Legislature(1997 - 1998)
03/13/1997 08:25 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 13, 1997
8:25 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present.
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to supporting the "American Land Sovereignty Protection
Act."
- PASSED CSHJR 14(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to support for federal legislation permitting state
concealed handgun permittees to carry concealed handguns in other
states.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE BILL NO. 83
"An Act relating to commercial motor vehicle inspections; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Proposing amendments to the Constitution of the State of Alaska to
guarantee the permanent fund dividend, to provide for
inflation-proofing, and to require a vote of the people before
spending undistributed income from the earnings reserve of the
permanent fund; and relating to the permanent fund.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 84
"An Act limiting the authority to conduct pull-tab charitable
gaming to qualified organizations that are exempt from taxation
under 26 U.S.C. 501(c)(3) or (19); and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the definition of certain state receipts; and
providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 153
"An Act relating to the eligibility of aliens for state public
assistance and medical assistance programs affected by federal
welfare reform legislation; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 155
"An Act relating to hearings before and authorizing fees for the
State Commission for Human Rights; and providing for an effective
date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 14
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES, Barnes, Hodgins, Sanders,
Masek, Martin, Kemplen, Phillips, Cowdery, Vezey, Ryan, Porter,
Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/21/97 111 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/21/97 111 (H) WTR, STATE AFFAIRS
01/22/97 125 (H) COSPONSOR(S): PORTER, OGAN
02/13/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/13/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/17/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
02/17/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/18/97 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/18/97 (H) MINUTE(WTR)
02/19/97 397 (H) WTR RPT 5DP 1NR
02/19/97 397 (H) DP: PHILLIPS, COWDERY, KOTT, BARNES
02/19/97 397 (H) AUSTERMAN
02/19/97 397 (H) NR: KUBINA
02/19/97 398 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H. WTR)
02/19/97 398 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James
State Capitol, Room 102
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-3743
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 14.
PAUL C. JONES, Executive Director
Minerals Exploration Coalition (MEC)
1019 8th Street, Suite 305
Golden, Colorado 80801
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
PATRICK DALTON
P.O. Box 1413
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
GREG HALL
P.O. Box 813
Delta Junction, Alaska 99737
Telephone: (907) 895-5050
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
JON JARVIS, Superintendent
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
P.O. Box 439
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Telephone: (907) 822-5234
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 14.
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association
3443 Minnesota Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-1145
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association, Inc.
501 West Northern Lights Blvd., Suite 203
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 276-0347
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
LEONARD EFTA
P.O. Box 353
Kenai, Alaska 99611
Telephone: (907) 283-7670
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 14.
ERIC WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 14.
DENNY WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907) 424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 14.
IRENE ANDERSON
P.O. Box 1974
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4023
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
JOHN BREIVOGEL
HC 60 Box 106
Copper Center, Alaska 99573
Telephone: (907) 822-5870
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
MATT KRINKE
P.O.Box 545
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3390
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 14.
PAUL WEIR
P.O. Box 275
Glennallen, Alaska 99588
Telephone: (907) 822-3902
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 14.
STANLEY LEPHART, Executive Director
Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal Areas
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Natural Resources
3700 Airport Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709-4699
Telephone: (907) 451-2775
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 14.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:25 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Hodgins, Ivan and
Vezey. Members absent were Dyson and Elton.
HJR 14 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 14, Relating to supporting the "American
Land Sovereignty Protection Act."
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Myrna McGhie, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Jeannette James, to present the resolution.
Number 0068
MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Assistant to Representative Jeannette
James, explained in 1971 the United States joined the United
Nation's program calling to establish biosphere reserves and world
heritage sites around the world. In these areas human activity was
restricted. For management purposes, these reserves were divided
into three zones: The core zone, the buffer zone and the
transitional zone. Activities in the zones were off-limits to
human influence, except for monitoring and research activity. The
activity in the buffer zone was organized so that it did not hinder
conservation objectives. The transitional zones were areas of
cooperation with agriculture, human settlements and other uses.
The zones extended far beyond the boundaries of the core; they
could even be twice as large. Today, 47 national parks were
designated as these sanctuaries covering 51 million acres in the
United States, of which, 40.7 million acres were here in Alaska.
Most disturbingly, these designations had taken place without
congressional oversight and without any public process. There was
legitimate concern, therefore, regarding international interference
during decision making processes on domestic land. In addition,
too often Alaskans found themselves under federal oversight without
recourse and now Alaskans could find themselves under international
oversight without recourse. "We cannot let this happen any
longer," she declared.
MS. McGHIE further explained that the resolution reaffirmed the
constitutional authority of the U.S. Congress, as elected
representatives of the people, over the lands of the United States.
The sponsors of the resolution preferred that congress approved of
any designations; not just the president and his appointees.
