HOUSE BILL NO. 96 "An Act relating to deposits to the Alaska permanent fund." Co-Chair Therriault noted that the Committee discussed tightening the title of HB 96 during the April 12, 1999 hearing. He provided members with Amendment 1 (copy on file). Amendment 1 tightens the title. He added that the 25 percent deposit would be made in the front section of the budget and would not be counted as general funds or as legislative action. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted that Dan Spencer, Office of Management and Budget indicated that the 25 percent deposit would not be counted as general funds. Mr. Spencer stated that only special appropriations are counted when calculating amounts of "legislative deposits: to the principle of the permanent fund. Mr. Tibbles verified this with Jim Kelly, Legislative Liaison, Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. Mr. Kelly explained that inflation proofing is also counted with special appropriations but that the statutory 25 percent deposit would not be counted. Representative J. Davies questioned if there should be a change to the manner it is counted. In response to a question by Vice-Chair Bunde, Co-Chair Therriault clarified that money not deposited into the permanent fund would lapse to the general fund. Money that is deposited into the permanent fund would not show as a general fund appropriation. Vice-Chair Bunde observed that there is a zero fiscal note. He questioned if the additional money in the general fund should be shown. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1. Representative J. Davies asked what would be included under the new title. Co-Chair Therriault reiterated that according to the Legislative Affairs Agency legal counsel it includes all the deposits that go into the permanent fund and limits it to the 25 percent that is mandated by the Constitution. The intent of the amendment is to prevent the scope of the legislation from growing under a broad title. He maintained that concerns that the legislation would turn into a general appropriation to the principal are not justified because it is not an appropriation bill. It is statutory change legislation. Representative J. Davies wondered why the 25 percent was not referenced in the amendment as the constitutionally mandated amount. Representative J. Davies MOVED to AMEND Amendment 1 by adding a conceptional amendment to clarify that the 25 percent referenced is the amount mandated under Article 9 section 15. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 as amended was adopted. Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 96 (FIN) out of Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. Representative J. Davies expressed reservations regarding how this bill and the other pieces of the budget plan would fit together. Representative Grussendorf echoed his concerns. He asked if an overall budget package would be developed. Co-Chair Therriault stated that the legislation would be brought into discussions regarding an overall long-range plan. Representative Norman Rokeberg emphasized that the legislation is a statutory change and would therefore need time to go through both bodies. He anticipated that it would be a tool for inclusion in the broader picture. CSHB 96 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with "no recommendation" and with a zero fiscal note by the Department of Revenue, 3/24/99.