Legislature(2025 - 2026)ADAMS 519
03/31/2025 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 |
|---|---|
| Adjourn | |
| Start | |
| HB53 || HB55 | |
| Amendments |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 53 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 55 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 56 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
March 31, 2025
2:42 p.m.
2:42:52 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Josephson called the House Finance Committee
meeting to order at 2:42 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Andy Josephson, Co-Chair
Representative Calvin Schrage, Co-Chair
Representative Jamie Allard
Representative Jeremy Bynum
Representative Alyse Galvin
Representative Sara Hannan
Representative Nellie Unangiq Jimmie (via teleconference)
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Will Stapp
Representative Frank Tomaszewski
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Alexei Painter, Director, Legislative Finance Division;
Connor Bell, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division;
Morgan Foss, Fiscal Analyst, Legislative Finance Division;
Representative Justin Ruffridge.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Megan Wallace, Chief Counsel, Legislative Legal Services;
Marie Marx, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services.
SUMMARY
HB 53 APPROP: OPERATING BUDGET; CAP; SUPP
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 APPROP: MENTAL HEALTH BUDGET
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 56 APPROP: SUPPLEMENTAL; FUND CAP
HB 56 was SCHEDULED but NOT HEARD.
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the agenda. He indicated that
the meeting would be focused mainly on HB 53.
HOUSE BILL NO. 53
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
loan program expenses of state government and for
certain programs; capitalizing funds; amending
appropriations; making supplemental appropriations;
making reappropriations; making appropriations under
art. IX, sec. 17(c), Constitution of the State of
Alaska, from the constitutional budget reserve fund;
and providing for an effective date."
HOUSE BILL NO. 55
"An Act making appropriations for the operating and
capital expenses of the state's integrated
comprehensive mental health program; and providing for
an effective date."
2:43:21 PM
^AMENDMENTS
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that the committee would take up
amendments for HB 53 beginning from where it left off on
Wednesday, March 26, 2025.
Representative Bynum asked if there was a summary of which
amendments had been addressed already and which had not.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he did not have a summary
but suggested that the Legislative Finance Division (LFD)
might. He received an indication from LFD in the audience
that there was no update. He noted that he would ensure
that an update would be provided later.
2:45:31 PM
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 44 (copy on
file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: Education Support and Admin
Allocation: Student and School Achievement
Transaction Details
Title: Restore Funding for Alaska Native Science and
Engineering Program
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 1,000.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
1,000.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 1,000.0
Explanation
Based on public testimony, this funding will make a
critical difference to the ANSEP program.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that the amendment related to
the Special Education Service Agency (SESA).
2:46:07 PM
AT EASE
2:46:19 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that the amendment was a "past
tense" amendment and he had mistakenly offered it.
Co-Chair Josephson WITHDREW Amendment N 44.
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 45 (copy
on file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: K-12 Support
Allocation: Special Schools
Transaction Details
Title: Add Funding Above Special Education Service
Agency Statutory Minimum Calculation
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 482.3
Miscellaneous: 0.0
482.3
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 482.3
Explanation
Fix shortfall in formula's numbers. SESA's budget is
based on total public-school enrollment, which is
declining, while the number of students needing SESA's
services continues to grow. This funding gap forces
SESA to serve more students with fewer resources, and
without an increase, they will have to implement a
waitlist-violating federal law under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act, which mandates
timely special education services.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if Representative Galvin intended
to offer the amendment.
Representative Galvin replied that she did not.
Representative Galvin WITHDREW Amendment N 45.
2:46:56 PM
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 46 (copy on
file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: K-12 Support
Allocation: Special Schools
Transaction Details
Title: Add Funding above Special Education Service
Agency Statutory Minimum Calculation
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 482.3
Miscellaneous: 0.0
482.3
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 482.3
Representative Bynum OBJECTED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that the amendment requested
support for further investment in SESA. He relayed that
under AS 14.30.630, SESA was required to provide special
education services to students who were deaf, deaf-blind,
intellectually disabled, developmentally disabled, hearing
impaired, blind or visually impaired, orthopedically
disabled, otherwise health-impaired, severely emotionally
disturbed, or had multiple disabilities. The program
provided instructional support in special education and
training to local school district personnel. He noted that
AS 14.30.640 addressed eligibility for SESA. The program
was intended for children who required specialized services
not normally available in their local school districts and
who could not be easily assisted by school district
personnel. He stated that SESA served many rural students
and it was a high priority for the Governor's Council on
Disabilities.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that SESA faced a funding
shortfall of approximately $3 per child, totaling $482,300,
and it had not received a funding adjustment in several
years. He explained that SESA supported students with low-
incidence disabilities (LID), which meant disabilities that
were not common. He relayed that the Agency and Disability
Resource Center had indicated that SESA provided training
and resources to special education teachers and school
staff in rural Alaska who supported students with LIDs. The
disabilities included autism, deafness or hearing loss,
vision impairment, deaf-blindness, emotional disabilities,
and combined disabilities.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that SESA's budget was based on
total public school enrollment, which had been declining,
but SESA reported that the number of students needing its
services continued to increase. He explained that the
funding gap forced the agency to serve more students with
fewer resources. Without an increase in funding, the agency
would be required to implement a waitlist, which would
violate federal law under the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) which mandated timely delivery of
special education services. He stressed that the situation
was an urgent matter. He shared that advocates had spoken
about the need for an increased funding rate due to
unprecedented inflation. He explained that the inflation
had prevented SESA from hiring full-time staff necessary to
meet projected program growth while maintaining competitive
salaries. He relayed that a waitlist developed because
there were not enough education specialists for the LID
program. He noted that his staff had compiled supporting
emails, including one from Ms. Elizabeth Doranilla of the
Yukon-Koyukuk School District (YKSD). He also referenced a
letter from Mr. Patrick Reinhart, the director of the
Governor's Council on Disabilities, as well as additional
emails of support from individuals in Petersburg and
Galena.
2:51:05 PM
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that one of the letters was from
Ms. Kelly McBride, assistant special education director in
Galena. He stated that Ms. McBride had submitted written
testimony explaining that SESA provided support to students
with low-incidence disabilities in Galena and across the
state, including in homeschool programs. He indicated that
Galena relied on SESA for special education services for
homeschooled students, which was a significant issue. He
requested support for the amendment.
Representative Johnson noted that the committee was
reviewing a budget that did not yet have a clear funding
source, aside from the standard Permanent Fund Earnings
Reserve Account (ERA) draw and oil revenue. She did not
think that deficit fill language had been included. She
asked where the additional funding of approximately
$500,000 would come from, especially in light of the $1,000
Base Student Allocation (BSA) increase already under
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that there were accounts that
were often authorized but unlikely to be used. He stated
that the most likely sources were new revenue, such as
severance taxes and royalties, the Permanent Fund ERA draw,
the Constitutional Budget Reserve (CBR), and potentially
other cuts, such as to the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD).
