From our state House studio in Montgomery.

I'm Todd Stacey, welcome to Capitol Journal.

This week the Alabama legislature met for the 20th, 21st and 22nd days of the 2026 regular session.

That means we have just eight possible legislative days remaining between now and early April.

And it was a busy week here in the state House.

We'll start upstairs in the Senate, where a major proposal to reform utility regulators was introduced.

Advance through committee an passed on the floor unanimously.

The legislation, know as the power to the People Act, would expand the Alabama Public Service Commission and give voters a larger role in choosing the regulators who oversee utilities.

This comes after a previous plan that would have made commissioners appointed rather than elected.

Fizzled amid public backlash.

Capital Journal's Jeff Sander reports from the upper chamber.

32 zero Senate Bill 368 passes with a strong show of bipartisan cooperation.

The Alabama Senate approve a sweeping proposal to overhaul the structure of the state's Public Service Commission.

The commission currently ha three statewide elected members and regulates many of Alabama's utilities, including decision that affect electricity rates.

Senate Bill 360 would expand the commission from three members to seven, with commissioners eventually elected from Alabama' seven congressional districts.

Well, when people are elected by the people, you become responsive to the people.

So that's why I was adamant.

Our body was adamant that we were not going to go to appointed positions.

We want elected positions so they would be responsible to the people.

State Senator Clyde Chambliss of Prattville sponsored the bill, also know as the power to the people Act.

He says the concept became especially important after controversy earlier this session over a proposal that would have replaced elected commissioners with appointed regulators.

And anyone who puts themselves up for these type positions because they are giving that authority, given that authority by the people, they're going to be responsive to the people.

The legislation would als create a new Secretary of Energy position appointed by the governor.

The Secretary would help set meeting agendas, but would not have a vote on commission decisions.

Senate President Pro Tem Garland Gonzales says the proposal is designe to give voters across the state a stronger voic in how utilities are regulated.

And that's reall where the rates will be reduced.

The key for us is being able to allow the people that are doing that job there every day and putting the shoes on and having to go to work and focus on energy as the future of Alabama.

What they can do to help reduce that?

We've given them the structure to do that, and that's what we formulated through this bill.

Democratic Minority Leader Bobby Singleton says lawmakers from both parties worked together to shape the proposal.

It's so interesting how light might just come together.

And the when you put the final touch in, put the final touch on it and the amendments and all that came to make this better.

I think that the state of Alabama, as they see it, going to see that we did the right thing that tried to do the right thing, but we did the right thing.

That Bill now heads to the House, where a separate PSC refor proposal has already passed out of committee.

House Speaker Nathaniel Ledbetter says there's a possibility of combining elements of both bills moving forward.

Reporting from the Statehouse in Montgomery.

I'm Jeff Sanders for Capitol Journal.

Thank you Jeff.

This week also saw the states budgets on the move.

The Education Trust Fund, which covers the range of education spending from pre-K up to highe ed, was taken up by the House.

Randi Scott has that story.

So I hope everybody will, listen.

And, certainly we've had conversations up to now, but I want to make sure everybody understands what we had to deal with as we craft these series of budget items is being called the largest education budget for Alabama ever.

And House Education Budget chairman Representative Danny Garrett has the task of presenting it to his housemates.

By law, the Alabama Legislature has to pass both the General Fund and Education budget.

That process is getting started in the lower chamber, with Representative Danny Garrett talking to his housemates about the Education Spending plan.

Education budget will increase by $570 million from 9.9 billion to 10.5 billion, which represents an increase of 5.75%.

That's the maximum amount allowed.

Our first class pre-K program will receive 226 million, which is an increase of 13 million from this year.

This will allow 47% of all eligible four year old statewide to participate.

Also, addressing some funding for K through 12 schools, K through 12 schools receives 7.1 billion next year, an increase of 381 million from this year, which provid for an increase of 197 million to almost $5 billion for the Foundation program, which funds the basic needs of the K through 12 schools.

Also, funding for valuable programs helping student performance increase $22 million for numerous react to add 33 math specialist increase to 3. million for distance learning.

Increase of 2.9 millio for mental health coordinators to emplo eight regional administrators.

Increase of 2 million for L-l coaches.

Higher education is also getting needed help increase of 1 million for computer scienc reading coaches in every school.

Technology coordinator in every system, mental health coordinators in every system, nurses in every system.

The budget also allocates 309 million to the Raise act to support student needs.

Higher education will receive to 2.7 billion, which is $150 million increased from last year.

Our education would see to 2.7 billion, which is $150 million, increased from last year for community colleges, an increase of 35 million, 21 million for O and M, 10 million for dual enrollment, which would provide for an additional 23,000 student participation.

It's a spending plan hous members say they can work with hard into this bill.

We have it.

The process for the committee out of commission starts in June or whenever.

So they will determine the commission will determine what the goals and objectives would be, not based on what you've reported here.

So let me just say this, that in this bill, we've had it we've had the input from all the institutions of higher education.

House Bill 238, the education budget, and it's supporting bills are approved at the state House.

Randy Scott, Capital Journal.

Thank you.

Randi.

Let's take a look at some of those details of the Education Trust Fund.

The base budget is $10.5 billion, which would be a new spending record for the state.

On top of that, the package includes $420 million in supplemental appropriations.

That's surplus revenue above what was expected this fiscal year.

And is meant to be spent on one time projects.

And the Advancement in Technology Fund is another $1 billion that's meant to pay for computer upgrades and other capital projects.

Looking at where the money goes by, category 5.8 billion goes directly to K through 12 schools by way of their local school boards.

