Legislature(2013 - 2014)HOUSE FINANCE 519
02/12/2014 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB244 | |
| HJR22 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 22 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 244 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
February 12, 2014
1:37 p.m.
1:37:06 PM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Stoltze called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 1:37 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Alan Austerman, Co-Chair
Representative Bill Stoltze, Co-Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice-Chair
Representative Mia Costello
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative Les Gara
Representative David Guttenberg
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Cathy Munoz
Representative Steve Thompson
Representative Tammie Wilson
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Wes Keller; Don Brand, Alaska Legislative
Liaison, Juneau.
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Stan Leaphart, Executive Director, Citizen's Advisory
Commission on Federal Areas; Thom Buzard, Director
Convention of States, Juneau; Zabrina Byfuglien, Tri-Valley
High School, Healy; Taylor Hancock, Tri-Valley High School
Government Class, Healy; Isabella Saxe, Tri-Valley High
School, Healy; Julia Nelson, Tri-Valley High School, Healy;
LTC Roy Carlson, Self, Wasilla; Dr. David Eichler,
Convention of State Organization, North Pole; Michael
Farris, Director Convention of the States, Virginia.
SUMMARY
HJR 22 FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
HJR 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
HB 244 ADVISORY COMMISSION ON FEDERAL MGT AREAS
HB 244 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a previously
published fiscal impact note: FN1 (DNR).
HOUSE BILL NO. 244
"An Act extending the termination date of the
Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Management
Areas in Alaska; and providing for an effective date."
1:37:26 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze noted the birthday of President Abraham
Lincoln.
REPRESENTATIVE WES KELLER introduced the bill with a brief
description. He stated that the Constitution advised the
use, conservation and the development of natural resources.
He informed the committee that Alaskans had rights related
to their natural resources. The rights were defined and
laid out in both federal and state levels. He experienced
an erosion of the rights in Alaska, with 66 percent owned
by the federal government. He stated that the Citizens'
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas' (CACFA) was involved
in multiple issues, including the right to access Alaska's
resources, water rights, personal use, substance, mineral
development, access to rural cabins, management of fish and
game and transportation planning. He noted that CACFA
retained a good working relationship with federal agencies
operating in Alaska. He noted that the annual report laid
out the efforts of CACFA. He mentioned a CACFA conference
about federal overreach including invited testimony. All
testifiers were required to present a solution. The
testimony was captured on record and available by
transcript online.
1:44:13 PM
Representative Keller described the commission. Regulations
that eroded rights were carefully tracked. He noted that
Stan Leaphart worked hard to track the various agencies. He
detailed the recent critical habitat label of the Cook
Inlet that resulted from the Endangered Species Act. He
explained that the furlough prevented response from the
federal agencies regarding the summit's findings.
1:46:45 PM
Representative Keller noted the names of the Citizen's
Advisory Commission on Federal Areas. The members worked on
a volunteer basis in Anchorage. He listed the members as
Rod Arno, Senator John Coghill, Mark Fish, Teresa Hanson,
Charlie Lean, Kathleen Liska, Mike Meekin, Warren Olsen,
Ron Somerville, Susan Smith, Frank Woods, and himself. He
spoke to the commitment of his fellow members.
Representative Keller stated that the bill moved the
commission's sunset date to 2021.
Co-Chair Stoltze added that the budget would continue to
support the commission if a decision was made to extend it.
1:48:31 PM
STAN LEAPHART, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZEN'S ADVISORY
COMMISSION ON FEDERAL AREAS (via teleconference) testified
on behalf of the legislation. He had 8 of the 12 commission
members with him working on a follow-up for the August
summit. The group refined the recommendations seen in the
annual report. He pointed out that the commission had
invited federal agency representatives to gather in
October, but the national government's furlough prevented
the meeting. He met with regional directors of the United
States National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
Management, the United States Forest Service and the
Secretary of the Interior Special Assistant.
Mr. Leaphart informed the committee that the commission
shared the transcript from the summit with a request for
feedback. The commission did receive feedback from the
United States National Park Service. He pointed out that
work with federal issues was increasing daily. He noted
four major management plans that were underway. The plans
would dictate the uses of the lands by the stakeholders. He
noted interest in the stakeholder's concerns.
