SJR 5-CONST. AM.:PERMANENT FUND & DIVIDEND  2:19:15 PM CHAIR HUGHES announced that the final order of business would be SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 5, Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the Alaska permanent fund and the permanent fund dividend. [Before the committee was the CSSJR 5(STA), Version U.] 2:19:48 PM SENATOR KIEHL moved to adopt Amendment 1, work order 31- GS1072\A.1, Nauman, 4/2/19. AMENDMENT 1  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR KIEHL TO: CSSJR 5 (STA) Page 1, line 2, following "dividend": Insert ", establishing the earnings reserve  account, and relating to appropriations from the  earnings reserve account" Page 1, lines 9 - 11: Delete "Except as provided under (b) of this  section, all [ALL] income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law." Insert "The earnings reserve account is  established as a separate account in the fund. Income  from the fund shall be deposited into the earnings  reserve account as soon as it is received and may be  invested as authorized for investments of the  principal. Money in the earnings reserve account may  be appropriated only as provided in (b) of this  section [ALL INCOME FROM THE PERMANENT FUND SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE GENERAL FUND UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW]." Page 1, line 14, through page 2, line 13: Delete all material and insert: "(b) Each fiscal year, an amount (1) equal to one and one-fourth percent of the average market value of the fund, as calculated in (c) of this section, shall be transferred from the earnings reserve account for use in a program of dividend payments to State residents as provided by law; and (2) not to exceed three and three-fourths percent of the average market value of the fund, as calculated in (c) of this section, may be appropriated by the legislature from the earnings reserve account to the general fund. (c) For purposes of (b) of this section, the average market value of the fund is the average market value of the fund, including the earnings reserve account, for the first five of the preceding six fiscal years, including the fiscal year just ended, computed annually at the end of each fiscal year in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, excluding any unrealized gains or losses." Page 2, lines 16 - 22: Delete all material and insert: "Section 30. Permanent Fund Amendments:  Transition. The earnings reserve account established in the 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15) replaces the existing earnings reserve account established by law. Money in the existing earnings reserve account on the effective date of the 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15) shall be deposited into the earnings reserve account established by those amendments." CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR KIEHL explained that Amendment 1 would do two things. First, it would bring us to a constitutional Percent of Market Value (POMV). The market value would be calculated based on both the corpus and the earnings reserve. It uses previously tested language that sets a five percent maximum market draw, based on an average of the preceding five years. At the same time, it would maintain the earnings reserve structure and place it in the Constitution of the State of Alaska. If Alaska had a series of bad financial years, it would not allow accessing the corpus of the permanent fund. While the POMV would be calculated on the total value, it protects the principal of the permanent fund. He said that Amendment 1 provides assurances that the permanent fund is safe from inflation and from overdraw by a future legislature. It would also place a minimum split between the funding the permanent fund dividend (PFD) and government services. Amendment 1 proposes no less than one part for the PFD and no more than three parts for public services. If the state did not need the three parts for public services, in years when oil prices or production was high, more funding could be used for the PFD and still maintain the current statutory formula. In this way, the state ensures that the Alaskan voters always have a PFD they can count on, yet still meet the needs of the public throughout the services the state provides. 2:22:31 PM CHAIR HUGHES asked whether it would essentially establish a 25 to 75 split of the POMV draw. SENATOR KIEHL answered that the PFD would never be less than 25 percent. In further response, he clarified that the historical statutory formula would be followed under Amendment 1 because 50 percent for dividends is not less than 25 percent. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that 25 percent shall be transferred. She asked for further clarification on how the state could still pay the historical formula. SENATOR KIEHL referred to lines 18-21 of Amendment 1, which states that " one and one-fourth percent of the average market value of the fund ?." Thus, of the five percent draw, one and one-fourth percent would be constitutionally mandated for the program of dividend payments. The remaining three and three- fourths percent of the average market value of the fund may be appropriated by the legislature, he said. In fact, the legislature could place 100 percent into PFDs without violating the Constitution of the State of Alaska. However, the state could never put less than one and one-fourth percent of the five percent draw into PFDs. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that under SJR 5, the earnings would be transferred to the dividends according to the historical formula. However, Amendment 1 would only guarantee a quarter of the draw, which would give the legislature the option to bring it up to the historical formula. She asked for further clarification that [SJR 5] would guarantee the historical formula, but Amendment 1 would not. SENATOR KIEHL agreed. He said that SJR 5 would lock the legislature into the way the PFD is calculated whereas Amendment 1 is cleaner and requires 25 percent of the draw to be used for the PFDs. The governor's version would "tie the legislature's hands" at 50 percent and the old formula. It creates difficulties when a need to adjust eligibility occurs, he said. 2:26:29 PM CHAIR HUGHES referred to page 2, line 2, to subsection (c) of Amendment 1. She asked whether this would essentially constitutionalize the POMV and if it is structured similarly to current statute or if it is different. SENATOR KIEHL explained that it would create a constitutional POMV, which is similar in structure since it would consider the average value of the first five of the preceding six fiscal years. The value of corpus of the fund and the earnings reserve would be evaluated. He said the corpus and earnings reserve split would be maintained in the event of a long string of down years in the investment markets. He said he thought it was valuable to not erase the distinctions of the earnings reserve and corpus of the fund, but to otherwise go to a full POMV. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the five percent is arrived at by adding the one and one-fourth and three and three- fourths percent. She said that this year the draw is set at 5.25 percent, which will drop to five percent. She asked when the five percent drop is scheduled to occur. SENATOR KIEHL offered his belief that it would be effective in 2021, since [SJR 5] would go before the voters in 2020. CHAIR HUGHES said it would align with the statutes. 2:28:30 PM SENATOR SHOWER expressed concern that the legislature would likely stick with 25 percent. He suggested that the legislature is still holding discussions on the POMV so this language might have unintended consequences. He said he was not necessarily opposed to the concept being part of the conversation separate from SJR 5. CHAIR HUGHES expressed concern that the language is "may" appropriate, especially since this would not have a spending cap or appropriation limit. SENATOR KIEHL pointed out that the Constitution of the State of Alaska currently does not identify any minimum PFD amount. Further, the legislature can draw 100 percent of the balance in the earnings reserve account in a single year. He said he appreciated that everyone is trying to find the best way to protect the PFD and where the floor belongs. However, the history is that there is not currently a requirement to pay a PFD. CHAIR HUGHES said that she appreciated that it is an improvement since the Constitution of the State of Alaska currently does not mandate a PFD be paid. She said that the committee should look at achieving the historical formula. She said significant discussion has been held to protect and constitutionalize the earnings reserve account because it could erode. She offered her belief that that discussion is more appropriate for the Senate Finance Standing Committee. 2:31:52 PM SENATOR REINBOLD asked whether the sponsor of Amendment 1 would consider an amendment on line 18 for 50 percent. SENATOR KIEHL said that he thought it was too high, but it is up to the committee. 2:32:22 PM SENATOR REINBOLD offered a Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 1, on lines 18 and 22 to read "2.5 percent." CHAIR HUGHES restated Conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment 1. SENATOR REINBOLD withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1 Amendment 1. 2:33:18 PM SENATOR SHOWER acknowledged that a number of plans are floating around. He said he likes the direction it is going but putting a minimum of a 50 percent split in the Constitution of the State of Alaska might create unintended consequences. He said he was not prepared to support Amendment 1. He said that the right protection for the Alaska Permanent Fund and the PFD will be a well-thought out battle. 2:35:24 PM CHAIR HUGHES appreciated the sponsor's willingness to make a change to the Constitution of the State of Alaska related to the language in Amendment 1. 