226 million goes to early childhood education, which includes the first class pre-K program.

657 million is directed to the Alabama Community College System.

1.8 billion goes towards the state's colleges and universities, and 766 million goes to the state Department of Education to fun its various programs and staff specific to programs, the governor and lawmaker are investing in key initiatives believed to be responsible for Alabama's education improvement in recent years.

151 million will fun the Alabama Reading Initiative, 159 million will fund the math, science and Technology Initiative.

10 million will go toward th Turnaround Schools Initiative.

38 million will go toward career and technical education, and 17 million will go towar summer and afterschool learning.

Coming up later in the program, I'll sit down with House Education Budget Chairman Dann Garrett to talk in more detail about this budget.

The general fund budget was in the Senate this week.

First in committee and then passage on the Senate floor.

There were some change made to what governor Kay Ivey propose at the beginning of the session.

So let's walk through those.

This is what passed the Senate versus what the governor originally proposed.

The total general fund would be $3.688 billion.

That's an increase of 37 million over the governor's proposal.

Now look at some of the bigger agencies in the budget.

Alabama medicai would be funded at 1.79 billion.

That's no difference fro the governor's original budget.

The Department of Corrections would get 867 million, an increase of about 400,000.

Mental health would get 240 million, a decrease of 2.9 million from the governor's budget.

The Alabama Unified Judicial System would get 189 million, an increase of 5,000,156 million for public health, which is an increase of 2.6 million.

Aliyah would be funded at 143 million.

That's a $200,000 increase.

A Deca would get 46.7 million.

That's a $7.3 million plus up.

And the Department of Commerce would get 17.8 million.

That's 3.4 million over what the governor originally proposed.

We caught up with Senate General Fund Budget Chairman Greg Albritton after the budget's unanimous passage on the Senate floor.

I'm pleased.

We've worked closely with, with the house and and with all the members, I think of the legislature.

And trying to develop one that's lasting, doable.

And, I think we can lead to a better future.

And in the next couple of years, we are better than we thought we were going to b as far as revenue is concerned.

That's partly because the interest rates have not dropped as much, but also because the revenues, especially the general fund, is holding up well.

So we're doing pretty well.

We're doing pretty well.

I think the controls that I read off often mentioned are going to be, substantive.

And those priorities, of course, is getting the error rate down.

So we don't have a ris of losing federal money money.

So that would be significant looking to going forward.

The other is making sur that we're having mental health, that we put millions and millions of moneys into.

And I'm trying to find out if we're having any come back from it.

So those two things, and then the doc will put me and some money into that and construction.

And it's about tim we started finishing these up.

We're watching those things.

This is the legislative responsibility to make sure that what we appropriated are, is getting in the ground and getting accomplished.

Lawmakers heard emotional testimony this week during a public hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It was over Senate Bill 316, a proposal aimed at strengthening oversight of Alabama's prison system.

The bill, sponsored by State Senator Larry Stutz of Tuscumbia would expand the oversight role of the Department of Examiners of Public Accounts, create a Correction Oversight Board, move criminal investigations to the State Bureau of Investigation, and restor the use of special prosecutors in counties with major prison facilities.

Supporters of the measure spoke during the hearing, including former inmates, parents of those who have died in custody, and a former prison guard featured in the recent documentary The Alabama Solution.

They all called for greater accountability and transparency inside state prisons.

Here's some of what lawmakers heard.

I was sentenced to Julia Tutwiler in 2022, and I was taken out of a ver violent, drug ridden environment and put into another violent, drug ridden environment.

Except for this time, it was ran by the Alabama Department of Corrections.

While I was there, I never, was offered any kind of classes, any kind of rehabilitation.

The drugs you get phone calls that your your loved one's going to be raped.

They want you to send money on green cards.

And this is not always inmates.

I've been extorted by officers and and they didn't care.

I would tell you who they were.

There's a lot of things happen in that prison.

But I'll just give you a real good example.

I had these cards and I'd carry my Bible, and those folks would tell me they've supervised, said, you got about 30 minutes, sometimes 20, sometimes five, to get these inmates de-escalated or we're going to turn them up.

And that's what they did, was tune them up.

But they didn't do it in front of me because I tell on them some serious situation and I understand there's expenses involved, but we've spent millions and millions of dollars of settling lawsuits, wit the Department of Corrections.

We have others pending.

The cost is not the issue.

It's humane treatment.

It's accountability, and it's transparency.

And those are the issues that, I hope to address.

No vote was taken on the bill.

In fact Stutz told reporters afterwards that he has reached an agreement with the Department of Corrections to address some of these concerns without the need for legislation.

Turning to Washington for a moment, which saw a somewhat rare bipartisan vote this week on a bill to address housing affordability.

But as the focus shifts to a voter ID measure that bipartisanship isn't expected to last.

Alex Engle recaps this week on Capitol Hill and looks ahead to what's coming up.

The bill, as amended, is passed.

The Senate approve a housing bill to boost supply and cut regulation on Thursday, with 89 yes votes.

That broad support is a rarity in Washington, especially ahead of the midterms.

Homeownership has become far too out of reach for so many Americans.

We used to be able to buy our first home in America.

On average, the age of about 26.

Now, the median age for the first time homebuyer is 40 years old.

Figuring out how we tackle that has to be an approach that's comprehensive.

Senator Katie Brandt, a membe of the Senate Banking Committee, support to the bill to increase access to affordable housing.

The 21st Century Road to Housing Act also includes several of Brit's bills that allows people to go from government assistance into creating equity to buy their own first home.

The measure also banned institutional investor from buying Single-Family homes.

Senator Tommy Tuberville was one of just ten senators who opposed the bill.