He added that it was difficult on the current date to
specify where the funding would come from.
Representative Johnson remarked that none of the proposed
new revenue measures had passed yet. She asked for
clarification about what new revenue Co-Chair Josephson was
referencing.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that there were new revenue
bills in both the House and the Senate, but agreed that
none had yet passed.
Representative Johnson asked whether the ERA draw had
already been fully allocated in the current budget. She
suggested that it had already been accounted for and asked
if her understanding was accurate.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he was willing to engage
in further dialogue but believed Representative Johnson
already knew the answer.
Representative Johnson replied that she did know the
answer. The state was in a shortfall situation with no
identified revenue to fund additional budget items. She
stated that she was not willing to further reduce the PFD
and she could not support funding additions without a clear
plan to pay for the additions. She emphasized that the
situation was unusual because the committee was deep into
the budget process without knowing what the state's final
revenue sources would be.
2:55:20 PM
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that he did not think there was
anything particularly unusual about the current year's
budget process, apart from the state having less revenue.
He thought that it was otherwise typical not to know the
precise shape of the final budget by the current date of
March 31, except in extraordinary cases such as during the
COVID-19 pandemic when the budget was finalized by March
28, 2020.
Co-Chair Schrage stated that he shared Representative
Johnson's concerns about adding to the budget in the
current fiscal environment. He noted that the House version
of the budget had significantly reduced the amount of
unrestricted general funds (UGF) and overall appropriations
compared to what the governor had proposed in December of
2024. He understood that the question was whether the SESA
item should be included for prioritization along with other
needs in light of limited available revenues. He stated
that it remained uncertain whether new revenue would be
passed by the Senate or if a CBR draw would be authorized
by both bodies. The governor had proposed a significant
draw from the CBR and legislators needed to weigh and
prioritize all programs and increments during the ongoing
budget process.
2:57:12 PM
Representative Galvin commented that she agreed with
Representative Johnson's concerns and acknowledged that the
state was in a very difficult position. She asserted that
the committee must look carefully and precisely at where
sound decisions could be made. She emphasized the
importance of supporting the state's values and, more
critically, upholding the constitution. She expressed
appreciation for the committee's efforts to reduce spending
and stated that work should continue. However, the
amendment involved children with special needs, and she
cautioned against allowing schools to fall into disrepair
or become unsafe for children. The failure to fund SESA
could lead to violations of IDEA, which mandated timely
special education services. She stated that Alaska was
already behind in meeting its obligations and it should not
enter a situation where children are placed on a waitlist.
She was in support of the amendment.
Co-Chair Josephson recognized Representative Justin
Ruffridge in the audience.
Representative Tomaszewski asked Co-Chair Josephson to
repeat the statute he had mentioned earlier.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that SESA was located in
Article 12 of AS 14.30.
3:00:02 PM
Representative Jimmie stated that she was in support of the
amendment. She explained that if SESA received less funding
than was legally required, students in small and rural
communities could be left waiting for services that they
were legally entitled to receive.
Representative Bynum stated that he did not have the SESA
program materials in front of him but appreciated the Co-
Chair Josephson's earlier description of the program. He
acknowledged that a portion of the program served students
who were not enrolled in neighborhood schools, such as
those participating in correspondence programs or other
educational settings. He asked whether the students
targeted by SESA who were attending brick-and-mortar
schools were already being served through the foundation
formula, specifically under the special education
multiplier of 13.0. He asked whether that multiplier
already accounted for students who would be served by SESA.
He clarified that he was referring only to students in
brick-and-mortar schools and not those in correspondence
programs, as the latter were not eligible for any special
education multiplier within the foundation formula.
3:02:06 PM
AT EASE
3:06:10 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson suggested that LFD speak to the question
from Representative Bynum.
ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that the funding calculation for SESA was based
on the entire student population of the state. He clarified
that it was a fixed amount derived from the total student
count statewide. He explained that the 13.0 multiplier
applied directly to school districts and districts that had
students qualifying for intensive services received the
funding through the multiplier. However, the funding for
SESA was directed to the agency itself. He noted that some
school districts utilized SESA services, but SESA also
provided services to a broader range of students who might
not necessarily qualify for the 13.0 multiplier.
Representative Stapp observed that the SESA funding
appeared to be outside the foundation formula, although it
was still being directed towards students attending school.
He expressed concern about potential issues with disparity
testing if targeted funds were being distributed to
different schools. He noted that the amendment language
referenced rural students, but Mr. Painter had indicated
that the services were available more broadly.
Mr. Painter responded that because the funding was
distributed to SESA and not directly to school districts,
it would not fall under the purview of the disparity test.
He stated that the funding was not available to school
districts for direct expenditure. He clarified that SESA's
enabling statute indicated that services were intended for
districts with infrequent or unusual needs, which typically
referred to smaller districts, although not necessarily
rural districts.
Representative Stapp asked whether it would be possible to
structure a foundation formula to circumvent the disparity
test by directing funding for special education or other
services outside the formula altogether.
Mr. Painter responded that by building specific elements
into the formula, the state could account for the factors
in the disparity test. He noted that the test allowed for
cost differences between districts to be considered, such
as in the pupil transportation formula. He pointed out that
not all districts had transportation programs due to
geographic differences and that the formula accommodated
for such differences to ensure equitable treatment. He
confirmed that various factors could be built into the
foundation formula in a way that maintained equity between
districts.
3:10:04 PM
Representative Stapp asked whether the issue had been
raised during the finance subcommittee process. He
understood that there could be a legal issue if the funding
was insufficient. He asked how it could be underfunded if
the funding mechanism was formulaic and student numbers
were decreasing.
Mr. Painter responded that he was not familiar with any
current legal challenges. He explained that while the
funding formula would generate a decreasing amount due to
the decline in student enrollment, the legislature could
appropriate more than the formula dictated, just as it had
done under the K-12 formula. He stated the number of
students requiring intensive services had grown despite
decreasing enrollment numbers. He noted that the population
served by SESA differed slightly from the intensive
category but reiterated that the trend showed increased
need despite overall declining enrollment.
Representative Galvin clarified that she had not intended
to suggest that there was a current legal challenge. She
explained that her concern was that the creation of a
waitlist could trigger a legal issue in the near future.
She emphasized the importance of understanding that the
number of students needing SESA services was growing but
the agency's funding had not changed accordingly.
Co-Chair Josephson added that the Aging and Disability
Resource Center had stated that creation of a waitlist
would violate IDEA, which required timely special education
services.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there were any objections to
the adoption of the amendment.
3:12:27 PM
Representative Allard OBJECTED.
Representative Allard stated that she believed there needed
to be a responsible approach to adding items to the budget.