1:51:20 PM
Representative Gara asked about the number of personnel
working in Mr. Leaphart's office.
Mr. Leaphart replied that two people worked in his office.
He stated that the office served the general public by
answering pertinent questions. Employees also reviewed
proposed management plans. The work load involved reviewing
the National Park Service Compendium. Attendance for
meetings involving federal agencies and the public
comprised another piece of the workload. The office
monitored the activities of the four major federal land
management agencies.
Co-Chair Stoltze noted one full-time and one part-time
position listed in the fiscal note.
Mr. Leaphart replied that the part-time position worked
full time for nine months.
Representative Gara asked how the $285 thousand was spent.
Co-Chair Stoltze referred to the fiscal note.
1:53:49 PM
Representative Gara clarified that $230 thousand was spent
on salary for one and one-half positions.
Mr. Leaphart clarified that the $230 thousand covered one
and three-quarters positions.
Vice-Chair Neuman asked about the recommendations made to
the legislature. He wondered which recommendations were
acted on and implemented in the last couple of years.
Mr. Leaphart replied that the commission made
recommendations regarding a local hire program, which
involved working with a congressional delegation to make
changes in the program. The program employed several
hundred Alaskans seasonally. Although the program did not
involve action by the legislature, it involved action by
the congressional delegation. He mentioned a new task force
assembled by the Bureau of Land Management addressing
placer mining policy.
1:56:08 PM
Vice-Chair Neuman explained that he wanted to know about
the commission's accomplishments.
Co-Chair Stoltze considered it an accomplishment to stop a
federal process. He wondered if the commission had halted a
federal process.
Representative Keller replied that he took testimony from
around the state regarding federal overreach. Some
successes involved interactions with federal agencies.
Policy changes were made as a result. He noted that Mr.
Leaphart worked with state agencies such as Department of
Natural Resources.
Representative Keller stated that recommendations were made
by the commission regarding federal lawsuits. He
acknowledged that the Department of Law did not always heed
recommendations made by CACFA.
1:58:53 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the address, 3700
Airport Road.
Mr. Leaphart replied that the 3700 Airport Road was located
at the corner of University Avenue and Airport Way.
Representative Guttenberg applauded the commission's work
on the wood bison. He found some federal recommendations
inconsistent. He wondered if the issues were voted on by
the members.
Representative Keller replied that both the annual report
and a report on the summit were included in the committee
back up. The report did not include commission
endorsements.
Representative Guttenberg stated that reports generally
included majority votes.
2:01:21 PM
Representative Gara noted mention of recommending
litigation and fighting federal overreach. He understood
that the governor also supported the movement. He asked
what the commission was doing to enhance the governor's
efforts.
2:02:38 PM
Mr. Leaphart clarified that the commission worked closely
with ANILCA (Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act). The program reviewed similar management plans and
regulations and weighed them against the effect of the
state's management prerogatives. He mentioned the
commission's newsletter and website. The information was
available to stakeholders and public groups in an effort to
incorporate their views. He provided an example related to
a bath house in the Tongass National Forest.
2:04:21 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze viewed the commission in the same way that
he viewed the Minerals or Forest Advisory Commissions. He
suggested that the state would engage in fewer lawsuits and
press releases about them with less federal overreach. He
noted that the state was in a reactive mode.
Co-Chair Stoltze closed public testimony
2:05:28 PM
Representative Costello discussed FN 1 from the Department
of Natural Resources for $285,300 from FY 15 through FY 20
for one full-time and one part-time position.
Vice-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT HB 244 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
HB 244 was REPORTED out of committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with a previously published fiscal
impact note: FN1 (DNR).
2:06:46 PM
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 22
Requesting the United States Congress to call a
convention of the states to propose amendments to the
Constitution of the United States that impose fiscal
restraints on the federal government, limit the power
and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit
the terms of office of federal government officials;
and urging the legislatures of the other 49 states to
request the United States Congress to call a
convention of the states.
