Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/26/1999 09:45 AM Senate FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
MINUTES
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 26, 1999
9:45 AM
TAPES
SFC-99 # 67, Side A
CALL TO ORDER
The first portion of the meeting was held on the Balance
Budget discussions. Minutes for that portion are separate.
Co-Chair John Torgerson reconvened the meeting at
approximately 9:45 AM.
PRESENT
Senator John Torgerson, Senator Sean Parnell, Senator Randy
Phillips, Senator Dave Donley, Senator Loren Leman, Senator
Gary Wilken, Senator Al Adams and Senator Lyda Green.
Also Attending:
DOUG GARDNER, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas and
Mining Section, Civil Division, Department of Law.
SUMMARY INFORMATION
SJR 9-CONST. AM: WAYS AND MEANS BILLS
Senator Dave Donley testified to the bill. It was held in
committee.
SB 51-LICENSING OF COSMETOLOGISTS
This bill was reported out of committee with a new fiscal
note.
HJR 12-NO FED. CLAIM ON STATE TOBACCO SETTLEMENT
The committee heard testimony from the sponsor and the
Department of Law. The committee amended the bill and
moved it from committee.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 9
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State
of Alaska relating to ways and means bills.
This was the first hearing for this bill, which was
sponsored by the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Dave Donley spoke to the bill, saying it was a
simple concept that would provide a third exceptions to the
single subject bill. Currently there were two exceptions,
a reviser bill and an appropriations bill. This would add
an exception for a ways and means bill. Ways and means
bills would be confined to changes in the law determined by
the Legislature to be necessary to implement
appropriations. The idea was that in a downward budgetary
cycle, many of the changes the Legislature had to achieve
to reduce state expenditure had to be done in the statutes.
They could not simply be done through the budget document.
It was very complicated because the budget cycle and the
bill cycle were different. Without this legislation, every
change in statute that was necessary would need to be done
with independent bills because of the single-subject rule.
All the dollar amounts were implemented in a single
appropriation bill. This would allow a single ways and
means bill to implement the complementing changes in the
budget bill.
The real problems was that the budget cycle was difference
than the legislative cycle in that the legislation had two
years to work through the process. It was difficult for one
bill to be blocked by a single committee and held up, while
the budget bill still proceeds. If the ways and means
legislation doesn't make it through the process, then the
budget bill won't work any more. What happens is most of
the cuts just don't get made.
He continued saying, "You can't have an efficient way of
looking at the budget and really downsizing state
government from a programmatic point of view." What was
left would be budgets that simply cut across the board and
all the same programs were still preserved in statute. That
was not an efficient way to deal with downsizing spending.
He qualified that there would be a danger of abuse by the
Legislature, but he felt the same danger existed on other
levels and the Legislature was responsible enough to not
abuse those. This would allow more important programs to
be run efficiently while less important programs were
reduced.
Co-Chair John Torgerson agreed with the bill but had
concerns with the special session provision feeling that it
may lead to lengthy sessions. Senator Dave Donley had
discussed the matter with the drafters. It was hard to know
the exact circumstances with the special sessions. There
may be times when the Legislature wanted that tool
available. If a ways and means bill had failed in regular
session but the budget bill passed, the special session
would be a way for the body to come back and readdress the
issue.
Senator Sean Parnell had given it thought also. The
language in Section 1 detailing special sessions only dealt
with those called by the Governor. The previous sentence
detailed how special sessions could be called by the
Governor or by a vote of two-thirds of the Legislature. He
wondered if there a reason it was limited to a special
session called by the Governor.
Senator Dave Donley replied that reason it was applied to
specific special sessions called by the governor was
because the Governor set the perimeter of those special
session. However, the Legislature itself may need to
address the ways and means items, so this would give the
Legislature the authority to do that even if the Governor
did not issue a call. If the Legislature called the special
session, it could place the ways and means bill on the
agenda. The Governor could then not preclude the
Legislature from considering the matter.
Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if, with the two-thirds vote
requirement, could a member of the Legislature hold out
their vote unless a concession was made for a separate,
unrelated item to be added to the ways and means bill. He
wondered if that could jeopardize the vote on a special
session. Senator Dave Donley felt that was always a concern
with the special session vote. However, the Legislature
had only called itself back into a special session twice in
the past. So he didn't think it would be any more of a
problem than with other subject matters.
Senator Sean Parnell then asked for clarification that this
section was in no way meant to preclude or limit the
Legislature's ability to include a ways and means bill,
should the Legislature call itself into special session.
