Legislature(2023 - 2024)DAVIS 106
04/19/2023 06:00 PM House WAYS & MEANS
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 | |
| HB38 | |
| HJR2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HJR 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 38-APPROPRIATION LIMIT; GOV BUDGET
6:08:07 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 38, "An Act relating to an appropriation
limit; relating to the budget responsibilities of the governor;
and providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 38(JUD), which was passed out of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee on 2/27/23]
[Contains discussion of HJR 2]
6:09:15 PM
ROB CARPENTER, Deputy Director, Legislative Finance Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, presented the PowerPoint, titled
"Appropriations Limits Modeling Samples" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. On slide 2, he displayed a graph, which
showed the current iteration of the fiscal model in CSHB 38
(JUD) and CSHJR 2 (JUD). He explained that the graph depicts a
historical view of how operating and capital appropriations are
subject to spending limits. The graph depicts data from the
fiscal year 2004 (FY 04) to the present and future projections
through FY 33. He mentioned that there are multiple variables
affecting the models. The baseline for each model includes a 2
percent rate of inflation, a budget growth of 1.5 percent based
on the governor's ten-year plan, and a gross domestic product
(GDP) of 1.5 percent. He commented that the committee has seen
this model before in a previous meeting.
6:11:17 PM
MR. CARPENTER, in response to a question from Representative
Groh, replied that the current statutory limit is not included
because the constitutional limit was "for" a fiscal year rather
than "in" a fiscal year, which would lead to confusion when
shown with the rest of the data.
6:12:02 PM
MR. CARPENTER moved to slide 3 and addressed the effects on the
model of the suggested changes from the Senate, as these changes
would increase rates of both proposed caps.
MR. CARPENTER confirmed Chair Carpenter's statement that the
changes on slide 3 are the recent changes made in the Senate to
its versions of the proposed legislation. These are not changes
made to [CSHJR 2 (JUD) and CSHB 38(JUD)], which are currently in
front of the committee. He added that the models in the
presentation would be using the versions in front of the
committee as the base. The presentation would be displaying how
adjusting certain variables would change the model.
6:13:13 PM
MR. CARPENTER moved to another adjusted model on slide 4. He
explained that this shows both caps increased slightly as a
point of reference. He stated that the previous models all lead
to the data table on slide 5, which shows the dollar values
associated with each hypothetical change to the fiscal models.
He stated that each full percent added to or deducted from the
spending limit represented $400 million to $500 million in
"headroom." In response to Chair Carpenter, he answered that
"headroom" means additional money the legislature would be able
to spend. He stated that if there was a decrease to the percent
of the cap, the headroom would also decrease by the same dollar
amount. In response to a follow-up question, he stated that the
numbers shown on slide 5 represent the data behind the graphs.
6:14:12 PM
MR. CARPENTER moved to slide 6 to demonstrate what would happen
if variables other than the cap rates were changed. The graph
showed the rates proposed in the current versions of CSHJR 2
(JUD) and CSHB 38(JUD); however, he explained that it now
accounts for a GDP of 2.5 percent. He stated that in this
scenario the state would begin to get ahead of budget growth in
the out years.
CHAIR CARPENTER requested an explanation of the bars on the
graph representing FY 24 and FY 25. He questioned why the blue
bar in FY 24 is above the blue dashed line representing the CSHB
38(JUD) cap. He questioned whether this would affect FY 25 as
well.
MR. CARPENTER replied that the FY 24 bar looks different because
it is based on the firm numbers of the governor's proposed
budget; beyond this year the numbers are only projections. He
noted that the line representing CSHB 38(JUD) slices through the
capital budget in FY 24, and he stated that the provision in
CSHJR 2(JUD), where the spending cap could be exceeded for
capital projects with a two-thirds vote, would apply in this
model's scenario.
CHAIR CARPENTER questioned whether the scenario shown for FY 24
would also apply to FY 25, and he questioned whether the model
showed both capital and operational budgets for FY 25.
