Legislature(2023 - 2024)ADAMS 519
02/06/2024 10:00 AM House FINANCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB126 | |
| HB155 | |
| SB22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 126 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 155 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 6, 2024
10:02 a.m.
10:02:42 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Foster called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 10:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative DeLena Johnson, Co-Chair
Representative Julie Coulombe
Representative Mike Cronk
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Dan Ortiz
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bryce Edgmon, Co-Chair
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Stanley Wright, Sponsor; Rachael Gunn,
Staff, Representative Stanley Wright; Honour Miller-Austin,
Staff, Representative Will Stapp; Senator Elvi Gray-
Jackson, Sponsor; Besse Odom, Staff, Senator Elvi Gray-
Jackson.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Rachel Buddin-Young, Member, Alaska State Board for
Licensed Professional Counselors, Eagle River; Bryce Ward,
Mayor, Fairbanks North Star Borough, Fairbanks; Keith
Klaehn, Chairman, Defense Mission Taskforce, Colorado
Springs; Tammie Perreault, Regional Liaison, United States
Department Of Defense, Joint Base Lewis-McChord,
Washington; Celeste Groden, President and CEO, Alaska Black
Caucus, Anchorage; Edward Wesley, Self, Anchorage; Michael
Patterson, Self, Anchorage; Emily Kloc, Self, Anchorage;
Brenda Tyler, Self, Anchorage.
SUMMARY
HB 126 ASSOCIATE AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS
HB 126 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 155 ESTABLISH AK MILITARY AFFAIRS COMMISSION
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
SB 22 PROCLAIM JUNETEENTH DAY A HOLIDAY
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 126
"An Act relating to the Board of Professional
Counselors; and relating to licensing of associate
counselors."
10:04:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, SPONSOR, introduced HB 126
and appreciated the committee for hearing the bill. He
explained that every year, the University of Alaska (UA)
behavioral health programs graduated a high number of
qualified and knowledgeable students ready to begin careers
in the behavioral health field. The current system lacked
the structure and clarity necessary for individuals to make
a smooth transition from post-graduate student to fully
licensed professional counselor. The obstacles not only
delayed the entry of qualified professionals into the
workforce, but also perpetuated a long-standing waitlist of
Alaskans in dire need of mental health services. By
introducing the role of Associate Counselor, the bill would
create a clear and structured pathway for graduates to
enter the field, receive the necessary supervision, and
progress towards becoming fully licensed. The tiered
approach proposed in the bill would align the state with
the national standards and would demonstrate that the
state's professionals were well-trained as well as
ethically bound and effective in the practice of
counseling. He asked his staff to provide her comments.
10:06:51 AM
RACHAEL GUNN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE STANLEY WRIGHT, relayed
that the legislation was crafted with a dual focus: to
enrich the full licensure of post-graduate counseling
interns who were already serving Alaskans, and to elevate
the support system for interns during the training phase.
There was currently limited guidance and support available
to students who had finished their education in behavioral
health but had not yet completed all necessary requirements
to become fully licensed professional counselors.
Ms. Gunn relayed that HB 126 would introduce the Associate
Counselor program which would be developed by the Board of
Professional Counselors in addition to criteria for
supervisor certification. By establishing clear and
streamlined pathways from completion of the graduate
program in the mental health field to full licensure, the
bill would remove unnecessary barriers that often delayed
the professional development of aspiring counselors. The
bill would uphold the training and supervision requirements
already in place and ensure that every professional
entering the field was well-prepared and qualified. The
bill would also address access to health care, which was
one of the most pressing issues in the health care field.
She added that HB 126 would bring the state in line with
over 65 percent of states that had already adopted a tiered
system for licensure. The alignment would standardize the
approach to mental health care as well as enforce the
state's commitment to adopting best practices that had been
recognized and implemented across the country.
Representative Josephson asked whether the bill defined the
term "Associate Counselor." He asked if it was under the
board's purview to define the term.
Ms. Gunn deferred the question to an invited testifier
representing the board.
10:09:31 AM
RACHEL BUDDIN-YOUNG, MEMBER, ALASKA STATE BOARD FOR
LICENSED PROFESSIONAL COUNSELORS, EAGLE RIVER (via
teleconference), asked for the question to be repeated.
Representative Josephson repeated his question.
Ms. Buddin-Young responded that there would be pre-
requisites in order to apply to become an associate
counselor. The definition would be in regulation if it was
not in statute and would apply to individuals who were
considered "pre-independent licensed."
Representative Josephson noted the bill called for the
repealing of the supervisory certification statute. He
asked what the reason was for the repeal.
