, is it only in Minnesota that folks can enter veterans court over the objection of prosecution?

Yes, Chair Gray, that is one of the important aspects of this legislation, and I believe Minnesota is the only current state in which this, this particular dynamic is now in play. What this basically does is it provides a due process, uh, process for a veteran to pursue if they believe that they should be eligible under the statute. The judge is the decision maker. The prosecutor has the opportunity to object The veteran has the burden of proof to show by, in Minnesota, clear and convincing evidence that they meet the criteria under the statute, but it creates a process for an objective analysis of the veteran's service, how it impacted them, and what role it may have played in their offense, and the prosecution has a voice in that process, but the judge is the ultimate decider. Thank you.

One more follow-up on that. I just assume that that prosecutors in Minnesota objected to this legislation and this particular provision of it. Can you speak to any of that?

Certainly, Mr. Chair. In fact, key prosecutors in Minnesota, 3 elected county attorneys, participated actually in the drafting of this legislation, and the County Attorneys Association itself ultimately supported this bill's passage. Thank you. Any other questions for our invited testimony?

Representative Vance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think he may have answered the question that I have. It's on Section 4, under B, and it talks about veterans eligible for participation if there's indicators of mental or physical symptoms of a condition from military service. Did you say that the veteran has to provide proof that the condition is from their service, or what— is there a medical assessment?

How is there— how can that be proved— proven in order to qualify for this program?

Chair Gray and Representative, yes, the burden is on the veteran if they are coming forward and seeking eligibility under the statute to bring forth evidence, and that can include VA or other medical records. Medical records, military records, and in fact, they have a requirement to share those records both with the court and with the prosecutor and to come in and establish that they have a diagnosis of a condition. And we have a range of conditions including post-traumatic stress, traumatic brain injury, military sexual trauma, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders, et cetera, that they have to establish that they have and that they relate to their service. So, it is their burden to bring forward documentation of that fact. Follow-up?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What if this process of him getting arrested, finding out there's a veterans program, what if this is the process of discovery for that particular veteran that they may not have realized that the condition that they were in was part of their military service? I have a high population of— of older veterans in, on the Kenai Peninsula, and many of them probably don't want to directly relate their experience to their capacity of service. In fact, a lot of them avoid the VA because of the feeling of neglect and things like that. So what do you say to the veterans who, who may not be saying, hey, I, you know, my actions today were a result of my service before, but if they did this program, this could help them get the treatment that they're needing.

Chair Gray and Representative, that is an excellent question, and it gets right to the heart of how we best intervene with these veterans. You're right, very often veterans don't, have not yet been identified as having a service-related condition at the time of their first arrest. In fact, we often say the first time we identify a troubled veteran in need of help is in the back of a squad car or at a county jail. Our goal here is to initiate a conversation as the veteran is entering the criminal court process. If they appear to have served and been impacted by their service, the idea is to steer them into needed care and evaluations for any underlying conditions during the time their case is pending.

The conversation you described is often a sensitive one, and it's one to be had between the attorney and the client, um, indicating that this is perhaps an opportunity to get some help that maybe they are long overdue in getting. They ultimately will have to decide that they want to pursue this, and it is up to the veteran. This is not going to be forced upon them, but it is an alternative pathway available to them if they're willing to get assessed and evaluated and willing to get the help that is recommended from those evaluations, it provides a pathway that for them to avoid some of the, the more punitive aspects of the criminal court proceedings that they face. Thank you for that. Another question, Mr. Chairman?

I have a separate question around funding. We know that there are different federally funded services available to veterans. While we need to give pass a bill to give statutory authority within our own system, are there federal dollars to help support this work? Because it is specifically for veterans, is there anything available under their programs that could help supplement some of the costs that would be incurred through our legal services?

Chair Gray and Representative, yes, absolutely. There's— is actually a surprising amount of federal dollars available to support Veterans Treatment Courts and veterans therapeutic interventions. And in fact, there are dollars left on the table every year in Washington because states do not apply for or receive all of the available federal funding. Additionally, the VA across the country has resources in the form of what's called the Veterans Justice Outreach Program, special social workers within the system whose job is to serve as outreach and, and communication liaisons between the local VA system and the local criminal courts. And a lot of courts just are not aware of this and not aware that there are people within the VA system that can be tapped at no cost to the Alaska court system to more efficiently access these federal VA resources for individual veterans.

And part of this legislation and intended to open up those lines of communications and make sure that Alaska and its court system are fully taking advantage of all the federal resources that are available. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I think this is our opportunity to challenge the fiscal notes that have been presented and ask them to pursue these other federal dollars that could really assist. Thank you. I will say for the record that we do have Angie Kemp from the Department of Law online and available for questions.

