Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/13/1995 01:35 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 29
Relating to the federal balanced budget amendment.
Representative Parnell, the sponsor of HJR 29, spoke in its
support. He observed that HJR 29 urges Congress to support
and pass a resolution proposing a constitutional amendment
requiring a federal balanced budget. He noted that absent
policy changes, entitlement and interest spending will
consume almost all federal revenues in the year 2010. In
the year 2030, federal revenues will not even cover
entitlement spending. He noted that the United States House
of Representatives passed HJR 1, a balanced budget
amendment.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 1
(Attachment 1). Representative Brown MOVED to adopt
Amendment 1. Amendment 1 would insert after "WHEREAS" on
page 1, line 7, "the goal of." "Could be accomplished"
would also be deleted on page 1, line 8 after "spending" and
"may be advanced" would be inserted. Representative Parnell
had no objections. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1
was adopted.
Representative Brown provided members with Amendment 2
(Attachment 2). Amendment 2 would insert after "budget" on
page 1, line 12, "with provisions that will allow a response
to national economic emergencies and long-term investments
2
in national infrastructure."
Representative Brown MOVED to adopt Amendment 2. She
explained that Amendment 2 would allow capital improvement
expenditures to be accounted for separately. Representative
Mulder OBJECTED. He stated that the amendment would "open
the door a crack".
Representative Parnell objected to the amendment on the
basis that the amendment would make HJR 29 too specific. He
emphasized that HJR 1, introduced in the United States
Congress, provides that total outlays for any fiscal year
shall not exceed total receipts for the fiscal year unless
three-fifths of the whole number of each House in Congress
shall provide by law for a specific excess. He asserted
that the breadth of the HJR 1 already allows response to
national economic emergencies and long-term investments in
national infrastructure upon a three-fifths vote of
Congress.
Representative Grussendorf spoke in support of Amendment 2.
Representative Brown accentuated that the amendment would be
compatible with HJR 1. She stressed that the amendment
would send the message that the State of Alaska wants a
solution that will respond to the needs of our state.
A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move Amendment
2.
IN FAVOR: Brown, Grussendorf
OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, Parnell, Foster,
Hanley
The MOTION FAILED (2-8).
Representative Brown referred to remarks by Senator Ted
Stevens made on the floor of the United States Senate on
February 25, 1994 (Attachment 3). She noted that he stated
that: "I think it will be a total, total disaster for a
state such as mine to come under a balanced budget
amendment. We will lose at least Fort Richardson and
Eielson Air Force Base, and maybe one other. Alaska will
lose 94,000 jobs; there will be 24 percent less personal
income in Alaska; the rate of unemployment, which is already
the Nation's highest, will increase by 6.4 percent." She
observed that Senator Stevens, in his speech, detailed other
effects the balanced budget amendment would have on Alaska.
Senator Stevens concluded that "this is the wrong amendment
at the wrong time to address the wrong problem."
Representative Brown stressed that the effects of a balanced
3
budget amendment have not changed.
Representative Brown acknowledged the philosophical
correctness of helping Congress to restrain its spending.
She questioned what will happen to Alaska if federal
contraction occurs when state dollars available for
expenditure are also being reduced.
Representative Therriault stressed that Senator Stevens'
change of heart in regards to the balanced budget amendment
was based on the fact that the national situation is so
severe that something absolutely has to be done. He
highlighted that everybody feels there is a problem, but no
one wants to give anything up or have the programs that they
have come to rely on considered for reduction or
elimination. He asserted that the State of Alaska cannot be
separated from the Nation.
Representative Grussendorf emphasized the importance of
federal funding to the State of Alaska. He questioned
members' priorities: "The economy of the State of Alaska" or
"do we want to have a nation wide perspective."
Co-Chair Hanley concluded that the Nation's credit card
balance has reached its limit. He emphasized that tough
decisions need to be made. He expounded that inaction could
result in a worst scenario, in terms of the kinds of
reductions that would have to be made in the future. He
reiterated that the three-fifths vote allows flexibility.
He asserted that a balanced budget amendment will focus
public pressure.
Representative Martin avouched that calamity will be the
result of inaction. He stressed: "Either pay the bill or
let your grandchildren pay it." He asserted that we have to
"get control of this wild spending in Congress."
Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSHJR 29 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and with the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CS HJR 19 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with a zero fiscal note by the
Office of the Governor.
HB 19 was reported out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with two zero fiscal notes by the
Department of Law, date 2/8/95 and the Department of
Administration, dated 2/8/95.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|