HOUSE BILL NO. 177 "An Act relating to an increase of an appropriation due to additional federal or other program receipts; and providing for an effective date." 1:45:34 PM Co-Chair Merrick indicated no amendments had been submitted for HB 177. Representative Josephson was disinclined to support the bill. He explained that the bill could be viewed differently depending on whether the governor was liked or not. He felt that the bill swung the pendulum, and would result in the pendulum being swung the other direction. REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS TUCK, SPONSOR, appreciated the topic. He reported that until Medicaid expansion, there were underfunded RPLs. He stated that the intention of the bill was to strike a balance in dealing with Legislative Budget and Audit. He remarked that the governor could withdraw an RPL if it was not approved by the committee. He felt that the legislature was taken advantage of during the pandemic, because the money needed quick appropriation. 1:49:43 PM Co-Chair Merrick indicated Representative Rasmussen joined the meeting via teleconference. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked Representative Tuck to expand on the change of RPLs if the bill were to pass. Representative Tuck responded that currently it was a take- it or leave-it situation within 45 days, therefore it would provide the legislature time to reconvene or negotiate with the governor in a more amenable way. t would also break up the RPLs in smaller chunks to strike a balance. Vice-Chair Ortiz asked about how the bill changes the power of the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee. Representative Tuck responded, "Not a whole lot." He expanded that it slowed the process down for the larger funding increments. Representative Josephson noted that the legislature's power of appropriation must be universal in the country. He asked how other legislatures handle similar situations. Representative Tuck did not know, as he had not discussed it with other states. Co-Chair Merrick invited Mr. Painter to comment. ALEXEI PAINTER, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE FINANCE DIVISION, relayed that some states did not require a separate appropriation. Other states, in dealing with federal funds, had to meet certain requirements. 1:55:29 PM Representative Edgmon commended the bill sponsor. He thought it was necessary. He shared concerns with Representative Josephson about the pendulum swinging too far. He would likely support the bill. He had been very much involved with the appropriations in 202 which he felt had been very one-sided. Representative Tuck indicated RPL was simply a code. He thought it should be called Revised Program Receipts. Representative Edgmon did not like the term RPL. 1:58:24 PM Co-Chair Merrick OPENED public testimony. Co-Chair Merrick CLOSED public testimony. Co-Chair Foster MOVED to report CSHB 177(STA) out of Committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. Representative Johnson OBJECTED. A roll call vote was taken on the motion. IN FAVOR: Ortiz, Wool, Edgmon, Josephson, LeBon, Merrick, Foster OPPOSED: Johnson The MOTION PASSED (7/1). CSHB 177(STA) was REPORTED out of committee with four "do pass" recommendations and with four "no recommendation" recommendations and with one new zero impact note by the Office of the Governor. 2:00:34 PM AT EASE 2:04:49 PM RECONVENED