02/13/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB284 | |
| HB199 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 273 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 199 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 13, 2014
8:19 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Doug Isaacson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 284
"An Act relating to an interstate compact on a balanced federal
budget."
- MOVED HB 284 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 199
"An Act relating to Department of Public Safety regulations
allowing village public safety officers to carry firearms."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 273
"An Act extending the termination date of the Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault; and providing for an
effective date."
- BILL HEARING RESCHEDULED TO 2/18/14
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 284
SHORT TITLE: COMPACT FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) KELLER
01/29/14 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/29/14 (H) STA, JUD
02/13/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 199
SHORT TITLE: VPSO FIREARMS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EDGMON
04/04/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/04/13 (H) CRA, STA
01/28/14 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
01/28/14 (H) Heard & Held
01/28/14 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/04/14 (H) CRA AT 8:00 AM BARNES 124
02/04/14 (H) Moved Out of Committee
02/04/14 (H) MINUTE(CRA)
02/05/14 (H) CRA RPT 5DP 1NR
02/05/14 (H) DP: REINBOLD, FOSTER, HERRON, LEDOUX,
NAGEAK
02/05/14 (H) NR: OLSON
02/11/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
02/11/14 (H) Heard & Held
02/11/14 (H) MINUTE(STA)
02/13/14 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
NICK DRANIAS, Director
Constitutional Policy
Goldwater Institute
Phoenix, Arizona
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave a PowerPoint presentation and answered
questions during the hearing on HB 284.
DON BRAND
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 284.
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As sponsor, presented HB 199.
CARLA AKELKOK, Manager
VPSO Program
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)
Dillingham, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 199.
JODY POTTS, Coordinator
Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs)
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC);
Sergeant VPSO
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During the hearing on HB 199, encouraged a
more extensive screening of VPSOs in determining whether to arm
them.
ALBERT JUDSON
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 199.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:19:15 AM
VICE CHAIR WES KELLER called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:19 a.m. Representatives
Isaacson, Gattis, Hughes, Millett, Kreiss-Tomkins, and Keller
were present at the call to order. Representative Lynn arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 284-COMPACT FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
8:19:45 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER announced the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 284, "An Act relating to an interstate compact on
a balanced federal budget."
8:20:16 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER, as sponsor, introduced HB 284, which calls
for a balanced budget amendment via a process under Article V of
the Constitution of the United States. A balanced budget
amendment is achieved through the Compact for America (CFA)
process. He encouraged legislators to support the proposed
legislation. He reviewed the amendment process under the
Constitution and stated that Article V is a monument to two
things: a sovereignty of "We the People" and a sovereignty of
the states. He said the Constitution has been amended only 27
times by a process through Congress; but CFA focuses on using
ratification of the Constitution through a states' process.
8:23:58 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease at 8:24 a.m.
8:24:14 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER noted that Representative Lynn had joined the
committee. He then continued with his presentation. He talked
about the frustration of reading about the increasing national
debt - numbers reported in the trillions of dollars. He said
future generations are being mortgaged, and he opined that this
is immoral. He quoted words written by Thomas Jefferson in
1798, 11 years after the writing of the Constitution, as
follows:
I wish it were possible to obtain a single amendment
to our Constitution. I would be willing to depend on
that alone for the reduction of the administration of
our government to the genuine principals of this
constitution. I mean an additional Article taking
from the government the power of borrowing.
VICE CHAIR KELLER commented at the number of years that have
passed since then as "we're ... realizing that Article V may be
the answer for us to bring this back in line."
8:27:39 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER started a slide presentation and drew
attention to the first slide, which shows that there are two
triggers under Article V: a two-thirds trigger and a three-
fourths trigger. Two-thirds of the states have to agree to a
convention to amend the Constitution. He said there are several
groups pursuing this process, including: The Mt. Vernon
Assembly; the Convention of States (COS), led by Representative
Tammie Wilson; the Reagan Project, led by Fritz Pettyjohn and
Robin Taylor; and bba4usa.org. He explained that the three-
fourths trigger means that three-fourths of the states have to
ratify the amendment.
VICE CHAIR KELLER explained that compactforamerica.org is
coordinated by the Goldwater Institute in several states, and
that will avoid the need for an amendment convention with two-
thirds of the state showing up in person. He said, "They've
built a structure in this bill that is before you that bypasses
that." He said it could take ten years to reach the second
trigger of three-quarters; however, under HB 284 "this could be
done in one year." He suggested that today's hearing is about
the process, and the House Judiciary Standing Committee will
fully vet the bill. He recommended a sectional analysis be
reviewed.
8:31:06 AM
VICE CHAIR KELLER handed the gavel over to Chair Lynn.
