Legislature(1995 - 1996)

02/23/1995 08:05 AM House STA

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
             HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE                            
                       February 23, 1995                                       
                           8:05 a.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Jeannette James, Chairman                                      
 Representative Scott Ogan, Vice-Chairman                                      
 Representative Brian Porter                                                   
 Representative Caren Robinson                                                 
 Representative Ed Willis                                                      
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative Ivan                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HJR 22:   Relating to maritime boundary between Alaska and the                
           former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics                          
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 83:  "An Act relating to state implementation of federal                  
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
  HB 130:  "An Act relating to agency review of public comment on              
           the adoption, amendment, and repeal of regulations;                 
           relating to the examination of proposed regulations,                
           amendments of regulations, and orders repealing                     
           regulations by the Administrative Regulation Review                 
           Committee and the Department of Law; relating to the                
           submission to, and acceptance by, the lieutenant governor           
           of proposed regulations, amendments of regulations, and             
           orders repealing regulations; and requiring agencies to             
           make certain determinations before adopting regulations,            
           amendments of regulations, or orders repealing                      
           HEARD AND HELD                                                      
  HB 30:   "An Act relating to a dress code for public schools."               
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 * HB 173: "An Act relating to reports by state agencies."                     
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
 *SCR 4:   Naming the Poet Laureate of Alaska.                                 
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
 *HJR 1:   Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State             
           of Alaska relating to repeal of regulations by the                  
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
 * HB 89:  "An Act making a special appropriation to the principal             
           of the permanent fund; and providing for an effective               
           SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                             
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY                                                       
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 216                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  465-3719                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HJR 22                    
 CARL OLSON, Chairman                                                          
 State Department Watch                                                        
 P.O. Box 65398                                                                
 Washington, D.C. 20035                                                        
 Telephone:  703-276-3330                                                      
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HJR 22                                         
 MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice-Chairman                                                
 State Department Watch                                                        
 P.O. Box 7981                                                                 
 Northridge, California 91327                                                  
 Telephone:  818-363-6210                                                      
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Supported HJR 22                                         
 ALAN KINGMAN, Legislative Aide                                                
   to Representative Scott Ogan                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 409                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  465-3878                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for CSHB 83                   
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide                                              
   to Representative Pete Kelly                                                
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 513                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  465-2327                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 130                    
 ELIZABETH ROBERTS, Legislative Aide                                           
   to Representative Bettye Davis                                              
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 430                                                       
 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182                                                     
 Telephone:  465-3875                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided sponsor statement for HB 30                     
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HJR 22                                                               
 SHORT TITLE:  ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY                                 
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Ogan, Toohey, James                     
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/25/95       129    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/25/95       129    (H)   WTR, STA                                          
 02/14/95              (H)   WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408                       
 02/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(WTR)                                       
 02/15/95       395    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                               
 02/16/95       405    (H)   WTR RPT  CS(WTR) 6DP                              
 02/16/95       405    (H)   DP: WILLIAMS, MULDER, PHILLIPS                    
 02/16/95       405    (H)   DP: G.DAVIS, KUBINA, BARNES                       
 02/16/95       405    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (WTR, GOV)                    
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 83                                                                
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) OGAN, Porter, Kohring, Toohey, James           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/13/95        42    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        42    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        42    (H)   WTR, STA, JUD                                     
 01/25/95       136    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING, TOOHEY                     
 01/27/95       162    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                               
 01/31/95              (H)   WTR AT 05:00 PM CAPITOL 408                       
 01/31/95              (H)   MINUTE(WTR)                                       
 02/03/95       242    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): KELLY                               
 02/08/95       268    (H)   WTR RPT  CS(WTR) 3DP 4NR                          
 02/08/95       269    (H)   DP: PHILLIPS, WILLIAMS, BARNES                    
 02/08/95       269    (H)   NR: KUBINA, G.DAVIS, MULDER, MACKIE               
 02/08/95       269    (H)   8 FISCAL NOTES (GOV, DCRA, F&G, DHSS)             
 02/08/95       269    (H)   (LAW, DPS, REV, DOTPF) 2/8/95                     
 02/08/95       269    (H)   9 ZERO FN (ADM, DCED, DOC, DOE, DEC)              
 02/08/95       269    (H)   (F&G, LABOR, DNR, DM&VA)  2/8/95                  
 02/08/95       269    (H)   REFERRED TO STA                                   
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/21/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 130                                                               
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY, James                                   
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/27/95       157    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/27/95       157    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/14/95              (H)   ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/15/95       396    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                               
 02/21/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/21/95              (H)   ARR AT 12:00 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205                
 02/22/95              (H)   ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/22/95              (H)   ARR AT 04:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 30                                                                
 SHORT TITLE:  SCHOOL DRESS CODES                                              
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) B.DAVIS                                        
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/06/95        28    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        28    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        28    (H)   STA, HES                                          
 02/09/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/09/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/21/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 173                                                               
 SHORT TITLE:  REPORTS TO THE LEGISLATURE                                      
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS, Navarre, Toohey,                      
 Finkelstein, Bunde Rokeberg, Brown, James                                     
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 02/10/95       302    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/10/95       302    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 02/13/95       343    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, FINKELSTEIN,                
 02/13/95       343    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): ROKEBERG, BROWN                     
 02/15/95       396    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): JAMES                               
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  SCR  4                                                               
 SHORT TITLE:  POET LAUREATE OF ALASKA                                         
 SPONSOR(S):  SENATOR(S) LEMAN, Halford, Duncan, Zharoff, Taylor,              
 Green, Torgerson;                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE(S) Toohey, Navarre                                             
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/20/95        58    (S)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/20/95        58    (S)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 01/31/95              (S)   STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/02/95              (S)   STA AT 03:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211                    
 02/02/95              (S)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/03/95       159    (S)   STA RPT  4DP                                      
 02/03/95       159    (S)   ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOE)                            
 02/07/95              (S)   RLS AT 11:40 AM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203               
 02/07/95              (S)   MINUTE(RLS)                                       
 02/09/95       219    (S)   RULES TO CALENDAR  2/9/95                         
 02/09/95       223    (S)   READ THE SECOND TIME                              
 02/09/95       223    (S)   COSPONSOR(S):  HALFORD, DUNCAN,                   
 02/09/95       223    (S)   TAYLOR, GREEN, TORGERSON                          
 02/09/95       223    (S)   PASSED Y19 N- E1                                  
 02/09/95       226    (S)   TRANSMITTED TO (H)                                
 02/10/95       290    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/10/95       290    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS                                     
 02/10/95       322    (H)   CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, NAVARRE                 
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HJR 1                                                                
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) PHILLIPS, Rokeberg, Brice, Green               
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/06/95        16    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        16    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        16    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY                          
 01/18/95        73    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): GREEN                               
 02/07/95              (H)   MINUTE(ARR)                                       
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 BILL:  HB 89                                                                
 SPONSOR(S):  REPRESENTATIVE(S) MARTIN,James                                   
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG                  ACTION                                   
 01/17/95        51    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/17/95        51    (H)   STATE AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY, FINANCE                 
 02/23/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-20, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The meeting of the House State Affairs Standing Committee was                 
 called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m.  Members                
 present at the call to order were Representatives James, Porter,              
 Ogan, and Willis.  Representative Robinson arrived at 8:22 a.m.               
