Ben Adams — Named as a conservative leader who championed the issue; not an expected committee member.
Mr. Enz — Mr. Enz is introduced as an expert and then explains the campaign’s strategy for pressuring Congress through the threat of a constitutional convention or balanced budget amendment. He argues that the threat must be credible, cites historical precedent, and frames the issue in terms of federalism and the states’ authority to pressure Congress when federal power exceeds its bounds. He then shifts to the fiscal argument, noting the scale of annual deficits and explaining that the proposed solution is a 10-year debt break that would phase in deficit reduction before addressing the national debt.
Mr. Lenz — The chair appears to call Mr. Lenz up to provide testimony, likely the same person as Mr. Enz but transcribed inconsistently.
Lauren Enz — Identified herself as representing Balanced Budget Now and testified in support of HCR 25.
James Ruchti — Representative Scott questions the logic of threatening to call a convention of states while also saying there is no desire to hold one, characterizing the position as 'double talk.'
James Ruchti — Representative Scott asked a series of related follow-up questions about the proposed convention/amendment strategy, expressing concern about the apparent contradiction between describing the convention threat as a tactic while the text still calls for a convention. He also raised the national GOP platform’s opposition to such efforts, asked whether Idaho’s position aligned with the national party, and questioned whether the amendment had been shared with Congress or the states and whether using the threat was an effective strategy to force action.
Jim Guthrie — The chair recognizes questions and the witness.
David Leroy — Announced as the first public testifier.
Dave Leroy — Dave Leroy testified in support of the proposal, introducing himself and saying he represents himself and future generations. He explained that although he had long viewed a convention as too risky, the post-COVID environment convinced him action is necessary. He said he consulted AI and concluded the runaway-convention risk was theoretical, then argued that the nation’s debt and spending trajectory is unsustainable and that something different must be done. He criticized the Trump administration for continuing deficit spending and closed by urging a yes vote.
Gene Mullenkoff Moore — Gene Mullenkoff Moore, speaking for herself, opened her testimony by identifying her connection to Idaho's Electoral College votes and then stated her opposition to HCR 25 and to calling a constitutional convention. She argued that Idaho constituents would not be fairly represented, questioned who would select the delegates, and expressed concern that the proposal would not achieve its intended goals.
Jean / Gene Mullenkoff Moore — The chair thanks the witness and moves to the next testifier.
Evelyn Whiting — Evelyn Whiting was introduced as the next public witness and then testified in support of fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget amendment, speaking as a 16-year-old representing her generation. She argued that the debt issue is about responsibility across generations rather than politics, said fiscal responsibility should not depend on which party or generation is in power, and concluded by urging action now so the debt burden is not left to future generations.
Cordell Rich — Cordell Rich testified in support of HCR 25, arguing that it is not a constitutional convention and that states have the authority to send delegates and limit their scope. He contended that the framers were sent by the states to create a federal government structure, rejected fears of a runaway convention by saying none has ever occurred, and concluded by reaffirming his support for the resolution and thanking the committee.
Brian Garrett — Brian Garrett testified in favor of the measure, drawing on his long banking career and historical experience with high interest rates and debt cycles. He recalled the 1980–81 period when prime rates reached 20%, described offering high-yield IRAs to remain competitive, and argued that heavy federal borrowing can drive up interest rates, contribute to recessions, and hurt businesses and the broader economy. He concluded by emphasizing that his comments were based on historical perspective about the damaging economic effects of debt.
Tom Luna — Tom Luna was introduced and then testified in support of the resolution, saying he was speaking for himself and his 19 grandchildren in Idaho. He followed with a personal story from 1980, when he first voted for president, using it to reflect on how he learned to think about where government money comes from.
Dorothy Moon — Identified herself as chairwoman of the Idaho Republican Party and said she has long had concerns about the issue.
Ms. Wright — Referenced as having made a point about the national debt and its burden on future generations.
Brandon Shippy — Moves to send HCR 25 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.