2:07:17 PM
Representative Wilson, sponsor read the sponsor statement.
It is the solemn duty of the states to protect the
liberty of its people, particularly for the
generations to come, to propose amendments to the
Constitution of the United States through a convention
of the states under the article V to place clear
restraints on these and related abuses of powers.
Article V, U.S. Constitution states: "The Congress,
whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it
necessary, shall propose amendments to this
Constitution, or, on the application of the
legislatures of two thirds of the several states,
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, or by conventions in three fourths
thereof, as one or the other mode or ratification may
be proposed by the Congress; provided that no
amendment which may be made prior to the year one
thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner
affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth
section of the first article; and that no state,
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal
suffrage in the Senate."
By calling a convention of states, we can stop the
federal spending and debt spree, the power grabs of
the federal courts, and the other misuses of federal
power. The current situation is precisely what the
Founders feared, and they gave us a solution we have a
duty to use.
2:08:53 PM
Representative Wilson noted many misconceptions regarding
the Convention of States. She highlighted the fact that the
country's forefathers predicted the potential for
government to get out of control. The legislation would
allow the states to commune about concerns. She relayed an
incident in Chicken Alaska where the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) intervened in family mining
operations. She noted that three-fourths of the state must
arrive at a resolution with such similar intent that
Congress would have clarity about the state's desires. Each
state would have one vote.
Representative Wilson continued that 38 states must ratify
the amendment. She opined that the federal government was
out of control. Increased regulations heightened the
difficulty, particularly in Alaska. She stated that she was
tired of all of the regulations and was ready to fight
back. She revealed that a group of passionate students from
Healy provided testimony in an earlier committee hearing.
2:11:49 PM
DON BRAND, ALASKA LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, JUNEAU, testified in
support of the legislation. He lamented that he no longer
recognized his country. He witnessed many decisions that he
deemed limiting to liberty, individual freedom and an
example of an out-of-control federal government. He
expressed fear. He discussed a book called "The Liberty
Amendments" by Mark Levin. The book described the Article V
process for proposing amendments to the Constitution. He
stated that the book proposed a set of amendments to
address the situation facing the United States.
Mr. Brand discussed his introduction to the organization
known as the Convention of States Project. He noted that
the Citizens for Self Government were the parent
organization. The role of the project was to urge and
empower state legislators to call a convention of States to
propose amendments to the Constitution to limit the powers
of the federal government. He pointed out that the
organization was attempting to build grass roots and
consisted of volunteers. He noted that the organizations
existed in 40 states. He volunteered to help and was deemed
the Alaska legislative liaison for the organization.
Mr. Brand urged the committee to support Representative
Wilson's resolution, which followed the model proposed by
the Convention of States. The resolution differed from past
approaches in two significant ways. The resolution did not
call for a specific amendment. He noted over 400 attempts
to call for a Convention of States by the states. He stated
that the 34 state thresholds were never met. He pointed out
that it was difficult to have 34 states agree to the same
wording for their proposed amendment. He suggested that a
working group environment might enable a successful process
among the 34 states.
2:17:41 PM
Mr. Brand explained that the Convention of States project
would enable the introduction of the same resolution for at
least 34 states. The effort yielded drafted resolutions for
10 states. The organization hoped to add more states. He
noted moderate success when introduced. He stated that the
resolution passed the Senate of the Georgia legislature. He
hoped that Alaska would follow with the passage of the
resolution before the committee.
Mr. Brand stated that the movement was gathering momentum.
He believed that the resolution would address the problem.
He stated that different views and approaches could be
included by states with a different area of concern or
interest.
2:19:17 PM
Representative Gara highlighted former Senator Ted Stevens
who was recognized as a statesman who brought money to
Alaska with the goal of building infrastructure. He noted
that the federal contributions were responsible for
substantial employment in Alaska. He asked about the fiscal
restraints listed in the bill. He asked how much ought to
be cut from federal funds received by the state.
Mr. Brand replied that he did not have an idea about how
much should be cut. He was concerned about his
grandchildren. He did not have dollar amounts.