MS. McGHIE further explained there was a committee substitute and
there were expert witnesses on the teleconference line to answer
any questions.
Number 0278
PAUL C. JONES, Executive Director, Minerals Exploration Coalition
(MEC), explained that MEC was an advocate of the multiple-use of
public lands in the United States. He announced his support of HJR
14. He had over 35 years of experience in the mineral industry in
North and South America at all levels of the business. The MEC was
an advocate of the public policy issues involving the access to,
and the safe environmental use of public lands in the U.S. for
mineral exploration and development. Its membership included over
30 corporations and a diverse group of professionals engaged in
mineral exploration.
MR. JONES further addressed the unprecedented use of the World
Heritage Convention by special interest groups in the U.S. and the
current administration to circumvent the proper application of U.S.
law related to the mineral industry. He cited the 1995
intervention of the World Heritage Committee - an organization
attached to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO) - and the federal permitting process
for the proposed New World Gold Mine located north-east of
Yellowstone National Park in Montana. The New World project was a
planned 1,500 ton per day underground mine using conventional
technology. It would have had a life of about ten years, it would
have employed about 175 people on a year round basis, and it would
have produced approximately 130,000 ounces of gold and 3,000 tons
of copper per year. In December of 1995, the World Heritage
Committee prematurely and without basis of adequate facts, declared
the Yellowstone National Park a world heritage site in danger
because of presumed harm from the New World project. He attended
a set of hearings hosted by the National Park Service and conducted
by the World Heritage Committee. The committee took limited
testimony of both a non-technical and technical nature on the
purported effect of the New World project. Many of the non-
technical comments were based on the impractical "what if"
scenarios. It appeared from the questions and statements made by
the chairman of the World Heritage Committee and its executive
director that the committee had come to Yellowstone with its mind
already made up on the subject. The committee refused to review
more than three years of good science and fact-based research
prepared for the environmental impact statement process before
making its determination. More importantly, the company had asked
the committee to reserve judgement until the draft environmental
impact statement had been completed. In December of 1995, when the
World Heritage Committee in Berlin, Germany arbitrarily declared
the Yellowstone National Park a world heritage site, the committee
contravened the established permitting process in the United States
thereby unduly influencing U.S. domestic policy. The publicity
surrounding the designation reiterated the slogans of the special
interest groups. In early 1996 the federal administration began
negotiations to acquire the New World project in exchange for
surplus federal lands. The land exchange was announced on August
12, 1996 by President Clinton. In addition, on March 12, 1997 it
was announced that the federal administration would offer to pay
the mining company $65 million in cash from oil, gas and coal
royalties for the project rather than making a land exchange. The
agreement, and the extraordinary circumstances leading to its
inspection, set a terrible precedent by the federal administration
for using foreign intervention in U.S. domestic policy. The
precedent did not set well with the U.S. regulatory system either.
In summary, the determination by the World Heritage Committee that
Yellowstone National Park was a world heritage site in-danger was
premature and without basis of adequate facts. It was based on
presumed and unsubstantiated allegations that the New World project
would create irreparable harm to the park. The published
environmental impact study would, most certainly, refute these
allegations. "And, I personally doubt it will every be published,"
he said. The premature, unjustified and unwarranted declaration on
the part of the World Heritage Committee provided special interest
groups and their associates within the federal government to induce
further challenges to a fair and unbiased permitting process. In
addition, a new forum to circumvent U.S. domestic policy was also
created by the World Heritage Committee with the help of the U.S.
administration, special interest groups, and the media. The
intervention could just as well have affected a logging project, a
ranching project, a recreation project or some other segment of
American life on public lands. The MEC strongly supported the
American Land Sovereignty Protection Act, sponsored by Chairman Don
Young. It would limit the activity of international and other
organizations such as the World Heritage Committee within the U.S.,
unless such activity was authorized by Congress. In December of
1996, the MEC's board of directors - unanimously - passed a
resolution in support of the bill. The MEC also strongly urged the
passage of HJR 14 by Representative James in support of Congressman
Young's act.
Number 0884
REPRESENTATIVE MARK HODGINS asked Mr. Jones what he saw as the
danger to the average Alaskan or American with the World Heritage
Committee and its plans? He also asked Mr. Jones if the World
Heritage Committee was primarily a political or an environmental
group?
Number 0911
MR. JONES replied the World Heritage Committee was a quasi-
political, environmentally oriented group. It was more politically
oriented, however. It was an outgrowth of the concept that the
"have nots" should enjoy that which the "haves" had at the expense
of the "haves." The danger was the circumventing of U.S.
procedures as a result of outside influences like what happened to
the New World project.
Number 0990
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ stated that he had a problem, like
Mr. Jones, with someone testifying before a committee whose mind
was already made up. It was his understanding that the United
States had entered into a treaty of which the regulations had
flowed from.