She noted that the legislature did not yet have clarity on
the state's revenue sources. She thought that if new
appropriations were added, there needed to be corresponding
reductions elsewhere. She was concerned that the committee
was making additions without making cuts. She thought the
approach was fiscally irresponsible.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that reductions had been made,
though Amendment 46 did not propose additional cuts.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment
N 46.
IN FAVOR: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
OPPOSED: Johnson, Allard, Tomaszewski, Stapp, Bynum
The MOTION PASSED (6/5).
3:14:21 PM
AT EASE
3:14:57 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum MOVED to RESCIND action on Amendment N
14 (copy on file) [see minutes from the March 25, 2025,
meeting for details]:
Agency: Various
Appropriation: Various
Allocation: Executive Branch
Transaction Details
Title: Delete funding for all UGF Governor amendments
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: -85,056.6
-85,056.6
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -85,056.6
Explanation
Returning the budget to reflect the Adjusted Base in
UGF by removing all Governor UGF increments.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED.
Representative Bynum began to explain the motion.
Co-Chair Schrage asked to take a brief at ease.
Representative Johnson called a point of order. She asked
for Representative Bynum to be allowed to finish his
comments.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he was inclined to allow
Representative Bynum to finish.
Co-Chair Schrage commented that he did not want there to be
a point of order. He explained that the issue before the
committee was whether to rescind the previous action, not
the merits of Amendment 14 itself. He requested the at ease
because he wanted to ensure that the committee was
following proper procedure.
3:15:58 PM
AT EASE
3:16:26 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson noted that a motion to rescind action
had been offered by Representative Bynum. He understood
that on the House floor, discussion was generally
restricted to the motion itself. He invited Representative
Bynum to briefly explain the basis of the motion.
Representative Bynum explained that on March 27, 2025, the
committee had received an additional legal memorandum
[addressed to Representative Jubilee Underwood from Marie
Marx, Legislative Counsel with Legislative Legal Services]
(copy on file) addressing the action previously taken on
Amendment 14. He noted that during the initial vote, legal
counsel was present and had advised that the unallocated
cut in Amendment 14 might be blatantly unconstitutional. He
explained that he had consulted with LFD and Legislative
Legal Services (LLS) and he had worked to craft a better
approach to achieve the original intent of Amendment 14
without violating the constitution. He stated that he
prepared another amendment which he believed would address
constitutional concerns.
Co-Chair Josephson asked Representative Bynum to identify
the author of the legal opinion.
Representative Bynum replied that it was authored by Ms.
Marie Marx.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that Ms. Marx had expressed
that she had constitutional concerns but had not used the
phrase "blatantly unconstitutional." He stated that while
Ms. Marx had not praised the amendment, she had
acknowledged that the additional language that detailed
where the cuts would occur within each department helped to
clarify the intent of the amendment.
Representative Hannan asked if the motion to rescind was
debatable or if she should simply request an at ease in
order to review the legal memo.
3:19:45 PM
AT EASE
3:33:04 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum clarified that he meant that the
amendment would be highly likely to be unconstitutional
rather than blatantly unconstitutional.
Representative Bynum WITHDREW the MOTION to rescind action
on Amendment N 14. He stated that he would revisit the
motion at another time.
3:33:54 PM
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW Amendment N 47 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Schrage WITHDREW Amendment N 48 (copy on file).
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 49 (copy
on file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: Education Support and Admin
Allocation: Student and School Achievement
Transaction Details
Title: Teacher Incentive Payments and Reimbursements
for National Board Certification under AS 14.20.225
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 750.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
750.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund 750.0
Explanation
Provides funding for the unfunded HB 230 (33rd
Legislature), AS 14.20.225, providing $5000 to
certified teachers and reimbursement for teachers
pursuing initial certification or renewing
certification.
Representative Stapp OBJECTED.
Representative Galvin explained that the amendment
addressed a bill that had been passed during the final day
of the previous legislature in 2024. The bill was one of
several that were rolled into other legislation,
specifically HB 230. She explained that the amendment
ensured a fiscal note would accompany that bill. The
amendment provided for a $5,000 incentive payment to each
teacher who held a current and valid national board
certification. She noted that research showed that students
taught by nationally certified teachers learned more than
those taught by non-certified teachers. She added that the
incentive aimed to retain nationally board certified
teachers. There was a report from South Carolina that found
lower turnover rates among national board certified
teachers. The report also stated that many teachers in
South Carolina indicated that a state supplement allowed
them to remain in the classroom and that they would likely
pursue higher-paying positions without the supplement.
Representative Galvin stated that thirty-four states
currently offered financial incentives or covered
application fees to support teachers in obtaining national
board certification. She described the incentives as
targeted and strategic, referring to national board
certified teachers as the "black belts of teaching." She
relayed that the legislature had already passed HB 230 to
reimburse teachers for certification fees and therefore had
an obligation to fund it, since it was now law.
Representative Galvin MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment N 49. She explained that the conceptual
amendment would reduce the amount of funding from $750,000
to $554,000.
Co-Chair Josephson asked if there was any objection to the
conceptual amendment.
Representative Johnson stated that she did not have an
objection but had a question.
3:37:31 PM
Representative Stapp OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Johnson asked whether HB 230 had passed
before or after midnight [on the last night of the previous
session].
Representative Galvin responded that her understanding was
the bill passed before midnight and had not been funded.
Representative Johnson stated that she wanted to get a
sense of how the bill was not funded.
Representative Galvin responded that it was folded into
another bill, and the fiscal note was not included.
Representative Johnson noted that she was reviewing backup
materials and understood that the language of the amendment
could be open-ended. She asked how the amendment was
prepared.
Representative Galvin responded that LFD had assisted with
the fiscal estimate and explained that the original fiscal
note had been higher than the amendment request. The
estimated cost would be approximately $520,000 based on
current data indicating there were no more than 104
nationally certified teachers. There were additional costs
related to recertification and renewal fees were estimated
at $34,000, which brought the total to approximately
$554,000. She thought that revising the amount from
$750,000 to $550,000 was appropriate.
Representative Johnson asked for clarification that the
amendment had a narrower focus on a specific type of
teacher.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that was also his
understanding.
Representative Johnson stated that she had no objection to
the amendment but was concerned about ensuring the funding
amount aligned with the actual number of eligible teachers.
She noted that she did not want to underfund or overfund
the program and remarked that she personally would have
preferred using the language suggested by LFD. However, she
was comfortable with the amendment overall.
3:40:59 PM
Representative Stapp directed attention to page 3 of the
amendment, which cited an estimated cost of $520,000 for
teacher stipends, plus an additional $23,900 for renewal
fees. He understood that the total estimated cost was
approximately $543,900 and asked if the conceptual
amendment amount was $544,000.
Co-Chair Josephson clarified that the conceptual amendment
amount was $554,000.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, conceptual Amendment 1 to
Amendment N 49 was ADOPTED.
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that Amendment N 49 as amended
was before the committee.
