And so with that, we'll go right to House Bill 1,001. And as you know, that bill has been heard last week, a long hearing. And so at this point, we have potential amendments. And I'd like to, first of all, do a presentation, I believe, about before I call the amendment, it'll be amendment number 11. Before I do that, we have a brief presentation I'd like to, present to the committee.
This is on the website as many of you already know, so you've seen this of me before, so it's no big surprise. I mean, the amendment will leave us with a responsible balanced budget. We'll fund our priorities. And I use the word on Friday at a press conference opportunity. I mean, a budget in my view that gives us great opportunity. The next slide, Slide number three, Just to give us a kind of a point of reference to where Indiana sits with regard to our neighbors. And it isn't much of a contest,
is it? It's like we're just not a little bit ahead, but way ahead way ahead in terms of performance of Indiana. And that's because of things that have been done over the past, you know, ten, fifteen years have caused this to happen. Those things don't happen overnight. Moving on to Slide number four. As many of you know, over the past eleven, twelve, thirteen years, fourteen years, we had substantial amount of tax cuts. And it's nearly
not quite the amount of a single year expenditures, not quite, probably over the past fourteen years and probably exceeds the average size of the state expenditures in a single year. So that's been substantial for Hoosier taxpayers. But as we always know, we look at data, anytime especially the income tax, we cut it, what do we do? We collect more, don't we? That's been the practice. You cut it and you collect more. Slide number five, not a whole lot
need to want to say there. Maybe the key thing is down towards the bottom. In the next two years, of course, we'll move the income tax rate down to 2.952.9%. That's already currently in law and that's going to, of course, stay there. Slide number six gives us a real good reflection of what has happened. Obviously, the COVID time, I've got some notes I made here, kind of the one I pointed out to other people is in 2020, the income taxes for filing deadline was July 15.
That caused a shift from one fiscal year to another. So that's why that's negative to a large degree because of what happened when those taxes were not due to be filed by July until July 15. You can see in the past since COVID, we've been pretty consistent. And obviously, you can see that the tight year is '27. No surprise based upon, of course, the current revenue forecast. You can look at the next page, combined reserves very, very stable again since COVID.
Probably the slide that's going to cause maybe some discussion is Slide number eight, and that's the one we're all concerned about is education. And as you know in this budget, it's about 22% each year. And on the school runs, you'll note there you've got a four, but that includes now in the first year curriculum materials. So we've rolled them into the base in terms of the the foundation. Now one advantage of that, by putting it in the foundation,
that's going to grow, isn't it? By default, it's going to grow as we grow the foundation throughout the years. Looking at Slide number nine, you can see what has happened, especially over since 2021, over $2,000,000,000 exceeding $2,000,000,000 in additional support for K-twelve. That is substantial. On the average in the average classroom, we're talking about probably neighborhood of $50,000 per classroom, assuming a classroom of roughly 25 students.
That's again an average classroom, so substantial increase. Slide number 11, nothing really jumps out. I want to point out there. Maybe the one thing for no capital projects for public universities, but we do have R and R. And I think that's important we take care of the buildings that we currently have and keep those because in my view, if you don't take care of R and R, it becomes a form of debt, doesn't it? It's a form of debt if you don't take care of stuff. At some point, you have to do that in the future. Moving on to Slide number 11,
it eliminates income threshold for the Choice Scholarships, and we've talked about that as in the Governor's budget, of course. Career Scholarships increases those in the education accounts. Funds of course, houseboat, 1,001 for jail, jail reimbursement. It sets that the current law says, I believe not to exceed, I think it's $40 but it says it shall be $42 And so the states are actually paying less than that.
Funds the high-tech crime unit and like everything else you can kind of read for yourself there what's there. Slide number 13 for housing puts in, I guess the same as in the current biennium of $15,000,000 Nothing else there particularly jumps out, I wanted to I guess it does double the income tax deduction for low income seniors as mentioned at the bottom there on that in Slide number 11.
Slide number 12 fully funds Medicaid forecast. Fully funds and this is a key, the current expenditure, current expenditure of Department of Child Services. And that that is substantially more than than what was in the in the in the introduced version of the of the bill. Beyond that, nothing else jumps out. And then I think Slide number 15 is important for all of us to look at and what is happening in the
course of time. And we went back and looked, I believe fifteen years ago, the Medicaid would have been about 9%. So in fifteen years, more than doubled. Just a point of information, we need to be aware of that. And obviously, it's pushed some others down. Obviously, as a percent K-twelve has dropped, higher ed has dropped as that has as Medicaid is growing. Again, just the facts. And then the last slide there, of course,
our state debt has been the pattern has been decreasing over the years. With that, I'd like to then present Amendment Number 11 for the committee's consideration. Other questions for me? Representative Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your comments and presenting our next biennial budget. One thing that stood out to me in in our conversations that we talked about was that Medicaid has doubled in the last nine years or so. 99% to 22%.
But then I I I got to thinking. I'm going, what was my age nine years ago? As a millennium, I was in my mid fifties, so I wouldn't been on Medicaid at that time. And the big generation that has grown was the millenniums. So you're right. Nine years ago, it would not have been there, but we've aged. So, therefore, we the numbers shouldn't naturally can't kinda go up with our age and the need that we have. So just just a thought. When I look at that again, I'm going like, okay.
Nine years ago, this is where we are, where where we were. This is where we are today with the baby boom population from 1940, when it was nineteen forty eight five forty '52 all the way up to to, '63. So we we gotta we gotta make sure we we look at the real numbers. Why why are they there? So that's just a a comment for us to, kinda chew on. Yes. And I would agree. You and I are in that both both same group, aren't we? Yeah. Yeah. Yes. We are. So but,
again and I I just wanna, in regards to that, I have a couple questions. In in in your amendment, is is it true that the hundred $60,000,000 that we did in the last biennial for, textbooks, is that rolled into the formulas? Yes, into the foundation. Yes, it is. And so we want to grant that part of the increase in that first year is due to that. That is true. So since since now when we did that, and if we remember the, testimony, the hundred and $60,000,000 for those school corporations wasn't enough at that point. Right?
They they some school I know my one of my school corporations had to take money to to help defer those, textbooks. True. Some spend more and some spend quite a bit less. It it varied pretty widely. So for for the textbook does not appear to, miss Portray, miss Portray a true amount being provided to schools in the final analysis. So because if you're rolling it in, those dollars being given to the schools, you portray that is that hundred $60,000,000, but it actually really isn't because it's just going back to help defray the cost
that they have been levied by us to pay for those those textbooks for curriculum. It's true, but the total dollars do not change. And the advantages for schools is that becomes part of the foundation. As the years go by, that will grow. I think it's a good thing. Okay. Also, another question, Mr. Chairman. It appears by looking at your budget amendment that the pension awards for pre-'ninety six, between the between the bronze governor bronze, proposal and and your proposal,
your your your amendment. I know teachers will be fully funded in in both proposal. I think it was about 2030 or 2028, something like that? Yes. What we do is we flatline that amount in the current year in both years of the biennium. The practice has been to grow that by 3% per year, which is roughly would be $30,000,000 in the first year and about $60,000,000 in the second year. It's a little over $1,000,000 I'm sorry, dollars 1,000,000,000 right now. So 3% is about $30,000,000
And so we hold it flat. What that does, it picks us up if you will, dollars 30,000,000 the first year and 60,000,000 the second. By just a rough calculation, it's going to be probably maybe a month and a half later, we'll pay this off and become actuarially funded. So, yes, it's gonna delay it maybe a month and a half, and we're willing to do that. And you are correct, by 2029, '2 thousand and '30, it should be fully actually funded. When I first got involved with this, it was 02/1940. And the course of ten, twelve years, we've cut that down ten years.
