HB 347-LEAVE FOR MILITARY SPOUSES  8:04:50 AM CHAIR SEATON announced the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act allowing certain teachers, public employees, and private sector employees to take leave without pay when their spouses are on leave from deployment in a combat zone." 8:05:49 AM PEDER TERLAND, Intern, Representative Pete Petersen, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HB 347, paraphrasing from a prepared statement that read as follows [original punctuation provided]: The leave a solider has from a combat zone is sacred. This time with their family is in some cases the last time they may see them. Although HB347 is six pages long it is really a simple concept. This law will apply to school districts, state and local governments, and private sector employers with 20 or more employees. It will allow the employees to take up to 10 days of unpaid leave to spend time with their spouses before they return to combat. Combat Zones are: Arabian Peninsula Areas including the Persian Gulf; Kosovo; Afghanistan. While The Federal Family & Medical Leave Act already grants up to 12 weeks of job protected leave for military family members in many situations, including times of R&R, it is restricted to members of the Guard and Reserves. It does not apply to members of the regular Armed Forces. This is an inequity that exists that needs to be corrected. We have heard of opposition to this bill and that it would place undue hardships on employers. In response we have prepared some amendments for future consideration. There are ten other states that have enacted similar legislation. The bill has a zero fiscal note. 8:08:45 AM CHAIR SEATON restated HB 347 provides leave for military spouses. He asked for the subject matter of the amendments. 8:09:11 AM MR. TERLAND explained the first and third amendments offer two versions of proposed language that requires 48 hours of advance notice for a leave request. The second amendment offers an exemption from HB 347 for school districts with 20 or fewer employees. 8:10:03 AM CHAIR SEATON noted these points were raised by small school districts concerned about arranging for substitutes without advance notice, and that substitutes may not be available at all. 8:11:20 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETE PETERSEN, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee similar legislation was enacted in other states to provide a benefit for active military equal to what is available through federal legislation to families of members of the National Guard and Reservists. 8:12:45 AM JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska (ACLU of Alaska), stated the ACLU of Alaska, in order to fully support HB 347, requests the committee consider an amendment. He pointed out that although the state restricts the marriage of same-sex partners, the state constitution recognizes and grants equal employment and benefits to same-sex partners. Based on legal standing, Mr. Mittman urged the legislature to include same-sex partners in the provisions of HB 347. He opined without the inclusion of same-sex partners, passage of the bill would lead to legal challenges. 8:15:26 AM CHAIR SEATON asked whether the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy would "put a person in the military at risk" when applying for the benefits provided by HB 347. 8:15:58 AM MR. MITTMAN advised the aforementioned military policy may be overturned soon; nevertheless, this legislation affects the civilian family member, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would not apply. He provided an example of a violation, and said, "We don't anticipate that any but the most negative or unpatriotic employers would take that step." 8:17:44 AM RIC DAVIDGE, Chairman, Alaska Veterans Foundation; State Council President, Vietnam Veterans of America in Alaska; Chairman, Municipal Commission on Military and Veterans' Affairs, observed that Americans want to help, and are willing to make sacrifices in support of members of the military engaged in the present war. He noted that immediate leave may be needed in the case of a wounded military member, and expressed concern about the amendment that will require 48 hours notice. Mr. Davidge provided an example of how leave affects family members and espoused on HB 347 as a means for the state to show support of troops that is beyond "ribbons on trees and ... stickers on our car." He also spoke in support of the amendment requested by ACLU of Alaska. CHAIR SEATON stated his understanding that Mr. Davidge supports the amendment requiring 48 hours notice if the amendment is conditioned on certain circumstances. MR. DAVIDGE replied yes. 8:22:12 AM STACY BANNERMAN informed the committee she is an Army National Guard Blue Star Wife whose husband served two combat tours of duty in Iraq with honors. She also is the author of When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists and the Families They Leave Behind, the founder/director of Sanctuary Weekends for Women Veterans and Camp Howdy for Military Kids, and is a recipient of the 2009 Patriotic Employer Award from the National Guard Commission for the Employer Support of the Guard & Reserve. Ms. Bannerman expressed her support for HB 347, paraphrasing from a prepared statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Thank you to the Committee for considering this important bill to support the families of the troops who are serving or will serve in the war on terror, and other combat deployments. In a few short months, another 30,000 troops will be deploying for Afghanistan - again. The majority of those troops are married with children; most of the spouses left behind work outside the home. Many of us have to choose between work and family when our loved one deploys. It's an impossible choice, and one that military families should never be asked to make when America is at war. My husband is a Sergeant First Class with the Army National Guard, and his Brigade spent several months training at Ft. McCoy, Wisconsin, more than a thousand miles away from home and family, prior to shipping out for a second tour in Iraq. I had recently moved to southern Oregon to accept a new position in order to implement programs to help military families and veterans. I had been on the job for a few months, and didn't have any sick leave or vacation time available. It would be more than one year before I saw my husband again. If we support the troops, and by extension, military families, then passing the Military Family Leave Act should be at the top of this nation's to-do list. Because when the soldier goes to war, so does the family. And when the veteran comes home, family support is the single most critical factor in successful reintegration. The demands of the war on terror and the demographics of the 21st Century military are very different from the past, and adapting to those realities must, by definition, include expanding support for military families. For the first years of the Vietnam War, married men were exempt from the draft, and for the duration of the war, married men with children were given deferments so that they wouldn't be deployed as it would constitute too much of a hardship on the families. During Vietnam, the majority of troops were single soldiers serving one tour, and comparatively few citizen soldiers served in combat. Today, the bulk of the boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan are married. They have served, or are serving, multiple tours; and most of them have children. Around 40 percent are citizen soldiers. 8:25:45 AM CHAIR SEATON asked about pre-deployment leave. MS. BANNERMAN advised that this legislation can be different in each state; however, her understanding is that the Alaska version provides 10 days of unpaid leave per United States Code Title 10 status. The family member can utilize the time at their discretion. 8:27:05 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony. 8:28:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for the amount of unpaid leave that teachers are allowed. 8:28:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN responded that five days are allowed currently, but that may depend on the availability of a substitute. 8:28:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether the sponsor patterned the bill after legislation enacted in other states. 8:29:13 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN explained that HB 347 differs in that the bill does not allow leave before deployment, as that date is known well in advance and families can make arrangements for time off. 8:30:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH then asked what brought this issue to Representative Petersen's attention. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN related he was a member of the Joint Armed Services Committee and there are two military bases in close proximity to his district. 8:30:51 AM CHAIR SEATON asked whether the sponsors' intent was to pattern the bill on language enacted in other states to "then be judged independently under Alaska law." REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN responded that the drafter attempted to adapt the bill to conform to Alaska statutes. CHAIR SEATON surmised the intent was for the bill "to be interpreted with the Alaska Constitution and Alaska law, and not bringing those other cases from other jurisdictions." REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said that is correct. 8:33:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered his support for the bill. 8:33:51 AM CHAIR SEATON directed attention to the committee packet and the letters of support and opposition. 8:34:25 AM CHAIR SEATON stated that HB 347 would be held over.