MR. JONES replied that was his understanding as well. The U.S.
entered into a World Heritage Convention, a form of a treaty, in
the early 1970's.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jones if that treaty had been
congressionally approved?
MR. JONES replied it would have to be for it to be recognized.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated it was his understanding that
regulations had to be promulgated in order to effectuate the terms
of a treaty.
MR. JONES replied that was not necessarily so. A treaty had the
force of law if Congress ratified it without any regulations being
promulgated.
Number 1078
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jones if regulations were
promulgated in response to the convention?
MR. JONES replied, no, not to his knowledge. He did not feel
competent to answer the question, however.
Number 1097
CHAIR JAMES explained in 1993 there was an additional treaty
entered into called the Bio-Diversity Treaty, an entirely different
treaty, that had not been approved by Congress. Yet, the federal
administration had already implemented part of the treaty. She
asked Mr. Jones if he was familiar with the Bio-Diversity Treaty?
Number 1120
MR. JONES replied, "Yes." Chair James was correct. The treaty had
not been ratified by Congress and portions of it had been
implemented.
Number 1133
CHAIR JAMES explained the Bio-Diversity Treaty required that the
United States place 50 percent of its land-base into wilderness.
MR. JONES replied he was not familiar with that part. He knew,
however, that there was a large "wilderness" concept floating
around in the environmental community. He hated to use the word
"environmental" community because he was an environmentalist in his
mining activity. "I want it done right." The special interest
groups were purporting the expansion of wilderness areas in the
corridors between existing wilderness areas that would also include
non-wilderness areas.
Number 1180
CHAIR JAMES stated the biggest threat were the buffer zones around
these areas. The areas that had been designated were already
existing parks thereby the buffer zone added another layer and
restricted activity. In addition, the buffer zone could also be
placed over private and state lands.
Number 1214
MR. JONES replied that was an accurate portrayal. The chairman of
the World Heritage Committee from Thailand stated that he thought
it was an excellent idea to create an 18 million acre buffer zone
around Yellowstone National Park. The zone would go as far east as
Cody, Wyoming; as far north as Livingston, Wyoming; and well over
into Idaho. The chairman thought it would be a great idea because
it would help the U.S. government manage the area. Furthermore,
the area that the New World Mine deposit was in was specifically
excluded from a wilderness area by Congress in 1978 because of its
mineral potential. "These people that want to push this concept
are all for managed areas. And, managed areas mean controlled
areas that means you and I can't do what we otherwise might like to
do in those areas."
Number 1329
PATRICK DALTON was the first person to testify via teleconference
in Delta Junction. He thanked the Representatives for putting
together a great resolution. "I can't believe it when something
good comes out of the legislature." He suggested adding a
provision to provide for the prosecuting of the individuals that
took away U.S. lands and gave them to the enemy. The land was
being transferred from the U.S. to the United Nations. "In my
opinion, this falls under the category of treason," he declared.
The Constitution of the U.S., said in Article III, Section 3, that
the rules and the laws of the lands were determined by Congress;
not by executive orders. He did see how a treaty could supersede
a law like this. He cited the supreme court ruling of Norton v.
Shelby County which stated an unconstitutional act was not lost,
but rather it was inoperative as though it had never been passed.
Number 1439
GREG HALL was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Delta Junction. He thanked Chair James for all that she had done
and because she had stood up for the voice of the people. He also
thanked Representative Young for introducing legislation in the
U.S. House of Representatives. He strongly supported the
resolution.
Number 1471
JON JARVIS, Superintendent, Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Anchorage. He explained the park was a part of the world heritage
site that included Kluane National Park, Tatshenshini-Alsek
Provincial Park and Habitat, and Glacier Bay National Park making
it the largest land-based world heritage site in the world.
MR. JARVIS further stated that he did not represent the entire
National Park Service or Washington D.C. He spoke only from his
personal experience of managing a world heritage site. The
authority for a world heritage site designation came from Congress
in an amendment to the National Historic Preservation Act in the
mid-1970's. The amendment granted the authority or the
responsibility to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Interior to
participate in the World Heritage Convention. Subsequently, there
were regulations promulgated that identified the process. The
regulations did not convey any authority over the lands to any
other body other than the U.S. Congress and the U.S. government.
"All that the World Heritage Convention does is recognize that a
particular piece of land is of world class character." It was the
U.S. government that created and influenced the World Heritage
Convention as an idea to get other countries to protect key
resources - natural and historical; such as, the Great Wall of
China.