3:42:11 PM
Representative Stapp OBJECTED to Amendment N 49 as amended.
He noted that page 2 of the amendment included language
from LFD stating that there was nothing preventing the
legislature from appropriating funding for the program. He
understood that if full funding was not needed, the
remainder would either lapse to the general fund or be
spent by the Department of Education and Early Development
(DEED) on something else. He asked if the amendment was
structured to ensure that the appropriation would only be
used for the intended program.
Representative Galvin responded that funding for the
amendment was for its specific purpose.
Representative Hannan understood that the language
referenced by Representative Stapp from LFD indicated that
if the entirety of the appropriation was not needed, the
remaining money would lapse or could be spent elsewhere.
She asked if it would be appropriate to include intent
language in the amendment using phrasing such as, "the
amount required is estimated to be $554,000 and this would
mean the item would fund the actual reimbursement.She
asked if similar intent language could be incorporated
through a conceptual amendment.
Representative Johnson expressed support for adding the
intent language via conceptual amendment. She thought the
language would make the amendment cleaner and better align
it with LFD's recommendations. She relayed that she was
willing to offer the conceptual amendment if Representative
Hannan did not wish to do so.
Representative Bynum replied that he had a separate
conceptual amendment to offer that would solve the problem,
but it would not change the dollar amount. He stated that
he would hold her amendment until the $554,000 matter was
resolved. He explained that his conceptual amendment would
address Representative Hannan's concerns about how the
money would actually be spent.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that there appeared to be some
interest in incorporating intent language and asked Mr.
Painter whether doing so would be appropriate.
3:45:21 PM
Mr. Painter commented that it was a numbers section
amendment, which meant that the amount was certain and not
estimated. He clarified that if the committee wished to
convert the amendment into a language section amendment,
that would constitute a fundamentally different amendment.
As written, the amendment added $554,000 to the numbers
section.
Co-Chair Josephson understood that the law was currently
unfunded. He asked if the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) would typically include such funding in the
governor's proposed budget in December of each year. He
asked whether other examples existed of bills that had been
passed but were not funded.
Mr. Painter responded that the governor could choose to put
forward fiscal notes for bills that were passed in the
previous year but not funded, but there was no requirement
to do so. He explained that there were numerous instances
of unfunded or underfunded statutory obligations. He cited
the municipal property tax exemption as one example, noting
that it had not been funded for approximately 26 years.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that the lesson for the public
was that laws require funding to be effective. He asked if
it was accurate to say that laws required monitoring and
funding.
Mr. Painter responded in the affirmative. He noted that
dedicated funds were not allowed under the constitution,
which meant that all bills put into statute were subject to
appropriation.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that there had been discussion
about the challenges of including intent language and then
recognized Representative Bynum.
Representative Bynum asked for clarification on why the
amount was being reduced from $750,000 to $554,000.
Representative Galvin explained that the number had been
based on the actual count of teachers eligible for the
benefit. She stated that there were 104 eligible teachers,
which had been multiplied by the $5,000 stipend.
Additionally, $520 per teacher was the figure used for
teachers undergoing recertification or renewal. She
estimated that there were approximately 61 such teachers,
and the total of the calculations had resulted in the
$554,000 figure. She emphasized that the figure was
calculated and specific and based on known certification
and renewal data. She added that some eligible teachers may
have moved out of state, in which case any unspent funds
were not intended to be retained by the department but
should be returned. She stated that the potential issue of
eligible teachers who had moved was why she would be open
to considering a conceptual amendment to clarify the
purpose and use of the funds.
3:49:43 PM
Representative Hannan stated that it appeared that a
conceptual amendment to Amendment 49 was not in order
because the amendment fell within the numbers section. She
understood that if the committee wished to clarify use of
funds, it would be more appropriate to address the issue
through intent language added later in the budget process.
She asked Mr. Painter to confirm whether the legislature
could retain the appropriation in the numbers section while
separately adding intent language to define its purpose.
Mr. Painter responded that the committee could turn a
numbers amendment into a language amendment, but it was
preferable for LLS to draft such language rather than
having it be conceptual language created during committee
discussion. He explained that while the committee may
create conceptual language, legal would still need to
formalize it in bill drafting. He relayed that if intent
language was not included, LFD would inquire during its
status report in December how many teachers had used the
program and whether the department expected to use the full
appropriation. He stated that the legislature could then
address any over-funding or underfunding through a
supplemental request.
Mr. Painter noted that the situation was common with
appropriations made in the numbers section, as the figures
were often estimates that could be adjusted in the
supplemental budget. He added that the statute allowed for
two types of reimbursements, including payments for new
candidacy fees, which were not accounted for in the current
amendment. If there were insufficient certified teachers to
use the entire appropriation, the legislature could allow
some funds to be applied to new candidates through intent
language or simply allow the department to prorate the
funding as needed.
3:51:52 PM
AT EASE
3:53:21 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the committee was
considering Amendment N 49 as amended.
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to TABLE Amendment N 49 as
amended.
3:53:42 PM
AT EASE
3:54:03 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson relayed that there being NO OBJECTION,
Amendment N 49 as amended was tabled.
Representative Jimmie MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 50 (copy
on file):
Agency: Education & Early Dev
Appropriation: Education Support and Admin
Allocation: Career and Technical Education
Transaction Details
Title: Remove Minecraft License Funding
Section: Section 1
Type: Dec
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: -1,209.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
-1,209.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1004 Gen Fund -1,209.0
Explanation
Last year, the Department of Education was given
$600.0 in partial funding for Minecraft Licenses. They
spent $1,209.0 on the program despite the
Legislature's intent. This amendment removes the
$600.0 UGF that was granted last year, as well as
$187.9 from the Career and Technical Education
allocation and $412.9 in general funding that was used
to make up the rest of the license costs.
Approximately 120 children earned certifications
through the program last year. The Department was
unable to provide information on what type of
certification was received. While we support Career
and Technical Education, Khan Academy offers robust
and child-appropriate computer educational
opportunities to all children with internet access for
free. These include courses on a variety of coding
languages, animation, computer science theory, and
referrals to Hour of Code and Code.org, both nonprofit
coding education programs. Thus, this is not a cost-
effective use of state funds.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Jimmie explained that she introduced the
amendment because she believed more effective options for
coding education were available at a lower cost than the
state was currently paying for Minecraft licensing fees.
She stated that there were dozens of free, high-quality
platforms where students could learn coding and even earn
certificates. She added that the state could teach the
skills without spending public funds on brand-name software
and emphasized the importance of maximizing impact while
minimizing costs during a period of fiscal constraint.
Representative Allard MOVED to ADOPT conceptual Amendment 1
to Amendment N 50.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Allard stated that the budget had increased
by $41 million. She said she was proposing a reduction to
the base student allocation (BSA) as part of the backstop
language in the bill. She explained that the conceptual
amendment would reduce the BSA from $1,000 to $500. She
clarified that the reduction would apply to the BSA
backstop language in the budget.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he would allow the
amendment but characterized it as marginally germane. He
confirmed that Representative Allard was seeking to reduce
the BSA backstop figure from $1,000 to $500.
