House Joint Resolution 31--which would implement the proposal--was moved out by members of the House Special Committee on Ways and Means after a placid meeting Wednesday morning, the committee's third on the measure. The resolution will be subject to more debate in its next stop, the House State Affairs Committee, according to State Affairs chair Rep. Bruce Weyhrauch, R-Juneau.

 "Ways and Means is theoretically sort of a dry committee; we discuss ways to close the fiscal gap," said Weyhrauch, who is also vice-chair of Ways and Means. "State Affairs is a more policy-based committee, and there you do get more heated policy arguments."

 Holm's proposal would give one-time payouts of $20,000 to every person eligible for the dividends paid in 2004. The payout would cost about $12 billion, leaving more than $16 billion in the fund based on its current value.

 The dividend program would then end and the money left in the fund would be used to support state services. Each year the state could utilize up to 5 percent of the five-year average value of the fund. That would give the state access to about $800 million a year to start. And since the fund has an average annual growth of about 8 percent, it would automatically grow to keep pace with inflation. 

The proposal would have to be passed by two-thirds of the members of each body of the Legislature, then by a popular vote in November. 

Holm argued that the plan would both entice voters into supporting the use of fund money for state services and would also give them a chance to use the payout to make major strides in their lives and make investments of their own.

 Only one amendment was offered by the committee on Wednesday. Rep. Dan Ogg, R-Kodiak, proposed only paying out $10,000 dividends and using $6 billion from the remainder to create an education fund separate from the permanent fund. 

But Ogg withdrew the amendment after Holm questioned the idea of creating a dedicated fund. Such funds are prohibited by the state constitution, on the grounds that they can lead to inequitable funding of different areas of state services. 

"Once we attack our constitution in that manner, then I just think its going to be problematic," Holm said.

 Despite the far-reaching nature of the bill, only one caller testified at the 7 a.m. meeting. Roger Gay of Big Lake spoke against Holm's plan.

 "I think the permanent fund checks have a beneficial effect on the economy of Alaska and for that reason I do not think we should quickly do away with the program," he said. "I'd like to ask how do you think we can offset losing that boost to our fall and winter economy."

 Though there was no other testimony, Holm presented the panel with several dozen e-mails received by his office specifically about his proposal, the vast majority of them supportive.

 Holm, like other legislators, has also received a number of form e-mails asking him not to change the dividend program.

 The committee voted to move the resolution after a few minutes of discussion, though committee chair Rep. Mike Hawker, R-Anchorage, stressed that the committee's action does not mean members necessarily endorse it or would vote for it on the House floor. Hawker himself hasn't endorsed the idea, but said he believes the bill merits more discussion.

 "I am absolutely convinced that this is meritorious of additional debate, additional consideration, and competing debate with other proposals that directly address what role will the permanent fund play in the future fiscal policy of the state of Alaska."

 Weyhrauch had similar sentiments, saying he sees some merit in the idea and supports moving it through the committee process. He said he foresees a "huge problem" in getting the bill through the Legislature, but that he will give it a hearing in State Affairs if Holm requests one.

 The resolution has also been referred to the House Judiciary and Finance committees. Were it to make it through the House it would be moved on to the Senate. Senate President Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, said Wednesday he hasn't sensed much support for the bill. Therriault said he personally objects to the proposition, arguing that the proposal would shortchange future Alaskans in favor of the current generation.