 Representatives Green and Ivan were absent.                                   
 CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES stated there was a quorum present.  She                 
 announced that the committee would be hearing HJR 22 first, as                
 there was a teleconference that needed to be accommodated.  She               
 called Representative Al Vezey to testify as the sponsor of HJR 22.           
 Number 015                                                                    
 HSTA - 2/23/95                                                                
 HJR 22 - ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, sponsor of HJR 22, stated this bill is not          
 the first time this subject has been before the legislature.  He              
 said that on at least two previous occasions, the legislature has             
 passed resolutions dealing with Wrangell Island.  He asked for the            
 opportunity to give the committee some historical background, as he           
 said there were some who argued resolutions of this type were                 
 somehow meant to provoke some type of conflict with the Russian               
 government.  He said this was not true, that Wrangell Island was              
 discovered and claimed by Americans, as well as occupied by them.             
 He said that in the 1900s, Arctic exploration had the glamour and             
 mystique that space exploration has for us today.  It wasn't until            
 1909, that man actually reached the Polar Regions.  Siberia, he               
 said was still a vast unexplored wilderness.  A Swedish naval                 
 officer with Russian citizenship, by the name of Von Wrangell, was            
 a very famous Arctic explorer.  He stated there was a lot of                  
 speculation about what was in the Arctic Ocean in the 1900s,                  
 including thoughts that there was a large continent there and that            
 it was a warm water ocean if you could just get past the ice                  
 blockade that cut it off from the Bering Straits or the Atlantic              
 Ocean.  There is some speculation, he said, that Von Wrangell first           
 spotted Wrangell Island, but most historical facts indicate that he           
 could not have possibly done so, based on the coordinates of his              
 location and the actual location of Wrangell Island.  He stated               
 that in 1867, an American whaling boat was the first to spot                  
 Wrangell Island and record it on a map.  He said one of the most              
 famous Arctic explorations of the last century was the voyage of              
 the USS Jeannette.  He said the USS Jeannette was a navy vessel               
 staffed with naval officers, but that it was sponsored by private             
 enterprise and it's crew was made up of private citizens.  He said            
 the actual sponsor of the voyage was the publisher of the New York            
 Herald, James Bennett.  He was the most flamboyant newspaper                  
 publisher of the day.  He said that he sponsored many such voyages,           
 with the intent of selling newspapers.  With his sponsorship, the             
 USS Jeannette went north into the Arctic under Captain Delong.  In            
 1879, the USS Jeannette got stuck in the polar ice and was unable             
 to get out.  For two years, this vessel drifted in the Arctic ice.            
 On July 12, 1881, the ice crushed the Jeannette, which sank, and              
 whose crew abandoned ship and got separated as they made their way            
 to the Siberian coastline.  Half of the crew perished from                    
 starvation and the remainder was saved by some Siberian Eskimos off           
 the Lena River Delta.  Meanwhile, rescue missions had been launched           
 to try and find the Jeannette.  One of these was the US Revenue               
 Marine ship, Thomas Corwyn.  While sailing in this area, the ship             
 spotted Wrangell Island and landed on it, claiming it in the name             
 of the United States.  One of the crewman present on the Thomas               
 Corwyn was the founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir.  He said this           
 was well documented in the Congressional record and in official               
 naval histories.  This expedition was followed by the USS Rogers              
 just a few weeks later, which landed on Wrangell Island and                   
 surveyed the entire 3,000 square mile island.  Prior to this, it              
 was not known whether this was an island or a peninsula of a large            
 continent.  Original maps showed this not as Wrangell Island, but             
 as Wrangell Land.  He said that to back up in history, Von Wrangell           
 was the governor of Russian Alaska in the 1840s.  He clarified that           
 Von Wrangell did not ever really sight Wrangell Island.  Subsequent           
 to its discovery and claim by the United States in 1881, many                 
 things took place on Wrangell Island.  He said that in 1910, there            
 was actually a Hollywood movie filmed on Wrangell Island.  Wrangell           
 Island was also the base for many polar bear hunts and expeditions            
 by museums in New York and Chicago.  In 1921, an American citizen             
 named Val Maar Stephenson, received title from the U. S. State                
 Department and attempted to start a settlement on the island.  This           
 settlement failed and in 1923, a rescue vessel finally reached it.            
 Only one survivor remained, an Eskimo woman named Ata Blackjack.              
 At that point, the Loman brothers of Nome paid Stephenson $100,000            
 for title to Wrangell Island, with plans to turn it into a large              
 reindeer station.  They proceeded with their plans until 1924, when           
 the Russian gunboat, Red October, landed with a company of soldiers           
 and took the American colonists prisoner.  Several of the colonists           
 died in captivity and those that survived were returned to the                
 United States without their property or valuables.  Subsequent to             
 this event, there have been numerous correspondences and meetings             
 with first Russia, then the Soviet Union, and now Russia again,               
 regarding Wrangell Island.  He stated that the U.S. always                    
 maintained that the Wrangell Islands, the Delong Islands, and                 
 Henrietta Island were sovereign possessions of the United States.             