MR. JARVIS further explained the regulations said that the area
would be identified, Congress would be notified, as-well-as the
appropriate congressional committees, before any action would be
taken before designation. In addition, once designated the U.S.
government made a commitment to protect the lands with its own
laws. A designation brought international attention to the lands
which was what the New World Mine experienced in Yellowstone
National Park. There were not any new laws or regulations on
private or Native lands associated with world heritage sites.
Since the establishment of Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and
Preserve as a world heritage site there was no history or record of
any influence of an international body on management decisions for
the area. The park had received, however, a significant amount of
international tourists because it was a world heritage site which
contributed significantly to Alaska's economy. It also established
a close working relationship with Canada in the Kluane and the
Tatshenshini-Alsek parks; in particular, as it related to search
and rescue.
Number 1728
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Jarvis to explain the difference between a
world heritage site and a biosphere reserve?
Number 1733
MR. JARVIS replied they were different conventions and different
designations. He did not know exactly what the biosphere
designation was because he had never worked in one. He was more
familiar with the World Heritage Convention.
Number 1751
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Jarvis if the world heritage sites had buffer
zones and transitional zones?
Number 1756
MR. JARVIS replied they did not.
CHAIR JAMES explained the biosphere reserves had buffer zones and
transitional zones. That was her biggest concern because the
buffer zone around the identified biosphere reserve restricted
human activity. Denali National Park was a biosphere reserve, for
example.
Number 1776
MR. JARVIS replied that was his understanding as well. The concept
of a biosphere reserve and its buffer zone was being used
positively in communities in other countries by not eliminating
human occupancy and use, but by recognizing that the people were
closely linked to the lands.
Number 1927
CHAIR JAMES stated that the whole issue and the rationale sounded
innocent. The problem was the implementation when most of the land
in Alaska was tied up anyway. Therefore, restricting access and
restricting the ability to use the land was threatened. In
addition, the general public was not aware or notified of this
until it had already happened. She asked Mr. Jarvis if he
understood her concern?
Number 1873
MR. JARVIS replied, "Yes." The 1979 designation of the Wrangell-
St. Elias National Park and Preserve was a very big public deal.
There were many dinners and celebrations. Glacier Park National
Park in Montana was a new proposed world heritage site and there
were a variety of public meetings and media attention. It was not
something that was done behind closed doors.
Number 1906
CHAIR JAMES replied it was not the world heritage sites that were
a threat but rather the biosphere reserves. They had a different
function, correct?
Number 1916
MR. JARVIS replied he was not qualified to speak on the biosphere
reserve system.
Number 1923
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Jarvis how long had the
Wrangell-St. Elias Park and National Preserve been a world heritage
site?
MR. JARVIS replied it was designated in 1979.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Jarvis if during that time had he
ever received a directive or an order from anybody at the United
Nations?
MR. JARVIS replied, "No." There was no record, file or any
indication that the park had received anything from the World
Heritage Committee or any international body concerning the
management of the area.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that Mr. Jarvis saw a strong economic
component of the designation of a world heritage site because of
the increase in international tourism.
MR. JARVIS replied, "Yes." It was a fact.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON stated that Mr. Jarvis also indicated that the
relationship between Alaska and Canada was cooperative and not
coercive.
MR. JARVIS replied the relationship was very cooperative.
Number 2006
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY asked Mr. Jarvis to clarify his position
and his connection with the Canadian park system - the Kluane
National Park, in particular.
Number 2017
MR. JARVIS replied he was superintendent of the Wrangell-St. Elias
National Park and Preserve. He worked for the National Park
Service. Wrangell-St. Elias and Kluane were designated together as
a world heritage site in 1979. Since then, Tatshenshini-Alsek and
Glacier Bay were added because they were contiguous. As a result,
the world heritage site designation had facilitated a working
relationship. He cited this summer a Mexican climbing team was
caught in an avalanche on Mt. St. Elias, of which, the Kluane
rescue team was able to rescued them off of the mountain in a
matter of hours; quicker than flying a helicopter from Anchorage
or Fairbanks. It was this type of cooperation that occurred
throughout the year.
Number 2082
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that he did not realize these parks
were a contiguous unit.
MR. JARVIS explained that the Wrangell-St. Elias Park and Preserve
touched the Canadian border and Kluane was on the other side.
Moving south, the Tatshenshini-Alsek touched Glacier Bay.
Number 2117
CHAIR JAMES stated that a mining effort in Haines was halted
because of the world heritage site designation. Do you remember
that Mr. Jarvis?
MR. JARVIS replied he was not familiar with that.
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained the project was called the Windy
Craggy project in Canada.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Jarvis if that project was in the area?
MR. JARVIS replied he was not familiar with that.
Number 2146
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Jarvis what he saw as his primary
duty in respect to world heritage site directives? And, what would
he do if he got a directive from the United Nations today?