I'm going to allow us to continue asking questions for the invited testimony, and then we can move to Ms. Kemp. Representative Costello. Thank you. My question has to do with Section 4B as in Bravo, page 3. I think—.

So I was— I had the opportunity to tour the therapeutic courts, and I understand this is very similar to that. And the therapeutic courts, if it has to do with your the level of the crime, and then you are able to self-select once you understand what the requirements are to be a part of the therapeutic courts. My question is, why don't we just allow any veteran to choose to be in this program? Why do we have Section 4(b)? It seems to me that would be a difficult thing to tie.

And if, if your crime has to do with substance abuse and your substance abuse has to do with you being your life experiences, how then are you to determine that and who's best to determine it? Why don't we just allow this to be a veterans program where they are— they then can learn about it and then decide that they want to do it? Thank you. I'm going to go to Mr. Iota for that. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Through the chair to Representative Costello, the primary reason for, um, uh, Section B or Section 4B is ensuring that if it's a military service-related injury that unlocks assistance from the federal government through the VA, where— for financial assistance in assisting with that military service-related injury.

I'm going to add something, and then you can correct me if I'm wrong, but if this bill passes, Veterans Court will be different than our other therapeutic courts, and that if you qualify for Veterans Courts, you can go to Veterans Court courts, currently therapeutic courts, like we currently have veterans courts, there's prosecutorial discretion, meaning that they do not have to be offered it if the prosecutor doesn't want them to be offered for any reason.

And, uh, and then for the record, Bernard Oda, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for clarifying that, that yes, this also, um, is the eligibility requirement for how a veteran enters a program and setting the rules in which the court reviews an individual's eligibility into the program, assessing arguments from both the prosecution and the defense on whether this veteran is eligible for the program or not, as compared to what currently happens in veterans court where it's more outside of a formal process and it's kind of a discussion between the prosecution, the court system, the defense.

So does the, does the participant have to go to a VA hospital in order to make this condition a part of, you know, why they're in, in the criminal justice system, or can it be any physician or any, you know, any other opportunity for them to have that connection made? For the record, Bernard Odo through the chair to Representative Costello, as the bill is worded right now, it is It is on the burden, as Mr. Hunter said on the record, it is the burden of proof is on the veteran or on the defense to prove that they're eligible for this program. So if that is through the VA or through a physician's note, that is on them to prove and for the court to decide upon that. One follow-up. And since I'm aware that these hearings actually are looked, people look back on them to understand the intent of the legislature, is it possible for the veteran to simply have their attorney make that case for them in court and they don't necessarily need, you know, a formal diagnosis?

Through the chair to Representative Costello, the way that the bill is set up is each side, the prosecution and the defense, will have an opportunity to make an argument before the court, and upon that back and forth, the court court will make a decision on whether someone is eligible. So however the prosecution or the defense decides to present that argument is up to them. Thank you. I'm just going to offer for the record, as someone who worked at the Alaska VA for 5 years and as a service-connected veteran who gets all of his care from the Alaska VA, that most veterans your care at the Alaska VA is free. So if there's a burden to establish care at the VA, well, it's pressuring somebody to get the benefits that they already qualify for.

So I, I guess I'm just throwing that out there because it sounds like from some of the questions that there's like a burden to go to the VA. But, um, I think it, it, it might be in their best interest to go to the VA and establish care. And so I think— I don't think it's a heavy burden, and I think most veterans in Alaska do get their care through the VA. Would the sponsor agree? Through the chair to the rest of the committee, yes. Representative Vance.

Just a point of information. It is not— getting a VA appointment is not easily accessible for everyone in the state. People. And I don't know why we don't have better care on the peninsula, because the Kenai Peninsula, I think, has some of the largest, the highest veteran population. And the experience that I hear from my veterans is that it is, it is such a burden just to get an appointment.

And they do have kind of a satellite availability down on the South Peninsula Hospital but they, a lot of them just avoid that care because it is, it is so, they feel like they have to wrestle with getting an appointment and then the care that they need. And, or they have to travel up to Anchorage, which is, you know, at least a 4-hour drive. So I do want to highlight that, that there, there is a burden across the state for the people who live outside of Anchorage and Fairbanks. And I don't— I think it's a valid question that Representative Costello asked. Can another physician be able to, you know, answer these questions, you know, prescribe that condition?