 He said this correspondence went on until 1984, at which point the            
 U.S. State Department took the position that the United States did            
 not have sovereignty over the islands.                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that he wanted to back up in history to             
 1867, and the United States' purchase of Alaska.  He said that with           
 that purchase, there was never established a boundary between                 
 Alaska and Russia.  He stated that we had what was called a                   
 conference line, which amounts to a purchase agreement.  He said              
 this conference line could not be represented on a map and that to            
 this day, there was no boundary between Russia and Alaska.  He                
 mentioned that in 1986, the U.S. Department of the Interior set up            
 an offshore lease sale in the Navarin Basin, estimated to hold 1.9            
 billion barrels of petroleum.   In the lease sale, he said, the               
 Department of Interior clarified the boundary between the United              
 States and Russia was uncertain and that actual title to these                
 leases could not be ascertained for certain.  He stated that after            
 a couple of years, the Department of Interior was forced to return            
 the lease deposits to the bidders, as they were unable to clarify             
 the boundary between the United States and Russia.  At that time,             
 the U.S. State Department started taking the position the United              
 States had no claim on Wrangell Island.  The United States Senate             
 never ratified a proposed treaty the State Department put forward             
 to the Soviet Union, but the State Department said it would abide             
 by the terms of the treaty until it was ratified.  He said the U.S.           
 Congress actually issued a resolution stating they were not going             
 to give up this territory.  Following the proposed treaty, the                
 Soviet Union dissolved, and the treaty still has not been ratified.           
 Thus, the status of Wrangell Island and the boundary between Alaska           
 and Russia still remains unsettled.  He said that in reality, we              
 were talking tens of thousands of square miles of continental shelf           
 territory, as well as the islands themselves.  He stated this                 
 resolution takes the position that the legislature of this state              
 feels that Alaska has an interest in these negotiations, and that             
 if there are any negotiations between the United States and Russia,           
 regarding this matter, then the State of Alaska should have a                 
 delegate present.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the original resolution contained                   
 language that requested the Governor to take extensive steps to               
 pursue Alaska's interests in these properties.  Because of this,              
 the Department of Law attached a $150,000 fiscal note to this                 
 resolution to compensate attorneys to do research.  He said he did            
 not intend to make a big issue of this or a large fiscal note, in             
 fact, he did not want to create any fiscal impact with this                   
 resolution.  He stated the research on this issue had already been            
 done by other interested parties.  An example of support for this             
 issue is the state of California, whose legislature has passed                
 resolutions in support of Alaska's claim and participation in any             
 talks regarding the Wrangell Islands.  They have a very similar               
 situation with islands off their coast, in that there is not a                
 clear boundary with Mexico.  Again, the boundary between California           
 and Mexico was not established by the treaty between Mexico and the           
 United States.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked that the committee adopt another                   
 committee substitute for HJR 22, which adds wording requesting the            
 Governor take action to protect Alaska's interests in this matter,            
 but keeping it simple to avoid adding costs in a fiscal note for              
 this resolution.  He mentioned that the committee had before them,            
 the attached fiscal note for $150,000 from the previous committee,            
 but stated this note had been changed to a zero dollar fiscal note            
 by the previous committee.   He wanted to note that there were two            
 witnesses on teleconference, who have been working on this matter             
 for over 20 years and were personal friends with Ralph Loman, the             
 individual who actually held title to Wrangell Island.  He said               
 they have conducted several interviews with him and were                      
 responsible for gathering much of the data the committee had before           
 them.  He added this was just a small part of the research that has           
 taken place on this matter.  He urged the committee to keep                   
 Alaska's interests in these islands in the forefront, and if the              
 United States is going to negotiate away a part of Alaska's                   
 territorial boundaries, then at least Alaska should be allowed to             
 participated in these negotiations.  He concluded by saying he                
 would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.                      
 CHAIR JAMES stated that she thought that the committee should hear            
 the testimony from the witnesses on teleconference before asking              
 any questions.  She asked if Carl Olson was available to testify.             
 Number 328                                                                    
 CARL OLSON, Chairman, State Department Watch, stated that his group           
 had been fighting this giveaway of U.S. territory to the Russians             
 for over ten years.  He added that they were the only group allowed           
 to testify at the U.S. Senate hearings when the U.S./U.S.S.R.                 
 Maritime Boundary Agreement came up for consideration.  Mr. Olson             
 said he strongly urges the passage of this resolution, because in             
 the 15 years that the State Department has been working on these              
 negotiations, they have never allowed the state of Alaska or the              
 general public to participate.  He thought definite legal action              
 was needed as soon as possible to correct this.  He stated past               
 Alaska legislatures have passed a series of resolutions on this               
 matter over the last eight years, and even sent a letter to the               
 U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations urging renegotiation to            
 include full participation and consent by the state of Alaska.  To            
 this date, it has been to no avail.  He said that to add further to           
 Alaska and the United States, at the time that the agreement was              
 signed in 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a side                  
 agreement stating the terms of this agreement would be abided by              
 regardless of whether it was ever ratified by the Congress.  He               
 said this act amounted to in effect a unilateral amendment to the             
 U.S. Constitution, which gives the Secretary of State the power to            
 adopt agreements that would normally take a completed treaty to               
 implement.  He added that this was a secret agreement, not                    
 mentioned at the time or mentioned at the time the proposed                   
 U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement was transmitted to                  
 Congress.  He said it was not mentioned in State Department's                 
 testimony at the Senate hearings on this issue, or even in Senate             
 floor debate on the matter.  He said that as a result of their                
 efforts, tens of thousands of letters have been transmitted to the            
 State Department opposing this giveaway and several organizations             
 have adopted resolutions opposing the State Department agreement.             
 MR. OLSON stated that the state of California was strongly backing            
 Alaska's right to participate in this issue, as a threat to one               
 state's territorial sovereignty was a threat to all.  He added that           
 a few days ago, he had been told by California Senator Don Rogers,            
 that he was planning to introduce an updated version of this                  
 resolution, and expected it to pass overwhelmingly.  He concluded             
 by saying he thought legal issues needed to be pursued with regard            
 to this matter and the Governor and Attorney General needed to be             
 impressed with the magnitude of this problem.  He stated that his             
 group had done extensive legal research on this matter, amounting             
 to hundreds of hours, and would be happy to make it available.  He            
 thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify.                         
 CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Olson for his testimony and asked Mark                
 Seidenberg if he was available to testify.                                    
