ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE  HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE  March 1, 2022 1:04 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Grier Hopkins, Chair Representative Sara Hannan, Vice Chair Representative Louise Stutes Representative Harriet Drummond Representative Tom McKay Representative Kevin McCabe Representative Mike Cronk MEMBERS ABSENT  All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR  HOUSE BILL NO. 322 "An Act relating to the Alaska marine highway system vessel replacement fund; and providing for an effective date." - MOVED CSHB 322(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE HOUSE BILL NO. 352 "An Act requiring the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to establish a consultation process to rename the Glenn Highway." - HEARD & HELD PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION  BILL: HB 322 SHORT TITLE: AK MARINE HWY SYSTEM VESSEL REPL. FUND SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION 02/14/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/14/22 (H) TRA, FIN 02/24/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124 02/24/22 (H) Heard & Held 02/24/22 (H) MINUTE(TRA) 03/01/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124 BILL: HB 352 SHORT TITLE: CONSULT W/TRIBES TO RENAME GLENN HWY SPONSOR(s): FIELDS 02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS 02/22/22 (H) TRA 03/01/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124 WITNESS REGISTER KERRY CROCKER, Staff Representative Louise Stutes Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor, made comments on HB 322, Version B. MEGAN WALLACE, Director Legislative Legal and Research Services Legislative Affairs Agency Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the hearing on HB 322, Version B. ALEXEI PAINTER, Director Legislative Finance Division Legislative Affairs Agency Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on HB 322, Version B. ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison Department of Transportation and Public Facilities Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments during the hearing on HB 322, Version B; addressed the fiscal note and answered questions on HB 352. REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS Alaska State Legislature Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 352 and gave a PowerPoint presentation. JOSHUA ALBEZA BRANSTETTER Alaskan Asian Pacific Islander Desi Americans Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352. JOEL ISAAK, representing self Juneau, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352. LISA WADE, Executive Director Chickaloon Village Traditional Council Chickaloon, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352. DAVID REAMER, Historian Anchorage, Alaska POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352. ACTION NARRATIVE 1:04:43 PM CHAIR GRIER HOPKINS called the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives Hopkins, Hannan, Stutes, Drummond, McKay, and McCabe were present at the call to order. Representative Cronk arrived as the meeting was in progress. HB 322-AK MARINE HWY SYSTEM VESSEL REPL. FUND  1:06:00 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the first order of business would be HB 322, "An Act relating to the Alaska marine highway system fund; relating to the Alaska marine highway system vessel replacement fund; relating to the Alaska higher education investment fund; and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as a working document on 2/24/22, was the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 322, Version 32- LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, ("Version B").] 1:06:34 PM KERRY CROCKER, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor, explained that HB 322, Version B, would move the Alaska Marine Highway System (AMHS) fund and the vessel replacement fund from the general fund to the state treasury. By doing this, he explained, under Article IX, Section 17(d) of the Constitution of the State of Alaska, the funds will not be subject to the constitutional sweep. He stated that funds subject to the sweep must be both available for appropriations and reside in the general fund. He noted that the proposed legislation would not create dedicated funds, as the legislature still maintains the ability to prorate these funds in any manner. He maintained that it is also critical for AMHS to maintain the endowment of money every year for continuity within the system and not suffer the destabilizing effect of a constitutional sweep. 1:07:40 PM CHAIR HOPKINS suggested this would deal with money going into a fund, not necessarily how the money would be used in the future. MR. CROCKER responded in the affirmative. He stated that the two funds would be moved from the general fund to the treasury, and then the AMHS fund would collect receipts from the marine highway. 1:08:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that he objects to the use of the terms "designated" and "dedicated." He argued that the verbs are transitive and "mean exactly the same thing," and, because this has not been reviewed by the court system, a "big chance" would be taken. He referred to the memorandum ("memo") dated March 17, 2020, from Legislative Council which defines "designated fund" as revenue for a specific purpose; however, it could be appropriated for any purpose. He argued that while the fund would be taken out of the sweep by changing the name from "designated" to "dedicated," it would be left open for the legislature to reappropriate it for any purpose. He questioned whether his understanding was correct. 