Number 2161
MR. JARVIS replied he would ignore the directive because he worked
for the U.S. government and he took his direction from U.S. law,
such as, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) and the regulations that were promulgated in the public
process. "I'm a strong believer in the public processes, the
American public process." Therefore, any directive from the United
Nations would be way out of line and he would report it to
Washington D.C.
MR. JARVIS further stated that his responsibility as a manager of
a world heritage site was primarily to educate the public -
American and international - on the significance and importance of
the area; such as, its long-term uses that were recognized in
ANILCA.
Number 2217
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS asked Mr. Jarvis, if he would ignore the
directive, then why be a world heritage site?
MR. JARVIS replied a world heritage site recognition had nothing to
do with any directives. It was only a recognition along with 175
other sites from around the world that were considered important
from a world-class standpoint. "It's basically a recognition that
the Wrangell mountains are unparalleled in the world; there's
nothing else like them." It was tough to get on the list so it was
something to be proud of.
Number 2255
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jarvis if the designation of a
world heritage site simply meant that it was a pretty place?
MR. JARVIS replied, "No." There were many pretty places in the
world. A designation meant that there were a combination of
factors that made it unique in the world. There were many, many
countries that would love to get sites on the list that had been
unsuccessful. It was more than just pretty.
Number 2284
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jarvis what regulations were
promulgated by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior pursuant
to the convention that applied to his work, and when were they
promulgated?
MR. JARVIS replied he did not have that information with him now.
He would have his office forward that information to him.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Jarvis if he had received any
regulations; and, roughly, what were their subject matter?
MR. JARVIS replied the regulations were related to the
implementation of the World Heritage Convention. He would send a
copy of them to the committee.
Number 2329
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Jarvis if the tenor of what he
was saying was that the designation was valuable to the people of
the U.S., and that the resolution was an overreaction?
MR. JARVIS replied there were legitimate concerns by the public,
but they were generally born out of confusion of what the World
Heritage Convention really meant. It did not convey any authority
to anyone, other than the American government and the people. The
convention asked that any country that had a world heritage site
use to its own authority to protect the site.
Number 2376
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON stated that he was personally a bit skeptical.
The mine outside of Yellowstone National Park was precluded from
being developed because of the designation. Correct?
MR. JARVIS replied, "I think you're correct." It did play a part
because it brought world recognition and attention to the issue.
It certainly did not bring about any new rules or regulations,
however.
Number 2406
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON commented there was concern that any
designation would put significant, if not insurmountable, barriers
around resource and infrastructure development. He asked Mr.
Jarvis if that was an unduly concern?
MR. JARVIS replied there was nothing in the designation that
prohibited any of the current and on-going activities on the lands
in Alaska. For example, in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park
and Preserve there were 675 mining claims, of which, 3 were
operating at this time and there were no restriction as a result of
the designation. Other activities such as sport hunting continued
in the park as well.
Number 2466
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON explained there was concern that major
developments, such as roads, would be....
TAPE 97-26, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Jarvis if we should be concerned?
Number 0006
MR. JARVIS replied it would definitely bring more public attention
from an international standpoint to major developmental issues. If
a major development was proposed for an area that had been
designated, and there was a perception that it compromised the
primary integrity of the area, then there would be additional
public attention.
Number 0033
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Jarvis if in Glacier Bay National Park
cultural and historical subsistence use were restricted in the
area?
Number 0043
MR. JARVIS replied he was not familiar enough with the Glacier Bay
issues to answer the question. He would rather defer the question
to the superintendent of Glacier Bay.
Number 0053
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Jarvis if he had implied that there
would be an international component to the decision making process?
Number 0070
MR. JARVIS replied, "No, Sir." International organizations would
not have any role in the decision making process; it was a decision
that would be made via the normal public process and legal
requirements of the United States.
Number 0095
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that some members of the Alaska
State Legislature were about to have a legislative exchange with
the Yukon Territory. He asked Mr. Jarvis if he could think of any
suggestions or issues that should be brought up with the Canadians?
Number 0118
MR. JARVIS suggested that the members ask what was the Canadian
view of a world heritage designation site. It would be interesting
to hear from other countries what their view of a world heritage
site meant.
Number 0136
CHAIR JAMES stated, for the record, that her biggest concern was
the biosphere reserves as opposed to the world heritage sites. She
appreciated the testimony of Mr. Jarvis today on the world heritage
sites, nevertheless.
Number 0147
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY explained that the folks in the Yukon
Territory were benefitting from a substantial economic boom in
timber harvesting because the Canadian government had removed large
amounts of timber in British Columbia from the market.
Number 0167
FRANK DILLON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association, was
the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. The
association supported HJR 14 because the trucking industry feared
that it would loose options in its use of the natural resources in
the land base available for economic development. The industry had
been dealing with terms like "wilderness" and "national parks."
