Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 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
HJR 26-ALASKA MARITIME BOUNDARY WITH CANADA CHAIR JAMES announced HJR 26, Relating to establishing maritime boundaries with Canada, is before the committee [version a]. Number 563 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained HJR 26 is going to be sent to the President, Congress, and those who sit on the Foreign Relations Committee, requesting that Alaska be included in maritime boundary settlements. With regard to the maritime boundary in Alaska that have not been settled, we're simply asking that they be settled and that Alaska be in on the table as they settle them. It gives a little bit of the history, it shows that there has been precedent set in dealing with Canada already - in Nova Scotia, and how they settled that there and that precedents still could be set within Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that fishing problems have arisen in Southeastern Alaska that need to be settled. The agreement would give a clear delineation on who has the authority, and in what area. Some of the lines are confusing right now, so this is asking that we begin that discussion and that Alaska be included in those discussions. He said it is a national issue but it's also an issue with the State of Alaska - with its lands, fish and sovereignty of the borders of Alaska. That's the pure and simple of it. REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Coghill to explain how HJR 26 would interact, have any effect on the Pacific Salmon Treaty, or any other treaties. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the only way that he knows that it would actually be a factor is in the negotiation, then the treaty would have to be taken into account. He said we're not asking that a new boundary be set, necessarily. It's only that the negotiations be settled. So it would have to take into account the treaty, but at this point, this resolution doesn't affect that. Number 606 REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "Are we currently in any negotiations on these maritime boundaries, is the Department of Fish and Game (indisc.) that and then the people who normally do a negotiating involved with this right now." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that this is the reason for this resolution. He said we're stalled between Canada and Alaska and the United States on the whole issue. We're not forcing the issue, we're just requesting the issue be brought up. Number 626 MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice President, State Department Watch, testified from Northridge, California. He said HJR 26 deals with the lack of boundaries with Canada maritime issues. The three areas where we are lacking boundaries in are the Arctic at 141 degrees, in Dixon Entrance and the area around the Pribilof Islands. House Joint Resolution 26 requests entering into negotiations with the Canadian government to create these maritime boundaries so these areas could be utilized for fishing, and minerals and everything else - so they're not locked up. MR. SEIDENBERG, upon request, explained that State Department Watch is a foreign policy watchdog organization. He deferred to Carl Olson. Number 667 CARL OLSON, Chairman, State Department Watch, testified via teleconference from Washington, D.C. He said State Department Watch is a foreign-policy watchdog group looking out for the American public's best interest. The group believes it's in the best interest to come to some agreement with the Canadians over maritime boundary. He explained the resolution points out that the U.S. has maritime boundary agreements with Mexico and Cuba - for 20 years. Mr. Olson indicated that, for some reason, the State Department doesn't feel like having talks on this issue and the group think it's to the best interest to the state of Alaska, and the country as a whole, to finally make some arrangements. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the State Department Watch, as an organization has appealed to Congress or the Administrations to get this action underway. MR. OLSON replied every group has the possibility of appealing to the federal government whether it's through the executive or legislative branch, but as a small group, they do not have enough horse power that a state would have. He said that's why they felt it more compelling to come to the State government of Alaska on this issue. Number 713 CAPTAIN VINCE O'SHEA, United States Coast Guard, came before the committee. He said he works at the 17th Coast Guard District in Juneau in fisheries law enforcement and has been in Alaska since 1996. Prior to that he spent five years in Washington, D.C., at Coast Guard Headquarters in which he worked with the State Department on various international fisheries issues. CAPTAIN O'SHEA informed the members that a tribunal was established earlier in this century to answer the question (between Canada and the United States), who owned the islands in the Dixon Entrance area. He said the tribunal drew a line [referring to the map] at point "V" and point "A," and that the islands north of that line belonged to the United States, the islands south of that line belonged to Canada. Captain O'Shea said the United States has taken a position that that answered the question about the land but it didn't answer the question about the maritime boundary. Canada has taken the position that answered very clearly both questions, not only where the land is but also where the water is. The United States has claimed an equidistant line between the two countries [referring to the map] and what that's done is created an area called the disputed area - an area claimed by both