Go ahead, representative Porter. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I I just I just was, you know, engrossed that pension stabilization fund dollars for for, teachers. I just wanna make sure that I was on a on a that we were on the right page with you when it came to that. Okay. Yes. I mean, this is going to change as far as their benefits. All it's going to change is the time it takes to have actually funded by it's just a Jeff Thompson number about a month and a half and not very long at all. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Further, Representative Delaney?
Yes. Let's finish up on this particular topic here. As I recall, we began dealing with the pre 1996, teachers pension fund around 1996, and we've been working our way down. So you're saying this year, our actions will extend the final full funding by about several months. Is that right? No. It's just by my guess, a little over a month. Okay. And it is because we're putting in over a billion a year, and we're gonna cut out 30,000,000
the first year and 60 the second. Not cut out. It's not increase. Not not doing that. Okay. And of the roughly billion dollars a year we're putting into that fund, how much is for current obligations as opposed to, adding to the fund? From my understanding, it it's really it's making actually funded. It it's taking care of it in terms that all the money will be there to fund. But to the end of of this century, the amount needed to pay all the beneficiaries. That that's not my question. My question is, if we put in a billion dollars,
how much is going into the fund so that in 2029 or '30 we're fully funded, and how much is going out the door right now for current, teacher pensions? You know, I'm not sure with that k. How that I wanna answer a question I'm not sure of. Alright. The the reason I think this is such an important topic is that if we get into a financial squeeze, which I think is almost inevitable, you're doing, in a very small way, something that we could do again, which is stretch out the deadline for that. We got ten or twelve years between what we originally planned and what we're accomplishing,
and many administrations have done that. We've done a very good job. I've been pressed both before I got here and since I got here that we're getting that funded. But I do wanna point out that you're using a small example of a device that's that that could be very, very useful to us. A second question on education. You and I had multiple conversations about finding a mechanism which was in your 1920 excuse me, your 2023 draft budget, a mechanism to support, schools that have relatively low property values compared to their student population.
That's the so called low AV, high ADM problem. I don't see that in the budget. Have I missed something? No, representative Delaney. And you're gonna get me wound up in the sense of exciting stuff to talk about. We don't have the dollars here. But when we get to property taxes, we're going to have some interesting discussions because as you and I both know, there's a 17 fold difference. Now granted, that's the outliers in terms of assessed value per child. And I'd say even within the bulk of the corporation, it's two and a half to three fold difference.
And we've got till and long term, I wanna talk with you about how we're gonna solve that. Because philosophically, I struggle with treating those students different. I'm I'm stuck in a spot. I wanna give those students equal opportunity. And so I think we're on the same page. How we get there with money type, that's what's difficult. Alright. Two question on that first. So the range of the amount of assessed value per student is 17 to one? 17 to one. Now that's the outliers and pretty small I understand. But about two or three is is not that uncommon at all.
Okay. So that's a pretty significant difference. So some districts have to use their property tax system when they're starting out handicapped because they have maybe one third or one half of what the average district is. Okay. Are you suggesting that this attempt to solve this problem will be found in the property tax bill we're gonna face? Or is that for a future year? My intent is here in, I guess, what about two weeks, we're going to start talking about property taxes. And when I talk about at least what my thoughts are, the vision looking out now,
probably six years, there is going to be some ways to treat those students exactly equal. And I'll I'll explain all that. I mean, this would be a a long discussion day, but, yes, that that that's the plan. I've I've got in my mind a way to to do that. I'm I'm looking for a short term solution. I'm not hearing it, but but I wanted to ask you about the the the funding. You mentioned that this 2% a year increase in the the in the foundation, I guess it is, is part of the 2% the transfer of the books,
the curriculum costs? No. No. No. Okay. 2% aside from that. Yes. Yes. There's 22%, and then it's roughly almost exactly a 2% for the textbooks in the first year. And so we don't wanna count that. That that that's unfair, if you will, to count that's already there. So that shift you're saying is not part of the claim of a 2% improvement? No. Okay. It's not. But be be aware, it won't show all that because I believe, special ed had an increased estimate in numbers, and so we fund that, fully fund it.
And so that's gonna show some of those numbers moving around based upon based upon the fact that special ed cost estimated to go up. But but as I read your bill, we don't increase the amount per individual student under special ed. No. We don't. But the estimates are the number of students are gonna go up in that those categories. It costs increased cost. I get the math, but the school districts, yes, if they got more special ed kids, they'll get more money, but they're not gonna get an increase in the support amount per child. Not per child. That's correct. And the same thing is true with complexity,
which is our our impoverished students. We're not gonna increase that. That that all stays the same. It all went to the foundation. So all the quote increases are in this 2%. Yes. Okay. And what what percentage of this 2% increase is going to the 90% who are in traditional public schools? You know, I'm I'm not sure exactly what that is. I do know this, that if you look at any kind of data at all, that the number of percent of students in public schools that always have in this
formula to receive a higher percent of the dollars. That's been true and it'll still be true. Well, with 90%, you're always gonna get more. But I mean But I have the distinct impression that the vouchers and charters on a percentage basis are gonna get a big chunk of that 2%. I think the the traditionals are getting, I think, is something like point 4%, not two, but point four. Well, what what is true in terms of those in in charter schools, the funding's about the same roughly last I looked at. When you look at those in the bachelor schools,
total dollars counting property taxes, just about exactly half. It's run that way for a long time that in in the traditional public spend about twice as much per student as those in the voucher schools, and it's been that way now for some time. How does this impact our rural schools, which typically do not have voucher or charter alternatives? Are we compensating them for the fact that they're subsidizing the urban areas that have vouchers and charters? Are we giving anything adjustment to the rural schools? I mean, I I was just just thinking,
if those students let's get rid of the whole thing to have have vouchers. And the number of students would actually go down in that program. I'm sure that probably a fair statement to what degree. But here's what would occur. Because you move those students into traditional public would be my my estimation that the overall dollars per student probably wouldn't change much at all when you can look at property taxes. If you look look at property taxes, the reason why some are going so high is because they're losing so many students
to to vouchers. And the result is the dollars per student is just accelerating. You can see that in the data. So you're suggesting that our support for the voucher program is driving up property taxes? No. What what is it? It's the That's the implication of what you just said. It's dollars per student is going up. Well, okay. Because we all know that the levies grow by 4%. And reality is if every single student leaves a school, guess what property taxes do? Increase four percent if they adopt that. So it's not tied.
So the levy is not tied to number of students, is it? It's independent. Oh, I understand that the levy is not tied to the number of students. But what you're telling me is if a student goes to a, prior to a public school, traditional public school, then they're gonna draw down property taxes. And if if the numbers are such, they're gonna take more money, and that's gonna increase the property taxes. I think that's right. It doesn't change it. What it does change is dollars per student and the summation of the two. Alright. Now you mentioned in your opening statement here about the gross domestic product of Indiana,
and I'm happy with that. But you would agree, would you not in the last twenty or thirty years that the per capita income that Indiana falls lower and lower? We are we are not near the top of states in terms of personal income on a family basis. Most of data I've looked at says we're just about in the middle. Yes. We have a decreased and below the state or nationwide average, but our cost of living is likewise significantly lower. So they kind of offset But they do offset. I hear we we have a lower education level.
