Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/08/1999 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
Arpil 8, 1999
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Scott Ogan
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Beth Kerttula
Representative Harold Smalley
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL 46(RLS)
"An Act naming the Terry Miller Legislative Office Building."
- MOVED CSSB 46(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 8
Relating to the 2000 decennial United States census and to the
development of redistricting data for use by the state in
legislative redistricting.
- MOVED SJR 8 OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION 3
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska
relating to the repeal of regulations by the legislature.
- MOVED SJR 3 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 26
Relating to establishing maritime boundaries with Canada.
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 27
Relating to the maritime boundary between Alaska and the former
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
- MOVED CSHJR 27(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL 144
"An Act relating to access to public buildings or public facilities
by legislators and to audits of public buildings or public
facilities."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
* HOUSE BILL 153
"An Act relating to leave for certain state employees."
- BILL HEARING POSTPONED
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 46
SHORT TITLE: NAMING THE CAPITAL SCHOOL BLDG
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD, Miller, Taylor, Kelly Tim, Adams,
Lincoln, Elton, Phillips, Green, Wilken, Parnell, Mackie, Leman,
Ellis, Kelly Pete, Hoffman, Donley
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/27/99 100 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/27/99 100 (S) STA
2/02/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
2/11/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/04/99 (S) STA AT 3:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/09/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM
3/09/99 (S) MOVED CS (STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/12/99 493 (S) STA RPT CS 5DP NEW TITLE
3/12/99 493 (S) DP: WARD, GREEN, PHILLIPS, ELTON,
WILKEN
3/12/99 493 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LAA)
3/23/99 (S) RLS AT 10:50 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/26/99 (S) RLS AT 11:35 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/26/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/29/99 720 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR 3/29 CS NEW TITLE
3/29/99 720 (S) DP: TIM KELLY, MILLER, ELLIS, LEMAN,
3/29/99 720 (S) PEARCE
3/29/99 720 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (LAA)
3/29/99 722 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/29/99 722 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/29/99 722 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/29/99 722 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 46(RLS)
3/29/99 722 (S) COSPONSOR(S): MILLER, TIM KELLY,
3/29/99 722 (S) ADAMS, LINCOLN, ELTON, PHILLIPS,
3/29/99 722 (S) GREEN, WILKEN, PARNELL, MACKIE,
LEMAN,
3/29/99 722 (S) ELLIS, PETE KELLY, HOFFMAN, DONLEY
3/29/99 722 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
3/29/99 724 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/31/99 616 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/31/99 616 (H) STA
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: SJR 8
SHORT TITLE: FAIR AND ACCURATE CENSUS
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) WARD
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/19/99 308 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/19/99 308 (S) STA
3/04/99 (S) STA AT 3:45 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
3/09/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM
3/09/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/09/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
3/12/99 492 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1NR 1DNP
3/12/99 492 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, GREEN;
3/12/99 492 (S) NR: WILKEN; DNP: ELTON
3/12/99 492 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
3/16/99 (S) RLS AT 11:55 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/16/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/24/99 662 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/24/99
3/24/99 668 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/24/99 668 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/24/99 668 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 8
3/24/99 668 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
3/24/99 670 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/25/99 567 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/25/99 567 (H) STA, JUD
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
4/08/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
BILL: SJR 3
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) TAYLOR, Kelly Tim, Phillips;
REPRESENTATIVE(S) Harris
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/99 43 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/21/99 44 (S) STA, FIN
1/28/99 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
1/28/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
1/28/99 (S) MINUTE(STA)
2/01/99 125 (S) STA RPT 3DP 1DNP
2/01/99 125 (S) DP: WARD, PHILLIPS, MACKIE;
DNP: ELTON
2/01/99 125 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S. STA)
2/05/99 164 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/11/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/11/99 (S) HEARD AND HELD
2/11/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/11/99 227 (S) FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/16/99 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
2/16/99 (S) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
2/16/99 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
2/16/99 256 (S) FIN RPT 2DP 4NR 1DNP
2/16/99 256 (S) DP: TORGERSON, PARNELL; NR: GREEN,
2/16/99 256 (S) PETE KELLY, WILKEN, LEMAN; DNP: ADAMS
2/16/99 256 (S) PREVIOUS FN (GOV)
3/15/99 (S) RLS AT 1:40 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/15/99 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/16/99 564 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 3/16/99
3/16/99 570 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/16/99 571 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FLD Y14 N4
E2
3/16/99 571 (S) THIRD READING 3/17 CALENDAR
3/17/99 585 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 3
3/17/99 585 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TIM KELLY, PHILLIPS
3/17/99 586 (S) PASSED Y14 N4 E2
3/17/99 586 (S) ELLIS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
3/17/99 587 (S) RECON TAKEN UP SAME DAY UNAN CONSENT
3/17/99 587 (S) HELD ON RECONSIDERATION TO 3/23
CALENDAR
3/23/99 650 (S) BEFORE THE SENATE ON RECONSIDERATION
3/23/99 651 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y15 N5
3/23/99 652 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/24/99 544 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/24/99 544 (H) STA, JUD, FINANCE
3/24/99 562 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HARRIS
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 26
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA MARITIME BOUNDARY WITH CANADA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/10/99 410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/10/99 410 (H) WTR, STATE AFFAIRS
3/30/99 (H) WTR AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 124
3/31/99 (H) WTR AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 124
4/06/99 661 (H) WTR RPT CS(WTR) 4DP 1NR
4/06/99 661 (H) DP: GREEN, PHILLIPS, JOULE, BARNES;
4/06/99 661 (H) NR: BERKOWITZ
4/06/99 661 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.WTR)
4/06/99 661 (H) REFERRED TO STA
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 27
SHORT TITLE: ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COGHILL
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/10/99 410 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/10/99 410 (H) WTR, STATE AFFAIRS
3/30/99 (H) WTR AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 124
3/31/99 (H) WTR AT 5:30 PM CAPITOL 124
4/01/99 648 (H) WTR RPT 4DP 1NR
4/01/99 648 (H) DP: JOULE, GREEN, PHILLIPS, BARNES;
4/01/99 648 (H) NR: BERKOWITZ
4/01/99 648 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.WTR)
4/01/99 648 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
4/08/99 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
LINDA WILD
P.O. Box 20704
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2330
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 46 and suggested a plaque,
honoring the original Capital School, be
placed on the building.