countries. CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted that the United States and Canada basically came up with an agreement in the late 1970s that said, "We both let our fishers operate in that area under our own laws." So, when Canada opens their fisheries, their guys can go in. And when we open our fisheries, our guys can go in here - except that in the early 1980s Canada said -- and the condition was no new fisheries would occur there. Canada has maintained that we didn't have a trawl fishery in that area in a traditional sense, so they haven't recognized the right of our trawlers to fish in there. Over the years Canada has been saying our trawlers can't operate and we say they can. Basically we agreed to disagree on that issue. Number 333 CAPTAIN O'SHEA stated that, "We kept a Coast Guard patrol boat down there during the summertime just to make sure that served the U.S. right of our fishers to operate in that area. In fact last year we had two patrol boats down there, and the year before we did as well. Last year, though, because of the salmon problems, Canada closed the disputed area to fishing and Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, on the 2 July made a similar move, closed the disputed area to U.S. trawl fisheries as well. ... From our perspective, last year was very peaceful and a quiet year." CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted that the U.S. State Department has consistently had a position to Canada that, yes, we would like to agree upon a maritime boundary - good boundaries make good neighbors. He said he believes the reason why that issue hasn't moved is possibly due to logic - or gaming issue. If Canada had some how taken this to a resolution body, as they did on the East coast, ... the best they would get is a status quo, and the worst they would get is the equidistant line, and most likely they would get something in between. Obviously if the U.S. does it, the worst that would happen to us is we'd keep the status quo, but most likely we would gain something. So, it's probably an issue just as simple as that and the Canadians have been reluctant to bring this issue forward. CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded to Representative Kerttula's question, what does this has to do with the salmon treaty. He said, "In my experience, it's a potential sore point if the salmon treaty heats up, it's an area that - very volatile political issue down in Canada. It's also a volatile political [point] in Southeast Alaska and each side knows that that's a potential stick it can use to poke the other side. But the Coast Guard sees our view as to make sure there are no incidents down there that throws things like the salmon treaty off track." Number 781 CHAIR JAMES asked, in looking at that solid line [referring to the map], the one that was agreed upon... CAPTAIN O'SHEA remarked - the "A-V" line. CHAIR JAMES said she can't tell how close that line is to the land but it looks like it's almost on the land. CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded, yes it's very close. CHAIR JAMES said it seems that we should be able to go around our land. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied yes. CHAIR JAMES said it seems like we've got the edge on that one. CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied yes, and that's frequently brought up by a lot of different people in this argument. Number 789 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said Dixon Entrance is an extremely rich and vital area because there is a commingled fishery, much of which is coming back to spawn in Alaska, and a great portion of which was headed to British Columbia. He further stated that, "I think this is probably the flashpoint, or one of the flashpoint areas of that U.S.-Canada treaty and when I saw this resolution my first concern was that I would be cautious about doing anything to offset to what appears to be a renewal of our negotiations on that treaty. And I don't think this would directly impact it madam chair, but it could - it could mess up the current negotiations there and I'd like to ask Captain O'Shea if he would have any comments on that." CHAIR JAMES clarified that he is talking about the salmon treaty. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes, the U.S.-Canada treaty. Every time the season opens up you've got U.S., you've got Alaskan and Canadian fishers out there that are really juggling against each other there trying to knock each other out of the way, destroy their nets, the Canadians are quickly running for cover back into U.S. waters and the Alaska fishermen are -- it's a boiling point right now and that negotiation is ongoing separately as we speak, although it hasn't had much action. He said he thought Captain O'Shea might be more up-to-date as to what is going on in that negotiation. Number 819 CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied that he doesn't have an official role in the U.S.-Canada treaty negotiations but he does talk informally to some of the folks who are working on that issue. He said he believes anything to do with Dixon Entrance always has a potential to impact that process, depending upon how the Canadians see it at that particular time. He further stated that, "On the other hand, I would point out that what this resolution [HJR 26] is calling for is not anything that hasn't already been the policy of the U.S. State Department. In other words, the U.S. State Department basically has said, 'Anytime you guys want to sit down and talk about this ... this boundary and get it resolved, we'd be happy to do that.' So it would send the signal to the State Department that we're still here, we're still waiting. But, depending on the status is of those U.S.