Ms. Buddin-Young responded that currently, there was no
requirement for continuing education or reapplication after
an individual received a supervisory license. The board
would prefer the license to be renewable instead of a "one-
and-done" license in order to be in line with the rest of
the nation. During the preliminary discussions around the
legislation, a recommendation was made to the board that
the requirement be moved to regulation rather than statute.
Co-Chair Foster suggested that Ms. Buddin-Young provide her
invited testimony.
10:11:54 AM
Ms. Buddin-Young stated that the bill would provide
necessary assistance and support for new mental health
counselors. Currently, post-graduate counselors were in a
"no man's land" because there was a lack of structure and
support following graduation. All of the responsibilities
fell on the supervisors of the new counselors. The bill
would provide more support to the supervisor, including
support from the board and a more streamlined process. As a
result, individuals would receive faster mental health care
because intern counselors would have more support during
the process of becoming licensed. The bill would also
increase quality of care because the board would provide
more support and guidance to prospective counselors.
Representative Hannan asked Ms. Buddin-Young what the
academic preparations were for intern counselors. She asked
for more information on the timeline and training
requirements before an individual could become fully
licensed.
Ms. Buddin-Young responded that the requirement for
licensure would not change. The requirements for full
licensure included obtaining a master's degree in a field
related to counseling, passing a national certification
exam, and completing 3,000 hours of work experience under a
qualified supervisor. An individual could not apply for
full licensure before all of the requirements were met. The
associate license proposed by the bill would provide post-
graduate intern counselors assistance and governance during
the required 3,000 hours of work experience. There was
presently no support for counselors in training. The bill
would add to the current requirements and allow for more
structure and guidance.
Representative Hannan asked how long it typically took for
an individual to accumulate the required 3,000 hours.
Ms. Buddin-Young replied that the minimum amount of time
was two years, which was a standard time frame to complete
the hours. Students typically took between two and four
years depending on availability.
Representative Hannan asked if the bill would allow the
associate counselors to bill services through insurance,
Medicare, and Medicaid, or if there would be a need for
separate legislation.
Ms. Buddin-Young replied that insurance billing practices
were different from company to company. There were some
insurance companies that would allow associate counselors
to bill insurance. Some companies required that the
supervisor's license be included in the billing process.
Each agency had its own rules and regulations, but there
would be some insurance companies that would accept billing
from counselors in training.
Representative Hannan asked for clarification that some
insurance companies would not accept billing from associate
counselors.
Ms. Buddin-Young responded in the affirmative. She
reiterated that some insurance agencies would accept it and
others would not.
10:16:24 AM
Representative Josephson asked if there was confidence that
the statute repealing the certification would be largely
replaced. For example, the statute required that a
supervisor would have at least five years of counseling
experience. He asked for clarification that there would be
similar requirements and regulations in lieu of the
statute.
Ms. Buddin-Young responded in the affirmative. She added
that the board would likely change the requirement to five
years post-license experience. Currently, the time period
during which post-graduate counselors in training were
acquiring the 3,000 hours of work experience was counted
towards the five years of counseling experience.
Nationally, the five years of experience were required to
be post-licensure in order to qualify to become a
supervisor. The requirements would be similar apart from
the aforementioned change to a renewable license. She
explained that the requirements would be fine-tuned but not
changed in a significant way.
Representative Josephson noted that the bill repealed
language that would allow supervision to occur via
telephonic or electronic means if an individual was in a
remote location. He asked why it would be prudent to repeal
the language.
Ms. Buddin-Young replied that the board wanted to encourage
individuals to engage supervisors through electronic means;
however, the board wanted to prevent situations in which a
supervisor and trainee would never meet face-to-face. The
goal was to implement safeguards to ensure that individuals
in remote locations were getting the best possible
supervisory experience.
10:19:29 AM
Co-Chair Foster asked the sponsor if he had any closing
comments.
Representative Wright shared that coming back from military
service was difficult, and the bill was personal to him.
The bill would help people receive necessary mental health
care quickly.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Tuesday,
February 13, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
HB 126 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
10:21:06 AM
AT EASE
10:23:25 AM
RECONVENED
HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act establishing the Alaska Military Affairs
Commission; and relating to the duties and powers of
the Alaska Military Affairs Commission."
10:23:35 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that there was a proposed committee
substitute (CS) for the bill.
Co-Chair Johnson MOVED to ADOPT the committee substitute
for HB 155, Work Draft 33-LS0701\D (Marx/Gunther, 2/5/24)
(copy on file).
Co-Chair Foster OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp introduced himself as the sponsor of
the legislation.
HONOUR MILLER-AUSTIN, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP,
introduced herself.
