Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 120
02/28/2014 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB269 | |
| HJR18 | |
| HB284 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 18 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 284 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 269 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 284-COMPACT FOR A BALANCED BUDGET
2:07:38 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 284, "An Act relating to an interstate compact on
a balanced federal budget."
2:08:09 PM
CHAIR KELLER speaking as the prime sponsor of HB 284 stated that
during his consideration of sponsoring the bill he reviewed the
"debt clock" that totaled $17.1 trillion for the national debt
in mid-January, and it was $17.4 trillion dollars yesterday; a
difference of 3/10 of a trillion dollars which amounts to $300
billion dollars. For reference, he pointed out that $300
billion would carry the State of Alaska's total budget for 20-25
years. He reminded the committee of the slide shown during the
last committee meeting that depicted the steep rising ramp of
debt that equated to $55,000 for every man, woman and child [in
the U.S.]. The bill uses a U.S. Constitution, Article V, state
compact approach to amend the constitution and it proposes a cap
to the debt limit. One of the proposals is that the balanced
budget amendment be passed by 38 other states and become a
constitutional amendment. The bill proposes a cap at 105
percent of the national debt at the time of the [effective date]
of the amendment. He explained that instead of Congress
controlling whether there is an increase in the cap, as is the
current case, the cap could be increased by a simple majority of
the states. Although the proposal is draconian in one sense as
people are accustom to the continual increase, it is not
draconian as it allows for creation of new taxes, reform type
taxes. The compact puts the states back into the equation
where, he opined, the states once were. He explained that HB
284 contains the specific text of the proposed amendment in the
compact, the Article V application to Congress that is used as a
call for a convention of which Congress may resolve to call the
ratification convention, and the organization of the interstate
commission. The compact includes delegate appointments and
instructions, convention locations, rules, ratification referral
for the congressional resolution, and the ultimate ratification
of the amendment later. Theoretically, he opined, with the
compact being defined in one piece of legislation it creates a
system wherein the constitution could be amended in one year if
the states are in agreement. He believes Alaska is very
fortunate to be selected as a state wherein the Goldwater
Institute is spending resources to provide technical support.
Alaska is one of three to four states making progress. If
Alaska is the first state to pass the compact there is an
advantage of a leadership role in the compact, which is part of
his motivation, he mentioned.
2:15:31 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN questioned whether the language in the compact
could be amended.
CHAIR KELLER replied no, and advised that due to the nature of
the bill 38 states must act with identical language for the
balanced budget amendment. Although as the states move forward,
there is an allowance for some changes, all of the legislatures
involved would have to agree to any change. Therefore, he
opined that it would be more difficult to make any changes.
2:16:54 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN further questioned whether there is a provision
allowing necessary increases in the budget to handle an
unexpected national emergency or a natural disaster.
CHAIR KELLER explained that the compact relies on the action of
51 percent, 26 states, to expand [the budget], which he opined
is as efficient as is currently in place. A simple resolution
by the states would be required to increase [the budget]. Since
it is not a hard cap as it is up to 105 percent, [an emergency]
requiring overnight response is unlikely, and there should be
time leading up to [the emergency] for the states to respond
intelligently and carefully consider [the matter], he opined.
2:18:40 PM
NICK DRANIAS, Director, Constitutional Policy, Policy and
Development, Goldwater Institute, noted that his 16 years as an
attorney he has spent 8 years focused on the 10th Amendment and
Article V Constitutional Law. He provided the following
testimony:
Representative Keller is essentially correct. On the
first question ... whether the compact needs to be
identical; the compact needs to be identical
substantially at the point where any convention would
be organized which is when 38 states join it. But up
until that point, the compact can be tweaked as any
compact is. If you look around the country you'll
find about 200-plus compacts. The average state is a
member of 20 or more and many of those compacts are
tweaked from year to year in minor and substantial
respects ... the key thing is for the initial compact
to be formed with the initial 2 states to form it as a
compact that would have to be substantially identical.
Thereafter, until you reach the 38th state point of
organizing the convention, it could obviously be
tweaked with unanimous consent of all parties to the
compact.
2:21:12 PM
The committee took a brief at-ease due to technical
difficulties.
