ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
May 7, 2002
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative John Coghill, Chair
Representative Jeannette James
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Gary Stevens
Representative Peggy Wilson
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 324
"An Act making supplemental and other appropriations for
homeland security; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 324(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 327
"An Act relating to state employees who are called to active
duty as reserve or auxiliary members of the armed forces of the
United States; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 327(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43(STA)(title am)
Requesting the United States Congress to grant a two-year
moratorium on state maintenance of effort requirements for
federally funded programs.
- MOVED CSSJR 43(STA)(title am) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 324
SHORT TITLE:HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1972 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1972 (H) MLV, STA, FIN
01/16/02 1972 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/16/02 1972 (H) SPREADSHEET BY DEPT. COST
02/12/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/12/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/12/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/19/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/19/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/19/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/21/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/21/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/21/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/26/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/26/02 (H) Heard & Held
02/26/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
02/28/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/28/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/05/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/05/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/14/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/14/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/14/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/21/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/21/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
03/26/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/26/02 (H) Heard & Held
03/26/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/18/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/18/02 (H) Moved CSHB 324(MLV) Out of
Committee
04/18/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/19/02 3028 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 2DP 2NR
04/19/02 3028 (H) DP: GREEN, CHENAULT; NR:
MURKOWSKI,
04/19/02 3028 (H) KOTT
04/19/02 3028 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH MLV
REPORT
05/02/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/02/02 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 327
SHORT TITLE:STATE EMPLOYEES CALLED TO MILITARY DUTY
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/02 1977 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/02 1977 (H) MLV, STA
01/16/02 1977 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM/ALL DEPTS)
01/16/02 1977 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
04/04/02 (H) MLV AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 124
04/04/02 (H) Moved Out of Committee
04/04/02 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
04/05/02 2814 (H) MLV RPT 4DP 1AM
04/05/02 2814 (H) DP: KOTT, GREEN, HAYES,
CHENAULT;
04/05/02 2814 (H) AM: MURKOWSKI
04/05/02 2815 (H) FN1: ZERO(ADM/ALL DEPTS)
04/25/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/25/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/25/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/27/02 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/27/02 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/30/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/30/02 (H) Heard & Held
04/30/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/02/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
05/02/02 (H) Heard & Held
05/02/02 (H) MINUTE(STA)
05/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 43
SHORT TITLE:MORATORIUM ON MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/18/02 2450 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/18/02 2450 (S) STA, FIN
04/04/02 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/04/02 (S) Moved CS(STA) Out of
Committee
04/04/02 (S) MINUTE(STA)
04/08/02 2657 (S) STA RPT CS 3DP 1NR SAME TITLE
04/08/02 2657 (S) DP: THERRIAULT, HALFORD,
PHILLIPS;
04/08/02 2657 (S) NR: DAVIS
04/08/02 2658 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/17/02 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE
532
04/17/02 (S) Moved CS(FIN) Out of
Committee
04/17/02 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
04/18/02 2836 (S) FIN RPT CS 5DP 3NR NEW TITLE
04/18/02 2836 (S) DP: DONLEY, KELLY, GREEN,
WILKEN,
04/18/02 2836 (S) LEMAN; NR: AUSTERMAN,
HOFFMAN, OLSON
04/18/02 2837 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.STA)
04/22/02 (S) RLS AT 9:30 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
04/22/02 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
04/24/02 2932 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
04/24/02 2932 (S) MOTION TO ADOPT FIN CS MADE &
WITHDRAWN
04/24/02 2933 (S) STA CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
04/24/02 2933 (S) AM NO 1(TITLE AM) ADOPTED
UNAN CONSENT
04/24/02 2933 (S) ADVANCED TO 3RD READING FLD
Y14 N6
04/24/02 2934 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING
4/25 CALENDAR
04/24/02 2924 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 1OR 4/24/02
04/25/02 2954 (S) READ THIRD TIME CSSJR
43(STA)(TITLE AM)
04/25/02 2955 (S) PASSED Y13 N7
04/25/02 2955 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF
RECONSIDERATION
04/26/02 3002 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
04/26/02 3003 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
04/26/02 3003 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 43(STA)(TITLE
AM)
04/29/02 3208 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
04/29/02 3208 (H) STA
05/07/02 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
CAROL CARROLL, Director
Central Office
Administrative Services Division
Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA)
400 Willoughby Avenue, Suite 500
Juneau, Alaska 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the DMVA would work further
on this bill with the Finance Committee.
