HJR 2 - BIENNIAL STATE BUDGET CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would hear HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2, proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to a biennial state budget, to the appropriation limit, and to appropriations from the budget reserve fund. Number 0038 REPRESENTATIVE GAIL PHILLIPS, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, explained that biennial budgeting is not a new concept in Alaska, and 20 other states use it. She referred members to the written sponsor statement, then said she would talk briefly about the concept and answer questions. Representative Phillips alluded to the advisory vote on September 14, 1999 [in which Alaskans voted against using part of the permanent fund to pay for state government]. Apparently referring to polls taken at the time, she said the overwhelming response from people was a desire for the state to operate more efficiently and effectively, while saving money where possible. She believes biennial budgeting does that. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained the concept for HJR 2. The first year of a legislative session, budgets will be done; that gives a chance for new legislators to see how everything is done and get their feet wet regarding the budget process. The budget written that first year will carry on for a two-year period. The second year, when legislators comes back, the length of that session can be significantly reduced, possibly to 90 days or 60 days; an amendment provided to members gives some options regarding that. She indicated the financial impacts of 60-day and 90-day sessions were being figured, to be provided to the House Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that biennial budgeting will allow much greater efficiency for state agencies, which can put planning into place and have time to spend on programs that can be developed over a two-year period. She assured members it won't reduce legislative authority, as only the legislature can write or approve a budget; that won't change under HJR 2. In the off year, if the state realized significant declines in revenue, the finance committees would have to come back in and make adjustments, she pointed out; however, if there were significant increases, there would be a savings. Representative Phillips emphasized the need for Alaskans to look at biennial budgeting, which works in many other states. It saves a lot of money, and she believes it is a very, very good idea. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS mentioned that organizations in support of HJR 2 represent business people, including those with mom-and-pop operations, and other individuals who believe it is time for Alaska to look at something like this. The resolution is creative, it is different, and it responds clearly to the September 14 vote, which she believes said, "Do things smarter, do things better, do things cheaper in Alaska." Representative Phillips concluded by reminding members that this would require a constitutional amendment. Number 0333 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether any of the 20 states mentioned is dependent on one resource. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered yes. She listed Texas, Washington and Oregon, indicating there may be others. In answer to a question by Representative Green, she clarified that when the legislature came back into session following a financial crisis, the finance committees would meet and make adjustments. It would still be subject to full legislative review. However, they wouldn't have to go through the entire budgetary process but would make percentage factor changes. She pointed out that Oregon does it very differently, using an "emergency budget committee" to which they have given authority to make adjustments if there is an emergency situation. However, Representative Phillips is not recommending that Alaska do likewise. Number 0479 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his understanding that only about 5 percent of Texas' budget is derived from oil. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded that right now it is at 10 percent, with the majority of revenue apparently from income tax. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN indicated Texans had conveyed to him that it is a good deal except they now have more special sessions, especially in the second year. He pointed out that dropping oil prices the previous year probably would have caused Alaska's legislature to go into special session. He asked whether Representative Phillips' analysis shows that even with additional special sessions the state would still be way ahead. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. She noted that Alaska's constitution provides authority for one 20-day and one 10-day extension, which she indicated she isn't changing. Number 0578 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said his only concern about this is the balance between variability of revenues and the loss of legislative power. On the other hand, the amendment seems attractive to him. He asked whether there are ball-park figures on potential savings. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS answered, "We didn't prepare the financial detail for this committee, because this committee addresses the constitutional amendments issues." She indicated details would be provided to the House Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether Representative Phillips wanted the present committee to take up her amendment. