Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120

02/09/2015 05:00 PM RULES

Download Video part 1. <- Right click and save file as

Audio Topic
05:00:16 PM Start
05:00:26 PM HCR3
05:13:25 PM Adjourn
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Moved CSHCR 3(RLS) Out of Committee
                 HCR  3-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING                                                                              
5:00:26 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR JOHNSON announced that the  only order of business would be                                                               
HOUSE CONCURRENT  RESOLUTION NO. 3,  Urging the governor  and the                                                               
attorney general to  pursue all legal and  legislative options to                                                               
open the  coastal plain  of the  Arctic National  Wildlife Refuge                                                               
and  areas of  the  Chukchi  and Beaufort  Seas  to  oil and  gas                                                               
exploration, development, and production.                                                                                       
5:00:33 PM                                                                                                                    
TOM   WRIGHT,  Staff,   Representative  Chenault,   Alaska  State                                                               
Legislature, explained  that HCR 3  is being offered  because the                                                               
governor and the attorney general  must act generally in response                                                               
to the  Obama Administration's attempt to  stifle traditional oil                                                               
and  gas   development  in  Alaska.     The   aforementioned,  he                                                               
emphasized,  would  cripple  future  energy  development  in  the                                                               
state.  This resolution is  in specific response to actions taken                                                               
by the president and the  administration on January 25th and 27th                                                               
of this year.                                                                                                                   
5:01:43 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT  moved to adopt Amendment  1, labeled 29-                                                               
LS0452\W.1, Nauman, 2/6/15, which read:                                                                                         
     Page 3, lines 2 - 3:                                                                                                       
          Delete "reserved the right to permit further oil                                                                      
     and gas exploration, development, and production"                                                                          
     Insert "authorized non-drilling exploratory activity"                                                                      
CHAIR JOHNSON objected for discussion purposes.                                                                                 
5:02:09 PM                                                                                                                    
MICHAEL SCHECHTER, Assistant  Attorney General, Natural Resources                                                               
Section,  Civil Division  (Anchorage), Department  of Law  (DOL),                                                               
related that  Amendment 1  was requested in  order to  maintain a                                                               
unified  understanding of  how the  state views  both the  Alaska                                                               
National  Interest  Lands  Conservation   Act  (ANILCA)  and  the                                                               
current Arctic National Wildlife Refuge  (ANWR) issues.  The goal                                                               
is also  to ensure that the  arguments made in the  ANWR, Section                                                               
1002  area  lawsuit  seeking  that the  U.S.  Fish  and  Wildlife                                                               
Service be  required to review  the state's exploration  plan for                                                               
non-drilling exploratory activity in  the ANWR, Section 1002 area                                                               
aren't undermined.                                                                                                              
5:03:22 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR JOHNSON  withdrew his  objection.   There being  no further                                                               
objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.                                                                                             
5:03:45 PM                                                                                                                    
CHAIR JOHNSON,  upon determining  no one  would like  to testify,                                                               
closed public testimony.                                                                                                        
5:04:04 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to  page 5, line 9, of HCR                                                               
3 and asked if "unlawfully blocking" is appropriate language.                                                                   
MR. SCHECHTER  answered that  he doesn't have  an issue  with the                                                               
existing language  in HCR  3.  If  the federal  administration is                                                               
doing things contrary to federal  law or an agreement between the                                                               
state  and federal  government, those  things would  be unlawful.                                                               
The last resolve  is, as a whole, directing  the attorney general                                                               
and the governor  to take appropriate action for  things that are                                                               
unlawful.  Although there may be  issues that are arising now, he                                                               
said he  didn't want  to be  too specific  because the  Record of                                                               
Decision on  the ANWR Comprehensive Conservation  Plan hasn't yet                                                               
been  adopted.   He  pointed  out  that  some  issues may  be  of                                                               
political  and legislative  determination between  the state  and                                                               
federal government  as opposed to  litigation and trying  to stop                                                               