NANCY SLAGLE, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained some of the department's funding
requests on HB 324.
JAMO PARRISH, General Counsel
University of Alaska Fairbanks
PO Box 757520
Fairbanks, Alaska 99775
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 327.
ANN COURTNEY, Senior Attorney
Labor and Employment
Alaska Railroad Corporation
327 West Ship Creek
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 327.
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager
Central Office
Division of Personnel
Department of Administration
PO Box 110201
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0201
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 327.
MARILYN WILSON, Staff
to Senator Dave Donley
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 518
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 43 on behalf of the Senate
Finance Committee.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-53, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR JOHN COGHILL called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives
Coghill, James, Fate, Stevens, Wilson, Crawford, and Hayes were
present at the call to order.
HB 324 - HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS
Number 0070
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 324, "An Act making supplemental and other
appropriations for homeland security; and providing for an
effective date."
CHAIR COGHILL asked if there was any objection to adopting the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 324, version 22-
GH2078\L, Utermohle, 5/6/02, as a work draft.
Number 0188
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES objected so the committee could hear from
the department.
CHAIR COGHILL noted that this proposed CS was pared down
considerably, and it will not be everything that the departments
wanted. His intention was that anything beyond that related to
the general fund would have to be justified at the Finance
Committee, since almost all the general funds are scrutinized
there.
Number 0266
CAROL CARROLL, Director, Central Office, Administrative Services
Division, Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA), told
the committee that the DMVA would work further on this bill with
the Finance Committee.
Number 0288
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Version L was before the committee.
Number 0465
NANCY SLAGLE, Director, Division of Administrative Services,
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, told the
committee that some of the category 3 items on the 04-19-02
spreadsheet in the packet could cause the state to lose federal
dollars, specifically for the airports. She said that some of
the items in category 3 are non-general fund dollars. There has
been a request to the federal government for reimbursement on
the security-related items that are required by FAA [Federal
Aviation Administration]. If those requirements are not met,
some airports could be shutdown, and that in turn causes the
loss of federal dollars if the airports can't be maintained.
There is a relationship with the loss of federal dollars if
there isn't compliance. Some items are identified as
International Airport Revenue Funds, which are not general fund
dollars. Several of those will be requested to be identified as
federal dollars instead of International Airport Revenue Funds
in line with the application to the federal government for
special funding of those items.
Number 0635
MS. SLAGLE told the committee that items on lines 72 and 73 will
be requested as federal dollars. Items 77, 78, 79, 80, and 81
relate to the requirement by FAA that the department do a
criminal background check through fingerprinting of all airline
operators and any individuals who have access to secured areas
of an airport. She noted that has not been done before. It is
basically receiving a fee from airline employees, concessionaire
employees, or any employees on the airport who need to have
access to secure areas, and who must go through the
fingerprinting criminal background check. The department has to
be in compliance with FAA by December 6, 2002. For those
specific items, receipt and expenditure authority is requested
so those funds can be received to process the criminal
background checks.
MS. SLAGLE explained that items 77, 78, and 79 are general fund
program receipts. That means the department wants to receive
the money. It is possible that those can be identified as
receipt-supported services instead of general funds, since the
department isn't going to be performing those fingerprint
background checks unless it receives the monies. She said she
believes that those could be shown as non-general fund. Items
80 and 81 are International Airport Revenue Funds.
CHAIR COGHILL said that these areas would be pointed out to the
Finance Committee. He reiterated that the proposed CS was pared
back so the Finance Committee can put back in the needed items.
Number 0958
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 324(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB 324(STA) was
reported out of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 327 - STATE EMPLOYEES CALLED TO MILITARY DUTY
Number 1089
CHAIR COGHILL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to state employees who are
called to active duty as reserve or auxiliary members of the
armed forces of the United States; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 1150
REPRESENTATIVE FATE said the issue was raised at the last
hearing whether or not the University of Alaska employees were
to be lumped with other agency or department employees. There
is a letter from the Office of the Attorney General which says
what the constitution says, which is that the university board
of regents will simply comply with law. He understands that
statute law at the present time says that the university will
determine what the compensation is for its employees.
Number 1247
JAMO PARRISH, General Counsel, University of Alaska Fairbanks,
testified via teleconference. He clarified that the university
does not oppose the principle of holding harmless, in terms of
paying benefits, its employees who are called to active duty.