1:09:11 PM CHAIR HOPKINS noted that the memo from March 17, 2020, has not been posted on the legislature's Bill Action & Status Inquiry System (BASIS); therefore, it is not available to all committee members. He requested that Legislative Legal Services address Representative McCabe's question. 1:09:38 PM CHAIR HOPKINS, responding to a request from Representative Hannan, confirmed the referenced memo will be distributed to the committee and posted on BASIS. REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE apologized to the committee and stated that the memo had been part of his independent research. 1:10:25 PM MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, concurred with the general description of the difference between "designated" and "dedicated" funds. She explained that a designated fund would have an established policy for its intended use. She continued that the designation of a fund would not create a dedicated fund, to the extent that money is required to be used by law for these purposes, and its annual budgeting process the legislature would independently determine whether to continue to use these funds for the designated purposes. In other words, concerning the proposed legislation, the legislature would have the power to decide whether to use these funds as originally intended, or for other appropriate purposes. She advised that the general structure of the designated fund would not change under the proposed legislation. 1:12:13 PM CHAIR HOPKINS interjected that the use of "designated" and "dedicated" would only concern the distribution of revenue. He expressed the understanding that the fund created by the proposed legislation would be outside of the general fund, and appropriations from ferry earnings and sales would be put there; however, the purpose for the money is not being specifically laid out. He suggested that the fund would not be "designated" or "dedicated" but simply a fund outside of the treasury. MS. WALLACE responded in agreement, as Version B would move the existing funds out of the general fund into a separate fund within the state treasury, and no provision in the bill would modify its designated usage. 1:14:34 PM CHAIR HOPKINS directed attention to the memo in the committee packet from Legislative Legal Services, dated February 11, 2020. He suggested that this memo could be discussed while the other memo is being copied and passed to the committee. 1:15:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE provided that "dedicate" means to set to a definite use, while "designate" means to set apart for a specific purpose. He reiterated the argument that the two words are the same, and he pointed out there have been two lawsuits in the state on this topic. Concerning the [March 17 and February 11] memos, he said Legislative Legal Services indicated "it is possible" the court may find the AMHS replacement fund not subject to the sweep. In other words, he argued that "it is possible" the fund would be subject to the sweep. He questioned why the legislature would do this. He expressed agreement with putting aside money for the vessel replacement fund; however, he expressed disagreement with the legislation because it is trying "to dance around" the fact the legislature cannot constitutionally dedicate funds. He suggested the court could become involved, costing the state money. He pointed out that the legislature has done this twice, winning one case and losing one case. He urged the committee not to go down this "road." He expressed the concern that Version B has no sectional analysis, no sponsor statement, and no fiscal note. He suggested this is being rushed, and the bill should be tabled until the discussion is settled, possibly with an outside legal opinion. He said, "It seems to me in both of these letters the legal opinion is not what we think it is." 1:17:47 PM CHAIR HOPKINS commented that legal opinions are often in "legalese." In regard to the fiscal note and the full legal analysis, he suggested the bill be moved to the House Finance Standing Committee where it will get a "hefty vetting," as it deals more with finance policy than transportation specific policy. 1:18:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN commented that the language used in law is connotative and different from "plain" English, and transitive verbs could have a different meaning in reference to law. She explained this often happens in the practice of accounting. She argued that memos written in 2020 would not reflect the two legal cases Representative McCabe referenced. She continued that legal cases concerning "dedicated" versus "designated" may go back further in Alaska case law, and the line is not as bright as asserted. She described the committee as "non- lawyers" debating what the law says. 1:19:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted his experience in negotiations and responded that lawyers often use the "plain language" meaning. He argued that the language would not necessarily have a different meaning just because it is written by a lawyer. He asserted that the line is not bright, rather it is blurry, and "we are dancing on the wrong side of it." 1:20:21 PM CHAIR HOPKINS expressed the importance of understanding the intent behind the language used in negotiations. He argued that the intent in Version B is to make these funds not subject to a constitutional sweep, and this has been agreed upon and clear. He suggested this argument is not about the intent, rather the legalese. He continued that putting the intent clearly on the record in the discussion will help with future discussions. 