Legislature(2015 - 2016)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/06/2016 08:30 AM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB124 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB188 | |
| HCR4 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 124 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 241 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 188 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Relating to the duties of delegates selected by the
legislature to attend a convention of the states
called under art. V, Constitution of the United
States, to consider a countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States; establishing as a
joint committee of the legislature the Delegate
Credential Committee and relating to the duties of the
committee; providing for an oath for delegates and
alternates to a countermand amendment convention;
providing for a chair and assistant chair of the
state's countermand amendment delegation; providing
for the duties of the chair and assistant chair;
providing instructions for the selection of a
convention president; and providing specific language
for the countermand amendment on which the state's
convention delegates are authorized by the legislature
to vote to approve.
1:26:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES, SPONSOR, explained that HCR
4. She stated that the resolution was the second of two
resolutions that were working in tandem. She remarked that
HCR 14 was in the Rules Committee awaiting this resolution.
She explained that the word "countermand" means "veto." She
explained that the resolutions were intended to restore the
appropriate balance between the states and the federal
government. She shared that a poll conducted in Alaska in
March 2015 showed that 82 percent of Alaskans believed that
it was important to address the federal government
overstepping its bounds. She understood that the federal
government was not the enemy, because it did many important
actions for Alaska. She stressed that the resolution was
not an "anti-federal government" bill. She felt that the
resolution was a non-partisan issue. She felt that it was
about the working relationship between the states and the
federal government. She remarked that, over time, the
federal government had not always focused its attention on
national concerns, so there was currently a problem. She
felt that the federal government often conducted itself
with disregard and a lack of accountability to the state,
and specifically to Alaska's detriment. She felt that the
issue of Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) was an
example of the federal government overstepping its bounds.
She shared that the legislature had historically protested
and resolved against the federal government. She shared
that there was often litigation with rare success. She
remarked that, typically, the actions of the state were met
with silence or weak affirmation from the federal
government. She stressed that the encroachment on the
sovereignty was frustrated for Alaskans. She remarked that
there were many times that the federal government did not
always know what is best for the state. She stressed that
the legislature had the right and duty to work to restore
the balance between the state and federal governments.
Representative Hughes stated that the first resolution
called for the convention for the countermand amendment.
The current legislation gave instructions to the delegates.
She remarked that the outline of instructions was intended
to keep order, and ensure that the constitution is not
dismantled. The resolution outlined the delegate selection
process; outlines the delegate duties; and includes the
specific language of the countermand amendment.
Representative Hughes explained that it took 34 states, to
call the convention. She furthered that once Congress
summoned the convention, it would take a simple majority to
approve the amendment language. She explained that 38
states needed to ratify the amendment. Following that
ratification, the amendment was added to the U.S.
Constitution. She stated that a particular state would
decide that either a federal statute, regulation,
administrative order, or judicial decision was not in the
best interest of the state. Therefore, that state would
pass a resolution in its state legislature to announce that
it was not in the best interest of the state. At that
point, another 29 states would need to pass a resolution
stating that the item was not in the best interest of the
state. At that point, the item was rescinded. She remarked
that she understood that the resolution would only be used
with great consensus.
1:34:30 PM
AT EASE
1:34:41 PM
RECONVENED
1:35:04 PM
MIKE COONS, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, CITIZENS INITIATIVES (via
teleconference), remarked that the fiscal note for the
resolution was zero. He explained that until 34 states made
the application for the convention, there was no cost for
the upcoming fiscal year. Once the 34 state applications
occurred, the legislatures would determine the cost of the
convention. He stated that the resolution maintained state
sovereignty in the Article 5 process; and ensured a safe,
efficient, and timely convention. Therefore, reducing any
costs the state may pay to the delegates. He shared that
there would be cost savings on unfunded federal mandates by
repeal of many of the regulations.
Representative Munoz queried the subject number limit, once
the threshold was met. Mr. Coons replied that the amendment
application was for a countermand amendment convention.