Senator Dave Donley affirmed.
Senator Sean Parnell made comments asking why would the
Legislature want to have ways and means bill during a
special session because that could complicate matters and
the special session may never successfully adjourn. He
posed a scenario where the Legislature passed a budget and
a related ways and means bill, but the Governor vetoed
both. He did not want to limit the Governor's ability to
call a special session on a budget matter without a ways
and means bill. He assumed the ways and means bill would
have to be vetoed in its entirety and therefore the
Governor may wish to call a special session to negotiate
the ways and means bill.
Senator Dave Donley responded saying that was a thought
process that went into this provision. If the Governor did
veto and then didn't put it in the call for a special
session, the Legislature would be left with the dilemma to
either override the veto or do nothing. He suggested
considering adding a provision to give middle ground
options.
Co-Chair John Torgerson commented that a ways and means
bill would not necessarily have to be acted upon during a
special session. It would be treated the same as any other
bill as far as the process was concerned. That made him
more comfortable. He could see the advantages of using a
special session to address a ways and means bill.
Senator Al Adams noted that the way this was written the
ways and means bill would have a broad title. He felt that
in doing this legislation, the Legislature was going in the
opposite direction. He wanted to have former Governor Jack
Coghill and Judge Tom Stewart, who served on the
constitutional convention to scrutinize the bill and give
suggestions. Senator Al Adams thought this bill would set
the state up for abuse in the form of riders added to a
ways and means bill. He believed ways and means bills
should be contained in a single subject to prevent
unrelated materials added to the process. If a single
subject provision was not inserted, he suggested adding a
new Section 15 that was in the constitution so the Governor
could strike the riders in a line item veto capacity.
Senator Al Adams noted that there would be changes to
political parties in control of state government.
Therefore, there needed to be a safeguard to allow the
Governor the power to veto rider items.
Senator Dave Donley thought that was Senator Al Adams was
saying was that the Governor had line item veto power on
appropriation bills and perhaps the Governor should have
the power to do same with a ways and means bill as well.
Senator Al Adams affirmed. Senator Dave Donley said the
Governor could have this ability to make the budget and the
ways and means bills balance. He felt the committee should
have a discussion on that point.
Senator Sean Parnell wanted to know if the President of the
US had that authority. Senator Dave Donley replied that
the President of the US did not and in fact, had fewer
executive powers than the Governor of Alaska did. The
president did not have line item veto although Congress had
attempted to give that authority. The US Supreme Court
ruled it could not be granted without a US Constitutional
Amendment.
Co-Chair John Torgerson pointed out to Senator Al Adams the
bottom of page 2, relating to how the ways and means bill
shall be confined to changes in law determined by the
Legislature to be necessary to implement appropriations. He
asked if Senator Al Adams thought that would cause
additional riders. Co-Chair John Torgerson understood that
to be pretty restrictive. Senator Al Adams said he would
like to get different legal opinions from the Legal Service
Division and the Department of Law on that point so the
committee could fully understand. He wanted to prevent any
abuse of that power. He didn't think all the members of the
committee understood that portion.
Co-Chair John Torgerson noted the Attorney General
testified on the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee but
didn't speak to this particular issue. He had comments on
the broad title saying it could have good and bad
implications but that the good might carry the bad. He
also had problems with the special sessions.
Senator Al Adams thought Senator Dave Donley saw the
importance of the needed checks and balances and felt that
the committee could work something out to solve the
problem. Co-Chair John Torgerson asked if it would then
become a revision of law or a constitutional amendment.
Senator Al Adams commented that the legalities needed to be
looked at either way.
Senator Dave Donley wanted the nine members of the
committee to be comfortable with the bill. He asked for
their input. There were ways to increase the checks and
balances. He supported the bill as is but would also
support Senator Al Adams's suggestions. He discussed other
options.
He spoke of other discussions about the revisers bill. The
reviser of statutes had the responsibility of **. He
considered having the head of * and the head of Division of
Legislative Finance be the head, but *. There were ways to
get to that concern.
Senator Al Adams asked if the check and balances matter was
discussed in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Dave
Donley said it had been. Co-Chair John Torgerson didn't
remember the line item veto being discussed.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced he would request the
Legal Services Division to draft an amendment. He would
also ask the Department of Law to testify.
Co-Chair John Torgerson ordered the bill held in committee.