Our Medicaid is up. Isn't our Medicaid up because of our poverty? Isn't that a driving factor in the increase in Medicaid costs? From from my view, the largest reason is during COVID, we had a huge number of additional people come onto the system close to six hundred thousand, and, it hadn't gone back down. Well, I think closer to $8.08 8,000 or 800,000, and it's went back down to six hundred. Right. So but they were eligible. They were eligible, But there were people that were not in the system who were eligible,
and the COVID drove them in. But they were poor before, and they're still poor. And and they they were encouraged to get into the system. And that's true. So we we encourage people to take advantage of a benefit to which they were entitled to would help their health and the public health. Are we regretting that decision? Mostly, that was driven by the federal government. Say that again. That was driven by the federal government. So we were reluctant to enroll people for Medicaid, but the federal government made us offer this benefit to people who were entitled to it. Is that what you're saying?
They encouraged it. They encouraged it. And I believe in our budget, we're gonna take out the idea of advertising for Medicaid. That's correct. So we want people who are poor and who are entitled to Medicaid not to be informed. Want them to try to find a better way to use the private sector. I think it's always better off to use the private sector, not the public when you can. On some cases, we can't do anything about that. That? What do these hundreds of thousands of people do while we find that better method? Well, right now, it's fully funded, isn't it? It's fully funded. I mean, the Medicaid forecast is a % funded.
That leads me to ask you about a couple provisions in the back of the budget. Under Section 29 on Page 67 of the draft, the budget agency may withhold allotments of any or all appropriations if necessary to avoid a deficit. Is that right? And I believe that is a standard language. Okay. And do we have any additional standard language in Section 40 that if the budget director feels that an agency is not fully competent to use its resources well and
needs less money that they can reduce the allotment to that entity? I think they have I have section 40. And they have that act. I've got a page seventy eight and seventy nine of mine. I don't have that pulled up, but they can do that right now. And I believe we also added an additional 5% beyond the 5% already. And and again, that the budget director determines that. They will be the ones in the end, and they have that authority right now. I'm bringing this up because we went to this went through this one other time in my early years in this place when governor Daniels was basically left to make
to decide how we could avoid a deficit situation, and he made substantial cuts to public education in particular. I'm hoping I've got an amendment in a minute that will go perhaps to avoid that problem. Okay. One second. I think that's the questions I have. I have some amendments when we get to that point, mister chairman. Thank you. Representative Jordan? Yeah. Thank you very much, mister chairman. Two things that I'd like to highlight that representative Delaney, said is, first of all, this discrepancy between schools, vis a vis property taxes. Chairman Thompson is a lot more patient than some of us this six year plan.
Maybe it does take six years, but, I just personally, I'm not speaking for anybody but myself. I think that's too long a time frame, and I look forward to that discussion in the second half. So I'm glad you brought that up. The second thing is you brought up the issue is the uncertainty that we have with this budget vis a vis the federal government. And so what levers might we pull as we move forward and pretty quickly because we're in session during a timeframe that this is going on.
So, we certainly do need to be mindful of what levers we can and can't pull. And, again, I'm not going to speak for anybody else. What is going on at the federal level, I personally think is some pretty good policy in certain areas. Yet I said, we all sit on the other side of the table and say, oh, we've got to we've got to make some, cuts that that are probably going to be difficult. But anyway, I'm glad that, Representative Delaney brought those up. And, as we move forward, he's right.
It's, the uncertainties in this budget are just that, highly uncertain. Yes. Thank you, Representative Jordan. And I know I've mentioned the six years. That's the part where you can deal with this discrepancy. As far as property taxes go, there's some short term things we can do too. And there's what I call the the long term fix as we'll explain when we get to, Senate Bill one. And the short term we can do for for what's happening right in this instant. Thank you. Further questions from me. I assume we can't take this by consent.
We take it by consent if you want to, reverend reporter. We can't. Okay. But I present is there a second to my motion? Is my motion a second? Call call the roll, please. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Aye. Excused. Yes. Excuse. There we go. That's what I had wrong. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Order Nay. I'm driving. Nay. I'd like to explain my vote. I I did get a chance to glance at the school formula brands, and it looks a lot better for at least my schools, for,
you know, this run compared to the original ones. I haven't gotten a chance to digest the rest of the the budget. So right now, I'm gonna be a no, and, hopefully, we'll get to where this budget needs to be. Thank you. No. No. Bill passes four or the amendment passes 14 d. Representative Campbell, I'd like to re respond to thank you for your comments. I was looking at data yesterday there at my computer at home. And what is really interesting is a whole lot of schools in this state that have a slow gradual decrease,
don't they? And and that's one where it takes hard management to make that work. You can see it happening. A lot of rural schools, they drop, you know, a handful of students every year, and I'm familiar. I've been around here a long time. Some of those have dropped a little bit for the past twenty years, and they have to manage those dollars. And that's probably the hard part that's not happening in some cases. I see that through DUAB, the Specialty and Appeals Board, and some manage well and some some don't. But thank you for your comments. Further amendments. Representative Porter.
Thank you, mister chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, the house, ways, and means committee. Amendment number 12, has three three, provisions in amendment number 12. The first one is is, fully funded the civil rights commission. It was cut by $600,000, through, another, through the governor's proposal, which was a 15% cut. I'm asking that we fully fund the civil rights commission. We're asking for, another $500,000 per year for the Indiana Minority Health Coalition, which goes from, as you see in the line item, from $3,000,000 to $3,500,000
per year. And also restores the funding for the Native American, commission. We do have Native Americans in the state of Indiana, and, that was also deleted from the previous governor I mean, from the current governor. So that is amendment number 12. Second. Motion and second. I would ask the committee to adopt this amendment. I think it's a good thing to do at least for discussion at this point. And so are there any comments, further comments on the amendment? Hearing none, can we take it by consent? Consent, please. Okay. Noted by consent. Okay.
Thank you, mister chairman. Further amendments. I have one more amendment, mister chairman. Please go ahead. Yeah. I would love for you to to accept. Amendment number 23, ladies and gentlemen, of this fine committee. It highlights and restores, some major cuts to the program. It's it's pretty extensive amendment, but I'm a highlight some of the issues in here. Restores and cuts a major program like like the gifted and talented program, Dolly Parton's imagination librarian, in, which, you you know, we we talk about reading here in the state of Indiana, but we we cut that Dolly Parton's imagination imagination library,
increases funding for long underfunded programs like like Choice by increasing appropriation from this standard $48,000,000 a year. I do believe that $55,000,000 a year because we really want, as we know, mister chairman, trying to really wanna get rid of that wait list. Money to keep programs like the sports sports court bid going realistically, dual credit, increasing it by $5, which is a very important to, as we look toward increasing graduation and higher ed or going moving on to higher ed. Dollars 5 does mean a lot.
It looks at a real tax relief by building a governor's bonds and individual income deduction. We increased it from $500,000 over two years, to adjusted by the inflation going rate and for renter's deduction to $4,000 from the long decades of only 3,000 credit. When we look at restoring the dignity by the right of pink tax and tax on, tax on diapers, And when it comes to the life, appropriate about $25,000,000
for land purchases for the Department of Natural Resources and about $25,000,000 for the trails, and also dollars $2,000,000 toward, historical society. So that's basically what that amendment does. It does bring a lot to the table, but it also brings back what was there originally. Mister chairman, I ask that we, if you will, entertain adopting this amendment by consent. Thank you, representative Porter. Amendment 23, correct? That is correct. Thank you. Reverend Porter, as you know, the dollars are really,
really tight. And I can't say that everything that you have in that amendment I disagree with, but it's amount of priorities. And it's strictly that. And again, if we had the dollars, so something I might well consider part of those. But at this point in time, I won't say that we're closed minded for the rest of session on any of those, but I would ask that we not adopt it at this point. Representative Drati? Thank you, mister chairman. I, representative Porter, thank you for bringing this amendment to us. As I was, walking into my office this morning, I was getting phone calls from
Hoosiers from our state, not even constituents from my district, very concerned about the choice, the in home service that provides assistance for eligible persons. And, this lady was pleading on the phone asking for us to consider, funding the Choice in home service. She wasn't even my constituent. But, yeah, she called because I was a member I'm a member of ways and means to, express her concerns and how this is gonna devastate her. And, she much she needs this program, to help her, stay alive because of her income.