MARK HODGINS, Administrative Assistant
to Senator Ward
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 423
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4522
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SB 46 and SJR 8 on behalf of
Senator Ward.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HJR 26 and HJR 27.
VINCE O'SHEA, Captain
United States Coast Guard
P.O. Box 25517
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-2226
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HJR 26 and HJR 27.
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 30
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3873
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 3.
MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice Chairman
State Department Watch
P.O. Box 7981
Northridge, California 91327
Telephone: (818) 363-6210
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 26 and stated
support of HJR 27.
CARL OLSON, Chairman
State Department Watch
P.O. Box 65398
Washington, D.C. 20035
Telephone: (703) 276-3330
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 26 and stated
support of HJR 27.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-21, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called the House State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the
call to order were Representatives James, Coghill, Ogan, Whitaker,
and Smalley. Representatives Kerttula and Hudson arrived at 8:10
and 8:17 a.m. respectively.
SB 46 NAMING THE CAPITAL SCHOOL BLDG
CHAIR JAMES announced CSSB 46(RLS), "An Act naming the Terry Miller
Legislative Office Building," is before the committee.
CHAIR JAMES called a brief at-ease at 8:06 a.m. to await the
arrival of the sponsor's staff. She called the committee back to
order at 8:07 a.m. to hear testimony.
Number 0032
LINDA WILD came before the committee. She stated, for those of us
who live in the neighborhood and whose children attended Capital
School, Capital School will always be Capital School. Ms. Wild has
lived close to the Capital School for approximately 25 years and
fought with others to keep the school open.
MS. WILD said she had talked to a couple of her neighbors and, of
course, they tended to feel the same way as she does about renaming
the building. She noted that one of them suggested that it be
named after someone who had lived in Juneau, such as Elizabeth
Peratrovich who was an important leader in Native politics. In
fact, the school celebrated "Peratrovich Day." Ms. Wild said she
knew and respected Terry Miller when he was a Senator and certainly
understands the legislature's desire to name something after him.
MS. WILD also spoke with Representative Kerttula's and Senator
Elton's offices about putting up a memorial plaque that honors the
building as the original Capital School. She noted that everyone
appeared to be receptive to that idea.
Number 071
CHAIR JAMES said she understands Ms. Wild's concern. She said she
agreed with the concept of putting up a plaque, however, that
wouldn't necessarily have to be noted in the bill.
MS. WILD agreed that it didn't have to be noted in the bill, the
question is just figuring out what the cost would be. She
mentioned that she has been talking with Senator Elton's office
about the specific wording.
CHAIR JAMES said that was a great idea.
Number 115
MARK HODGINS, Administrative Assistant, presented SB 46 on behalf
of Senator Ward. He said SB 46 is a simple bill to rename the
Capital School [to honor former Lieutenant Governor Terry Miller
and shall be known as the Terry Miller Building].
Number 118
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report CSSB 46(RLS) out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
SJR 8 FAIR AND ACCURATE CENSUS
CHAIR JAMES announced SJR 8, Relating to the 2000 decennial United
States census and to the development of redistricting data for use
by the state in legislative redistricting, is before the committee.
Number 139
MARK HODGINS, Administrative Assistant, presented SJR 8 on behalf
of Senator Ward. He explained SJR 8, relating to the census that's
coming up, asks for an actual nose-count rather than using
statistical methods to determine how many people are in each
district. The problem with determining it by statistical methods
is that: there is a lot of room for speculation and error, there's
a lot of room for litigation and it dilutes the "one person, one
vote" concept. He said this resolution is simply asking that
Congress and the Bureau of Census have a count that's an actual
enumerated count, or a nose-count.
CHAIR JAMES noted that Representative Kerttula was present.
Number 175
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to report SJR 8 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY objected. He asked if there would be a cost
attached to it for the nose-count.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that it would only be a federal cost.