2:35:45 PM MIKE BARNHILL, Policy Director, Office of Management and Budget, Office of the Governor, Juneau, stated that SJR 5 would amend the Constitution of the State of Alaska to do two primary things. First, it would guarantee payment of the permanent fund dividend (PFD) as set out in statute. Currently, the state has a statute to address the PFD, but the payment is not guaranteed because it is subject to appropriation. Amendment 1 would wipe that purpose out of this resolution, so a statutory formula would not be guaranteed. Instead, it would be subject to the legislature making ad hoc decisions every year. The second purpose of SJR 5 is to give the people the ability to consider any changes to the statutory formula going forward. This process allows the legislature to change the formula, but the people must approve it by a vote. However, that purpose would be eliminated in Amendment 1. He reiterated that the governor's purposes are removed so the administration prefers the committee not adopt it. 2:37:41 PM CHAIR HUGHES maintained her objection. 2:37:44 PM A roll call vote was taken. Senator Kiehl voted in favor of Amendment 1 and Senators Micciche, Reinbold, Shower, and Hughes voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 1 failed by a 1:4 vote. 2:38:24 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 2, work order 31- GS1072\U.3, Nauman, 4/15/19. AMENDMENT 2  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE TO: CSJJR 5(STA) Page 1, line 15: Delete "a program of" Page 2, lines 2 - 3: Delete "An appropriation under Section 13 of this article is not necessary for a transfer under this subsection." Insert "The transfer of income for the payment of dividends to State residents under this subsection does not require an appropriation under Section 13 of this article." Page 2, line 5: Delete "program of dividend payments" Insert "amount transferred for the payment of dividends" Page 2, lines 6 - 7: Delete ", including the amount of the dividend and eligibility requirements," CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR MICCICHE said that Amendment 2 was co-authored by Senator Shower and himself primarily as clean-up language. He reviewed the language, relating that the first change on page 1, line 15, read, "Each fiscal year, a portion of the income from the permanent fund shall be transferred solely for a program of dividend payments ?. He referred to Page 2, lines 2-3, which would delete "An appropriation under Section 13 of this article is not necessary for a transfer under this subsection." It would replace it with the language, "The transfer of income for the payment of dividends to state residents under this subsection does not require an appropriation under Section 13 of this article." SENATOR MICCICHE said that under SJR 5, an appropriation would no longer be necessary. It would simply be a transfer and Amendment 2 would rearrange the language to reflect the sponsor's intent. He referred to page 2 line 5 of SJR 5, which would delete the language, "program of dividend payments" and change it to "amount transferred for the payment of dividends." Finally, on page 2, lines 6-7, Amendment 2 would delete the language ", including the amount of the dividend and eligibility requirements." He said that since this language refers to dividend payments, that it eliminates this section, and goes right to the language, "shall not take effect unless approved by the voters ?." He said it would substantively remove eligibility requirements from [SJR 5], which should be under the purview of the legislature. 2:40:42 PM SENATOR SHOWER said that one of the things he was concerned with was that if people said they had met eligibility for certain programs within the state, it might be perceived as setting precedent. The legislature needs to retain the ability to change eligibility requirements if it decides to "tighten up" the program. For example, he is eligible for any number of things, he said. SENATOR KIEHL asked for clarification on page 2, lines 4-6, which states that the transfer does not require an appropriation. He was unsure what law changes the amount that gets transferred. SENATOR MICCICHE responded that if [Amendment 2 and the resolution] were to pass, it would require that a ballot measure go to the voters to change the constitutional language and the amount that would be transferred. He said that Amendment 2 supports the original statutory payment in existence as of December 31, 2018. If that amount is changed, it would go before the voters. He said that the statutory payment as of December 31, 2018 is in SJR 5 and if the legislature decides to change it, that amount must go before the voters for approval. SENATOR KIEHL recalled the legislature had a list of allowable investments, which is what the state anticipates it can earn on the fund. He asked whether that would have an effect on the amount to be transferred and if that would need to go before the voters. SENATOR MICCICHE answered that in his interpretation, it does not. He suggested the administration may wish to weigh in, but this amendment would support the five-year trailing earnings and the traditional statutory calculation for the permanent fund dividend (PFD). It would not change how earnings can be invested. SENATOR KIEHL appreciated the intent but he expressed concern whether Amendment 2 would accomplish it. 2:44:13 PM MR. BARNHILL responded that the investment list statutes were set out in Title 37, which governed how the Permanent Fund Corporation invests the assets of the permanent fund. The program for the permanent fund dividend (PFD) is set out in Title 43, so it is completely separate. He said that nothing in SJR 5 relates to issues governed by statute in Title 37. 