His interest is in protecting the authority which is granted by
the constitution to the board of regents to govern the
university according to law, but not according to gubernatorial
order. He said the precise issue he plans to address is whether
the proposed committee substitute (CS) as currently drafted
cured the separation of powers problem inherent in the original
bill. He stated his opinion, despite [the opinion] of the
attorney general's office, that it did not.
Number 1320
MR. PARRISH told the members that the substitute bill changes
only the form and not the substance. In either format the
governor would be the one making the policy decision of whether
or not to pay these benefits, and the university would have to
follow the decision of the governor, not the decision of the
legislature. The issue at stake is who is entitled to make the
policy decision for the university when the legislature hasn't
made it. He asked if it is the governor or the board of
regents.
MR. PARRISH agreed with Representative Fate that the authority
to establish compensation is currently set by statute to be
required to be within the purview of the board of regents. In
his view, this current statutory allocation of authority
consistent with the constitution should not be altered. If the
bill were to require all state agencies and the university to
pay benefits, he would not be here today. That would be a
policy decision incorporated into law, which according to the
constitution the university must follow. But neither the bill
nor the proposed CS makes that policy decision. That being the
case, the CS should leave the policy decision to the board of
regents. There is as much of a problem with the CS as currently
written as there would be if it reversed the roles. If it said
the board of regents may authorize the payment of these benefits
and pass regulations that other state agencies would have to
follow, he guessed that the executive branch would be arguing
that the legislature cannot pick someone outside of each
agency's chain of command to make that decision for them. He
said he thinks that argument would be correct.
Number 1451
MR. PARRISH stated that the Supreme Court has said that the
university cannot be allocated among the executive branch
agencies. This is consistent with the wording of the grant of
governing authority to the board of regents. The Supreme Court
has also said that the state cannot put the property of the
university into state parks without paying compensation. This
is because the university is a constitutional corporation
separate from other branches. In the words of the Supreme
Court, the university is "an instrumentality of the sovereign,
which enjoys in some limited respects a status which is co-equal
rather than subordinate to that of the executive or the
legislative arms of government."
Number 1505
MR. PARRISH noted that there are three ways to cure the problem.
One is to require in the bill that all branches of government
pay the benefits. If the legislature made that decision, the
university would have no argument. Two is to make the non-
executive branch agencies' decision to go forward discretionary
with each, changing "shall" to "may" on page 2, line 26. Three
is to pull the university entirely out of the bill and let the
board of regents make its own decision to pay these benefits,
which he expects it would.
Number 1570
ANN COURTNEY, Senior Attorney, Labor and Employment, Alaska
Railroad Corporation, testified via teleconference. She
indicated that the railroad does not have the constitutional
problem that the university has, but it has a very similar
delegation of power to the corporation to set wages and benefits
and other terms and conditions of employment for its employees.
The Alaska Railroad Corporation's enabling statute is AS 42.40.
That statute provides that the board of directors for the Alaska
Railroad Corporation shall manage and run the corporation. In
turn, it provides the authority to hire railroad personnel and
determine benefits and other terms and conditions of employment
vested in the corporation.
[Chair Coghill left the meeting and Vice Chair Fate was the
acting chair.]
Number 1655
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that it is inappropriate for the
legislature to require the University of Alaska or the Alaska
Railroad Corporation to respond to a governor's executive order.
She asked what the rationale is for having the bill be
determined by a governor's executive order as opposed to just
making it a statutory requirement.
Number 1698
DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Central Office, Division of
Personnel, Department of Administration, answered that the
rationale was to allow some flexibility in determining which
emergencies would be covered by administrative order and which
benefits would be set if the actual level of compensation, level
of coverage, or definition of emergency was established in
statute; it would allow an opportunity perhaps to be missed if
an emergency wasn't defined in the statute as being covered.
Number 1763
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented she understood that, but said it
seems to her that the policy is pretty much established in here
and if it hasn't been, perhaps the policy ought to be
established. If anyone is in the National Guard and is called
up for active duty, which can happen any time under any kind of
circumstances, it seems to her this could be established in
statute as opposed to an executive order. If that was done, the
university and the railroad could be left in. She would just as
soon leave them out altogether and not even say "may" unless the
committee wanted to say "are encouraged to". She indicated that
she isn't interested in putting something in statute that gives
the governor this broad authority to make all these people do
whatever they're told to do.
Number 1850
VICE CHAIR FATE said that he has seen litigation at the
university occur before over matters that are not quite as
important as this. He would not like to see either the
university or the administration expend a tremendous amount of
energy and resources trying to determine whether this is
constitutional or not. He would not object to the word "may"
but understands that the administration doesn't want that simple
change. He would concur with Representative James, but at this
point, he said, it is not clear to him whether this should be
the vehicle rather than just a broad general piece of
legislation that would produce the same result.