8:31:12 AM
NICK DRANIAS, Director, Constitutional Policy, Goldwater
Institute, offered a brief personal history, including that he
has been an attorney at law for 16 years, 8 years of which has
been focused on constitutional law. He said the compact
approach to amending the Constitution was developed in the past
two years, with the assistance of Senior Judge Harold DeMoss of
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
MR. DRANIAS noted that in the committee packet is written
testimony by the following individuals: Ilya Shapiro, lead
constitutional scholar of the Cato Institute, vouching for the
constitutionality of HB 284; Dr. Byron Schlomach, a Ph.D.
economist at the Goldwater Institute, vouching for [the proposed
legislation's] economic, sound policy; Dr. Sven R. Larson, a
Ph.D. economist of the Liberty Institute in Wyoming, vouching
for the sound fiscal policy of HB 284; Dr. Kevin R.C. Gutzman,
an historian, vouching that "this" is consistent with the
Constitution and Article V; and Harold "Chip" DeMoss, III, CEO
of Compact for America, introducing his father's analysis of the
conflict portion of Article V, which follows as being fully
constitutional and consistent with the intent of the [Founding
Fathers]. Mr. Dranias said also included in the committee
packet are a couple of one-page documents: a sectional
analysis, [included in heading is "HB 284 - Compact for a
Balanced Budget"], and a brief analysis of how the compact
works, [entitled, "Compact for America's 'Article V 2.0' Turn-
Key Approach is Our Best Shot"].
8:33:40 AM
CHAIR LYNN shared that he met Barry Goldwater one time, and the
man gave him a set of pilot wings.
MR. DRANIAS related that Barry Goldwater, Jr., sits on the board
of the Goldwater Institute. He opined that the late Senator
Barry Goldwater was an unusual politician, because he found
principle compromises with both the center right and center
left. He said HB 284 is meant to be nonpartisan, bipartisan,
and "fix the debt." He said there is a three-year timeline for
"getting this done."
8:34:50 AM
MR. DRANIAS directed attention to a PowerPoint presentation, to
a graph showing the U.S. national debt [1900-2020]. He said it
is an unsustainable debt "headed to infinity and beyond." He
opined that it is absurd to trust a bankrupt government with
unilateral control over setting credit limit without limit. He
said some people might say that this nominal figure does not
show the full context, and - if adjusted for inflation or looked
at in terms of percentage of the gross domestic product (GDP) -
the problem would go away. Mr. Dranias indicated that is not
the case. He continued as follows:
If you look at the gross federal debt as a percentage
of the gross domestic product - everything we produce
in a year - we're at over 107 percent of gross
domestic product today. Last time we were in this
place was during the height of World War II, when we
had a true tyrant in the world that could have taken
Western Civilization down .... We are not in that
same position, yet we are borrowing at the same level.
Not only that, but unlike in the 1950s, when we grew
our way out of that debt, we will not be the only
economy standing, and we will not have a mortgaged and
"un-mortgaged" future, because the debt is actually
just the tip of the iceberg of what we have mortgaged
on future generations.
There are estimates saying unfunded entitlement
programs are between 100-220 trillion dollars in the
red. So, unlike in the 1950s, not only are we not the
only economy standing; not only is it unlikely we can
grow our way out of the magnitude of this kind of debt
alone, but we've mortgaged the future in a way that is
simply calamitous.
Five or six years ago, when Greece was in this same
position as a percentage of GDP, people panicked;
they're still panicking. We should be a lot more
concerned, because it is not getting better.
Now, you may have heard that last year's deficit was
$1.1 trillion; this year it's a mere $660 billion
dollars. Any sort of debt on this magnitude is
unsustainable; it is absurd; it is ridiculous. Look
at the tiny little closing of the deficit, but look at
the drop in the overall debt: It continues. We're
now nearly at $18 trillion. Just yesterday the latest
maneuver in Washington, [D.C.], was to completely
suspend the federal debt limit - suspend it, mind you.
This is not just lifting the debt limit. Until mid-
March, there will be no debt limit yet again, just
like we had no debt limit between October and February
8th in the federal government.
Washington, [D.C.], is not learning from its behavior;
it is not looking out around the world and seeing that
this is them that devastate the economies in Europe
and in Argentina and in many other Third-World
countries.
Now, maybe ... the folks in the powers that be in
Washington, [D.C.], think we're just going to default;
maybe that's the endgame. Well that can't be the
endgame if we're responsible and if we care about
future generations, because Argentina has found out
that it's not a successful policy choice. Just a
couple years ago, their Air Force One was nearly
seized by a hedge fund creditor because of a default
on a debt nearly 13 years ago. Now, they've litigated
over that for a couple years, and eventually had the
Air Force One released to them, but that's just one
instance of what has happened in Argentina. You may
be aware of a federal law suit that's still pending in
New York, where hedge funds are trying to get access
to some of the pension assets that were maintained in
the jurisdiction of the United States because of the
default on their debt.
The other thing people don't realize about Argentina,
when they defaulted, is they scotched a lot of trade
agreements. They can't do business anywhere near like
they used to do business with the world; and in a
world of interconnected economies that is absolutely
devastating. And ... three years after the debt, ...
after Argentina could no longer borrow abroad, what
did it do? It nationalized everyone's 401Ks. It took
all of the good assets that people had saved up over
the course of their working lives and replaced them
with worthless government bonds, just so they had a
captured borrowing base.
That is our future if we do not stop the bleeding now.
We have a three-year time horizon, because we do not
have three or five or ten more years to fix this
problem. We have to stop it now, otherwise we are
headed the same road as Argentina. And if you think
Argentina is all that different, keep in mind in the
1940s they were wealthier than we were on a per capita
basis.