1:20:57 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES concurred with Chair Hopkins, as she has read the March 17 memo. She restated the memo's descriptions of "dedicated" and "designated" funds. She expressed the opinion that the appropriations from the fund would be determined by precedence; however, this is not the issue. The issue is to simply move the funds from one place to another. 1:22:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued this goes back to the original question, which needs to be "hammered out." He maintained that because the designated funds may be appropriated for any purpose, a future legislature could use the money for "a bridge to nowhere." 1:22:52 PM CHAIR HOPKINS deferred to the Legislative Finance Division. 1:22:58 PM ALEXEI PAINTER, Director, Legislative Finance Division, Legislative Affairs Agency, stated that a designated fund could be appropriated for any purpose. 1:23:20 PM MS. WALLACE, not having a copy of the March 17 memo, referenced the legal opinion in the February 11 memo. She stated that recent litigation related to the sweep had not been concerned about whether funds were dedicated or designated, rather the issues were centered on whether the funds were available for appropriation and whether the funds were in the general fund. In respect to dedicated funds, she pointed out in recent litigation the Alaska Supreme Court discussed whether the permanent fund dividend was part of a dedicated or designated fund. 1:25:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested the administration speak to this. 1:25:30 PM ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, commented that in an early February conference the governor's chief of staff referred to this type of legislation as "conceptual." He expressed the understanding that "from a conceptual standpoint, the administration does wish to provide stability to the Alaska Marine Highway." He added that, conceptually speaking, having these funds not subject to the sweep, would support stability. In response to Chair Hopkins, he expressed uncertainty concerning the issue's progress. 1:26:43 PM CHAIR HOPKINS noted that the March 17 memo was handed out to committee members. He pointed out it relates that a dedicated fund is a revenue source which is dedicated by law for a specific purpose. Concurring with Ms. Wallace and Mr. Painter, he stated that this would be a structure for placing money. 1:28:07 PM CHAIR HOPKINS opened public testimony on HB 322, Version B. After ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he closed public testimony. 1:28:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to report HB 322, Version 32- LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. 1:28:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected. 1:29:01 PM The committee took a brief at ease at 1:29 p.m. 1:29:32 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Hannan, Stutes, and Hopkins voted in favor of the motion to move CSHB 322, Version 32-LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. Representatives McKay, McCabe, and Cronk voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 322(TRA) was reported out of the House Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3. 1:30:07 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:30 p.m. to 1:32 p.m. HB 352-CONSULT W/TRIBES TO RENAME GLENN HWY  1:32:35 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the final order of business would be HB 352, "An Act requiring the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities to establish a consultation process to rename the Glenn Highway." 1:33:16 PM REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 352. He thanked the local historian, David Reamer, who brought the concept of HB 352 to his attention by informing him that the Glenn Highway had been named after Edwin Glenn, who had been convicted of a war crime. After researching the topic, he stated that he had come to the realization that renaming the road would be worth considering. He displayed slide 2 and referenced that Mr. Glenn was in the military and had explored Alaska in an expedition with Joseph Castner in the late 1890s. This exploration established the route of the present-day Glenn Highway. He noted that Joseph Castner was the actual person to establish the route, not Edwin Glenn. After this expedition, he noted that Mr. Glenn had been sent to the Philippines and participated in the Spanish-American War. In this role, Mr. Glenn was involved in torturing a local government official. For this Mr. Glenn was tried, convicted, and court martialed. He continued that in 1942 the Alaska Road Commission had renamed the Chickaloon Highway to the Glenn Highway. He noted that the Chickaloon Highway was named after a tribal community in the Matanuska Valley. He continued that he has conferred with local tribal governments concerning a more suitable name. He stated that the proposed legislation would set a path for tribal consultation to develop a new name. 1:37:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY questioned whether Glennallen is also named after Edwin Glenn. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS deferred the question to David Reamer. REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted the zero fiscal note and suggested there would be a fiscal note if the highway is renamed. He remarked that road signs and maps would need to be changed, and possibly the town name of Glennallen. He argued that to say the fiscal note is zero is misleading. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that HB 352 would not rename Glennallen; however, signs may need to be replaced. He stated that the proposed legislation would not address this point. REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY argued that if the proposed legislation changed the name of the road, the road signs would have to be changed. 1:39:22 PM CHAIR HOPKINS questioned whether the bill would change the signs. REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS deferred to the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) on the fiscal note. He stated that the bill would set up the process to rename the highway. 1:39:41 PM ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, stated that the fiscal note represents the current language in HB 352. He stated that the fiscal note is this way because DOT&PF would be directed by the proposed legislation to establish a process for gathering input. In other words, this would be a consultation, and the fiscal note captures this. He added that DOT&PF gathers input all the time through different processes. He continued that the department often works in this capacity, and sometimes there are other efforts involved; however, in this case little administrative work is envisioned. In answering the question concerning signage, he estimated the signage along the highway, with other indirect costs, would be easily over $2 million. He allowed that this is just an evaluation in the central area, as there would also be the northern region to consider. He reiterated that the replacement of signs with a new name would be costly. He stated that there is not a comprehensive amount because the department would need specific language, and HB 352 only proposes a consultation. 1:41:34 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that he has nothing against the idea because Mr. Glenn was a "bad guy," but he questioned renaming a highway without changing the signs. He referenced the large cost of this. 1:42:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation would lay out a consultation process, and renaming the highway is not an absolute foregone conclusion. She questioned whether the acceptance of a new name would need to come back to the legislature. She expressed the understanding that there is not a process in law for consultations concerning renaming public property. She questioned whether the fiscal note would be written after the authorization of the new name. MR. MILLS responded that if the highway were to be renamed, the legislature would have to produce a bill under Alaska Statute (AS) 35.40, just like any other renaming legislation. He pointed out the requirement that a road can only be named by law is in a different statute. He stated renaming the highway would have to come through a different piece of legislation in the context of AS 35.40. 1:44:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK suggested that the town of Glennallen was named after Edwin Glenn and Henry Allen. 1:44:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation represents "cancel culture." He said, "This is canceling out somebody who, when he did waterboard, did not think that it was torture." He argued that waterboarding is accepted even today as a way of questioning. He expressed the understanding that Mr. Glenn's charges were minimal because the disciplinary actions only removed him from his command for one month with a fine of $50. He expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation would not be needed if renaming the highway is "done correctly," and he questioned why a bill to have a consultation is needed when there is already a process in place to change the names of roads, which could be done tomorrow, with a fiscal note. He continued that the proposed legislation would only "besmirch the name of a long-dead guy," and the highway could be renamed without creating a "big kerfuffle" about Mr. Glenn being a "bad guy" and without using cancel culture. 1:47:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed agreement for the dislike of cancel culture and offered that most people have "good and bad" within them. He stated that Mr. Glenn is admired for his expeditions; however, he did not personally cut the trail. He indicated that the intention of the bill is not to cancel Mr. Glenn; however, he argued that the few roads and major landmarks in Alaska should be named after the most deserving people. He continued that, if the committee, "in its wisdom," decides to rename the Glenn Highway to the Katie John Highway, with a $2 million fiscal note, then he would "love" to speak on the floor in support of this. He continued that the road used to be called the Chickaloon Highway, with at least three tribal communities living the longest in this corridor; therefore, the appropriate process would be speaking with these people and creating a consensus. 1:48:35 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that renaming the highway could involve honoring the Native Alaskans without "putting all this stuff in there concerning cancel culture." He opined that no one really knows what Mr. Glenn did concerning torture, as "we were not there." REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded by expressing the importance of informing the committee about Mr. Glenn in the context of the proposed legislation. 