Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/31/1999 05:35 PM House WTR
| 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 [Contains discussion of HJR 27] Number 0154 CHAIR BARNES announced that the first order of business would be House Joint Resolution No. 26, relating to establishing maritime boundaries with Canada. She invited Captain O'Shea from the U.S. Coast Guard to come forward and testify first, as he had time constraints. VINCE O'SHEA, Captain, United States Coast Guard, reminded the committee that he had appeared last year; there was a transcript from that meeting that he had reviewed, on his way over, which provided a good summary on the Coast Guard's perspective. He pointed out that since he gave that testimony, the Canadian government had closed the disputed area in Dixon Entrance last summer (1998) to commercial salmon fishing, due to the poor returns and the problems with their salmon stocks. He believes it was on July 2, 1998, that the state of Alaska reciprocated by closing commercial fishing to Alaskan fisherman in the disputed area, as well. MR. O'SHEA referred to a map and pointed out the difference between the U.S. claim - the equidistant line - and the "AB" line that the Canadians claim as the maritime boundary. He noted that as a result of that closure, it was a very quiet summer in Dixon Entrance for the U.S. Coast Guard, although they had two boats there, primarily for search-and-rescue for the U.S. gillnet fleet and to ensure there were no problems for charter boat operators who occasionally go there. Number 0380 REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred to recent boardings of commercial vessels in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, by National Park Service personnel. She said she hopes that at no time would that argument [for closures to commercial fishing] be extended into this area. Number 0498 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR., Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, asked the committee to consider both HJR 26 and HJR 27. Noting that the Senate had not passed the previous resolutions, he said it is important to continue to assert this. Once again, on disputed territory, whether on the Russian front or the Canadian front, there needs to be some action to settle for good the peacekeeping relationships. It is important for Alaskans to be at the negotiating table, and for there to be a disclosure to Alaskans on what the process is. These two resolutions are intended to bring these issues out. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered two technical amendments that he suggested may make the language better. Number 0621 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, which read: Page 2, line 17 after the words "the federal government to": Delete: initiate Insert: pursue CHAIR BARNES asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0646 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 2, which read: Page 2, line 24, after the word "public": Delete: "input and hearings during the negotiating process; and" Insert: disclosure and hearings after the negotiating process and prior to ratification; and CHAIR BARNES asked whether there was any objection. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. Number 0680 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to page 2 of HJR 26, lines 21 and 22, which talks about the right of Alaska to approve provisions. He said his reading of the U.S. Constitution suggests that Alaska doesn't have that right in an international agreement. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he might agree, except that it has to do with sovereign boundaries within the state of Alaska. He believes under Article X of the [U.S.] Constitution, Alaska is well within its bounds to request presence at the table, even though the state won't be negotiating national treaties. He pointed out that there is a lot of fishing and oil development from which Alaska will derive a direct benefit. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that what is being discussed is the right to approve, and Alaska doesn't have the right to approve anything in an international agreement, although it does have the right to be at the table. He doesn't want to delude the public into thinking that something that goes through Congress must be approved by the legislature. Number 0800 CHAIR BARNES said Alaska is being discussed as a sovereign state, and any changes to the state's boundaries, under the Alaska Statehood Act and the statehood compact, need to be approved by Alaskans. She asked Mr. Coghill if that is what he is trying to say. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said that is part of it. However, the main reason for the language is that if Alaska is going to sit at the table, they are asking for the right to have a say, rather than just to observe. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ reiterated that the state does not have that right, but if there is legal authority that suggests that they do, he would like to see it. He restated that it is part of the federal constitution. Number 0912 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN wondered if the concern would be satisfied if on page 2 of HJR 26, line 22, the committee substitutes "testify on" for "approve." REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS suggested making it even stronger by substituting, "to be included at the table"; she acknowledged that it already says, "on the negotiating team." Number 0946 MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice-Chairman, State Department Watch, testified via teleconference from Seattle, Washington. He explained that when the United States entered into negotiations with Great Britain on the Webster-Ashburton Treaty in 1842, to set the state boundary for Maine, commissioners were appointed by Massachusetts and Maine to sit at the table; the United States informed Great Britain that they had to have the approval of both Massachusetts and Maine in order for the treaty to go through, which was a constitutional requirement. That is one of many examples where commissioners have been appointed, and it is one of the main precedents for not taking territory from a state without the consent of the state. MR. SEIDENBERG told members that the problem here is that general government tends to ignore Alaska, a sovereign state since 1959, and this is an issue of sovereignty. Noting that they are talking about Canada here, he pointed out that Great Britain determined the boundaries with Canada until the late 1930s, when Canada got authority to discuss boundary issues with the United States. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ requested that Mr. Seidenberg forward those precedents to him. Number 1060 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ made a motion to move HJR 26, as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSHJR 26(WTR) moved out of the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|