MR. CARPENTER responded that the years past FY 24 show the
projected spending in total without differentiating between
capital versus operational spending, because the capital budgets
are unknown at this point. He continued that the projected
total spending for upcoming years was achieved by adding the 1.5
percent budget growth, and he posited that if the capital
spending were to model the amount shown in FY 24, then the CSHB
38(JUD) line would also be piercing this portion of the FY 25
budget.
CHAIR CARPENTER questioned whether the proposed legislation
would allow for the addition of a capital budget to the
projected FY 25 spending shown in the model.
MR. CARPENTER clarified that the projected numbers for FY 25
would include capital spending, as it is a projection of total
spending. He expressed the assumption that there would be
capital spending but expressed uncertainty of exactly how much
of the projected spending would be for capital projects. In
response to a follow-up question, he reiterated that the FY 25
bar represents total spending and not operational spending.
CHAIR CARPENTER noted that in FY 25 to FY 27 the projected
spending was intersected by the line which models the proposed
cap in CSHB 38(JUD); however, for the years beyond this the
spending falls below the line. He suggested that this means
there would be additional spending, and he questioned the
existence of the gap.
MR. CARPENTER explained that in the model shown on slide 6 the
2.5 percent GDP would eventually cause the appropriation limit
to exceed the budget growth projection and provide "headroom" in
the state's finances. He then displayed a similar model on
slide 7, which shows projections if the GDP were at 3.5 percent.
6:20:02 PM
MR. CARPENTER pointed out that one of Chair Carpenter's
[upcoming] amendments is modeled on slide 8. This model returns
to the 1.5 percent GDP but changes the CSHJR 2(JUD) and CSHB
38(JUD) caps to be 13 and 11 percent, respectively. He noted
that the dotted line drops well below the projected budgets, and
he estimated the model allows about $250 million less in
spending. He posited that this model puts downward pressure on
appropriations, and he expressed the understanding that this is
Chair Carpenter's intention with the amendment.
CHAIR CARPENTER highlighted that the Fiscal Policy Working
Group's (FPWG's) report to create a bipartisan and bicameral
plan had acknowledged the need for reductions in state spending.
He recalled that this included a $100 million to $200 million
reduction. He suggested that this would be achieved [by the
amendment] by lowering the rates in the proposed legislation.
6:22:04 PM
MR. CARPENTER reviewed the models on slide 9 and slide 10, which
showed scenarios where the 11 and 13 percent caps from Chair
Carpenter's amendment were adopted but the GDP was higher. He
used a 2.5 and 3.5 percent GDP to illustrate the multiple
possible effects the lower caps could have, depending on the
many variables at play.
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed the opinion that these models
underline that Alaska needs to consider inflation and GDP when
reorganizing the state's spending and taxation. He shared his
belief that taking a disciplined approach to solving the state's
financial issues over the next few years will create more
economic growth and stability, and this will allow for more
spending later. He suggested that the models support staying
under a spending limit to allow economic growth to support the
state.
6:23:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY, in regard to the most recent budget passed
by the House of Representatives, questioned how far over the
proposed 11 percent cap would the budget go.
MR. CARPENTER replied that the governor's original budget is
used in the model. In comparison, because of the built-in
education funding, the version passed by the House has an
additional amount of about $175 million, which he said would
look higher than what is represented.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the House's budget would touch
the red line representing the CSHJR 2(JUD) cap on the model.
MR. CARPENTER posited that it would not; however, he would
follow up with the committee on the question. He pointed out on
the model on slide 8 that the FY 24 budget is at $5.5 billion,
and he posited that an additional $200 million would not cause
the current budget to reach the 13 percent budget cap.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY questioned whether it is the education
funding which puts the FY 24 budget over the proposed limit. He
referenced the idea that state spending needs to be cut by
"hundreds of millions of dollars" and asked for a specific
figure of how much over the spending cap the education funding
would be.
