Legislature(2023 - 2024)GRUENBERG 120
03/09/2023 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 25-PFD ELIGIBILITY UNIFORMED SERVICES
1:01:41 PM
CHAIR WRIGHT announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 25, "An Act relating to eligibility for the
permanent fund dividend; and providing for an effective date."
[Before the committee was CSHB 25(STA).]
1:02:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDI STORY, Alaska State Legislature, began her
overview of CSHB 25(STA). She shared that she had received a
phone call from a constituent who was a member of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Commissioned Officer
Corps ("NOAA Corps"). She relayed that the constituent was
posted at a duty station outside of Alaska for longer than the
allowable absence and was denied a permanent fund dividend
(PFD). She explained that she disagrees with this denial
because the NOAA Corps and the U.S. Public Health Services
(USHPS) are both branches within the U.S. uniformed services.
She said that CSHB 25(STA) would change the statute by replacing
the term "armed forces" with "uniformed services". Furthermore,
the bill would amend AS 43.23.008 to provide a definition of
"uniformed services" that is consistent with federal code.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said the inclusion of the NOAA Corps as
well as USHPS would close the gap in the allowable absence
statute. She pointed out that there are 16 subsections within
the statue that have allowable absences, and the examples
include the Peace Corps, Olympic sports, and secondary and post-
secondary education. She relayed that the House State Affairs
Standing Committee heard the bill first and said that the
committee drafted the CSHB 25(STA), which includes allowable
absences for Alaskans pursuing U.S Merchant Marine
apprenticeships. She argued that the merchant marines were
meant to be included in the statute when it was amended in 1999,
and this group has been frequently paid dividends until 2017, as
were members of the NOAA Corps and USHPS. She informed the
committee that the governor recently introduced bills in the
House and in the Senate which contains similar language on
allowable absences for merchant marines in training. She said
the committee substitute also corrects an oversight that
excluded the dependents of parents or guardians who missed the
PFD filing deadline due to a medical emergency and is remedied
by extending the dependent's filing deadline grace period to
October 1. She said there will be invited testimony with
members of the NOAA Corps, USHPS, and the merchant marine
apprenticeship program.
1:07:02 PM
SETH WHITTEN, Staff, Representative Andi Story, Alaska State
Legislature, outlined the contents of the committee packet. He
said there is a zero fiscal note because the bill does not
change the dividend amount, rather, the newly eligible
individuals would be added to the dividend list. He stressed
that putting a hard number on the cost of adding the proposed
groups to the dividend payout is difficult because the Permanent
Fund Dividend Division does not track denied dividends, or the
reason behind the denial. He explained that there are six NOAA
Corps members whose residence is Alaska, as well as 356 members
for USHPS; however, it is unknown of those who are already
filing for a PFD. To further understand the cost impact of
adding these groups, he used past dividend amounts and set the
assumption of new filers at 100 people. He shared that, using
the payouts from 2018 to 2021, the PFD payout would decrease by
approximately $1 for every 100 people added. Using the 2022
dividend amount of $3,284, the difference of adding 100 new
people would be a decrease of $4.
1:10:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER expressed his support for the proposed
legislation. He asked about the fiscal note. He shared that
one year he had filled out his PFD application incorrectly and
said fixing the mistake took time. He asked why there was a
zero fiscal note when there must be some administrative or
software costs involved with processing applications.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred to the Department of Revenue to
explain the fiscal note.
1:12:45 PM
GENEVIEVE WOJTUSIK, Director, Permanent Fund Dividend Division,
Department of Revenue, said that CSHB 25(STA) has an
indeterminate fiscal note; however, the original version had a
zero fiscal note. She explained that the cost to make the
changes in statute would be minimal. She said the division does
request leave, earning statements, and other paperwork from
military members; and prior to the committee substitute, the
cost would be minimal.
1:14:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:14 p.m. to 1:17 p.m.