2:21:02 PM
Representative Gara noted the bill's wording requesting
fiscal restraints. He pointed out the limits on the power
and jurisdiction of the federal government. He wondered why
the bill allowed Congress the leeway to expand spending,
when the goal was to contract it.
Mr. Brand replied that the words were intended to affect
the Convention of States that might be compiled as a result
of 34 similar resolutions. The purpose of the delegates or
commissioners at the convention was to interpret the
meaning of the words. He acknowledged that some states
might view the situation as an opportunity to increase the
limits rather than reduce them. He added that 38 states
must agree to create a formal amendment, recognized as part
of the Constitution. He believed that an ample amount of
states would agree with the idea of increased federal
authority or increased federal spending limits.
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the mention of Alaska's loss
of former Senator Ted Stevens.
2:23:32 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked if Alaska passed the
resolution along with 34 other states, how similar would
the legislation be required to read. He asked if Congress
would be required to call the convention.
Mr. Brand pointed to the Article V description included in
committee members' packets. He read "or on the application
of the legislature should two-thirds of the several states,
Congress shall call a convention." He stated that Congress
would not have a choice. If Congress neglected to call the
convention, there would be grounds for judicial action. He
was sure that the Supreme Court would pursue the case
quickly. He believed that the language in Article V
regarding the roles and responsibilities of Congress.
2:25:45 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked how the allocation of
delegates worked. He wondered about Alaska specifically.
Mr. Brand replied that the representation to a convention
of states would be determined by the Alaska legislature.
Legislators could choose as many or few delegates as they
wished. He understood that precedence existed. Each state
receives one vote, regardless of the number of
representatives. For the completion of the ratification
process Congress is able to determine whether the vote is
directly a legislative vote or a state convention.
2:28:03 PM
Representative Guttenberg asked about the convention's
agenda. He was not sure whether the legislative
representatives called the final vote or whether a public
vote was indicated.
Mr. Brand replied that the delegates at the convention were
authorized to represent and to vote as the state's
representative.
Representative Wilson explained that a bill from the
legislature would determine the selection of the delegates.
She stated that the convention would provide an agenda with
votes from the states present. At least 34 of the states
would be required to approve the agenda. Congress would
then approve the agenda. If Congress chose not to approve,
the bill would return to the state legislatures requiring
38 of the state legislatures must ratify it.
Representative Guttenberg pointed out that authorizing
legislation was in progress.
2:30:09 PM
Representative Munoz asked if 34 states passed the
resolution but the variety of subjects covered was not
consistent.
Mr. Brand replied that all 34 must agree on the variety of
subjects for the process to continue to ratification.
Representative Wilson added that the resolutions must be
very similar. The 34 resolutions must be judged by Congress
for similar intent.
2:31:54 PM
Representative Munoz asked how many states were debating
similar resolutions.
Representative Wilson replied 10 different states.
Representative Munoz asked if a state passed a resolution,
how long was it effective.
Mr. Brand responded that the resolution was open-ended, it
would last forever.
2:33:00 PM
Representative Edgmon pointed out a recent bill passed by
the committee requiring schools to teach the merits of the
Constitution. He found irony in the resolution before the
committee. He stated that the partisan gridlock in
Washington DC included both parties. He thought that a true
Constitutional convention might be contentious. The United
States was built on the ideals of democracy and was the
envy of the rest of the world. He wondered if it was the
nature of politics that was really the culprit, rather than
the founding principles of the counties. He saluted the
flag when on the House Floor for good reasons. He thought
that the bill might provide the wrong target.
2:34:49 PM
Representative Wilson replied that the resolution did not
open the entire Constitution. She stressed that congress
was out of control and citizens had no way to fight back.
She stated that the EPA had caused multiple hardships in
her district. She offered to help Representative Edgmon to
better understand her ideals. If the Constitution was to
remain unaltered, why would the founding fathers include
Article V? She opined that that the inclusion was available
to retain control. She wished to pass the resolution in
Alaska to send a message to Congress. She stressed that the
federal government had a direct negative effect on Alaska's
constituents. She believed that the Constitution was a
working document.