8:39:47 AM
MR. DRANIAS stated that no matter who is in charge, Washington,
D.C., never fixes the problem. He said the reason is simple:
"If you give the debtor control over his own credit limit, you
should not expect that the debtor will not do anything other
than what we saw in those initial charts." He said the
concentration of unlimited power to borrow in one hand is what
is being abused, and he asked how it could be any other way. He
said further this is a structural problem of democracy and the
reason why 49 states limit debt in their own constitutions,
statutes, or case law. He continued as follows:
Good people on the left and the right, over 100 years
ago, came together under a consensus, recognizing that
unlimited debt in the hands of an elected class, is
not ... containable, and here's why: You can get
elected giving current constituents the benefits of
your spending while shifting the costs to nonvoting
future generations when you're safely out of office.
There is no inherent check in the democratic process
that can adequately protect those nonvoting future
generations from being saddled with the burden of our
policy choices today. So, whether you look at this
from the perspective of someone on the center right,
and you worry about the growth of government, or you
look at this from the perspective of someone on the
center left and you just think in terms of democracy
and having the will of the people truly be expressed
in the instrumentalities and organs of government, we
have a silent, simple majority that is simply being
denied its future, and that is our kids and their
kids. Without a fundamental law that limits the use
of debt, this will continue, and it will destroy our
future. That's why 39 states have converged on this
solution.
8:41:37 AM
MR. DRANIAS emphasized the need for a balanced budget amendment
for the federal government that strikes at the root of the
problem and removes the power away from the debtor to set
his/her own credit limit. He said "we" need to learn from what
states have done at the state and municipal levels and apply it
to the federal government. He proceeded to explain how to do
that. He warned against defining a balanced budget, which he
indicated is just a projection. He explained that doing so is
"inviting gaming." He opined that the only way to achieve a
balanced budget is to limit spending the money available. He
said debt has a purpose: "to provide a line of credit to handle
a volatility in tax receipts so that you can make good on your
spending commitments." He said a balanced budget amendment is
not an anti-debt measure; it is a "responsible use of debt
measure." He said it would end Congress' nontransparent
approach of waiting until the last minute to spring upon the
country a new $500-$600-billion commitment to borrow.
MR. DRANIAS said an inflexible line of credit is not an option,
because there could be need for funds in the event of a war or
natural disaster, but Congress should not control a flexible
line of credit. The balanced budget amendment would propose
that if there is a legitimate reason to borrow beyond the fixed
initial revolving line of credit, [Congress] would have to make
a proposal to the state legislatures, and a majority of those
states, in a referendum, would have to approve the increase. He
said [state] legislatures are closer to the people, who for the
past 40 years in sustained polling have said they want a limit
on debt. He stated that this would give a bigger voice to the
people, who he opined are more concerned about their children
than those elected to Congress.
8:44:54 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if there would be time to get a referendum from
the states in response to an emergency.
MR. DRANIAS answered that Congress could send out a "debt crisis
borrowing authorization measure" to receive an additional amount
of money when certain criteria are met. He reiterated that this
is a three-year process, and said hopefully Congress would plan
for such a crisis; however, he said the reality is that bond
markets currently take about a month to give Congress credit.
He said the question is whether states could mobilize themselves
to address an emergency situation 10 times worse than [the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001]. He said he thinks
they can. He added, "If it were a problem to mobilize within 30
days, I doubt the bond markets would be functioning well enough
to handle the problem anyhow." Therefore, he opined that this
[proposal] provides adequate flexibility for handling a war
situation.
MR. DRANIAS said Congress has drafted about 20 balanced budget
amendments, but the problem with those is that they have a
blanket exception for crises defined by Congress. He indicated
that the exception has been made since being involved in war
since 2001. He said, "Under all the balanced budget amendment
proposals Congress has ever proposed, there would be no limit on
debt at all, as long as that original (indisc.) declaration
remained outstanding." He said he is confident that states like
Alaska will react responsibly when the proposed legislation gets
near to completion; contingency plans will be in place, and
legislators will travel to Washington, D.C., to keep an eye on
[Congress]. He said there is tremendous interest from a wide
variety of states, and action being taken in Georgia, Arkansas,
Arizona, Louisiana, and Ohio. He stated, "We want to keep it
small this session so that the founding member states have
control over the initial product."
8:48:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what percentage of states is
required to "approve an expansion."
MR. DRANIAS answered a simple majority.
8:49:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if the language and punctuation put forth by
all participating states must match exactly.
MR. DRANIAS said although there are reasons to maintain the
original language, amendments can be made. He said the
Goldwater Institute would request that any state wishing to make
an amendment first bring it to the attention of the institute.
He further recommended that the Alaska State Legislature allow
him to introduce its members to the sponsor and co-sponsors from
other states. He remarked that 200 years ago, this process
would have been impossible, but because of modern technology,
any changes can be coordinated successfully. He stated that
once the compact is formed, it must be adopted identically by
all other states that join it, unless all the states unanimously
agree to any changes. He said once two states have joined in
the compact, they form a commission, which has the job of
handling logistics. He said the commission would be a natural
point of leverage to coordinating further changes throughout the
process. He relayed that there are more than 200 compacts
currently in existence, and Alaska is probably a member of at
least twenty of those. He said, "Without a compact, you just
have a stack of paper, and that stack of paper doesn't have a
voice, and it doesn't have an institution to coordinate anything
that might ... arise from it."