2:21:53 PM
MR. DRANIAS continued his testimony as follows:
The second question was how to handle a crisis with
this amendment. If the amendment were in place, it is
important to recognize that the initial debt limit
would be set with a 5 percent cushion, 5 percent in
addition to whatever outstanding debt currently
exists. So if we had a $20 trillion outstanding debt,
that means there would be $1 trillion in additional
borrowing capacity before the debt limit would kick
in. Now that gives a current borrowing and spending
rates of about $650 billion a year, that gives us just
under 2 years or more to get a plan in order to deal
with further increases in the debt if it were deemed
necessary and sell it to the states to get 26 states
to approve it. Now Congress could, in requesting an
increase in the debt limit in that time frame, it
could conceivably identify crisis contingencies for
borrowing in the proposal that they would make to the
states. And so, it is really up to Congress how they
want to deal with crisis contingencies. They could
specify them any increase in the debt limit, but it
would be up to the states to make the call on whether
or not that was a legitimate crisis exception or just
a loop hole for more spending. So, the key thing to
understand here is there is flexibility in this debt
cap. What it reforms is who makes the ultimate call
on that flexibility. The policy reason for that is we
believe the real cause of the spiraling national debt
is having the debtor retain sole and unilateral
control over its own credit limit. We believe that
any system in which the debtor maintains unilateral
control over its credit limit will eventually crash
because the debtor will give himself as much credit as
he can get away with. So primary reform in this
effort is to bring outside intervention from the
states and to ensure that whatever proposal is made
for more debt, whether it is for a crisis or whether
it is for working capital, that an outside board of
directors consisting of legislators just like you are
making that call in 26 states.
2:24:34 PM
CHIP DEMOSS, President, Compact for America, Inc., advised that
Compact for America, Inc., is the sister organization working
with the Goldwater Institute in order that the Compact for
America is passed in the three states mentioned. He then noted
his support for [HB 284]. With regard to changing the compact,
he explained that provisions built into the compact allow states
to make specific changes with regard to their delegates and
"several other minor provisions," he opined. Therefore, the
compacts do not have to be identical in those aspects.
2:26:11 PM
MIKE COONS, Director, Citizens Initiatives, related his support
of the balanced budget amendment embodied in HB 284. However,
Article 1, Section 10, in part, says no state shall, without the
consent of Congress, enter into any agreement or compact with
another state. Therefore, he questioned how to "get around"
that part of the U.S. Constitution. He then inquired as to the
consequences if Congress determines it will not consent to the
states entering into a compact or agreement.
2:28:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG speaking to all witnesses asked whether
any witnesses had received any legal memorandum suggesting there
may be U.S. Constitutional problems with HB 284. He then
requested that the attorney work-product privilege be waived and
all such memoranda delivered to this legislature.
2:29:38 PM
MR. DRANIAS explained that the Goldwater Institute has fully
analyzed all legal issues and raised every conceivable legal
question. He then reminded the committee of the 10 emails
directed to each member of the House Judiciary Standing
Committee regarding the compact approach to Article V amendments
and the joint publication by the Goldwater Institute, States
United for a Balanced Budget, American Academy for
Constitutional Education, Coalition of Freedom, and Compact for
America, Inc., entitled "Using a Compact for Article V
Amendments: Experts Answer FAQs," herein (Experts Answer FAQs),
dated January 24, 2014, which provides the analysis and opinions
of Ilya Shapiro, Cato Institute Senior Fellow in Constitutional
Studies; Shane Krauser, Director, American Academy for
Constitutional Education; Dr. Kevin Gutzman, Attorney, Professor
of History at Western Connecticut State University, and New York
Times best-selling historian; Harold DeMoss, Senior Judge of the
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit in his personal
capacity and not to be regarded as an opinion of the United
States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit; and Nick Dranias as the
Goldwater Institute's Constitutional Policy Director. The
publication includes critiques by various peer individuals of
legal issues raised in every conceivable manner regarding
Article V amendments. He emphasized that nothing is being
hidden and the publication also reflects the critique of a peer
debate opponent and addresses her concerns. Issues are
specifically raised and then addressed in the analysis and, he
opined, there is not a better source for analyzing the legal
issues than the way the Goldwater Institute has addressed each
of the 12 Experts Answer FAQs with detailed citations and
analysis by multiple scholars, and at least one federal judge.
