Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/11/1995 10:02 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 02/11/95 HJR 20 - CONFERENCE OF THE STATES Number 015 WAYNE MALONEY, staff assistant to Representative Barnes, read the following statement regarding HJR 20: HJR 20 authorizes the State of Alaska to send an official delegation to a conference of the states to be held later this year or in 1996. The conference would be the first formal meeting of the 50 states since 1786. Delegates from all 50 states would debate and vote on an action plan designated to restore the checks and balances between the states and the federal government guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. While this action plan would not be binding on the federal government, it would be impossible for Congress or the President to ignore. The conference would receive national and international media attention, and action taken would have to be considered by the federal government. The conference would occur no later than nine months after a total of 26 states pass resolutions like the one before you today. Seven states, including Kentucky, Utah, Arkansas, Delaware, Iowa, Missouri, and Virginia have already approved this resolution, and it is under consideration by most of the other states in the union this year. Under the terms of the resolution, the Governor and four lawmakers, two from each house, will be voting delegates on behalf of Alaska at this conference, and if each of the 50 states sends a delegation as expected there would be a total of 250 voting members. Congress would be encouraged to send people to the conference, but members of Congress would not be permitted to vote. This is a national initiative, being organized by the Council of State Governments in Cooperative with the National Conference of State Legislators and the National Governors' Association. It enjoys broad bipartisan support from both political parties and is also backed by the Knowles Administration here in this state. This resolution is an important step toward restoring the balances to government envisioned by the Tenth Amendment, and on behalf of Representative Barnes I would ask you to pass it from committee today. Number 070 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Mr. Maloney if he saw any conflict due to the many Tenth Amendment bills and resolutions that have been submitted, and whether he saw HJR 20 as a supplement to these. MR. MALONEY replied that the other bills assert the states' rights under the constitution, and that HJR 20 is a more "friendly" attempt to assert states' rights as well, under the convention format, which is a gathering of the states to discuss the pros and cons of an action plan designed to put the states on a more equal footing with the federal government in terms of policy. Number 105 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN stated that Representative Ogan's bill and those submitted by some others were tailored toward Tenth Amendment attitudes prevailing in some of the western states, and asked if HJR 20 would be a supplement to this, or an alternate course. MR. MALONEY replied that the convention would be an opportunity for all 50 states to get together "under extreme media attention" to debate the issue of states' rights under the Tenth Amendment. He added though resolutions are important, many states pass them every year; and this convention would focus media attention and public debate nationwide on the rights of the states. Number 146 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced concern that joining with all 50 states would dissipate the energies and the force of the message given by just the western states. MR. MALONEY said he didn't see that happening, because the idea was not to thwart any other attempts but to formulate and present an action plan in a politically positive way. Number 185 CHAIR JAMES shared her concerns about HJR 20; the biggest one being that it looks like a "feel good" solution, a "media hype"; and though the convention is not designed to be a constitutional convention, she does not necessarily trust what would be done as a result of five designated representatives determining their own agenda when they get there, which might differ from what Alaska as a state might actually want. She also feared that delegates might return with a directive to petition for a constitutional amendment or a constitutional convention. The only difference she sees between HJR 20 and SJR 7 which was passed on the House floor the previous day, is that HJR 20 proposes a conference of states; the other one does not. The message has already been sent via SJR 7. She added that HJR 20 had a fiscal note of $11,000, and she suspects that is not adequate to cover the cost of sending five people to a convention of states. She summarized that HJR 20 seems like just a media exercise and she hesitates to think that any real solutions will come out of it, but that if it does pass she will give her support to the delegates. Number 317 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said he holds the Constitution in high regard, and there is nothing wrong with it other than the fact that it is not being interpreted as our forefathers wrote it. He said he shares the concern that a convention of states could turn into a constitution convention or a preamble for one. Number 340 MR. MALONEY said his understanding is that the National Conference of State Legislators wanted the resolution passed in identical form by all 50 states; that the resolution could in no may be construed as a constitutional convention or lead to one, but rather it is a way to relieve pressure for a constitutional convention. He read