Representative Allard responded in the affirmative.
Co-Chair Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
3:58:24 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to adopt
conceptual Amendment 1 to Amendment N 50.
IN FAVOR: Allard, Tomaszewski, Johnson
OPPOSED: Galvin, Hannan, Bynum, Stapp, Jimmie, Schrage,
Foster, Josephson
The MOTION FAILED (3/8).
Co-Chair Josephson asked whether there was further
objection to the amendment.
Representative Bynum OBJECTED. He commented that he had
been a long-time supporter of career and technical
education (CTE) activities in schools. He acknowledged
there had been ongoing discussion suggesting that the
Minecraft funding targeted by the amendment might be better
spent elsewhere, but no appropriate alternative had been
identified. Based on certifications issued in November of
2024, students had earned 120 certificates after just three
months of participation in the program. He explained that
many students studying coding in Minecraft also focused on
other subjects. He emphasized that the program offered
industry-recognized certification in JavaScript and Python.
The program already offered a meaningful pathway to engage
students in active industries.
Representative Bynum stated that the program both engaged
students in their education and provided a tangible benefit
in the form of a certification. He added that the advanced-
level certification required 60 hours to complete and the
expert level required 120 hours. He noted that the program
also included both in-person and virtual professional
development for educators. He asserted that anyone who had
observed children using Minecraft could attest to the level
of engagement it inspired. He stressed the importance of
supporting opportunities that actively engaged students and
provided clear educational outcomes. He did not think it
was an appropriate area to cut funding, and he would not
support removing the funding.
Co-Chair Josephson WITHDREW the OBJECTION. He understood
that Representative Bynum's objection was maintained.
4:02:34 PM
Representative Stapp recalled that the committee had cut
the funding the previous year and believed that he may have
made the motion to do so. He asked how DEED proceeded to
spend the money anyway. He suggested that either the
department had surplus funds or redirected existing funds
without clear authority.
Co-Chair Josephson indicated that the question might be
best answered by LFD.
CONNOR BELL, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that DEED used $600,000 of UGF that had been
appropriated for coding education, in addition to another
$600,000. He relayed that a portion of the funding had come
from the CTE increment provided in the FY 25 budget. He
stated that the remainder of the funds were sourced from
within the same appropriation but were otherwise
indeterminate, and that further clarification would need to
come from the department itself as he did not have all of
the details.
Representative Stapp asked for clarification on the rules
regarding committee members participating in meetings
telephonically. He asked if members participating by phone
were permitted to move amendments. He would not object if
the matter had already been addressed, but he wanted to
ensure that there was clarity on the record for future
reference in case he chose to participate remotely himself.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that the Wallace Memorandum
(copy on file) addressing telephonic participation had been
comprehensive and that, to his recollection, it had only
prohibited the telephonic moving of bills out of committee.
He reiterated that it was his strong understanding that
telephonic participation in moving amendments was
permitted.
Representative Stapp thought the situation spoke for itself
in that the origin of some of the funds used for the
program remained unclear.
Co-Chair Josephson noted that Ms. Megan Wallace was online
and available to speak about the memorandum if the
committee desired to hear from her directly.
Representative Stapp relayed that he would like to hear
from her. He repeated his question about telephonic
participation.
4:05:29 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, CHIEF COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES,
JUNEAU (via teleconference), responded to Representative
Stapp that his understanding was correct. The precedent had
been that members could participate fully in committee
proceedings as long as the member was not voting to move a
bill from committee. She clarified that moving and voting
on amendments telephonically was allowed.
Representative Allard stated that her children used
Minecraft and it was available for free. She questioned the
need to spend $1.2 million on something that could be
accessed at a minimal cost. She stated that if a child
wanted to participate in a coding program, a school could
likely provide access to Minecraft at a low cost. She did
not believe that the expenditure of $1.2 million was
justified and she would not support the amendment. She
closed by stating she would take a Nancy Reagan approach
and "just say no."
Representative Galvin clarified that the amendment would
remove Minecraft funding. She would support funding the
program if the state was in a different financial position.
She estimated that the cost amounted to $10,075 per student
based on the reported 120 certifications and the $1.2
million in funding. She emphasized that the legislature
needed to make targeted and strategic budget cuts and
stated that the amendment represented one such cut. She
reiterated Representative Jimmie's earlier comments about
the availability of online CTE programs, such as Khan
Academy. She shared that her own son had learned Python and
Java through free online resources. She appreciated the
accessibility of the free tools, especially for
homeschooled children. She thought that the Minecraft
program may once have been innovative but it had since
become more commonplace and less essential as free
resources became available. She thought that students would
already be learning coding skills if schools were not
overwhelmed and had technical instructors and adequate
computer access from middle school onward. She understood
that making cuts was difficult, but she thought that
Representative Jimmie had identified a reasonable and
responsible reduction.
4:09:12 PM
Representative Hannan relayed that she would support
Amendment 50. She clarified that while the committee may
have cut the funding on the House side the previous year,
$600,000 had still been appropriated to the program. She
noted that the department had found another $600,000 from
within its budget to bring the total to $1.2 million. She
emphasized that only a portion of the funding had
originally been removed and that the program had not been
executed entirely without appropriation.
Co-Chair Foster stated that he had received an email from
one of his larger school districts, which consisted of 15
schools. He shared that the district strongly supported the
Minecraft program which was why he would oppose the
amendment. He relayed that his constituents had told him
that the program helped to bridge the digital divide
between rural and urban communities.
Representative Johnson recalled that there had been a
robust debate on the topic during the prior legislative
session. She stated that the final action on the House side
had been to delete the Minecraft funding, though some of
the funding was ultimately included in the final budget.
She expressed appreciation that DEED had deemed the program
important enough to continue it with reduced funding. She
would support the amendment and hoped to provide the
department with the same opportunity to effectively use a
reduced allocation again in the current year.
Representative Jimmie stated that she and her staff had
spoken with librarians, teachers, and students, and found
that the Minecraft program was widely unpopular and came at
a significant cost of over $10,000 per student. She pointed
out that coding certificates were available for free
through other platforms such as Code.org and Khan Academy.
She asserted that the funds could be better allocated
elsewhere. She stated that the legislature faced decisions
that involved life, death, and public safety. She expressed
her desire for the highest possible BSA and PFD and asked
for support for the amendment.
4:12:38 PM
A roll call vote was taken.
IN FAVOR: Tomaszewski, Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Johnson,
Allard, Schrage, Josephson
OPPOSED: Bynum, Stapp, Foster
The MOTION to ADOPT Amendment N 50 PASSED (8/3).
