Moderator: Welcome to Capitol Chat. Our guest today is state Republican Rep. Gary Alexander. His district includes southern Thurston County and all of Lewis County. Alexander is the ranking Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, which handles the state budget.

Gov. Christine Gregoire has proposed to close an estimated $1.6 billion gap between projected expenses and tax revenue by spending some reserves, changing the state employee pension plan, raising the cigarette tax by 20 cents per pack now and another 60 cents later, and reinstating the estate tax at a higher level, beginning with estates worth $2 million or more.

Moderator: In the big picture, what do you think of Gregoire's budget?

Alexander: I think it looks a lot like budget's we've seen before. It doesn't have a sustainable level and borrows from the reserve account to the tune of over $400 million dollars. And it increases taxes. These are taxes that have an impact on the economy. The taxes from both tobacco consumption and the estate tax -- which was not a well received tax when first implemented, the courts have found that was not in line with what the direction the federal government was taking -- they repealed it and now we are reinstating it at a higher threshold. People feel they are paying taxes not once or twice, but three times now, even after death. I think we'll be back in a short time addressing the same issues we are today.

Moderator: Will you support the taxes the governor has proposed, or a version of them?

Alexander: I can't support the taxes the governor is requesting. I don't believe they are fair taxes. I believe they will have a detrimental effect on economic recovery, and so I feel we can manage this budget within existing resources and I will provide alternatives if given a chance. She did do some things that were positive, like the elimination of 1,000 middle-management positions. The growth in that part of the budget has been more than inflationary.

I'm also pleased she reinstituted monies for mental health where the waiver was not provided by the federal government. That's the most vulerable of our population and they need government support. I'm also pleased she limited the tuition increase to five percent instead of the 9 percent that Gov. Locke had wanted, and she tied the full funding of financial aid to the increase.

Susan, Olympia: Since you had everything to do with getting the public facilities district legislation passed for our region, you must be very
frustrated, as I and so many other business people are, at how sideways this issue has gone in the past three to four years! It started with a (planned) conference center to try and draw revenue from the area's location on I-5, and, now we are thinking of building a glorified day care center, another swimming pool or soccer fields, none of which provide revenue from outside the area. Please give us a background and your opinion as to where you think we should go from here.

Alexander: Well thank you for that quesiton Susan, I am frustrated. A little history: Olympia was one of the five original projects considered when the public faciliity district proposal was put together to allow a sales tax credit to finance convention and conference facilities in the state. Olympia was considered a significant location for one of those conference facilities.

I did a study seven or eight years ago to look at benefits and costs of undertaking a convention center in Olympia. The legislation was prepared, the project revised, and we took in public testimony. And during the testimony the public indicated two projects that warranted the money: One was the convention/conference facility, and the second was a youth sports facility in Lacey.

A lot of time had already elapsed and there were specific dates needed to be met in the legislation. Since that date was getting precariously close. we asked for an extension from the Legislature to ensure construction and design would take place before that date, and we got another year. A number of frustrating things occured: changes in scope, cost, and then the city council decided not to embrace the project.

Now we're out there looking at alternative projects with the understanding we don't want to give the money back, so there must be other beneficial ways to spend the money. I'm glad they are involving public input again but I hope they keep under consideration that any project they select needs to keep in mind the criteria that drove this project. Economic growth, that was the purpose of the legislation, and I hope that that's where the accountablility will rest in the final selection.

Tom, Lacey: With all the fuss over same-sex marriages, I think the real point is being missed. Its not about Christian norms, it's about the right to publicly state that they are a couple and want to share their lives together. I am a straight male, but when I had a heart attack my live-in girlfriend was refused the right to visit me in the intensive care and to make decisions for me. These rights are refused to gay couples with long-term commitments. Do you think those rights should be given to gay couples, and why or why not?

Alexander: Thank you, Tom, for the question. No, I don't. Let me explain. I really believe that. A marriage is between a man and a woman. I've been reading the current court decisions that upheld that decision and I believe that is the recognition of what marriage should be. Having said that, do I have any problems with other arrangements for people of same sex contractually sharing life together? No. But as far as providing legal sanction of the term marriage, I believe that's betwen man and a woman and I've voted as such in the Legislature.

Moderator: Which way are the political winds blowing on same-sex marriage? Is the Legislature waiting for the court's decision?