In a statement, a spokesperson for him says, quote, like President Trump, Coach Tuberville thinks the Save Americ Act is our number one priority and doesn't think we should be wasting our time on anything else in quote.

Now that the housing bil is in the hands of the US House, senators are turning their attention toward the Save America Act next week.

Both Brit and Tuberville support using the talking filibuster to try and get the legislation passed that would require proof of citizenship to vote in federal elections.

If we think we can get more done with a talking filibuster, let's do it that way then, if we can't get it done that way, I say we bust the filibuster.

I have been working in the last couple of weeks on different ways that we can achieve a result in that space.

So I know that there is nothin more important than Americans, having faith in their elections, but it's unclear if the Senate will be able to use the talking filibuster that would eat up much of the floor time.

If they can't, this Save America Act would need 60 votes, with Democrats opposed.

The chances of that passing are slim right now.

Reporting on Capitol Hill Alex Engle, Capital Journal.

Thank you Alex.

We'll take a short break and be back with Congressma Shamari figures.

Stay with us.

Since 1997, Alabama Public Television has provided programs, services, and resources to childcare professionals, teachers and parents.

Visit AP tv.org/education to learn more.

Originally designated as a postal route in 1806, the old Federal Road stretched through the creek Indian Territory of Lower Alabama.

Alabama's Federal road functioned as a major thoroughfare for western migration into the Old Southwest, ushering in a new era of national expansion and exploitation of Native American territory.

Although much of the Federal Road has disappeared, portions of it remain today.

You're watching Alabama Public Television celebrating 70 years of service to Alabama.

Welcome back to Capitol Journal.

Joining me next is Congressman Shamari figures.

Congressman thanks for coming on the show.

Thanks for having us again, man.

Absolutely.

Well, you're in town this week.

Congress is on.

The House is on recess.

At least one of the reasons you were in the capital city this week was this new produc you announced funding for Max.

Well, connecting Maxwell more effectively to the interstate and to downtown Montgomery.

Talk about this project.

Yeah, it's the the the gateway project, which is certainly not something that I created, but was something that's been in creation, and been in, you know, talks about for a very long time around here, making the Air Force base, more accessible to the city, as you know, right now, when you come off of I-65, you literall have to make three left turns, to get to where one right turn could take you.

And that really restricts development in and around the area and overall, accessibility, to one of the most important aspects of the city.

Okay.

So what what would this look like?

I mean, and better access from 65, better access to 65 things like that.

Yeah, it'll be better access coming off of Interstate 65, but, with the extensio of an existing road, would also develop a corridor wher there can be more development, going into the base in and around the base.

And so, this is jus the start of the funding for it.

This is $2 million at the very beginning of it.

This will be a, mult million dollar project going on once, all said and done.

But, every long journey starts with one single step.

And this is the first step in that process.

Well, we talk about Maxwell a lot.

And the mayor was there.

He's talked about it a lot because there's always been concern.

You know, if there is a Brac, base Realignment and Closure, we don't want Maxwell to be on the list.

It's always been spared that.

In fact, it's grown.

And in programs and things like that.

Is that is this part of that conversation like, let's let's do everything we can to improve?

You know, it's standing, to make sure that we don't lose Maxwell or should there be a brac?

Look, I think we you always want to do everything you can to protect the assets.

Especially the most importan asset, aspects, assets, rather, of your city, especially those that are.

So you know, central to the economic viability of your, of your community.

And I think this is just the right thing to do.

As far as base realignment and closures go, I come from Mobil, where we had, where we lost Brookley Air Force Field years ago.

And with that, by some estimations, about 1 in 10, one, 11 jobs in the city went with it.

My mother lived very near where that air Force base was.

My grandmother lived there, throughout most of my life, so very familiar with the impacts of that.

And we're going to fight to make sure that Maxwell stays open.

I mean, it is it plays a central role in our national defense.

And and something that I share with every other member of the congressional delegation, especially, chairman Mike Rogers of the House Armed Services Committee and both of our U.S.

senators as well.

So we're going to be, at the forefront of the fight to make sure that Maxwell does not end up on that list.

Yeah.

Well, speaking of national defense, a lot going on in Congress right now having to do with the armed forces.

What's going on in Iran, y'all had a War Powers resolution, essentially trying to define in scope what, you know, what can and can't be done in Iran.

Obviously you voted for that.

The Republicans voted against it.

I guess they're sticking with the president at this point.

What are y'all hearing about this?

What's the future we're hearing about more War Powers Resolution i they're going to get to a point where the president must come to Congress, where even those in the majority will demand that he come to Congress for further action in Iran.

Yeah.

And some already are.

It was a bipartisan vote on the War Powers resolution.

There were a small number of Republicans, but nevertheless, some do see the need, for, the president to come to Congress for it.

As for my views of it, I think prolonged military action against the nation, specifically when you have the goal of a the stated goal and intent coming from the president of a regime change, to me, that is war.

We have attacked Iran, both i Iran and off the coast of India.

And one of their naval ships, that is war.

That is not an isolated military action.

That is not a singular strike.

And, from my perspective, I haven't been in Congress for this before.

But I believe that when Congress, when the president engages in prolonged military action, with the president is stating, his intent to use American military power to change a regime, I think that authority rests with Congress.

And Congress should have a role in that.

I hear people say, hey, every, president has done it before.

You know going back to probably at least, Jimmy Carter probably.

But I wasn't in Congress of those, and I would have said the same thing then.

That I say now is that when we are engaged in prolonged military action, particularly when it's going to cost Americans lives as we've already seen in Iran, there's a role for Congress to play.