4:13:34 PM
AT EASE
4:13:46 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Bynum stated that he would not be offering
Amendment N 51 (copy on file) at the current time.
4:14:01 PM
AT EASE
4:21:43 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Foster WITHDREW N Amendment N 52 (copy on file).
Co-Chair Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 53 (copy on
file):
Agency: Fish and Game
Appropriation: Commercial Fisheries
Allocation: Westward Region Fisheries Mgmt
Transaction Details
Title: Restore Test Fishery Receipt Authority to
Replace Lost Federal Receipts
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 500.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 0.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
500.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1109 Test Fish 500.0
Representative Stapp OBJETED.
Co-Chair Josephson explained that the amendment would
restore $500,000 in test fishery receipts. He emphasized
that it would not impact UGF. He clarified that the
amendment would only provide receipt authority for the test
fishery receipts fund. He explained that the program funded
onboard observers who collected data used in fisheries
management to ensure long-term sustainability. He stated
that the current observer rates were set by a state-
negotiated contract that was considered favorable. He
cautioned that the contract would be terminated if the
funding were to be removed, which would result in
significantly higher observer costs ranging from $460 to
$900 per day. The costs would be borne directly by
individual boats, regardless of catch size, which could be
financially burdensome during years of low harvest or stock
collapse.
Representative Stapp understood that the amendment would
backfill lost federal receipt revenue for the test fishery
program. He asked if there were other examples of lost
federal receipts that were being backfilled with general
funds or if the situation was an exception.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he did not know but
suggested that someone from LFD might have the answer. He
added that he had been reminded that the funding had been
removed in subcommittee. He thought that the item had been
included in the original budget and was a request from the
governor. He stated that he would need confirmation of the
information.
MORGAN FOSS, FISCAL ANALYST, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION,
responded that the decrement was accepted in the
subcommittee. She clarified that the test fishery receipts
in question had been part of the base budget previously and
that the current action was to restore the receipts
authority through a budget increment.
Representative Hannan asked whether the amendment
authorized the use of UGF to backfill funds or if it
consisted entirely of industry-generated receipts that
would generate the funds associated with the receipt
authority.
Ms. Foss responded that the test fishery receipt authority
allowed the agency to contract with a vessel to conduct a
test fishery. She explained that the proceeds from the sale
of the fish were used to pay for the contract and also
accumulated within the receipt authority. She added that
the balance could be carried forward and used to fund the
agency's management activities.
Representative Hannan asked for confirmation that the
amendment was not appropriating $500,000, but that it would
grant receipt authority to expend money that could
otherwise become UGF if unspent. She understood that the
funds collected were intended to support the management of
the fishery and that the funds were derived from the sale
of fish, which supported the continued operation of the
fishery. She remarked that the funds did not appear to be
what the legislature typically referred to as UGF dollars.
Ms. Foss responded that Representative Hannan's
understanding was correct. She confirmed that the amendment
pertained to a non-UGF fund source and that it simply
granted receipt authority.
4:26:39 PM
Representative Stapp WITHDREW the OBJECTION.
There being NO further OBJECTION, Amendment N 53 was
ADOPTED.
Representative Jimmie WITHDREW Amendment N 54 (copy on
file).
Representative Jimmie WITHDREW Amendment N 55 (copy on
file).
4:27:47 PM
AT EASE
4:28:54 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson asked for confirmation that Amendment N
55 would not be offered at this time.
Representative Jimmie responded in the affirmative.
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 56 (copy on
file):
Offered In: The House Finance Committee
To: HB 53 / HB 55
Offered By: Representative Stapp
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Transaction Details
Title: Appropriations for Abortions
Wordage Type: Intent
Linkage: Appropriation - Medicaid Services
Wordage
No money appropriated in this appropriation may be
expended for an abortion that is not a mandatory
service required under AS 47.07.030(a). The money
appropriated for the Department of Health may be
expended only for mandatory services required under
Title XIX of the Social Security Act, unless a U.S.
Supreme Court decision provides new precedent, and for
optional services offered by the state under the state
plan for medical assistance that has been approved by
the United States Department of Health and Human
Services.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained the amendment. He stated
that the committee had previously discussed the offering of
intent language in the budget during the review of
Amendment 4. He thought that Amendment 56 should be
familiar to most members of the committee, noting that it
had been affectionately coined the [Senator John] "Coghill
Amendment." He stated that the amendment included intent
language relating to Medicaid services and abortion and had
appeared in nearly every operating budget ultimately sent
to the governor for many years. He explained that Senator
Coghill crafted the language when he served as a
representative. He stated that the amendment expressed the
legislature's intent not to appropriate funding through
Medicaid services for abortion. He added that the amendment
included language related to the United States Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and referenced
potential changes under the Social Security Act (SSA). He
stated that for over sixteen years, the legislature had
maintained this intent language in the budget to reflect
the state's pro-life stance.
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that he was aware that the
committee was capable of having extended conversation on
the topic, but he was not sure it was necessary, and he was
prepared to move to a vote.
4:32:19 PM
Representative Johnson relayed that that she wished to
comment on the topic. She stated that the amendment ensured
that emergency, life-or-death situations could still be
addressed medically through appropriations, such as
protecting the life of the mother. However, she asserted
that elective abortions should not be funded by the state.
She stated that the position for those who were pro-life
was that state funds should not be used for non-emergency
abortions. She acknowledged that legal challenges might be
resolved in court at some future date but reiterated that
the language in the amendment was longstanding and had been
reviewed in light of prior legal challenges.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he appreciated
Representative Johnson's comments and was glad she had the
opportunity to make her comments. He stated that litigation
on the issue had already occurred and that the amendment
language had been found unconstitutional multiple times
under Alaska's constitutional right to privacy. He cited
the Valley Hospital case from the late 1990s as one example
and noted that there had been subsequent rulings
reaffirming the position. He stated that the rulings
generally concluded that if the state provided maternal
health care under Medicaid, it must provide the full scope
of care, including abortion services.
Representative Johnson responded that the amendment
language had been revised and reviewed specifically to
address past legal challenges and to ensure it would not be
deemed unconstitutional. She asserted that the language had
been reviewed and approved by LLS. She added that the
national legal landscape had changed significantly with the
overturning of Roe v. Wade, and that the national changes
made the amendment particularly timely. She emphasized that
the purpose of the amendment was to ensure that Medicaid
services were directed toward life-saving health care and
that the language had been carefully crafted within legal
bounds.
Representative Allard expressed her appreciation to
Representative Stapp for bringing the amendment forward.
She stated that not everyone agreed with the amendment, but
that she did not believe public funding should be used to
terminate a pregnancy simply because the individual chose
to do so. She added that if a life-or-death situation
arose, a medical provider could make a determination, but
she did not believe that the state should fund the
termination of a child's life.
