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.