And so I was strongly asked to consider amendment number 23 that is being offered by Representative Porter if we're not able to do something here on the committee, maybe on second readings, but specifically, the choice in home service. Thank you. Thank you. Pat? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just like to throw my full support on this amendment. I know it's a hefty one and there's a lot of ask in this. But, these ask are what our constituents want and they're the best for the working Hoosiers. And I I just think that we need to take a step back going moving
forward and perhaps shift some things in order to make this amendment happen. So thank you. Thank you, President Paffa. I think these are all fair discussions to actually bring it forward. I mean, I think I'd be unwise not to leave in the back of my mind as we go, we have a large increase in the revenue forecast. I should at least think about this. I'd be unfair if I didn't. So but with that, at this point, I'd ask we not adopt it. Representative, this is Judy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may agree with the Chairman on this. I see increasing the veteran's career and relocation assistance program.
It's a very worthy program within The states and some other things in here as long with trails. But I think, again, I want to agree with the Chairman on this. I think that revenue forecast is gonna to dictate a lot of the funding when we find out in April. So thanks. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. I would like to encourage people to support the amendment. The budget is really the footprint and the priorities, I think, of the state and the legislature. And, there's a lot of things, in here that addresses a broader segment of,
of Hoosiers. Hoosiers who have paid and supported the state Hoosiers who have fought for this country, elderly people, people who are trying to make it, day to day. So I think this covers will allow us to cover a broader spectrum, of individuals, and we still have the second half to go through. And if there are some changes or tweaks that need to be made, those can be made and and, and incorporated, as well, but I I don't see the harm in supporting and incorporating this into the budget
right now. So let people know that we we hear their needs, we hear their cries, and and we want to support them. Thank you. Thank you, Jose. Path. Thank you. I I know it's there in in the fiscal note, in the second year, the structural surplus, that that that's the hard one right there because that revenue forecast. Hopefully, for FY '27, we'll have an increase because that's where it's really tight. And if you make that second year end a reasonable structural surplus and so that for that reason, if we have a large amount of increase, at least a significant, I have to be open to these kind of ideas,
but but not today. But but thank you. Further questions? Mister Jamie Porter, yes. For, a roll call vote Okay. In regards to this amendment number 23. Okay. Thank you. Any further discussion? Okay. Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Excused. Lopez. No. Excused. No. No. No. No. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Yes. Motion fails eight to 14. Represent Delaney, I I was didn't make some inappropriate comment there. I I was tempted to, but I didn't. With that, any further amendments? Representative Proprior?
Amendment number 13 is amendment dealing with public mass transit. We had the public mass transit individuals come before us to talk about the need for funding. The president, I think he was, of their association. For years, we have maintained $45,000,000 for our mass transit system, and that number has not changed probably in in in well over a decade. And we cannot assume that everybody drives. Everybody, does not drive. The cost for mass transit gas,
everything continues to go up, and we still have not done anything to support mass transit. I realized that in the state of Indiana, we're relying on our cars, so am I. But I have, ridden the bus before, and there is certainly a great need. And so my amendment would increase the, funding for public mass transit from $45,000,000 to $65,000,000. This is, trying to at least account for the increases,
that we have not, given to public mass transit in years. So that is my amendment, mister chairman. Second. Thank you. I'd ask that we oppose that. Again, for the same reason, I mean, dollars are really tied again, the second year especially. And so do you want a roll call vote on that, or are you on a voice vote? Yes. It'd be okay. Okay. Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Excuse. No. Excused. No. No. No. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi.
Hi. Hi. Hi. Yes. Motion fails eight to 14. Are there further amendments? Representative Delaney? Yes. Let's start with a new topic. This amendment number one, which deals with the, what I what I call the weight loss medications that have become so important in our society. And this amendment would repeal, two administrative rules that preclude the Secretary of Family and Social Services from allowing Medicaid funds to be used for these weight loss and weight control drugs. I understand this is significant fiscal,
but I also understand that the health of our citizens is important. And the benefit in the long run to public health and Medicaid costs is enormous. These drugs are obviously effective for some critical things like diabetes, but they're also effective for the broad idea of weight loss, and they seem to have some other side benefits dealing with the, with various addictions. So I would like us to give this direction to our friends at FSSA. Motion and second. I would would ask that we we oppose this. I can understand it's a fiscal,
at least projected, but, likewise, I'd make the argument I've made several times. Probably should come to the health committee. I think it'd be a wise discussion. And in the health committee, I talked with doctor Barrett. But at this point, at least putting in the budget, I would I would ask we oppose that. Do you anticipate it being discussed in the second half of the session? I mean, I I think it's up to doctor Barrett. I think that's a fair discussion. I would I'd have a conversation with him If you may that those are fair discussions for the health committee. Yeah. I'm I don't disagree with that, but I want this I think doctor Barrett needs our support if we can get
it, and he needs the conversation. I think the public is very much behind this idea, and they need a chance to get some kind of a vote on it. And so this is the only chance I've got. So I'm asking for a vote on, a roll call vote on amendment number one. Okay. Motion second. Further discussion? Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Excuse. No. Excused. No. No. No. Order. Aye. Explain my vote. Yes. Thank you, mister chairman.
I have a similar bill, house bill fifteen fifty two, that addresses coverage for treatment of chronic diseases. I feel a lot of times people have health challenges, and they don't have any other options. And with the FDA and allowing these type of treatments to be able to help people who have chronic diseases with diabetes, other health issues to help them with their weight loss and to be able to help them to have a better quality of life. If we continue to look in this biennial budget dollars for health care, This is a way to help long term and reduce those health care costs,
those extra burdens of people if we're able to help them now so that in the future, they don't have to continue to have, these health issues that, unfortunately, sometimes they're chronic and they're there for the rest of their life, but we're able to give them some type of help now. It helps them a lot. So I support representative Delaney's amendment. As I mentioned, I have a similar bill, house bill fifteen fifty two. I will be voting yes. Thank you. Aye. Aye. Aye. A moment to explain. These medications actually have the chance to change people's lives and the extra benefit of
saving Hoosiers money. And, you know, this is appropriate for the budget committee, and I highly support this amendment. Yes. Right. Motion fails eight to 14. Further amendments, representative Delaney? Yes. Amendment number four. I have two amendments that are substantively the same on, increasing the cigarette tax. I'll go with amendment four first. It increases it by $2 a pack. We in this, body, the house have passed increases in cigarette taxes in the past. For some for some reason, it gets, lost in our friends in the senate.
