Legislature(2025 - 2026)GRUENBERG 120
02/18/2025 03:15 PM House STATE 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 | |
| HB75 | |
| HB25 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 75 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 75-PERM FUND; EMPLOYMENT; ELIGIBILITY
[Contains discussion of SB 77.]
3:19:53 PM
CHAIR CARRICK announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 75, "An Act relating to national criminal
history record checks for certain employees of the Department of
Revenue; relating to allowable absences for eligibility for a
permanent fund dividend; relating to the confidentiality of
certain information provided on a permanent fund dividend
application; relating to electronic notice of debt collection
executed on a permanent fund dividend; and providing for an
effective date."
3:20:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JEREMY BYNUM, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 75. He said this bill would do a few
things, mostly it would provide mechanisms to clean up a few
housekeeping items and it would make provisions to protect
Merchant Marines. He said the permanent fund dividend (PFD) is
a cornerstone of economic stability for many residents and
outdated regulations have created burdens on Alaskans pursuing
academia, healthcare, or other interests. He said HB 75 would
work to both modernize allowable absences and improve
administrative efficiency and security. He remarked that the
proposed bill would treat the Merchant Marine Academy the same
as attending college. It would allow Alaskans to attend this
technical training without losing PFD eligibility. He also said
it would provide relief for college students who cannot return
home during breaks. It also would modernize the rules
pertaining to absences regarding healthcare. He said HB 75
would also require fingerprint background checks for PFD
employees who handle sensitive data, and it would ensure that
PFD applicant details are confidential. Both actions would help
address PFD security measures for applicants using sensitive
data. It also would allow residents to opt-in for the
electronic levy notice which would slash costs with printing and
mailing. He said the opt-in is optional and the previous
standards would still stand in place. By making these changes
it would help strengthen the PFD and modernize it to the
benefits of the residents.
3:23:27 PM
TREVOR SHAW, Staff, Representative Jeremy Bynum, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Bynum, prime sponsor,
discussed HB 75. He said this is a nearly identical companion
bill to Senator Jesse Kiehl's SB 77. He said that many of the
material provisions on HB 75 were included on Senate Bill 85,
offered at the request of the governor during the Thirty-Third
Alaska State Legislature, but it was not pass.
MR. SHAW offered the sectional analysis for HB 75: [provided in
committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1. Requires the Permanent Fund Division to
conduct background checks on and fingerprint its
employees and applicants for employment within the
Division.
Section 2. Modifies the allowable absences for
Permanent Fund Dividend eligibility to include:
• Absences for school breaks and holiday, not
including summer break, during the academic year.
• Education (1) to become a merchant mariner, and
(2) through other vocational programs approved by the
United States Coast Guard.
• Prevents medical absences from limiting the
length of voluntary absences.
Section 3. Aligns to Sect 1., requiring the Permanent
Fund Division to conduct background checks on and
fingerprint its employees and applicants for
employment within the Division.
Section 4. Makes the names of Permanent Fund Dividend
applicants confidential.
Section 5. Allows an opt-in option for Permanent Fund
Dividend recipients to receive levy notices
electronically.
Section 6. Establishes an effective date of January 1,
2026.
MR. SHAW, after discussing the sectional analysis for HB 75,
remarked that various institutions have submitted letters of
approval for both HB 75 and SB 77. These include the Alaska
Chamber, Tote Maritime Alaska, and Matson Shipping. He
explained the slight differences between both SB 77 and HB 75
and closed by remarking the HB 75 has a zero fiscal note.
3:29:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked what the impetus was for adding the
"boat tech program" that trains students for the Merchant
Marines. He asked if it was a constituent request and what
prompted it.
REPRESENTATIVE BYNUM responded that Alaska as a whole and
specifically Southeast is a heavy maritime economy. The
proposed bill tries to ensure that mariners receive the same
benefits as others that receive education outside of the state.
MR. SHAW added that the thought process behind this was that
every other program that is credentialed by the US Military is
covered under the existing allowable absences for the PFD. The
intent is to expand that to other programs covered by the United
States Coast Guard as well.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE said that he was interested in an
amendment for the same reasons. He said there are thousands of
freight pilots in Alaska that have frequent absences from the
state. He asked if this would be an appropriate amendment to
add to the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BYNUM replied that it could be considered but
inquired whether the consideration was for educational purposes
or general employment.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE responded that there are several airline
pilots that own homes and live in the state. He remarked that
many of the airline employers have pilots gone for extended
periods of time. He said training could take months long and in
different states. He remarked that for several years he did not
receive the dividend for this exact same reason.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that he would need to see the
specific language and it could be considered.
