Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/14/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR19 | |
| HB174 | |
| HB89 | |
| HJR8 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 19-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
1:06:31 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business is
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Urging the United States Senate
to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 19(EDT).]
1:06:37 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, speaking on behalf of the House Special
Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and
Tourism that he chairs and who is the sponsor of HJR 19,
informed the committee that the Law of the Sea treaty has been
around for quite awhile. However, the U.S. Senate has chosen
not to debate it or vote on it. Representative Herron stated
that the U.S. is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, which
results in broad and fundamental interest in the Arctic region
where the U.S. seeks to meet its national security needs,
protect the environment, responsibly manage and develop the
nation's resources, protect and account for [the nation's]
indigenous communities, support scientific research, and
strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues.
The aforementioned is what HJR 19 will accomplish, he opined.
1:08:39 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that before the committee is CSHJR
19(EDT).
1:09:11 PM
ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State
Legislature, stated:
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas
(UNCLOS) was entered into force in November 1994.
This convention establishes a treaty regime to govern
activities on, over, and under the world's oceans.
Mr. Chairman, it builds on the four 1958 Law of the
Sea conventions and sets forth a framework for future
activities in parts of the oceans that are beyond
national jurisdiction. The treaty comprises 320
articles and 9 annexes .... The convention defines
the rights and responsibilities of nations and their
use of the world's oceans. As Representative Herron
mentioned, this particular resolution, HJR 19, urges
U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty. And [U.S.]
Senator Lisa Murkowski, in her speech to the
legislature on February 24th requested such a
resolution to help her get a ratification vote to the
[U.S.] Senate floor. Under the treaty, member nations
can claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) up to 200
miles from their coast with sovereign rights to
explore, develop, and manage the resources within that
zone. A claim can extend beyond the 200 mile limit if
a connection can be proven that the nation's
continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles. It's
estimated the area off ... the north coast of Alaska
is about the size of California.
1:10:53 PM
MR. EARL then directed the committee's attention to the slides
entitled "Chinese Claims," which were provided by U.S. Coast
Guard Admiral Colvin. On slide 1 he highlighted the quote from
the Chinese admiral who said that since one-fifth of the world's
population lives in China, China is entitled to one-fifth of the
resources in the Arctic's international waters. The second
slide tracks the Chinese in the Arctic in the summers of 2009
and 2010.
1:11:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON interjected that the slides that provide
the tracking of the Chinese vessel were provided in concert with
the Marine Exchange.
1:12:19 PM
MR. EARL then directed attention to slide 4, which illustrates
the remaining unclaimed space in the Arctic. Slide 5
illustrates the portion of the unclaimed space in the Arctic
that the U.S. could claim, which is where the Chinese have been
operating. In response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Earl
confirmed that with ratification of UNCLOS the U.S. could extend
its claim as illustrated in slide 5. The UNCLOS has to first be
ratified before the U.S. can make a claim.
1:12:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that under Article 76 of the
convention a coastal state with a broad continental margin limit
may establish a shelf limit beyond 200 miles. Therefore, the
[claim] could be for 350 miles. Because of the extension of the
continental shelf, there are areas of potential that are beyond
imagination. As the prior slides illustrate the Chinese are
exploring from 201-400 miles, and thus it's in the best interest
of the nation in terms of national security to have jurisdiction
over the extra 150 miles.
1:14:04 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his assumption that the Russians have
signed onto this treaty.
MR. EARL replied yes, adding that all Arctic nations, save the
U.S., have signed on to the treaty.
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to why the Canadians haven't extended
their EEZ.
MR. EARL answered that the Canadians have made their claim with
the United Nations, but he didn't believe that it has been
approved yet.
1:14:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, addressing Russia's 2001 claim to the
international boundary that extends to the North Pole, informed
the committee that all the other nations don't believe that is a
legitimate claim. He explained that once a nation joins the
treaty, it has only 10 years to make extended claims. However,
even a nation that's not a member of the treaty can still
provide comments about the claims.