Representative Stapp offered an overview of HB 155 and the
changes proposed in the CS. The purpose of the previously
established Alaska Civilian-Armed Services Team (ACAST) was
to discuss longevity, the military's impact in the
community in terms of financial investment, and demonstrate
an understanding that relationships mattered. In the prior
year, he attended a military event at Fort Wainwright and a
sergeant with whom he was acquainted 16 years ago had
become the division commander for all forces in Alaska. The
purpose of HB 155 was to establish longevity through the
creation of the Alaska Military Affairs Commission (AMAC)
that could be a sustainable and reliable entity in the
state. The problem in the past was that although there had
been multiple iterations of military-oriented commissions,
none of the commissions were sustainable and the purpose of
the past commissions had never been clear. He relayed that
Eielson Air Force Base in Fairbanks had been preserved
through the establishment and support of ACAST and he would
like to see AMAC emulate its success. He asked his staff to
review the sectional analysis.
10:28:22 AM
Ms. Miller-Austin added that the commission was intended to
advise the governor, the communities, and the state's
congressional delegation on military matters, economic
development related to military issues, and other matters
involving the armed services in the state. She reviewed the
sectional analysis (copy on file):
Section 1
• Establishes the Alaska Military Affairs
Commission in the Office of the Governor
• Defines the Commission membership to include nine
voting members
• Sets (staggered) three-year member terms
• Details Commission meetings, quorum rules, and
authorizes per diem and travel expenses
• Enumerates the duties of the Commission
Section 2
• Ensures that the administrative support for the
Commission is held within the Office of the
Governor
• Sunsets the Alaska Military Commission on June
30, 2030
Section 3
• Adds uncodified law regarding the initial terms
of Alaska Military Affairs Commission members
10:30:31 AM
Representative Hannan relayed that she had the sectional
analysis for the original version of the bill and not the
CS. She asked if there was a sectional available for the
CS.
Representative Stapp noted that the CS would delete
language in Section 2 that he found to be redundant. He
read the language from the original bill (copy on file)
that would be deleted in the CS as follows:
nominated by an organization municipal governments in
the state and appointed by the governor, if, within 60
days after a seat under this paragraph becomes vacant,
an organization that represents municipal governments
in the state fails to nominate one or more persons to
fill the seat, the governor may appoint any qualified
person; an organization that represents municipal
governments in the state shall nominate, and the
governor shall appoint
Representative Stapp explained that the language referenced
the seats that were reserved for the three mayors of the
states that had various military installations. He did not
feel the language was necessary and thought that it
complicated the issue.
Representative Hannan understood that the only change made
by the CS was in Section 2 and it regarded the mayor's
designee.
Representative Stapp replied that the CS also added in
Section 2, "appointed by the governor; the governor shall
appoint" as a conforming change.
10:32:34 AM
Ms. Miller-Austin reviewed the fiscal impact note ULVMn
prepared by the Office of the Governor. The fiscal note
assumed that there would be associated costs in personal
services, travel, contractual services, and commodities.
The lieutenant governor would be designated as the chair of
the commission and would be responsible for scheduling and
planning commission meetings, preparing meeting materials
and minutes, making non-state member travel arrangements for
any in-person meetings, and securing meeting locations.
There would be a need for additional personnel and the
travel expenses for the four assumed meetings per year
would be covered by per diem.
Representative Josephson asked why the commission would be
housed in the Office of the Governor and not within the
Office of Veteran's Affairs.
Representative Stapp responded that the commission would be
the responsibility of the lieutenant governor. He explained
that it was necessary for the executive to lead the
conversation to ensure that the commission was sustainable.
The goal was to maximize the long-term investments from the
federal Department of Defense (DOD) in military communities
such as Fairbanks. He thought it would be more efficient in
Alaska for either the governor or the lieutenant governor
to manage the commission.
Representative Josephson noted that the Alaska Veteran's
Advisory Council was currently operational and he asked
what the difference would be between the council and the
proposed commission.
Representative Stapp deferred to his staff.
Ms. Miller-Austin replied that the purpose of the advisory
council was to serve veterans, dependents, and survivors
and those transitioning from military service. The purpose
of the proposed commission was to focus on economic
development within the state and provide a more unified
front.
10:36:24 AM
Representative Galvin appreciated the effort but wanted
more context. She understood that the commission would be
housed in Anchorage, but noted that there were many letters
of support from Fairbanks (copies on file). The bill
proposed the involvement of three mayors, but the state was
vast and there were military installations everywhere. She
asked for an explanation of why Anchorage was chosen as the
location for the commission.
Representative Stapp replied that the largest military
presence in the state was in Anchorage. He thought it made
sense for the majority of staffing to be located in the
area of the state with the most substantial military
presence. He suggested that invited testifiers were
available to offer more information on the reason why only
three mayors would be involved. Sometimes a smaller number
of people in leadership and fewer people involved in making
decisions made for a more efficient operation.
Representative Galvin asked if Representative Stapp had
considered adding language that would distinguish between
the terms "urban" and "rural" to ensure that there was
representation for both in the bill.