The administratio should have to come to Congress, provide us full briefing, provide us full details, provide us with a plan, an entry plan, an exit plan, plans of execution, rules of engagement, how they're going to proceed and what the stated goals are, to ensure that we do not end up in another Vietnam or another Iraq.

So I understand what you're saying, and you're right.

Presidents have done this before you go back to Libya, you know, you go back to Syria, ISIS, things like that.

And it can be a semantic, issue with war versus conflict and all that kind of stuff.

I guess my question is, is the president right to deal with the threat that Iran posed?

And is has he made the case, adequately to you and your colleagues, that the United States should deal with this threat that Iran poses versus regime change and things like that?

Has he made the cas adequately to the Congress yet?

I don't think so.

And the reason I say that is because of conflicting information we get, as you know, several months ago, when the president launched strikes in Iran, again without coming to Congress, you could make the case that those were specific strikes.

We were told after that that, oh, we decimated Iran's nuclear capabilities, that, you know, we set them back, you know, years in terms of their ability to be able to develop a nuclear weapon.

Right?

No one wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

I don't no one is protective of the Iranian regime.

Right?

I think they have done terrible people, and they have been a threat in that region for some time.

But that doesn't chang our constitutional obligations in Congress.

At the end of the day, the president has a responsibility to come to us and tell us what's going on and justify the threat that that they perceive.

I think that, you know, right now, we've not been getting the type of information that we need to even be able to make that informed decision, which is why these things are to come before Congress in the first place.

I think that's why the framers put it, in the Constitution.

So, you know, I think that there were diplomatic means that we still could have used there was economic pressure that we could have continued to apply.

And if the strikes were as successful as the administration had indicated, to us several months ago, then why did we need to escalate it to an all out war, which, as you were seeing, is blossoming into a regional conflict?

With the potential if Russia and or China get involved or North Korea, to become more of a global conflict.

And that's not something that we want.

And I don't think anybody, not you, not me, not anybody in the state of Alabama when they woke up, a little over, two weeks ago, said, I really think we need to be going to war with Iran because our security as a nation, is, is really at risk because of Iran.

And to put us in this place now where we have bodies coming back, that is a big deal.

That is a big deal.

I knew someone killed in Iraq, and that is not a feeling that I want any of the other, families in America to feel, certainly without not, the president not having come to Congress.

Well, let's talk about another security issue, and that's Department of Homeland Security.

There is currently a shutdown, a government shutdown for the Department of Homeland Security.

That title of appropriations has to do with immigration enforcement, right?

This was actually probably going to pass, you know, with no problem.

Then Minneapolis happened.

Then some of these aggressiv actions happened, and Democrats said, hang on, we want changes to immigration enforcement.

So that's kind of the stalemate that it's in right now.

Yeah.

We just saw this week, Senator Brett saying, hey, you know, we need to come to the table.

Democrats in the Senate, it's more of a Senate thing to come to the table and negotiate this.

And, you know, we wouldn't really know there was a shutdown.

We wouldn't really be feeling it.

Except you're seein these long lines at the airport because TSA is part of Homeland Security, things like that.

And now that Iran's going on, there's concerns about all the all the broad aspects of homeland security.

So from your standpoint how does a negotiation happen?

What are you looking for?

What is your caucus looking fo in terms of getting to a yes on funding the Department of Homeland Security?

Yeah.

And so it's as you know, it' already passed the House, right.

I voted against it because we have not seen from this administration, we certainly did not see it in the text of this particular bill.

The types of reforms that we need, to see to address some of, the actions that we've seen from ice around the country.

More importantly, I'm supportive of pulling everything but ice out because ice was already funded in H.R.

one, the one big bill, ice received somewhere in the neighborhood of $80 billion, right in advance appropriation associated with that bill.

So.

So it can survive.

Absolutely.

It can survive.

Absolutely can survive.

Because immigration enforcement was one of their priorities and the one big bill so that money is already there.

They have that funding.

I am of the opinion we're on legislation to support the idea of funding the rest of DHS.

Let's pull out TSA, let's pull out FEMA.

Let's pull out all the other critical aspects of, of DHS, outside of Ice, while we negotiate the reforms that are necessary.

And I think that the average American polling suggests that the average American think that we should be doing, I should not just be conducting warrantless invasions of people's homes just because they suspect someone may be in the country illegally.

I should not be able to, have indiscriminate use of violent force and doing the things that we've seen in Minnesota with those two violent one, those two violent acts that, you know, everyone saw because they happened to be cell phones there.

What about the actions and practices that we're not seeing on TV?

The ones that are not captured on, on cell phones?

And so I think at the end of the day, the administration has to be serious about it.

It has been in disarray wit management at DHS, as you see.

You know, we just lost DH secretary was going to say fired the secretary.

That seems like something that, some kind of a concession that they're going to change things like elevating Tom Homan, who seems like a serious guy, you know, from the Obama administration.

So, I mean, is that do you think things like that or progress toward finding a compromise?

I mean, if the administration was, you know, you know, intentional about, you know, it's plan for reforms, I think is the most, symbolic thing of their of their attitude and their plans going forward.

But right now, just a change at the head of the agency without the accompanying reforms, doesn't do much, in term of advancing the ball forward.

I think right now we're in a place where, you know, the agency is going to continue to operate, right?

With or without, Kristi Noem the agency is going to operate.

You have acting, leadership in place until, there's a nominee that is confirmed.

And so they're still going to continue to operate under the same policies that they've been operating under.

And so I think we need to reform those.

We need to change those.

We need to rein in immigration enforcement.