2:44:58 PM SENATOR KIEHL said Amendment 2 deletes the word "program." MR. BARNHILL answered that the program of dividends is in Title 43 and a program of investments is in Title 37. They are completely separate. He said that to make it patently clear, the governor does not intend this to touch anything related to the management of permanent fund assets. In response to Chair Hughes, he said the administration supports Amendment 2. It would provide a little cleanup and substantively it eliminates "dividend and eligibility [requirements]." 2:45:59 PM CHAIR HUGHES said that the committee held discussions on eligibility. She offered her belief that the voters are more concerned about PFD itself and the voters are already eligible so she did not think Alaskans would mind. 2:46:31 PM CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. 2:46:36 PM SENATOR KIEHL remarked that he still has concerns and would like to work on this question going forward but he will not object to Amendment 2. There being no further objection, Amendment 2 was adopted. 2:47:02 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to adopt Amendment 3, work order 31- GS1072\U.4, Nauman, 4/15/19. AMENDMENT 3  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR MICCICHE TO: CSJJR 5(STA) Page 2, line 3, following "subsection.": Insert "Dividend payments under this subsection shall be distributed in four equal quarterly payments over the calendar year." CHAIR HUGHES objected for discussion purposes. SENATOR MICCICHE explained that Amendment 3 was brought to him by Mr. Clem Tillion, who is one of the defenders of the Permanent Fund. He said that this would distribute dividend payments in four equal payments. He said that currently about 10 percent of dividends stay in the state. He said that four smaller payments are more likely to end up in the economy at a much higher proportion. He offered his belief that it would be at a lower cost to the state because the remaining dollars will continue to earn over the course of the year. Finally, he believes it will reduce some of the more negative behavior that occurs by a small segment of residents who receive a big check and often do not use it for what is best for them, their families, or their communities. He recapped that it would pay the same amount of the dividend over four quarters. 2:49:14 PM SENATOR SHOWER said he supports Amendment 3. He echoed the sponsor's rationale in support of the amendment. He said the University of Alaska, Institute of Social and Economic Research conducted a study and a big bump in economic impact occurs, but then it has no effect in the economy. He said a number of positive aspects could occur if people receive quarterly checks. He characterized this as a really good thing for the state. 2:51:31 PM SENATOR KIEHL asked how the executive branch would handle child support or garnishments. SENATOR MICCICHE answered that it would be relatively unchanged. Most recipients receive their checks by electronic means. He suggested that some minor administrative costs might be incurred, but the same garnishments would apply. 2:53:20 PM MR. BARNHILL said the administration has looked at this in terms of monthly payments. He related his understanding that the Permanent Fund Division would have an increased burden, but he was unsure that it was sufficient enough to warrant setting this aside since it would result in many benefits. He offered a friendly amendment to read, shall be distributed in "no less than" to allow the state the option to go to monthly payments. He said that the administration was considering a statutory fix rather than a constitutional one, but it is within the purview of the committee to decide. 2:54:41 PM CHAIR HUGHES asked if she could assume that the administration has no objection to Amendment 3. MR. BARNHILL answered that the administration was neutral on Amendment 3. CHAIR HUGHES asked whether the administration preferred adding the language "no less than." MR. BARNHILL said if the administration chose to distribute monthly dividends, adding Amendment 3 to the constitution could prohibit it. 2:55:22 PM SENATOR MICCICHE said that quarterly payments are significantly different than the minimum basic income concept of monthly payments. He thought it would get into a "Zuckerberg model, which is an extremely leftist model" and is one he has a difficult time supporting. He said that Amendment 3 would break the PFD into quarterly payments. He said the monthly aspect is different than his vision. 2:56:05 PM SENATOR SHOWER reported that the Permanent Fund Division garnishments always take priority and the process would not change. SENATOR KIEHL asked whether this would trigger income tax withholding. He asked how that would work. MR. BARNHILL responded that he pleads ignorance. SENATOR MICCICHE said that withholding is based on the amount and not on the frequency of distribution. It would remain the same. 2:57:33 PM CHAIR HUGHES removed her objection. There being no further objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. 