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS affirmed that. Amendment 1 [1-LS0174\A.1, Cook, 1/21/00] read: Page 1, line 1, following "relating": Insert "to the duration of regular sessions of the legislature," Page 1, following line 4: Insert a new resolution section to read: "* Section 1. Article II, sec. 8, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read: Section 8. Regular Sessions. The legislature shall convene in regular session each year on the fourth Monday in January, but the month and day may be changed by law. The legislature shall adjourn from regular session no later than one hundred twenty consecutive calendar days from the date it convenes during each odd-numbered year, and, during each even-numbered year, a regular session may last no longer than sixty consecutive calendar days, except that any [A] regular session may be extended once for up to ten consecutive calendar days. An extension of the regular session requires the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the membership of each house of the legislature. The legislature shall adopt as part of the uniform rules of procedure deadlines for scheduling session work not inconsistent with provisions controlling the length of the session." Page 1, line 5: Delete "* Section 1." Insert "* Sec. 2." Renumber the following resolution sections accordingly. Page 3, line 10: Delete all material and insert: "Section 30. Application of 2000 Amendments. (a) Notwithstanding the 2000 amendment regarding the duration of legislative sessions during even-numbered years (art. II, sec. 8), regular sessions during 2002, 2004, and 2006 may last no longer than ninety consecutive calendar days and may be extended once for up to ten consecutive calendar days. (b) The 2000" [End of Amendment 1] Number 0689 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that in looking at whether to make the second year a 60- or 90-day session, and in talking with legal counsel, she had decided a transition time would be needed. Therefore, Amendment 1 calls for 90-day sessions for the first three sessions, in 2002, 2004 and 2006. That will allow a chance to work out any glitches. After 2006, the second session would be 60 days. Whether the second session would be 90 days or 60 days could be decided after she provided financial backup to the House Finance Committee. Number 0752 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN pointed out that this is his eighth year, but the legislature only has adjourned in less than 120 days one time, when the sponsor was Speaker of the House. He questioned whether the legislature could do the state's business in this length of time. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that during the transition period, 90 days would be sufficient when not dealing with the budget. She suggested the legislature does work to fill the time slots, and if the time slot is shorter, they will do the work in that time. Number 0866 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT noted that some documentation describes a budget session solely, followed by a bill session. However, nothing in HJR 2, even with the proposed amendment, prohibits discussion of legislation during the budget session. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS clarified that she doesn't intend for that first session to be budget-only; rather, that is when the budget will be done, unless there needs to be a provision for an emergency adjustment. Number 0946 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI indicated something in the packets led her to think persons serving on the finance committees would be available to serve on other standing committees during the even-numbered years. She asked if that is what the sponsor envisions. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested those committees would still be in place and able to meet, but members would be able to do other things such as take on a project. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether, as a general rule, other states with biennial budgets have finance committees that remain active in the off year. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS replied, "And they assimilate into other things. Both." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT mentioned bills with fiscal impacts. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that wouldn't change. Number 1019 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked what legislators who don't serve on the finance committees would do during the budgetary year. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained that legislators would continue to do their duties just like they do today, with all legislation coming before them. The significant impact, however, would be with the agencies [in the off year], because personnel wouldn't spend three to four months just working on a budget, and they could become far more productive in the programs they are implementing. Number 1092 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is precisely the point he wanted to make. The true savings won't be in shortening the legislative session. One of the biggest problems has been that members of the administration spend so much time budget building and sitting in hearings in Juneau that they can't get their jobs done. He said that is the singular thing that may sway his vote, and he suggested the need to sell the public on that concept. Number 1136 JACK FARGNOLI, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Director, Office of Management & Budget (OMB), Office of the Governor, came forward to testify. He expressed the Governor's support for biennial budgeting, and for discussions and possibilities inherent in this kind of legislation. He noted that much activity has occurred over the last ten years among states. Today, 24 or 25 states use a biennial budget cycle, and another 15 or 16 use a biennial legislative cycle. There is a lot of mixing and matching between and among those possibilities. MR. FARGNOLI agreed that in general, executive-branch agencies have been presented an opportunity to gain benefits from biennial budgeting in exactly the sense that Representative Phillips discussed. In off years, he explained, although they have taken very different approaches to it, states with biennial budgeting commonly focus on selected areas that bear in-depth study. For example, if welfare reform or rural economic development were before Alaska now, the opportunity would exist in off years to focus on areas of concern to both the administration and the legislature. On the agency side is the counterpart. People wouldn't be preoccupied with annual budget development and compilation, which would free them to play their respective roles in planning or working with the