President said he wanted to focus on violent criminals, which no one has.

Any opposition to that.

But the data doesn't suggest that.

In fact, we've seen some data that as high as 80%, 80 plus percent of people that have been detained by Ice have no criminal record, certainly no violent criminal record.

And so, we cannot just allo them to operate just unchecked.

Switching gears, I wanted t ask you about college athletics.

You were part of legislation.

That's it's.

I thought it was you know, moving, you know, pretty wel trying to address the nil issue.

Name, image and likeness.

The transfer portal.

It's it really is a mess right now.

A lot of us, we're all college fans, football fans, basketball fans, things like that.

We've seen it just devolve into this sport that we can hardly recognize because of all the money and all the transfers.

You had Nick Saban in town the other day at this white House summit.

I know the legislation stalled.

So where are we on this issue?

Because the issue hadn't gone away.

And, you know, is it something where we might see an executive order, we might see legislation?

It seems like legislation might be more permanent than an executive order.

So catch us up on where we are in terms of federal action on college athletics.

Yeah, there's certainly still the need for it.

We've seen college athletics here devolve into something that as you know, we don't recognize.

I, I've actually heard one, colleague of mine put it tha this system was so much easier when we just paid them under the table, and it, It's not wrong.

Yes.

That's wrong.

It's saying that's not wrong.

It shouldn't be that way, right?

It shouldn't be that way.

We have an obligation to I think, protect college sports.

We know what college sports means to us, here in the state of Alabama, especially as a state that doesn't have professional athletics.

We're in the process of still trying to negotiate and hammer something out.

We were very close to gettin something on the floor for vote, at least in the House.

I think that Bill would have faced some uphill battles in the Senate.

But we have to kee the conversation going forward.

The student athletes, first an foremost, need to be protected.

They need to know what they are entitled to in the form of, education rights, health care rights, eligibility rights.

They need to know that, institutions need the, consistent see, and the continuity of rules, knowing that everybody is playing by the same rules, across the board regardless of what state you're in, or we're going to continue to see the fallout from this, where each state tries to do something different, to put their institutions, in a place of an advantage.

We saw this most recently in Texas, and I believe Mississippi, or at least one other state, have passed income tax.

And it was considered for, you know.

Yeah.

Exactly.

Right.

And so it's a mess.

And the people who are actually harm the most by it are the high school athletes particularly with these transfer and these extended eligibility rules.

You have, you know, preeminent Hall of Fame college coaches that come out now and say, I don't recruit high school players.

Right.

Why not wh not just go to a smaller school.

And we saw that with Indiana.

Exactly.

I mean they, they just kind of recruited like old average age of Indiana football team this year.

And this is not to make an excuse.

We lost a game I get it right.

But the average age of thei football team this year was over 23 years old.

Only a few months younger than the green Bay Packers.

Average age that is.

That is insane.

That is insane.

It it makes no sense.

And it is ultimately costing opportunities to the kids coming out of high school because they are no longer going in.

I mean, why recrui a five star, 17 or 18 year old when you can recruit someone who was a 2 or 3 star coming out of high school, who has 3 or 4 years of experience playing college football.

And that's exactly what Indiana did.

That was their recipe.

And it's not just Indiana.

They didn't violate any rules, right?

They they're playing within the rules of the game, which is why we need to reform this, to get the NCAA back in a position where it can actually implement the types of rules, that they need to, to protect the integrity of the sports.

Yeah.

I hope you'll keep us updated on that, because, I mean, look, we are talking about very important issues and everything, but that's one that I keep getting asked about because people care.

Yeah, they don't care.

And people see it.

You see it every Saturday in the fall.

That's right, that's right.

Well, I've got you, I wanted to ask you about Jesse Jackson.

You were in Selma this weekend or, last weekend, for the jubilee, for the bridge crossing part of the faith and politics.

And there's a lot of conversatio about Jesse Jackson, his legacy.

Yeah.

We heard from your mo talking about being a delegate.

I guess that was 84.

Probably 84 and 88, probably for her.

And I saw this picture.

Post it.

I thought it was you.

You were telling me earlier it was actually your brother.

Yeah, that's my older brother with your parents there with Jesse Jackson.

But I know you.

That you knew him.

You knew his family.

Yeah.

Talk about his legacy from a very personal perspective.

Going back all those years.

Yeah.

I mean, look, Jesse Jackson's, you know, I think impact and legacy, cannot be overstated.

It touches right here in the state of Alabama with some of the organizing that he did early on, in his life.

He was he was there in Selma in 1965, and came back almost every single year since then.

In fact, the last time I saw him was at Selma.

Well, it was actually here in Montgomery.

Him headed to Selma, just last year.

Look, he was a man that.

Yeah, that stood up for equality and and justice.

But more so than that, I think one of the things about his legacy that is often overlooked or forgotten, throughout his life, Jesse Jackson freed over 100 American hostages from around the world.

These were hostages being held by, you know, dictators in some cases, and other governments that refused to, negotiat directly with the United States government for their release.

And Jesse Jackson stepped in, without the power of the American government, without a military, without a significant, you know, backup force putting his own life and safety in danger and going into some of these regimes to free American hostages.

That was just the type of person he was.

He showed up, he showed up.

And, you know there was a time in this country where, you know, companies and people in places did no want Jesse Jackson to show up.

And that was because they knew he was coming to protest.

They knew he was coming to, bring light to an issue of inequality.

And, and I think that, that was a very powerful, a very powerful, person and a very powerful, thing that he stood up for.

So we'll miss him, and, and, we celebrated his life and legacy in Selma this week, and, we wil continue to do so going forward.