Now, there were terms like "world heritage sites", "biosphere
reserves", "wildlife refuges" and "national landmarks." There was
also a plethora a state and local zoning considerations for land-
use as well as Indian country designations. The association was
worried that the overall goal behind these designations and the
reasons were not straight forward. There was a reason to be
concerned about the biosphere reserves and the language that was
used to protect the area. He was also concerned about the buffer
zone and the understanding of where the discrete ecosystems were.
"Does an ecosystem change when we get to the border of a park or a
wildlife area? I don't think so." There was really only one
ecosystem that was interconnected from a molecular level to a
universal level. Therefore, the definitions seemed wide open to
expansion and exclusion.
Number 0262
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Dillon if he was more concerned
with the biospheres rather than the world heritage sites?
Number 0270
MR. DILLON replied the association was concerned about the enormous
amount of effort it took to identify these types of areas expanding
the control. He did not want issues in Alaska to be decided upon
by the folks in the United Nations. "It's bad enough having
decisions in Alaska decided in Washington D.C."
Number 0290
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Dillon if he was concerned that
there would be areas of Alaska that would be withdrawn from
potential development?
MR. DILLON replied, "Correct." He was also concerned about the
potential control by foreigners.
Number 0305
STEVE BORELL, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association, Inc.,
was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage.
The association supported HJR 14. World heritage sites and
biosphere reserves were possibly the single-greatest threat to
future economic activity in Western Alaska; and, specifically, in
the area of mining. Designations could be used to block mineral
development and any other perceived activity that was felt to be a
threat to the designations. Congressman Don Young's bill - HR 901
- was simple; yet, extremely important. It required that Congress
approve any international designation, including world heritage
sites and biosphere reserves. Currently, world heritage sites
could be nominated by the U.S. Departments of Interior and
Agriculture; and biosphere reserves could be designated by the U.S.
Department of State, without congressional input.
MR. BORELL further stated that he was aware of two instances where
a world heritage site was used to block a mining project. He cited
the Yellowstone mining project where both national and
international groups used the argument that it was a world heritage
site to oppose mining development outside of the park in an area
where mining had begun before the park was established and had been
occurring for over 100 years. The other example involved the
designation of a world heritage site in Kamchatka, Russia -
Volcanoes of Kamchatka World Heritage Site - in 1996. Immediately
after the designation a group of U.S. and international
environmental groups challenged the Overseas Private Investment
Corporation (OPIC) to not insure the mine developmental
investments.
MR. BORELL further stated that in Alaska the association's
immediate concern was the proposed park in Western Alaska. The
language was crafted to say that it would not affect any new lands
that were not in a conservational system unit. Nevertheless,
tremendous dangers were involved. The proposals were: An
international park that included parts of the Russian Far East, a
world heritage site, and a marine biosphere reserve for the Bering
Sea between Alaska and Russia. He fully expected, if one of the
designations occurred, groups would seek to block development. He
reiterated there was not a provision in the law that would not
allow something to be built outside of a world heritage site, but
he was concerned about the perception that was presented to the
world and to the investment communities. The investment community
could not withstand that type of pressure which was what happened
to the project outside of Yellowstone.
MR. BORELL further stated that Northwest Alaska had about one-
fourth of the U.S.'s coal reserves. The only way to transport the
coal, in his opinion, was by rail to a port crossing several
different conservational system units. He was concerned about the
groups screaming at the top of their voice if these units were
designated as a world heritage site. In addition, he wondered what
exactly was a marine biosphere reserve which was being proposed for
the Bering Sea. Did it include whaling, for example; and would the
same pressures against Norwegians be placed upon Alaskan Natives?
MR. BORELL further wondered how a world heritage sight or a
biosphere reserve could be used as an economic tool against the
United States and against Alaska, in particular. The market for
the coal from Northwest Alaska would be the Pacific Rim and the
competitors in the Pacific Rim were: Indonesia, Australia, India
and South Africa. He was concerned about the governmental
connections between the U.S. and Indonesia. Indonesia was a
country with massive coal deposits and with ports already in place.
"Why would the Indonesians and why would other countries not look
to create pressure against a major competitor like the coal in
Northwest Alaska." Furthermore, if the international mining and
investment community had known that the Red Dog mine would have
been such a major factor in the world market, they would have
funneled monies into groups to block the project.
MR. BORELL stated, in conclusion, he was pleased to see the
resolution before the legislature. He was also pleased to see
Congressman Young seeking to put sideboards on a situation that was
very dangerous.
Number 0862
LEONARD EFTA was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He did not see why a bill was needed to protect the
sovereignty of the nation. He knew of nothing in the constitution
that authorized anyone to turn over one inch of this country to a
foreign power. "If the Senate did indeed pass a treaty authorizing
this, I believe that the steps should be to tell the Senate; and,
I said "tell" not "ask" the Senate, to get us out of that treaty,
period."