1:17:33 PM
MR. WHITTEN said that currently there are 17 different allowable
absences in statute that the department works through, and he
expressed uncertainty about how more absences would be tied to
more cost. He expressed the understanding is that there is
software in place to work though the allowable absences.
1:18:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his experience of being outside of
Alaska on deployment for longer than 180 days and receiving a
PFD. He further shared that he has friends in USHPS whose
deployment length is three years. He said that some buy a home
and take up residency in Alaska. He asked how long deployments
outside of the state typically are if the person's home of
record is Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY replied that the invited testifiers would
answer his question.
1:19:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH commented that he worked in the Department
of Revenue previously and is aware of the difficulties in fixing
the issue the bill aims to solve. He thanked the bill sponsor.
1:19:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked about Mr. Whitten's estimates.
With six NOAA Corps members and 356 USHPS officers, he asked if
it would be correct to assume 2-4 extra people per officer to
account for dependents.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY referred the question to Ms. Wojtusik.
1:20:40 PM
MS. WOJTUSIK asked that the question be restated.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER repeated the question.
MS. WOJTUSIK answered that the division does not have the
numbers he is seeking. She suggested that the numbers he stated
were from Representative Story's office in cooperation with the
Department of Public Health.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER queried further. He said that in the
"guts" of the bill, he did not see mention of uniformed service
member's spouses. Since the bill title touches on spouses, he
asked the sponsor to point to the section of the bill that deals
with spouses and dependents. After a pause, he ascertained that
the section in question is on page 3, line 28.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked that the invited testifiers speak.
1:22:11 PM
DAVID WILKINSON, Lieutenant, Commissioned Corpsman, Commissioned
Corps of the U.S. Public Health Service, shared that he has been
in USHPS since 2016. He expressed his support of CSHB 25(STA).
He said he has been a resident of Alaska since 1997, but he took
a three-year break to serve active duty in the U.S. Air Force,
and when he returned to Alaska, he was no longer a resident. He
explained that he accidentally received the PFDs for 2016 and
2017 via a military exemption, as the division had [mistakenly]
included USHPS as part of the armed services. In 2018, the
division found that UPHPS did not fall under armed services;
thus, his 2018 PFD was denied. He said he is no longer an
Alaska resident and has nothing to gain from the proposed
legislation; however, it could help future USHPS, NOAA Corps,
and merchant marines to keep Alaska residency despite being
deployed or stationed outside of Alaska.
MR. WILKINSON explained that USPHS originated through a system
of marine hospitals in 1798 to serve sick and injured sailors.
He further explained that the system was consolidated into the
Marine Hospital Service in 1871, and in the same year, the
position of the U.S. Surgeon General was created. He shared
that he accepted an officer position in USHPS in Florida after
unsuccessfully attempting to get a position funded in, or close
to, Alaska. He said that USHPS officers in Alaska work for the
Indian Health Service (IHS) or the U.S. Coast Guard. He
recalled that he was deployed under USHPS multiple times during
the COVID-19 pandemic. He said that in 1889, the Marine
Hospital Service was changed to USHPS since the scope expanded
from just helping sailors. He relayed several new positions for
services USHPS provides, including veterinarians, dentists,
therapists, engineers, pharmacists, nurses, environmental health
specialists, scientists, and dietitians. He returned to a
previous question regarding the length of deployments; he said
deployments typically last a month in USHPS, and the time
stationed in another state can vary from a few years to a
person's entire career. He said he is open to questions from
members.
1:26:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referred to Mr. Wilkinson's comment that
some individuals may be absent from Alaska for their entire
career. He said there is a provision in state law that, if a
person is an active-duty service member and outside of Alaska
for over ten years, then there are additional requirements to
establish a connection to the state. He asked Mr. Wilkinson for
his opinion on whether the ten-year rule would apply to USHPS
members.