Representative Stapp thought the differentiation would
happen naturally throughout the process of developing and
operating the commission. There were still military
installations in the state that were in rural areas and the
bases were impactful for the communities. He thought DOD
had many plans for Alaska and Arctic strategy was changing.
The military would be refocusing on "next-generation
enemies" and Alaska's role was at the forefront of all
conversations. He thought the commission would help
facilitate the changes.
10:41:02 AM
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW the OBJECTION [to adopting the
CS]. There being NO further OBJECTION, Work Draft 33-
LS0701\D was ADOPTED.
Representative Coulombe asked what the effective date of
the bill was and whether the bill proposed a sunset on the
commission.
Representative Stapp deferred to his staff.
Representative Coulombe stated that she was uncertain
whether there was an intention to sunset the commission.
Ms. Miller-Austin responded that she did not believe there
was an effective date for the bill, which meant that the
bill would go into effect 90 days after it passed. The
commission would sunset on June 30, 2030, and was detailed
on page 4, line 7 and 8 of the bill.
10:43:09 AM
Representative Hannan understood that there were no
explicit military designees on the commission. The bill
proposed that the commission include public members with
extensive military backgrounds in a variety of branches.
She asked why the military branches were not specifically
named.
Representative Stapp responded that there were two seats
reserved for individuals with extensive military
backgrounds. He asked for clarification on what
Representative Hannan wanted to know.
Representative Hannan thought that the commission's vision
was to engage in planning for the future of the military;
however, if members of the commission were retired, the
members' experience was not ongoing. She asked if it was a
deliberate exclusion because the public members would not
be specifically representing a military branch.
10:44:57 AM
Representative Stapp responded that the individual
occupying the attorney general (AG) seat and representing
the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs on the
commission as public members would need to have extensive
military and veteran experience. He argued that sometimes,
requiring less specific experience was more effective. He
thought that the language stating that the two public seats
were reserved for individuals with extensive military
experience was specific enough to cover concerns, but he
was open to additional conversations.
Co-Chair Johnson remarked that she was a former mayor of a
community with many military members. She asked if it might
be prudent to include on the commission a public member who
lived in a community with a strong military presence but
who was not a member of the military themselves. She
wondered if Representative Stapp expected that the three
mayors' perspective would provide a complete picture of
what military members in a particular community needed.
Representative Stapp replied that he hoped that the two
public members would have extensive military experience.
There was significant technical terminology involved in the
military and he wanted to ensure that members of the
commission fully understood the concerns of military
members. He was not opposed to making changes to the bill
that would better satisfy all parties.
Co-Chair Foster relayed that the committee would hear
invited testimony.
10:48:31 AM
BRYCE WARD, MAYOR, FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOROUGH, FAIRBANKS
(via teleconference), relayed that about 30 percent of the
economy of Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB) was derived
from military members. He argued that Alaska was one of the
first military defense responders and the military's
presence could be seen throughout the state. He thought it
was important to recognize that the Arctic strategy had
pivoted nationally. The state was seen as responsible for
leading the charge of protecting the country as well as
projecting the nation's power in the Arctic region. He
argued that AMAC had the ability to organize the required
efforts on a statewide level. The readiness of military
personnel had a major impact on the ability to carry out
the Arctic mission. The military was examining the various
factors that impacted the effectiveness of military members
while on the job, such as the availability of adequate
housing, education, and resources. The commission could
easily determine the most pressing challenges for military
members and take steps to address the issues statewide. He
added that veterans were dealing with the same issues that
active military members dealt with, such as access to
health care and education services.
Mayor Ward continued that AMAC had a direct line of
communication with the federal delegation and met once a
month. There were staff from the Alaska's congressional
offices responsible for communicating with the commission
about the work that was being done in Washington, D.C. He
thought it was important for the congressional delegation
to have insight into the work that happened in Fairbanks
and Anchorage and how it impacted the entire state. There
was also a need for a coordinated effort to look at areas
in Alaska from a military perspective, which could be
provided by the commission. He argued that relationships
mattered and the commission would help coordinate the
relationships across the state and with other states like
Florida and Texas, which had strong military affairs
commissions.
10:55:27 AM
Mayor Ward recalled that there was a question about whether
the commission would designate a member to represent a
specific military branch. He explained that there was a
separate meeting called the Civilian Military Advisory to
confer with military installation commanders. He had
learned from the meetings that the instillation commanders
were not permitted to lobby. The commanders could share
concerns with elected officials, but were not able to
directly advocate to the federal delegation or statewide
legislators. He suggested that a member on the commission
would be able to have relationships with installation
commanders across the state and effectively carry the
concerns to political leaders. He noted that the mayors had
the same function. He did not have a problem with the
commission being located in Anchorage if it facilitated
communication across the state.