2:31:36 PM
MR. DRANIAS, in response to Mr. Coons, offered that the
Goldwater Institute is anticipating co-opting Congress into
supporting this effort with a counter-part resolution that would
give consent to the compact and simultaneously fulfill every
role that Congress has in the Article V process, including both
the call for the convention and the prospective ratification
referral if the amendment is approved by the convention. In
order to avoid repeatedly approaching Congress, one resolution
would be passed once in Congress and because the Goldwater
Institute uses conditional enactments in some states, contingent
effective date in other states, the Congressional consent, the
Congressional call for a convention, and the Congressional
ratification referral is in one omnibus resolution with each of
those components only going live at the time required by the
text of Article V. He opined, in that manner the [state] can
approach Congress and ask it to pass this resolution on its own
timetable and there may only be 2, 3, 5, or 10 states in the
compact. In the event a simple majority exists in both the
House and Senate, the compact could basically achieve Congress's
entire role in a single resolution, which would lay dormant
until such time as it fulfills the requisites of the Article V
process and triggers it.
2:33:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG reiterated his question as to whether
Mr. Dranias is in possession of any memoranda with the opposite
position that has not been fully disclosed to the committee. He
opined that individuals who come before the House Judiciary
Standing Committee have an ethical obligation if they have
opposing legal opinions to fully present these to this
committee.
MR. DRANIS stated that the analysis of the aforementioned
publication "Experts Answer FAQs," is exactly what the Goldwater
Institute analyzed and concluded internally. He further stated
there is no contrary analysis, opinion, or conclusion that has
been hidden from the committee. There is no issue the Goldwater
Institute has internally spotlighted or with which was concerned
about that is not analyzed and spotlighted in the aforementioned
document. He said he would stake his reputation and licenses on
his statements. The Goldwater Institute, Judge Harold DeMoss of
the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and himself take pride in
taking on issues honestly, openly and transparently to determine
that all issues are exposed, challenged, and debated. Most of
the theories advanced, analyzed, and considered in the
publication entitled "Experts Answer FAQs" have been part and
parcel of a number of different postings with the National
Constitution Center in Philadelphia and with the Law & Liberty
web site. He noted that he has attended and participated in
numerous federal society debates with opposing points of view to
ensure that every [issue] has been tested and analyzed
thoroughly. He stated he could not count the number of emails
the Goldwater Institute has reiterating the analysis with
various legislators and citizens across the country.
Furthermore, there is absolutely not a single legal issue the
Goldwater Institute believes even remotely significant that has
not been analyzed and arguments on both sides disclosed,
arguments on both sides which is evident within the publication.
2:37:56 PM
MR. COONS requested a lay man's response to the question of what
happens if Congress does not consent and asked whether there is
an avenue of approach outside of this. He also asked how the
compact will be passed with the Congress that is currently in
place.
MR. DRANIAS, in response to Mr. Coons, stated that as a first
approach the Goldwater Institute designed the compact to co-opt
Congress rather than conflict with Congress. If it proves
impossible to co-opt Congress then it will fall to other Article
V efforts that have chosen conflict with Congress as its primary
model. He reiterated that the Goldwater Institute's philosophy
is that it prefers to pursue co-option first, and that all of
the Article V efforts that do not use compacts are available for
back up and as a compliment to this effort because this is not a
mutually exclusive effort. He related that the Goldwater
Institute's political judgment is that if Congress would be
willing to call a convention for a balanced budget amendment in
any form, the political will for that is essentially the same
political will needed for [Congress] to consent to this compact.
Should Congress agree with the Article V process it will exist
with a compact as everything is fully defined in advance and
there are no questions or concerns about the process that might
animate people in Congress. Again, if Congress will not consent
and there are not simple majorities in the House and Senate to
consent, the Goldwater Institute's hope is that its sister
efforts on the left and right - if they are directed to good
policy - will provide the backup needed to deal with conflict in
forcing Congress to perform its constitutional duty.