 Number 372                                                                    
 MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice-Chairman, State Department Watch, said he               
 wanted to impress on the committee the magnitude of the loss for              
 the state of Alaska if it fails to fight for its' rights.  He                 
 stated that most people are aware that Alaska is over twice the               
 size of Texas, but that too few know that in 1977, the United                 
 States grew by about three times the size of Texas in the vicinity            
 of Alaska, because it was now entitled to 200 miles of exclusive              
 economic zone extending seaward from every coastline.  As a result            
 of the proposed U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary, the federal                  
 government is intent on giving away enough seabed in the Arctic               
 Ocean and Bering Sea, equal to about one-tenth its size in                    
 territory.  He added the state of Alaska faces a loss of                      
 sovereignty, property, minerals and other resource rights, and                
 related businesses and jobs.  The total could easily range into the           
 billions of dollars.  Mr. Seidenberg said that as a result of the             
 Submerged Lands Act, states own the rights to  submerged lands up             
 to three miles from their coastline.  Thus, the state of Alaska               
 will be deprived of its submerged lands around Wrangell, Harold,              
 Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta Islands in the Arctic Ocean.  It            
 would also be deprived of its rights to the submerged lands around            
 Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock, and Sea Otter Rock at the                       
 western-most part of the Aleutians.  He said in addition, the                 
 submerged lands around Little Diomede Island in the Bering Straits,           
 have been arbitrarily chopped off by the federal government                   
 negotiators in their drawing of the proposed maritime boundary.  He           
 stated that it slices the western-most part of the island and                 
 doesn't even pretend to be an equidistant boundary between Little             
 Diomede and Big Diomede Island.  He argued that the hasty manner in           
 which the federal government negotiated the proposed boundary line,           
 can be seen in its ignorance of traditional boundary surveying                
 practice.  Mr. Seidenberg stated the baseline is supposed to be set           
 by using the average mean water line on the relevant coast, but               
 that the U.S. Coast and Geodetic survey has told them it has never            
 conducted the necessary surveys to establish the baseline along the           
 relevant coast.  Thus, it becomes apparent, that the federal                  
 government never intended to do a thorough and accurate job to                
 begin with.  He summarized the possible loss of resources to                  
 Alaska, by saying there was a good chance that valuable oil and gas           
 deposits exist throughout the Chukchi Sea.  Furthermore, Alaska is            
 the largest fishing state in the country and the Texas size seabeds           
 to be abandoned to Russia include valuable fishing grounds.  This             
 would mean a great loss to the U.S. fishing fleet and related                 
 shore-based processing facilities.  He thought that if this                   
 proposed agreement is allowed to go unopposed, then the federal               
 government is being allowed to unconstitutionally alienate a                  
 portion of the territory of the sovereign state of Alaska, without            
 it's consent, thereby affecting the rights and economic health of             
 Alaska.  He argued that this was a plight, not just for Alaskans,             
 but for all Americans.  Mr. Seidenberg said that their group                  
 pledged their assistance to help Alaska to assert and win it's                
 rightful sovereignty, property, minerals and other resource rights.           
 He said he would be willing to answer any questions the committee             
 might have.                                                                   
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions that the committee              
 might have of either of the testifying witnesses.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked what some of the past Presidential             
 administrations had done with regards to this issue.                          
 Number 448                                                                    
 MR. OLSON responded that the negotiations over this proposed                  
 boundary had started back in 1978, with the U.S. State Department             
 and have gone through four administrations, whose bureaucracy                 
 maintained the same position of giving this area away to the                  
 Russians and not allowing the participation of anyone but                     
 themselves.  Mr. Olson indicated they had actually kept a series of           
 negotiations secret so that no one else could participate.                    
 Unfortunately, he said there had been a bi-partisan effort to deny            
 Alaska it's rights and property.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS further queried what the position had been              
 from Alaska's own congressional delegation.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered by saying that in the packet was                
 enclosed an Attorney General's opinion by Avrum Gross, dating from            
 1975.  The state had taken a position back then, he said.  He                 
 stated that subsequent to that time, there had been a somewhat                
 non-committal position.  He said roughly speaking, the                        
 congressional delegation position has been that Alaska should not             
 get involved with international negotiations.  He thought that they           
 were not really taking a position one way or the other.  He urged             
 Carl Olson to update the committee on the position of our                     
 congressional delegation.                                                     
 Number 476                                                                    
 MR. OLSON said he could not speak directly for either Senator                 
 Murkowski or Stevens, but that they had not been very helpful in              
 the matter.  He stated they had not been vigorously pursuing the              
 interests of the state of Alaska.  Mr. Olson said that he did want            
 to mention that Congressman Don Young was a co-sponsor of a bill              
 that would have required that any of these types of maritime                  
 boundary negotiations were in the form of a treaty, requiring                 
 congressional ratification.  He stated our two U.S. Senators had              
 not been helpful at all in this matter, and had actually spoken in            
 favor of the proposed U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary agreement.              
 CHAIR JAMES commented that it appeared to her that Alaska's                   
 interest would be more with regards to the maritime boundary with             
 Russia, as opposed to the issue of sovereignty over Wrangell                  
 Island.  She said knowing the relationship between the federal                
 government and Alaska, if it was determined the United States had             
 sovereignty over Wrangell Island, they would more than likely not             
 want to include it as territory of Alaska.  She said though, that             
 we certainly have an interest in the proposed maritime boundary,              
 especially considering the arbitrary line they have drawn cuts off            
 a corner of Little Diomede Island.  She thought we certainly needed           
 to correct this deficiency and determine a more fair boundary, and            
 that we were certainly a player in any negotiations.  She felt this           
 was a very valid resolution and that it ought to go forward to the            
 next committee.  She said that we have to make a statement.  She              
 asked if there were any further comments or questions from the                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wanted to clarify that the State Department              
 did issue title to Wrangell Island to first Stephenson and then the           
 Loman Brothers Company, and they recognized this for many years.              
 He thought that Carl Olson could possibly elaborate, but he                   
 believed this title was actually recorded in Alaska.                          
 CHAIR JAMES asked though, whether they bought it for the state of             
 Alaska or for themselves.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that they obviously bought for                 
 themselves, that when any individual buys property, they do so for            
 themselves not the state of Alaska.  He pointed out though that the           
 governance and the laws were all under the authority of Alaska, and           
 that as he understood it, the documents were recorded in Alaska.              
 MR. SEIDENBERG stated he thought he was better prepared to answer             
 those questions than Mr. Olson.  He said that in 1881, Mr. Hooper             
 the captain of the ship, Thomas Corwyn, gave the order for the                
 United States government to take possession of Wrangell Island.               
