Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
03/06/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB89 | |
| HJR38 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 38 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 38-US CONST AM: FEDERAL DEBT LIMIT
8:34:30 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced that the final order of business was
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38, Requesting the United States
Congress to call a Constitutional Convention to propose an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States requiring
approval of a majority of state legislatures to increase the
federal debt limit.
VICE CHAIR KELLER said Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution states
that the Constitution can be amended upon agreement of two-
thirds of the states. He said HJR 38 is an attempt to get that
agreement in terms of a debt limit increase.
8:35:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked if a constitutional convention would
open up all parts of the U.S. Constitution for possible
amendment.
VICE CHAIR KELLER offered his understanding that it would be
highly unlikely for that to happen, because the convention is
called for by two-thirds of the states for a particular purpose,
and the entire two-thirds would have to decide to change that
purpose. He said he would gather the information that convinced
him that there would be no run-away convention and share it with
committee members.
8:38:03 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
offered his understanding that there has never been a
Constitutional Convention called to amend the U.S. Constitution
since its inception. He proffered that any signs of a movement
by two-thirds of the states provide motivation for U.S.
Congress. In response to a follow-up question, he said a
similar resolution was proposed in 1982, but it was for a
balanced budget, which he said is different from a debt limit.
8:40:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN talked about the debate in Washington,
D.C., regarding whether to raise the debt limit, and he said one
of the arguments in favor of it had to do with the country's
credit rating. He said he agrees that "we" need to get debt
under control, but does not know that the best way to do that is
through an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which could spin
out of control.
8:43:01 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER challenged Representative Petersen to come up
with a hypothetical situation that would lead to a runaway
convention. He emphasized the indebtedness of the country and
the importance of engaging the states in this discussion.
8:44:31 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that if there
was a constitutional convention, then there are two ways it
could be addressed: a majority of the states or two-thirds of
the states would have to ratify.
VICE CHAIR KELLER indicated that that is not correct. He
deferred to Jim Pound.
8:45:24 AM
JIM POUND, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Keller, sponsor,
responded to Representative Seaton's comment. He offered his
understanding that 38 states initially would have to pass this
resolution or a resolution with similar language and submit it
to U.S. Congress, who would then call a constitutional
convention, which would be limited to the language in the
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the convention could
consider the topic in general or would have to adhere to the
specific language in the resolutions from the states.
MR. POUND said the convention would be limited to the language
submitted.
8:46:35 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER directed attention to language on page 3, line
3, which states that a federal debt limit increase "requires
approval from a majority of the legislatures of the separate
states".
8:46:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked for clarification as to the
meaning of "three fourths of the several states" within a
segment of Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution, which read as
follows:
shall call a convention for proposing amendments,
which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents
and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the
several states
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if the number 37 equals three-
fourths [of the states].
MR. POUND offered his understanding that it is 38. In response
to follow-up questions, he said at least four state legislatures
are working on similar resolutions, and a couple passed similar
resolutions last year.
8:48:28 AM
MR. POUND, in response to Representative Petersen, said the
ultimate goal of HJR 38 is to ensure that U.S. Congress would
have to get authority from the state legislatures to increase
the debt ceiling.
8:49:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that since not all state
legislatures meet at the same time of year, it may be possible
that some legislatures would have to be called back into session
to vote on raising the debt limit.
8:50:33 AM
MR. POUND indicated that the intent is that state legislatures
would take care of the issue during their normal session times.
VICE CHAIR KELLER said the purpose of the resolution is to make
it more difficult for [U.S. Congress] to raise the national debt
without representing the wishes of the people of the nation in
that regard. He indicated that HJR 38 would put a process in
place that is not as easy as the current one.
8:51:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he disagrees that the process to
raise the national debt over the last year was an easy one.
VICE CHAIR KELLER interjected that he meant easy by comparison.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON opined that the objective of HJR 38 is to
say that [the Alaska State Legislature] does not trust those
elected to Congress to be competent to "deal with the fiscal
realities of the time." He said the debt limit has been raised
two to three times in the last year, and he expressed concern
that HJR 38 would put forward a situation requiring automatic
default of the U.S. He stated that he does not see any
contingency plan in the resolution to address an emergency
situation. He said he agrees with the concept of constraining
expenditures, but he indicated that there are also changes to
the gross domestic product that effect revenues and, thus, the
national debt. He expressed appreciation of the dialogue taking
place, but said he foresees problems under HJR 38.
Representative Seaton said he would like [the committee] to
consider the cascading effect on Alaska and its bond rating if
there was a default by the federal government "because we failed
to increase the debt limit." He said he would like to hear
feedback from the Permanent Fund Division and the Department of
Revenue.
8:56:14 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER asked Representative Seaton if he was defining
default as what would happen if the debt limit was not
increased.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he believes the consequences of
states saying no would probably be default, because "we wouldn't
be paying on the bonds that we had issued."
VICE CHAIR KELLER said he disagrees. He said he also disagrees
with Representative Seaton's previous interpretation that HJR 38
implies that "we" have no trust in U.S. Congress. He stated
that while HJR 38 is "built on what Congress has done or has
failed to do" - the nation's debt is $16 trillion - its focus is
an attempt to give representation to the people of America.
8:58:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON responded that the people directly elect
their representation in Congress, so he would not want to say
"we" are the only representatives of the federal budget. He
continued as follows:
I understand that we're not specifying Congress in
here. Congress, of course, are ... the people we
elect to go deal with that problem, and so, if we're
needing to take that authority away from them, it
seems to be the only logical conclusion that we don't
think they're capable of making those considerations
the way we want to make them. But I'd also like to
say that ... as I see this, it would not be the people
that are going to be making the decision, but it's the
legislatures of the individual states. And so, it's
the states that are being represented and not the
people, because the direct lineup to the people is
electing the Congress then to deal with that.