CHAIR JAMES explained to Mr. Efta that was exactly what the
resolution did.
Number 0916
ERIC WEATHERS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Cordova. He supported the need for an alarm of the world heritage
sites and the biosphere reserves because it was unconstitutional
for the President to make treaties with foreign countries. "I
believe he should be tried for treason immediately and shot, and
all U.N. affiliates run out of this country." He did not recognize
any world organizations. "There will not and shall not be any
international agreements within the United States. No compromise.
Get out of my country."
Number 0948
DENNY WEATHERS was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Cordova. She commended the committee members. "I know you're
trying to do the best." At the same time, she opposed HJR 14
because it was unconstitutional. According to the Constitutions of
the U.S. and Alaska, jurisdiction of Alaska did not belong to the
United States; it belonged to the people of Alaska. She cited
Article XV, Section 18, Constitution of Alaska, "Territorial Assets
and Liabilities"; and Section 25, "Effective Date." The assets of
the Territory became the property of the state when it joined the
union. She further stated that the Constitution of the U.S.
protected the fifty sovereign states from the U.S. jurisdiction
under Article IV, Section 3, Section 4, and Amendment number 10.
The U.S. jurisdiction was better defined under Article I, Section
8, which allowed for the U.S. to exercise like authority over all
places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state for
the erection of forts, and arsenals, for example. She stated no
where in either constitutions did it give the U.S. Congress or the
President the power or authority within Alaska to create or
designate national parks, world heritage sites or biosphere
reserves. The states only had the powers designated to them by the
constitution and no more. In addition, Title 18, Section 7, U.S.
Codes, specified that territorial jurisdiction extended only
outside of the boundaries of the lands belonging to any of the
fifty states. There were many court cases concerning the U.S. and
the jurisdiction of the stat, of which, one indicated that the
states were separate sovereigns in respect to the federal
government. She cited the court case of Heath v. Alabama. In
1992, the New York supreme court ruled that Congress exercised its
confirmed powers subject to the limitations contained in the
constitution. Thus, if a state ratified or gave consent to any
authority that was not specifically granted by the Constitution of
the United States, it was null and void. She requested that the
Alaska State Legislature make no deals with the federal government
without first getting approval from the voters. "I do not believe
Alaska is for sale to the federal government." Maybe, it would be
wise to follow the lead of the other states seeking to boot out the
feds; such as: Montana, Nevada, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming and
Oregon. In conclusion, she opposed HJR 14 because the laws were
already there; it was not necessary, because "we owned our land."
MS. WEATHERS asked if the Alaska State Legislature legally seceded
property over to the United States or the federal government
without the knowledge of the people of Alaska?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "No." She was not an authority, however. She
would take her question into consideration and respond to her
later.
Number 1198
IRENE ANDERSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Nome. The resolution was needed because the general public needed
to know about the conservation and international groups that wanted
to do things that the state was afraid of - the control of land use
in the buffer zones and the transitional areas. She did not want
them to interfere in access to the sea or restrict the people here
in Nome. She cited the access problems of the Bering Land Bridge.
The people in Shishmaref were surrounded by the Bering Land Bridge
so they were not able to build a road, for example. And, the
people of Wales would like to be guaranteed their right to
subsistence. She also felt for the Natives on the Russian side
because they were already poor and a designation would limit their
land-base and ownership. The U.S. government should not use its
power and the people's taxes to make an international park when
they were already poor. Furthermore, there were millions of
dollars being spent on research projects in the Bering Land Bridge.
"We feel that we're too little. We're just a little group of
people up here in the Seward Peninsula area." She appreciated the
work of the legislature; otherwise, she feared the Nome area would
become overrun and become worse than a third world nation because
it would not have access to that which it needed. It needed, for
example, access to Serpentine Hot Springs, of which, a request had
already been denied. It was hard for the people of Shishmaref to
get gravel for infrastructure.
Number 1590
JOHN BREIVOGEL was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Glennallen. The main value of the bill was so that the people
would be aware that something ominous was going on. Ownership did
not need to be proved. The people in the area of the Wrangell park
were sincere. They did not realize that they were being
manipulated by the collective will of the 185 member nations of the
United Nations, however. There was an international court of
justice. There were three United Nations organizations in
Anchorage: The United Nations Association of the U.S.A. - Alaska
Chapter, The Northern Forum, and The Alaska-United Nations 50th
Anniversary Commission. He said, if one really wanted to know what
was going on, go to Walter Hickel, honorary chairman of the
commission; Willy Hensley, co-chairman; and Bill Sheffield,
chairman. In addition, go to Senator Frank Murkowski, who
nominated Walter Hickel to the World Court. He reiterated the park
service was totally unaware of how they were being manipulated.