2:57:54 PM CHAIR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 4, work order 31- GS1072\U.1, Nauman, 4/9/19. AMENDMENT 4  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES TO: CSJJR 5(STA) Page 2, line 18: Delete "Transition." Insert "Transition; Conditional Effect. (a)" Page 2, following line 24: Insert a new subsection to read: "(b) The 2020 amendments to the Alaska permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15) take effect only if, in 2020, the voters approve an amendment relating to an appropriation limit (art. IX, sec. 16)." SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes. CHAIR HUGHES said Amendment 4 stems from her concern. She related a scenario in which oil prices dropped substantially, and the legislature did not have a spending limit in place but had set a PFD amount. She said this contingency language would not add SJR 5 to the Constitution of the State of Alaska unless SJR 6, which sets the spending limit, was approved by the voters. 2:59:04 PM MR. WHITT said that Amendment 4 would tie SJR 5 to the constitutional spending cap in SJR 6. He referred to the language on page 2 line 24. He said that if the language in [Section 1 and 2 of Article IX, Section 15 were to pass without passage of [the resolution] relating to an appropriation limit, it would raise a number of constitutional issues. One issue was to tie an Alaskan's vote on one ballot initiative to another. He said Chair Hughes wanted to start the conversation and work on a second approach to address this issue. 3:00:24 PM CHAIR HUGHES withdrew Amendment 4. She said that she did not want to set up the legislature on legal issues. She said that she did not want to put the legislature in the position of needing to raise taxes to meet the state's obligation. This is why the spending limit is so crucial. 3:01:03 PM CHAIR HUGHES moved to adopt Amendment 5, work order 31- GS1072\U.2, Nauman, 4/15/19. AMENDMENT 5  OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR HUGHES TO: CSJJR 5(STA) Page 1, line 2, following "dividend": Insert ", relating to an appropriation limit, and  relating to the budget reserve fund" Page 2, following line 15: Insert new resolution sections to read: "* Sec. 3. Article IX, sec. 16, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is repealed and readopted to read: Section 16. Appropriation Limit. (a) Except as provided in (b) of this section, appropriations made for a fiscal year shall not exceed the average of the appropriations made in the previous three fiscal years by more than the average change in inflation in the previous five fiscal years. In this subsection, the change in inflation shall be based on the Consumer Price Index for Anchorage, Alaska, as prescribed by law. This subsection does not apply to an appropriation (1) to the principal of the Alaska permanent fund and from the Alaska permanent fund income for the administration of the fund or payment of permanent fund dividends; (2) to meet a state of disaster declared by the governor as prescribed by law; (3) to pay obligations or spend the proceeds or revenue of State general obligation bonds and revenue bonds; (4) that is a reappropriation of a previous unobligated appropriation; (5) that is duplicating the authorization to expend funds from another appropriation; (6) from a non-State source in trust for a specific purpose, including revenues of a public enterprise or public corporation of the State that issues revenue bonds; and (7) of money to a State savings account or fund that requires a subsequent appropriation from that account or fund as prescribed by law. (b) The legislature may appropriate an additional amount in excess of the appropriation limit under (a) of this section for capital improvements, except that the amount for capital improvements made in excess of the appropriation limit in a fiscal year shall not exceed ten percent of the total appropriation limit for that fiscal year. Appropriations for capital improvements that exceed the appropriation limit shall not be used in calculating the appropriation limit in subsequent fiscal years. (c) Any unexpended, unobligated, and unappropriated balance in the general fund at the end of a fiscal year shall be deposited into the following funds in the priority order listed: (1) the permanent fund under Section 15 of this article in an amount not to exceed fifty-percent of the income produced from the permanent fund during the fiscal year just ended; (2) the budget reserve fund under Section 17 of this article in an amount necessary to bring the budget reserve fund balance equal to the appropriation limit for the next fiscal year; (3) the permanent fund under Section 15 of this article. (d) Section 7 of this article does not apply to deposits made under (c) of this section.  * Sec. 4. Article IX, sec. 17(a), Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: (a) There is established as a separate fund in the State treasury the budget reserve fund. Except for money deposited into the permanent fund under Section 15 of this article, all money received by the State [AFTER JULY 1, 1990], as a result of the termination, through settlement or otherwise, of an administrative proceeding or of litigation in a State or federal court directly involving mineral lease bonuses, rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments or bonuses, or involving taxes imposed on mineral income, production, or property, shall be deposited in the budget reserve fund. Money in the budget reserve fund shall be invested so as to yield competitive market rates to the fund. Income of the fund shall be retained in the fund. Section 7 of this article does not apply to deposits made to the fund under this subsection. Money may be appropriated from the fund only as authorized under (b) [OR (c)] of this section.  * Sec. 5. Article IX, sec. 17(b), Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: (b) If the amount in the general fund available for appropriation for a fiscal year is less than the appropriation limit under Section 16 of this article [AMOUNT APPROPRIATED FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR], an appropriation may be made from the budget reserve fund. However, the amount appropriated from the fund under this subsection may not exceed the amount necessary, when added to other funds in the general  fund available for appropriation, to provide for total appropriations equal to the appropriation limit under  section 16 of this article [AMOUNT OF APPROPRIATIONS MADE IN THE PREVIOUS CALENDAR YEAR FOR THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR]." Renumber the following resolution sections accordingly. Page 2, lines 16 - 17: Delete "a new section" Insert "new sections" Page 2, following line 24: Insert new material to read: "Section 31. Application of Appropriation Limit. The 2020 amendment limiting appropriation increases and requiring a portion of the unexpended, unobligated, and unappropriated balance in the general fund to go to the permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15) applies to appropriations made for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022, and thereafter. Section 32. Budget Reserve Fund Transition. The repeal of Section 17(d) of Article IX in the 2020 amendments eliminates any repayment required under that subsection through the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.  * Sec. 7. Article IX, secs. 17(c) and 17(d), Constitution of the State of Alaska, are repealed." Renumber the following resolution section accordingly. SENATOR SHOWER objected for discussion purposes. CHAIR HUGHES explained Amendment 5. Since the contingency language was problematic the Division of Legal Services suggested this would provide a better solution. It would essentially take language from SJR 6 and roll it into SJR 5. One question was how the courts have ruled on the single subject rule. She said that the courts have not yet had a case related to a constitutional amendment, but the courts have ruled on legislative bills. She said that the courts have allowed it for bills, so long as an overarching general topic exists, such as state finances. Even though it has not yet been tested, it is likely to stand up better than the approach taken in Amendment 4. 3:02:08 PM MR. WHITT agreed that Amendment 5 would take the language in SJR 6, the appropriation limit, in the form that passed out of the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee and insert the language into SJR 5, related to the permanent fund and permanent fund dividend. This would tie both resolutions together. CHAIR HUGHES related her understanding that the administration prefers to keep the vehicles separate, since it might be confusing. However, she believes voters can understand this and would be concerned about potentially incurring high tax rates in the future. She offered her belief that voters would appreciate the resolution and possibly support it. 3:03:13 PM SENATOR KIEHL recalled that the Legislative Legal Services had some concerns about SJR 6, in terms of whether it constituted a constitutional amendment or a revision. MR. WHITT answered that is correct. He said the committee held discussions on whether it was a constitutional amendment or a revision. Ultimately, the governor's position is that the administration could effectively argue their position on SJR 6. The administration is prepared to do so. It was the will of the committee to trust the governor and his position on the resolution. The committee moved SJR 6 out of committee. SENATOR KIEHL said it may not have been unanimous. He said that that the concern does not diminish but would increase by coupling more constitutional sections and changes to the legislature's power to appropriate. He said that appropriation is the fundamental authority of the legislative branch. He said it begins to look like a significant rewrite. He said that his concern about a constitutional revision grows rather than shrinks. 3:05:07 PM SENATOR SHOWER removed his objection. 3:05:18 PM SENATOR KIEHL objected. 3:05:28 PM At-ease. 3:05:41 PM CHAIR HUGHES reconvened the meeting. A roll call vote was taken. Senators Shower, Micciche, and Hughes voted in favor of Amendment 5 and Senator Kiehl voted against it. Therefore, Amendment 5 passed by a 3:1 vote. 3:06:20 PM CHAIR HUGHES restated that on a vote of three yeas, one nay, and one absent, Amendment 5 was adopted. 3:06:39 PM SENATOR MICCICHE moved to report SJR 5, work order 31-GS1072/U as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSSJR 5(JUD) was reported from the Senate Judiciary Standing Committee.