1:49:44 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced the committee would hear invited testimony. 1:50:21 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 p.m. to 1:51 p.m. 1:51:19 PM JOSHUA ALBEZA BRANSTETTER, Alaskan Asian Pacific Islander Desi Americans (AKAPIDA), provided invited testimony on HB 352. Talking about the importance of names, he referred to his middle name, which is his mother's maiden name. He stated that the Filipino culture is matriarchal, carrying history in this way. He stated that Filipinos have been in Alaska for 100 years, and they currently number around 25,000. He stated that it is important for this community to not have a highway named after someone convicted of [war crimes against Filipinos] in a war where over 200,000 Filipinos died. He added that this history has been "cancelled" from school books. He concluded that the proposed legislation is not about dragging a dead man "through the mud"; instead, it is a way to celebrate community in Alaska. He concluded that a participation trophy should not be given to a man who contributed little to the history of Alaska. 1:54:41 PM JOEL ISAAK, representing self, shared that he works for the Department of Education and Early Development as the tribal liaison and is a member of Kenaitze Indian Tribe, but he is testifying on behalf of himself. He stated that for thousands of years Alaska Natives have named places after geographic features and events, which is different from the European tradition. He expressed the importance of representing people and not erasing them from a place. He stated that the consultation process outlined in the proposed legislation would provide the proper way of coming to a decision, as it would meld the two cultures. Regarding all of the highways that intersect between Fairbanks and Anchorage, he stated that these routes were determined by the Indigenous people traversing the landscape and mountain passes for thousands of years, and their knowledge was used to chart out the paths. He expressed support for the proposed legislation because the consultation would be a "good first step." He argued that the possible cost of the fiscal note, with the large number of signs, represents a worthwhile purpose. He reiterated that the way people are represented matters. He explained that because the highway's previous Indigenous name was supplanted by a non-Indigenous name, this would not be erasing anything, but simply bringing back what was before. 2:00:08 PM LISA WADE, Executive Director, Chickaloon Village Traditional Council, provided invited testimony on HB 352. She said that she is speaking on behalf of the Chickaloon Tribe, and, out of respect for the other Tribes, she is not speaking on their behalf. She expressed the opinion that the proposed legislation does not represent cancel culture, rather it represents an opportunity to show respect and reconciliation for the past harms committed against Native Alaskans during the time the highway had been created. She added that the bill also addresses the harms against the Filipino people. She stated that the Chickaloon Tribe suffered great losses during the time the road had been constructed, and disease and other negative health results continue to affect the Tribe today. She explained that history is not one dimensional; however, in this context it has been told from one dimension. She explained that because of the glamorization of people like Edwin Glenn, Indigenous people have become invisible. She added that Native Alaskans live with these impacts today, as Indigenous peoples from this area have thousands of ancient place names describing the area, but these names have been "washed away." She provided examples of Native place names in the area. She pointed out that for spiritual reasons these places were named after geographical features and uses, not after notable people; however, she added that in a respectful, collaborative government to government relationship, the Chickaloon Tribe would support names selected by other people. She explained that when people collaborate, outcomes are unifying. She stated that the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council is available for any questions. 2:04:15 PM DAVID REAMER, Historian, provided invited testimony on HB 352. He confirmed that the town of Glennallen is named after Edwin Glenn and Henry Allen. He stated that Mr. Glenn had overseen the expedition and delegated the work but had not made the trail. Referring to Mr. Glenn's journals, he indicated they show a man who was mostly concerned with local gossip. He indicated the journals are kept at the University of Alaska, Anchorage and can be found online. He remarked that Mr. Glenn's history record consists of his journals, the record of his court martial, and the highway named after him. He stated that the court records show Mr. Glenn admitted to committing torture, ordering torture, and overseeing torture. He stated that the torture referenced was called "the water cure," which is similar to current day waterboarding. He provided details of the torture process. 2:06:17 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called a point of order. 2:06:21 PM The committee took a brief at ease at 2:06 p.m. 2:06:44 PM CHAIR HOPKINS recommended that the account of the torture be less specific. 