I think we gotta give them another opportunity to do the right thing. I've got this at the $2 level. Given the fact of the economic risks we're taking and budget risk we're taking, this would be a very substantial contribution to state revenue. At the same time, the contribution to public health, the statistics show that I believe a $1 increase in the cigarette tax cuts the usage by 14%. It's interesting that there is a reaction. People would rather give up cigarettes. Some of them would rather give up cigarettes than pay the extra amount,
for which I, for one, would be grateful for that decision. So we can increase the public health. We can increase the revenue and give ourselves a buffer on Medicaid expenses. So I ask everybody to give a serious look at it, and I do want a roll call on amendment number four. Representative Campbell. I really appreciate this amendment. Indiana has is one of the most unhealthy states in the country. We talk a lot about return on investment. This would actually create revenue, but but it actually is a return on investment because it will lower our health
care cost in the state. It is the $2 mark is is proven to work. It's unfortunate for those that feel that they they are addicted to this, people with mental health issues and substance use disorder. Sometimes it it helps them not use other some substances and use cigarettes. But at the same time, you know, this this is ultimately something that that works. It will lower health costs in our state,
and I just really encourage us to to to, approve this amendment. Further questions or comments? Representative Jordan? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was a fascinating topic last year, the year before and the year before. And you know, as we as we looked at, quote, unquote, investing or spending in public health and look at what programs do work and don't work, the one that really does work out of all of them is that,
taxes on cigarettes. It's probably the best public health initiative, that you can put forward. So, I I mean, as this session goes on, I think this is something that we should deal with, my opinion. And, I I again, I I look to the senate, to do their work on this issue. And so, I guess I'm agreeing with the concept. It's the timing and the Senate's uncertainty that I'm frustrated with. Rosanna Paff.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would also I think this is a great step. I would also go one step further and and add a text to vaping as it is taking over our youth, but I highly support this amendment. Is that clear? Thank you, mister chairman. Representative Delaney, why doesn't the amendment, address vaping or other tobacco products? The summary refers to tax imposed on electronic cigarettes being increased from 15% to 31%. So I believe I'm covering that. And it also refers to, quote, closed system cartridges.
I assume those are the electronic cigarettes. So I believe You didn't mention vaping in your introduction. Excuse me? You didn't mention vaping in your introduction. Yeah. I'm just don't even understand the concept. That's why I don't talk about it. What what about other tobacco products if this is aimed at I don't think I'm fooling around with the cigars and things. Pardon? I don't believe I'm dealing with cigars or, it doesn't. Yeah. That's why I'm I'm asking you if it's aimed at public health, why doesn't it address other tobacco products? That amendment forward if you write for me. It's just it doesn't have the big money that this cigarette and vaping does,
frankly. But, you know, I live in a house with a wonderful father who did all those things except vaping. They didn't have it. And and I'm I'm with you. So if you want to amend my amendment on the floor or ask me to file it, I'll do it. Representative Klinker. Thank you, mister chairman. I'm hoping that we'll look at an alcohol tax too. I think our our state is remiss in, not getting some dollars where we need to both, in a cigarette tax, but also, an alcohol tax for the future. Further comments?
Orpiz and Delaney, I if I have my way in the house passed or the final version of the budget, it's in there. I want the senate to look at this. I know I've mentioned before the structural surplus in the second year is is an ongoing concern. And one way to do that is to deal with this. And so I mean, I can my concern if we adopt this at that point what it says there's a couple of hundred probably $400,000,000
if I recall, is that right on this? Those dollars are on the table now to spend and there'll be a lot of push to spend, and I'm not sure those shouldn't be held as far as the structural surplus. And so as of right now, I ask we oppose this. But, going forward, I I like your idea. So I'm kinda caught myself because I hope we end up having that in the final version. Representative Lanny, you may comment back, of course. Well, I think there's real value in sending a signal to our friends across the hall. And there's a reason I call the the the,
$2 1 is I wanna send a big signal to them. And I think if the house representative said that we're willing to go that far, maybe they'd wake up and go to a dollar. But I I just think it's a tactical thing. And, you know, if this you know, I'm not the world's greatest lover of the surplus. I think it's become sort of an object of idolatry. But if this passed and it increased the surplus, I'd be able to live with that. So I think when you're telling me you like something and it's good policy, I don't think it's too much to ask you to vote for it. So that's what I'm doing. President Slayer.
Thank you, mister chairman, representative Delaney for this amendment. I have voted for, I believe it was a $1, tax increase every time it's been offered. I would like to see more current data on where we compare. You have to understand, I live right on the state line, and I have lots of businesses that would be affected if we were no longer competitive. And so I need to look into that. But I want to be clear, I'm in favor of this move, but, not at the expense of our,
Hoosier businesses on the state line. Well, if we're unfortunate enough not to pass this today, you're gonna see it again on Wednesday on second readings. And I think you'll check and see that we're relatively on the low side of cigarette taxes and the high side of cigarette consumption. So I think you'll be able to, consolidate yourself. There's been a lot of pricing changes, and so I just don't know where we stand. Well, I'm I'm confident that our friends in the health industry, the lung doctors and others who come here will give us that data and give
you that data that we are relatively low on cigarette tax rates. Representative Lane, I believe that we've sent a message across the hall three times I voted for it. I voted for it every time. It's a easy vote for me. And so obviously, but I think we're making progress. I think it's up to them to act on that, and we'll see. And, again, I think revenue constraints will help that discussion along. Representative Andrade? Thank you, mister chairman. I using technology now, and you got Google and AI based on some information here.
Indiana cigarette tax is 99.5¢ per pack of 20 cigarettes. The national average cigarette tax is a dollar 93 per pack. Indiana cigarette tax is lower than the nation's average. Indiana's tax rate is thirty ninth in The US. This is just on some quick Google search that I just did. Indiana's tax rate has not changed since 02/2007. Some have proposed increase in the tax of $2 per pack. So here we are. That's where we're at. We're number 39 in The U. S, and our cigarette tax is $0.995 per pack compared to the national average of $1.93
per pack. Thank you. Thank you, mister chairman. I guess I'm just thinking about procedurally. We in the house have sent over a message to the senate several times that we will like to see an increase in the cigarette tax. The senate has sent a message back to us that we that they don't want cigarette tax, But I don't think that we have any or you, have because of procedurally, if something doesn't pass the house or the senate, particularly the house, it's not up for discussion pretty much.
So, I think it gives you if we pass this in the house, it gives you a better situation to negotiate with the senate coming out of the house. That way they can't say, well, you didn't pass it in the house, because they're not gonna pass it in the senate. I think pretty much it pretty much dies if we don't keep it as a discussion item here in the house, and we send a message to the senate. And that way, when you go into negotiations, you can bring it up again. Well, I I believe in the end,
in the final week, you've got of course the pre-ninety '6 fund. And we it was mentioned, could we cut that back, increase the cigarette tax? And I think the Senate can make a choice possibly. Do you want to increase cigarette tax or move that pre 96 fund down? It could do both. I some could argue. And those are all for discussions in in the last week, and I think one one of those may well happen. I think this is the one I actually prefer. And so I hope we get there. I can't promise. But, just for right now,
I'd ask we oppose it. But, boy, I I I need a lot of help. And, you know, thank you for trying to help me. I appreciate that. Other comments? Mr. Smoltz? Thank you, Chairman Thompson. And while I oppose this amendment, today, I just wanted to agree with Representative Klinker that at some point, we're going to have to look at the alcohol tax. It hasn't been raised in forty plus years and has the potential to raise hundreds of millions of dollars to offset some of the costs of alcoholism in the State of Indiana, particularly in the Medicaid space. So I just wanted to bring that up and support Representative Klinker's point.
Thank you. Representative Andrade? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since we're having this discussion, got to give credit to my colleague, Representative Campbell, for this. Based on Compile IQ, they actually have a beautiful map in the bottom that explains the tax, tax, cigarette tax, I mean, by state. We are 99¢. Our neighbor to the right, if you're looking at the map, in the East Coast, Ohio is a dollar 60. Michigan is at $2. Wisconsin is at $2.52. Our neighbor to the West Coast, Illinois is at $2.98.
