Alaska’s US Rep. Begich: ‘No doubt’ before vote on big congressional budget bill

Alaska’s lone member of the U.S. House of Representatives said Thursday that he had “no doubt” that he was going to vote for the Republican-drafted budget bill that passed the House on a 218-214 vote Thursday.

In a phone call after the vote Rep. Nick Begich III, R-Alaska, said he was pleased that it provides additional opportunities for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, and Cook Inlet. 

“I think the bill has some incredible provisions for Alaska. We have been trying for decades to unlock the energy potential of our state, and this bill does that,” Begich said. “There’s 30 million acres mandated as a minimum lease sale amount in ANWR, NPR-A and the Cook Inlet that gives us the oil and gas that we need to refill our our state coffers, ensure that the Permanent Fund is well funded into the future, that we can continue to pay PFDs well into the future.”

Begich had proposed that 90% of federal revenue from federal leases in those areas be returned to the state. The final version of the bill will send 70%, starting in 2034. 

Current state law distributes money from the existing 50-50 split to the state general fund, primarily for use in North Slope communities. The new split increases the amount of money available for those uses.

In an interview with reporters on Wednesday, Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, said he believes no state fared better than Alaska in the negotiations around the bill.

“I think it is true when you look at just the pure acreage (available for oil leasing). Just on this one provision alone, Alaska stands to gain tremendously,” Begich said.

Most criticism of the bill has focused on its effects on Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a progressive think tank opposed to the bill, estimated that 35,000 Alaskans would lose health insurance if the bill becomes law, both from Medicaid cuts and from scaled-back tax credits used to pay for individual policies.

In a town hall meeting Wednesday night, State Rep. Genevieve Mina, D-Anchorage, said she estimates the bill will add $100 million to $200 million in Medicaid costs to the state, and SNAP changes will require the state to pay up to $50 million per year within a few years.

The bill increases the size of a rural hospital fund, which will send $200 million to $300 million to Alaska, Sens. Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said on Tuesday. 

“There’s a lot of uncertainty with a new program,” Mina said, “whereas Medicaid has reliably funded our rural areas and supported our communities and has been a fabric of our health care economy for so long.”

She also pointed out that the bill creates a work requirement for Medicaid.

“Given the fact that we already know so many Alaskans who are behind on their SNAP and Medicaid benefits for months, this is going to add more paperwork and bureaucracy for our state, but then also for people on the ground, they’re going to be kicked off of Medicaid because of additional paperwork, even though folks are working,” she said.

Asked whether he thinks Alaska will be entirely shielded from the effects of those cuts, Begich implied that the answer is no, but he believes “we have significant runway that’s been provided for Alaska” via various sections of the bill.

“Traditional recipients of Medicaid will continue to receive the same benefits that they deserve to receive. There are no changes to the traditional Medicaid system,” Begich said.

When it comes to the work requirement, there are “exclusions for folks who are caregivers to family members, for folks who are looking for work but haven’t found it yet, for folks who are in counties or boroughs with more than one and a half times the national average unemployment rate. It has exclusions for people who volunteer 20 hours a week.”

“If someone is able to work or contribute in some way, even volunteer, they should do that. And I think that’s a smart provision. It’s a provision that’s really targeted, and it’s been designed just for that sub-population of folks who could be helping and are not currently doing so,” he said.

During his campaign for U.S. House in 2024, Begich told the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce that Alaskans should expect him to seek less federal spending because he is concerned about the size of the national debt. 

The Congressional Budget Office expects the new budget bill to increase the federal debt by more than $3.4 trillion over the next 10 years.

“Well, I think I would dispute that,” Begich said, explaining that he believes the CBO is underestimating economic growth that will take place because of the tax cuts within the bill.

“We’re on the cusp of an AI revolution, a robotics revolution, tremendous gains are on the horizon for labor productivity. We’re seeing the labor market remain strong. … I think the challenge with the CBO and some of the other models is that they’re scoring the assumptive growth rate exceptionally low.”

The 2017 federal tax cuts being extended by the new bill have thus far failed to create growth necessary to balance the deficits they created.

Begich said he’s been a strong supporter of the budget bill since even before it was proposed at the start of the new Congress.

“There was no doubt I was going to vote for this bill,” he said. “I started working on this bill before I was even sworn into Congress. I approached leadership when it looked like we were going to win this seat. And I told them, budget reconciliation is around the corner.”

Begich said that House leaders tried to reassure him that ANWR drilling provisions would be in the bill, but he advocated more drilling, in NPR-A and Cook Inlet, and additional provisions to support mining and logging.

“So when this bill came back from the Senate, I was enthusiastically supporting it, and I told others in the House that this is an important priority for us, certainly, but it’s really important for the rest of the nation,” Begich said.

Correction: The initial version of this article incorrectly explained the future split of federal and state revenue from oil production on federal land on the North Slope. That paragraph has been updated.