1:16:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the reason the U.S.
hasn't signed on to the treaty.
MR. EARL responded that some people are concerned about a loss
of sovereignty, although the benefits greatly outweigh anything
that's given up. The UNCLOS hasn't been ratified because there
are certain U.S. Senators who oppose its ratification. In
further response to Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Earl informed
the committee that 161 countries have signed the treaty thus
far.
1:17:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that the committee packet includes
pro- and anti-ratification arguments in the packet. Since the
U.S. isn't a member of the committee, it cannot make extended
claims and has little to say about the claims other countries
make. Representative Herron highlighted that the U.S. would
have the largest EEZ area in the world, if it signed the treaty.
1:18:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt CSHJR 19, Version 27-
LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, as the working document.
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion purposes.
1:19:13 PM
MR. EARL informed the committee that the Legislative Research
Services report dated March 11, 2011, precipitated Version I.
The Legislative Research Services was asked to vet the "WHEREAS"
clauses and they found the need for a couple of changes. On
page 3, lines 14-17, the language was reworded in recognition
that there wasn't a hearing in 1994 but rather was pending.
Also, Legislative Research Services found that the "WHEREAS"
clause on page 3, lines 12-13, had inadvertently been eliminated
and thus is reinserted in Version I.
1:20:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection.
There being no further objection, Version I was before the
committee.
1:21:03 PM
DR. LAWSON BRIGHAM, Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy,
University of Alaska Fairbanks, provided the following
testimony:
My name is Lawson Brigham and I am a Distinguished
Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy at the
University of Alaska Fairbanks. I was a Coast Guard
officer for 25 years, icebreakers at both ends of the
world. I have also served as the Alaska Office
Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in
Anchorage. Of relevance to this topic, during 2005-09
I was Chair and U.S. Lead for the Arctic Council's
Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), a large
assessment that deals with enhanced marine safety and
environmental protection for the Arctic Ocean,
including the coastal waters of the U.S. Arctic. A
central finding of AMSA was that the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was the key
legal framework from which we viewed all else in our
work; governing Arctic shipping and all other marine
uses. In our review in AMSA, we restated that since
the Arctic Ocean is one of earth's oceans, UNCLOS
provides the legal basis for managing the new maritime
Arctic. No new treaty or any comprehensive new
agreement by the Arctic States or other states is
necessary. Importantly, UNCLOS preserves and codifies
the principal of freedom of navigation for the Arctic
Ocean and the global oceans; a key tenant for U.S.
security and economic well-being. UNCLOS provides two
important articles one of which you've heard today.
Article 76 allows the coastal states in an orderly
process to assert sovereignty on the extended
continental shelf beyond the 200-mile Exclusive
Economic Zone (EEZ), out to 350 miles. Article 234
allows the coastal states the right to adopt and
enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for
the prevention, reduction and control of marine
pollution from vessels in ice-covered waters within
the EEZ. Both of these [articles] have important
implications for Alaska and the United States maritime
Arctic. [In December I had an opportunity to join
some 200 experts at the U.S. Naval War] College for a
Global Shipping Game that dealt with the Arctic and
future Panama Canal. One overwhelming outcome was
that the U.S. continued failure to ratify UNCLOS would
create substantial risk for the United States in terms
of economic development in the Arctic, and will
threaten the U.S. position as a global leader in
maritime issues. In summary, U.S. ratification of
UNCLOS is essential for all future challenges and
opportunities in the Arctic Ocean. In my mind, it is
at the heart of much of what we in Alaska and the
United States will do to protect, develop, manage and
lead in the future maritime Arctic.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
speak.
1:24:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the effect an extension of
the U.S. economic zone would have on the educational missions
the Chinese are performing in the Arctic.
1:24:43 PM
DR. BRIGHAM pointed out that the nation's sovereignty extends to
the fisheries and seabed resources, but doesn't restrict the
freedom of navigation and transit of those [Russia] ships. With
regard to education opportunities, Dr. Brigham surmised that
would refer to tourism. He said that all of the aforementioned
is allowable under UNCLOS.