MR. WILKINSON expressed uncertainty. He said he was gone for
three years due to the service in the U.S. Air Force, but kept
his residency, and still got his PFD checks. He said he is
unsure of the number of officers who would be affected by this
provision. He expressed the opinion that the changes in the
proposed legislation are better than what is in state law now.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked that, when someone in USHPS deploys
outside of Alaska, would this require the USPHS officer to
change his/her home of record.
MR. WILKINSON answered no and said that his current home of
record is Juneau, Alaska. He stated that when he retires from
service, USHPS must pay him to move back to Juneau.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER responded, "By which you mean you will
enjoy the benefits in moving back to your home of record, you
don't mean you have to be paid to move back."
MR. WILKINSON clarified that USHPS must pay to move him and his
household goods upon retirement.
1:28:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared that, in his experience, there are
several USHPS positions available in Alaska. He asked what the
likelihood would be of a person in USHPS being assigned to serve
an entire career in another state.
MR. WILKINSON answered that USHPS finds agencies to work with,
like the U.S. Coast Guard and IHS. He shared that he falls into
the engineer category and said that the Coast Guard does not
hire engineers, but IHS does. He explained that he is with the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and FDA does not have a
permanent office in Alaska currently. He shared that he
attempted to switch back to IHS but was told there were no
openings. He said it would be ideal for him if a permanent FDA
office was opened in Alaska, and he expressed his desire to
return to the state before he retires.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned whether an amendment should be
proposed to allow a PFD for a person when there is no position
open for the person in a department in Alaska. He expressed the
opinion that if there is a position with USHPS in Alaska, the
person should be working this job, that is if the person wants
to receive a PFD.
MR. WILKINSON replied that individuals do not choose where
he/she works, rather it is the USHPS offices who decide. He
explained that first there must be a job opening, and if there
is an opening, the individual must get accepted into the
position. He shared that there was not an opening when he was
in Alaska; thus, could not apply. He added that there have been
openings since.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY sought further clarification on who has
control of where a person is deployed. He asked if individuals
have a choice in which state he/she works.
MR. WILKINSON stated that deployment location is not 100 percent
out of the individual's control. He stated that he would not
recommend the amendment Representative Gray is suggesting. In
general, if there are openings in offices, he said UPHPS would
send the individual to this office. He said the process is
similar to the Air Force's "dream sheet," in that the individual
submits a sheet expressing where he/she would like to be
deployed. He said that ultimately, individuals are assigned to
a location and are required to follow orders. He explained the
location preference process in USHPS, where the individual would
apply to the position. He stressed that USHPS would place
individuals where needed, and this placement takes precedence
over an officer's preference.
1:32:43 PM
SARAH TANJA, representing self, provided invited testimony on
CSHB 25(STA). She stated that she is a separated NOAA Corps
officer. She shared that she served in the NOAA Corps from
2016-2021, and now she is in Seattle at the University of
Washington to attain a graduate degree in fisheries. She
recounted the history of the NOAA Corps. She described that the
NOAA Corps "tied its roots" to the U.S. Coast and Geodetic
Survey, and was started in 1807 by U.S. President Thomas
Jefferson, who formed the agency to perform scientific and
historical surveys of U.S. coasts. Further, vessel operators
and scientists were brought to conduct survey operations, but in
1917 during World War I, the survey group was transitioned into
commissioned officers. She explained that the transition was
because the survey group had performed advanced mapping before
the war.
MS. TANJA shared that she had served in the NOAA Corps for five
to six years, and in the first two years she had received a PFD.
She said she is the person who had called Representative Story
and relayed the situation about her denied PFD. She stated that
the denial was due to a technicality, in that the language
within the allowable absence statute uses the word "armed
forces" rather than "uniformed services". She stated that she
appealed the denial, and the appeals officer offered the
sentiment of wishing the PFD could be issued, but based on the
language in statute, it could not. She stated that this officer
had suggested that she call her local representative about
changing the statute language.