 All five of these islands were determined by the United States                
 geological survey, to be inclusive within Alaska.  They published             
 a publication called Altitudes in Alaska, in 1900.  Mr. Seidenberg            
 indicated it was already part of Alaska during the time that the              
 Treasury Department administered Alaska, during its stewardship               
 between 1877 and 1884, prior to Alaska's first organic act.  He               
 said it was the federal government that placed those islands in               
 Alaska.  When the Loman Brothers purchased the island on April 1,             
 1924, they had a conversation with the current Secretary of State,            
 Charles Evans Hughes, on May 13th of that year, and he acknowledged           
 that they were the owners of the property.  Mr. Hughes later became           
 a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and was an international            
 lawyer.  At that time, he said that the Russians had no claim to              
 the islands under international law, and that the Loman Brothers              
 were the rightful owners of the island.  The island has been a part           
 of Alaska since 1881, and the U.S. Department of Interior published           
 a map and numerous documents up through 1977, and listed it as U.S.           
 territory on those documents as a part of Alaska.                             
 CHAIR JAMES stated she supposed that whatever the case with regards           
 to sovereignty over Wrangell Island, Alaska should be a player in             
 any negotiations.  She said this was what the resolution stated and           
 she would urge the committee to pass it out.  She asked if there              
 were any other questions or comments from the committee, or if                
 Representative Vezey wanted to add anything to his sponsor                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY encouraged the committee members to hold on to           
 this packet, as it was quite a compilation of Alaskan history and             
 not easily attainable without considerable effort.                            
 CHAIR JAMES agreed and added that she had the book which told the             
 story of the U.S.S. Jeannette expedition if anyone was interested             
 in borrowing it.                                                              
 Number 555                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked what had amounted to the                  
 letter, which was sent May 17,1991, and signed by the Alaska State            
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not think that anything had come             
 of any of the correspondence regarding this matter, as the issue              
 was still in limbo.  He stated that the issue was still unresolved.           
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he had any suggestions as to how             
 we could keep this issue at the forefront, instead of having to               
 continually send resolutions that they just ignore.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that he thought the main thing that             
 this resolution would accomplish is to keep the issue in the public           
 eye, so that the federal government would not be able to abrogate             
 our rights without an explanation.  He said there was always the              
 option of pursuing legal action and there was tremendous legal                
 grounds for at least appealing to the International Court of                  
 Claims.  He thought we could, if we wanted to, appeal this whole              
 issue to the United Nations.  He stated he did not think anyone was           
 advocating that we get involved in a long drawn out legal expense             
 at this time, but that as recent as the last decade, there were               
 people recovering claims dating back to the Civil War for                     
 international incidents that occurred in this region.                         
 CHAIR JAMES verified that the committee members had a copy of the             
 proposed committee substitute version F.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that they did not, but that his aide              
 would pass them out at that time.                                             
 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey to explain the difference              
 between the proposed substitute and the original draft of HJR 22.             
 Number 567                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the proposed committee substitute            
 adds wording, page three line 26, requesting the Attorney General             
 and the Governor pursue these matters.                                        
 CHAIR JAMES asked whether this was a recommendation from the House            
 Special Committee of World Trade and State/Federal Relations.                 
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that the original draft contained               
 much stronger language with more detail and this version was toned            
 down and just requests that the Administration get involved and               
 take a position.                                                              
 CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion adopting CSHJR 22(STA) version F as            
 the committee's working document.                                             
 Number 595                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN moved to adopt CSHJR 22(STA) version F as           
 the committee's working document.                                             
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.  Hearing none, the            
 motion passed.  She asked for a motion to pass the bill out of                
 Number 602                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to pass CSHJR 22 (STA), version F, out of           
 committee with a zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.             
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections.  Hearing none, the            
 resolution was passed out of the House State Affairs Committee.               
 HSTA - 2/23/95                                                                
 HB 83 - REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS                               
 CHAIR JAMES stated that next on the agenda was CSHB 83.  She asked            
 if Representative Ogan was ready to present his bill.                         
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked for a brief recess to prepare.                      
 Number 624                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that during the last hearing of this               
 bill, there were some concerns raised by the Office of Management             
 and Budget, that this could be interpreted as getting too detail              
 oriented with regards to federal mandates and could affect trivial            
 mandates such as the requirement to have fire exits marked.  He               
 said his aide and a representative from OMB had discussed the issue           
 and resolved it.  Another concern raised by Representative Brian              
 Porter was that the bill was conceived to be more reactive than               
 proactive, in that it did not have provisions to try and intercede            
 before federal mandates were finalized.  He brought with him an               
 amendment, which he was hesitant to introduce, but said he would be           
 happy to have it discussed by the committee.  He said they did have           
 a brief presentation with visual aids that his assistant could                
 Number 647                                                                    
 ALAN KINGMAN, Legislative Aide to Representative Ogan, said he was            
 there to present a visual overview to demonstrate how the committee           
 substitute for HB 83 would restructure the review of federal                  
 mandates in Alaska.  He stated that Representative Ogan was                   
 concerned that there was some confusion as to how CSHB 83(STA)                
 actually worked.  To begin, he defined the type of mandate this               
 bill would effect as a federal law that implements a desired                  
 federal policy by requiring state or local governments to                     
 participate in or administer a program.  He said this bill requires           
 a review of federally mandated programs.  It does not review                  
 federal preemptions or laws that place limits on states or on                 
 people.  He said it only addresses laws that require the state to             
 act to implement or administer a program.  Examples of these could            
 be environmental laws, public health laws, welfare programs, and              
 public safety programs such as the Brady Bill.  These are the types           
 of programs that CSHB 83(STA) is dealing with, not things such as             
 building codes that a state or individual may have to comply with.            
 MR. KINGMAN said he also wanted to address unfunded mandates, which           
 he defined as a mandate in which a state or local entity must raise           
 the money to pay for their required participation in this program.            