from a handout from former Mayor Tom Fink: "The legislation that Congress is considering is a big step forward, but by itself it does not go far enough. The bills passed by the House and the Senate are quite limited. They only affect future legislation and leave all existing unfunded mandates in force. The bill will end up exempting some federal laws from the unfunded mandates prohibition." He added there is a $50 million cap in one version of the federal law, and a $100 million cap in the other version of the federal law, meaning unfunded federal mandates could continue to be passed as long as they were below that threshold, and unless states actively do something to take back the rights guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment they run a risk of losing the ability to exercise those rights at all. Number 378 CHAIR JAMES stated that she is a big supporter of process, because skipping over process leads to dictatorship, but she is concerned that doing away with every single phased-in unfunded mandate would cause total collapse. She wondered if the conference of states is asking for something that is impossible, and observed that it is a variance of process. She added that pushing an issue too far can cause a loss of all ground gained. Number 422 REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER asked what the plan or strategy is behind HJR 20 and where is it going. MR. MALONEY replied that page 8 of the document he distributed from The Council of State Governments outlines what may or may not be discussed at a conference of states; for example, strengthening the Tenth Amendment can be discussed, and he read, "A better strategy would be to focus on process amendments, the results of which would be much more predictable and would naturally bring about a better balance of the system over a number of years. A number of individuals and task forces have recommended, for example, adding a clause that would put the states on equal footing with Congress in proposing constitutional amendments. Another example....would give states the power to sunset any federal law.....Such a discussion would surely get the attention of Congress." He added that dialogue regarding various remedies is healthy, and nothing discussed at a conference of the states could be acted on without first coming to all participating states; everything would be just advisory. It would be the start of a national dialogue on the strength of the states. Number 462 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the plan would be a forum to identify ways to return power to the states through a less difficult process than the current method available to amend the constitution. MR. MALONEY replied that the agenda has not been set. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER observed that it takes a constitutional amendment to come up with a new way to amend the constitution. MR. MALONEY said this could be included in the action plan. Number 487 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN observed that this situation could become an "Alfonse-Gastone" problem where two baseball players each assumed the other would catch the fly ball and it dropped between them. He feared that if Alaska did not focus hard on one plan, the energies will be confused and the ball will be dropped. Number 508 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON noted that HJR 20 says 26 states would have to adopt the resolution, and asked if all 50 states would be invited. MR. MALONEY responded yes. REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked if delegates would bring recommendations back to individual states to be reviewed by each legislature. MR. MALONEY said this was correct. He referred to the flow chart in the committee packets which outlines the process and guarantees the process does not get out of hand. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS requested this flow chart become part of the record. A summary of the process outlined in the flow chart follows: Step 1:Each state legislature adopts a Resolution of Participation. Each legislature appoints a bipartisan delegation of four legislators and the Governor to attend the Conference of the States. Step 2:When a significant majority of states have passed the Resolution of Participation, the Council of State Governments will convene bipartisan incorporators appointed by legislative leadership in the participating states. Step 3:The Conference of States is held. Solutions to restore balance are discussed, refined and voted upon. Step 4:The product of the Conference of States is a document, a new instrument in American democracy called a "States' Petition." The States' Petition constitutes the highest form of communication between the states and Congress. Step 5:The States' Petition is carried back by delegates to their respective state legislatures for approval. States' Petition items which involve constitutional amendments require approval of a constitutional majority of state legislators. Step 6:The States' Petition is presented to Congress. Ignoring a constitutional majority of states would signal an arrogance on the part of Congress - an arrogance the states and the American people would find intolerable. Number 588 CHAIR JAMES mentioned the power of the "group think" philosophy as a deterrent to true consensus, adding that she was concerned that the momentum of the National Conference of State Legislators could keep the single voice from being heard. Number 574 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved an amendment as outlined in 2 paragraphs on page 8 of an opinion from the Law Offices of Peter D. Lepiscopo, 2635 Camino Del Rio South, San Diego, California, 92108: RESOLVED that Alaska's participation in any conference of the states shall in no way be interpreted or construed to be consent by the state of Alaska to be an application to Congress under the amendment procedure set forth in Article V of the Constitution of the United States. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's participation in any Conference of the States shall in no way be interpreted or construed to be for the purpose of amending or proposing amendments to the Constitution of the United States. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if the second paragraph would be a total annihilation of the purpose of the conference. CHAIR JAMES said she thought the conference was supposed to deal only with the Tenth Amendment and not constitutional amendments. MR. MALONEY said he thought it was appropriate to allow the delegates to discuss whatever they wished to discuss, and that everything discussed would be brought back to the states. He added there are a great number of checks and balances in the process. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the first paragraph is an appropriate safeguard, but the second one is over-reaching by not allowing discussion of constitutional amendments by legitimate process which would gage the feelings of all the states. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said if there is a consensus, he would withdraw the second paragraph from his amendment. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON suggested splitting the question. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said he shared concerns about getting into a constitutional convention, but his fears were allayed by Mr. Maloney's flow chart. Number 642 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN asked, once the convention starts, can the process be stopped by an individual state's not ratifying the recommendations and not participating in the action plan. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said yes, and that she would feel better if the process were actually outlined in the resolution. She wanted to ensure that the majority rules and the minority is heard. Number 680 MR. MALONEY replied that even if all 50 states voted to ratify the action plan, it would still be only advisory to Congress. If only two states ratified it, Congress would still hear the plan. In either case, Congress would not be compelled to act. CHAIR JAMES said "we the people" can always petition to amend the constitution, and that is an action requiring a response from Congress. Number 688 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said he still had the concern that, for example, 26 states meet and agree to something different from what Alaska and other individual states have already sent to Congress. He asked if this would then send a confusing message. CHAIR JAMES said there is no answer to this, and she would like to vote on the amendment. Tape 95-14, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to divide the question. There were no objections. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections to the first paragraph. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS objected to including either paragraph because there are enough safeguards without them. CHAIR JAMES called for the vote. On the first paragraph of the amendment, Representatives James, Ogan, Green, Ivan, Porter, and Robinson voted yes. Representative Willis voted no. So the amendment passed. CHAIR JAMES called for a vote on the second paragraph. Representatives James, Ogan, Green, and Ivan voted yes. Representatives Porter, Robinson, and Willis voted no. So the amendment passed. Number 063 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noted that HJR 20 does not have a Finance Committee referral, but that it does have a fiscal note, and she asked what is the procedure. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied that if a bill picks up a fiscal note during the process, it would receive a Finance Committee referral, so HJR 20 should get an additional referral to the Finance Committee. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said she thought Chair James should talk to the Speaker and be sure this happens. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved that HJR 20 be passed from committee, as amended, with attached fiscal note and individual recommendations. CHAIR JAMES questioned why the $11,000 fiscal note was so low, and said she assumed additional funds would come out of the Governor's operating budget to send delegates to the convention. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN agreed it was too low. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON said it would probably cost more like $5,000 for each delegate. Number 136 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the motion could include a "friendly amendment" to include a committee memorandum outlining concerns over the fact the fiscal note is probably not sufficient, and also recommending a Finance Committee referral. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN agreed to include this as part of his motion. Number 160 CHAIR JAMES restated the motion: The motion was "to move HJR 20 out of committee as amended, with individual recommendations, attached fiscal note, and with the recommendation of this committee that the fiscal note be scrutinized for its sufficiency and that HJR 20 be given a Finance Committee referral." Hearing no objection, the bill passed out of committee. She called for a short break. Number 177 CHAIR JAMES complimented the committee for having everyone in attendance on such a sunny day.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|