legislature in targeted programmatic areas. MR. FARGNOLI cautioned that the details bear a fair amount of planning and foresight, which the Governor encourages. There is a capability for numerous permutations. This potentially will change the legislature's processes as much as the administration of the executive branch; that is key to understanding both the challenges and the opportunities. "That said, we really do endorse the concept of it," Mr. Fargnoli concluded, "and would look forward to the conversation with the legislature and the public on biennial budgeting and how we might go about it." Number 1278 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked, "In your opinion, given the existing state of contract negotiations, would there be more creativity placed in the budget cycle that would allow for some manipulation later on, depending on how those negotiations take place and the eventual outcome?" Clarifying that he was talking about contracts involving public employees, he inquired about projecting into the future the eventual costs if there would be net increases and how that would be factored into the budget. MR. FARGNOLI answered that he isn't sure. However, he would think that, like many aspects of biennial budgeting, there would be a longer time frame involved and, consequently, more possible opportunities. It would probably require working closely with labor unions and contracting groups to talk about those time spans. Mr. Fargnoli concluded: I think that to the degree you were able to plan your programmatic aspects of state government over a longer time frame, you conceivably, probably, would be able to look at your labor contracts in just that same kind of an extended-time-frame fashion. I would think there would be at least some potential upside to that; I don't know that there would be a downside to it. I think you'd have to watch your timing on your labor contracts. Number 1363 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Fargnoli whether he agrees that the primary benefits is time-saving efficiency on the part of the administration and in putting together budgets and so forth. MR. FARGNOLI affirmed that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether conceivably there could be some reduction in personnel because of that. Budget analysts, for example, would have a window of time in which to work. MR. FARGNOLI answered: I don't know that you could. I can understand the question and the possibilities for it. Between having the problem of having people on and then putting them off, I don't know how that would work out, really. Certainly, the people who are involved in budget preparation and budget development - even though right now they're also involved in other duties and responsibilities - certainly their time could be allocated to other areas. I think you would probably see those benefits being sooner than looking at actual numerical reductions in employees. I frankly don't know the answer to that question, but I would assume that the productivity gains would be a very respectable benefit. Number 1439 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed there will be productivity gains but asked whether there would be actual savings without reductions in personnel. MR. FARGNOLI responded that travel is one area for potential savings that they have looked at. As for employee costs over time, he doesn't really know, as they haven't looked at that. In response to Representative Rokeberg's further inquiry, he affirmed that the OMB is working on the fiscal note. Number 1502 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT highlighted three levels of possible savings. First, he agrees with Representative Rokeberg that cutting the second legislative session to 90 or 60 days is the cleanest but smallest savings. Second, if budget analysts weren't fired but were freed up to do other things the second year, not having to hire another person to do those other things would offer a savings, especially with those "half persons" spread across different budgets. And third, every year people come to the capitol to advocate, defend or attack various aspects of the budget; Representative Croft suggested there would be a broad societal savings from only having to do that every two years; even if not quantifiable, it is there as a savings. MR. FARGNOLI agreed, noting that in addition to members of the public, program managers - many of whom are not directly involved in the budget development and compilation - come to the capitol to testify when their programs are being deliberated. That would provide another in-state government source of savings. Number 1611 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she would ask the same question asked of Representative Phillips in terms of making predictions when the state is so reliant on a single industry. MR. FARGNOLI noted that he had been present for a number of administrations. Acknowledging that Alaska still appreciably relies on revenue from resources, he said as the revenue base has diversified, to the degree other fiscal and financial mechanisms have allowed Alaska to assuage that reliance or dependency, it has helped a lot in that regard. Alaska hasn't gone through the same transformations that Texas has, for example. Mr. Fargnoli indicated he himself believes Alaska is increasingly better equipped and isn't in the same position as it would have been ten years ago in terms of having to worry. He also indicated the annual fluctuation of oil prices and revenues was the cause for earlier reservations about this process. He concluded: So, it's still something we should pay a lot of attention to. But to the degree it's planned and discussed and deliberated, in terms of a longer financial planning horizon for state government, and more resource development or economic development, I think ... those are things that we can do together, and they would have that mutual benefit of not leaving us so susceptible to the moment-to-moment or month-to-month fluctuations of oil prices. But ... it's a major concern, no doubt. Number 1679 CHAIRMAN KOTT thanked Mr. Fargnoli. He reminded members they were to look at this resolution from the constitutional standpoint rather than as a question of policy. Number 1692 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, 1-LS0174\A.1, Cook, 1/21/00. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. Noting Representative Phillips' absence at the moment, he referred to Section 30 and questioned the need for the transition period mentioned by the sponsor, especially the three sessions of 90 days rather than 60. Number 1772 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt a friendly amendment that would amend Amendment 1 by striking page 1, line 10, and page 2 in its entirety. Together, that portion of Amendment 1 read: Page 3, line 10: Delete all material and insert: "Section 30. Application of 2000 Amendments. (a) Notwithstanding the 2000 amendment regarding the duration of legislative sessions during even-numbered years (art. II, sec. 8), regular sessions during 2002, 2004, and 2006 may last no longer than ninety consecutive calendar days and may be extended once for up to ten consecutive calendar days. (b) The 2000" Number 1784 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. He voiced the belief that it is a fairly radical change to cut the session length in half, and a transition period probably is appropriate. Furthermore, with the sponsor unfortunately absent from the hearing, he would be more comfortable keeping that language. Although agreeing with Chairman Kott's comment that this committee's main mission is to determine the legality and to let the House Finance Committee determine fiscal issues, Representative Croft pointed out that he himself looks at policy aspects as well. He wouldn't support moving legislation from a committee if he didn't think it was a good idea and had met the legal scrutiny the committee should give. However, with HJR 2 he hadn't seen any constitutional or legal problems, and he believes it is good policy. Number 1849 CHAIRMAN KOTT set aside the motions to adopt Amendment 1 and the friendly amendment to it, noting that there had been objections to both motions. Saying this had gone from a single-issue topic of budgeting to now changing another section of the constitution, he asked Tam Cook if that is perhaps beyond the scope of what they should be doing. Number 1885 TAMARA COOK, Director, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, responded that obviously there is a new sensitivity resulting from the decision in Bess about the very hazy distinction between an amendment that is permitted for the legislature to propose and something that Alaska's court is going to declare to be a revision. She advised members: If you'll recall from Bess, one of the things that the court looks at when it makes a determination - or at least has explained to us that it will be looking at - are the number of subjects that a proposed constitutional amendment includes. And the court expressed the notion that a constitutional amendment that is limited to a very specific subject has a greater chance of surviving as a proposed amendment of the nature that is within the power of the legislature to propose, and will not be rejected as a revision. Because of that, the simpler the amendment that we can give them, and ... probably the more refined it is, the more careful it is to concentrate only on one subject, probably the better chance we have ... of surviving if we meet a Bess-type challenge on the amendment-versus-revision dichotomy that we're now facing. In this particular case, it is possible that you could support, in a Bess-type confrontation, an argument that the reduction in the session is tied closely enough to the budgeting process that they ought to be considered a single subject. ... A rational argument could be made for the proposition that if you're looking at a two-year biennial budget, that the first year of the session ought to be longer, and that the second year can, then, be shorter. The court could easily come back and say, "Yes, but it's not a requirement of biennial budgeting per se that your session change in any way." So, I don't know whether that type of an argument would survive or be persuasive to the court. I would have to say that adding a subject like the duration of ... a regular session certainly makes this particular bill more vulnerable. I think the bill may actually be somewhat vulnerable under a Bess attack right now, possibly, because of the change to the budget reserve fund, ... which doesn't, in and of itself, have to do with biennial budgeting. So, it may be that there's a couple of things that this committee would want to focus on. Of the two, I think - it's really hard to say - it might be easier to convince a court ... that there was a connection between a shorter second session and a biennial budget than that there is a good connection between the "change to the budget reserve fund" language and a biennial budget. Obviously, the safest thing to do is to go just with biennial budget and address a session limit as a separate proposal. But that might result in a policy choice that was unacceptable to people, ... in that you could have the voters vote "yes" for one but not the other ... and leave you in an odd situation. It may be that that kind of argument would help this survive under Bess, if you were to include the durational residency. But I can't speculate on the ultimate outcome. Number 2046 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked: Is it necessary to place a constitutional amendment before the voters that would restrict the number of days that the legislature is in session during that second year, or could the legislature arbitrarily set that number of days itself, while keeping the parameter still at 120 days? He suggested nothing prohibits the legislature from collectively agreeing to adjourn within 60 days. MS. COOK concurred, specifying that the constitution speaks only of maximums and doesn't require that the legislature stay in session. Number 2073 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked about the effect of the change to the budget reserve fund. MS. COOK answered that it is the repealer of subsection (b) of the constitution. She pointed out that subsection (b) actually has never been utilized. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated it has been the subject of court cases. MS. COOK said it could be viewed almost as cleanup, if one accepts that it would never be useful in the future. However, it isn't the kind of cleanup particularly needed to implement a biennial budget. Number 2105 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked whether it has any logical relationship to biennial budgeting. MS. COOK suggested letting the sponsor [who was still absent] speak to that, as it is something she obviously would like to see occur. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT commented that it is the part that purports to define the easy way to take money out when there is a decline, but because of the vagaries of the state's budgeting, the permanent fund and other issues, the conditions have never been met and are unlikely to be met for at least the near future. MS. COOK responded: For the near future; I think that that's right. It's because of the way our court views the types ... of accounts that we have as being available for appropriation, particularly the earnings reserve account of the permanent fund. [It] has made it mathematically impossible to get under (b), as I understand it, so far. Number 2158 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI expressed her understanding that Representative Phillips' biennial budget concept can stand alone, without the provision. MS. COOK replied: I think it would function perfectly well without that particular provision, and, arguably, it would function perfectly well without the amendment. And the last thing, if we're really worried about Bess, I supposed that the committee could look at is what to do about the appropriation limit. ... The appropriation limit is another one of those anomalous, difficult situations. That appears in the bill, dealt with on page 2 as Section 3. There's almost no way to draft, in this particular provision, and to convert it to something that makes sense in a biennial budget context, without having to do something that is substantively different ... to the appropriation limit itself. The appropriation limit has ... also been a nonfunctioning section of the constitution. In this particular case, what I did as a drafter - obviously with the sponsor's permission - was to take a very simple solution to a problem that is too complicated. I simply took the notion that we're going to have a limit that applies ... to appropriations for one year, expanded it to two year[s] and doubled the amount. But, obviously, that means ... any one-year supplemental appropriations would then be outside the limit, theoretically. In order for me to draft in such a way as to attach ... one-year appropriations, I can't do it and make this thing comprehensible. So, one possibility is to just leave Section 16 out of the bill, ... completely unamended, in which case you have a constitutional provision that speaks in terms ... of a spending limit that applies to single years; and it would be perhaps difficult but maybe not impossible, if you ever were to apply the spending limit, to bifurcate your two-year budgets and figure out ... how to attribute money that is appropriated in a two-year basis. But one possibility for the committee is to decide simply not to discuss the appropriation limit in this bill, and then we haven't made a substantive change, although I don't know how the provision will work ... in a biennial budget situation. But we do get that subject off the table as far as Bess analysis goes. So that's another possibility. Number 2270 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI stated her understanding that Ms. Cook sees three potential Bess-type conflicts. MS. COOK clarified that there are, potentially, three subjects in this resolution without the amendment. The amendment would add a fourth. Number 2289 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG disagreed with Ms. Cook regarding the 60-day amendment. Mentioning demonstrable savings, he said he believes that provision is substantive as to why a voter would even take up the issue or why the legislature would even bring it forward. He believes the courts would recognize the intertwined relationship between the shorter session, for one thing, and a biennial budget; he suggested a strong case could be made for that even under Bess. As to the other, unspecified, issues, he has concerns about them. He told members that is another reason he brought forward the amendment to Amendment 1, which he thinks cleans it up a little, by not clouding the issue further with the transitional provision. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT responded that he disagrees with everything Representative Rokeberg had said except for his conclusion. He believes there is a logical relationship between the goal of biennial budgeting and having one session shorter, whether 60 or 90 days; those two work together well, and a lot of states do it that way. However, he believes it would be better to leave Article IX, Section 16, alone, although he understands what the drafter was trying to do. In HJR 2, he suggested eliminating Section 3 [which pertains to Article IX, Section 16], as well as Sections 4 and 6, which he said are troubling in their own right but just unrelated to this. Number 2425 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about the consequences of deleting the language amending Article IX, Section 16. MS. COOK explained: One, it's problematic that it will ever come into play as written. It probably will need to be substantially revised if it's ever going to be of great effect in this state. And if it is substantially revised, then we have opened up a whole panoply of issues that would need to be resolved. But assuming that it ever came into play, I think the court will attempt to construe all of the provisions of the constitution to give all of them effect. And it is not completely impossible to believe that you could apply 16 as written, even in the context of a biennial budget, ... as a matter of accounting or something bifurcating two-year appropriations and attributing portions of them, if that became necessary. I think that if 16 were left as-is, a way would be found to make it work, in answer to your question. TAPE 00-4, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested people may perceive, incorrectly, that this raises the budget cap, and therefore vote against the constitutional amendment; he believes it would be helpful to remove it. He suggested that if the record shows that the committee believes that the constitution is strong enough to withstand it, it could be deleted. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Representative Phillips, who had rejoined the hearing, if she wished to comment. Number 0036 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed confidence that Ms. Cook had covered many of the questions, then stated: In trying to put together the language for a constitutional amendment, we didn't want to get into a lot of different things and change a lot of different things that would make it difficult for the public to understand what we are doing. All we want to do is change the budget process. We're not trying to screw around with the constitutional spending limit. We're not trying to screw around with the constitutional budget reserve or any of these things. We just want to change the budget process. And that's why, I think, that ... the bill was drafted the way that it was. And certainly, notwithstanding Bess, when everything in a bill applies to how you are changing a budget process , ... annual to biennial, it would take an awful lot of argument on a court system to find that ... those factors didn't apply to a biennial budget. ... That would have to be a huge stretch to say these things ... aren't applicable to the concept of changing the budget process. Number 0088 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to Section 6 of the resolution, which stated: "Article IX, Sec. 17(b), Constitution of the State of Alaska, is repealed." He noted that Article IX, Section 17(b), regards being able to get into the constitutional budget reserve (CBR) with a majority vote when there are, essentially, declining revenues. He said it has been defined in such a way that "we never get to declining revenues." Saying it is troubling in either budgetary scheme, he asked how that relates to biennial budgeting. Number 0113 MS. COOK answered: I don't think it will hurt the biennial budget concept to delete that from this bill. You could still have a biennial budget without changing the constitutional budget reserve fund, although ... that's a policy matter of cleanup that perhaps the legislature would love to have occur. But ... if we're going to try to support this case and we do end up with a Bess attack, then obviously it would be helpful if it was a simpler bill. MS. COOK, in response to Representative Rokeberg's question about why Section 6 was included, said it was put in at the sponsor's request. It [Article IX, Section 17(b)] is a provision that the sponsor would like to see eliminated, and this is a vehicle for amending the constitution. Number 0158 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that committee members seem to all support a biennial budget. If, in fact, there is a risk of a court challenge on a biennial budget, she asked whether Representative Phillips would agree it is best to separate out these issues at this time. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS responded: That would be something that we could leave in there and not deal with. ... It just seemed like it was a good time to clean it up. ... If you guys think that that's going to be a problem, I don't have any problem with taking Section 6 out. Number 0193 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT asked Representative Phillips to speak again about the importance of the transitional language. REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS explained: My original concept was to just make it a specific year - I mean, a specific time frame for this - in the bill. And in talking with the finance people, talking with the agency people, just the fact of getting everything changed, we looked at maybe ... it would be easier on everybody to have a transitionary period. That's not a big factor to me. I mean, we can go right now to a 60-day for the second, ... without it affecting ... my feelings on the bill. I was just trying to add some ease for the agencies in this. Number 0243 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection to the friendly amendment to Amendment 1 offered earlier by Representative Rokeberg. He suggested this could be very clean, 120 days and 60 days; then if the House Finance Standing Committee wants to make it 90 days or add the transition period back in, they could do so. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reminded members that the private sector does this all the time, without even 60 days' warning, let alone six years' warning. He suggested the committee's intention here is to make it more "Bess-proof." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS, after looking over the effect of the amendment to Amendment 1, said it is fine. Number 0325 CHAIRMAN KOTT asked whether there was an objection to the amendment to Amendment 1, deleting page 1, line 10, and all of page 2 of Amendment 1. There being no objection, the amendment to Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0339 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection to Amendment 1, as amended. CHAIRMAN KOTT, noting that there was no further objection, announced that Amendment 1, as amended, was adopted. Number 0358 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT made a motion to delete Sections 3, 4 and 6 of the resolution. He stated the intention of having this be, as cleanly as possible, a biennial budgeting constitutional amendment. CHAIRMAN KOTT labeled that Conceptual Amendment 2 and asked if there was an objection. There being none, he announced that Conceptual Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0395 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to move HJR 2, as amended, from committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 2(JUD) was moved from the House Judiciary Standing Committee.