I'm at a loss of the proper words right now, but, you know, the burden of proof seems broad, which I like, but I just want to be able to give the best tools to help in their time of distress to be able to get into this program. Thank you for that, Representative Vance. I will say, as a medical provider who worked at the Keene IVA, I never worked at the satellite clinic in Homer, but I made many phone calls to the satellite clinic in Homer. I'm just gonna make a general statement that, that there are lots of folks who will complain about the amount of time that it takes to get an appointment appointment with the VA. And from my perspective, as somebody who's worked in the non-VA medical world and the VA medical world, the wait to get a VA appointment is often less than the wait that you would have if you weren't a veteran and you were trying to see somebody in the private community. Like, so I think that there's sometimes veterans have unrealistic expectation of how fast an appointment should happen.

And I, from my perspective, as somebody working within it, there was availability, and we did try to get in people in quickly. So I, I have no doubt that you've heard from some angry veterans who believe that it takes way too long to get an appointment. From my perspective, most veterans in Alaska get seen in, in a faster manner than they would get if they were getting seen in the community. And, and I will just say that the, the Alaska VA does refer out to the community. I'm quite sure that if you were seen by a physician in the community whom the VA referred you to, that doctor's note is going to be uploaded into the VA system, and it would count as if it was seen at the VA. Like, so, I mean, I could be wrong.

Maybe Mr. Wills, Mr. Hunter, or, uh, or the sponsor would like to comment on that. But I, I'm fairly certain that if you're— if the VA is paying for your care, that medical provider's note would count.

Through the chair to Chair Gray, I'm happy to answer that. Yes, Mr. Hunter. Hi, Chair Gray, you have a far better understanding of the Alaska VA system than I do, but I would note there's nothing in Minnesota's bill that limits the diagnosis of these applicable conditions to just the VA doing it, and I don't believe there is in this current version of Bill 299. Um, in Minnesota, any licensed medical provider, VA or not, can make the diagnosis of the applicable condition, and that evidence can come into court. Thank you.

I'll just note for the record that there's a difference between being diagnosed with a service-connected disability and being diagnosed with a substance use disorder, I, I'm assuming. Like, so I think And I think to just be clear, these diagnosis coming from whomever they're seeing is different than when you're going through the process of qualifying for VA care. That is a completely different process. This is much more regulated and only specific people can do it.

Mr. Chair, that is correct. Uh, we're talking about two different things. We're not talking about getting service-connected disability, just simply a diagnosis of a condition.

Thank you. Any other questions for our invited testifier?

At this time, I think let's go ahead and ask our questions of Ms. Kemp. So, um, Angie Kemp, Deputy Attorney General of the Criminal Division, Department of Law, if you can take yourself off mute and put yourself on the record, I think we have a couple of questions that we'll address to you as well.

Hi, thank you, Chair Gray. This is, again, for the record, Angie Kemp, Deputy Attorney General with the Department of Law's Criminal Division. I'm happy to take any questions that folks have. Thank you. So, Ms. Kemp, I'll just start.

I had read part of the fiscal note from the Department of Law out loud about the expecting significant litigation And I'm curious if you, you know, based on Mr. Hunter's testimony that Minnesota did not see a lot of litigation when they passed this bill, if you can speak a little bit to why— I'm assuming it would be litigation to stop the veteran from going into a veterans court. Can you speak a little bit about that?

Sure, sure, great. Obviously, anytime we assess a fiscal impact of a bill, it's as the bill is drafted to this point. And I certainly respect that Representative Staab is perhaps early in the phases of working through this legislation and has reached out to us to solicit our feedback. So we appreciate that. So let me give you a couple examples.

So there was testimony that there wasn't significant litigation in Minnesota. Minnesota. When you look at the statute that was enacted ultimately in Minnesota, for example, one of the standards that was set out, as I think Mr. Hunter described, is that clear and convincing evidence is the standard that the veteran has to prove in order to establish that they're eligible for a program. That language, though, is not found in the current draft of the bill in front of you. So that's one example where where we would expect litigation about who bears the burden of proof that's not been articulated.

And I'll just again say, with respect to its representative staff, again, I think that we're working through a very new system, and so there may be issues that will be addressed. Another example would be, for instance, in Section 4, subsection A, describes that any eligible veteran who is found guilty of, or pleads guilty to an offense. What this does naturally is create an opportunity for a veteran who both intends to resist and not plead guilty, for example, and instead take their case to trial. As folks in the committee probably appreciate, part of the ongoing dialogue between the prosecution and the defense pre-trial is built in a structure incentives is plea agreements. This doesn't provide for any of that incentive.

In other words, a veteran could insist that their case goes to trial, put the victim through that trial, and then also request the benefit of the program. So there's actually, at least as drafted, creates somewhat of a disincentive to plead guilty in advance of trial. I would expect we would see litigation surrounding that. Another section that I know we've sent some feedback over to your office Chair Gray, is also with respect to Section 4 that describes a system that is not, that presently doesn't exist in Alaska. For example, the use of the term expungement.