MR. CARPENTER restated that he does not have the data available
yet for the amendment which would change the proposed
legislation's spending cap to 11 percent. He estimated from the
model that the limit with the 11 percent cap for FY 24 would be
$5.5 billion. He expressed the belief that the addition of $175
million for education would not put the budget over the proposed
spending cap. He mentioned Chair Carpenter's point that there
was the capability to go beyond the capital spending caps by way
of a two-thirds vote.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY posited that the red line in the model may
take years to reach, but the blue line was easily eclipsed by
the projected budgets.
6:26:47 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER answered that the red line could be reached
through more revenue rather than more time.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the red line
represents a spending cap and, regardless of how much revenue
there is, any funds above the cap would be invested into the
Permanent Fund. He referred to a previous meeting regarding
changing the percent of market value (POMV) draws to increase
spending amounts. He questioned the reasoning behind finding
ways to increase revenue while also adding a spending cap to
direct extra revenue into the Permanent Fund, when doing so
would require cutting the budget.
CHAIR CARPENTER asked Representative Gray to reword his line of
questioning for clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed the understanding that there is a
revenue cap and a spending cap, and since the blue line
represents a spending cap it would not change regardless of how
much revenue the state had.
CHAIR CARPENTER replied that he had misunderstood the original
question and thought Representative Gray was referring to the
blue bar rather than the blue line.
6:29:15 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:29:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHB
38(JUD), labeled 33-LS0295\B.2, Wallace/Marx, 4/13/23, which
read as follows:
Page 2, lines 4 - 5:
Delete "federal bureau responsible for economic
analysis according to federal"
Insert "state government as prescribed by"
Page 3, lines 9 - 10:
Delete "federal bureau responsible for economic
analysis according to federal"
Insert "state government as prescribed by"
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
6:29:49 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER explained that the amendment removes references
to the federal agency which reports GDP numbers, and this
reference would be changed to the state agency instead. He
mentioned that this change was in keeping with changes the House
Judiciary Standing Committee made to CSHJR 2(JUD), and the
amendment would give both bills the same language.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
6:31:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 2, to CSHB
38(JUD), as amended, labeled 33-LS0295\B.3, Marx, 4/18/23, which
read as follows:
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "11.5"
Insert "11"
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
6:31:53 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER explained that the amendment would change the
spending limit percentage in the proposed legislation from 11.5
to 11 percent.
6:32:08 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER, in response to a question from Representative
Gray, stated that in putting forward the committee's fiscal plan
which addresses the four components from the FPWG's report, one
component has yet to be addressed, and this is the
recommendation for lowering spending. He explained that
lowering the percentage to 11 percent would force the idea in
front of the legislature of reducing spending by hundreds of
millions of dollars. He expressed the intention of preserving
the integrity of the FPWG's report.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY referred to discussions in previous meetings
about changing the POMV cap, implementing various taxes, and
other ways to increase state revenue. He posited that having a
spending cap would disincentivize building new revenue in favor
of making hundreds of millions of dollars in budget cuts to meet
the spending restriction. He questioned how a spending limit
would fit into the proposed revenue-growing measures.
CHAIR CARPENTER replied that the budget the House sent to the
Senate included a deficit of $500 billion. He inferred that the
solution to this would either be to draw from the state's
savings or have a conversation about reducing the current
budget. He advised that the fiscal-plan conversation surrounds
the current budget, but it also needs to look to budgets in the
future years to increase the plans smoothness and stability. He
stated that choosing between reducing spending or spending from
savings has been the focus of the fiscal conversation for this
year; therefore, the conversation for future budgets should
include how much the state will spend in the future, compared to
what is being spent now.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY shared his understanding that the proposed
legislation would be focused on Alaska's fiscal future rather
than the present. He said that he only used the current fiscal
year as a concrete example. He added that if the state ended up
with a high GDP in the next fiscal year, the spending limit
would also be very high, and he asked how the government can get
GDP to rise.