Well, I appreciate your memories of that.

Congressman.

I know you're busy.

We're out of time.

But I appreciate your tim and hope to have you back soon.

Thank you Good to see you, man.

All right.

We'll be right back.

You can watch past episodes of Capital Journal online any time at Alabama Public Television's website.

aptv.. org.

Click on the online video tab on the main page.

You can also connect with Capital Journal and link to past episodes on Capital Journal's Facebook page.

Luther Leonidas Hill Junior was a prominent Montgomery physician and pioneering surgeon during the late 19th and early 20th century.

In 1902, Hill became the first American physician to perform a successful surgical repair on a wounded heart.

Word of his success caused a sensation in both the popular media as well as medical journals.

His extensive study of heart wounds established him as a national authority in vascular medicine.

Welcome back to Capitol Journal.

Joining me next is Danny Garrett, chairman of the House Education Budget Committee.

Mr.

chairman, welcome to Capital Journal.

Thank you You always good to be with you.

Well, big day, big week for you.

Passing the education trus Fund budget through the house.

Y'all have been like in recent years.

The House starts one year.

The Senate starts another year.

It's your turn in the House.

Meaning you've crafted this education trust fund budget from the start.

Before we get to the specifics, talk about that process.

Where does it start?

Obviously, the governor comes with a, you know, a proposal.

But I mean, you talk about weeks of work.

Talk about that process.

So, yeah, the governor sends a budget over to the, to the the legislature, the general fund one year will start in the Senate and then the education budget in the House, and then vice versa, you know, the, the following year.

So we flip it and then whe the budgets cross the chambers.

But, the first year that I had the budget, I came in like in August because the director Poole, had been appointed finance director.

So he left.

And so I came in August.

And of course, the budge process for the governor starts in October, October, November timeframe.

So I was kind of late to the process getting into that, into that rhythm.

And that was the year we had a $2.8 billion supplemental.

That was the year we had all the record covered Covid money coming in and whatnot.

So, you know, and I had so much to learn.

I was a career CFO and I understand numbers.

But I also know that you make your worst decisions when you have a lot of money.

So I just went to chairman or who was the my counterpart in the Senate, and he and I had worked on legislation together, but I never worked really with the budget stuff.

I said, look, this is huge thing you're going to make.

We'll make bad decisions if we don't work together.

So you kno where all the bones are buried.

You know, the process much better than I do.

Let's try to work together.

So we began to collaborate tha year, came up with the budget.

And then since that time, we've been pretty much collaborating each year, so that you've seen very little change.

And when the budget moved from one chamber to the next.

And so what we pass today in the House reflects a lot of the things of his priorities and the Senate priorities.

And of course, I'm sure there'll be some things that they'll want to, alter or change or modify, but the process is that we work together to get it through the House, the Senate.

And in more recent years, we've had the, the, leaving one chamber the next just being more really of a formality than really a contentious type situation.

One unanimous.

It was a unanimous vote that tells me that you all have done a lot of the work behind the scenes, off the floor conversations.

Everybody contributes, not just your, obviously, your committee members, but all members.

Because, look, it's the one single biggest thing, that the legislature does ten point almost $10.5 billion, another record spending plan for the state.

Talk about priorities.

How do you all go about setting priorities?

What are the people need to know about what this education budget will do?

Well, 10.5 billion is the the budget basically.

But on top of that we had $1 billion of advancement technology funds to spend.

So it gets up there when you look at all the money.

But, yeah, we did a lot of work with, we went through the details yesterday after the committee passed the bill, I met with both the Democrat and Republican caucus, went through details in the spreadsheets, went through, you know, because there's there's a lot to absorb and understand the very quick time.

And so we try to answer a lot of questions.

And that's important.

I think priorities here were number one, we had some issues we had to deal with.

We had the huge Pip request.

All this is bumping up against the fact that we ca only grow the budget for 5.75%.

Now, that's something we put in place several years ago.

That's a borrowing reserve.

Now, this this is just we have it.

We have the rolling reserve, which is which is a we required t put money aside for Proration, but we set a secondary cap, which basically said that the budge can only grow a certain amount.

And we started it was let's grow 6.5%.

We've been stepping that down this year.

We hit the 5.75%, which is the max.

The budget can grow going forward.

And the legislature imposed that.

It's a way for us to hav some financial discipline there.

I think it's important because, you know, when you when you sort through that, we get revenue over what we spend.

There's a waterfall for where things go to the rolling reserve fun to advancement technology fund, to this other legislative fun we've set up that we can access with operation.

But then what's left over after all of that is supplemental, which is through your access.

Last year that was $52 million, this year, $419 million next year will probably be less than $300 million meaning revenue is stabilized.

You know, we're we're we're not saying that.

We're saying the the Covid, sugar hike go.

We're kind of back to reality now.

So we're limiting our budget growth.

But when you start out with a p up request, that of $300 million you can only grow $570 million.

Then you add a teacher raise 100 million.

On top of that, that's $480 million.

That only leaves $80 million, 80, $90 million that we can spread around to every other pre- through higher ed institution.

So the challenges were how much of that or how are we going to navigate that?

We had to look at the new state House, which of course RSA is, is is building that, overseeing that this is one of their will be one of their investments.

They're financing it.

So the finance and general fund and ETF are sharing that.

Right.

And so we're pre fundin some of the cost of supplemental so that we're not going to have so much out of the budget's going forward.

So we need to $37.5 million that we had to find because that did not come over in the governor's budget.

We also had an issue where the education budget is going to pick up the growth in the Chips funding, which is the children's health insurance program in prior years, that chips money has been in the education budget.