 He reiterated though, that unfunded mandates were not the only type           
 of mandate that this bill was dealing with.  Some mandates are                
 funded, but may not be cost-effective or efficient, suited for                
 Alaska's conditions, or exceed constitutional authority.  CSHB
 83(STA), he said, is designed to be an immunization against                   
 excessive mandates.  He said the current version of this bill,                
 adopted by this committee earlier, had two separate provisions to             
 deal with existing mandates and newly passed mandates.  For                   
 existing mandates, CSHB 83(STA) would require the OMB to select               
 one-fourth of the existing mandates for review every year.  Thus,             
 every four years, there would be an opportunity for all mandates to           
 be reviewed.  At the end of this time, there would be a different             
 administration who may have a different perspective.  They might              
 want to conduct their own review.  At this point, OMB, the                    
 Department of Law, and the implementing agency would review the               
 mandate for these criteria:  1) Has the federal government exceeded           
 their authority; 2) Are the requirements consistent with Alaska               
 state policy and suitable for Alaska; 3) Are the requirements                 
 cost-effective to implement.  Once the review is completed, a                 
 report is drafted, which is sent to the Governor, House and Senate            
 Judiciary Committees, and the Legislative Budget and Audit                    
 Committee by February 1, of that year.  At this point, they will              
 review this report.  For mandates that come down from Congress                
 after the passage of this bill, the agency head will learn of the             
 new mandate and will review it for the above mentioned criteria.              
 They will then draft a report and send it to the Governor and House           
 and Senate Judiciary Committees.  The agency will not be allowed to           
 implement the mandate until the Governor approves the report and              
 gives the go ahead.  The Judiciary Committees would also do their             
 own review.  The final step, for all mandates, establishes the                
 review of the report coming from either the OMB or the implementing           
 agency by the judiciary committees, who do their own analysis of              
 the mandate.  They would have the option to contract with a legal             
 firm and then make their report to the Governor and the Alaska                
 congressional delegation.  Their recommendations would be of the              
 nature of whether there is a need to seek a change in the federal             
 mandate, possible ways to modify the program to make it more                  
 cost-effective, or if it would be advisable to legally challenge              
 the mandate.  Also, once the agency gets authorization from the               
 Governor to implement a mandate, this bill would require them to              
 develop the program and implement the mandate according to the                
 financial constraints of the state at the time and weighing the               
 costs of implementation against the long-term Alaska benefit.  Mr.            
 Kingman said this was how the bill currently functioned.  The                 
 suggestion made by Representative Porter, at an earlier committee,            
 dealt with adding a section to this bill, which would allow the               
 state to become active with federal mandates when they still are              
 under consideration by the U.S. Congress, before they become law.             
 He thought it might be possible to include this in the bill, by               
 having the Washington D.C. Office of the Governor, monitor                    
 legislation and then give the implementing state agency an early              
 warning of a potential mandated program for that agency.  At this             
 point, the agency would conduct an early expedited review and                 
 report back to the Governor.  The Governor could then make a                  
 decision as to whether Alaska should try to intervene in the                  
 legislation process.  This could either be added into this bill by            
 the proposed amendment before the committee, or might be something            
 that should be a totally separate bill.                                       
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments from the            
 TAPE 95-20, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 200                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS stated he still was not sure he understood              
 the total process of this bill and wanted to know how this bill               
 would effect existing programs such as the Davis Bacon Act.                   
 MR. KINGMAN stated he was not familiar with this act by that name             
 and asked for some more detail.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS said that essentially, when a contractor does           
 work on a federal project, they must pay workers the prevailing               
 union wage.                                                                   
 MR. KINGMAN was not sure that this act would be affected by CSHB
 83(STA), in that it does not require by his description, the state            
 to implement a federal program.                                               
 CHAIR JAMES thought she might clarify how the Davis Bacon Act                 
 actually works, in that it does require the state to do some                  
 things.  She said the state must determine what the prevailing wage           
 actually is, but that the money in the contract is federal money              
 and not state money.                                                          
 Number 258                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he believed this act also applied to state           
 jobs as well and that essentially non-union contractors must pay              
 the same rate as union contractors.  Thus, the idea is that it                
 levels the playing field between non-union and union contractors.             
 MR. KINGMAN said that based on this description, the fact that the            
 state is required to determine the prevailing wage, that this might           
 be considered a mini-program and be subject to review by this bill.           
 He reminded the committee that this bill does not make any                    
 determinations as to whether the state should participate in a                
 federal program, it just gives us a better understanding of the               
 costs of our participation.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS asked for further clarification as to how               
 this bill would function and offered the Americans With                       
 Disabilities Act as an example to see how it would fit under this             
 MR. KINGMAN responded that to the extent the state is charged with            
 implementing this act, then it would certainly be subject to review           
 under CSHB 83(STA).                                                           
 Number 287                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES clarified that this bill would require a calculation of           
 the dollar figure of implementing a program as a part of the                  
 report.  She thought that this was good and stated that the public            
 would probably have apoplexy if we knew what these programs were              
 costing us.                                                                   
 MR. KINGMAN agreed, saying this was one of the benefits of this               
 bill, is that it allows us to see what those costs really are, in             
 that it requires to check whether there might be a more                       
 cost-effective approach.                                                      
 Number 331                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON  stated that some federal laws have a time            
 line in which they must be implemented.  She asked how this bill              
 proposes to conduct its review before that time limit is reached.             
 MR. KINGMAN replied that this would essentially be up to the                  
 Administration, but that this was why this bill allowed for a                 
 program to be implemented before the entire review had been                   
 completed.  What would be required before implementation could go             
 ahead, is the initial analysis report of the implementing agency.             
 Upon receiving this report, the Governor can either authorize                 
 complete implementation or implementation in a certain fashion.               
 This allows for the committees to complete their review and                   
 determine a more long term approach.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if it would be in the report in the             
 case of mandates where there is a penalty for not complying with a            
 particular mandate.                                                           
 CHAIR JAMES followed up by asking if they were just considering the           
 expense of the state or if they were factoring the costs to the               
 public and the private sector as well.                                        
 MR. KINGMAN said that essentially they were just talking about                
 state spending, but that there was nothing to prevent the OMB or              
 the implementing agency from extending their review to include                
 costs to the public.                                                          
 Number 353                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated that when a new administration came in,            
 unless the mandate had changed considerably, their review might               
 consist of just reviewing the existing data and making a decision.            
 He said that they did not have to "reinvent the wheel."  He added             
 their hope was this review would cause some of these mandates to be           
 challenged in court, as he believed the federal government                    
 routinely oversteps its constitutional authority.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON noticed that the fiscal note was relatively           
 small.  She wondered if she had all of the documentation.                     
 MR. KINGMAN stated that in their packets, there should be an                  
 overview sheet.                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES said there was, but that it did not reflect the reduced           
 fiscal note.                                                                  
 Number 382                                                                    
 MR. KINGMAN added that the overview sheet and the existing fiscal             
 notes reflected the old version of this bill, which required that             
 the review be done annually and not every four years.  He said that           
 they believed the fiscal note would be considerably reduced in this           
 new version.  He noted that the last few pages in their packet                
 reflected the reduced fiscal notes from the last committee.                   