Number 1908
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON referred to the letter from the Attorney
General and said it was obvious this could be done. There is
nothing that says it can't. These agencies just don't want to
have somebody else to boss them around. The legislature is
within its legal rights to do this.
VICE CHAIR FATE said there was some disagreement by the general
counsel of the university on the constitutionality. It would be
contentious to the point where it might cause further precedence
or come to litigation to stop further precedence. He doesn't
want that.
Number 1981
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that she thought this was an area
that could be challenged and that would cost. Her solution
would be to amend the bill to take out the application to other
agencies entirely. That would make a lot of sense when talking
about the power of the governor. Maybe the legislature gave the
power to the governor, but she questioned how much power it
wants to give the governor. She commented that she might yield
to the "shall". She would just as soon not address this at all
and let the various agencies address it on their own, which she
said she believes they will do in the same way.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked Mr. Stewart if the administration would be
amenable to the amendment.
Number 2109
MR. STEWART replied that when work was begun on this bill no one
thought that issues and terms in it would be viewed as
trammeling individual agency rights, responsibility, or
sovereignty. The National Guard is playing a larger and larger
role in national military responsibilities with the military
having responsibilities elsewhere outside the borders of the
country. Keeping the guard staffed has been the purview and
responsibility and an objective of the Department of Military &
Veterans Affairs and the governor. Maintaining benefits and
income levels for members of the National Guard was seen as an
opportunity to maintain that membership and build the membership
to a point where the state felt comfortable. It is believed
that the proposal in this bill is the right thing to do. The
governor wants to do this for members of the executive branch
who are called to active military service. It lies with the
legislature to determine whether that affects all state agencies
or just the executive branch. In an effort to get what is
wanted, he said he wasn't sure that the administration would
oppose that amendment at all.
MR. STEWART indicated that it is the objective of the
administration to have all state employees treated equally. If
the amendment passes and allows individual choices from the
other agencies, then do it.
Number 2210
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON stated that the governor of Alaska
probably has more power than any other governor in the United
States. She cautioned the members about giving the governor any
more power.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked Mr. Parrish and Ms. Courtney if the
amendment would satisfy the concerns of the university and the
railroad.
Number 2261
MR. PARRISH and MS. COURTNEY agreed that it would.
Number 2319
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to adopt a conceptual
amendment, "lines 22 to 29 of Version C, delete that section
AS 39.20.452.". There being no objection, Amendment 1 was
adopted.
Number 2339
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSHB 327, version 22-
GH2092\C, Craver, 5/1/02, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 327(STA) was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
SJR 43 - MORATORIUM ON MAINTENANCE OF EFFORT
Number 2380
VICE CHAIR FATE announced that the final order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 43(STA)(title am),
Requesting the United States Congress to grant a two-year
moratorium on state maintenance of effort requirements for
federally funded programs.
[There was a motion to adopt CSSJR 43(STA)(title am), version
22-LS1632\J.A, but it was already before the committee.]
Number 2430
MARILYN WILSON, Staff to Senator Dave Donley, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SJR 43 on behalf of the Senate Finance
Committee. She told the committee that SJR 43 requests that the
United States Congress grant a two-year moratorium on state
maintenance of effort requirements to states receiving federal
funds. A maintenance of effort requirement is a condition that
comes with federally funded programs, and sometimes these
requirements are very complicated and complex and inhibit the
states' ability to reduce or reallocate expenditures. Alaska
and many other states are facing a serious fiscal gap. This
resolution is being asked for to allow states to adjust their
budgets. If this resolution were granted, it would give states
more flexibility to adjust their budgets to the appropriate
levels without losing federal funding.
Number 2488
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if contact had been made with U.S.
Senator Stevens, U.S. Senator Murkowski, or U.S. Representative
Young to ask what they thought of this resolution.
MS. WILSON answered that copies will be sent to those offices,
but contact had not been made beforehand.
Number 2527
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked for some examples of what efforts
there might be flexibility on.
MS. WILSON replied that the maintenance of effort requirements
are spread throughout and they vary. She told the committee
that she had asked the Division of Legislative Finance for a
list.