So just to give everyone an idea of what we're talking about, where we stand, Kentucky well, we won't mention Kentucky, but, we'll we'll we'll keep we'll keep with the other states. Ohio, dollar sixty. Michigan, two dollars. Wisconsin, two fifty two. Illinois, two ninety eight. So you're saying Kentucky needs to raise theirs. That's what you're implying? Well, that's it looks like it it looks like they're a dollar and 10. So they're actually, 11¢ higher than we are. K. But So we're still falling behind on Kentucky. Thank you. For the comments, representative, probably call you one of the roll calls that are I bought a okay.
This committee is a great committee, and I wanna be fair. You'll probably see this again later in the week. And if somebody whispered to me that that it'd be easier if it was the $1, I have amendment number three sitting right here, then I'm not gonna call in this committee, but it wouldn't take very much to call it on the floor. So I'm listening. Yes. Please vote for this amendment. Thank you. Thank you. Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Slayer. No. Chriswell. No. No. Excused. No. Excused. Yes. No.
No. No. Hi. Hi. Aye. Campbell. Aye. Delaney. Aye. Harris. Aye. Aye. Motion fails nine to 13. Are there further amendments, representative Lanny? Hey. You have one, Josh? Go ahead. I'm okay either way. Whatever you you two prefer, I'm fine with. Go ahead, please. You have any further. Thank you, mister chairman. I have, several amendments, but, the amendment that I'm a call right now is amendment number 16. Amendment amendment number 16, it establishes the Indiana first responders mental health awareness fund and program. This would allow us to,
assist and help out first responders who go into situations who have who, see things that we, as a public, don't want to see and oftentimes do do not see, and that may have, issues with mental health because of, they are responding to situations and they want to, protect and and take care of us. So what this bill does, it establishes that fund. It allows, first responders to, get paid, I think, a third of their salary if they do qualify in,
are in need of these services. It also states the, type of situation in which the first responders will qualify for the program. It would be if they were involved in a shooting, a vehicle crash resulting in serious injury or death, if the first responder is a victim, of an assault, if, the death of Indiana, of a first responders colleague or partner, serious injury or death, of a child, particularly in the first respond where the first responder, has an involvement with.
The qualifications for the first responder would be if they're Indiana resident, they are employed as a first responder, and they have been involved in a qualified critical incident, which, in the line of duty, which is what I've mentioned early earlier, and they have been diagnosed with PTSD. So, this is, yeah, something I think that we, we need for our first responders, and I would appreciate support of this amendment. Thank you. Motion and second. Again, it's priorities. And on this one, my initial thought it probably should come through public safety,
public health and as far as the policy side goes. But again, you have good intents and I appreciate that, But I have to ask you not to support it at this time. Further further comments? Roll call? Roll call has been requested. Send a second. Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Excuse. No. Excused. No. No. No. No. Excuse? Motion fails seven to 14. Further amendments. Representative Friar? Thank you, mister chairman. So my next amendment is, not an allocation,
but it is an exemption. And this exemption is, for sales tax exemption on breastfeeding supplies. Reverend Jennifer, what number is that? Oh, I'm sorry. 20. 20. So I'm not asking for additional dollars. I am, asking for us to support this exemption on best breastfeeding equipment. Babies have to have a way to eat, and, one of the ways that is done is through breastfeeding. And so supplies needy needed for our babies to eat will be exempt
if we adopt this amendment. And so this is not an allocation for funding. It will support will impact the budget. However, I think that as we're looking at making sure, our kids come are healthy or at their healthiest, in the long run, the bill actually will pay for itself. I ask for your support of the, amendment. Thank you, chairman. Motion and second. Further discussion? Representative Pia. Thank you, mister chairman. As a mother of four children, and, I breastfed my children and this stuff is expensive. And it is if you do any of the research,
breastfeeding is the healthiest option for the children at the very beginning if you can do it. There are women that can't. And I just highly support again this amendment because this is the least we can do for our working mothers, our mothers to stay at home, our mothers that are taking care of our future. So I support this amendment. Further discussion? I'd ask that we oppose it at this time. Again, for that same reason, we've got a really tight, especially in the second year. And I know that this bill as drafted does take care of of of hygiene
products in terms of those have been taken care of in in the bill, which I think was a bill filed, I think, by representative Genda. Pretty much use your his language, house bill ten forty two was before this committee and stuck that in the bill. But at this point, I oppose that. Again, I'm not closed minded to the revenues forecast as appropriate. Look at this later. Thank you. You want a roll call? Okay. Roll call has been requested. Call the roll, please. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. Excused. No. Excused. No. No. No. Aye.
Aye. Aye. Aye. Harris. Aye. Aye. Motion fails eight to 14. Further amendments represent Delaney. The next one is amendment 34, which would establish an oversight committee to oversee the activities most specifically of the IEDC, but there are three or four agencies, the Housing and Community Development Authority, the Indiana Finance Authority, which due to their complex, operations, the the discretion they have, the decisions they make, I think we need an oversight committee,
to regularly monitor them. The poster child, and this is the IEDC, which spends hundreds of millions of dollars in ways that are often a mystery to us. So this is an amendment designed to set up a house and senate committee that, monitors them and, then makes recommendations, to the legislature. The only comparison I can come up with is is a federal mechanism that appears to have worked. The problem we always have in overseeing these activities is the claim that we're about to disclose some business deal or some fact will slip out and some company will
be hurt, which means that you need a certain degree of secrecy or privacy for discussion. I think this would be a vehicle to have that kind of oversight. They managed to get it done in Washington on the security issues because in Washington, they have a group of people who have to be informed by the CIA and the FBI of certain activities, and they're allowed to at least react to them. So I think we need an ability to react to the major decisions made by this by these organizations. I'm not gonna suggest that this is a perfect solution,
but it's an attempt to get into that. What we've done this session to be mildly self critical is we've sort of ignored the IEDC. I don't know whether they're still functioning, but I think we need to have oversight and this is a proposal, and I hope we'll have a conversation about this and and, and maybe improve it at a later date. Representative Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Representative Land for bringing this amendment forward. As we all know for the last two cycles, in particular, last two years in particular,
IADC has been kinda unleashed in regards theirs for the transparency and accountability when it come to, the quote unquote deal closing accounts and other things, IADC. So I think we have oversight committee and just, this committee will, create an atmosphere, ladies and gentlemen, of transparency and and, standards as well as accountability for who's your taxpayer dollars that as you well know, mister chairman, being on the budget committee, has been extremely contentious. So I support representative Laney,
in this amendment, and I look forward to, seeing it come out, be a part of the budget. Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, as you know, those were below the line and they're not in the budget this time. There's not not there at all. And so that's probably won't have a dollars to even do that. And so really, those funds are not present. And I would ask that we not support this. I mean some of the ideas here I think aren't all bad. I'd like some further discussion. I'm not close minded to those. I can probably argue this is probably the right committee, although I was thinking is there a better spot than this committee?
Well, probably likely is. Let's continue discussion on what the right spot to land on this is because I'm not totally opposed to the idea, just not right now. Representative Porter? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may, Representative Delaney. Over we know IADC has has had a lot of latitude in regards to their expenditures. It it may not be there now. However, as this as second bite of the budget apple is occurring, and you've heard me say before, there are things that come in the conference committee of our said budget that we've
never seen before. And I think it is imperative, practical for us to put this in here, I believe in the five p's. Prior preparation prevents poor participation, and I think we can prepare ourselves to put this in there so we'd be able to participate if it arrives again within the our next biennium budget. Thank you, mister chairman. So you'd like to see something along in the conference committee report at the end, that'd be that'd be your hope. And that that that's fair. I understand where you're Yeah.
