Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/07/1995 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HSTA - 02/07/95 SJR 7 - OPPOSING FEDERAL MANDATES ON STATES SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR read the following sponsor statement on SJR 7: Senate Joint Resolution 7 is virtually identical to resolutions already passed in Colorado, Hawaii, Missouri, California, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Separate resolutions have been passed by the Senate and House in Illinois, by the House in Oklahoma and Louisiana and by the Senate in Kentucky. The resolution has been introduced in 12 other states and has sponsors in an additional 20 states. SJR 7 is representative of what has become a national movement, started in the West, to reassert the sovereignty of the people and the individual states under the Tenth Amendment. The Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is brief and to the point. It reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people." Passage of SJR 7 will send a strong, clear message to the Congress that Alaska is ready to claim her rights under the Tenth Amendment. Those rights include the power to choose whether or not to implement mandates imposed on the states by a Congress, which fails to recognize the intent of the Founding Fathers in limiting the powers of the central government. Past Legislatures have protested individual mandates in numerous resolutions, without result. Passage of SJR 7 will strengthen the resolve of those members of Congress currently working to end the tyranny of unfunded and unconstitutional mandates. There will be those who argue that SJR 7 has no force of law because it is only a resolution. State Senator Charles Duke, of Colorado, when he won passage of the first resolution of this kind, answered that argument eloquently. He reminded his colleagues, and I quote, Our Declaration of Independence had no force of law. I ask the committee's support of SJR 7. Number 047 CHAIR JAMES said she suggested an amendment and a committee substitute, which she would discuss with the sponsor. A copy of the amendment was passed out to members of committee. REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked Senator Taylor what the status was in the other states that are working this issue. SENATOR TAYLOR said he couldn't answer that, except it is very positive. There are many other states apart from those he mentioned in his opening statement that are working on this same process. Number 085 CHAIR JAMES read the following amendment to the committee: WHEREAS the United States Constitution envisions sovereign states and guarantees the states a republican form of government; and WHEREAS Alaska and its municipalities are losing their power to act on behalf of state citizens as the power of government is moving farther away from the people into the hands of federal agencies composed of officials who are not elected and who are unaware of the needs of Alaska and the other states; and WHEREAS the federal court system affords a means to liberate the states from the grips of federal mandates; FURTHER RESOLVED that the Governor is respectively requested to examine and challenge by legal action on behalf of the state, federal mandates contained in court rulings, federal laws and regulations, or federal practices to the extent to those mandates infringe on the sovereignty of Alaska or the state's authority over issues affecting its citizens; and be it FURTHER RESOLVED that Alaska's sister states are urged to participate in any legal action brought under this resolution. CHAIR JAMES wanted to submit the above amendment to the committee and said she had the CS for SJR 7. She asked for comments from the sponsor regarding the proposed changes. SENATOR TAYLOR did not believe the changes would do any disservice to the legislation. He said if people feel they are of assistance, then wanted to participate in that also, it was a good idea. Number 128 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked Senator Taylor how he envisioned this resolution would work, if it were implemented. Another question he had was if this resolution included both funded and unfunded mandates. Number 139 SENATOR TAYLOR explained that it is not a question of whether or not money is involved. The question is not just unfunded mandates. Frequently, those mandates that do not require a specific amount of funding are probably as onerous to us as anything. There are Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandates that set various standards and tell us that we, if we wish to have our Department of Environmental Conservation participate in the game, have to pass higher standards, or that we cannot pass any standard lower than those of the federal government. That is a mandate on us; for instance, mandating how our garbage dumps work, and it mandates how our water works. Those mandates are just as offensive as those that require us to spend money on various programs yet they fail to send the money. This legislation is worded in such a way that it encompasses all mandates: Funded and unfunded. Number 173 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN voiced his support for this Senate resolution. Number 191 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS expressed that this is saying that problems are strictly problems of the states. Some mandates, such