Representative Josephson understood that the bill housed
the commission in the Office of the Governor. He asked
Representative Stapp whether the governor wanted the
commission to be housed within the office for the purpose
of downsizing.
Representative Stapp replied that the lieutenant governor
was located within the Office of the Governor. He had
misunderstood Representative Josephson's earlier question.
He thought that every Alaska governor had understood that
the military had an important role in the state. He
believed the commission was a better alternative to ACAST,
which would sunset in June of 2024.
10:59:13 AM
KEITH KLAEHN, CHAIRMAN, DEFENSE MISSION TASKFORCE, COLORADO
SPRINGS (via teleconference), thought that Colorado and
Alaska shared many similarities. He shared that he also
served on the national Association of Defense Communities,
which was a traveling delegation of 40 people who attended
conferences in D.C. twice a year and worked with other
states on matters of defense. He reported that in recent
years, Alaska had become increasingly engaged and FNSB was
named by the association as one of the great American
defense communities. He applauded Alaska's efforts to come
together on defense issues. He thought due to the size of
the state and the fact that there were large distances
between military bases, it would be unrealistic to expect a
small community to support the bases without the full
commitment and assistance from the state.
Mr. Klaehn noted that there had been federal pressure to
increase support for military bases with critical
infrastructure needs as well as needs related to the
quality of life of members. He explained that quality of
life issues included child care, affordable housing,
education, health care, and risk reduction. In the last
several years, the military's electronic spectrum had been
at risk and there was an increased potentiality for outside
interference. He expressed that the good news was that
there had never been more federal resources available to
leverage in military efforts. He encouraged the committee
to continue to work towards establishing AMAC. He thought
the bill would benefit soldiers and service members serving
in Alaska, including members of his own family.
11:04:33 AM
TAMMIE PERREAULT, REGIONAL LIAISON, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, WASHINGTON
(via teleconference), remarked that the committee had
already heard from two experts who had spoken about the
value of the bill, but she wished to amplify a couple of
additional elements of the bill. She shared that it was her
first time testifying in support of the policy. Her office
had monitored similar policies for several years to
determine how state-wide organizations could help improve
some of the quality of life issues experienced by military
members. She emphasized that her office was keenly focused
on the quality of life of military members. She had seen
that states that had a coordinated voice were able to
address more quality of life issues for military families
than states that were not working as a united front.
Ms. Perreault indicated that the most successful state
organizations were led by the executive branch, which was
the strategy outlined in HB 155. The highly varied
locations of military members across Alaska made it
difficult to develop a perspective that applied to the
entire state. She had attended the Alaska Defense Forum in
Fairbanks for several years and thought that the voice of
FNSB had amplified the voice of the state overall. Over the
years, she had seen that military families had benefited
from statewide organizations. She highlighted that military
issues and veterans' issues were different and there needed
to be separate commissions to address both populations. She
concluded that her office supported the legislation and
thanked Representative Stapp for bringing the legislation
forward.
11:07:15 AM
Representative Hannan asked Representative Stapp whether he
anticipated that ACAST would be extended past its upcoming
sunset in June of 2024.
Representative Stapp responded that he did not think there
was currently any legislation circulating that would extend
ACAST. He would prefer that ACAST be replaced with AMAC.
Representative Hannan assumed that Representative Stapp's
office developed comparisons between the two organizations
and she thought it seemed that the two had a similar
makeup. She argued that the Joint Armed Services Committee
(JASC) should also be compared to the two organizations.
She noted that JASC was tasked with working with the
state's congressional delegation and HB 155 did not task
AMAC with a similar directive. She asked if Representative
Stapp would be interested in seeing JASC repealed. She
thought there were several ways to look at the issue and it
seemed confusing, particularly when the purpose of the
legislation seemed to be to develop a unified voice. She
wondered if it would make sense to combine all three
entities into a single commission.
Representative Stapp replied that AMAC would help JASC make
better decisions. He understood that the purpose of JASC
was to act as the legislative representation for the
military. He was uncertain whether he would support the
dissolvement of JASC at the present moment, but he would be
open to other conversations in the future if HB 155 were to
be passed into law.
Representative Hannan asked if there was discussion on
specific directives for the purpose of coordinating with
the federal delegation in the construction of AMAC.
Representative Stapp responded that the coordination
already existed organically. The mayors were already
dealing with active duty military members and by
association, DOD. He did not think the coordination needed
to be codified in the bill because it seemed to happen
naturally.
Co-Chair Foster invited Representative Stapp to make
closing comments.
11:11:51 AM
Representative Stapp appreciated the committee's time. He
thought there was an opportunity for the state to become a
more unified front. He shared that a new U.S. Army division
had been established and it was placed in Alaska, which had
never been done before. The federal government was serious
about Arctic strategy and Alaska had a significant role to
play. He urged support for the bill.
