Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/20/1995 08:10 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HRES - 02/20/95 SJR 6 - TRANSFER FEDERAL LAND TO POST-1802 STATES Number 348 JOE AMBROSE, AIDE, SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR, PRIME SPONSOR, stated the Founding Fathers recognized that land was power and that a centralized federal government with a substantial land base would eventually overwhelm the states. That is why the original 13 colonies and the next 5 states admitted to the Union were given fee title to all land within their borders. He said the Constitution even includes a provision allowing for the donation of land to the federal government for the creation of the District of Columbia. The Founders guarded land ownership jealously, writing into the Constitution's first article, a provision allowing the federal government to purchase, with the consent of the state legislatures, land it needed for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock yards and other needful buildings. MR. AMBROSE explained the opening of the West, with its wealth of resources, led an envious federal government to begin to withhold for itself large portions of land within the borders of newly admitted states under the guise of public domain. The result of this doctrine was the creation of what SJR 6 refers to as land poor states, admitted to the Union as unequal, federally dominated entities. He stated SJR 6 calls upon Congress to right this wrong and release to the states all federal holdings within their borders. The action proposed by this resolution would make land use decisions now being decided by the Congress moot and empower the states to settle those issues on their own. He noted that copies of the draft of SJR 6 were sent to members of the congressional delegations from the land poor states as well as to groups and individuals interested in this issue. MR. AMBROSE told committee members they had a copy of an article from the Ketchikan Daily News in their folders. In that article Representative Don Young was asked directly about SJR 6 and Representative Young said, "Senator Taylor's resolution is already being seriously discussed in Washington." He said Senator Taylor is hoping that SJR 6 will be passed in a timely manner so that Alaska will be the first of the states to send this message to Congress. Number 400 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN made a MOTION to MOVE SJR 6 out of committee with accompanying zero fiscal note with individual recommendations. REPRESENTATIVE JOHN DAVIES OBJECTED for the purpose of discussion. He said it was his understanding that SJR 6 would not be passed out today. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS said he had announced at the beginning of the meeting that he did not plan to move HB 128. CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN WITHDREW his MOTION. Number 423 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said if the federal government had not retained control of some large acreages of land, the national forest system would not be in place. He added if those lands were in very small ownership patterns it would be difficult to put together long term contracts. MR. AMBROSE responded who is better suited to manage the land resource, the state or federal government. He said the implication is the state would not make the same decisions. He stated there is talk in Congress now of dismantling the U.S. Forest Service because it is failing to manage the national forests for the intended purpose, take the productive land and turn it over to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and from there to the states. At the time of statehood, what land was seeded to the state of Alaska was seeded in such a way to guarantee a chance to have an economy. He pointed out that if the decision had gone the other way, the state would not be paying any royalties to the federal government now on the North Slope. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES noted the resolution urges the 104th Congress to transfer to the states, by fee title, all federally controlled property. He wondered if this includes wilderness areas, parks, etc. MR. AMBROSE replied the intent of the resolution is to transfer all federally held land within the 22 states admitted to the Union since 1802. He said the resolution also suggests at that point, anything the federal government feels it needs it could buy from the states which the Constitution says it must do with the permission of the legislatures. He noted Congressman Young is discussing taking the productive land, turning it over to the states, and making the rest of it into parks. Number 473 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES wondered if the state was to take over all the federal lands, including parks and wilderness areas, would the state be responsible for managing those parklands. MR. AMBROSE stated that is the intent. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES questioned if there would be a significant fiscal impact on the state. MR. AMBROSE replied yes, but by the same token, the federal budget could be reduced and the state would not have to be sending as much money in that direction. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said the money sent in that direction is primarily through individual income taxes. Therefore, the state treasury, unless an income tax was enacted to divert that flow to the state treasury instead of the federal treasury, would not have adequate resources to manage those lands. MR. AMBROSE felt that was too speculative to discuss at this point. Number 485 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES felt there would be a substantial fiscal impact in connection with SJR 6 and he questioned the zero fiscal note. Number 499 CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN suggested, in light of the question raised, holding the resolution until the next meeting to determine if a positive fiscal note should be attached. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced SJR 6 would be held until Wednesday, February 22.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|