It also provides that the court may dismiss or amend charges. Those are traditionally executive branch functions, and so one of the things that we highlighted for you was a separation of powers issue that seems fairly well established in Alask— under Alaska law. We provided some citations to you on cases that describe the issue, and we believe that there is significant separation of powers issue that courts would be expected to address. Yet another thing that I would anticipate significant litigation surrounding. And we did give some citations.

I'm happy to give some more citations of other cases in Alaska in particular that have addressed similar questions. But I'll use an example. In one of the cases that, one of the more recent cases addressing an issue, it was the flip, and I'll give you the factual circumstance. The prosecution and defense reached an agreement that the charges could be amended to a misdemeanor offense. They took the proposed agreement before the district court, The district court judge attempted to reject the agreement, suggesting and saying that a higher charge was more appropriate, and she refused to accept it on the basis of that.

The court, the Alaska court, rejected that and described it as a violation of separation of powers, that that judge did not have the authority to, for example, dictate how the charges were to be amended. This particular piece of legislation has— creates that issue. It creates it in two discrete ways: the right to dismiss, which is not something that exists in current law anywhere, at least not with respect to solely the power of the judiciary. And then secondarily to that, it creates the right of the court to amend. Those are both historically prosecution functions.

So that would be another area where I would describe that there would be significant litigation surrounding surrounding this particular bill. There are certainly others, and I think what would be— maybe what the committee should consider is— well, I'll leave it at that. I'm certainly happy to answer other questions if there are any. Thank you. I'm going to follow up with your first two points.

So, if we were to add language that said clear and convincing evidence of eligibility would that eliminate some of the litigation about who qualifies if we were to require clear and convincing evidence of eligibility? Is that the language you wanted? Chair— yes, thank you, Chair Gray. Anytime— short answer is yes. Anytime that the legislature can provide clarity on who bears the burden and in what scenario, that will will reduce litigation.

When there's the absence of that clarity, you can bet that we'll have motion practice and litigation surrounding it. And then your second point about if they are found guilty or pleads guilty, and the way the language currently is, you believe that it would encourage people to go to trial. And of course, we want to encourage them to plead guilty, but it's— you just have to explain it to me. I'm not a lawyer. I don't work in the system.

Don't 99% of our cases end in plea agreements anyway? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] Thank you, Chair Gray. That's a great question, and I'll do the best I can to maybe break it down a little bit. The reason I think, at least one of the primary reasons, that most cases, and to your point, I think it's 98, 99% roughly, end in a plea agreement is because there is that inherent negotiation that exists between the parties. So you have one side asking for sometimes a reduction of the offense, and then the other side making concessions.

So when that structure is in place, it works to serve that purpose and avoid an onslaught of trials. But when you take away that incentive, And you create an incentive or potential avenue where a veteran could say, "I'm both going to resist pleading guilty and acknowledging the thing that I've done and force my victim to take the stand and force the state to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, and then also, as currently drafted, avail myself of the ability to go into the veterans program." I certainly would expect expect to see litigation around that and, and potentially an increase in volume of trials as a result. Thank you for that. I'm going to follow up, and then I believe I'll need to refer my second follow-up to, uh, Ms. Nancy Mead, who is present today. So, um, my follow-up to that is that I— my fear is like, if they're not guilty, then I feel like there's a pressure to plead guilty in order to avail themselves of, I don't know, I just feel like that there could be, you know, some wiggle room there to say, well, we don't, if you take this to trial, you'll never qualify for veterans court, even though they maybe could based on their medical condition.

But I don't know that if we're already at 98 to 99%, that we need to put even more pressure to go to more pleas. Would there not be, Is there any pressure to plea even if you're innocent?

Through the chair, Chair Gray, excuse me, Chair Gray, that's a great philosophical question, one that I frankly don't know whether I can answer with precision. And it certainly is a quid, there's a back and forth in litigation strategies and people make tough decisions about whether there is, whether it's worth taking the case to trial or resolving their case. So philosophically, I don't know. Practically, I do think that in this scenario, you would likely end up with cases where defendants who are, who take their case to trial and are adjudicated as guilty by a jury of their peers, and then can still avail themselves of this program program. So the things that start to become, from a practical standpoint, concerning include the impact to victims' rights and the impact to our victims, and of course, then, the impact to resources as well.

So I'm not sure if I'm able to directly answer your question, sir. I'm sorry about that. [Speaker:ROBERT_PETERSON] Thank you. I will—. Mr. Iyoda, and while that's happening, I'll have Ms. Nancy Mead come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, Bernard Aoto and Miss Mead could further expand upon this answer as well. My understanding on the way that the current veterans court operates in both Anchorage and Fairbanks is that a defendant in those programs does plead guilty to the offense they're charged with. From that, two sorts of judgments are entered, one in which the participant complies with the program and one in which they do not. If they do not comply with the program, then a judgment is entered where they are found— they are— a sentence is imposed, jail time may be inferred, and other things, other consequences may be inferred.