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Tuesday,
February 14, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
HB 155 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
11:13:09 AM
AT EASE
11:15:08 AM
RECONVENED
SENATE BILL NO. 22
"An Act establishing Juneteenth Day as a legal
holiday."
11:15:54 AM
SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, SPONSOR, introduced SB 22 and
offered a brief history of Juneteenth. She shared that
although the United States proclaimed itself as the "land
of the free," the statement was not true until 1865. Before
1865, many Americans were still living under slavery and
not living as the U.S. Declaration of Independence had
promised. In 1863, President Lincoln issued the
Emancipation Proclamation that freed enslaved people in
Texas and all rebellious parts of southern secessionist
states of the Confederacy. However, it was only through the
Thirteenth Amendment that emancipation ended slavery
throughout America. Two years later, Union troops arrived
in Galveston, Texas to announce that enslaved people were
free by executive decree, marking the end of over 200 years
of the enslavement of Black Americans. Enslaved people in
Texas would not find out that they were freed for an
additional three years. In 2001, former Alaska Senator
Lesil McGuire introduced HB 100 which established the third
Saturday of each June as Juneteenth Day to commemorate the
abolishment of slavery throughout the U.S. in 1865. The
bill was signed into law on April 10, 2001, and she thanked
past bipartisan members of both the House and Senate for
supporting the bill.
Senator Gray-Jackson continued that Juneteenth was often
seen as a "Black American holiday," but it was a
celebration for everyone. She shared that Anchorage held
the largest Juneteenth festival in the state, which was an
event that embraced everyone in attendance regardless of
color or ethnicity. The event included local, state, and
federal politicians in addition to community members. There
were also other countries that celebrated Juneteenth and
the celebration extended well beyond color and ethnicity.
Senator Gray-Jackson concluded that SB 22 would create an
awareness and appreciation for American history and help to
continue the sometimes difficult conversation about what it
meant to truly be free. She encouraged the community to
keep festivities alive and continue to secure freedom for
generations to come. She added that Juneteenth was also the
day she moved to Anchorage and in the coming June, she will
have lived in Alaska for 41 years.
11:19:39 AM
BESSE ODOM, STAFF, SENATOR ELVI GRAY-JACKSON, introduced
the PowerPoint presentation "Senate Bill 22 'An act
establishing Juneteenth Day as a legal holiday'" dated
February 6, 2024 (copy on file). She indicated that she
would be giving a high level overview of the bill and of
Juneteenth itself. She continued on slide 2 of the
presentation. The celebration of Juneteenth had several
names: Freedom Day, Jubilee Day, Emancipation Day, and
Liberation Day. She reiterated that the holiday was first
celebrated in Galveston, Texas when enslaved individuals
were made aware three years after the Emancipation
Proclamation that they had been freed.
Ms. Odom continued on slide 3 and relayed that recognition
of the day was broad. Every state including Washington D.C.
celebrated Juneteenth in some capacity. The first state to
honor the holiday was Texas, followed by Florida, Oklahoma,
Minnesota, Delaware, and Idaho. In addition to the states
celebrating the holiday, there were several corporations
that celebrated the holiday. Juneteenth celebrations were
also held in other countries around the world, including
South Korea, Israel, France, Guam, Honduras, Japan, Taiwan,
and Trinidad and Tobago.
Ms. Odom continued on slide 4 and relayed that in 2021,
President Biden signed a bill making Juneteenth a federal
holiday. The holiday was now one of 11 official federal
holidays. Most recently, the Anchorage Assembly voted
unanimously to make Juneteenth a municipal holiday.
Ms. Odom advanced to slide 5 and explained what it would
mean for Juneteenth to become a state holiday. In other
states, people employed by the state might have a day off
work. Stores and other organizations and businesses were
likely to be open as usual, but some stores might close or
have restricted hours. Many public transit services
operated on their usual schedule, but there could be some
changes. She concluded the presentation.
11:23:09 AM
Co-Chair Foster OPENED public testimony.
11:24:06 AM
CELESTE GRODEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ALASKA BLACK CAUCUS,
ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), relayed that the Alaska
Black Caucus was a non-profit organization formed in the
1970s to champion the lives of Black people and other
marginalized groups. She urged support for SB 22 and
thought it was time that Alaska joined other states and
recognized Juneteenth as a paid state holiday. Racism was
widespread and deeply rooted and would not be eradicated in
a single generation; however, declaring Juneteenth as a
holiday would be a symbol to honor Black Americans who had
suffered the impacts of slavery and racism. She noted that
Juneteenth marked a date of major significance in American
history and represented the way in which freedom for Black
people had been delayed. She stressed that the purpose of
Juneteenth becoming a state holiday was not to give
employees a day off, but to give individuals a day to think
about the desired future while remembering the inequities
of the past. She urged passage of the bill. She thanked
Representative Galvin for hearing the bill and Senator
Gray-Jackson for sponsoring the bill.