Number 2617
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that almost all the federal funding
in the state's budget has to be matched in some way. The
federal funds do drive the general fund spending. She said she
is willing to support this resolution, but she commented that
she is embarrassed in many ways to ask the federal government
for this reduction in maintenance of effort because Alaska has
the money and could handle it. She explained that the problem
is that the Medicaid and social services budgets are growing,
and over time Alaska won't be able to handle it unless there are
other kinds of income into the state. She indicated that that
is not going to happen over night.
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES pointed out that there has been a drought
for at least nine years in the application of private industry
for various reasons. Part of that has been the federal rules
and regulations that have come down on timber and other things.
She said there is some federal reason why the state is in this
problem, besides September 11.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES told the committee that the state is in
serious trouble. The demographics are severe; there are more
non-productive people than productive people living in the
state. The 18- to 44-year olds have been leaving the state in
droves because there are no opportunities for them here. Things
will have to turn around a lot before there is a vibrant economy
in Alaska. She said if the state didn't get the federal funds,
it would be noticed.
Number 2725
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed that she is willing to ask for a
little bit of relief on the maintenance of effort just because
"we're doing what we're doing, doesn't mean next year is going
to better. In fact, I think it's going to be worse." The
people who have the needs do need to be served. That can't be
avoided, she said.
Number 2747
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked Ms. Wilson for the maintenance of
effort list so he could see what would be affected.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:51 a.m. to 8:52 a.m.
Number 2781
REPRESENTATIVE WILSON said that she was embarrassed by this
resolution. First of all, Alaska is in a fiscal crisis. Times
are bad and unless this legislature does something about it
before the session ends and has some kind of a plan so this
state can start getting back on its feet, "How dare us ask the
federal government to do anything if we don't do something? If
we do end up passing a fiscal plan so that we have decided as a
state that we are going to try to do something about the
problem, how dare we send something to the feds to ask them to
do something," she asked. She commented that she doesn't have a
problem if a fiscal plan is passed.
Number 2832
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed with Representative Wilson. He
said he thought the state gets back $6 in federal dollars for
every tax dollar Alaska sends. The federal government is doing
far more than its share. Alaska gets more federal dollars per
capita than any other state in the Union. He said he believes
the state is not broke, and it needs to do its part. He noted
that he is not in favor of this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed with Representative Crawford about
the amount of federal dollars the state gets, but she told him
that the problem is that there isn't the income in the state to
pay a sufficient amount of federal tax. If Alaska paid more
federal tax, it won't get any more federal money. The bottom
line is, "They are doing it because we are not earning our way.
That's the issue. If we were to have a vibrant economy, we
would be putting more money into the federal government and
maybe getting our own money back."
Number 2905
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES noted that the tax money comes from people
working and having paychecks. She commented that she is not
willing to tax people now when there are so few of them working
who get a good-sized paycheck. More paychecks need [be in the
economy] before people are asked to pay.
VICE CHAIR FATE asked how Senator Donley perceives the line in
the sponsor statement that says, "This resolution, if granted,
would give states more flexibility to adjust their budgets to
appropriate levels without losing federal funding."
Number 2937
MS. WILSON answered that it's not asking to do away with the
maintenance of effort, just to give a moratorium for the state
to look at its budget and come back with a new level of funding.
TAPE 02-53, SIDE B
Number 2953
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that there was an opportunity a
few years ago to get a bigger share of Medicaid and a lesser
amount of general funds. One of the things that boosted up
Medicaid this year was because it went back to the other level.
She said she thinks that is one of the methods that could be
given to the state to have a 9 or 10 percent match as an
example. She commented, "It's not that we're not going to put
something in but just give us an opportunity, and probably not
in every area, but in the areas where it's most important to
give a little better. It's saying a couple of years of
opportunity to have a smaller match and still meet the
requirements of the federal funding."
VICE CHAIR FATE asked if there was a 10 percent match and the
state was only able to do 8 percent, would the state have to
come up with the other 2 percent the next year. He wondered how
that would work.
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said the state is not making that decision.
The state is asking the federal government to consider something
like this, and probably whatever it tells us is what would have
to be done. The state may or may not want to accept it but is
asking the federal government to take a look at this. Alaska is
not the only one; other states are having a severe problem with
this. "We're not expecting special consideration; we're just in
there with everyone else."
Number 2822
The committee took an at-ease from 8:59 a.m. to 9:00 a.m.
[Vice Chair Fate turned the gavel back to Chair Coghill.]
REPRESENTATIVE JAMES moved to report CSSJR 43(STA)(title am) out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying zero fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSSJR
43(STA)(title am) was reported out of the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2778
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
9:04 a.m.