And then if they do complete the program, the other judgment is entered where something is dismissed or reduced. And I would move over to Miss Mead to expand upon that. Miss Mead. For the record, Nancy Mead, General Counsel for the Alaska Court System. I'm not certain of the exact question pending, but I would agree with Mr. Iyoto that generally for the therapeutic courts, people enter a plea agreement with two kind of optional outcomes.

They either succeed and do everything right and, and get one conviction, or things don't go their way and instead they get a different conviction. So it has alternatives in the plea agreement, I guess I'd say. My question for Ms. Mead is related to what I'm inferring from Ms. Kemp's answers, that this veterans court option is a powerful incentive like people would want it, people would want to take advantage of it. But in the past, when we've had testimony from you about therapeutic courts, and I've asked why we have spots for 250 but only 200 enrolled, it's because therapeutic courts are very rigorous. They require a lot of work, and many people opt to go to prison instead of take advantage of our therapeutic courts.

And so, if I'm getting that correct, and, um, that that's why we're not able to fill all of our spots, as one reason is that people just choose not to do it. So I feel like there's a little bit of a disconnect by saying we must amend this so that we don't incentivize people going to trial. We want to keep incentivizing plea agreements. But at the same time, I'm not sure that it's an incentive to give somebody access to something that we've heard is really rigorous and that people will opt out of not doing doing it. Uh, to the chair, uh, to the chair, uh, Representative Gray, uh, I, I do believe that it's true a lot of people do not want to participate in a therapeutic court, and I believe that this bill, uh, since it would only apply, apply to people who have pled guilty to a misdemeanor, uh, there will be a good number of veterans who do not want to go through this program.

For example, a misdemeanor DUI, even your second time, is 20 days in jail. If this bill describes our therapeutic courts, our veterans courts, our veterans courts take 18 months. There are a lot of people that do not want to enter a court that instead of just doing 20 days in jail. I guess I would add that this program as described in the bill is really not akin to the veterans therapeutic courts that we currently have, and in some ways I think it will bill be less helpful to veterans than the therapeutic court system that we already have in place. Thank you, Ms. Mead.

Can you explain how— what this— the type of veterans court that this bill creates is less helpful? Uh, to the chair, this, this program— well, let's look at what was discussed before by, I believe it was Representative Vance. The subsection B, which as far as I can tell is the only thing in the law that says who is or is not eligible. It looks like you're eligible if you have that certain condition from military service. That's not required now.

For someone to get into a veterans court now, they just need to be a veteran who got into trouble with the law. There is no requirement that they say anything about service-related injuries or conditions. So there's no screening in that regard for current therapeutic courts. How it works now is we do use the services of the Veterans Justice Outreach Coordinator, as described by the professional. We also, by the way, get a lot of federal grants for for veterans courts.

We are not leaving money on the table. A VJO from the VA looks at every name of every person arraigned and compares that to their master list of veterans, and they identify every veteran who comes into contact with the justice system. That name goes to a coordinator, and everyone decides whether that person is an appropriate candidate for the court. There's no— there are no other conditions here, but for our courts, we have eligibility criteria, and some are clinical medical. There are some conditions that cannot be handled in the VA treatment.

Some are based on their charges, current charges. Some charges just aren't amenable for a therapeutic court, uh, and there are some eligibility factors relating to their criminal history. People that maybe don't belong in a therapeutic court based on what their criminal history is. So our courts are quite different from this. Thank you.

Um, so through the chair to the sponsor, would you be amenable to us removing the service-connected condition part and make it just so that if you're a qualified veteran, you can qualify for Veterans Court? Through to the chair, for the record, Bernard Aoto, staff to Representative Stapp. I believe the sponsor is amenable to the committee process and is willing to work with all stakeholders involved, including the court system and the Department of Law, to ensure that this legislation is the best possible for veterans. And my follow-up to you about what you said just a moment ago about the way the system currently works, where if somebody enrolls in the therapeutic court system but doesn't complete the program, then they would be— they would have the penalties that they would have had if they'd just been found guilty and there was no therapeutic court involved. Does the current bill change that?