Representative Galvin clarified that she was a strong
supporter of the bill but she was not a sponsor. She
stressed that the bill was the result of extensive work
done by Senator Gray-Jackson and her staff.
11:27:49 AM
EDWARD WESLEY, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), had
been a resident of Alaska for 50 years. He was excited
about the direction the state was going in the recognition
of Juneteenth. He thought that making Juneteenth a holiday
would acknowledge history as well as contribute to a
healing process. Over 200,000 African Americans fought in
the Civil War and out of that effort, the Buffalo Soldiers
group was established. The Buffalo Soldiers provided
security for the expansion of the West and were the primary
force behind winning the Spanish American War in 1898. The
soldiers were sent to Alaska in 1889 and remained in the
state until 1903. He explained that he was speaking about
the soldiers because he wanted to stress that the
contributions of African Americans throughout the history
of the state and the nation were vast. Despite the
contributions, African Americans had suffered from 200
years of free labor and from being denied the opportunity
to build generational wealth.
Mr. Wesley continued that the hearing process of SB 22 had
acknowledged a number of injustices committed against
African Americans. For example, in the late 1940s, two
African Americans were hung in Juneau and the injustice had
never been resolved. When the Voters Rights Act was
enacted, Alaska was one of 13 states that had to receive
clearance from the U.S. Department of Justice before it
could make major changes to voting processes. He stressed
that the bill would send a message that Alaska was no
longer living in the past and that the state wanted to
acknowledge the atrocities that had been committed against
African Americans. He asked for support for the
legislation.
11:32:27 AM
MICHAEL PATTERSON, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. He shared that Juneteenth
was his favorite holiday and a way to celebrate his
ancestors' struggles for liberation. His last name was a
"slave name" and did not originate from his ancestors. He
believed that proclaiming the day as a holiday would act as
a reminder of the progress the country had made as well as
the progress yet to come. Proclaiming Juneteenth a holiday
was one of the steps towards reconciliation in the
aftermath of slavery. He thought there were two revolutions
for independence in the country: the Revolutionary War and
the Civil War. He argued that Juneteenth would recognize
independence in the same way the Fourth of July recognized
independence.
11:35:01 AM
EMILY KLOC, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference), testified
in support of the bill. She thought it was important for
Juneteenth to be recognized as a holiday. She thanked
Senator Gray-Jackson and Ms. Odom for their hard work on
the legislation.
11:35:58 AM
BRENDA TYLER, SELF, ANCHORAGE (via teleconference),
testified in support of the bill. The state must recognize
and reflect on the history and the cost of freedom.
Recognizing Juneteenth as a holiday would encourage
Alaskans to never forget the events and horrors of slavery
as well as the systemic setbacks still faced by African
Americans in the present day. She shared that she was an
African American and had lived in Alaska since 1981. She
thanked Senator Gray-Jackson for her work on the bill.
11:36:55 AM
Co-Chair Foster CLOSED public testimony.
Representative Hannan noted that Senator Gray-Jackson had
mentioned legislation that had passed in 2001 [the
aforementioned HB 100]. She asked for confirmation that the
2001 legislation would be repealed in SB 22 and how the
legislation from 2001 intersected with SB 22.
Senator Gray-Jackson replied that the 2001 legislation
simply recognized Juneteenth as a holiday.
Representative Hannan asked what the "repealer" in Section
3 of SB 22 would accomplish.
Senator Gray-Jackson responded that she could not answer
the question but would follow up with Representative
Hannan.
Representative Ortiz shared his appreciation for the bill
and hoped it would be moved expeditiously.
Representative Stapp asked how many other states had
adopted Juneteenth as a paid holiday.
Senator Gray-Jackson deferred the question to her staff.
Ms. Odom responded that 27 states had adopted Juneteenth as
a paid holiday.
11:40:22 AM
Representative Josephson was grateful for the senator's
efforts on the bill and remarked that it was the easiest
"yes" vote he would cast in his life. He asked if employees
would get the proceeding Friday off if Juneteenth fell on a
Saturday.
Senator Gray-Jackson replied in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the committee had not planned to
discuss the fiscal note, but indicated that Senator Gray-
Jackson was welcome to discuss the fiscal note if she was
ready.
Senator Gray-Jackson replied that she was ready to address
the fiscal note. She was ready to move the bill forward as
quickly as possible. The bill came close to passing in 2023
and she hoped it could pass in the current year.