2:41:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised he is not entirely satisfied
with Mr. Dranias's answer and believes there are arguments on
the other side that have not been properly presented. In
general, he stated, it is a matter of credibility and this
committee is dependent on full and complete disclosure on these
grave and weighty issues. He again offered Mr. Dranias an
opportunity to set the record straight.
MR. DRANIAS responded to that the Goldwater Institute has played
devil's advocate to the best of its ability. Furthermore, the
compact was peer reviewed by Andrew Schlafly of the Eagle Forum,
and by Joe Wolverton of the John Birch Society, both of which
oppose every form of an Article V convention. Mr. Dranias
related that he debated with Mary Margaret "Meg" Penrose, Texas
A&M University School of Law Professor who peer reviewed the
fact document itself. He expressed that every substantive
significant legal issue or argument that has been presented to
the Goldwater Institute and that it could conceive has been
raised and thoroughly addressed. Although there may be
arguments it has not considered, he assured the committee that
the Goldwater Institute did go after this issue, especially
since the advisory council consisting of Professor Lawrence
Lessig of Harvard Law School who has a different ideological
slant than Mr. Dranias. The Goldwater Institute considered in
every reasonable manner the opposing points of view which are
the reason it uses a compact, which is a means to be as
cooperative as possible in an effort to generate an amendment
from the states, he opined.
2:44:27 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN questioned Chair Keller if he was aware of any
negative communications.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied no, although he acknowledged that
there have been questions. He then challenged Representative
Gruenberg to bring forward any opposing views on this approach
so that it can be addressed.
VICE CHAIR LYNN pointed out that the committee meeting on HB 284
has been properly noticed and people can testify in favor or in
opposition to the bill.
2:45:57 PM
MR. COONS related that he disagrees with the terminology of the
conflict in Article V, which calls for an application of the
legislatures of two-thirds of the states to call for a
convention to propose amendments. In the event the compact is
not accepted and approved by Congress under Article 1, Section
10, the Citizens Initiative is pursuing an Article V application
for a call for a convention of states to propose specific
amendments. Citizens Initiative is prepared to do the same
thing with the balanced budget amendment, and thus would be
partners in the event Congress will not allow the compact, he
opined.
2:47:33 PM
ERNEST PRAX, Staff, Representative Wes Keller, Alaska State
Legislature, explained that within each member's packet is the
Goldwater Institute's publication "Experts Answer FAQs." He
noted that one question specifically addresses the compact
question and discusses the history of the Supreme Court rulings
on this issue and within the footnotes are cites of lawsuits.
2:48:40 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
2:48:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX advised that originally she liked the
whole idea of the compact, but at this point she would feel more
comfortable reviewing opposing materials as a U.S.
Constitutional Amendment is a big deal.
2:49:25 PM
CHAIR KELLER commented that HB 284 is significant legislation
and if members require more time to review the court cases or
look at opposing positions he proposed that the bill be held
over.
2:50:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG questioned if any state has yet passed
the compact.
2:51:27 PM
CHAIR KELLER requested a [status] report from Mr. Dranias or Mr.
DeMoss regarding the Compact for America. He opined that it is
his understanding two state house legislatures passed the
Compact for America.
2:52:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX related that in previous committee
meetings regarding amending the Alaska Constitution, the
committee heard impassioned testimony from both sides.
Therefore, to not hear anyone in opposition to amending the
United States Constitution seems strange, she expressed.
2:53:35 PM
CHAIR KELLER indicated there is "really not much to hang onto to
oppose it" as the compact is designed to attract 38 states. He
opined there is not much in the bill to attack as people do not
want additional national debt.
2:54:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX commented that in this legislature she has
heard more passion on special orders at the end of the House
floor sessions than on this very substantial bill.
2:55:36 PM
VICE CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 284 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HJR 18~Responses to Feb 19 House Judiciary Questions.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HJR 18 Support Document~AK Constitutional Convention Minutes on Electing Attorney General.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 18 |
| HB 269 Leg. Legal Response to Questions.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM SL&C 3/27/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 269 |
| CSHB 269 (JUD) ver. C Draft.pdf |
HJUD 2/28/2014 1:00:00 PM SL&C 3/27/2014 1:30:00 PM |
HB 269 |