3:33:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY remarked that there are two other branches
of service that had not been included, and she has tried to get
allowable absences for. These include the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Commissioned Officer Corps and
the Commission of the United States Public Health Service. She
said both these branches have had reasons for extended absences.
She said that she would give information regarding an amendment
to add to the bill. She also said she has spoken to the prime
sponsor of the companion bill [SB 77] regarding this topic.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY said she was curious to what the reasoning
for background checks was and whether there was a report of an
instance that warrants these checks.
MR. SHAW responded that the impetus behind this specific
provision is that PFD employees have access to a lot of
sensitive information and are among the few if not only state
employees that have access to social security numbers, addresses
and bank account information. The provision that would require
background checks and fingerprinting would be the same
requirements for other professions. He said some of the other
professions that require these same background checks often
don't even have access to the same degree of sensitive
information. He said this was part of the governor's request
from Senate Bill 85 during the last legislative session. He
said the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) cannot do this
for state employees unless it receives statutory authorization
to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if there had been any documented
cases in which sensitive information handling had gone awry.
MR. SHAW responded that this hadn't happened yet, and this
provision would be a preventive measure.
3:36:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked what the current vacancy rate was
with the Permanent Fund Division.
MR. SHAW responded that he would be guessing if he threw out a
number but could follow-up with that information.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked if breaks or holidays were
specifically defined in the proposed bill.
MR. SHAW responded that it is not specifically defined and
that's why the additional language exists that talks about the
academic calendar year. He said that specific provision could
have variance depending on the educational institution's
individual calendar.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT asked about a mental health break or a
work break and where that would land with this language.
MR. SHAW said that the break would be defined by the
institution. This includes spring break; however, summer breaks
wouldn't be included in this provision.
REPRESENTATIVE HIMSCHOOT remarked that she had some allowances
that were requested by her district. She said that she also had
an amendment that might be offered if others would be added.
3:39:07 PM
CHAIR CARRICK remarked that she understood that the Department
of Revenue had asked about this provision in the past. She said
that confidentiality for the applicants wasn't something that
she had heard about and asked Representative Bynum if he could
describe the impetus for this.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that it is an important aspect of
when discussing the information that is available and making
sure the citizens had confidential information. He said that
voter records were publicly available, but it was not tied to
monetary or financial information.
MR. SHAW added that it comes from a couple angles. First is
that it follows the same impetus as the changes for
fingerprinting and background checks. He said that with voter
information so readily available in communities with an aging
population that it is a theft prevention measure. He said that
unless there are specific reasons for personalized information,
the information would remain confidential. He said that the
theft component was one side of it and tightening things up
would address this. He said there have been times when division
employees have released the names of PFD applicants. He said in
work with the companion bill SB 77, this was a point of
discussion.
CHAIR CARRICK said that she didn't know that this information
was accessible to the public and she was interested to learn
more.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM added that this would not prevent the
release of any court ordered information or requested
information for financial institutions. Its purpose is just to
protect the PFD recipients.
3:42:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MOORE asked if work was conducted with the
Permanent Fund Division to develop the policies on HB 75.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that a lot of the bill mechanics
were from the previous governor's bill Senate Bill 85. He said
those requests on the previous bill were coordinated with the
Permanent Fund Division. He said the component specifically
about the Merchant Marine Academy was to talk about schooling
opportunities and to align them with other uniform services. He
said that he would need to go back and see whether this was a
specific recommendation or not.
3:43:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLLAND asked how many Merchant Marines are based
in Alaska. He remarked that his grandfather was one and he had
constituents that were Merchant Marines. He remarked that these
were important jobs in the state.
REPRESENATIVE BYNUM responded that he would get information to
follow-up with this inquiry. He also said that the Merchant
Marine Academy is open for other folks to go and learn various
trades without a service obligation to the Merchant Marines. He
said it could be broader for the maritime industry in Alaska.
3:45:14 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY commented that it was one of Don Youngs
desires that this exemption be put in place.
MR. SHAW in follow-up regarding Representative Moore's previous
question, said that the specific language regarding the merchant
marines was in the governor's original bill; the provisions
related to fingerprinting and background checks were also
included. He said there is a lot of opportunity for cross-
referencing of personal information, and this was a point of
discussion.
3:46:51 PM
CHAIR CARRICK after ascertaining that there were no additional
questions from committee members, announced that HB 75 was held
over.