Co-Chair Foster noted that the bill had been scheduled in
the House Finance Committee in 2023 but extended budget
debates prevented the committee from holding a meeting.
Co-Chair Johnson asked about slide 3 of the presentation.
She noted that some states indicated that there would be an
observance of Juneteenth and others referred to Juneteenth
as a holiday. She asked if there were different ways in
which other states recognized the holiday. She wondered how
Juneteenth was "added to the calendar" in various states.
11:43:18 AM
Senator Gray-Jackson was not certain what Co-Chair Johnson
meant by adding the holiday to a calendar.
Co-Chair Johnson replied that she was wondering if there
were different ways in which the holiday was added to state
workers' calendars. She understood that the holiday would
be added to the Alaska calendar as a paid day off. She read
through the various ways other states referred to the
holiday on slide 3. She asked if the senator could explain
the different strategies because there had been discussion
in other committees on the variety of ways to observe the
holiday.
Senator Gray-Jackson replied that Juneteenth was a paid
holiday just like Christmas or the Fourth of July. She
explained that it would be observed in the same manner as
every other paid holiday that the state offered to its
employees.
Ms. Odom added that the purpose of the bill was to allow
for Juneteenth to become a paid state holiday. She
explained that the holiday would be handled similarly in
Alaska as it was in New Mexico, which was detailed on slide
3 of the presentation. If Juneteenth became a state
holiday, most workers would get the day off and most banks
and state offices would be closed as well. She hoped that
Co-Chair Johnson's question had been answered.
Co-Chair Johnson responded that the response was sufficient
and suggested that she could discuss with the sponsor the
meaning of "observance" outside of the committee meeting.
Her biggest concern about the bill was with the fiscal note
and not with the terminology.
Senator Gray-Jackson commented that "you cannot put a price
on celebrating freedom." She noted that she had met with
Representative Stapp many times outside of the committee
meeting and had made the same comment to him.
Representative Galvin understood that the federal
government treated Juneteenth as a paid holiday already and
the bill would allow Alaska to adhere to the observance of
the holiday. She asked if she was correct in her
understanding that it was already a day off for federal
employees, but the bill would expand the paid day off to
all employees.
Senator Gray-Jackson replied that Juneteenth was already a
federal holiday. The Municipality of Anchorage made it a
paid holiday in 2023. She reiterated that if the bill were
to pass, Juneteenth would become a paid state holiday.
Representative Galvin commented that she completely
supported the bill.
11:48:20 AM
Co-Chair Foster noted that there were eight fiscal notes
(copies on file) but a summary sheet of all of the fiscal
notes had been distributed to committee members (copy on
file) to streamline the process. He invited the senator to
summarize the fiscal notes.
Senator Gray-Jackson asked if she should go over each
fiscal note. She would be happy to do so if it was the will
of the committee.
Co-Chair Foster suggested that the senator highlight any
elements of the fiscal notes she found particularly
important.
Senator Gray-Jackson responded that she could offer the
total fiscal cost of the bill as a starting point for the
discussion. The fiscal impact of all eight fiscal notes
combined would be $957,000.
Representative Coulombe understood that eight departments
would be impacted by the bill. She asked for clarification
that the $957,000 was the cost of overtime pay that would
be incurred for departments that would need employees to
work on the holiday.
Senator Gray-Jackson responded that Representative Coulombe
was correct in her understanding.
Representative Coulombe commented that she did not see any
mention of the fiscal impact of managing the holiday. She
asked if the fiscal notes were only covering the overtime
pay.
Senator Gray-Jackson responded in the affirmative.
11:51:46 AM
Co-Chair Johnson asked for clarification that $957,000
reflected the total cost of the paid day off. She had
previously understood that the cost was different than
$957,000.
Senator Gray-Jackson asked to what number Co-Chair Johnson
was referring. The previous fiscal note was $1.2 million.
Representative Stapp agreed that one could not put a price
on freedom.
Senator Gray-Jackson appreciated the comment.
Co-Chair Foster asked if the senator had any closing
comments.
Senator Gray-Jackson responded that she did have closing
comments, but first she would like her staff to respond to
Representative Hannan's earlier question about the
repealer.
Ms. Odom relayed that the bill repealed AS 44.12.090, which
was the existing statute around Juneteenth which said that
the governor would issue a proclamation. She explained that
if SB 22 became law, there would be no need for a
proclamation because similar language would already be in
statute.
Representative Hannan shared that Juneteenth was one of 50
days that were acknowledged in state statute, but not
considered a holiday. She thought it was time that
Juneteenth was elevated to a state holiday.
11:54:11 AM
Co-Chair Foster set an amendment deadline for Tuesday,
February 13, 2024, at 5:00 p.m.
SB 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Foster reviewed the agenda for the afternoon
meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
11:54:46 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 11:54 a.m.