2:07:07 PM MR. REAMER summed up the torture as being extremely painful. He stated that the trial documents reveal Mr. Glenn held the belief this was not torture because the Filipino people were less than human. He explained the torture at this time had been illegal, and he quoted the historical law code. He described Mr. Glenn's actions which led to his court martial. He stated these accounts are supported by letters sent back to the states by soldiers who were disturbed by the actions, and records show that these actions became known to President Theodore Roosevelt, who ordered the prosecution. It was noted by other commanding officers that Mr. Glenn did not receive the punishment he deserved. In conclusion, he said that the Glenn Highway was not named by Alaskans but by the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, before Alaska became a state. He voiced the opinion that the name was more or less imposed on the state. 2:12:02 PM The committee took a brief at ease at 2:12 p.m. 2:12:08 PM CHAIR HOPKINS acknowledged that Mr. Reamer's testimony was interrupted because of technical difficulties. 2:12:36 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY related an apology for "getting upset." He expressed the opinion that everyone understands about the torture. He continued that Edwin Glenn had named Lake Louise after his wife, so the lake would have to be renamed, too. He stated that he is not saying Mr. Glenn was a "good guy" and argued that the testimony was one- sided, as Mr. Glenn had continued to prosper in his career. 2:14:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thanked the invited testifiers, as it was appropriate and informative testimony. 2:14:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed agreement with the testifiers; however, renaming the highway should not be done by the process laid out in the proposed legislation. He said the legislation is "some sort of subterfuge to get a zero fiscal note." He recommended creating legislation which would rename the highway with a $2 million fiscal note, and "do it the way we have always done it." REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded by expressing the belief that there is a better name for the highway. He added that when introducing the legislation, he had not addressed how DOT&PF would treat the fiscal note. He said, "I assumed that signs cost money. To say there is subterfuge is completely inaccurate." He continued that if the highway is renamed by the department, the legislature would receive the request for the funds to be appropriated. He expressed the desire to consult with the people who have been in the area for thousands of years before a new name is assumed. He said, "This is why I wrote the bill up the way I did." 2:16:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed the opinion that the state should undertake a renaming process which uses Indigenous place names. She recommended that the renaming process should not use the current power structure, but a consultation process. She stated that, as a lifelong Alaskan, she has never referred to the largest mountain in the Interior by the name of a U.S. President who never came to Alaska. She said, "It will always be Denali to me." She argued that the renaming process should involve the people who have been impacted by the land they have lived on. She continued that the bill would not be truncating a process but initiating an idea, which will take time and have a price tag. She suggested that individuals may pay to change the signs. She provided the example of Utqiagvik, and the argument that the name would not catch on, but it has. She said, "I applaud a people who ask to call what has always been for millennium something they referred to it, and with that I'm going to be a supporter of the bill." 2:18:40 PM REPRESENTATIVE CRONK referred to the conversation concerning "cancel culture" as negative. If the name is going to be changed, he suggested this be done in the positive light of the groups being represented. CHAIR HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the sentiment. 2:20:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that she has learned from the discussion and welcomes the opportunity for more of this. Regarding the cost, she said she has voted on a number of bills renaming roads and bridges, and each one has been specific, with a specific price for signage. She referenced a recent piece of legislation which had allowed donations for the cost. She spoke about the time and effort to rename the street she lives on and related this to the difficulty in renaming a 190-mile highway. She stated that she supports the bill, as it is fair and inclusive. 2:22:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that the intention of the bill is to elevate and celebrate the inspiring Alaskans who live along the corridor. He argued that people should be aware of the reasons behind the consideration for renaming the highway, and the history needs to be laid out. He clarified that the process would not rename every road in the state, or require the consultation process, rather it would be to find a better name for this highway. He remarked that this process would allow for the inspiring stories from people who lived in this corridor to be discovered. He said, "I would like to do that." 2:23:18 PM CHAIR HOPKINS announced HB 352 was held over. 2:23:42 PM ADJOURNMENT  There being no further business before the committee, the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:23 p.m.