Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/24/2016 09:30 AM 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 |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB231 | |
| HB222 | |
| HB77 | |
| HB247 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 77 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 231 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 222 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 247 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 222
"An Act relating to increases of appropriation items."
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to ADOPT the proposed committee
substitute for HB 222, Work Draft (29-LS1045\H). There
being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
Ms. Pierson explained that the committee substitute (CS)
before the committee changed the 45 day limit to 90 days
thereby giving the legislature more time for evaluation.
The legislature could always provide approval prior to 90
days. She indicated that Julie Lucky could supply the
committee with additional detail.
9:50:17 AM
JULIE LUCKY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE MIKE HAWKER, explained
that the bill codified a procedure for the legislature
during the budgeting process to prohibit using the revised
program legislative (RPL) process to increase an
appropriation in the budget. The CS extended the waiting
period to 90 days. Therefore, if the Legislative Budget and
Audit Committee were to receive an RPL the executive branch
would have to wait 90 days before expending the RPL unless
the committee took action to hasten the timeline by
approving the RPL.
Co-Chair Thompson OPENED public testimony.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler explained that HB 222 had one zero
fiscal note from the legislature.
9:52:03 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler MOVED to REPORT CSHB 222 (FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal note.
Representative Gara OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Gara commented that no one would have
thought of the current bill without the Medicaid expansion
debate in the prior year. The current process allowed the
state to accept grant funds that fit within the parameters
agreed upon by the legislature to appropriate. The money
came from the federal government or a private donor. He did
not believe the legislature could anticipate what funding
it could potentially lose out on. He thought the
legislature would be overstepping itself by passing the
bill. He presented a hypothetical situation where renewable
energy money would be needed to complete a project that the
state would not accept. If the bill had been in place the
previous year and the state had not accepted Medicaid
expansion money the state would have lost out on $140
million of federal funding that was rippling throughout the
economy. He suggested that much of the budget reductions
had been possible because of the Medicaid expansion monies
coming in. There were reductions in behavioral health of
$5.7 million because the money was being leveraged through
the new federal law. In the future it would be difficult to
determine what the legislation would prevent the state from
accepting. The bill had to do with money coming in from
another source for something approved by the legislature.
He thought the passage of the legislation would result in
unintended consequences. He believed that in 30 years into
the future the legislature might realize a project had been
blocked that could have been useful to the state. He did
not support changing the current law and would be opposing
the bill.
9:54:57 AM
Representative Wilson spoke about a significant amount of
stimulus money coming to the state a few years prior. After
the state accepted the money it ended up backfilling
certain projects, although that had not been the intention
upon taking the funding. Her understanding of the
legislation was that it did not disallow the acceptance of
funding. It allowed the legislature to better understand
what the money would be used for and to decide if a project
should move forward. She thought the bill allowed the
legislature to be more proactive. She did not feel the bill
blocked funding but allowed for more due diligence. She
indicated she was in favor of the bill.
9:55:58 AM
Vice-Chair Saddler suggested that the bill came up as a
result of a dispute regarding Medicaid expansion. However,
the current issue was not Medicaid expansion but clearly
the legislature's appropriation authority and the proper
balance between the executive and legislative branches. He
opined that the legislation allowed the legislature the
improved opportunity to consider the meaning of accepting
more money through the RPL process. He thought the
legislation was appropriate and would be supporting it.
Representative Guttenberg commented that in every
department cuts were applied and the departments were
directed to go out to find additional monies. He was
concerned that the bill was a "pull back" from agencies
being able to function with more efficiencies. The
legislature had told the governor and agencies to find
additional funding but the legislation did not allow for
flexibility. He objected to the bill.
9:58:18 AM
Representative Pruitt reported that within state and
federal government the legislative body had the power of
the purse. Any money that went through the state was
appropriated by the legislature. He thought that the
current discussion was rethinking whether the legislature
had given up the ability to maintain the power to
appropriate. The reason the legislature had appropriation
power was because legislators were closest to the people.
Legislators had a more direct connection with constituents
than the administration or the governor. The legislative
body recognized that there was a situation where the
legislature had seated its authority to another branch of
government. He asserted that the bill was recognizing and
correcting the scenario. The bill was placing the power of
appropriations back into the hands of the people through
the legislature. He appreciated the legislation being
brought forward.
Representative Kawasaki was glad there was an
acknowledgement that the legislation came about because of
Medicaid expansion and that the legislature had the power
of the purse. Sometimes the legislature disagreed with the
governor. He suggested that while the legislature might
disagree with the governor on some issues it was a simple
separation of powers. The governor had the ability to
accept federal funds on behalf of the rest of the state. He
feared a program such as early education (the federal
government was looking at granting states certain Pre-K
dollars) could come up in the middle of the summer. The
state was now looking at a window of 90 days before it
could accept funding. It was possible the state might need
to receive the funds earlier. He suggested that a
legislative chairman, only representing a portion of
Alaskans, could decide they did not like Pre-K. The
governor had the opportunity, representing the rest of
Alaskans, to say it was something the state would like to
see but would not have a means to accept the funding
barring the legislator's responsiveness and willingness to
bring it forward. He added that he thought there were
certain circumstances in which the legislation could make
things very difficult. He objected to the bill.
10:02:40 AM
Representative Munoz thought it was possible to overthink
the change. It was a very simple change adding 45 days of
review time to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee
when accepting new grant monies. She thought the change was
appropriate and one that she supported.