 CHAIR JAMES stated she would think the intent of this bill should             
 in practice already be being done and that it would be allowed to             
 be done without this bill, but probably wouldn't.  She said her               
 biggest concern is the relatively large fiscal note, although she             
 recognized the presumption was that there would actually be a                 
 cost-savings by this review and possibly challenging some of these            
 mandates in court.  She said this was a premise and not necessarily           
 a fact, as we had no backup for this.  Chair James also stated that           
 she wished that there was a list of programs that would be reviewed           
 under this legislation and those that would not be.  She thought              
 that as it went through the committee process, this bill might be             
 very vulnerable because of it's large fiscal note.  She said they             
 were in a cost-cutting mode.  She suspected that if this bill were            
 passed, it would not be funded, and so be ineffective.  She gave an           
 example of a past bill that fit this category, in that it passed              
 the legislature and has not been funded for the past ten years.               
 Number 442                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he appreciated the sponsor offering this           
 amendment.  Realizing that the amendment might create a separations           
 of power issue, he felt that looking back on it, it might be better           
 to not include it in this bill after all, and that as the motivator           
 of this idea, he would withdraw his suggestion.  He reiterated                
 though, that he appreciated the effort.                                       
 CHAIR JAMES noted that this bill had a further referral to the                
 judiciary committee.  She asked for a motion to pass this bill to             
 the next committee of referral.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN commented for the record, that as the sponsor,            
 if the committee felt this bill would not save the state money,               
 then he would prefer that it not pass out of this committee.  He              
 believed it would save money and that the states were crying out              
 for relief from the tyranny of these federal mandates.  He said               
 this bill would depend a lot on the governor pursuing this issue              
 and challenging many of these mandates.  He stated he came down to            
 Juneau to try and reduce the size of government, and he reiterated            
 if this bill did not save the state money, then he would rather not           
 pass it out of committee.                                                     
 Number 488                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that considering this, the question                
 still remained as to how to overcome the supremacy of federal law             
 over state law, although he recognized that many of the 10th                  
 Amendment suits currently being pursued would answer many of those            
 questions.  He wasn't sure whether we had the authority to do                 
 anything about it, once we found out how bad many of these federal            
 mandates really are.                                                          
 CHAIR JAMES agreed, saying that many of these mandates still                  
 awaited court decision as to whether they fit under the Tenth                 
 Amendment rights of the states.  She added though, that there were            
 cases, such as highway funds, where the state could choose whether            
 to accept them and the strings attached or not.  She felt that this           
 was an area where there should be a cost-benefit analysis done.               
 Once we did this review, we could determine whether the costs of              
 implementing these programs were really covered by the federal                
 monies or not.  Chair James said she suspected that, in many cases,           
 they were not.  She said these programs added to the bureaucratic             
 growth by requiring additional employees to run them.  She said               
 many of these mandate issues would have to be settled in a court of           
 law to determine their constitutionality.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER wasn't sure that those cases where there was            
 a choice of whether or not to take federal monies to implement a              
 program would fall under the review of this bill.                             
 Number 561                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she agreed that the intent of this             
 bill was excellent, but she shared many of the same concerns                  
 already expressed.  She thought that with the new Congress, this              
 bill might already be a mute point.  She added she thought that it            
 might just come down to the legislature doing a better analysis,              
 before they accepted federal monies for a program.  She also stated           
 this was something the state legislature needed to look at, because           
 in many cases they put money in to start a program, but do not do             
 an analysis to see what the true costs are of that program.                   
 CHAIR JAMES thought that possibly, this bill might have more impact           
 if it interceded in the formulation stage of mandates verses after            
 the fact.  She said she had discovered this in drafting her                   
 regulation reform bill.  She asked for the committee's decision as            
 to whether to pass this bill out of committee.                                
 Number 600                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass CSHB 83(STA) to the next                  
 committee with attached fiscal notes and individual                           
 recommendations.  He stated that as the chair of the judiciary                
 committee, he would be willing to try and solve many of the above             
 mentioned legal issues in that committee.                                     
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were an objection.  Hearing none, the              
 bill was moved out of committee.                                              
 HSTA - 2/23/95                                                                
 HB 130 - REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW                            
 CHAIR JAMES announced that the next bill on the agenda was HB 130.            
 She said that Bruce Campbell, legislative aide to bill sponsor                
 Representative Pete Kelly, was there to make the presentation.                
 Number 610                                                                    
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Legislative Aide to Representative Pete Kelly,                
 stated that Representative Kelly had already given the committee              
 the sponsor overview of HB 130 at an earlier meeting, and that he             
 would like to continue that discussion.  He said he would present             
 a draft committee substitute of the bill and urge passage of the              
 bill.  Mr. Campbell handed out a map of the current regulation                
 process and the various proposals to reform that process for the              
 subcommittee on regulation reform to review.  He said this would              
 allow them to see where each of the various regulation reform bills           
 were performing a given task.  This chart included an overview of             
 HB 130, HB 105, HB 163, as well as suggestions from the public.  He           
 handed out copies of the proposed committee substitute for HB 130.            
 MR. CAMPBELL stated that the regulation process was considered a              
 quasi-legislative process.  The initial catalyst for regulations is           
 the legislature, who draft statutes that then require regulations             
 to implement.  The agencies then draft regulations on which they              
 are required to hold public hearings and take input.  This is the             
 first time that the public actually gets to see the proposed                  
 regulation.  He said that other than this, there is very little               
 other guidance for the agencies from the Administrative Procedures            
 Act.  The regulation is then signed into law by the Lieutenant                
 Governor.  Currently, this role of the Lt. Governor is purely                 
 ministerial and mandatory.  He said that HB 130 attempts to make              
 this a less mandatory action of the Lieutenant. Governor by giving            
 them the ability to return a draft regulation to an agency for                
 rewrite.  He thought the Lt. Governor was a unique position in that           
 he is not beholden to the agencies, nor can he be fired by the                
 Governor.  Thus, the goal would be to give authority to the                   
 Lieutenant Governor to return bad regulations to the agencies for             
 rewrite.  He added that HB 130 would involve the legislature's                
 Regulation Review Committee in the process, prior to a regulation             
 becoming law, so that they may offer suggestions to make it better.           