Through the chair to— or to the chair, for the record, Bernard Odo, from our understanding, it kind of aligns with that sort of thing where it— someone who enters into this program, who completes the program, has those 3 options available where charges can be reduced or otherwise dismissed. I do also want to emphasize part of the reason for Section 4(b) was in an attempt to sort of address the issue with prosecutorial discretion when it comes to the current therapeutic courts. The reason why the eligibility sections are in there is for to give the court guidance on how to determine whether an individual is eligible or not, which currently doesn't exist as far as the current processes or the current procedures. Thank you. What I'm going to ask is, if for some reason the current bill changes the way we currently do it in terms of you must finish the therapeutic court system or you will get the penalties, it would be fine if we we made it so that were so if the bill changed that.

To the chair, for the record, Bernard Odo, uh, the sponsor, is amenable to any change. Thank you. Representative Underwood. Thank you, Chair Gray. I just have a really basic question.

How many veterans courts do we have and where are they located at? Through the chair to Representative Underwood, we currently have— we have one in Anchorage. It has 30 people. It has a capacity— it has 32 people today with a capacity of 30, so it's over capacity. And we have one in Fairbanks that's only been there for about 4 years.

It has a capacity of 15 and it currently has 6. The capacity is based upon the fact that all of the treatment is provided by the VA. And those are the only places in the state that the VA does treatment. So that's why they're in those two locations, and that's why we've been prevented, stymied, from expanding therapeutic courts other places because the VA can't handle it.

Representative Vance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Mead, for being available. Uh, can you kind of give us a comparison of what the current program is now for, um, at once they finish this, the, the program, uh, Based upon— in this bill on page 4, it says following the successful completion of the veteran sentencing program, the court may— and then it has 1, 2, 3. It's on page 4, F, 1, 2, and 3.

The terms here are not conventional to Alaska statute. And what is the current practice on reducing these convictions that are available to veterans now, and what's the language that you would recommend for us to be compliant with, with current state law?

Through the chair to Representative Vance, currently for a person to— at the outset of entering a therapeutic court, a plea agreement is entered. Each one is somewhat individualized. Of course, there are some standard provisions, but the prosecutor, the DA, and the team— the team is about 8 people for a therapeutic court— meets about this individual and comes to an agreement about what they have to do for the next 18 months while they're in the program. And then successful completion is usually graduation from a therapeutic court. That is, they've done all the treatment for those 18 months and have kept their job, their housing, and finished up all the treatment that is recommended by the treatment providers.

So there is literally a graduation where they come in and there is cheering and there's cake. And that happens regularly for the therapeutic courts. At the end of that, Usually, or often, the plea agreement will say, upon graduation, we will maybe dismiss the charges, or I guess if everyone at the outset agrees, a felony could be reduced to a misdemeanor. In other words, that's part of a plea bargain. This bill has reducing a misdemeanor charge.

There's really no— not much lower to go to, so I don't know about that. And as you are aware, we don't do expungement. There could be dismissal. There cannot be dismissal of DUI cases. Statutorily, that is not permitted.

Um, but for drug cases, there is sometimes a dismissal at the end, and it just depends on what is negotiated among the parties at the beginning. The factors that might go into that is the person's criminal history, uh, the victim's on the issue, the type of crime charged, you know, if it's arson or if it's a felony assault, maybe not. Maybe that might— everyone agrees could be reduced to a misdemeanor assault, but it's very fact-dependent and it's very individualized, and that's why these courts need flexibility as opposed to codification. Thank you.

I have a a, a question for the sponsor. Um, an unfortunate stat about veterans is that almost half of them, and this is based on stats from 2025, have been involved in some sort of intimate partner violence. There have been some concerns raised about domestic people perpetrating domestic violence and somehow escaping consequences, but if I'm reading it correctly, um, on page 2 line 5, it says, "May," and then if I go over to page 3, line 2, "order the defendant to have no contact either directly or indirectly with the victim or witness of the offense until the defendant is unconditionally discharged." Would this mean that there would be, like, you could do a no-contact order between a veteran who's convicted of domestic violence and their the victim. Um, to the chair, for the record, Bernard Otto. That is correct, Mr.

Chair. And then when it comes to this bill, it, um, only, um, is, uh, relevant for misdemeanors. Um, as in regards to domestic violence assault 4, is a mis— I believe a Class A misdemeanor, which would, um, could be the result of domestic violence. Yes. Thank you.

My follow-up about the misdemeanor issue is that it's my understanding that most in Misdemeanors don't usually get probation. That might be incorrect, but on line 30, it says that the veteran's probation officer— so maybe that's a question to ask. How often do people convicted of misdemeanors get probation officers?

To the chair, never. Misdemeanants are put on probation. It's what we call in the system unsupervised probation, and so there are no probation officers for misdemeanors. Misdemeanance.

Thank you. So through the chair to the sponsor, the reference to a probation officer on line 30 would—.