1:25:25 PM
PAUL FUHS, Chairman, Board of Directors, Marine Exchange of
Alaska, began by informing the committee that the Marine
Exchange of Alaska was started by all the major elements of
shipping within Alaska and has provided vessel tracking
services. He then thanked Representative Herron for taking a
leadership position on this matter. Through the vessel tracking
it has become clear that there is much activity in the Arctic.
Mr. Fuhs opined that if the U.S. doesn't ratify UNCLOS, it's
surrendering its sovereignty. He identified one of the issues
as regulatory oversight in that there would be concern with
regard to [nations] not following the same rules that the [U.S.]
must. There has also been much concern with regard to oil and
gas development in the Arctic and discussing how best to
regulate that. He then presented a slide that illustrated the
receiving stations within Alaska, of which there are about 80.
Due to international maritime organization law, vessels over a
certain size are required to have a transponder [on the vessel].
With the increased concern regarding activity in the Arctic,
more receiving stations have been constructed. He also
presented a slide that relates the various types of vessels
operating in the Arctic.
1:28:19 PM
CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the range on the transponders.
MR. FUHS answered that it depends upon the location and the
amount of radio activity in the area. For a "clean" site the
range is beyond 200 miles, with the longest range being 350
miles. The lowest range is 20 miles. He noted that they can
track vessels all the way over to the Russia coast line.
1:29:19 PM
MR. FUHS provided a picture of the Chinese ice breaker "Xue
Long." Although Xue Long is very large vessel, the Chinese are
building one that's even larger, and will perhaps be the largest
in the world, and intends to operate in the Arctic. He then
presented a picture of a bulk vessel that's delivering fuel to
the coast of Russia, which is always a concern. He also
presented a slide of the Gamble site, where there are Russian
vessels operating. The tanker in the slide is bound for
Canadian oil field development. He then provided a slide of the
offshore area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that's open
to other nations. When one moves past the OCS, it becomes so
deep that it's not rational for anyone to mine unless they're
going to mine deep sea nodules. Under the Law of the Sea
Treaty, deep sea mining of nodules is completely regulated, but
"for the rest, it would establish rights for us as a coastal
state."
1:30:41 PM
MR. FUHS, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified that
the slide with the tanker is not a Russian tanker, but rather is
bound for a Canadian oil field. He noted that the tracking of
the vessels provides the following information: type of vessel,
country of origin, cargo type, depth of vessel, various
operational aspects, and for some the rudder angle of the
vessel.
1:31:32 PM
MR. FUHS highlighted that the Marine Exchange of Alaska has the
technical ability to know what's going on in the Arctic and a
lot of activity is occurring in the Arctic. As policy makers,
he surmised that they would have to weigh the costs and benefits
[of the treaty]. However, he opined that failing to ratify the
Law of the Sea Treaty would result in surrendering the
sovereignty of the U.S.
1:32:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there is any way Alaska could
make a commitment [to the treaty], but not the entire U.S.
MR. FUHS replied no, adding that treaties of the U.S. are
controlled exclusively by the U.S. Senate.
1:32:57 PM
KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League
(AML), informed the committee that in November AML passed a
resolution in support of ratifying UNCLOS. Upon doing research
of the treaty, Ms. Wasserman discovered that the last seven or
eight presidents have been in favor of ratification of the
treaty as have most of the state department employees. However,
there is a holdout by a few members of the Senate who believe
they would be giving up economic sovereignty. Research also
resulted in AML believing that the most important aspect of the
Law of the Sea Treaty is to claim the seabed mineral resources
in the continental shelf, even beyond the 200 mile EEZ. The
limit of Alaska's area in Alaska's Arctic is unknown as
hydrographic surveys haven't determined the full extent of the
potential area along the Chukchi cap. The area is believed to
be very extensive and thought to even reach the North Pole. She
then recalled attending a meeting at which it was revealed that
seven or eight countries that don't border the Arctic were
making claims on Arctic mineral resources all the while the U.S.