Alexander: It's always hard for me, being in the minority, to know which way the wind is blowing. But I would expect this is not a dead issue in the Legislature. We'll be receiving proposals to change the definition. I would prefer the decision be left to the courts and we not change the decision by Legislation. I don't expect it to be a dead issue.

John, Olympia: How do Republicans reconcile their faith in Christ with policies that hurt the poor, such as cutting people off state medical insurance in order to keep taxes low for people who have decent jobs. How is it Christian to make life harder for poor people?

Alexander: John, I don't belive there's any relationship between faith, Christianity, and where we place priorities in the budget. We recognize, whether Republicans or Democrats, that our responsiblity is to help those who are least able to take care of themselves. That includes children and vulnerable populations like those with mental illnesses, disabilities, the elderly or those needed nursing or long-term care services.

I accept that responsibility, but we have one of the fastest growing welfare programs in the nation. At a time when the budget situation is tight we have to put dollars where they have the most significant impact, and that means the most vulnerable of our populations.

Richard, Oak Harbor: Democrats are always talking about helping the poor. My question is why aren't the Republicans out there blasting them on the fact that the very programs they pass hurt the poor more then anything else? Growth management, for example, made affordable
housing for the poor non-existent. Cigarette taxes also hit the poor more than others.

Alexander: Thanks for question Richard. I don't believe blasting is a good technique. Sometimes we feel that's the way the other side addresses issues to us. From my perspective, I try to use statistics, documentation, issues of process and prioritization to determine where our money should go. I believe as you indicate that there have been laws, like regulatory increases in growth management and taxes, that unfairly burden the poor, and it's my role as ranking Republican on the committee to point those out as we go forward in the budget process.

Gail, Olympia: What do you think about so many state employees filing petitions to decertify their unions? Do you think the unions are truly representing the majority of state employees? And could we do without them and still be able to get raises, etc.?

Alexander: Gail, thanks for the interesting question. I've received a great number of e-mails during this session on the frustrations of state employees who feel they didn't have a vote in representation for collective bargaining. I believe our state employees are entitled to increase in compensation. It's been four years. But I would expect that compensation to be applied to individuals whether part of a union or not. I'll be looking for equalization. I want to see people feel they have representation in their Legislature whether they are part of a union or not, and hopefully they'll have freedom of choice. I protect that freedom of choice.

Moderator: You serve on the pension policy committee. What do you think of the governor's plan to save more than $500 million by changing state worker's pensions?

Alexander: That's probably one of the most controversial issues in the governor's budget now. The select committee on pension policy worked hard to find common ground on the pension issue. We recognize there needed to be some extending of the full brunt of the increase in contributions out over some period of time, that we needed to phase in this increase, and there was commmonality over that. We also recognize the gain-sharing was a long-term commitment many of us don't share. It would be a future cost even when the economy was down, so some ability to eliminate gain-sharing was worthwhile policy.

However, the fact that there would be no benefit return to our members for doing that and that the government would apply different methodolgy for gain rates, one that doesn't even make sure employees pay their pension reates before they retire ... I don't think it's good policy. I understand it saves $500 million, but you have to do it right. Many believe the change in pension is what's being used to pay their salary increase. It's taking away with one hand and giving back with the other.

Andrea, Tumwater: The high cost of prescription drugs is a huge problem. The drug companies are unaccountable for what prices they charge. One of my medications, a generic brand which had been out for 40 years, jumped in price from $54 a month to $134 a month within 30 days last year. Do you support legislation (SB 5471) that will use our bulk buying power to negotiate lower, more reasonable, prices for prescriptions?

Alexander: Thank you, Andrea, for that question. There's some very serious misgivings in the prescription drug issue. There's nothing that precludes any individual from going to Canada to purchase drugs. What is illegal is to licence Canadian pharmacies, manufacturers or wholesalers to purchase bulk drugs from Canada and bring them to Washington via government authorization of that purchase. That has been declared illegal by the DEA and they are enforcing that in other states purchasing that way. I don't think we should do something illegal.

We requested a waiver, and if we get it, lets move forward, but let's make sure it's safe. I think that's important. I've requested 11 times to get info about what cost savings Senate bil 5471 would produce based on those produced by a previous bill passed that allowed that for state agencies to make bulk purchases of Canadian drugs, and the savings was very, very minimal, so extending this to local governments and labor organizations ... I just don't believe we'll see the savings. There's other plans out there being offered by U.S. companies that give better savings, sometimes up to 40 to 60 percent, and we should look at these other options before doing something unlawful that won't create the results anticipated.