Co-Chair Thompson asked for clarification.
Ms. Lucky stated that the policy discussion was exactly the
result Representative Hawker was looking for by introducing
the legislation. She suggested the discussion was about the
separation of powers and the power of the purse versus the
power to accept money (which the governor had). She pointed
out that the power to accept additional federal funding was
not a power granted to the governor by the constitution but
granted via the legislature by statute (the current
legislation proposed to amend the statute). It would be
reconsidered every year in the full budget and was granted
each year. At any point the legislature could choose not to
include Section 24 in the budget. She furthered that by a
quick budget amendment the legislature could disallow the
governor from accepting any federal funds during the
interim. She reported that the State of Arizona had adopted
such a policy. She furthered that Arizona had to call back
into special session anytime additional federal funds came
in. In many other states Legislative Budget and Audit had
more power to accept or reject based on the difference in
the constitutional balance of powers.
Ms. Lucky continued to explain that within Alaska's system
the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee did not have the
power to reject the acceptance of funds. She explained that
the legislature had a two-step process of granting the
power via the budget and then a process would be put into
place. She highlighted that the power was not absolute, it
was limited. In a previous meeting Mr. Teal had reported
that it was allowed for general funds but the legislature
had chosen to amend the budget not allowing general funds.
The revised program legislative process was not currently
available for those funds at present. It was not her job or
duty to discuss the policy; that rested with the
legislature. However, she was providing a few facts in
front of legislators about how the process worked. The
process envisioned by HB 222 would be a specific
prohibition on a specific budget item rather than a blanket
prohibition on many items. It was the intent of the bill
sponsor that if the legislature, as the appropriating body,
had considered a particular appropriation and determined
not to move forward with it they would have the power to
restrict it in the budget. It was not necessarily to
prohibit the governor or the executive branch or the state
from taking advantage of the funding but rather to have a
process where the full legislature, as opposed to however
many members sat on the committee could make any important
policy decision that had already been considered but
rejected by the entire legislature.
10:06:45 AM
Representative Guttenberg wondered about the first change
in the bill on Page 1, Line 4 [Section 1(h)]. He provided a
hypothetical scenario where the legislature adopted the
previous year's budget outlining that there would be no
Medicaid expansion while the courts ruled that the
expansion was mandatory. He wondered if there would have
been a conflict.
Co-Chair Thompson did not want to get into a discussion
about Medicaid expansion.
Representative Guttenberg explained that although Medicaid
expansion was in the past he was using it as an example. He
rephrased his question. He asked about if language was
inserted into the budget that stated no money should be
taken for a certain program and the federal government has
defined the program as mandatory. He wondered how the
conflict would be resolved.
Ms. Lucky was not a constitutional scholar. She deferred to
Legislative Legal Services online.
Representative Pruitt thought that the first line related
to the legislature being able to accept federal funds. He
explained that unless the legislature excluded the language
in the budget, there would have to be a process in place to
resolve such a conflict. He thought there was a mix of
issues at hand. He suggested it was a two-step process.
First, the legislature would give authority for the
acceptance of federal funds. A second step was being added.
If the legislature did not ask for the authority then the
step would not be needed. He presumed that the legislature
had not indicated that there was not the authority in place
for the administration to accept federal money. He thought
that it was moving away from a court decision because the
legislature would have to first elect not to accept any
additional federal funding.
Representative Guttenberg wondered how to resolve a
conflict in which the budget included language that
specified that the state not accept certain federal
funding, yet there was a federal mandate to accept the
funds.
Ms. Lucky believed it would be resolved similar to the way
in which the state resolved anything regarding the balance
of powers. She suggested that the bill only stated that the
RPL process could not be used to accept federal funding.
She thought that if the legislature chose not to accept
funds in the budget process or in any process and the
federal government required the state to accept it, then
the issue would likely have to be litigated. In the bill
being discussed, it stated that the RPL process would not
be an appropriate avenue for a particular issue.
10:10:36 AM
Co-Chair Thompson indicated someone from legal was online.
MEGAN WALLACE, ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES (via
teleconference), relayed that she was available.
Representative Guttenberg referred to Page 1, Line 4 of the
committee substitute. He highlighted the portion that
stated, "Unless expressly prohibited language of the
appropriation." He wondered how the issue of passing a
budget that identified funds the state was not allowed to
accept from the federal government but mandated to do so.
Ms. Wallace responded that it would be a difficult question
to answer in a hypothetical context. It would depend on the
program and the Alaska statutes surrounding the program.
Hypothetically, the language would prevent an increase to
an existing appropriation. If there was a program funded in
the budget and additional federal dollars for it came in
but the legislature had chosen to insert language
prohibiting the acceptance of additional funds, a person
would likely have to turn to the statutes. There would be
the question of whether the additional federal funding was
needed to fully fund the program. If so, the question of
what would happen if the program was not fully funded would
need to be addressed.
Representative Gara MAINTAINED his OBJECTION.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Gattis, Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Thompson
OPPOSED: Gara, Guttenberg, Kawasaki
The MOTION PASSED (6/3).
Co-Chair Neuman and Representative Edgmon were absent from
the vote.
CSHB 77 (FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a new zero fiscal note from
the Alaska Legislature.
10:13:45 AM
AT EASE
10:15:28 AM
RECONVENED