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
+ 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
statutes."
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
regulations."
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
legislature.
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
* HB 89: "An Act making a special appropriation to the principal
of the permanent fund; and providing for an effective
date.
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
SHORT TITLE: REVIEW OF FEDERALLY MANDATED PROGRAMS
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
SHORT TITLE: REGULATION ADOPTION PROCEDURES & REVIEW
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,
BUNDE
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,
ZHAROFF,
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
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
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
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: TO PERMANENT FUND PRINCIPAL
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
committee.
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
statement.
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
Legislature.
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
committee.
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
conduct.
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
committee.
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
legislation.
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
agenda.
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
then.
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
objected.
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 |
|---|