There being no further objections, SJR 8 moved out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note.
SJR 3 REPEAL OF REGULATIONS BY LEGISLATURE
CHAIR JAMES announced SJR 3, Proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to the repeal of
regulations by the legislature, is before the committee.
Number 209
SENATOR ROBIN TAYLOR explained that SJR 3 gives the people of
Alaska (possibly for the fourth time) an opportunity to provide the
legislature with the authority to repeal regulations passed by the
Administration through a simple resolution. He noted that for
approximately 18 years this legislature did have that authority.
However, a court decision around 1980 prevented the legislature
from being able to use a simple resolution to repeal a regulation.
The court said, due to the separation of powers, and their
interpretation of the constitution, that the legislature would have
to pass an actual bill to repeal a regulation. He further stated,
"Any bill of course is subject to a gubernatorial veto and the
governor will frequently veto such legislation so as to protect his
executive branch functionaries in the manner in which they've
drafted the regulations. ... I also sit as Chairman of
[Administrative] Reg. [Regulation] Review for this term and it is
incredible as we work through some of these attempts to change
regulations, attempts to even provide the public with fair and
unbiased hearing officers, I am amazed at the level of resistance
to even the slightest change in this process that is mounted by
this Administration - it really is incredible. It's for that
reason, I bring the resolution before you, is I that think that the
system works very well in previous years."
SENATOR TAYLOR recalled former-Senator Bob Ziegler introduced two
resolutions to repeal regulations, possibly in 1978. And the day
former-Senator Bob Ziegler introduced them, the "department" showed
up saying, "What's the problem, how can we work it out," and they
did. Senator Taylor said that's how this system used to work, and
that's how it could work in the future. If the public supports the
legislature in this matter, they will find that the most onerous
portions of state government are the application of regulations to
their lives. And if the legislature can make those regulations
more attuned to the legislative intent, the public will be more
pleased with their government and they will understand it better.
The public will also know that the policy makers could quickly and
efficiently amend those regulations that they find onerous.
Number 287
CHAIR JAMES noted that she worked intently on figuring out a system
that would work, where it's less painful for the folks at home.
She determined that you would need a hammer and we don't have one
as legislators - if we had one, they took it out of our hands. She
mentioned that when she was Chairman of Administrative Regulation
Review they didn't have a hammer.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he was tempted to sing "If I Had a
Hammer." He remarked that he is a firsthand witness with the
absolute resistance to any sort of change. And, as he has
mentioned before, the Administration is the fourth branch of
government and the legislature has delegated to them the authority
to write regulations. He said they are basically making law and
are not elected officials.
CHAIR JAMES pointed out that the problems with regulations are not
necessarily more or less onerous than they've ever been, it's been
a problem since the beginning of the Administrative Procedure Act
and it doesn't change with the administrations.
REPRESENTATIVE SMALLEY stated, "Looking at the concept needs for a
hammer I would imagine some time back when, when the change
occurred, I guess it was dependence upon who was wielding the
hammer and the level of expertise of the hammer wielder and that's
probably where in lies my concern - would be the amount of
expertise on behalf of the Senate and the House. And I know we
have a great deal of brain-power amongst our bodies but I would
imagine that that's where in lies my concern - expertise with
regard to regulations and regulatory change."
Number 362
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "It's been my observation that probably
it started getting more difficult on the Alaska public through the
regulatory process as the federal government got involved in our
business in Alaska. That so much of what the Administration does
for the projects that we give them as legislators is really pretty
smooth and I think we've got a pretty good hammer on that - a
pretty good control over that. But the minute the federal
government comes in, or the minute the court's - the courts have
become very activist -this is my own observation madam chair - that
those are the two areas that the courts' decisions and the activism
that went through the courts and the federal government because
they now provide $1.5 billion of our money on an annual basis -
have such an inordinate amount of pressure, if you will, through
the regulatory process - that agencies are simply the middleman.
The federal government sends the money into state, it goes to the
commissioner, the commissioner can't really do what he wants to do
with those moneys without taking into consideration of what the
federal, you know the federal folks that have given him the money,
they said you either do it our way or we don't give you the money.
The Department of Labor is a prime example - [and the Department
of] Transportation is good example. Many of the onerous
regulations on small business are brought about by requirements
through the Department of Labor to satisfy federal employee
identification - those kinds of things. ... So it's probably timely
that we begin to ask the question as to whether or not we need more
power to try to give the people a fairer shake or some opportunity
to - not protest necessarily, but to at least try to influence
onerous regulations (indisc.--fading) on their lives."