Representative Tomaszewski stated that he agreed with the
comments in support of the amendment. He acknowledged that
the topic was difficult for many but emphasized that it was
important to discuss and to establish a public record. He
stated that he did not believe elective abortion should be
funded by the state as a pro-life legislator. He stated
that he anticipated new legal rulings and actions at the
federal level on the subject and urged the committee to
remain attentive to the developments.
Representative Bynum asked whether the court case
referenced by Co-Chair Josephson had specifically addressed
the current amendment's language, or whether it had dealt
more generally with the issue of creating a discriminatory
practice under existing statute, specifically AS 47.07.030.
He indicated that he was familiar with what had been
referred to as the Coghill amendment.
Co-Chair Josephson stated that he was also familiar with
the Coghill amendment but was unsure whether the language
in the amendment was identical to previous iterations. He
asked LLS to respond.
Ms. Wallace deferred to Ms. Marie Marx to respond.
4:36:39 PM
MARIE MARX, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), responded that to her knowledge, similar
language had been included in prior operating and mental
health budgets but it had never been directly challenged in
court. However, the Alaska Supreme Court (ASC) had held
that the state must fund medically necessary abortion
services for eligible women under Medicaid to the same
extent that it funded pregnancy-related services for women
under Medicaid. She clarified that the requirement was
based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Alaska
Constitution.
Co-Chair Josephson requested confirmation that similar
language to that in the amendment had not been challenged
in court. He asked if Ms. Marx could confirm whether ASC
had ruled that abortion services must be considered part of
maternal care for purposes of Medicaid coverage.
Ms. Marx responded that his understanding was correct. She
added that if the language currently in the budget were
challenged in court, it would likely be found
unconstitutional for the same reasons cited in previous
cases.
4:39:17 PM
Representative Galvin stated that in 2001, ASC had held
that withholding Medicaid coverage for abortions while
covering other medically necessary care violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Alaska Constitution. She indicated
that she would be a no vote on the amendment.
Representative Bynum emphasized the importance of
addressing the repeated references to "medically necessary"
services. He noted that current statute prohibited creating
discriminatory conditions in relation to medically required
care. The broader issue appeared to hinge on distinguishing
between elective procedures and procedures deemed medically
necessary. He did not believe the constitution obligated
the state to use public funds for procedures considered
elective. He understood ASC's position regarding medically
necessary services and equal protection, but he asked for
clarification from LLS on whether the court's guidance
applied only to required services under statute or also to
elective services.
Ms. Marx responded that ASC had ruled that the state could
use neutral criteria to prioritize funding, such as medical
necessity. However, the criteria must be narrowly tailored
to achieve the objective of preserving Medicaid funds. The
state could not single out one specific procedure among
others available to pregnant women. The language in the
amendment clearly singled out abortion services, which
would likely not be constitutionally permissible.
Co-Chair Josephson acknowledged the importance of the issue
but stated his belief that the committee was unlikely to
reach resolution that evening.
Representative Bynum asked if the intent of the amendment
was to restrict the use of state dollars specifically, or
if it was meant to apply to all sources of funds. He asked
if the amendment sought to preserve long-standing language
already in statute, or if the intent was to remove it.
Ms. Marx responded that she had not heard a legal question.
She asked if the question was policy related about removing
the language or if it was a legal question.
Representative Bynum acknowledged that perhaps his
questions were not legal in nature. He clarified that he
was trying to understand whether the language was intended
to prevent the use of state match dollars to fund elective
services, and whether the original intent was to prevent
the use of state funds as opposed to federal Medicaid
funds. He asked Co-Chair Josephson for more information
about the rationale for removing the long-standing language
from law.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he did not recall the
details of the conversation in subcommittee.
4:44:06 PM
Representative Johnson stated that a previous lawsuit had
resulted in a settlement related to similar language,
specifically referencing a case associated with the 2016
budget cycle. She added that the language had changed over
time to ensure it referenced only mandatory services as
defined in statute and under the Social Security Act. She
emphasized that the amendment was not outside legal bounds
and would not prevent Medicaid coverage in life-and-death
situations and that changes to the language had been made
since the court case. She could not speak to the reason the
language had been removed previously.
Representative Allard asked Ms. Marx to identify the point
in a pregnancy at which a termination may be performed
under the law, and whether that could extend to nine
months.
Ms. Marx responded that she was not aware of any ASC case
addressing the specific issue.
Representative Allard asked whether there was a legal limit
under Medicaid for when a pregnancy could be terminated.
Ms. Marks responded that her job was to provide legal
advice based on case law and that Representative Allard's
question had not been addressed by the courts. She could
not provide an informed legal opinion without an opinion
from the courts.
Representative Allard asked if Ms. Marx was stating that
she did not know how late in a pregnancy a termination
could occur under Alaska law.
Ms. Marx responded that she did not have enough information
to provide an informed opinion on the matter.
Representative Allard asserted that termination was
permitted up until delivery.
4:47:28 PM
Representative Galvin noted that there was a previous ASC
decision in 2001 and a confirming case in 2015 that
reaffirmed the application of the Equal Protection Clause
to Medicaid coverage of abortion services. She stated that
the rulings established a legal precedent, and she
emphasized the importance of not adopting budget language
that might trigger litigation. She shared that her daughter
was pregnant and living in Texas, and restrictive laws had
prompted her daughter to develop a contingency plan in case
of a medical emergency due to doctors' hesitation to
provide care. She stated that the conditions created fear
and uncertainty. She urged the committee not to adopt
language that might result in similar unintended
consequences in Alaska. She expressed concern that vague or
restrictive language could deter doctors from providing
necessary medical care in Alaska.
Representative Stapp stated that Representative Galvin's
concerns were unrelated to the amendment under discussion.
He reiterated that the amendment contained intent language
that had appeared in nearly every operating budget for the
past decade. He affirmed that the language had been present
in the budgets for the last several years and had not been
changed in response to litigation. He emphasized that its
inclusion was consistent with long-standing legislative
practice, regardless of court rulings. He stated that his
intention was not to debate the issue but to remind members
that declining to adopt the proposed language would
represent a significant departure from long-standing
legislative practice. He thought it would send a message to
the public about the legislature's value. He believed it
was important to highlight that the exclusion of the
language constituted a major policy shift.
4:51:03 PM
AT EASE
4:51:58 PM
RECONVENED
4:52:12 PM
Co-Chair Josephson noted that ten members were present in
the room and one was participating telephonically
[Representative Jimmie].
Co-Chair Josephson MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Johnson, Stapp, Allard, Bynum, Tomaszewski
OPPOSED: Hannan, Jimmie, Galvin, Schrage, Foster,
Josephson
The MOTION to adopt Amendment N 56 FAILED (5/6).
4:53:13 PM
AT EASE
4:53:25 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson stated that the committee would continue
for approximately 15 more minutes due to an upcoming joint
meeting.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment N 57 (copy on
file).