 He said the proposed committee substitute clarifies some of the               
 language on page 3, to make the intent of the bill clearer.  He               
 said that in part E line 12 and 13, it clarifies that the                     
 Lieutenant Governor may return a regulation to the agencies.  He              
 said they added wording to clarify they meant that the Lieutenant             
 Governor may do this at any time in the drafting process to save              
 wasted efforts in writing and review of the regulation.  He also              
 said they added a best interest finding, which helped to clarify              
 the type of reasons for which the Lieutenant Governor may return a            
 regulation to the agency.  He wanted to comment that the term "best           
 interest" was a legal definition with precise meaning.  It was                
 intended to show that the Lieutenant Governor had broad oversight             
 abilities and a statewide responsibility to the people of Alaska.             
 On page 4, they have added a section to the Administrative                    
 Procedures Act, section 215, which require an agency to consider              
 substantive and scientific testimony and to create a record of the            
 public comment.  They must show as a matter of public record,                 
 whether they made use of a particular piece of public comment.  On            
 page 4, line 16, they deleted a couple of steps from the original             
 draft and required the agencies, following public comment, to                 
 calculate the cost of compliance and to show there is an                      
 economically feasible way to comply with this regulation.  This               
 also must be a part of the public record.  He said this amounted to           
 the changes in the proposed committee substitute for HB 130 and               
 that he would be willing to answer any questions.                             
 TAPE 95-21, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 137                                                                    
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions or comments from the            
 committee.  She said it was a fine presentation.  She asked if                
 anyone in the audience had any questions or comments.  Hearing                
 none, she said this bill would be referred to the House State                 
 Affairs subcommittee on regulation reform with other similar bills            
 for an overall review of the issue.  Chair James said that to give            
 the committee an update, she was still trying to get an accounting            
 of the actual costs of regulations and how the legislature could              
 try and save expenses with a regulation reform bill.  She thought             
 the subcommittee would meet after she had gotten these figures in             
 another week or two.                                                          
 Number 177                                                                    
 HSTA - 2/23/95                                                                
 HB 30 - SCHOOL DRESS CODES                                                  
 Chair James announced that HB 30 would be the next bill on the                
 ELIZABETH ROBERTS, Legislative Aide to bill sponsor Representative          
 Bettye Davis, said she wanted to point out that this bill was                 
 totally optional and not mandatory on the public.  She stated that            
 many educators believe school dress significantly influences                  
 student behavior and the adoption of an optional school dress code            
 is a reasonable and economical way to provide some protection for             
 students without having to take teachers away from their normal               
 duties to act as monitors and policemen.  She did not think this              
 bill would affect rural students at all.  Ms. Roberts said the idea           
 behind this bill was that as gang behavior creeps up from the lower           
 48 states, our students become increasingly endangered.  If an                
 optional school uniform code can help to protect these students, it           
 is an easy and economical way to do that.  She said that every                
 parent could choose to leave their child out of the program.  Every           
 school board could choose whether to adopt such a uniform dress               
 code.  She thought that probably the principal, the school board              
 and the parents would get together to decide whether to adopt this            
 program.  She thought this bill would help to engender school                 
 spirit, as she said had been the case in Long Beach California who            
 had such a policy.  She thought that having this option available             
 in state statutes would help to allow school boards and eventually            
 single site management schools to make their own decision.                    
 CHAIR JAMES verified that parents could opt to not have their                 
 children participate in the program.                                          
 MS. ROBERTS confirmed that this was the case.                                 
 CHAIR JAMES said she failed to see the benefits for doing this                
 MS. ROBERTS stated that most children were influenced by their                
 peers and if most children were wearing the uniform, then she                 
 thought those children would want to also.  She said this was also            
 a very inexpensive way to dress children and take away some of the            
 elitism of expensive clothing, such as the $200 tennis shoes.                 
 Number 236                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if she was familiar with the experience           
 of Long Beach, California's dress code.                                       
 MS. ROBERTS said she did not know how it was working, just that               
 they had done it.                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what had they done.                               
 MS. ROBERTS replied that they had made it mandatory, that students            
 must wear school uniforms.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated that if there were no other                    
 questions, she would move to pass this bill out of committee.                 
 CHAIR JAMES commented that she had mixed feelings on this bill, but           
 the part she did like, was that it would give schools another tool            
 to manage their students.  She said the problem was that even if              
 students are dressing alike, they still do not look alike.  She               
 said she did not know whether she supported this bill or not, but             
 that the mission of the State Affairs Committee was to determine              
 whether there would be a statewide impact.  She added that she had            
 talked to the Chair of the Health Education and Social Services               
 committee, who agreed to explore some of these deeper issues there.           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER thought that this would be an interesting               
 discussion in the HESS Committee and added that it was his                    
 understanding that schools in the Anchorage area could already ban            
 the wearing of gang colors.  He said that to the extent this bill             
 was trying to deal with the issue of gangs, there was one tool out            
 there already.                                                                
 MS. ROBERTS responded that she knew that East High School in                  
 Anchorage had banned the wearing of L.A. Raiders jackets, but that            
 she did not know if they had gone further.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER replied that as he understood it, they did              
 have the ability though.  He said the benefit of this approach was            
 that it was optional, and did allow for individual schools to make            
 that decision for themselves.                                                 
 Number 322                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN stated he was going to vote against this bill,            
 although he did not have a problem with the banning of individual             
 colors.  He said that at least according to Representative Porter,            
 Anchorage schools already had this ability, and so he saw this as             
 an unfunded state mandate on the municipalities.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON stated she needed to get a better sense of            
 what tool this bill would be actually giving to schools and that              
 she had mixed feelings about this bill.  She said she would like to           
 look into seeing how schools could empower students in the decision           
 making process.                                                               
 CHAIR JAMES agreed, saying this why she had talked with the Chair             
 of the HESS Committee because, at this point, all they could do was           
 to insert their own personal feelings and not fact.  Thus, she was            
 willing to pass it to the HESS Committee to explore these                     
 educational issues more thoroughly.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 30 to the next committee               
 with individual recommendations, and a zero fiscal note.                      
 CHAIR JAMES asked if there was an objection.  Representative Ogan             
 A roll call vote was taken.  Representatives Willis, Robinson,                
 Porter, and James voted in favor of moving the bill.                          
 Representative Ogan voted against moving the bill.  So the bill was           
 passed from committee.                                                        
 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 10:05 a.m.                               

Document Name Date/Time Subjects