Number 403
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she has said, "When federal money is
handed to us, we should first of all see whether we want it, not
how we can get it," and that hasn't been the legislature's attitude
because we look forward to federal funding. She agreed that the
federal government has influenced Alaska, but disagreed that that's
the total problem. Chair James pointed out that this is the third
year that the legislature has been working on the airport
regulations and that the federal government is still trying to cram
unreasonable requirements down our throat - and it has nothing to
do with federal funds. Chair James said, "At this point in time,
we're still entering in a discussion. If they finally draft the
regulations, we could change them then to fit this if this
constitutional amendment were to pass."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA pointed out another concern is with the
120-day session. She said, if we want to truly take over
regulations we could do that, however she does not believe that it
could be done within the 120 days. She added that the legislature
could also stop giving regulatory authority to divisions and
agencies and we can take it back through that method. She said she
thinks that you have to look at it in a more holistic sense and to
take over something that is sort of fundamental into the separation
of powers takes a lot more time and energy than we're giving
ourselves. If this happens, she hopes the legislative sessions
will be extended.
CHAIR JAMES mentioned that she had suggested creating a regulatory
agency in which that agency would write regulations for the
legislature instead of the Administration, however, she ran into a
lot of resistance. She said, "We're not talking about a lot of
resolutions here, we're just talking about having that ability.
And then if you assert that ability it gets them to the table,
that's the issue."
Number 464
SENATOR TAYLOR referred to Representative Smalley's comments on
expertise, he said, "A perfect example of the problems that we're
facing in resistance by the Administration is the desire that we
have unbiased objective hearing officers - what a strange concept.
We kind of expect that in our court system, we would hope we have
it in our court system. I now have the Department of Health and
Social Services, Jay Livey, on record twice ... where he's
testified quite candidly that hearing officers are supposed to
carry out department policy, they're not supposed to be there to
give you a fair hearing or anything else, they're supposed to carry
out department policy. When I said, 'Well, you mean the rules and
regulations, the statute law that is published, and the regulation
that is published, that's what you mean isn't it Mr. Lively?' He
said, 'Well no, sometimes we have department policy.' Well sure he
has department policy, he has unwritten attitudes, unwritten
policies that they are carrying out. ... And the whole issue we
were discussing was regulations which set rates for Medicaid
patients in the state of Alaska, and whether or not hospitals
should be reimbursed. We currently have appeals pending from
hospitals that have been out there seven and eight years that have
had every hearing officer that has ever looked at them, even though
the hearing officer was employed by the department, the hearing
officer said, 'No, these are valid claims they should be paid,' -
they just keep getting the revolving door on them. It's that level
of arrogance that is just incredible, and to have people sit there
before you and say, 'No, this is our right, we'll do it any way we
feel like it, we don't have to publish our regs.' So we're not
talking about expertise."
SENATOR TAYLOR continued, "I would submit that Representative
Kerttula, you're absolutely correct, we don't have the time and I
would never suggest that this legislature try to take over the
regulation drafting process. When I took on this job, reluctantly
as I'm sure my good colleague Representative James did, I was
overwhelmed. I've always looked, as we all do - we get these
little flyers that they send out to us and it says the Department
of Transportation is changing their regulations - we're going to do
this or - you see a lot of changes in the oil stuff through DNR
[Department of Natural Resources], I had no idea what the real
volume was in that stuff and I do now. No, we don't have the time
and we don't have the expertise to sit here and review those. In
fact, I think it takes quite a bit of work just on the part of the
Lieutenant Governor's Office just to go through and try and keep
track of what these folks are doing."
SENATOR TAYLOR further stated, "But for that rare instance, and I
really believe it is a rare instance, for that rare instance where
a regulation is so gross or so misapplied to the law, that someone
would feel motivated to put in a resolution to change it, I think
that opportunity needs to be there. I don't recall, and I think
the record prior to the lawsuit that I was talking about, would
indicate that the opportunity to use resolutions to change
regulations was ever abused. I'm not aware of that occurring
because normally the last thing any one of us wants to do - is to
get down into the nitty gritty of how a law is being applied and
see if we can go in and play with that. What we'd rather do is
look at some kind of bigger issue, so I don't see it as something
that's going to be abused in the future, nor to do I see it as
something that we couldn't accomplish very easily. I don't imagine
that we're going to see more than two or three of these things a
session if it once passes because what will happen is the
department's going to know you've got that authority when they go
to draft that regulation. They may even read the law the
regulation's supposed to be based on - what a refreshing change
that would be. So, again I think that our state survived very well
with that concept for some period of time. I think it will survive
better in the future if we have that ability and I commend this to
you."
CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion to move SJR 3 out of committee.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN remarked no one from the Administration is here
to testify, let's move it.
CHAIR JAMES called a brief at-ease at 8:30 a.m. and called the
meeting back to order at 8:38.
Number 549
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report SJR 3 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There
being no objection, it was so ordered.
HJR 26-ALASKA MARITIME BOUNDARY WITH CANADA
CHAIR JAMES announced HJR 26, Relating to establishing maritime
boundaries with Canada, is before the committee [version a].
