CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(FIN) am "An Act relating to disasters and to the disaster relief fund." Co-Chair Mulder MOVED to adopt work draft 1-LS0625\Y, Utermohle, 4/27/99, as the version before the Committee. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Copy on File]. He explained that the amendment would insert language "an incident such as" on Page 4, Line 10. He believed that the language would add back more flexibility and would provide direction to the Administration. There was NO OBJECTION to adoption of Amendment #1. Representative Grussendorf voiced concern with the language change made on Page 1, Line 13, having replaced "a concurrent resolution" with "law". Representative Grussendorf advised that from a procedural point, in order to be responsive to an emergency, the language should be changed back. DARWIN PETERSON, STAFF, SENATOR JOHN TORGERSON, explained that the service would continue to need to be addressed by law. Mr. Peterson pointed out that George Utermohle indicated that was an oversight in statute, and that a concurrent resolution would be the vehicle which could stop the Governor's disaster declaration done by law not by concurrent resolution. Representative J. Davies argued that presiding officers could not do anything by law or by concurrent resolution. Such action would be dependent upon the vote of the entire body. Mr. Peterson explained that Mr. Utermohle had amended the legislation to read "law". GEORGE UTERMOHLE, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL AND RESEARCH SERVICES, explained that he recommended the change because under the provision, a disaster declaration is good for a period of thirty days. In order to extend that period, there must be an extension of the power to address the disaster, which is a power given by law. To extend that power provided in statute, would take an act of the Legislature. He advised that extending through a concurrent resolution would not be appropriate. Co-Chair Therriault questioned if authority had been granted for a disaster declaration in the front section of the budget and would that take new law to continue. Mr. Utermohle replied that it would as it is provided by the provision. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that in the original legislation, a concurrent resolution was proposed. He challenged the timing in changing that to a "law". Mr. Utermohle responded that he did not question the purpose behind the resolution, however, noted that he was trying to provide for the recommendation so that the action taken by the Legislature will have effect and be upheld given a court challenge. Representative J. Davies advised that law currently is provided for such a mechanism. He asked how this would be different then LBA acting through a revised program. Mr. Utermohle replied that an appropriation does not have the affect of changing the law. The appropriation may authorize the Governor's response to extend it to the disaster declaration but the Governor's power to act would be restrained by the language in the statute. An appropriation would not change that. Representative J. Davies replied that it would not absolutely be constrained to 30 days, however, it would be unless the Legislature takes that action. Mr. Utermohle replied that the language stipulates that a disaster may not be placed into effect after 30 days, unless extended by the Legislature. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the current statute states that "unless extended by the Legislature" by a concurrent resolution. It is provided for a 30-day extension by that mechanism. Mr. Utermohle argued that logic had been used to justify the use of the concurrent resolution to absolve regulations. The Legislature has the power to grant agencies to adopt regulations and has the power to determine the means by which those regulations could be repealed or resolved. The Court determined that the Legislature could not give themselves that power. Representative Grussendorf advised that this is the separation of powers issue, however, the discussion is not a separation of powers concern. In response to Representative J. Davies, Mr. Utermohle testified that he was not sure how the appropriation would fit into this. Representative Grussendorf pointed out that the Governor should have the appropriation power. Co-Chair Therriault summarized that Mr. Utermohle foresaw a problem with proposed language and has advised the Legislature that a change could address this concern. Mr. Utermohle agreed. Representative Grussendorf MOVED to amend the language in the committee substitute deleting "law" and inserting "a concurrent resolution" as Amendment #2. There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Co-Chair Therriault requested Mr. Utermohle to write a memo outlining his concerns. Representative J. Davies asked him to include information regarding how the action would be different from authority given to the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. MIKE TIBBLES, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT, provided an in-depth overview of the proposed committee substitute, l-LS0625\Y, Utermohle, 4/27/99. He advised that there was no fire limit placed in the House Finance committee substitute. Representative J. Davies questioned how different the proposed legislation was from existing statute. Mr. Peterson replied that it is not that different from existing statutes. Mr. Tibbles noted that Subsection (I) was identical to the previous version. Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #3 to Page 2, Line 13, inserting "per disaster declaration" after "$1,000,000". There being NO OBJECTION, it was adopted. Representative Bunde MOVED to report HCS CS SB 101 (FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations and with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. HCS CS SB 101 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes by the Department of Environmental Conservation dated 4/7/99 and Department of Military and Veterans Affairs dated 4/7/99.