Representative Munoz wondered how to get items on the
convention agenda. Mr. Coons responded that there was no
subject, rather it was a named amendment with the state
legislative approved language to the amendment.
Representative Hughes furthered that the subject or topic
for a convention, was through a call application.
Co-Chair Thompson wondered whether the legislature could
direct the delegate's actions. Representative Hughes
responded that the delegates could only address the
countermand amendment at the convention.
Representative Guttenberg commented that the legislature
would be assigning outside of the state's jurisdiction, and
dictating their actions. He felt that the legislature did
not have the authority to control peoples' actions. He
remarked that a representative outside of the state was
outside of the state's jurisdiction. He felt that calling
someone back, because they could not compromise or
disagreed, was not a realistic nor legal situation. He felt
that it was not enforceable. He remarked that the
convention could occur with the delegates disagreeing on
the subject. He wondered if a convention could be called,
based on varying subjects and purposes. Representative
Hughes replied that the 34 applications would have to be
for the same subject.
1:42:42 PM
Representative Guttenberg queried the level of discussion.
He wondered if the questions should be directed to the
sponsor or Mr. Coons.
Co-Chair Thompson stated that the question could be for
either individual.
Representative Guttenberg announced that he was deeply
disturbed by the resolution. He stressed that the
constitution was silenced regarding the delegates. He felt
that it was a legislative "power grab" for deciding the
delegates. He shared that other states had general
elections for people who want to be delegates to the state
constitution. He felt that the people, not specifically
legislators, should be sent to the convention. He felt it
egregious to assume that legislators were the only people
qualified to serve as delegates. Representative Hughes
replied that the resolution did not determine that
legislators would be delegates. She pictured the delegates
as residents of Alaska. She remarked that the resolution
set up a credential committee of legislators, who would
choose the delegates.
Representative Guttenberg found many references in the
resolution about the power of the legislature. He felt that
there should be an electoral process that allowed Alaskans
to vote for the best delegate. He felt that the legislature
did not have any special skills separate from regular
residents of Alaska.
Representative Gattis stated that she had a similar
question to Representative Munoz.
Representative Gara wondered if the constitution would
allow voters to select the delegates. Representative Hughes
did not specify the requirements for delegate selection.
She stated that the delegate appointment process was
intended to include Alaskans from around the state. She did
not know if the language prohibited the selection through
an election process.
Representative Gara stressed that he would like the general
public to select the delegates.
Representative Gara queried the last time the constitution
was successfully changed by a state convention.
STUART KRUEGER, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE SHELLEY HUGHES,
replied that there was never a successful amendment through
the convention process. The closest any effort came,
resulted in the 17th Amendment, which was about the direct
election of senators. He shared that there was a point of
nearly 30 states, and at that point, Congress acted on its
own. He felt that the resolution could be a tool to enable
the states to apply similar pressure to the federal
government.
Co-Chair Thompson CLOSED public testimony.
Vice-Chair Saddler reviewed the fiscal note.
1:51:14 PM
AT EASE
1:52:28 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Neuman MOVED to REPORT CSHCR 4 (STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Guttenberg OBJECTED. He indicated he was
concerned with the legislature taking so much power. He did
not believe the state was the controlling body. A remand
convention should be the people.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Munoz, Pruitt, Saddler, Wilson, Edgmon, Gattis,
Thompson, Neuman
OPPOSED: Guttenberg, Kawasaki, Gara
The MOTION PASSED (8/3).
CSHCR 4 (STA) was REPORTED out of committee with a "do
pass" recommendation and with one new indeterminate fiscal
note by the Legislature.
1:56:26 PM
AT EASE
2:19:17 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson stated that the meeting would be in
recess until 7:30 AM.
2:19:35 PM
AT EASE
2:20:28 PM
RECONVENED
Co-Chair Thompson canceled the 7:30 a.m. meeting for the
following day. He discussed the schedule for the following
meeting.