MS. TANJA clarified that she had maintained her residency in
Alaska during her time in the NOAA Corps, but she did not
receive a PFD. She pointed out that an Alaskan can still be a
resident, despite not receiving a PFD. She shared that she made
visits to Juneau, voting in local and state elections, and
maintained her driver's license. She maintained that she has
nothing to gain from her testimony on the legislation, and the
statute change to "uniformed services" would be equitable. She
noted that other overseas services are recognized in statute and
used the Peace Corps as an example. She stressed that NOAA
Corps serves domestically on all U.S. coasts, and she stated
that the corps serves in Alaska more than anywhere in the U.S.
She said the Alaska missions involve fishery surveying,
providing information for fishery management councils, and
charting navigation for mapping.
1:38:59 PM
RICH BERKOWITZ, Of Counsel, Transportation Institute, expressed
support for the proposed legislation, specifically, the section
regarding merchant mariners in training. He shared that in
1999, there was an effort to pass legislation to consider
merchant mariners eligible. He said the legislation at the time
would have accounted for merchant mariners working outside of
the state, as well as vessels in state, provided the applicant
meets other legal requirements under PFD law. He noted that
family members were not included in the previous bill. He
explained it was found that in 1999 there was already an
allowable absence exemption for vocational training, so there
was no need to change the law at the time. He addressed working
with the Seafarers Union and explained that the Transportation
Institute represents several employers who have Alaska contracts
with the union. In 1997, he said the organizations were
interested in local hire. He recalled an encounter with U.S.
Representative Don Young, where the congressman toured a Tok
Maritime vessel and asked for the Alaskans working onboard to
come forward. After none came forward, he received a call from
the CEO of Tok Maritime, who said, "That is never going to
happen again." He said the moment helped to motivate the union
to establish a hall in Anchorage and recruit in Alaska.
1:41:40 PM
MR. BERKOWITZ recounted that in 1999 young Alaskans who were
shipping out for service were being told they would not be
eligible for a PFD. He explained that the PFD ineligibility
generated disinterest among young people, as this money was the
only income most were familiar with. He stated that at this
time it was clear exemption language needed to be changed to add
merchant mariners. He relayed that the legislature had
unanimously passed legislation on the matter, but in 2017, the
Alaska Permanent Fund Division decided to change the definition
of allowable vocational training and opted to use the Alaska
Commission on Post-Secondary Education's definition of
vocational training. The definition meant the training had to
be recognized under Title IV of the federal code, which outlines
that the person must be eligible for tuition, loans, and support
under the Department of Education's loan and grant statutes. He
said that the change made sense, except in the case where
tuition is not charged. He explained that merchant mariner
training does not involve tuition since the tuition, as well as
room and board, are paid for by vessel operators who hold
contracts with the union. He explained that the change had an
unintended consequence, in that it left young up-and-coming
mariners "high-and-dry" without a dividend because the merchant
mariner training did not charge tuition. He said the
Transportation Institute worked with the Permanent Fund Dividend
Division regarding the allowable absence statute, of which the
Department of Law determined this would need to be changed in
order to allow merchant mariner training as an allowable
absence, leading to the bill before the committee.
MR. BERKOWITZ stated that the institute is interested in
continuing its relationship with the state with free education
and guaranteed job placement to Alaskans. He noted that
Alaskans are some of the best people the institute can find and
said that could be because the state has the largest coastline
in the country. He recognized that Alaska youth who become
mariners as mature and responsible problem solvers. He said the
merchant mariners' school, located in Maryland, recruits from
all over the country. He expressed the hope that, with help
from committee members, there will be more local hires in
Alaska. He articulated that merchant mariners earn union
benefits and a good wage, and this would return money to the
state. He illustrated an example of a person coming back to a
village after receiving a mariner's wage and putting the money
back into the village. He expressed the hope to see this
example continue, as well as the institute's ability to recruit
Alaskans to be merchant mariners. He thanked the committee and
said he is open to questions.
1:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the Transportation Institute
is.