"The real enemy is much closer to home and we need to look at this
real carefully. The biggest part of the problem is right in
downtown Anchorage and all these little clubs that are associations
which get grants and funds from everywhere." He would be glad to
share his information with anybody that was interested.
Number 1958
MATT KRINKE was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Glennallen. He opposed HJR 14. "If you give them more to work
with, this bill would become legal and we will not have our
rights." He suggested looking at the material that was available
to see how the state was being ripped off of its land. The land
belonged to the people. "Please uphold our constitution and try to
save us from these evil people who are steeling our land from us."
Number 2007
PAUL WEIR was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Glennallen. He was against any connection to the United Nations.
"We need to keep the U.S. sovereign." Red China, Cuba and many
other communist nations were members of the U.N. "We need to get
the United States out of the United Nations." He thanked Chair
James for her fine piece of legislation.
Number 2039
STANLEY LEPHART, Executive Director, Citizens Advisory Commission
on Federal Areas, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural
Resources, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. The commission voted - unanimously - to support the
passage of HJR 14. Although the commission had a lot to learn
about biosphere reserves and world heritage sites, it was
concerned. It was particularly concerned about the effects of the
designations and the ability of the state to exercise its
management authority over its natural resources both fish and
wildlife. It was also concerned about the impact on private
property interest either within or adjacent to areas designated
under one of the programs. The United Nation's biosphere ban was
created in 1968 and the World Heritage Convention was created in
1972. During the intervening years, the programs operated in
relative obscurity as-far-as the American public was concerned.
Furthermore, the UNESCO guidelines discouraged publicity of a
nomination to maintain objectivity of the evaluation process and to
avoid embarrassment to those concerned. The guidance had been
revised, however, to state that participation by local people in
the nomination process was essential to ensure a shared
responsibility with the state party and the maintenance of the
site. World heritage sites had increased the public's awareness of
the programs surrounding a site, such as, the Yellowstone example;
and had affected local management prerogatives. The proposal to
develop the Windy Craggy Copper Mine in British Columbia provided
the impetus for the Department of Interior to nominate Glacier Bay
National Park as a world heritage site in 1991. The submission
letter noted the environmental threats posed by the mineral claims
on the Brady Ice Field, the 10 Native allotment claims, and the
existence of commercial fishing. "I can't help but wonder how
these statements fit with the program's guidelines to try to
garnish support by local people in this case - fishermen and
allotment owners for the support and nomination of the maintenance
of the site." Glacier Bay as both a world heritage site and a
biosphere reserve continued to be a major factor in the efforts by
the National Park Service and a number of environmental
organizations to close the bay to commercial fishing. He further
explained that there were four biosphere reserves in Alaska:
Glacier Bay National Park/Admiralty Island National Monument,
Denali National Park and Preserve, Noatak National Preserve, and
the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge. In addition, there
were eight world heritage sites in Alaska: Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, Denali National Park and Preserve, Gates of the
Arctic National Park and Preserve, Katmai National Park, Wrangell-
St. Elias National Park and Preserve, Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, and the Aleutian
Island Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Six
of the areas mentioned had been nominated while only Glacier Bay
and Wrangell-St. Elias were actually inscribed as world heritage
sites. In practice, there was not a distinction between a
nomination and an inscribed area. There were buffer zones
identified, but according to the....
TAPE 97-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. LEPHART further stated that a designation of an area as a
biosphere reserve or a world heritage site was not suppose to
convey any regulatory powers over the lands within the United
States. However, there were numerous examples of how the
designations influenced the management decisions by U.S. federal
agencies. The commission believed that there was sufficient
concern to justify an approval by Congress, state, or local
governments before any area was designated.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
Number 0152
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that the committee substitute, 0-
LS0355/E, Luckhaupt, 3/7/97, be adopted. There was no objection,
the committee substitute was so adopted.
Number 0182
REPRESENTATIVE HODGINS moved that HJR 14, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 0209
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected to make a few comments. He did
intend to vote to pass the bill out of the committee. He was sorry
that the committee could not get more of the testimony from Stan
Lephart, Executive Director, Citizens Advisory Commission on
Federal Areas. The commission was part of the Department of
Natural Resources. It was a resource that was available to this
committee and he encouraged the members to make use of it. "Stan
has done the most thorough research on this subject that I have
ever seen."
CHAIR JAMES stated that just because the resolution was passed from
the committee the work was not done. It was an on-going issue.
She asked Representative Vezey if his objection was still
maintained?
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY replied, "No."
CHAIR JAMES asked the committee members if there was further
objection to the motion. There was no further objection, the CSHJR
14(STA) was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0347
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:04 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|