9:00:09 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER responded that that is his point exactly. He
said HJR 38 would engage the power of the states in a decision
that affects every citizen; it puts some weight on the
sovereignty of states.
9:01:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON pointed out that [the language in the
second "WHEREAS" clause, beginning on page 2, line 13] calls for
a balanced budget.
VICE CHAIR KELLER acknowledged that a mistake was made, and an
amendment would be offered to delete that language from the
joint resolution.
9:01:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON, regarding Vice Chair Keller's previous
statement that a runaway constitutional convention is unlikely,
offered her understanding that the very reason there has yet to
be a constitutional convention is that many people are reluctant
to risk the possibility of adversely affecting the best
Constitution in the world. She offered an example of what she
called "a feeding frenzy" of amendments made to oil and gas
legislation once it reached the House floor in the Alaska State
Legislature.
9:04:42 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER responded that he thinks Representative P.
Wilson is envisioning that representatives from all the states
would be together where they could change "this," but said he
does not think that would be possible. He said, "If we pass
this, and two-thirds of the states pass this, it's a very narrow
channel that it goes down. And I just don't believe there's a
scenario where it could be changed without convincing all two-
thirds ..., and that would be a formidable task."
9:06:02 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that a majority of the states have
already passed equal rights amendments, and he said he thinks
that issue could easily be put on the agenda if a constitutional
convention was held. The states that had not already ratified
an equal rights amendment would not be able to block the
majority of the states that already have.
VICE CHAIR KELLER said he will try to get a representative of
the Goldwater Institute, an entity that has been working on this
issue, to testify before the committee and talk about the
consistency of wording.
9:07:48 AM
MR. POUND directed attention to language on page 3, [lines 4-7],
which read as follows:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the amendments convention
requested by this resolution be limited to the subject
matter of proposing for ratification an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States providing that
an increase in the federal debt requires approval from
a majority of the legislatures of the separate states;
and be it
MR. POUND said, "This is a single-subject constitutional
convention."
9:08:36 AM
MR. POUND, in response to Representative P. Wilson, said this
resolution has come from the Goldwater Institute, and it will be
discussed by other legislatures. He said, "What we approve here
has to be approved in 37 other states with the exact same
language."
VICE CHAIR KELLER, in response to Representative P. Wilson,
offered an explanation as to why the aforementioned mistake was
in the joint resolution. He emphasized that the most important
part of the joint resolution contains the "BE IT RESOLVED"
language.
MR. POUND added to the explanation.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if each state would craft its own
"WHEREAS" clauses, but the language following "BE IT RESOLVED"
would be the same.
VICE CHAIR KELLER stated his preference is to have "the expert"
answer that question at the next hearing.
9:11:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON directed attention to language on page
3, lines 12-13, which read as follows:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature urges the legislatures of the other 49
states to make the same application.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON ventured the language should be changed
to accurately reflect that some states have already adopted
similar resolutions.
MR. POUND characterized the number as a moving target.
9:12:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN ventured that if U.S. Congress was
backed into a corner, it might have to raise taxes extremely
high in order to avoid going over the debt limit, which would
throw the country into further recession.
9:13:29 AM
MR. POUND suggested that the other option is that [U.S.
Congress] might cut the budget spending.
VICE CHAIR KELLER said he cannot imagine "raising taxes to make
us prosperous."
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he offered that example to show
that unintended consequences could happen.
9:14:05 AM
SHEILA FINKENBINDER, Juneau, Alaska, testifying on behalf of
herself, said she agrees with the premise of the proposed joint
resolution that the federal government should be asked to deal
with the budget; however, she said she disagrees with calling
for a constitutional convention. She quoted a representative of
the National Conference of State Legislatures as having said,
"The U.S. Constitution does not - and Congress has not -
established a process by which a constitutional convention [is
called] upon 'the application of the legislatures of two-thirds
of the federal states'." Ms. Finkenbinder said that as a
result, a number of legal issues arise, which center around
these points: The identicalness of the petitions; the scope and
limitations of a constitutional convention ...; the validity of
any recisions of petitions by state legislatures ...; the
contemporaneousness of the petitions ...; and the proper
enactment and submission of the petitions by state legislature.
MS. FINKENBINDER said that in her research, she found just as
many studies showing the risk in calling for a constitutional
convention as those supporting doing so. She directed attention
to language of the first "FURTHER RESOLVED", beginning on page
2, line 30, through page 3, line 3, and asked the committee to
consider changing the language to urge Congress "to create an
amendment to the constitution of the United States that provides
that an increase in the federal debt limit require approval from
a majority of the legislatures of the separate states". She
said that would still allow the states to have input and gives
the message to Congress to recognize that Alaska is asking it to
deal with the federal budget.
9:17:46 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER asked Ms. Finkenbinder to keep an open mind as
she sees new information. He explained, "I started where you
are, but I have become convinced."
9:18:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered an analogy wherein municipalities
of the state would pass a resolution allowing the legislators of
the state to take money out of the Capital Budget Reserve (CBR)
to fund the state's budget.
9:20:25 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER said that is a good analogy, but
municipalities don't have constitutions and don't claim to be
sovereign.
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON admitted that it was not a perfect
analogy, but said it illustrates having someone not involved
with the budget make decisions regarding it.
[HJR 38 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR038A.PDF |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 02 HJR 38 Sponsor.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 03 HJR 38 Consti Art V.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 04 HJR 38 FED DEBT Hist.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 05 HJR 38 Pres. budget Costs.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 06 HJR 38 1982 Resolution.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 07 HJR 38 1997 resolution.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |
| 08 HJR 38 LEG HSTA Zero Fiscal Note 3-1-12.pdf |
HSTA 3/6/2012 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 38 |