Generational investment fund bill fails in Wyoming House of Representatives
CHEYENNE — A bill to create an investment fund that advocates have said could offset lost mineral revenue to the state has failed in the Wyoming House of Representatives.
Senate File 197, 'Wyoming generational investment account-2,' was not debated on the House floor by a Friday deadline for bills on general file, but an amendment to another bill to create the fund was debated on second reading Monday afternoon.
SF 197 would have created a perpetual trust fund with a $100 million transfer from the Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account (the state's 'rainy-day fund' — if available and based on a sliding scale dependent on funding in the LSRA — to the proposed Wyoming Generational Investment Account.
Bill sponsor Sen. Ogden Driskill, R-Devils Tower, said the program would have been rolled out in two phases: First, it would have created the structure needed to create the fund, and then it would have rolled out a constitutional amendment so that investment earnings would be distributed 30 years after the initial contribution.
'You have to create the fund, and then go to the people and make it an inviolate trust,' Driskill said.
Driskill said that while he was 'very disappointed' the bill did not hit the House floor by Friday night, he believed the idea would come back in a future session.
'It will come back, and I really believe it will come to fruition,' Driskill said.
Calculations based on historical earnings indicate the fund would be worth around $30 billion in 30 years, according to Wyoming State Treasurer Curt Meier's office. But Rep. John Bear, R-Gillette, recommended the idea become an interim topic for study by the Joint Appropriations Committee.
Meier said he believes there is support in the House for a constitutional amendment to create an inviolate trust, but an understanding of the bill and the program it would create 'was not there.' After the session, he said, he plans to conduct outreach to lawmakers and Wyoming residents about a generational investment account.
'We are going to go into areas where we didn't have a lot of support,' Meier said. 'We want to tell people the benefits of this idea.'
Waiting a year or two to create the program doesn't mean that any long-term investment like that proposed in SF 197 cannot be realized, he continued.
'It could still pay off, but it would just be a year or two later,' Meier said. 'But if you have that steady stream of income, it opens up a whole bunch of opportunities that we don't have today.'
Driskill said that SF 197 did include an effective date of three years out, so that leaders could agree on the framework of the program, but nonetheless, the measure did not make it past the House.
'We did that to have a chance to say, did we create the right framework? The right vehicle? And if we didn't, let's fix it,' he said. 'In the meantime, that would give us time to get ready to run a constitutional amendment.'
Even without the creation of a new inviolate trust for the state of Wyoming this session, Driskill said he believes such a trust is crucial because when funding is short, those investment accounts are limited in use.
In discussions this session about a Wyoming generational investment account, lawmakers have brought up the state's Permanent Mineral Trust Fund multiple times. According to the Wyoming Taxpayers Association, the PMTF was created in 1975 by a constitutional amendment that passed on the November 1974 ballot.
The history of the fund dates back to 1968, when the balance in Wyoming's bank account had dwindled to only $80. Then-Gov. Stan Hathaway drafted a bill to institute a severance tax on minerals in the state. Legislators were reluctant to bring forward his proposal, however. The bill passed by a narrow margin, creating the first severance tax on minerals in Wyoming.
Today, 30% of the state's general fund comes from interest on the PMTF, which has equated to a lower tax burden on residents.
'If we could have (spent) the Mineral Trust Fund, it probably would have been drawn down several times. I really feel strongly (a generational investment account) needs to be an inviolate trust,' Driskill said.
House debates the idea anyway
Monday afternoon, the House did have a chance to discuss the idea of a generational investment fund, although in a roundabout way. Rep. Steve Harshman, R-Casper, brought a second-reading amendment to Senate File 70, 'Investment modernization-state nonpermanent funds,' to create what he said was something similar to the fund under SF 197, but what he called an 'income tax prevention account.'
Harshman also sponsored House Bill 107, 'Wyoming generational investment account,' a mirror bill to SF 197. That bill was not heard in committee of the whole in the House by a Feb. 10 deadline.
'Really, this is a simple way for us to get our existing money working harder,' Harshman said about his amendment Monday.
Rep. Bob Nicholas, R-Cheyenne, said that in his eight years chairing the Appropriations Committee, he often faced discussion about impending budget shortfalls due to falling revenue from the coal, oil and gas industries. With that experience in mind, he said he would support Harshman's amendment.
'Our fundamental responsibility is to prepare for the future, for our kids and for their kids,' Nicholas said.
But Bear said on the floor that the idea was vetted in the House Appropriations Committee, and that a second-reading amendment on a different bill was not the right way to resurrect the idea. SF 70, he said, restricts spending from the Wyoming Wildlife and Natural Resource Trust Fund, and the Wyoming Cultural Trust Fund.
'Now, what we are talking about is actually bringing a bill in for a whole different purpose, that died earlier in this particular session,' Bear said.