twiddles its thumbs, which she characterized as very
irresponsible. She informed the committee that just last week
she was in Washington, D.C., where she and other western state
representatives had a meeting with the undersecretary of the
Department of Natural Resources. The big issue was the black-
footed ferret. Upon asking the undersecretary if he was aware
of all the mineral resources in the Arctic, the undersecretary
blankly stared at her and said he didn't believe that's in his
department. However, Ms. Wasserman said she believes otherwise.
She emphasized that it doesn't seem that the U.S. is tied into
this issue as well as it should be, although she related her
understanding that Alaska's Congressional delegation has done
quite a bit of research on the issue. The lack of ratification
of the Law of the Sea Treaty would simply retain the status quo.
Although the U.S. already abides by many of the laws of UNCLOS,
it doesn't have a voice. Therefore, she expressed hope that the
committee would support HJR 19.
1:36:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wised to testify,
closed public testimony.
1:37:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to who the U.S. Senators are who
oppose [ratification of the treaty] and their arguments against
it.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON identified U.S. Senator Imhof as one of
the handful of U.S. Senators opposing ratification of the
treaty. The opposition is based on their belief that
[ratification of the treaty] would negatively impact the
sovereignty of the U.S. such that the U.S. sovereignty would be
giving up sovereignty to a tribunal. However, that's not the
view of the majority of folks who believe [ratification of the
treaty] would merely be surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S.
1:38:27 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON, recalling a presentation by U.S. Senator Wicker
during the Energy Conference, related that U.S. Senator Wicker
expressed the need for the Secretary of State to utilize due
diligence to gain control of the minerals and oil and gas
resources [in the Arctic]. However, upon follow up regarding
the Law of the Sea Treaty, U.S. Senator Wicker was more reticent
because some interest groups feel there is some conflict with
sovereignty. He highlighted that every time the U.S. signs a
treaty, it's an international protocol to perform something.
Therefore, some feel that the U.S. shouldn't sign any
international protocol or treaty. Co-Chair Seaton highlighted
that initially there were four reasons why the Heritage
Foundation opposed UNCLOS. Upon corrections and changes, only
one of those reasons remain, which is that signing a treaty
gives up some sovereignty because of agreeing to a process that
includes more people than [only the U.S.] Co-Chair Seaton said
that's the only issue of which he is aware.
1:40:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DICK noted that he, too, is concerned about the
nation's sovereignty, which he believes has been compromised in
the past. Referring to the language on page 2, lines 5-8, that
relates the estimate "that the Arctic contains conventional oil
and gas resources totaling approximately 90,000,000,000 barrels
of oil", Representative Dick pointed out that Alaska can't even
access the oil on its own land. Therefore, accessing other oil
doesn't seem meaningful to him. Representative Dick said that
until he has more details regarding what would be given up in
terms of sovereignty, he couldn't support HJR 19.
1:41:42 PM
CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the U.S. Coast
Guard, Navy, and other military [branches] have all supported
this. In fact, [Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin], Commander,
Seventeenth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, Department
of Homeland Security, obtained special permission to testify at
a previous hearing. He mentioned that Rear Admiral Colvin's
written testimony is included in the committee packet.
1:42:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON clarified that the language to which
Representative Dick referred merely specifies that if the U.S.
does not sign the treaty, then it's surrendering [those
resources] to other nations. These are resources to which the
U.S. has legitimate claim. Once the treaty is signed, the U.S.
could extend 150 miles [beyond the existing zone] and the U.S.
would be in first position. However, if the U.S. chooses not to
ratify the treaty and another country lays claim to those
resources, then the U.S. is in second position.
1:43:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHJR 19, Version 27-
LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There
being no objection, CSHJR 19(RES) was reported from the House
Resources Standing Committee.
1:44:06 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.