MR. BERKOWITZ answered that the institute is a member of the
Alaska State Chamber. Further, the institute works on behalf of
the U.S.-flag Services [Maritime Administration] and promotes
policy that supports the U.S. flagged merchant marines. He said
that his work primarily involves federal legislation that helps
to maintain a U.S.-flagged merchant marine, and this includes
vessels serving Alaska. He reiterated that the institute would
welcome locally hired Alaskans.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked who the institute's members are and
if the organization is a nonprofit.
MR. BERKOWITZ confirmed that the institute is a 501(c)(6)
nonprofit with a main office in Maryland and an office on the
West Coast. He said he was previously the head of the west
coast office before he retired. He said that in the late 1990s,
he worked as head of the west coast office when the bill on
allowable absence exemptions for mariners originally passed. He
expressed interest in working on this matter while he is Of
Counsel to the Transportation Institute.
1:49:01 PM
CHAIR WRIGHT opened public testimony on HB 25.
1:49:23 PM
NICHOLAS MARRONE, Vice President, West Coast Seafarers
International Union, thanked members for addressing the issue of
individuals who attend merchant marine training out of state,
but have been determined not eligible for a PFD. He said the
Seafarers Union has maintained an office in Anchorage since 1996
with the purpose of recruiting Alaskans for employment on board
U.S. flagged vessels in the domestic and international trades.
He explained that the union also represents civilian mariners
who are employed by the Military Sealift Command and the
Maritime Administration's ready reserve vessels. He stated that
for over 25 years the union has made a concerted effort to
recruit Alaska youth, Natives, displaced fishers, displaced
workers, and veterans for employment as deep sea mariners. He
said the effort was started in 1997 with a strategic partnership
between the union and the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, which he said has grown into the referral,
training, and hire of over 800 Alaskans over the years. He
shared that training is conducted at a maritime school on the
shores of southern Maryland, which is operated by a joint labor
management board.
MR. MARRONE said the school provides the most diverse set of
U.S. Coast Guard certified maritime classes in the nation and
maintains registration as a U.S. Department of Labor apprentice
program. Further, he said those who graduate from the school
are guaranteed employment, earn union wages, family benefits,
and qualify for union pension plans. He explained that the
graduate could then advance to the U.S. Coast Guard defined
career ladder - even up to becoming an officer - through the
school. Once a prospective mariner is accepted into the program
and progresses through the career ladder, all education related
expenses are paid for by the union management training trust.
He expressed the opinion that the union has had tremendous
success with its collaborative effort to train and hire
Alaskans; furthermore, he stated that Alaskans and veterans are
clear "standouts" in the union's training and retention goals.
He urged the committee to pass HB 25, so the union can continue
to attract Alaskans to the opportunities that U.S. flagged
maritime has to offer.
1:52:26 PM
RALPH MIRSKY, CEO, SeaLink International Inc., shared that
SeaLink is a nonprofit working in Alaska for over 22 years. He
said that he has been working with the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development in order to accept federal grants to
recruit for the seafarers vocational training program. He said
SeaLink has been responsible for recruiting over 600
individuals, including "hard-to-serve" youth, dislocated
workers, displaced fishermen, and low-income adults. He said
that the agency has an excellent success rate, with great
recruits. He said the effort has been a "boom" with individuals
recruited from all over Alaska. He relayed an example of a
youth from Ketchikan who worked his way up to ferry boat
captain, who now works in Washington State. He thanked members
for taking up HB 25, and he expressed the hope that youth would
not walk away from the opportunity because they would not get a
PFD. He said that the youth see the PFD as a "big time
benefit;" however, he asserted that the career would be the
benefit. He expressed the opinion that PFDs be returned to
youth in the seafarer's program. He noted that SeaLink has a
scholarship program that sends youth to a maritime academy in
California. He explained that these participants are outside of
Alaska for over 180 days, as the program is for four years, and
these youth receive their PFDs. He said there is an amount of
fairness involved.
1:55:36 PM
CHAIR WRIGHT, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on CSHB 25(STA).
1:55:41 PM
CHAIR WRIGHT announced that CSHB 25(STA) was held over.