Coming from. I'm feeling very encouraged because I wrote this down. The chairman said that the idea is quote, not all bad. And and then he went on. He was on a riff and said he's, quote, not totally opposed. So, obviously, there's some merit in and I think this is a serious proposal. This amendment is designed to force the conversation, which is why I'm not gonna ask for a vote on it. I wanted the conversation which we're starting. And if it ends up in the budget, that's great. I think it's very complex to figure out how to monitor these groups without choking them off and without violating their concern for secrecy.
But it can be done, And I think the budget would be a great place to do it. So I'll withdraw the amendment, at this point. I I got a congress and Delaney. You and I are in the same spot. I'm I'm almost sure that whenever you can, transparency is the way to go. That that's the way to go. There are some things sometimes you can't be because of and then the court level, but that's always the best way to let the public know and go from there. But thank you for the amendment. Alright. Amendment 24. Amendment 24? Okay. Which is my first roll out of this idea,
'24, and it has this interesting name, federal funding loss protection fund. This is my attempt to address the concern that hangs over this legislature and every other legislature in the country that if there's a substantial cut simply in Medicaid, just that alone from the federal level, that we're gonna have a serious budget shortfall problem. And I'm trying to address that. I did go through, and later in the week, I'll have more on this, but I've looked ahead a report that was given to the, budget committee in December.
There's a report on federal funds, And I was surprised when I read it, what was in there. There's tens of millions of dollars, for example, for the National Guard, for its operations and its construction in particular. In the federal budget, there's billions of dollars that we get on Medicaid, and it goes on. There are agricultural programs. There's the title one, support for, public schools that have a lot of poor kids. We're at the peril of a big loss from Washington that would undercut our budget. So this is an attempt to,
prepare for that. Okay? And it's a fund that we could among other things, we could allocate part of our surplus to this. We could do that, in the budget. But the very specific part that I have, which, of course, may may bother my friends especially on the other side of the aisle, I would like to specifically give the governor through the state budget committee the ability to delay the two upcoming cuts in income tax. Now is I don't wanna be here for a special session. I've been through that. It never goes well.
It causes tension as to the governor's authority. It's very disruptive. It's inconsistent with the idea of a part time legislature. I see that train coming down the station if there's significant changes. So we can either just toss this on the governor's lap or we can try to prepare. So I've I've gotten a fiscal estimate done, and I don't suggest that delaying those two cuts, which are from three down to 2.95 and then 2.9 o as the percentage. I don't suggest that it's enough money, but I'm surprised by how much it does. If you delay them two years,
and so in the first year of such a delay, we would gain $74,000,000 to deal with cuts. The next year, we'd gain $2.19, 2 19 million, then $2.27, and then 89. The grand total is close to $600,000,000 that could be generated simply by maintaining but delaying those cuts. I think if we pass legislation permitting that, that would give the governor a weapon, not a mandate, but a weapon to not do as we had to do last time and radically cut public schools or in this case,
the only two things you really can cut that are gonna make a big difference are public education and Medicaid. Those are the only two things that we have enough money in, that we could have the governor make some serious cuts if we had a financial squeeze. So this is an amendment designed to set up a policy or procedure, for monitoring what's happening with the federal budget and give the governor an opportunity, to do something very specific that we authorize rather than simply taking the pen out and whacking away at whatever attracts the governor on a particular day.
So thank you. That's Amendment 24. Representative Smolz? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This probably would have been more appropriate space to talk about the alcohol tax, so I'll bring that up again. But I think we need to why I would oppose this amendment is we need to move away from taxing productivity and effort and tax use as a philosophy as much as we possibly can. So I think if we're taxing somebody's income, we're taxing their productivity and how hard they work. But if we're taxing consumption, then it's a user fee or use tax.
And the alcohol tax would be an excellent place for that considering it would very easily raise the amount of money that we're talking about in this amendment. So with that, I'd oppose this amendment. I'm encouraged by what representative Smolz is saying. And by the way, I just happen to only include one of the three sin taxes, s I n taxes, in my amendment. It was only cigarettes, but I've got one I'll be filing on alcohol, and I got one I gotta be filing on gaming, which I think is, in some ways, neglected. So I'm all for the sin taxes. I'd rather tax sin than income, but we're not gonna generate enough money from that to deal with these particular problems.
And I think we need to have a mechanism in place. If the legislature is gonna have his role, we need to have a mechanism to give the governor some guidance as to what we think needs to be done if there's a significant shortfall. Just letting it fall into his lap doesn't strike me as fair to us or him. So that's why I have this amendment. Representative Delaney, I I guess I would ask that that we not oppose that. I think we should be the one setting the tax rates, and I'm not sure we should give up give up that authority, if you will. He always has the capacity to call us in to a special session.
That can be quick if we suspend some rules, and so it has to be opposed this. I think my friends on the other side have gotten themselves in the trap. Okay? The trap is that any delay in a future tax cut is a tax increase. It's not. It's an active discretion. It does not increase the tax by 1¢ from what people are actually paying. It just says we were over our skis when we put in a tax cut, and reality turned out differently. This tax cut was passed three or four years ago.
It was in '23. And we originally had in that bill a clause that said if the economy didn't do well, it wouldn't happen. That's an alternative we could do. We could do that again and set a bar so the governor doesn't have to decide. You know, I'm obviously open to that. It's just a it gets to the same result. But we made a mistake when we cut taxes way out in the future. That's always a mistake because it's not good planning. And then we made a mistake when we didn't put when we took out the safeguards on that.
So, I think I I wanna vote on this because I want to get the conversation moving forward. And so you'll see more, and we'll hear more. And I think this is a discussion. We'll know more as time goes by and we see what's really happening to our budget. But I think this is an appropriate approach that restricts the governor and shows our intent. Well, I know that the safeguards was passed originally almost were backwards. And the safeguards didn't work in the sense that you could have some scenarios where you had increasing revenue and you had the tax not being cut and decreasing revenue
and the tax. It was all back was how that formula worked. It was unworkable. Now I understand the concept, you can make it work. But I'd ask at this point that we oppose this. Yeah, I think we're nearer now. That was part of the problem was we had a futuristic tax cut that had a futuristic safeguard. I think we're past that. We're in this we're in the process of cutting those taxes, and we can devise safeguards that I think are useful. This is one of them. Thank you. Further comments? You want a roll call representative?
Okay. No problem. Okay. Reverend Delaney, we're kinda waiting to make sure we have the right count. I'm honest about it. Wait a minute. Am I in danger of being in the majority? Perfect. I'm sorry. I Yes. I I moved the previous question. Come on. Let's vote. Yeah. We'll we'll go ahead, representative Lane. I I think we've backed up the counts. It it's close, though. It it's close. It's close. Right. Yeah. I was struggling with counting. So call call call the roll, please. No. No. No. Excuse. No. No. Excused. Oh. No. Excused. Excused. Excused.
Excused. Excused. No. No. Excused. Absolutely. Aye. Andre. Aye. Excused. Aye. Harris. Aye. Baker. Aye. Yes. Me. Aye. Motion fails seven to nine. That is worse. Are there further amendments or Finney Prior? Okay, mister chairman. This, I think, is gonna be my last amendment for for this committee for the first half. And this is amendment number 19. It's the renter's deduction. Again, this is not asking for an appropriation. This is asking for an increase of a thousand dollars for people who who rent.