Number 563
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained HJR 26 is going to be sent to the
President, Congress, and those who sit on the Foreign Relations
Committee, requesting that Alaska be included in maritime boundary
settlements. With regard to the maritime boundary in Alaska that
have not been settled, we're simply asking that they be settled and
that Alaska be in on the table as they settle them. It gives a
little bit of the history, it shows that there has been precedent
set in dealing with Canada already - in Nova Scotia, and how they
settled that there and that precedents still could be set within
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that fishing problems have arisen in
Southeastern Alaska that need to be settled. The agreement would
give a clear delineation on who has the authority, and in what
area. Some of the lines are confusing right now, so this is asking
that we begin that discussion and that Alaska be included in those
discussions. He said it is a national issue but it's also an issue
with the State of Alaska - with its lands, fish and sovereignty of
the borders of Alaska. That's the pure and simple of it.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Coghill to explain how
HJR 26 would interact, have any effect on the Pacific Salmon
Treaty, or any other treaties.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that the only way that he knows
that it would actually be a factor is in the negotiation, then the
treaty would have to be taken into account. He said we're not
asking that a new boundary be set, necessarily. It's only that the
negotiations be settled. So it would have to take into account the
treaty, but at this point, this resolution doesn't affect that.
Number 606
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked, "Are we currently in any
negotiations on these maritime boundaries, is the Department of
Fish and Game (indisc.) that and then the people who normally do a
negotiating involved with this right now."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that this is the reason for this
resolution. He said we're stalled between Canada and Alaska and
the United States on the whole issue. We're not forcing the issue,
we're just requesting the issue be brought up.
Number 626
MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice President, State Department Watch, testified
from Northridge, California. He said HJR 26 deals with the lack of
boundaries with Canada maritime issues. The three areas where we
are lacking boundaries in are the Arctic at 141 degrees, in Dixon
Entrance and the area around the Pribilof Islands. House Joint
Resolution 26 requests entering into negotiations with the Canadian
government to create these maritime boundaries so these areas could
be utilized for fishing, and minerals and everything else - so
they're not locked up.
MR. SEIDENBERG, upon request, explained that State Department Watch
is a foreign policy watchdog organization. He deferred to Carl
Olson.
Number 667
CARL OLSON, Chairman, State Department Watch, testified via
teleconference from Washington, D.C. He said State Department
Watch is a foreign-policy watchdog group looking out for the
American public's best interest. The group believes it's in the
best interest to come to some agreement with the Canadians over
maritime boundary. He explained the resolution points out that the
U.S. has maritime boundary agreements with Mexico and Cuba - for 20
years. Mr. Olson indicated that, for some reason, the State
Department doesn't feel like having talks on this issue and the
group think it's to the best interest to the state of Alaska, and
the country as a whole, to finally make some arrangements.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the State Department Watch, as an
organization has appealed to Congress or the Administrations to get
this action underway.
MR. OLSON replied every group has the possibility of appealing to
the federal government whether it's through the executive or
legislative branch, but as a small group, they do not have enough
horse power that a state would have. He said that's why they felt
it more compelling to come to the State government of Alaska on
this issue.
Number 713
CAPTAIN VINCE O'SHEA, United States Coast Guard, came before the
committee. He said he works at the 17th Coast Guard District in
Juneau in fisheries law enforcement and has been in Alaska since
1996. Prior to that he spent five years in Washington, D.C., at
Coast Guard Headquarters in which he worked with the State
Department on various international fisheries issues.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA informed the members that a tribunal was established
earlier in this century to answer the question (between Canada and
the United States), who owned the islands in the Dixon Entrance
area. He said the tribunal drew a line [referring to the map] at
point "V" and point "A," and that the islands north of that line
belonged to the United States, the islands south of that line
belonged to Canada. Captain O'Shea said the United States has
taken a position that that answered the question about the land but
it didn't answer the question about the maritime boundary. Canada
has taken the position that answered very clearly both questions,
not only where the land is but also where the water is. The United
States has claimed an equidistant line between the two countries
[referring to the map] and what that's done is created an area
called the disputed area - an area claimed by both countries.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted that the United States and Canada basically
came up with an agreement in the late 1970s that said, "We both let
our fishers operate in that area under our own laws." So, when
Canada opens their fisheries, their guys can go in. And when we
open our fisheries, our guys can go in here - except that in the
early 1980s Canada said -- and the condition was no new fisheries
would occur there. Canada has maintained that we didn't have a
trawl fishery in that area in a traditional sense, so they haven't
recognized the right of our trawlers to fish in there. Over the
years Canada has been saying our trawlers can't operate and we say
they can. Basically we agreed to disagree on that issue.
Number 333
CAPTAIN O'SHEA stated that, "We kept a Coast Guard patrol boat down
there during the summertime just to make sure that served the U.S.
right of our fishers to operate in that area. In fact last year we
had two patrol boats down there, and the year before we did as
well. Last year, though, because of the salmon problems, Canada
closed the disputed area to fishing and Alaska's Department of Fish
and Game, on the 2 July made a similar move, closed the disputed
area to U.S. trawl fisheries as well. ... From our perspective,
last year was very peaceful and a quiet year."
CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted that the U.S. State Department has
consistently had a position to Canada that, yes, we would like to
agree upon a maritime boundary - good boundaries make good
neighbors. He said he believes the reason why that issue hasn't
moved is possibly due to logic - or gaming issue. If Canada had
some how taken this to a resolution body, as they did on the East
coast, ... the best they would get is a status quo, and the worst
they would get is the equidistant line, and most likely they would
get something in between. Obviously if the U.S. does it, the worst
that would happen to us is we'd keep the status quo, but most
likely we would gain something. So, it's probably an issue just as
simple as that and the Canadians have been reluctant to bring this
issue forward.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded to Representative Kerttula's question,
what does this has to do with the salmon treaty. He said, "In my
experience, it's a potential sore point if the salmon treaty heats
up, it's an area that - very volatile political issue down in
Canada. It's also a volatile political [point] in Southeast Alaska
and each side knows that that's a potential stick it can use to
poke the other side. But the Coast Guard sees our view as to make
sure there are no incidents down there that throws things like the
salmon treaty off track."
Number 781
CHAIR JAMES asked, in looking at that solid line [referring to the
map], the one that was agreed upon...
CAPTAIN O'SHEA remarked - the "A-V" line.
CHAIR JAMES said she can't tell how close that line is to the land
but it looks like it's almost on the land.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded, yes it's very close.
CHAIR JAMES said it seems that we should be able to go around our
land.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied yes.
CHAIR JAMES said it seems like we've got the edge on that one.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied yes, and that's frequently brought up by a
lot of different people in this argument.
Number 789
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said Dixon Entrance is an extremely rich and
vital area because there is a commingled fishery, much of which is
coming back to spawn in Alaska, and a great portion of which was
headed to British Columbia. He further stated that, "I think this
is probably the flashpoint, or one of the flashpoint areas of that
U.S.-Canada treaty and when I saw this resolution my first concern
was that I would be cautious about doing anything to offset to what
appears to be a renewal of our negotiations on that treaty. And I
don't think this would directly impact it madam chair, but it could
- it could mess up the current negotiations there and I'd like to
ask Captain O'Shea if he would have any comments on that."
CHAIR JAMES clarified that he is talking about the salmon treaty.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON replied yes, the U.S.-Canada treaty. Every
time the season opens up you've got U.S., you've got Alaskan and
Canadian fishers out there that are really juggling against each
other there trying to knock each other out of the way, destroy
their nets, the Canadians are quickly running for cover back into
U.S. waters and the Alaska fishermen are -- it's a boiling point
right now and that negotiation is ongoing separately as we speak,
although it hasn't had much action. He said he thought Captain
O'Shea might be more up-to-date as to what is going on in that
negotiation.
Number 819
CAPTAIN O'SHEA replied that he doesn't have an official role in the
U.S.-Canada treaty negotiations but he does talk informally to some
of the folks who are working on that issue. He said he believes
anything to do with Dixon Entrance always has a potential to impact
that process, depending upon how the Canadians see it at that
particular time. He further stated that, "On the other hand, I
would point out that what this resolution [HJR 26] is calling for
is not anything that hasn't already been the policy of the U.S.
State Department. In other words, the U.S. State Department
basically has said, 'Anytime you guys want to sit down and talk
about this ... this boundary and get it resolved, we'd be happy to
do that.' So it would send the signal to the State Department that
we're still here, we're still waiting. But, depending on the
status is of those U.S.-Canada treaties, it could be taken as a --
what we could do is give an excuse to somebody on the Canadian-side
to do something that they were planning on doing all along, that's
probably the biggest danger."
CHAIR JAMES said it seems that it is going to be very difficult to
get a salmon treaty without having solved this.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA responded that he believes that the fish in the
Dixon Entrance area is a small portion of the whole thing, and as
Representative Hudson pointed out, they're in a migratory mode. He
said his understanding of the salmon treaty is coming from
calculations back at the stream of origin, then trying to come up
with a sharing scheme relative to the escapements that they're
trying to get up those various streams.
Number 847
CAPTAIN O'SHEA noted from a Coast Guard standpoint, the biggest
issue we have is the trawler issue, whether or not they will let
our trawlers go down there. It's been something that we've been
able to live with over the years. He said he believes that it is
not that closely linked that they couldn't solve -- they have
adjustments and calculations within the salmon treaty numbers of
stocks that would allow them to get an acceptable agreement without
necessarily bringing this to closure.
CHAIR JAMES remarked that the United States has a number of
disputes with Canada regarding various issues. One of the things
in our TEA-21 [Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21 century]
that we had this year, is that part of that money is supposed to be
there to try to help us make the border crossings from Canada to
the U.S. without dispute. It seems that the more cooperation we
could get between us, that the better off we'd be in the long term.
She said, "We ought to eat our way through these disputes instead
of having this continual..."
TAPE 99-21, SIDE B
Number 001
CHAIR JAMES continued, "...I'd like to be able to call those
Canadians my friend and I think that's very important that we do
that."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that it is true, we are the closest
and most effected by our relationship with Canada. Therefore, it
is imperative that Alaska is involved in any of the negotiations,
and this resolution [HJR 26] calls for it, and it calls for a
boundary to be set up. He said, "And I think that if Canada sees
the legislature appealing for that, that would give them heart that
we are in fact trying to settle the maritime boundary. The salmon
treaty, notwithstanding, is a separate issue but it's also part of
the negotiation of friendship. And so, this is just a move, I
think in a very diplomatic way saying Alaska is really interested
in making sure that we have clear lines so that were settled on
that issue. So, I'd respectively ask to move this resolution."