as with EPA, were triggered in the past because at the time, they felt compelling needs for the problems to be looked at nationally. Representative Willis's concern was if this action would preclude the national government from looking at a problem that might have national implications. SENATOR TAYLOR answered that this was not the intent of this resolution. There are always going to be matters of national significance that need the attention of the federal government. The problem is that the federal government made a decision to go way beyond what either the Constitution or the forefathers of this country ever intended for the federal government to do. It is micro-managing almost every aspect of our lives within the state. If the state is going to retain any semblance of state's rights in this constitutional balance, then the people of the state must reassert themselves for that purpose. The national requirements for defending this nation, the national requirement for providing for ease of transportation and access across state lines, and to make certain that disease and illness are attacked, that education is funded, and that various standards are set, are not perceived as being as local or on a regional basis, so that they would not have a national significance. He doesn't believe they say that in this resolution. He believes it speaks loudly about the concerns of whether or not there is any state jurisdiction left. Number 231 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN brought up the wetlands act as a classic example of government overreaction. In a state like Florida where the Everglades are drying up, there is a crisis and there should be a stoppage of continued watering or "de-watering" encroachment into wetlands, but to strike a pen and say that all states will have no net loss of wetlands, it is micro-managing. SENATOR TAYLOR said he was in the Florida Everglades about four weeks ago. For the last five or six years they have used the drying up of the Everglades as a campaign issue and fund raiser. Now because of unusual rains, they are experiencing the highest water level in 42 years, so the people of Florida worry now about the panther and deer populations because they are stuck up on an island and the panthers are eating the deer, and the deer are starving. The campaign presentingly is to save the deer and to do something about all that water. CHAIR JAMES spoke up about our practice of social engineering, financial engineering, and natures engineering. She said, "If man believes that they can manipulate nature, they are on an ego trip. There is absolutely no power as strong as nature to destroy or to create." Number 275 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN said he respects the intent of the resolution, and he agreed with some of the problems that have been incurred in other parts of Alaska, and the topic of wetlands that has been wrestled with by Alaskans trying to develop resources. However, he wanted to address the amendment submitted by Representative Ogan, wondering if it is speaking to actions such as the lawsuit recently addressed: Babbitt v. Alaska. He asked if this was part of addressing it into the amendment, on lines 15 and 16. CHAIR JAMES said that was not her intention. This legislation has nothing to do with the Babbitt lawsuit. It is a different issue altogether. What it is suggesting is that the Governor examine and challenge the federal government, by legal action, on behalf of the state: Federal mandates, like the mandatory helmet law. There are many mandates, particularly in the Department of Transportation (DOT) and if the state does not do what they say, DOT takes away our highway funds. She believes this is a blackmail clause. REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN said we need to move that this first amendment be accepted. REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER moved that the committee adopt the CS for SJR 7, Draft C, dated 2/6/95. CHAIR JAMES asked if there was any objection to the motion. There being no objection, she said the motion passed and they would be working from the CS for SJR 7, Draft C. REPRESENTATIVE OGAN referred to his amendment, which he passed out, and moved to adopt amendment 3, to be added to the CS. It includes a change on line 1 and line 2 of page 2 on the CS. It reads: WHEREAS the powers of the Congress are itemized in Art. I, Sec.8, of the United States Constitution, and the Congress should concentrate on carrying out those important duties while leaving local matters to each of the states to resolve based upon the unique needs and circumstance of each state; WHEREAS the management of fish and wildlife resources by the federal government within the State of Alaska is not authorized by the United States Constitution and is a gross abrogation of power reserved to the several states thereunder; and Number 360 SENATOR TAYLOR said there are errors in the first paragraph, because there are more powers than are addressed: Military powers and other powers. Number 415 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN, after hearing more comments, withdrew his amendment. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN moved that the committee pass CS for SJR 7 out of committee, with individual recommendations. There being no objection, it was so moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|