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 51(L&C)
"An Act relating to barbers, hairdressers,
manicurists, and cosmetologists; providing that the
only qualification necessary for licensure as a
manicurist, other than payment of fees, is completion
of a class that is 12 hours in duration, addresses
relevant health, safety, and hygiene concerns, and is
offered through a school approved by the Board of
Barbers and Hairdressers; and providing for an
effective date."
This was the second hearing for this bill.
Co-Chair John Torgerson noted material relating to the
manicurist training was available for reference. He said
the board member who had wished to testify at the last
hearing had submitted written comments, which were
distributed to the committee members.
Senator Randy Phillips shared that he tried to contact a
manicurist business in his district to hear their comments
of the bill and got no response.
Senator Randy Phillips offered a motion to move from
committee CS SB 51 (L&C) from committee with the fiscal
note adopted by the Senate Finance Committee.
Senator Lyda Green objected for question. She referred to
the earlier discussion on the money involved and asked if
the amended fiscal note reflected the change of funds to
the Department of Environmental Conservation. Co-Chair
John Torgerson clarified that Department of Environmental
Conservation changed the fiscal note so it followed the
intent that a fee would be assessed to the licensees to
cover the costs of Department of Environmental
Conservation's inspections.
Senator Al Adams added that the fees would also cover
publications.
Without objection, CS SB 51 (L&C) was reported out of
committee.
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12(FIN)
Relating to federal claims against funds obtained by
settlement of state tobacco litigation.
JOHN MANLEY, staff to Representative John Harris the prime
sponsor of the bill, testified before the committee. He
said that HJR 12 would send a message to the President of
the US and to Congress that the State Of Alaska brought a
lawsuit to the tobacco companies and came to a settlement,
which the federal government was not involved. Therefore,
they were not entitled to a share of the money.
The state stood to receive about $669 million from the
settlement over the next 25 years. If the federal
government had its way in exercising its prerogative under
the proposed US Senate bill, they could take as much as
$400 million of that amount.
Therefore, the resolution asked that Congress pass a law
directing federal agencies to not take that money.
Co-Chair John Torgerson referred to page 2 line 16 and 17
that basically stated that the president was to review the
fact of the settlement and refrain from taking steps to
recoup dollars, which the federal government was not
entitled. He asked if the sponsor was saying that the
federal government might be entitled to some of the
settlement. That was his interpretation. John Manley
replied that intention was they would not be entitled to
any of the settlement. Co-Chair John Torgerson stated that
was not what the statement said. It needed clean up. John
Manley suggested that portion of the language should be
removed.
John Manley shared that the federal government felt they
are entitled to two-thirds of the settlement under the
Social Security Act.
Co-Chair John Torgerson detailed the language discrepancy.
Senator Sean Parnell moved to adopt Amendment #1. This
would delete language on page 2 beginning with line 16,
"review the facts related to the tobacco settlement with
the State Of Alaska" and then at line 17 insert a period
after "dollars" and delete the remainder of the line. He
read the revised language into the record. This would
comply with line, which stated that the State Of Alaska was
entitled to all the funds. Without objection it was
adopted.
Senator Lyda Green suggested adding Senator Kay Bailey-
Hutchinson to the list of recipients of the resolution. She
was the co-sponsor of the federal legislation to claim the
funds, SB 36 to page 2 after Senator Trent Lott. John
Manley did not oppose this. Senator Lyda Green moved to
adopt Amendment #2. Without objection, it was adopted.
DOUG GARDNER, Assistant Attorney General, Oil, Gas and
Mining Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, came to
the table to answer any questions of the committee.
Senator Al Adams asked if there was a fear that the federal
government could take a portion, such as two-thirds, of the
money that was entitled to Alaska. Doug Gardner said it was
a real concern and that the federal legislation was
attached to an emergency spending appropriation and had 99
co-sponsors.
Senator Sean Parnell moved to report SCS CS HJR 12 (FIN) as
amended out of committee. There was no objection and it
was so ordered.
Co-Chair John Torgerson announced committee substitutes
were distributed for SB 33, SB 24 and SB 101. He had
scheduled SB 101 and SB 24 for Monday morning. He told the
committee next week's meetings would begin at 8:00 AM each
morning to hear bills for one hour. The meetings would
continue at 9:00 AM with Balanced Budget Presentations.
Senator Al Adams asked if the committee would have fiscal
notes on SB 24 by Monday. There was discussion between him
and Co-Chair John Torgerson about the implications of
Section 4 to the fiscal notes.
ADJOURNED
Senator Torgerson adjourned the meeting at 10:23 AM.
SFC-99 (7) 3/26/99
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|