Representative Edgmon appreciated Mr. Brand's passion. He
remained unconvinced that the resolution before the
committee was the answer. He believed that the problem was
political in nature. He supported amending the Constitution
on a case-by-case basis, but the idea of a Constitutional
Convention frightened him.
Mr. Brand noted a difference between a Constitutional
Convention and the proposed call for a Convention of States
for the purpose of defining amendments. A Constitutional
Convention involved writing a constitution, while a
Convention of States had the purpose of writing amendments.
He hoped to reenergize the Constitution. He was also
frustrated with the politics in Washington DC as described
by Representative Edgmon. He was most bothered by the
interpretation of the Constitution that had diluted the
original intent. He highlighted the good and welfare clause
and the commerce clause, which he opined were stretched
beyond breaking point by a Congress hoping to take
responsibility for matters that were not designated powers.
Mr. Brand noted that powers that were not delegated to
Congress were reserved for the states. He hoped to see a
renewal of state control to prevent a continued expansion
of Congress' power. He stated that the executive branch,
the regulatory agencies and the Supreme Court were not
exempted from the drive to overreach. He was troubled by
the fact that five unelected individuals determined the law
without appeal in the United States. He noted that if a
controversial Supreme Court decision was made, through the
proposed resolution, an appeal to the state for a
supporting or opposing vote was possible.
2:41:30 PM
Co-Chair Austerman echoed the opinion of Representative
Edgmon, regarding the resolution's writing. He agreed that
the federal government was out of control in regard to
money management. He hesitated to approve a resolution that
limited the power or jurisdiction of the federal
government. He believed that policies changed at the whim
of those in power. He discussed the pros and cons of term
limits. He commented that the state level experienced
similar problems. He hoped for further conversations before
moving the bill out of committee.
2:42:57 PM
Co-Chair Stoltze appreciated the work of the testifier.
Representative Guttenberg echoed the sentiment of Co-Chair
Stoltze.
THOM BUZARD, DIRECTOR CONVENTION OF STATES, JUNEAU (via
teleconference) responded to Representative Gara's question
regarding the loss of federal funds in Alaska. He noted
that the Alaska economy would be better able to develop
without the heavy weight of the federal government. He
opined that the federal restrictions slowed the growth in
Alaska making it possible for permanent funds for gas,
water and mineral exports. He wished to separate the notion
of a Constitutional Convention from that of the
legislation's intended Convention of States. He pointed out
that a Convention of States would be restricted to the
topic included in the resolution. He had the responsibility
of drumming-up support for the hearings. He had difficulty
collecting the support because people were afraid to talk
negatively about the government. He listed multiple
agencies that terrified people such as the Internal Revenue
Service, the National Security Agency, the Environmental
Protection Agency, the Department of Environmental Control
and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He stated
that the country's founders believed that a government that
was afraid of the people provided freedom and liberty, but
people afraid of their government reigned tyranny.
Co-Chair Stoltze joked that he drove a Jeep Patriot and was
not afraid of the National Security Agency.
Mr. Buzzard stated that the federal government was out of
control. He referred to the book "The Liberty Amendments,"
which discussed placing the power back into the hands of
the state legislatures. The states created the central
government and ought to have the power renewed.
2:49:49 PM
ZABRINA BYFUGLIEN, TRI-VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL, HEALY (via
teleconference) testified with a group from her school that
collaborated to provide the testimony. She and her cohorts
believed that the United States was intended to be a
Constitutional Republic, but was turning into a democracy.
She stressed that the decay of the Constitutional Republic
was not a political issue. She believed that the decay had
happened for nearly a century. In 1913, the 17th amendment
was implemented, referring to the popular election of
Senators. State legislators were once responsible for
electing senators. Amendment 17 gave the largely uneducated
public elective power over the Senate. The amendment
decreased the state's power. The Senate used to represent
the states because they were chosen by the state
legislature.
2:54:04 PM
TAYLOR HANCOCK, TRI-VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL GOVERNMENT CLASS,
HEALY (via teleconference), testified in support of the
legislation. He noted that the main purpose of the
Constitution was to preserve the sovereignty of the state
and to keep the federal government checked and balanced and
strictly under the enumerated powers given. The General
Welfare and Commerce Clause were used as tools to make the
Constitution a living document. The country's founding
fathers did not intend the Constitution as a living
document.