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Coghill if he had
received a position from the Department of Fish and Game or the
U.S. State Department about how they feel about this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied no.
Number 052
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said, "I really want to agree with you that
we need to resolve our boundary disputes, not only here but
certainly up to - in the Arctic ... not only with Canada, but also
with Russia ... as well. My only reluctance, I guess, and I would
like to do a little checking before I personally sign-off on this
measure ... would be to talk with David Benton or somebody down at
the Department of Fish and Game. We have such a tremendous economy
to the fishermen out of Ketchikan and Southeastern Alaska that, if
anything we did, however innocently of this nature that would
interrupt our inner you know -- right now, for the very first time
I'm told that there appears to be some momentum in renegotiating
that U.S.-Canada treaty we're finding some conclusion. As you
know, we've had terrible consequences as a result of not having a
settlement with the Canadians - they blockaded our ships down
there, they cost us millions of dollars in fairs, and things of
that nature. And it just did damage the relationship with Alaska
and our Province - Canada and British Columbia particularly. So,
for me at any rate, I would like the courtesy of, or even have
maybe the committee staff or somebody to ask somebody who is
negotiating in behalf of Alaska fishermen to come before the
committee and speak about that. ... And I wouldn't feel comfortable
in passing it out of committee until I at least know that our
action wasn't harming the potential livelihood of, you know, of our
fellow Southeasterners."
CHAIR JAMES stated that their absence is distressing, why aren't
they here to testify. She asked Representative Hudson to contact
them.
Number 133
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL noted that the Alaska Trawlers Association
supports HJR 26. He emphasized that this is not to Alaska that we
are appealing, but it is to the federal government to even begin
the negotiation on a maritime boundary. He said he doesn't feel
that that would have any adverse effect on even our fish and game
management - so much to upset a treaty agreement. Representative
Coghill said, "So, whereas I understand your objection, this really
is kind of out of their purview."
CHAIR JAMES said she tends to agree with Representative Coghill on
that issue because a line, between those two lines, should be drawn
and that a lot of dispute would be gone if we did that. The fish
would probably be divided similarly to what the collection of the
fish is at this time, but the battle would be gone.
CHAIR JAMES announced that HJR 26 would be held over until next
Tuesday.
HJR 27-ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY
CHAIR JAMES announced HJR 27, Relating to the maritime boundary
between Alaska and the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
is before the committee. She noted HJR 27 is similar to HJR 26,
but is a different location.
Number 172
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL said he distributed suggested
amendments that were suggested by Representative Berkowitz which
made it more diplomatic in his view. He noted that there has been
some dispute over the spelling of Wrangell.
Page 1, line 9, changes the spelling of Wrangel to Wrangell.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred to page 2, line 26, and instructed
the members to delete "failed to" and insert the word "not."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained there hasn't been negotiation
between Russia and America on this. He emphasized one of the
things that the legislature is asking in this resolution is that
Alaska be involved it. He added, "But there has been a failure,
and they did not in fact ratify it from the Russian side."
CHAIR JAMES asked if a "d" should to be added to the word approve.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL replied yes. [The following has been
revised]:
WHEREAS the U.S.S.R. and its successor, Russia, have not
approved the proposed treaty agreement, and the agreement has
not been put into force as a treaty; and
Number 215
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL also instructed the members to delete lines
6 thru 8, page 3, which dealt with a particular secretary of state
that is no longer there. That was also a recommendation by
Representative Berkowitz. Delete:
WHEREAS the authority of the Secretary of State to establish
on his own a maritime boundary that has implications for land
territory, seabed jurisdiction, sovereignty, and Alaska
property raises questions of constitutionality and personal
culpability; and
On page 3, delete lines 14 thru 30 and insert the following
revision:
BE IT RESOLVED by the Alaska State Legislature that, because
the proposed United States - U.S.S.R. maritime Boundary
Agreement has not been put into force, negotiations for the
proposed treaty should include participation by the State of
Alaska, and terms in a new proposed treaty regarding Alaska's
territory, sovereignty, or property should involve
representatives of the State of Alaska; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State Legislature considers
participation of the State of Alaska to be essential in a [to
the] validity of the executive agreement, requests the United
States Department of State to report any and all acts and
directives regarding implementation of the executive
agreement, and respectfully requests the Governor and the
Attorney General of Alaska to investigate whether any actions
in this matter are not consistent with law and to report on
their findings to the Legislature prior to the next regular
session; and be it
FURTHER RESOLVE[D] that the Alaska State Legislature urges the
Alaska delegation in the United States Congress to promote and
pursue the views expressed in this resolution, especially the
need for Alaska representation in negotiations over setting a
maritime boundary between the state and eastern Russia;
Number 264
On page 4, delete line 1 and insert:
maritime boundary between Alaska and eastern Russia is a
constitutional issue of states' rights and
Number 275
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON made a motion to adopt the proposed
amendment. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that HJR 27 is an important
resolution that brings to light the need to establish/settle
maritime boundaries between Russia and Alaska. Due to the change
in the U.S.S.R. to Russia, that was never ratified and is still a
big question. He noted that Alaska is directly affected by it in
a variety of different ways: in the fishing area, in some of the
lands that will be involved which include some of the islands that
are in the Chukchi Sea. Those issues have yet to be resolved.