unlawful actions.   Mr. Schechter said that the  governor and the                                                               
attorneys general would be used to stop unlawful actions.                                                                       
5:06:24 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE  TUCK  remarked  that it's  unknown  whether  it's                                                               
unlawful or not,  and thus he suggested the need  for a change in                                                               
case it ends up being lawful.                                                                                                   
5:06:47 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:                                                                     
     Page 5, line 9, following "unlawfully";                                                                                    
     Insert "and unfairly"                                                                                                      
CHAIR  JOHNSON  opined  that  fairness  is  in  the  eye  of  the                                                               
beholder,  and  therefore  he  said he  wasn't  certain  of  that                                                               
MR. SCHECHTER  offered that the  first resolve addresses  what is                                                               
or is not  fair.  The first  resolve gets to the  notion that the                                                               
governor  and  the  legislature  should  work  with  the  state's                                                               
congressional  delegation regarding  a  legislation solution  for                                                               
those things  being sought to  be accomplished.  If  an amendment                                                               
is truly  desired, he suggested  inserting "or unfairly"  on page                                                               
5,  line  9,  following  "unfairly".    With  the  aforementioned                                                               
language, the vagueness of the  term "unfairly" doesn't take away                                                               
from the "unlawfully" charge.                                                                                                   
5:08:31 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew Amendment 2.                                                                                       
5:08:38 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK moved to adopt Amendment 3, as follows:                                                                     
     Page 5, line 9, following "unlawfully";                                                                                    
     Insert "or unfairly"                                                                                                       
CHAIR JOHNSON objected.                                                                                                         
CHAIR  JOHNSON,   upon  determining  there  was   no  discussion,                                                               
withdrew his objection to Amendment 3.                                                                                          
5:09:12 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE HAWKER  objected to  Amendment 3.   Representative                                                               
Hawker pointed  out that  even with  the conjunction  change from                                                               
"and" to  "or", one can't  be sure  whether the language  will be                                                               
interpreted as inclusive or exclusive.   Furthermore, he inquired                                                               
as  to  how  one  would  prove a  standard  of  "unfairly."    He                                                               
highlighted   that   the   [resolution]  attempts   to   maintain                                                               
specificity and consistency with the  language that has been used                                                               
in previous legislative pursuits.   Representative Hawker said he                                                               
didn't   harbor  any   disrespect  for   trying  to   temper  the                                                               
resolution, but  he didn't want to  get in the way  of attorneys.                                                               
Representative Hawker maintained his objection.                                                                                 
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK clarified that he  isn't trying to temper the                                                               
tone of the  resolution but rather maintain some  strength to the                                                               
resolution  in  case it's  deemed  lawful.   Representative  Tuck                                                               
maintained his motion to adopt Amendment 3.                                                                                     
5:11:34 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD inquired as to  what Amendment 3 would do                                                               
and whether Mr. Schechter would recommend its adoption or not.                                                                  
5:11:43 PM                                                                                                                    
MR. SCHECHTER reiterated that  Representative Tuck's concerns are                                                               
addressed in  the first resolve.   If something is  determined to                                                               
be  unlawful,  it  may  not  be the  greatest  direction  to  the                                                               
governor and the attorney general to pursue that fully.                                                                         
5:12:33 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK withdrew Amendment 3.                                                                                       
5:13:03 PM                                                                                                                    
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT  moved to report  HCR 3, as  amended, out                                                               
of   committee   with    individual   recommendations   and   the                                                               
accompanying zero fiscal  note.  There being  no objection, CSHCR                                                               
3(RLS) was reported from the House Rules Standing Committee.                                                                    

Document Name Date/Time Subjects
HCR 3.pdf HRLS 2/9/2015 5:00:00 PM
HCR 3 Fiscal Note.pdf HRLS 2/9/2015 5:00:00 PM
HCR 3 Sponsor Statement.pdf HRLS 2/9/2015 5:00:00 PM
HCR 3 Background Information.pdf HRLS 2/9/2015 5:00:00 PM
HCR 3 Amendment W.1.pdf HRLS 2/9/2015 5:00:00 PM