-Canada treaties, it could be taken as a -- what we could do is give an excuse to somebody on the Canadian-side to do something that they were planning on doing all along, that's probably the biggest danger." CHAIR JAMES said it seems that it is going to be very difficult to get a salmon treaty without having solved this. CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded that he believes that the fish in the Dixon Entrance area is a small portion of the whole thing, and as Representative Hudson pointed out, they're in a migratory mode. He said his understanding of the salmon treaty is coming from calculations back at the stream of origin, then trying to come up with a sharing scheme relative to the escapements that they're trying to get up those various streams. Number 847 CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted from a Coast Guard standpoint, the biggest issue we have is the trawler issue, whether or not they will let our trawlers go down there. It's been something that we've been able to live with over the years. He said he believes that it is not that closely linked that they couldn't solve -- they have adjustments and calculations within the salmon treaty numbers of stocks that would allow them to get an acceptable agreement without necessarily bringing this to closure. CHAIR JAMES remarked that the United States has a number of disputes with Canada regarding various issues. One of the things in our TEA-21 [Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 century] that we had this year, is that part of that money is supposed to be there to try to help us make the border crossings from Canada to the U.S. without dispute. It seems that the more cooperation we could get between us, that the better off we'd be in the long term. She said, "We ought to eat our way through these disputes instead of having this continual..." TAPE 99-21, SIDE B Number 001 CHAIR JAMES continued, "...I'd like to be able to call those Canadians my friend and I think that's very important that we do that." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that it is true, we are the closest and most effected by our relationship with Canada. Therefore, it is imperative that Alaska is involved in any of the negotiations, and this resolution [HJR 26] calls for it, and it calls for a boundary to be set up. He said, "And I think that if Canada sees the legislature appealing for that, that would give them heart that we are in fact trying to settle the maritime boundary. The salmon treaty, notwithstanding, is a separate issue but it's also part of the negotiation of friendship. And so, this is just a move, I think in a very diplomatic way saying Alaska is really interested in making sure that we have clear lines so that were settled on that issue. So, I'd respectively ask to move this resolution." REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Coghill if he had received a position from the Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. State Department about how they feel about this resolution. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied no. Number 052 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I really want to agree with you that we need to resolve our boundary disputes, not only here but certainly up to - in the Arctic ... not only with Canada, but also with Russia ... as well. My only reluctance, I guess, and I would like to do a little checking before I personally sign-off on this measure ... would be to talk with David Benton or somebody down at the Department of Fish and Game. We have such a tremendous economy to the fishermen out of Ketchikan and Southeastern Alaska that, if anything we did, however innocently of this nature that would interrupt our inner you know -- right now, for the very first time I'm told that there appears to be some momentum in renegotiating that U.S.-Canada treaty we're finding some conclusion. As you know, we've had terrible consequences as a result of not having a settlement with the Canadians - they blockaded our ships down there, they cost us millions of dollars in fairs, and things of that nature. And it just did damage the relationship with Alaska and our Province - Canada and British Columbia particularly. So, for me at any rate, I would like the courtesy of, or even have maybe the committee staff or somebody to ask somebody who is negotiating in behalf of Alaska fishermen to come before the committee and speak about that. ... And I wouldn't feel comfortable in passing it out of committee until I at least know that our action wasn't harming the potential livelihood of, you know, of our fellow Southeasterners." CHAIR JAMES stated that their absence is distressing, why aren't they here to testify. She asked Representative Hudson to contact them. Number 133 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the Alaska Trawlers Association supports HJR 26. He emphasized that this is not to Alaska that we are appealing, but it is to the federal government to even begin the negotiation on a maritime boundary. He said he doesn't feel that that would have any adverse effect on even our fish and game management - so much to upset a treaty agreement. Representative Coghill said, "So, whereas I understand your objection, this really is kind of out of their purview." CHAIR JAMES said she tends to agree with Representative Coghill on that issue because a line, between those two lines, should be drawn and that a lot of dispute would be gone if we did that. The fish would probably be divided similarly to what the collection of the fish is at this time, but the battle would be gone. CHAIR JAMES announced that HJR 26 would be held over until next Tuesday.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|