2:58:02 PM
Mr. Hancock continued that the Constitution enumerated
certain powers for the federal government. Many powers not
enumerated in the Constitution were reserved for the
states. He noted that Congress often used the commerce
clause to justify existing legislative power over the
activities of the states and their citizens leading to
significant controversy regarding the balance of power
between the federal government and the states. The federal
government was involved in areas that were not within their
jurisdiction such as health care, social security and
education.
2:59:10 PM
ISABELLA SAXE, TRI-VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL, HEALY (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. She
opined that a Convention of States was needed because the
government had overstepped its bounds. She expounded on the
two methods of amending the constitution. In the less
common process, amendments were proposed by a Convention of
States and called at the request of two-thirds of state
legislatures. Neither process allowed for a Constitutional
Convention. She hoped to dispel the fear of a runaway
Constitutional Convention by informing about checks and
balances available in the resolution.
3:02:45 PM
JULIA NELSON, TRI-VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL, HEALY (via
teleconference), testified in favor of the legislation. She
discussed America's debt and regulatory crisis. Congress
could not continue to act as if there was an unlimited
source of income for their whims. She quoted Thomas
Jefferson, "We must not let our rulers load us with
perpetual debt." She testified to stop the unconstitutional
spending. She clarified that her testimony was not
reflective of a political party, but was solely
constitutional.
3:06:01 PM
LIEUTENANT COLONAL ROY CARLSON, SELF, WASILLA (via
teleconference) testified as a retired US Army retired
colonel. He expressed a non-partisan view of concern about
a practice that occurred with the federal government for
many years. During the Constitutional Convention, it was
argued that the amendment process did not address the
possibility of an out-of-control federal government. The
founders recognized that Congress would not pass an
amendment limiting their own power, so another amendment
was added to amend the Constitution and put the power in
the hands of the state legislatures. He mentioned other
countries that experienced tyrannical governments such as
Russia and Cuba, whose citizens warned Americans about the
future problems predicted as a result of the United States'
government and its use of "soft tyranny." He stressed that
Article V was the way to stop tyranny by the rule of law,
rather than a revolution.
Co-Chair Stoltze asked the testifier to stop him and say
hello in Wasilla.
3:11:38 PM
DR. DAVID EICHLER, CONVENTION OF STATE ORGANIZATION, NORTH
POLE (via teleconference), testified in favor of the
legislation. He reminded the committee that Article V would
allow them to fix the broken federal government.
3:12:33 PM
MICHAEL FARRIS, NATIONAL DIRECTOR CONVENTION OF THE STATES,
VIRGINIA (via teleconference) testified as a constitutional
lawyer and professor. He was the principal draftsman of the
resolution before the committee. He noted that similar
legislation was moving in other states. He referred to the
students' testimony and complimented the information
conveyed to the committee. He questioned the interpretation
of the Constitution by the Supreme Court. He surmised that
the Constitution of States process of amending the
Constitution would allow for the original intent of the
founding fathers. He stated that the EPA tyrannized many
Americans and was a misuse of the commerce clause. The
resolution's language was appropriately broad, but would
gain in specificity before becoming law. The language in
the resolution defined the agenda in the Convention of the
States. The language for the Constitution would be drafted
at the Convention of the States. The final language would
be ratified by state legislatures, who would determine
terms and provisions. The creation of the convention was
necessary to progress toward details.
3:18:27 PM
AT EASE
3:19:03 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Stoltze stated that committee members wished to
debate the bill further.
Representative Wilson reiterated that the resolution was
only the first step in the process. She noted that the next
step would include determining delegates for Alaska. A
choice could be made to participate in some issue, while
leaving others alone. She stated that the Constitution had
been amended in the past by Congress. The resolution
permitted a method of control for the states.
Co-Chair Stoltze respected all the divergent views.
HJR 22 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
3:22:34 PM
The meeting was adjourned at 3:22 p.m.