8:52:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she believes that the federal debt is
a concern that resonates with many. She asked if adjustments to
state compacts must be made within state legislatures. She
asked Mr. Dranias to address the issue of not binding future
legislatures. She offered her understanding that there is a
clock that starts ticking on a seven-year process, and she asked
Mr. Dranias to talk about that in relation to his aforementioned
goal of three years.
MR. DRANIAS offered his understanding that the committee packet
should include a copy of answers to frequently asked questions
(FAQs) [entitled "Using a Compact for Article V Amendments:
Experts Answer FAQs from the Goldwater Institute"]. Regarding
entrenchment, he said under the contracts clause of the
Constitution of the United States, states are barred from
impairing contracts that they form or that others form within
their states. As a result, when a legislature creates a
contract, such as a compact, it binds that state - even to
future legislative bodies. Existing compacts typically are
entrenched. For example, he related that the Colorado River
Compact, adopted in 1926, has a termination clause that
prohibits anyone from extraction without the compact, without
the unanimous consent of all members of that compact. He said
there is a constitutional limit on the degree of entrenchment
that will be tolerated; it will not allow a state to give away
too much of its sovereign power. For that reason, compacts are
written with a sunset clause to become null and void seven years
after being first enacted by the first state. He said that is a
number borrowed from the typical sunset provisions of a
ratification referral from Congress. He said that in addition
to the sunset, the Compact for a Balanced Budget only entrenches
once 38 states join it; therefore, the Goldwater Institute does
not believe there is any possibility the compact would "violate
the outer edge or boundaries of the exception from the rule
against entrenchment."
8:55:34 AM
MR. DRANIAS talked about the institute's coordination with
Alaska, Georgia, Arizona, and Arkansas through the process of e-
mailing. He said there are "no egos in this"; [those involved]
are looking at this as a way of saving future generations. He
said it only takes two states with identical compacts to form a
commission, which would reach out to recruit other states. In
response to a follow-up question, he confirmed that if other
states come on board later, but they change the language, they
would have to bring that change to the initial two states
involved. He said that is why the Goldwater Institute wants to
discourage unnecessary "tweaks." He said when there is a
structure in place, with a commission that organizes logistics,
it is "fairly typical that people can work out these things."
He stated the critical point about a compact is that it creates
a live institution, which "maintains the policy push, even when
the winds of popular opinion may not be there for you." Mr.
Dranias talked about a balanced budget amendment that was
started during the Reagan Administration in 1976, and almost 40
years later it is nowhere near done, because interest in the
issue has waxed and waned. Conversely, he opined, [HB 284],
with its seven-year sunset, "creates an institutional commitment
to persist and get the job done." He said the problem is
infinitely bigger than what was faced in the '70s and '80s.
8:59:37 AM
MR. DRANIAS, in response to the chair, offered an overview of
where the aforementioned states are in the process of moving
their compacts forward. He said the benefit of being the first
state to pass a compact is getting to select the chair of the
convention that is organized in the compact. He added, "I
personally think that having Alaska be the first state would be
really good from an independence partiality point of view. ...
I think Alaska has a unique position to have a more abstract, a
more principled approach to this."
9:01:41 AM
CHAIR LYNN queried about whether there were testifiers on the
proposed legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that there was
one, and he indicated that [as chair of the House Judiciary
Standing Committee], he would hear any other testifiers.
9:02:26 AM
MR. DRANIAS returned to his presentation. He said built into
the compact is the "no more game of chicken provision," which he
indicated relates to federal shutdown and waiting until the last
minute to raise the debt limit. He explained that the proposed
compact would require the President to start identifying
impoundments at 98 percent of the debt limits, which - at
current burn rates - means about six months before reaching the
debt limit. This timing would give Congress an opportunity to
override the proposed impoundments. He said, "Obviously the
discussion would continue beyond the impoundment phase, because
we're borrowing 45 cents of every dollar, so if you're going to
impound, that's going to be a lot of blood-letting in the
budget." He said the six months would give time to make the
case for any needed debt, revenue, or spending cuts, either
internally through Congress or externally through the states.
Mr. Dranias said another change would be to modify the tax
limit, because going too far in limiting the possibility of
raising taxes to close the deficit may result in the loss of
"some of our friends on the center-left." He explained those
people are needed, because nothing can be done without the
cooperation of 38 states.
MR. DRANIAS emphasized the relation between debt and taxes: if
debt is being paid back, it is coming out of taxes. He said the
proposed compact neither sacrifices the current generation to
future generations nor future generations to the current
generation, because it would require two-thirds of each house to
agree to any new tax or increase in existing tax. He named
three exceptions that could be done by a simple majority vote:
approving a replacement of income tax with an end user sales
tax, not a value-added tax (VAT); closing all credits,
deductions, and exemptions in existing taxes; and raising
tariffs or fees. This would channel the drive to any new
revenue to places where special interests pushbacks would be the
strongest and where a legitimate need for more revenue probably
would be the only thing that could overcome that special
interest pushback. He opined that this would be a significant
limit on taxes, while allowing for "truly necessary revenues."