Dan, Grand Mound: Three years ago there were 160,000 slots in the Basic Health Plan. Today there are only 100,000, while at the same time there over 700,000 uninsured people, like me, in our state. When folks can't afford health insurance, we have to rely on clinic and emergency room care instead of cheaper preventative medicine and regular checkups. An improved system would have prevented my recent $6,000-plus visit to the emergency room (in the end only to be diagnosed that I needed Aspirin). Can we count on you to prioritize funding for health care as we begin discussions around our state budget?

Alexander: Thanks for that question, Dan. Yes, you can count on me to prioritize it. And the first place we need emphasis on is providing alternative insurance programs for our businesses. A government-run system won't be the most cost effective solution. We need to give our businesses the ability to use different insurance plans for different needs.

This will stop people from going to emergency rooms because it's the only way they can get help. The other solution is health savings accounts, which have worked in other states. I look forward to finding a long-term health care solution. I don't think Gov. Gregoire's or Gov. Locke's budgets have a solution that does that.

Moderator: There was some indication by Democrats early on in session that they were open to some sort of savings account plan.

Alexander: They passed the house bill sponsored by Rep. Condotta off the floor. We heard the companion bill sponsored by Parlette and Regalla and I expect we'll be passing that bill on health care this week. This would at least extend health savings accounts to state employees, and that's the first step in demonstrating it is benefiicial and then we'll extend that onto the private sector as well.

Liz, Centralia: Last August, a Clear the Air report came out about the high amount of mercury found in fish in lakes in the Yakima area. Much of the mercury came from the TransAlta Centralia Generation/Mining coal-powered power plant, which is the state's is the single-biggest source of mercury pollution. I live in Centralia, and since reading this I have worried about this pollution being in me and my baby. What is your opinion about this, and what are you willing to do about the issue?

Alexander: Thank you, Liz, for the question. We are looking at the mercury content. We passed a bill in 1997 to try to put into place pollution control apparatus at the Centralia coal mine while keeping the mine open as the one of most important employers in the area. The scrubbers are in place and the polution is down considerably and they have systems to measure the mercury content. My seatmate, Rep. Richard Debolt, works for the compnay, and we'll try to give a report on how the company is responding. But they are environmentally concerned and we expect a response in the near future.

Allyn, Centralia: What do you think about the proposal by Sen. Swecker to raise our gas tax by one cent every year for the next 20 years?

Alexander: Thank you for question. Sen. Swecker, as you know serves as ranking Republican on the transportation committee. This is a strong issue for him since he started in the Legislature. He has several trasnport plans, included a dedicated truck route. He feels some graduated increase in revenue over time with some predictability will allow for the expansion of our transportation system.

I have a lot of respect for Swecker and we have a lot of common issues, but this is one where I'm concerned whether or not we're at a state when we can sustain gas taxes, being in a state with one of the highest tax costs in the country. If we need a level of increased taxes I would expect they should be focused on projects in and around King County, which have severe issues and should be up to the people in that jurisdiction to suport with a tax increase.

Moderator: How likely are we to see some sort of gas tax increase this session?

Alexander: We've heard from the Democratic majority in both houses that they are considering a tax increase package for transportation that would include a gas tax. I expect to see a proposal, but I was pleased Gregoire didn't have a gas tax in her budget.

I hear concern from my constituents about how much it currently costs to go to the punp and I think they would let me know their concern loud and clear if we increase that amount with additional gas taxes.

Joyce, Olympia: I'm so outraged with the death of Jessica Lunsford! (Moderator: Lunsford, a 9-year-old Florida girl, was murdered this month, and police suspect a registered sex offender abducted, assaulted and killed her.) What are legislators going to do about all the sex offenders in our state? What does it take to get not GPS bracelets but chips put into these sex offenders? Why isn't the online information about these offenders more detailed and posted in a more timely manner?

Alexander: Joyce, thanks. To the last part of your question, it should be. There's a number of proposals this session to improve the comunication that goes on when a sex offender is released or moves into a jurisdiction, and to improve communication between law enforcement organizations that currently is not there.

I can recall when a sex offender was released in my community. The outcry was long and loud and the concern is placing these offenders in or near community facilities where there are children like shcools and churches. I will do whatever I can do to make things tougher for sex offenders to locate in our community, and if they commit offense like the one in Florida I would hope we put those people away for a long time if not forever.