Rep. Ann Lucas, R-Cheyenne, said she would oppose the amendment, because in addition to saving, the state must cut its spending.
'I've coached people on how to save money, and how to spend wisely,' Lucas said. 'I didn't hear anybody here say, 'Maybe we should cut spending some places.' I feel that no savings plan works without a controlled, reasonable spending plan.'
Harshman's amendment failed on a 35-22 vote Monday afternoon.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hamilton Spectator
2 hours ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson , Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission , according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.' __ Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Chicago Tribune
2 hours ago
- Chicago Tribune
President Donald Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission, according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, 'but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would 'direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.' Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!' the president said on social media. 'The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.'
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's go-it-alone strategy on Iran risks dividing an already split Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump's decision to launch a military strike on Iran's nuclear sites without fully consulting the U.S. Congress layered a partisan approach onto a risky action, particularly because the White House briefed top Republican leaders beforehand without doing the same for Democrats. While House Speaker Mike Johnson, Senate Republican leader John Thune and the GOP chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee were all briefed before the action, their counterparts were not. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer was given a perfunctory heads-up by the White House shortly before the strikes were made public. And House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries' office received a 'courtesy call' before Trump announced it. The so-called Gang of Eight congressional and intelligence leaders were not notified before the mission, according to two people familiar with the situation and granted anonymity to discuss it. One, Rep. Jim Himes, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said he learned of the strikes on social media, which he said 'is an uncomfortable thing for the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee.' 'Bad enough that we weren't informed,' Himes, of Connecticut, said Sunday on CNN, "but unconstitutional that we didn't have the opportunity to debate and speak, as the representatives of the people, on what is one of the more consequential foreign policy things that this country has done in a long time.' It's a highly unusual situation that is complicating the difficult politics ahead for the president and his party as the U.S. enters an uncertain national security era with the surprise military attack on the nuclear facilities, an unprecedented incursion in Iran. Trump faces a vote in Congress as soon as this week on a war powers resolution from Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., that would "direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress." Another resolution has been introduced by lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. House. And at least one Democrat, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, said Trump's actions are 'clearly grounds for impeachment.' At the same time, the Trump administration is expecting Congress to send an additional $350 billion in national security funds as part of the president's big tax breaks bill also heading soon for a vote. Senators are set to be briefed Tuesday behind closed doors on the situation in Iran. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Sunday that the White House made 'bipartisan courtesy calls' to congressional leadership. She said in a social media post that the White House spoke to Schumer 'before the strike' but that House leader Jeffries 'could not be reached until after, but he was briefed.' While the president has authority as the commander in chief of the U.S. armed forces to order specific military actions, any prolonged war-time footing would traditionally need authorization from Congress. The House and Senate authorized actions in Iraq, Afghanistan and beyond after the Sept. 11, 2001, attack. 'Congress should be consulted,' Kaine said on CBS' 'Face the Nation.' 'We were not.' As soon as Trump announced the actions late Saturday, he won swift support from the GOP leadership in Congress. Johnson, Thune and the Senate Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, were all briefed ahead of time and sent almost simultaneous statements backing the military campaign, as did the House Intelligence Committee chairman, Rep. Rick Crawford, also of Arkansas. But by apparently engaging with only one side of the political aisle, Trump risks saddling his Republican Party with political ownership of the military action against Iran, which may or may not prove popular with Americans. Rather than rally the country to his side, Trump risks cleaving its already deep divisions over his second term agenda. Johnson, who praised Trump's action against Iran as 'the right call,' said the president's targeted strike was within his authority and in line with past presidential actions. 'Leaders in Congress were aware of the urgency of this situation and the Commander-in-Chief evaluated that the imminent danger outweighed the time it would take for Congress to act,' Johnson, R-La., said on social media. Trump himself has shown little patience for political dissent from within his party, even as criticism rolls in from among his most trusted backers. The Iran military campaign threatens to splinter Trump's Make America Great Again movement, which powered his return to the White House. Many Trump supporters aligned with his campaign promises not to involve the United States in overseas actions and instead to be a peace-making president. 'I think I represent part of the coalition that elected Trump,' said Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on CBS. 'We were tired of endless wars in the Middle East.' Massie and Democratic Rep. Ro Khanna of California have introduced their own war powers resolution in the House, a sign of how close the far left and far right have bonded over their opposition to U.S. campaigns abroad, particularly in the Middle East. The Trump administration insisted Sunday the U.S. is not seeking a war with Iran. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' said Vice President JD Vance on NBC's 'Meet the Press.' And Trump swiftly attacked Massie, who is one of the most steadfast non-interventionist GOP lawmakers in Congress — along with Sen. Rand Paul, also of Kentucky — and the president suggested he would turn his Republican Party against the congressman. 'MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!" the president said on social media. "The good news is that we will have a wonderful American Patriot running against him in the Republican Primary, and I'll be out in Kentucky campaigning really hard.'