It's moved back and forth between the two funds, both the general fund being under financial stress right now with the limite revenue source, we're picking up the growth which was about $19.25 million.

We had to find room for that.

So we had several things like that that just, out of the gate we had to deal with.

We also are going to have to start making a an annual payment on the state house, the mortgage payment.

And that's $20 million per year.

Ten of that will come from the education budget into the general fund.

So with all that, as we set the stage, we're looking at where we're going, where we've been.

We had to find how we meet all those.

And ultimately, of course, we just determined that we were not going to fun the full $380 million request.

We would fund 180 million of it, and we'll have to come up with the other 200 million through their reserves, some other plan changes.

Talk about that a little bit.

The public employee public Education employees health insurance plan, there was talk of like, you know, $350 million worth of a hole there.

You talked about wha the legislature is going to do.

I mean, essentially, you're talking about health insurance costs, right?

For for, education employees.

How else is it made up?

Is it going to be a rate increase, things like that.

So if you look at the chart, which I discussed with all the members and we've discussed this in our committee, is if you look at health care costs have just been climbin very, you know, like you expect in credit, you know, in very steeply for every year.

But the, the member premiums, the premiums paid by the participant have not changed in ten years.

And in fact, they've been flat and they've actually dipped a little bit.

And that's just not a sustainable model, because on top of that issue, we're putting in about $1.6 billion from the ETF into other retirement system initiatives.

And so they're now they're now asking for anothe $300 million to fill that gap.

And I've mentioned tha the day of reckoning is coming.

At some point.

Those premiums are going to have to be increased or you're going to see some changes to their plan.

They have very low co-pays in those plans.

The great, you know, in people will say, well, it's like a teacher salaries today we passed the eighth salary increase for teachers since 2014.

And I've talked to a number of people across the region and in our state and teacher pay is very competitive.

It is what it is.

But the problem is the insurance cost they pay is low compared to what to the marke and what anybody else would pay.

So we're at a point no where Peter is sitting on a $2.7 billion trust fund reserve, and they will they can fill that gap.

We'll fill 180 million of it this year.

But they're going to have t look at their plan going forward and looking at the long term, because what what they have currently is just not going to be sustainable.

And it's not realistic in the world.

Nobody can sit here and say that for ten years my health insurance premiums have not increased.

And yet we're talking dollars and cents.

But this is the education budget and it's all about teaching kids.

We've had a, you know, a lot of accolades lately.

You know, the nation has turned its attention to Alabama and other southern states for for our success with reading, with math.

And it's been fun to celebrate all that.

You were instrumental in passing the Literacy Act, the Numeracy Act, these things that have really contributed to Alabama's growth and success.

What about those priorities in the budget?

Are we going to be able to continue this progress because you got to fund these these important initiatives?

Well, I'm glad you phrased the question that way, because that's that' really filling my frustration, is that the dollar that were being requested for, whether it be retiree bonuses or or insurance increases, these are not helping wha we need to do in the classroom.

We need to have to support those initiatives, literacy and numeracy.

We had to raise that last year that we passed right give funding on top of the foundation program funding to school districts that have special needs, whether it be special needs students, a high degree of poverty, students, Ell issues, gifted students.

That has been very, very beneficial.

And those efforts need to continue.

And, you can't contribute all your growth money to overhead and expec to see that continued progress.

So I think the focus has got to be the dollars.

We get every dollar of income tax and sales tax we get goes into the education budget.

And we need to prioritize those education initiatives.

Now, part of that needs to be coming fro within the education community.

They can be more efficient.

There's two bills out there.

One I've got would allow city school systems to combine or consolidate representative colleges.

Interest bill would allow counties do the same.

Right we have we have too many districts across the state, and it would make more sense for some of them to combine.

They can 138 we have 67 counties and 139 school districts.

Yeah.

And when you when you take the incremental growth, we have a year and you try to spread that among all the higher institutions and all the community colleges and all the school districts, the impact is just not that much.

So I think there's some things they can d inside the education community to become more efficient, more effective, stretch those dollars more what you do better.

And we want.

But but you're exactly right.

Where focus should be o improving educational outcomes.

Public schools, certainly.

We're going to continue to do that.

We added money to the Raise act this year.

We're going to continue to fund that school choice.

We've open that door.

School choice is going to grow nationwide.

It will grow, I'm sure, in the state how much I don't know.

The market will drive us and show us what that is.

We did put in the budget this year a $500,000 line item for a micro school grant program.

Micro schools are popping up across the country.

I can't even tell yo really what they what they do.

But the innovation, the flexibility, the customization that people have in their everyday lives, they want to see that same thing happen in public education or in education.

So I think we're trying to wrestle with that, but that's should be our priority, is educating our children and making sure that we're getting them into the even in the community college, in the higher ed that levels in the jobs that are high demand, into jobs where they can make good living in a jobs where they meet the demands and needs of the state.

So just to clarify, literacy, numeracy, raise all fully funded.

Yes.

Okay.

Well you you brought u school choice, the choose act.

I think it was how much money is it goin to cost from the ETF this year?

So we've appropriated $100 million.

Is the appropriation in the ETF now there's $150 million coming in.

Before we get to the money.

We appropriate that going into this account.

So there's $250 million that will be in that account.

But we are actually only appropriating from the budget $100 million now.

No, there are critics of that to say, hey, that's that's public money going to private schools.

How do you address those?

Well, first you have to understand or get it.

Just you accept the fact that we're not talking about financial aid.

We're talking about right now.

If I have a child and I'll just say trust for my district, and they moved to mountain Brook, the state money will follow that child a mountain brook.