He said polling data shows that "even Democrats prefer spending
cuts first over tax increases"; it is plausible that the
proposed compact could get its way through at least 38 states.
9:06:28 AM
MR. DRANIAS opined that it is unlikely that Congress would
propose anything like the Compact for a Balanced Budget, which
is why the Founding Fathers included the state process of
amending the Constitution in Article V. He stated that Patrick
Henry and George Mason, both patriots, hated the Constitution;
Mr. Henry argued in 1788 that the state origination of
amendments was a fraud and impossible for the 13 states to
navigate. Mr. Dranias said that argument has even more
resonance today. He clarified his intent was not to disparage
the other Article V movements in existence, which he said he
advocated for years; however, he emphasized the importance of
understanding the challenge of what not using a compact poses.
He continued as follows:
You need at least 100 legislative acts to get it done
from beginning to end. Now, mind you, there has never
been a coordinated legislative process of any kind -,
whether you look to the Uniform Commercial Code or
anything else - that has been able to do this. Now,
imagine this for a constitutional amendment. Now, you
say 100, well where does that come from? Well, you
gotta have ... 34 states file passed resolutions for
an application to Congress, and [in] places like
Alaska, you can't avoid gubernatorial presentment.
Congress has to call. Now, legally, constitutionally,
Congress is supposed to have a mandatory obligation to
call a convention if that happens, but, you know,
Congress never violates the Constitution, right? I
mean, they always do what they're supposed to do. No
they don't. So, the problem is you still need the
political will in Congress to pass a resolution of
simple majorities; that's the practical reality.
Then the states have to presumably send somebody to
the convention. That means at least some kind of
quorum; at least 26 states gotta pass law sending
people. Then assuming the convention does anything,
you know, you can't really count [on] the convention
doing anything, but it could deadlock really easily.
But assuming that the convention does something that
it has to propose an amendment to Congress, and
Congress has to refer it back out; again, Congress is
supposed to do this without a matter of choice - they
must do this - but again, reality says that they might
not. And so, you need to have political will to pass
a resolution of simple majorities to make sure it
happens. Then you gotta have 38 states ratify what is
generated from Congress. Now, mind you, it's not just
38 state legislative acts; it's possible Congress will
choose to have instate conventions be the mode of
ratification. Not every state has laid out in their
own statute books yet how to do that in-state
convention, so you could have another round of
legislation on top of the convention to try to get
this done.
So, this is a difficult process. And it's not that we
shouldn't try it, but let's recognize how difficult
this is without a compact. This is a "Hail Mary
Pass," not just once; it's once, twice, three times,
four times. Now, I'm all for Hail Mary passes if
that's all we've got, but it's not all we've got. The
compact approach makes this process doable; it makes
it simpler; it makes it more easy. Now, mind you, ...
as we talked about tweaks, it can't really be used for
political ideas that are divisive; it can't really be
used for overly complex issues; it can't really be
used where you don't really have a clear policy
solution in mind yet. It's really only something that
can work for a well-defined, super majority product
that plausibly, in the near future, can command a
minimal of tweaks and 38-state support. You should
know that our partner organization spent $50,000 on a
poll testing the various components of the BBA in our
compact. ... Every component, even the state
referendum component, polls at 60 percent plus.
9:10:49 AM
MR. DRANIAS said compacts are not the exclusive way to go; they
can only practically be used for things that do that kind of
polling. Other things that require drafting, consensus
building, those are all going to have to be done through the
traditional route; there's no other choice. Mr. Dranias next
described the process of the compact, which he said is a single
piece of overarching legislation. He stated, "In the compact,
you have the proposed amendment, Article II in your bill."
There is a commission that organizes logistics. The compact
also includes an application required by Article V. It uses a
conditional enactment, which only sends out the application to
Congress once 38 states join the compact. He continued as
follows:
As soon as that application goes live, in the
congressional resolution, in Title I, a pre-rated call
for the convention, in accordance with the compact, is
triggered. When that call goes live in the compact it
triggers delegate appointments specified in the
compact; it instructs those delegates to vote and to
place rules requiring an up or down vote on the
amendment it contemplates. That goes live. It builds
in a scope limitation that nullifies anything that
might come out of the convention other than the BBA
that is contemplated, satisfying the many reasonable
people who worry about runaway conventions. Assuming
a convention actually, in this limited fashion, votes
up rather than down the amendment that's contemplated,
that immediately triggers, using a conditional
enactment in the congressional resolution, the
ratification referral that's in Section 2. As soon as
that goes live, based on the conditional enactment, it
triggers a pretty loaded ratification in the compact
that was already there from the beginning. That goes
live - boom. You can get done in a grand total of 38
enactments in the states - assuming minimal tweaks or
none, hopefully - and one enactment in Congress,
everything that would otherwise take over 100
enactments using the non-compact approach.
That makes this plausible, but more importantly, it
makes it "campaignable," because you can know all the
political players that are involved in this process as
you're plotting how to get from point A to point B.