4:53:53 PM
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 58 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Medicaid Services
Allocation: Medicaid Services
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Funding to Eliminate the Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities Waitlist (FY26-FY27)
Section: Section 1
Type: IncT
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 247,352.6
Miscellaneous: 0.0
247,352.6
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1002 Fed Rcpts 148,411.6
1003 GF/Match 98,941.0
Explanation
The Waitlist Elimination Plan displayed two scenarios
for the elimination of the service waitlist for
individuals with intellectual and developmental
disabilities (IDD). In FY 24, the Legislature provided
a Multi-Year appropriation through FY26 for the
development of the InterRAI tool to facilitate the
drawdown of this waitlist. This amendment provides the
temporary funds necessary to facilitate the
elimination of the waitlist, with the expectation that
in FY 27 the InterRAI tool can assist incoming
individuals get services quickly.
Co-Chair Josephson OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment
highlighted a "travesty" in the state. He noted the
existence of a current waitlist for individuals with
intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) and
acknowledged that Co-Chair Josephson had put significant
time and effort into streamlining the system with the goal
of eventually eliminating the waitlist. He relayed that
addressing the full waitlist under current fiscal
conditions would cost the state nearly a quarter of a
billion dollars in combined federal and state funds, spread
over multiple years. The legislature had recently taken
steps to move forward with a roadmap supported by the Key
Coalition, an organization that regularly advocated for
individuals with IDD. He added that the coalition brought
its members to the Capitol each year to elevate awareness
of the waitlist issue. He emphasized that it was important
for the committee to take time to recognize the efforts of
advocates and the challenges experienced by caregivers. He
thought that the waitlist for individuals with IDDs was
something the legislature should strive to eliminate as
practically as possible. He noted that tools had been
developed in recent years to help analyze and ultimately
reduce the waitlist.
Representative Bynum stated that he appreciated the
amendment. He acknowledged that Alaska faced significant
backlogs across many areas and the legislature had a
responsibility to address the issues. He asked if
eliminating the waitlist over the proposed two-year period
would lead to a lasting solution, or if the waitlist would
continue to grow again.
Representative Stapp replied that the high level of
services and personnel would likely mean the appropriation
would be ongoing until the state finalized implementation
of tools such as the interRAI assessment tool. He expressed
appreciation to the committee for allowing him time to
address the issue and to acknowledge those who advocate for
individuals with IDDs.
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment N 58.
Co-Chair Josephson commended Representative Stapp for
offering the amendment and for bringing attention to the
issue.
4:58:06 PM
Representative Stapp WITHDREW Amendment N 59 (copy on
file).
Representative Stapp MOVED to ADOPT Amendment N 60 (copy on
file):
Agency: Health
Appropriation: Public Health
Allocation: Chronic Disease Prev/Hlth Promo
Transaction Details
Title: Increase Funding for the Dementia Education and
Prevention Program
Section: Section 1
Type: Inc
Line Items (Amounts are in thousands)
Personal Services: 0.0
Travel: 0.0
Services: 0.0
Commodities: 0.0
Capital Outlay: 0.0
Grants: 100.0
Miscellaneous: 0.0
100.0
Positions
Permanent Full-Time: 0
Permanent Part-Time: 0
Temporary: 0
Funding (Amounts are in thousands)
1037 GF/MH 100.0
Explanation
This funding will allow the Dementia Education and
Prevention Program (DEPP) to achieve their stated 2025
goal to build out a workplan that aligns with the
Center for Disease Control Healthy Brain Initiative
Road Map for American Indian and Alaska Native
Peoples. With this funding the DEPP can engage
communities, share knowledge, support the growth of a
skilled and representative workforce, measure,
evaluate, and use data, and strengthen policies and
relationships.
Representative Hannan OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Stapp explained that the amendment would
provide a $100,000 allocation to the Dementia Education and
Prevention Program (DEPP) to support the programs' goal to
build a work plan aligned with the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's (CDC) Healthy Brain Initiative. He
stated that the initiative aimed to raise awareness and
ultimately prevent dementia. He acknowledged that the
appropriation request was relatively small and that the
cause was worthy of prioritization despite fiscal
constraints.
Co-Chair Josephson responded that he had discussed the
initiative with an advocate in January. He noted that the
language of the amendment referenced the CDC's Healthy
Brain Initiative roadmap for American Indian and Alaska
Native populations and asked for more information.
Representative Stapp responded that the plan aligned with
the CDC roadmap.
Representative Bynum stated that he supported the
amendment. He thought it was clear that spending money on
health care programs had the potential to reduce overall
state expenditures by decreasing long-term care costs. He
emphasized that small investments could lead to significant
savings over time and asserted that any effort to shift
individuals earlier on the continuum of care would benefit
the state and allow it to serve more residents.
Representative Galvin thought the proposal sounded
promising, but it resembled the kind of effort that could
be advanced through a bill. She asked for more information
on the funding source, whether Indian Health Services (IHS)
funds were being leveraged, and whether the Alaska Native
Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) was involved. She asked if
the $100,000 appropriation represented the full budget or
if it was being combined with other sources. She asked how
many Alaskans would be served. She requested any data that
might help demonstrate the value of the program.
5:01:48 PM
Representative Stapp stated that he would address the
questions during his wrap-up to keep the discussion
efficient.
Representative Jimmie relayed that she would be supporting
the amendment. She thought the funding would provide
increased outreach, better local training, and stronger
data to guide care and prevention. She thought the funding
would allow DEPP to build a plan that better reflected the
needs of Alaskans and supported families facing dementia.
Representative Hannan MAINTAINED the OBJECTION.
Representative Stapp explained that CDC's Healthy Brain
Initiative Roadmap provided best practices and guidelines,
not mandates. He noted that the plan included a
communication strategy involving communities across the
state that were affected by dementia. The allocation would
be made through the Division of Public Health (DPH) under
the chronic disease and prevention guidelines. He responded
to Representative Galvin's question by noting that the
initiative involved public and private organizations that
aimed to address dementia. He emphasized the growing impact
of chronic diseases in Alaska and requested support for
providing targeted funding toward dementia prevention and
planning.
5:03:42 PM
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to ADOPT Amendment
N 60.
IN FAVOR: Allard, Tomaszewski, Bynum, Johnson, Jimmie,
Stapp, Foster, Schrage, Josephson
OPPOSED: Gavin, Hannan
The MOTION PASSED (9/2).
5:04:40 PM
AT EASE
5:04:58 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Josephson remarked that he was pleased with the
committee's progress. He noted that the committee had
addressed Amendment N 44 through Amendment N 60.
HB 53 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
HB 55 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
Co-Chair Josephson reviewed the agenda for the following
day's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
5:06:00 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 53 Legal Opinion Amendment 14 032725.pdf |
HFIN 3/31/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |
| HB 53 ACTIONS ON AMENDMENTS 033125.pdf |
HFIN 3/31/2025 1:30:00 PM |
HB 53 |