We have not I think that we have to do a better job keeping up with inflation and keeping up with our deductions and our exemptions and just things that we, we do here in the legislature. And we have not increased the renter's deduction in years, and people's rent is continuing to increase. There's nobody paying attention to me, so I'll just wait. The renter's deduction has not increased in years, and, rent has continued to go up. We continue to talk about a housing crisis,
and, people are paying, $1,000, 12 hundred dollars for a one bedroom rental unit, and that gets very expensive. But in the meantime, we have continued to stay flat on what people are getting as their renter's deduction. And so what this amendment is doing is saying that we're going to allow for the renter's deduction to increase for for an individual to $4,000 and for a joint married couple, $2,000 per individual, $4,000
jointly. So I'm not asking for an allocation of money, but what I am is asking for is for relief for individuals. Amendment nine 19. Second. Amendment 19. Mhmm. Okay. And I I I missed that. Sorry about that. Nope. I probably didn't see it. That that's okay. Before I forget, representative Andrade's asked to be voting yes on number 16. I'm okay with that. You're good. Please. Okay. Any comments on number 19? Consent? I would ask we have to oppose that at this point. I mean, again, those discussions,
I think should be tied in possibly to the homeowners deduction. That's a fair discussion. Last year, I believe, at one point we had both homeowners and renters deductions increasing if I recall, we kind of both I believe about $1,000 each and I mean right now revenue is tight. That's part of the reason why but both for the state and for locals. So as we oppose at this time. Do you want a roll call? Yes. I do want a roll call. But I would just like to add to that, mister chairman.
We have continued, I think, in the house, to put things in the budget that have helped individuals. For whatever reason, as it goes to the senate, comes back, goes through conference committee, a bunch of the good things that we have, added in the budget in here, and agreed upon doesn't seem to be able to make it across the finish line. I'm not sure where the breakdown occurs or happens, but at some point, I think that we really need to not only consider, the things that come
we really need to consider what, are the things that we're doing to help really significantly help people, on a day to day basis. And I think something like this, certainly helps people, and I would like for us to get to a point where as we have these amendments that do come out and and, or it that gets added to the bill, don't just come out in the twelfth hour and never be seen again, and then we come back year after year after year trying to do things for people, because this is something that I know that we've added in before,
but it's not made. We've done maybe once or twice. And so at some point, I think that we need to we need to get this across the finish line for the Hoosiers who need it. Thank you, mister chairman. President Pryor, as you may know, on Friday, had did a, you know, interview with with the media. And I made this statement that the House will work on the budget and then the Senate would improve it. And some have called me out on that, that I made a mistake in that, that it wouldn't be improved. So you're kind of saying, you think I made a mistake in that in that statement then?
It's okay to say yes. Mister chairman, I did not read your did not read your interview. But, you know, if we can get stuff in in the house and make sure it stays in the house from our side, I think that's an improvement. Thank you. I think it's only fair with have a bigger discussion. And, again, it's revenue is tight, and this would affect revenue. And that's that's the reason why. I mean, I supported the last year and hope to, in the future, to support a change in that. But at this point, I ask we vote no. You want a roll call? Yes. Okay. Call the roll,
please. No. No. Excuse. No. Excused. No. Excused. Excused. Excused. No. No. False. Excused. Green. Excused. Porter. Aye. Andrade. Aye. Campbell. Excused. Second. A motion and second. As amended. Any further discussion? We're going to stand in a brief recess, get people back. Obviously, other committees are going on. So we'll just have a brief recess. Hopefully, not very long. It's probably once people wanna wanna vote on. So just we'll send a recess. Hopefully, no more than than five minutes. Back to order.
If you would please close the door back there, I'd appreciate that. For everything what representative clinker? Everything clinker? Representative clinker? Representative clinker? We're ready to call the meeting back to order. We have a motion and a second on the amended bill at this point. Any more discussion after the break? Hearing none then, call the roll, please. Okay. Yes. Snow. Yes. Jordan. Yes. Weir. Yes. Keith. Yes. O'Brien? Yes. Slater? Yes. Yes. Judy? Hi. Excused. Yes. Yes.
Yes. Yes. Excused. Yes. I'll just explain my vote. Yes. Thank you, mister chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, committee, thank you, mister chairman for accepting our amendments in regards to 10 o one. I still have some, huge concerns in regards to 10 o one, particularly the conversation that the dialogue I had with Representative Delaney and people in the education committee. And looking at those dollars, we talk about 2% guarantee. But when you look at public schools, it's really only about 1.3%. And that means 90% of the school,
schools, children, when we're only getting 1.3%, versus that that, quote, unquote, guarantee 2% as promising. I don't I don't See it. Virtuals, ladies and gentlemen, I just I just can't it's inconceivable how virtuals can get a %, for the and they don't they're not bricks and mortar versus 85%. In regards to, the health and wellness of this of this great state, know any of the pathways, wait list, and and also with the health and wellness wait list, and the unfunding of the the underfunding of school assistance and universities,
it's also a big concern, and continue the big cuts in all kinds of essential line items like to get to the talent. And I know the chairman said, we don't have the money, but we must have the will. So, also, lastly, ladies and gentlemen, I think the whole point is a hundred million dollar cut to public health to keep people out of, emergency rooms and emergency departments. That that bothers me. There I mean, we have a a a a healthy dose of prevention when it came to funding the public health dollars,
the the last biennium. So with that, ladies and gentlemen, I've, I've, sufficiently vote no in regards to house bill 10 o one. I'm driving. No. Campbell. Excused. Move. Harris. I'd like to explain my vote, mister chairman. Thank you, and thank you for, accepting one of the the amendment that representative Porter offered. I do think we missed the boat on some things that we could have done. We could have made some improvements when it comes to getting people off of cigarettes in in terms of helping with waste weight loss drugs. Also, mental health care for our first responders. We had some amendments that could have done would have done some good in that.
And I know that revenue is tight, but we had a couple of options that could have provided that. Again, going back to the amendment on cigarettes by increasing that cost. We also had a bill that unfortunately did not pass that would have brought hundreds of millions of dollars from iGaming revenue as well as protections for players. So hopefully, we can make some changes, but at this point, I am a no. I appreciate the hard work that's gone into this, but I, like representative Harris, feel like we need to look at a cigarette tax,
an alcohol tax, and some other issues such as, public education funding, teacher salaries. We're very concerned that we are losing teachers in the middle of the year in our area for sure. So right now, I vote no, but look forward to working with you, mister chairman and the committee. Bill passes out 14 to seven. Thank you, members of committee. And we'll plan to meet on the first Wednesday after we come back after break.
Plan on meeting probably every Wednesday. My hope is we have minimal other times in the second half, but no budget of course, no budget hearings. And I'm almost sure to say at this point, haven't put on the calendar yet. Senate bill one will be, of course, the start point, and we'll talk about property taxes. And then, of course, I have a house bill of 14 o two and talk about how it interacts, and we'll have some good discussions. So looking forward to it. Again, thank you for the long hours of commitment here to this committee, and I appreciate that.
And Reverend Porter, yes. Thank you, mister chairman. Thank you, mister chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of the the democratic caucus, we, appreciate the dialogue, and sometimes long hours that, still don't understand it sometimes, but I understand you. Worked with you for for for six years now. But we really appreciate the dialogue and openness to hear our amendments and and and to talk to us offline, online, alright, dealing with you and with with, vice chair Snow, it has been anytime. And so thank you very much.
Hey. Have a look. Have a great break. See you on the house floor. Thank thank you, Representative Porter. That was great. With that, we stand adjourned.