You can't know that in the regular Article V approach
without a compact. And that's one of the greatest
challenges about the non-compact approach to Article V
is [that] you have so many different legislative
sessions you have to navigate, you just cannot
campaign it out based on known political quantities at
all. So, again, I support the other version of
Article V ..., but I think it's important to emphasize
that not only is it a series of Hail Mary passes, but
in a very real sense, it's a blindfolded Hail Mary
pass over and over again. So, the compact, for once,
finally resolves all uncertainty in the process;
everything's determined up front and everyone knows
what they're getting into. And this resolves a lot of
concerns that some folks have had on the left and the
right about the Article V convention process.
MR. DRANIAS said a compact is like a ballot measure, in that
"you know what you're going to get." Like a ballot measure, a
compact may fail. The Compact for a Balanced Budget has sixteen
safeguards built in to satisfy those concerned about a possible
runaway convention. He credited Andy Schlafly for bringing
forward the demands that resulted in the safeguards.
9:14:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Mr. Dranias to state for the record the
guarantees there would not be a runaway convention.
MR. DRANIAS answered that under Article VIII, in HB 284,
anything that might happen at the convention other than what is
specifically mapped out would be nullified. Further, it would
bind all the member states to not ratify anything that might
come out of the convention other than the contemplated BBA.
Because a compact is regarded as a binding contract that has
entrenchment capabilities, it will "lock down the member
states." He described the protection as being so good that the
possibility of tyranny is greater than that of having a runaway
convention.
9:16:49 AM
MR. DRANIAS stated, "Right now, Congress is a standing
constitutional convention." Under current case law, it takes
only two-thirds of a quorum for Congress to propose amendments
on any subject. Further, nobody has any say-so over what rules
Congress might set. He asked, "The reality is if we are not
worried about Congress, despite all the destruction and ...
calamity that they're meting upon us and our kids, [then] why
are we worried about this?" He said Article V "decentralizes
power" and "fixes the problem." He opined that the best thing
to do is to have a compact for a BBA. He said there is a "dirty
little secret" in Article V, which is that Congress has a
position of power to control the call and the ratification
referral. If the compact is not used, "you" must go back to
Congress twice and hope that each time Congress does what it is
supposed to do and does not table the bill "or otherwise try to
screw around with things." He clarified that he thinks Congress
would pass a bill that organizes the convention as a mini
Congress, where it lowers the proposed amendment's threshold.
He said Congress has introduced bills like that twice already:
once in the 1970s and once in the 1980s. He said the compact
fills "all those voids" and, because it sunsets in seven years,
it manifests real political will in institution versus
institution, and thereby forces Congress to make a political
choice to oppose 38 states or "go along with it." He stated,
"There is no opportunity for Congress to circumvent it without
denying the compact."
MR. DRANIAS said the Founding Fathers promised that the states
would have the ability to get whatever amendments they desired
using Article V. He said logistically it's been incredibly
difficult, but with a compact it is finally plausible to fix the
national debt.
9:19:58 AM
MR. DRANIAS, in response to Chair Lynn, related that before his
current position, he was at the Institute for Justice, in
Minnesota, for three years, and prior to that was a litigant
attorney for eight years in Chicago.
9:21:15 AM
DON BRAND indicated that he became a volunteer with the
Convention of States Project in order to do something that would
"address constraints on federal abuse, including spending." He
stated his support of "any approach, which has as its goal to
seek amendments that constrain federal spending"; therefore, he
stated support of HB 284 and urged the committee to move it
forward. In response to the chair, he confirmed that he was
testifying on his own behalf.
9:22:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony.
9:22:14 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER observed that four out of the seven
members of the committee are not also on the House Judiciary
Standing Committee, and he requested that those who wished
committee discussion on HB 284 in the House State Affairs
Standing Committee to say so. He explained his tendency is to
want to move the proposed legislation out of the committee, but
he does not want to cut anyone out of the discussion.
9:22:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES stated her preference to have more time to
understand what the budget amendment would do.
9:23:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS expressed concern that if the House State
Affairs Standing Committee holds HB 284, it may not pass [out of
both bodies by the end of session]; therefore, she said she
would vote to move it out of committee where the House Judiciary
Standing Committee could address the constitutional aspect.
9:24:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS posited that the House Judiciary
Standing Committee seems like an appropriate venue for what
appears to be a "supremely judicial bill."
9:24:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he echoes the sentiment of the
majority. He said he understands what Representative Hughes
would like to do; however, he ventured that [the House Judiciary
Standing Committee] would ensure that the proposed legislation
delivered on its intent.
9:25:22 AM
CHAIR LYNN remarked there are only two lawyers on the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he was prepared to make a motion to
move HB 284 out of committee.
9:25:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she thinks the information she wants
would only take a few minutes to address.
9:26:30 AM
CHAIR LYNN reopened public testimony.
9:26:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES observed that language on page 3 of HB 284
begins the explanation of the proposed BBA, and she asked Mr.
Dranias to offer further details.
9:27:22 AM
MR. DRANIAS stated that the proposed BBA has seven sections.