CHAIR CARPENTER, responding, expressed the opinion that it is
not the government's function to raise GDP, and he suggested
that GDP will rise [over time] instantly with the new fiscal
plan.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed concern over tying the proposed
spending limit to GDP. He suggested that this would mean
Alaska's fiscal future would be controlled by something the
state has little influence over. He expressed concern that
creating a financial dependence on a variable with no government
control would cause a disconnect [between the state and its
income].
6:37:50 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WILL STAPP, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, reminded the committee that CSHB 38(JUD) and CSHJR
2(JUD) include conditional language, and one cannot be passed
without the other. In regard to the current spending limit, he
said that the budget was passed unfunded and would require a
vote to draw from the constitutional budget reserve (CBR), and
he suggested that because of voting thresholds it would pass.
Addressing the question about POMV, as it relates to oil
revenue, he reiterated that, depending on returns and accounting
for inflation, the POMV draw changes year to year. He shared
that the Permanent Fund is projecting a 7 percent return for the
next fiscal year; however, he expressed the opinion that the
actual return will be considerably lower. He added that the
state's other existing source of revenue is based on the
[fluctuating] price of oil, so actual returns may not be as high
as projected.
6:39:43 PM
BERNARD AOTO, Staff, Representative Will Stapp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stapp, prime sponsor,
spoke to the proposed legislation. He added that in a scenario
where revenue is above the proposed cap, the legislature would
have to decide how to appropriate the extra funds.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP, speaking to Representative Gray's question
concerning raising GDP, expressed the belief that the government
could play a role in raising GDP by making strong capital
investments. He used the proposed Bradley Lake Project to
exemplify how this would work, in that reducing the cost of
energy for residents of the Interior would allow more money to
be put into the local economy, and this would drive up GDP.
6:41:01 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER emphasized that the proposed legislation would
not take effect until FY 26.
MR. AOTO confirmed that the legislation would go into effect in
2026, if it passed a public vote.
6:41:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that the POMV draw was not an
effective total spending cap because permanent fund dividend
(PFD) earnings were not the state's only source of revenue. He
suggested that, if oil prices continue to be high and the state
generates a mass amount of revenue, the legislature would be
inclined to overspend; therefore, he argued that a cap on
spending is "absolutely" necessary.
6:42:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP referred to the POMV cap as a revenue cap
and not a spending cap, and he expressed agreement that other
types of revenue would not be subject to the POMV cap.
6:43:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH expressed support for spending limits. He
questioned how the amendments to CSHB 38(JUD) would affect these
limits. He questioned the amount the current budget would be
over the spending limit [with the proposed amendments].
CHAIR CARPENTER reiterated that the exact data is not available,
and relayed Mr. Carpenter's suggestion that it would be about
$100 million more.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH posited that with Chair Carpenter's proposed
increase of half a point, the current budget would be over the
cap by about $250 million.
CHAIR CARPENTER stated that the proposed caps would not affect
this year's budget, and the conversation is about FY 26.
6:44:48 PM
MR AOTO reminded the committee that the projections in the
presentation use the governor's unamended budget. He explained
that between the $500 million reduction the House made to the
budget and the $500 million remaining deficit, the amount zeroes
out and the budget becomes below the spending cap projections in
the graph.
6:45:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McCabe, Tilton,
McKay, and Carpenter voted in favor of Amendment 2 to HB 38, as
amended. Representatives Gray and Groh voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
6:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE thanked Representative Stapp for his work
on the proposed legislation.
6:47:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH questioned the structure of the proposed
legislation, which limits spending in some areas over others.