What school choice is all about is the money following the child.

So if a parent who is in a private school is now going to take their money out of a public school, in the private school, the money would follow that child.

The state money would follow that child, their tax dollars would follow that child.

Now the state i the local district is not having to educate that child.

So that's kind of a wash on that front.

But the other thing I want to people focus on that and don't really embrace that concept.

That's fine.

But we there's so much attention on this $100 million coming out of this $10.5 billion budget.

And that would be the same as me saying that.

They're saying this is the reason education is under water, because that would be the same as me giving you $50,000 and saying, no, give me 600 back.

That's the magnitude.

There's plenty of money there.

And if they could be more efficient in how they utilize that money, that would not.

Again, my point is the school choice at this level at this point is not the problem that for a problem for public schools and again, the concern of you just have to accept the fact that the money is following the child.

And and that's just, that's, that's a, that's a wave that we're on in the country.

I don't think that's going to diminish, when based on the demand alone, it's obviously very popular.

Right.

But I know part of that law was there was an income threshold, right?

I guess for the first two years.

Is that going to come off?

Is that going to be like a budget question?

Is going to be a policy question when, when will we know when if?

Because universal means everybody.

So everyone who's in the program right now is under 300% of the poverty level.

And, that's, that's that's that's the that's the only people that can participate today.

Now going forward, the, the bill would say that anybody can apply is universal.

You're not limited just to that group.

Right.

But you are going to be limited to the amount of money we appropriate.

So if we only appropriate $100 million and you bring more people into it, you'll still have $100 million.

Is the amount in the program that kind of serves as a cap?

Yeah, it serves as a cap.

And so and and we've said in the law that there's a priority, obviously, for the peopl that are already in the program.

Do they have siblings in the program?

And there's other priorities in there.

So eventually I think the market's going to tell us how much demand above where we are now is, is is going to be required and how much of that do we want to meet?

Right now I think there's about 16,000 kids maybe that are participating in the program.

The numbers keep change.

We had like 31 time, 36,000 applications.

But when it all sorted out about 16 70,000 children, actually participate.

There's 720 something thousand in the public schools.

So that's kind of the magnitude.

We'll see it.

Yeah.

If it goes to 25,000 students, then we we would we would know how much money it would take to fund that.

But the point would be that, yes, there will be a universal in terms of, eligibility, but you're always going to be limited by what we appropriate.

And we're going to be very judicious about that appropriation.

Interesting.

Okay.

Well congratulations on getting ETF through the through the house.

It was I mean again unanimous that's that speaks to all the work done behind the scenes.

Right after that came the cheer act c h e r talk about this.

Bill.

This is the, I can't recal the exact name of the acronym, but it has to do with higher education, right?

Just like the Raise act was.

Bonu funding on top of the foundation program for K through 12 schools for student needs.

The Cheer act is basically going to give higher education institutions the opportunity to have bonus funds if they achieve certain outcomes.

It's outcome based funding, s we're not taking anything away.

It's additional money coming from the economic, the education reserve fund and they can if they meet certain goals that they've set, the they will get additional funds.

Know for trying to incentivize a little bit.

We're so we're trying to incentivize, you know, retention, you know graduation rates.

We're trying to incentivize jo degrees in high demand fields.

We're trying to incentivize degrees in high paying jobs.

We're trying to incentivize more first generation students.

We're trying to incentivize research, more research.

We're trying to incentivize, innovation.

If if schools can say, you know what, we got a way we can figure out to get student a degree in three years, as opposed to four years or two and a half years.

But we're trying to synthesize innovation.

So the point is we'll create this bucket of money, and then we have a we'll have a committee that's going to oversee all of this.

We will sit down individuall with each institution University of Alabama, Auburn, Troy you name it, each one of them.

And we'll look at each one and say, okay, here's the demands we have in the workforce.

Here's a workforce shortage we have, or here's something we need to do in your particular area.

We have a lot of students tha we need to bring into the fold.

We need firs generation, whatever, whatever.

Those things would be unique to each institution.

We will agree upon some goals and then they will will monitor that.

There'll be a lot of reporting, but if they achieve those goals, they will get additional money.

If they don't achieve the goals, they won't get the money, but they won't lose anything.

That's more carrot and stick.

Yeah.

And what we've done and again, this is something that's happening across the country is we'v model is after other legislation just again trying to make sure we're we're creating the the jobs in the workforce.

We need the state.

But also and keeping students in stat with the research institutions.

We want more research coming in.

So we want to kind of incentivize that more research dollars matched and whatnot.

But it's it's it's it's, a program that we're excited about.

And typically when you do this, you have to meet your goal before you get the money.

For the first couple of years, we're going to be pre funding tha because they need to get started now if we want them to this time next year, be into this on this path, on this road.

We can't wait till they get their money in October to start hiring people or doing what they need to do.

Yeah.

So we'll be pre funding some of this to make sure that they can get it to hit the road immediately.

And so we're excited about the opportunity.

We'll see where it goes.

But but the point i every institution is different.

Every institution has uniqueness.

And this will allow us to work with them, to give them opportunity to provide additional funding for something they can do they think can help the state or their area.

Yeah.

You know, I've done a lot of work on that bill.

So it's going to be interesting to see how it works.

So the baton is passed to the Senate.

ATF goes upstairs.

Your work is done for now.

All right.

Well, again, thanks for your time.

And we'll look forward to catching up, toward the end of session.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

And that's our show for this week.

Thanks for watching.

We'll be back next week, starting on Monday with more coverage of the Alabama Legislature.

Here on APT for our Capitol Journal team I'm Todd Stacey.

We'll see you next time.