[Section 6 of the BBA, as shown on page 4, lines 13-25, of HB
284], is the definitional section, which he said is probably the
most important toward understanding the entirety of the proposed
bill. He said Section 1 [of the BBA, explained on page 3, lines
9-12 of HB 284], relates to balance and would limit expenditures
of the United States Government to all tax receipts and other
income, excluding the proceeds from debt and the incurrence of
liability. He said the intent of this is to limit spending to
"only taxes and things like taxes." He stated, "Any time money
is created out of thin air, that is proceeds from the incurrence
of a liability."
9:30:04 AM
MR. DRANIAS said Section 2 [of the BBA, shown on page 3, lines
13-17 of HB 284], proposes an establishment of a line of credit
at 105 percent of the outstanding debt on ratifications. The
extra five percent would give time through additional borrowing
to try to figure out what to do next. Section 3 [of the BBA,
shown on page 3, lines 18-27 of HB 284], pertains to the
referendum process, whereby in order to increase the initial
revolving line of credit, [Congress] would have to refer a
measure out to the states, a majority of which would have to
approve the measure. He said the significance of this provision
is that it would deem void as an issue anything that would
involve a quid pro quo, so the possibility of states being
coerced into approving debt increases would be greatly minimized
because it would risk the soundness of the bond issuance.
MR. DRANIAS said Section 4 [of the BBA, shown on page 3, line
28, through page 4, line 5, of HB 284], relates to the
impoundment requirement, whereby roughly six months prior to
hitting the debt limit, the parties state what they would have
to impound if the debt limit is not increased, taxes are not cut
or increased, or spending is not cut or raised. Section 5 [of
the BBA, shown on page 4, lines 6-12, of HB 284], pertains to a
tax limit where there would be a general rule of a two-thirds
[vote in Congress] required for any increase or new taxes, with
the three exceptions, using simple majorities to either get to a
fair tax, get to a flatter tax, or to rely on tariffs and fees.
He reiterated that Section 6 of the BBA is the definition
section. He stated that Section 7 [of the BBA, on page 4, lines
26-27 of HB 284], states that as soon as the amendment is
ratified, it is operative; Congress does not have to pass a law.
9:32:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER announced that Mr. Dranias would be
available in the Speaker's Chambers at 4:00 p.m. to answer
questions. Further, he relayed that Mr. Dranias had relayed his
commitment to being a resource to Alaska. He said he would like
to make a motion to move the bill out of committee.
9:32:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed thanks for the time taken to
identify the factors of the BBA.
9:32:53 AM
CHAIR LYNN reclosed public testimony.
9:32:59 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON moved to report HB 284 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HB 284 was reported out of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee.
HB 199-VPSO FIREARMS
[Contains mention of SB 98.]
9:33:33 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced the final order of business was HOUSE BILL
NO. 199, "An Act relating to Department of Public Safety
regulations allowing village public safety officers to carry
firearms."
9:33:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BRYCE EDGMON, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor, presented HB 199. In response to the chair, he
confirmed that there were two fatal incidents in which a VPSO
was killed in the line of duty. Both occurred in Bristol Bay.
The first happened October 22, 1986, when Ron Zimin lost his
life pursuing an incident of domestic violence in the community
of South Naknek; the second incident took place March 19, 2013,
in Manokotak. He reported that the number of assaults against
VPSOs has been increasing. He said he has observed a change in
many rural Alaska communities, with an increase in violence,
domestic violence, and drug related altercations. He stated it
is just a matter of time before there is another violent
confrontation that may be avoided as a result of the proposed
legislation. In response to the chair, he said it is not
possible to know for certain whether the aforementioned
fatalities could have been avoided if those VPSOs had been
armed; however, he indicated that many residents of Manokotak
believed it would have made a difference.
9:36:29 AM
CARLA AKELKOK, Manager, VPSO Program, Bristol Bay Native
Association (BBNA), stated that the BBNA Board of Directors,
including President/CEO Ralph Andersen, supports HB 199. She
said BBNA is a regional Alaska Native non-profit corporation and
tribal consortium, which has operated the VPSO Program for more
than 30 years, since its inception. She related that both VPSOs
who died in the line of duty - Ron Zimin in South Naknek in
1986, and Thomas Madole in Manokotak on March 19, 2013 - were
BBNA employees. She stated, "Both are honored and in our hearts
and memories."
MS. AKELKOK said BBNA strongly supports changing state policy to
allow VPSOs to be armed, along with the required certified
training. She said BBNA thinks the decision [whether to arm a
VPSO] should be made as local policy by the particular community
and non-profit employer. She said at present BBNA's VPSO
contract with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) prohibits
BBNA from allowing its VPSOs to be armed while on duty. She
relayed that shortly after the death of VPSO Madole, the BBNA
Board of Directors adopted Resolution 2013-07, which called on
DPS to rescind the ban on arming VPSOs. Further, in September
2013, the board adopted resolution 2013-14 expressing support of
HB 199.
MS. AKELKOK stated BBNA's belief that the social environment of
rural Alaska has changed in the last 30 years, and that
increased use of alcohol and dangerous drugs such as
methamphetamine and heroin make the VPSO jobs more hazardous.
She said BBNA recognizes that a change in state policy to allow
BPSOs to be armed should be done through a planned process, and
appropriate training should be provided. She stated, "If
approved, BBNA has volunteered to be the pilot project with
DPS."