I do have a clarification. So, so, so one of the concerns I have with this bill is sort of, I, I don't know that it was written by somebody who knows what we currently have. So no, we don't have misdemeanor probation a probation officer, and this bill only applies to misdemeanors. By the way, our current veterans courts have over half felons, so this would, I guess, disqualify that going forward. And, and that's what I mean about it not jiving with the current system.

But, but be that as it may, because our therapeutic courts, including veterans court, have felons in them, a probation officer is assigned to therapeutic therapeutic court participants. So they, they do deal with misdemeanors in therapeutic court because felons are in therapeutic court, and they, they handle the whole group. So, uh, so I just wanted to clarify that, I guess. Thank you. I guess I think I know what the answer is, but through the chair to the sponsor, are you open to adding felons in that are currently, uh, that currently qualify for veterans courts.

For the record, Bernardo, to the chair, um, this— the sponsor would be amenable to that. The, um, and just to, um, to put on the record, this bill is a companion bill with, uh, Senator Tobin and the other body, who, um, their version of the bill, um, uh, expands it to Class C felonies and such. Thank Thank you.

Representative Mena. Thank you, Chair Gary. Through the chair to, um, Miss Mead, just going back to the court systems fiscal note, I know there's a phrase in there about wanting more clarification in committee about the scope of the program. Um, could I just ask for you to just expand on that? Cool.

Through the chair to Representative Mena, I have concerns about how, um, what is expected under this bill. I don't know if it is intended to describe the current therapeutic courts and merely codify it. If so, it would need some substantial revisions. If it's not supposed to do that, but it— but be a new type of court that provides therapy, but is not along the therapeutic court model that we follow, that would be something something else. For example, for therapeutic courts, people who enter these programs— and again, limited by the amount of treatment available, which is a huge limiting factor— are supervised by a team of 8 people or 9 people for 18 months.

Weekly meetings. It's very intensive. And that's what makes the people succeed. There are social workers, probation officers, all the lawyers, There is no capacity to expand that. It isn't a matter of money.

And so if that's what you want, it is somewhat infeasible because there isn't the treatment available in— beyond what is already offered. But maybe what is envisioned by this, because if you look at page 3, line 23, the veteran sentencing program may consist of probation. I mean, I'm reading the Ds, 1, 2, 3. I think they're ors. Maybe the judge can do what he or she wants and sentence the veteran to probation, or maybe they can say, "Go find treatment." I don't know if weekly meetings are contemplated by this.

Again, the reason we don't have statutes that codify how therapeutic courts work is because there's flexibility. People start with weekly meetings. When the judge and team determines the person is succeeding and doing well, maybe they'll go down to biweekly meetings. So it's social work. It's reacting to how the person in the veteran court is doing, and there's a lot of flexibility.

So codifying that is difficult. This, though, doesn't codify that. Maybe this is like therapeutic courts lite, I don't know. But if the court can just sentence people to probation and go get treatment, um, you know, maybe kind of like a suspended entry of judgment or an SIS or something, well, I guess we would not have much fiscal impact from that. But if we are having weekly hearings or something, uh, we would have much more.

So I, I need to get clarity on exactly what is contemplated. Follow-up, and then I'll just direct that to the bill sponsor's staff. Could you help us better understand what the goal of the bill is?

Through the chair to Representative Mina, for the record Bernard Aoto, staff to Representative Stapp. The understanding from the sponsor was one, to codify the way that the Therapeutic Courts operate in the state of Alaska while addressing two 2 primary issues that were identified to us via constituents in district. One is the sort of barriers to entry that some veterans face, whether it regards to incentives on entering the program or the prosecutorial discretion on entering the program and the availability of therapeutic court services throughout other areas of the Thank you. And I guess I'll just do one final follow-up, and this would be to Mr. Hunter online.

I don't know how much you, you know about Alaska's therapeutic court system, but after the discussion that we've just had, do you find any similarities with Minnesota's program, or are there significant differences or other aspects that have not been addressed in this committee discussion?

Through the Chair, Representative Mena, it's a great question and I thank you for asking me.

Just, I think, stepping back and to give a little bit of highlight as to how we arrived at this bill in Minnesota. As a practitioner over the last 25 years working in the criminal courts across Minnesota with veterans we helped set up the veterans courts in Minnesota in larger jurisdictions, and they were up and running and working great. But we were also working with a lot of veterans in jurisdictions in more rural areas of Minnesota where veterans courts didn't and probably never would exist. And as a practitioner, what I often found myself doing is working with the prosecutor and the judge to identify our client as somebody in need of a therapeutic intervention, and then crafting essentially a veterans court-like sentence in which the judge sentenced that veteran to probation with getting recommended treatment through the VA or elsewhere, holding them accountable if they're not holding up their end of the bargain, but giving them a significant incentive to cooperate with needed treatment. The judge would scale the level of the intervention to the needs of that individual veteran in their case.

