Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/30/2009 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR28 | |
| HCR10 | |
| HJR27 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 28 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HJR 27-STATE SOVEREIGNTY 2:07:00 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the final order of business would be, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 27, Relating to sovereign powers of the state. REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, first noted that the content of HJR 27 is identical to that of HR 9. He said the federal government's encroachment on states' rights seems to be dialing up. He read the following from his sponsor statement: According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, "the volume of federal legislation that preempts state authority has increased" and "pressure continues to mount for Congress and the White House to support federal usurpation of state authority in a variety of areas such as criminal law, tort reform, driver's license security and the environment." REPRESENTATIVE KELLY added that Alaska's right to manage its own fish and game, navigable waters, and R.S. 2477 have all taken a nasty turn, and now the federal funds for fighting the fight for state access have been taken away. He pointed out that HJR 27 could have had more strident, secession-like language which would have made several of his constituents happy. However, the reason for a less strident resolution is because in other states the resolutions with the more strident language did not pass. He said that if Alaska does not receive favorable treatment upon stating its demands in this manner, then he will lead the pack for making Alaska's actions more strident. 2:11:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE KELLY related that four states have passed sovereignty bills, 22 states have introduced such legislation, and Alaska is among the 12 states expected to pass legislation. Although some states have rejected strident language, he said three states have more strident language than that of HJR 27. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY explained that the [United States Constitution] was written under the principle of positive grant, which means that the federal government is authorized to exercise only those powers which are positively granted to it by the constitution. Thus, if a power is not listed in the constitution, then the federal government does not have it. He said members must keep in mind that the founders envisioned a confederation of states, not a one-size-fits-all solution, and HJR 27 asserts Alaska's sovereign rights. 2:14:42 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN related that the cost of improving a nine-mile road in his district doubled because of federal government requirements. He cited several examples of demands made by the federal government and surmised that the gist of HJR 27 is that the federal government tells Alaska what to do and sometimes a carrot is provided to force the action and sometimes not. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY answered that this is precisely so, from Alaska from managing its own fish and game to access to its own navigable waters. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG pointed out that there is a difference between intent and what is actually meant. 2:18:55 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON opened public testimony. JAMES FLOYD applauded Representative Kelly's efforts and stated that the legislature can always follow this resolution with an act should there be more things that need to be said. There is a lot of citizen concern that the federal government is stepping beyond its scope of power on many different issues, he said. The states entered a contract with each other called the U.S. Constitution, and this contract created the federal government; thus, it is the states that have the authority and the power. He reported that since the 1990s, 47 legislatures have been involved with this type of Tenth Amendment resolution. In this regard, he read several statements made by legislators from states around the U.S. 2:23:02 PM SCOTT HAMANN stated that while he understands the reasoning for toning down the resolution, the time for being nice has passed. He urged that some teeth be put into legislation and one way to do so would be to withhold the federal tax monies that are collected in the state until the federal government does what Alaska is requesting. The federal government will not be receptive until something like this is done, he said. 2:24:24 PM ROD ARNO, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, stated that HJR 27 is not strident enough. As director of the Alaska Outdoor Council and as a member of the Citizens' Advisory Commission of Federal Areas (CACFA), he said he has seen over and over again the loss of access, the loss of fish and game management, and the loss of fish and game allocations because of federal encroachment. He urged that HJR 27 be passed. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON closed public testimony after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify. 2:25:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said it seems to him that the language on page 2, lines 17-19, says Alaska wants federal monies but does not want to be told what to do with the money. He asked whether Representative Kelly would be amenable to deleting the language "or lose federal funding" because it diminishes the forcefulness of the resolution. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY replied that there was a lot of discussion on this while the resolution was being toned down. He said he thinks it is important to have this language because it is one of the ways the federal government consistently enforces its inappropriate overreach. The federal government has taken away 250 million acres of productive land and has not kept its promise on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). The federal government takes away from the state every chance it gets, yet he is made to feel embarrassed about saying that the federal government should not use money to make the state feel better. He said the resolution is stating that the money sent to Alaska is being used to force the state to breaks its own Tenth Amendment rights. The resolution is not about money, it is about the rights Alaska has a state; therefore he said he prefers to leave this language in. 2:30:01 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON stated that he has sat through numerous budget subcommittee meetings where the state replaced federal funds, most of which came with a stipulation that the state must do something or lose the funding. Often such funds suddenly disappear and the state is left holding the bag and having to determine whether to continue the program. He urged that the resolution not be softened any further. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON clarified that he is not attempting to soften the resolution. Rather, the language makes it appear to him that what is really being talked about is getting federal money and he sees these words as softening the resolution. He agreed to keep the language in, given that this is what the sponsor would like. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON added that he reads the language as requiring the state to pass legislation or lose federal funding. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that there could be an additional "Be It Resolved" that returns some of the carrots so the state could get some of its freedoms back. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY responded that a list should be made and specific action directed, and if there is no action then the next step can be discussed. He said he believes it best that the first step not be a threat. 2:34:21 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK suggested adding a comma after the word penalties and after the word sanctions on page 2, line 18, as a way of providing clarification. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON surmised that adding the commas would make "threat of civil or criminal penalties" one thought, "sanctions" a second thought, and "requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding" a third thought. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK answered correct. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he does not think the commas change the substance or the meaning, it just breaks things out. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON stated that the commas would get to the problem he is talking about. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY said this appears to be okay at the moment, but he reserves the right to come back if it is not. 2:37:14 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 1 as follows: Page 2, line 18, following "penalties" Insert "," Page 2, line 18, following "sanctions": Insert "," CO-CHAIR JOHNSON, after ascertaining there was no objection, announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 has passed. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK recalled discussions he and his fellow Anchorage School District board members had about whether to refuse federal funds and not participate in the No Child Left Behind mandate. However, it was decided that loss of the funds would have put too much of a burden on the school district. Although a third of Alaska's economy is from federal funds, he said there are times the state must flex and remind authorities of its rights, but this is not to be construed that he is a secessionist. He said he hopes there is enough money in the "Statehood Defense Fund" to cover the resolution and Alaska's best interests. 2:40:01 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether it would be beneficial to send this to the governors of all 50 states. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed that this is a good idea. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked whether the resolution would be sent to other legislatures or governors. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON replied that his intent was governors, but he has no problem with it going to both legislatures and governors. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed as long as it would not require a fiscal note. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that it can be done electronically at no cost. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved that the committee adopt Conceptual Amendment 2 which would "send copies [of HCR 10] to the governors and heads of the legislature, both bodies, with the exception of Nebraska which only has one." There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 was passed. 2:42:03 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG expressed his belief that page 2, line 19, weakens the resolution because the legislature has no control over how the media might spin the federal money aspect. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON disagreed, saying he thinks it just separates it out and more clearly defines it. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said the language on line 19 is confusing and could be diminishing because he had taken line 19 to be one concept instead of two concepts. He suggested adding a comma on line 19 after the word legislation so it would separate it into two concepts. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON pointed out that the sponsor has agreed to work with Legislative Legal and Research Services to ensure the verbiage is proper, plus there is a public record of what the committee is looking for. He said that instead of amending the resolution further he would like to advance it as it is because this can be brought up again once the committee substitute is seen. 2:45:23 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that no one is looking to lessen the resolution, just help it. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN said he likes the resolution as it is and Representative Kelly can request that it go to the House Rules Standing Committee if there needs to be a change. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON clarified that his purpose for a conceptual amendment was not to hold it up, but to give members one more look at the resolution before advancement. He said he thinks all of the resolutions before the committee today [HJR 28, HCR 10, HJR 28] are important to the state and reflect why many people came to Alaska and chose to stay. Alaska needs to flex its muscle every chance it can get, he added. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN moved to report HJR 27, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHCR 27(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| CSHCR 10(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| CSHJR 27(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR 28 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |
| HCR 10 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HJR 27 Packet.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| CSHJR 28(RES).pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |
| HCR 10 NPS Water Regs.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HCR 10 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HCR 10 |
| HJR 27 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 27 |
| HJR 28 zero fiscal note.pdf |
HRES 3/30/2009 1:00:00 PM |
HJR 28 |