9:39:31 AM
MS. AKELKOK, in response to the chair, said BBNA does have
concerns about liability and will form a working group with DPS
to conduct further research.
9:40:32 AM
JODY POTTS, Coordinator, Village Public Safety Officers (VPSOs),
Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC); Sergeant VPSO, commended the
state and bill sponsor for bringing HB 199 forward to support
VPSOs and the work they do in rural Alaska. Based on her
experience as a VPSO over the last four years, she said she has
witnessed an increase in the level of violence and
unpredictability of the people that VPSOs deal with on a regular
basis, along with an increase in assaults on officers. She
stated that the TCC Executive Board and President support arming
VPSOs and have faith in DPS's ability to properly train VPSOs.
She said she was a recruit at the academy in Sitka, and she
believes the training will be sufficient.
MS. POTTS relayed the only concern is related to the screening
process. She said currently VPSOs have to pass a basic criminal
background check, after which the nonprofit organization is
allowed to interview and hire them. She said state troopers and
other municipal police in Alaska who are certified by the Alaska
Police Standards Council (APSC) undergo a much more lengthy
screening process, which includes a more in depth background
check, psychological ("psych") evaluations, a polygraph test, a
physical fitness test, and more lengthy interviews. She opined
that that is important to ensure that "communities are getting
highly qualified individuals that are fit mentally and
physically in order to carry a firearm." She stated her belief,
based on the research she has conducted, that this factor could
protect a VPSO, the hiring organization, and the state if a
liability case was brought claiming excessive use of force. She
said she thinks it would be a disservice to Alaskans if the
state does not require a test of mental and physical fitness, in
addition to the criminal background check, [before qualifying a
VPSO to be armed].
9:44:18 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Potts if she is concerned that under HB
199, a VPSO would not be required to have as much training in
carrying a firearm as a police officer.
MS. POTTS answered yes. She stated her belief that the villages
being served deserve the highest training in their VPSOs. She
further remarked upon the high-level, quality training that the
VPSO Academy provides. In response to a follow-up question, she
reemphasized her concern about how the courts would view a case
of excessive force brought against a VPSO who had not been
screened sufficiently to determine whether he/she was qualified
to carry a weapon. In response to the chair, she clarified that
TCC supports HB 199, but strongly feels that the issue of a
proper screening process needs to be addressed.
9:47:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES requested that the bill sponsor explain
why the screening is not included and address the issue of
training brought up by Ms. Potts.
9:48:01 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said he has been assured by DPS that the
whole process of screening and training, which will be under the
umbrella of the Alaska Police Standards Council, will be
"similar [to], if not directly on par with what a municipal
police officer would get." He said he cannot speak for the non-
profit organizations [that hire the VPSOs], but he surmised that
they would carefully screen candidates. To illustrate his
personal commitment to this issue, he told the committee he is
going to the training facility in Sitka on a Saturday when there
will be active training taking place, and he invited others to
join him.
9:50:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS expressed concern regarding additional
training that may be necessary to address unique situations in
rural villages where, for example, a VPSO may be related to some
of those he/she serves. She indicated that carrying a weapon
can escalate a situation. Notwithstanding that, she opined that
[VPSOs] working in villages should not be without a weapon.
9:52:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked the bill sponsor whether the
phrase "minimum standards in training" is associated with the
Alaska Police Standards Council.
9:52:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON responded that following the House
Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee meeting on HB
199, he asked DPS to check with the Department of Law on whether
"that, in fact, was the case," and the answer he received was
yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked Representative Edgmon to confirm
that he thinks "no amendment is needed to make sure that that
intent is ... fulfilled in regulation."
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON answered that is correct.
9:53:19 AM
ALBERT JUDSON related that he is Tlingit and (indisc.), and his
father was the first policeman in Hoonah, Alaska. He said he
became a VPSO. He stated support of HB 199 and SB 98, because
of the work he did, the experiences he had, and the things he
saw. He related an incident where his life was threatened. He
mentioned the right to bear arms, and the right to self-
protection. He said he would like to see VPSOs get temporary
permits even before getting training, because of the need to
protect themselves and their role in protecting the general
public. He said they take an oath, which should be taken
seriously.
9:57:43 AM
MR. JUDSON questioned if there is a law which says if a citizen
failed to help protect a police officer who was attacked, he/she
would be in violation of the law, and if so, he suggested that
that law should apply to VPSOs and anyone in law enforcement, no
matter where they are located. He talked about the United
States having fought for the right to be free and the equal
protection of all under laws. He asked the committee if there
should be a state trooper academy separate from that for VPSOs.
He talked about "many of them" being unqualified, having been
veterans, but with no formal training. He suggested having a
public safety academy for VPSOs and security personnel, which
would "alleviate that ... weakness."
10:00:33 AM
MR. JUDSON relayed that the only part of HB 199 he questions is
in regard to the phrase "minimum standards of training". He
said, "That's where I feel that a temporary permit should be
issued immediately, if not sooner ...."
CHAIR LYNN thanked Mr. Judson for his service as a VPSO.
[HB 199 was held over.]
10:02:26 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 10:02
a.m.