So it wasn't follow pulling something that mandated 18 months of intensive supervision if the veteran didn't necessarily need that level of intervention. And that's one of the issues we found in jurisdictions that have veterans treatment courts is often the interventions are so intensive that many veterans opt out of them and aren't really in need of interventions that intensive. And so I would just say the goal of this bill in Minnesota and the model bill that, that upon which 299 is based is to to, in jurisdictions that have an existing Veterans Treatment Court, provide a less intensive alternative for offenders that are not as high risk, is not as high need, and may not need all of the intensive supervision of a Veterans Treatment Court. So we could still offer them an intervention opportunity that's scaled more to their needs. And in jurisdictions that don't have a Veterans Treatment Court, give individual judges a set of tools tools to set up a One Veteran Veterans Treatment Court and to scale the level of the intervention to the needs of that veteran.

There also is a safety valve in the bill that says that if the judge determines that a veteran's needs cannot be met with existing local resources, the judge can opt not to, to use this tool.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, we will now move to public testimony. Public testimony on HB 289 is now open.

Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify?

Seeing no one in the room, we'll move online. We'll go to Mike Kuhn. Koons in Wasilla. If you'll take yourself off of mute, place yourself on the record, and begin your testimony.

Yes, uh, Mr. Chair, are you hearing me better than the previous testimony? Yes, sir, we can hear you. Oh, okay, good. Okay, my name is Mike Koons from Wasilla, and I'm speaking for myself.

I support HB 299. I think it was last week President Trump signed an executive order on the use of psychedelics to treat traumatic brain injury, TBI, PTSD, as well as other ailments. Since TBI and PTSD have such profound impact on our events with homelessness, drug abuse, thus causing adverse interaction with law enforcement, this has great potential to reduce these issues. The findings that were related at the signing ceremony were staggering and quantitative as to positive outcomes. This may well have a large impact on our veterans related to this bill.

As stated in the bill summary, existing therapeutic courts and veteran treatment courts have many issues that either block getting the help needed and/or ineffective due to high-risk, high-need models, as well as undesirable locations, strict eligibility criteria, and insufficient incentives. In reviewing the Bill, page 1, line 13, it says, quote, the person's counsel may provide the person's— end quote. That may need to— that should— that may needs to be changed to shall. On page 3, section 4, lines 19 to 22, referencing in—. In—.

In— ineligibility for Veterans Sentencing Program, I understand the reasoning. However, I don't see means for that vet to show by treatment that they can now meet the requirements. I'm an Air Force retired Tech Sergeant, 1971 to '91 vet. I was not a combat-related career field. Yet, since my retirement, our troops have had an increased tempo unlike any previous times in our history.

Multiple deployments against some of the worst enemies and means of death and dismemberment in our history that have created what we see today. Add to that previous federal administrations that tossed those vets on a pile to fend for themselves. Only now do we have a president, Department of War, and VA that has your backs. HB 299 adds to that support. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Seeing no further testimony online or in the room, testimony on HB 299 is now closed. We will now set HB 299 aside and bring it up at a later date. We will take a brief at ease.

Trouble. We are back on the record. Given the committee has— we will bring up House Bill 367, Consumer Data Privacy Act, for the sole purpose of adopting a committee substitute as our working document so that an amendment deadline can be set. At the last hearing of HB 367, we had an extensive discussion on the committee substitute, but we did not adopt it. For the sake of good order, I would like to adopt the CS so that further revisions can be made.

Do we have a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that the committee substitute for House Bill 367, Work Order 34-LS1485/G, be adopted as the committee's working document. I object. Uh, would you like to speak to your objection?

No, Mr. Chairman. Okay, would the clerk please call the roll?

Representative Underwood, pass. Representative Kopp, yes. Representative Eichide, yes. Representative Mena, yes. Representative Vance, no.

Representative Costello, no. Representative Underwood, no. Chair Gray, yes. Are 4 yeas and 3 nays. With a vote of 4 yeas and 3 nays, the committee substitute for HB 367, work order 34-LS1485G, has been adopted as our committee's working document.

I would now like to set an amendment deadline on HB 367 for Thursday, May 7th, 2026, at 5 PM. Please work with my committee aide to ensure that your amendments are submitted on time. We will now set House Bill 367 aside and bring it back up at a later date. That concludes today's business before the committee. Before we adjourn, I want to remind the committee that on Monday, May 4th, 2026, we will be holding a confirmation hearing for the Attorney General Designee Stephen Cox.

The time is now 2:23 PM, and this hearing of House Judiciary Committee is adjourned.