He referred to previous comments about the risk of increased
spending caused by windfalls such as high oil prices, and he
questioned which categories of spending increased the fastest in
previous high-revenue years.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP responded that in past high-revenue years
there had been higher operating budgets, but the biggest
increases happened in capital spending. He added that not all
capital spending would have the same return on investment.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH noted that capital spending has been treated
more favorably, even though it accounts for the largest spikes
in spending.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP opined that having a cap which is based on
economic performance would incentivize the legislature to be
more thoughtful about which capital projects it funds. He
agreed with Representative Groh's point that spikes in capital
spending have been an issue in past high-revenue years. He
stated that CSHB 38(JUD) and the corresponding constitutional
amendment in CSHJR 2(JUD) would force "correct behavior" in
capital spending.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH sought to confirm that PFDs were exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP replied that Representative Groh was
correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH questioned whether PFD's have also been a
category of spending which have spiked in the past since the
"delinking" in 2016.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP responded that the answer depends on how
one defines "go up" in regard to "PFD spending." He stated that
the dollar amount had increased, but the percent according to
the statuary formula has not.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH spoke on the governor's ability to veto
appropriations and posited that this veto right could be
considered another form of a spending cap which already exists.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP argued that structuring the state's fiscal
plan on the expectation that the governor will use the veto to
"spending down" would be a "violation of your fiduciary
responsibility as a member of an elected body."
6:53:01 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER posited that this topic of conversation was not
related directly to the proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH replied that Chair Carpenter has spoken
about looking at a broader picture of the state's fiscal future
and shared his belief that the structure of powers within the
state is a part of this bigger picture.
6:53:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE referred to Article 9, Section 16, of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska, which relates that one-
third of the state budget should go towards capital projects.
He suggested that the projections in the presentation
demonstrate that the state has never done this, and he asked
whether the proposed legislation would help promote following
the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP opined that the mindset of the framer's of
the constitution was to ensure part of the revenue of the state
goes to the needs of future Alaskans [with capital projects],
and he stated that the intent of CSHB 38(JUD) was to follow this
mindset.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE added that the state is facing a
multibillion-dollar deficit in infrastructure failures and
projects, and it needs to find a way forward through capital
projects.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP explained that tying the spending cap to
economic performance would encourage capital spending, and this
would benefit all Alaskans in the long term. He illustrated the
point by asking the committee to envision the economic growth
which could have been accomplished if the state had built a dam
on the Susitna River in the 90s, as this would have provided
more Alaskans with cheaper electricity.
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed agreement with Representative Stapp's
sentiment that the state needs more economic growth.
6:56:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report CSHB 38(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH objected for the purpose of discussion. He
pointed out that the committee is looking at a full fiscal
package; however, the committee is passing this bill out without
the other aspects of the package, and he suggested it would be
beneficial to speak about the plan as a whole.
6:57:56 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease.
6:58:10 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER said that he is committed to sending out five
pieces of legislation which comprise the fiscal plan for the
state. He reported that the legislation before the committee
today, CSHB 38(JUD) and CSHJR 2(JUD), would be accompanied by
HJR 7, HB 109, and HB 110, of which all will be before the
committee in the coming week.
REPRESENTATIVE GROH removed his objection. There being no
further objection, CSHB 38(W&M) was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Ways and Means.
6:59:56 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 6:59 p.m. to 7:02 p.m.
HJR 2-CONST. AM: APPROP LIMIT
[Contains discussion of HB 38]
7:02:43 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER announced that the last order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, Proposing amendments to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to an appropriation
limit. [Before the committee was CSHJR 2 (JUD), which was
passed out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee on
2/27/23.]
7:03:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to adopt Amendment 1 to CSHJR
2(JUD), labeled 33-LS0294\B.1, Marx, 4/18/23, which read as
follows:
Page 2, line 3:
Delete "fourteen"
Insert "thirteen"
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "fourteen"
Insert "thirteen"
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY objected.
7:03:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY noticed that there was a half of a
percentage change in [the recently adopted amendment to] CSHB
38(JUD), while the change to CSHJR 2(JUD) would be a full
percent. He questioned this reasoning.