Moderator: To paraphrase a question from Mike in Lacey, can the governor really predict she will get $129 million from the estate tax without knowing who will die and transfer their estates?

Alexander: It's very interesting the fiscal estimates that have been proposed for the revenue granted by the estate death tax and by the cigarette tax. The $129 million is a guess on what number of people with assests over $2 million wil be passing away over next several months. I've received a significant number of e-mails and letters from my constituents upset about reinstatement of this tax.

This is not only a tax on death -- if you are a smoker it's a double tax -- but also it hampers living employers. Basically if their assests are in that vicinity and they want to expand assets, the lending and bonding companies take into consideration the estate tax before their capitalization. As far as cigarette taxes go, we're talking about 20 cents ratcheting up to 80 cents over four years, the greatest tax on packs in the country. I just see that as increase contriband, people driving over the border into Idaho or Oregon, or going onto reservations, to purchase their products. I expect the elasticity of those revenues to be much greater than the governor estimated, making a reduction in revenues and putting us right back in this situation more quickly, with an unballanced budget.

Walter, Olympia: What are your priorities for the Capitol budget?

Alexander: Thanks, Walter. I don't sit on the Capitol budget this session. With my new role as ranking Republican on the appropriations committee, I felt I couldn't undertake three committees. My seatmate, Richard Debolt, is on Capitol budget and I'm communicating with Frank Jarret, our ranking Republican on the committee.

I want to fund those projects that have received previous comittments. Heritage park is one of those, as is continued funding for the Veterans Museum in Lewis County, a positive project. There's also a tourism project in Morton. There aren't a great deal of Capitol projects in terms of dollars, but I pointed out those with most significance. I am concerned if we see state debt grow until more and more of our revenues will go to pay debt service costs, reducing the available money for education and health care and other needs of our state. There are some very important higher education projects in this budget that should continue as well -- the Evans library building at The Evergreen State College, and two major science buildings, one at South Puget Sound Community College and one at Centralia College.

Cheryl, Tumwater: What are your feelings regarding life support systems or feeding tubes? Does our government have a right to make decisions concerning these issues?

Alexander: Cheryl, that's a very timely question. As a legislator, my wife doesn't ask too many things, but this issues has made her frustrated and mad. She would like me to at least send a message, which I intend to do. I do not have a medical or legal background, but I feel there's a difference between a life support system and a feeding system. I believe that this woman should receive the ability to eat and drink through a feeding mechanism and I believe she's demonsterated, from what I've seen on TV, the ability to respond, and I think it's very unfair to allow her to die without an attempt to allow her to continue her life.

Kim, Olympia: Does the Republican Party support government control of a man's reproductive freedom? If not, why not?

Alexander: Kim, let me just say that from my standpoint, the abortion question is one I don't believe belongs in a legislative setting. I don't believe I'm in a position to intelligently respond and I believe it should be left to the courts, and that has been my position since I began in the Legislature. When I voted on issues like partial-birth abortion, I tried to do as much research as possible into what that means and I tried to make the best decision I could, but I really don't believe this is the setting.

Moderator: Do you think women should be allowed to have abortions?

Alexander: I believe it's their situation, between them and their family and their doctor, and they currently have that legal right.

Moderator: What's the status of the Capitol budget?

Alexander: I expect we'll do a supplemental budget today. I expect the Capitol budget to be introdcuced later this week in the House, maybe early next week, and the Senate will have an operating budget out the next Monday. They're getting closer to some sort of agreement.

Moderator: We've heard a lot about the governor's budget. If you were writing the budget yourself, what would we see?

Alexander: You would see more emphasis on reducing government services. Even some very large areas, such as government assistance to the umemployed. There would be more emphasis on reduction of services and prioritizations on government services, and less gimmicks of transfering money between accounts or sapping reserves. You wouldn't see any new taxes.

Moderator: Well, that about wraps it up for us today. Any last thoughts or words you'd like to share?

Alexander: My last words are that I think this has been a very positive process and I've got nothing but positive comments on having different government officials on this chat. It gives us the chance to hear from constituents and people in the community and it helps us get our message out to them, so thank you for this opportunity.

Moderator: Thanks spending so much time with us today.

Moderator: Join us next Wedensday at noon, when we'll chat with Sen. Karen Fraser, D-Thurston County.