CHAIR CARPENTER replied that the amendment mirrors a change made
in the other direction by the other body. In response to a
follow-up question, he stated that the other body had raised the
cap by one percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether there was another reason
besides mirroring the Senate for lowering the cap by a full
percent versus a half percent.
CHAIR CARPENTER responded that lowering the cap a full percent
would maintain the integrity of the model. He posited that the
cap could have dropped one and a half percent without breaking
the upper limit, but it was decided to maintain the one percent.
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY pointed out Mr. Aoto statement [during the
committee's discussion on CSHB 38(JUD)] which related that if
there is extra revenue, the legislature would be able to decide
what to do with it. He asked Mr. Aoto to explain what the
legislature could and could not do with this extra revenue,
while not violating the constitutional spending limit.
7:05:41 PM
BERNARD AOTO, Staff, Representative Will Stapp, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stapp, prime sponsor,
answered questions on the proposed legislation. He explained
that exemptions on the spending cap were presented at an earlier
meeting, and it would be up to the legislature to decide which
of these exceptions to direct extra revenue toward.
7:06:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP listed several of the exemptions that the
legislature could spend the extra revenue on, including larger
PFDs and paying back into the constitutional budget reserve
(CBR).
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY asked whether the state could use the extra
revenue to [pay for services], and he used increasing the base
student allocation (BSA) as an example.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP posited that if the budget hit the
constitutional spending limit, it would probably already
incorporate a very large BSA. He continued that, in the case
the budget did reach the constitutional limit, the legislature
would not be able to add any additional operating spending with
the extra revenue.
7:07:32 PM
MR. AOTO explained that there was also an exception for
emergency declarations from the governor.
7:07:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE asked whether the extra revenue in this
situation could be given directly to the teachers instead.
REPRESENTATIVE STAPP responded that there are many ways the
education system can be restructured, but this would be up to
the legislature to determine.
7:08:40 PM
CHAIR CARPENTER expressed the understanding that in other states
there is always an effort to work around spending limits.
7:09:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY expressed the belief that the legislature
has a history of making responsible fiscal choices with excess
funds. He expressed concern that, with the spending cap, there
is still the assumption the state will choose to overspend, even
with multiple examples of the state choosing to save or pay down
debt. He opined that given the state's history of saving, even
when it was not necessary, perhaps the constitutional limit is
not necessary, especially given how hard it would be to reach.
7:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY recalled that many of the deposits into
savings were from oil tax settlements. He stated that the money
from those settlements was required to go into CBR. He opined
that the days of savings from oil settlements are gone.
7:10:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GROH commented that Representative Gray was
correct that any financial "windfalls" for the state could be
used for savings, including all extra income from the Permanent
Fund.
7:11:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed agreement that there is language
in statute allowing the legislature to inflation proof the fund
with revenues from the Permanent Fund, but he noted that CBR has
been used for other purposes in the past, such as paying down
the Public Employees Retirement System and the Teachers
Retirement System. He stated that the state owes CBR "a ton of
money" and argued that this proves the state has been
overspending rather than underspending in the past 10 years,
contradicting other claims made.
7:12:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRAY maintained his objection.
7:13:23 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives McKay, McCabe,
Tilton, and Carpenter voted in favor of Amendment 1 to CSHJR
2(JUD). Representatives Gray and Groh voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-2.
7:13:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE moved to report CSHJR 2(JUD), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
2(W&M) was reported out of the House Special Committee on Ways
and Means.
7:14:19 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 7:14 p.m. to 7:16 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 38 - Amendment 1 (B.2).pdf |
HW&M 4/19/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 38 |
| HB 38 - Amendment 2 (B.3).pdf |
HW&M 4/19/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HB 38 |
| HJR 2 - Amendment 1 (B.1).pdf |
HW&M 4/19/2023 6:00:00 PM |
HJR 2 |
| H WM_Approp Limits_4-19-23 - Leg Finance Division.pdf |
HW&M 4/19/2023 6:00:00 PM |