House Joint Resolution 27 states that Alaska be part of that
negotiation and it also requests those negotiations begin.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she has the same types of concerns
with HJR 27 as she had with HJR 26. She said, "I would also like
to see it held over so that I can contact the State Department and
ask them what their position is. Especially when we start talking
about Wrangell Island and some of the other ones. In the sponsor
statement there's mention about when Wrangell was discovered in the
1800s. But my understanding, and the research that I've seen, is
that those islands were discovered much earlier than that by
indigenous people who lived there and that those people became
Russian. So I feel real strongly that, you know, failure of
recognition of those people and their rights, and, you know,
Deshnev [Russian explorer/early 1600s] after them really needs to
be taken into account here, and I'm not going to feel comfortable
on this unless we have some point of view from the State
Department."
CHAIR JAMES remarked that if they negotiated a settlement of the
maritime boundary, those are the issues they would determine. She
said she fails to understand why people don't want to get to a
conclusion.
Number 335
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she is not unhappy to get to a
conclusion. She stated that she wants to know what the positions
are and how it actually affects us. She emphasized that she
dislikes talking about when the islands were discovered and
completely disregarding 100s of years of history prior to that.
Therefore, she thinks it an important point.
CHAIR JAMES noted that she has been studying that issue for a
number of years and is aware of that.
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON said he strongly supports HJR 27 and recalled
Chair James sponsoring similar legislation. He stated that, "I do
think, unlike another area where we may have a conflicting or a
dual treaty negotiations that could affect the livelihood of
Alaskans, there's nothing like that involved in this particular
settlement. ... This may be a time - because of the dissolution of
the old U.S.S.R. that changes the economic changes and the social
changes that are occurring up there may give our State Department
- and we may be stimulating them to go back into negotiations and
resolve these delicate lines up there because they're very
important to resolve them: mineralogy - as you know,
transportation, some fisheries, and things like that are really
important." He believed that HJR 27 is timely and should be
pursued.
CHAIR JAMES reiterated her agreement that it is timely,
particularly since she has been working on getting a railroad from
Canada and to Russia and thinks we're getting closer and closer to
that reality. But, in order to do that Alaska has to have a treaty
with Russia, and there's no better time to be negotiating maritime
boundaries when you're having to have another agreement that has a
very positive effect on Russia and on Alaska.
Number 381
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL pointed out that it has been brought to the
attention of the Department of Interior, Secretary Albright has
been written to and there's been no response. Representative
Coghill said, in regard to that, we shouldn't wait for them to
respond, we should ask them to initiate action. To try to do that
before we send a resolution at this point, he believes, would be
futile. So, HJR 27 gets the legislature to agree to a resolution
stating that we want to be at that negotiation and that the
negotiation should begin, and the time is now. So, to hold this up
would be very unfortunate.
Number 401
CAPTAIN VINCE O'SHEA, United States Coast Guard, came before the
committee. He noted the State Department has a position on this
which is the 1990 agreement that was initiated with the Russians
after ten years of negotiation. That agreement was ratified by the
United States Senate in 1992. He said the issue is, that in going
from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation, the Russians have
failed to ratify that 1990 agreement. So going back to the State
Department and saying, "We want you to solve the boundary line,"
quite frankly their going to say, "So do we." Captain O'Shea
indicated that the ball in many ways is in the Russian court on
this. He said there is an ongoing series of high-level meetings
involving then-Ambassador Thomas Pickering [Under Secretary of
State], at the State Department. He said Under Secretary of State
Pickering is sort of the United States point person on this - and
it's been going on for about three years now - a series of offers,
and counter offers back and forth.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA said President Yeltsin has not submitted this
agreement to the Duma [equivalent of U.S. Senate] because he
understands he does not have the votes to ratify the 1990
agreement. Captain O'Shea said Russia has agreed to provisionally
apply the 1990 agreement. And, at times of the year Alaska has up
to 120 foreign factory trawlers that are fishing along this line
[referring to a map], and we have a continuous Coast Guard cutter
up there. He said, "Quite frankly, whether the boundary gets to be
resolved or not, as long as there's fish there, you're not going to
get us out of the job of having to be up there."
CAPTAIN O'SHEA continued, "What I'm saying to the Russian's credit,
quite frankly is they have agreed to abide operationally to the
1990 line. And, in fact, at the latest meeting that I was at in
Seattle, in January, they announced that they have established a
voluntary five-mile line on their side to keep those factory
trawlers away from the line to avoid coming into our waters." He
pointed out that the Bering Sea Fisheries Advisory Board advises
the State Department and the board consists of industry
representatives (both from the state of Alaska and from the Seattle
area), factory trawler and fishing groups are part of the
negotiated team which is dealing with that issue. From his
understanding, HJR 27 is consistent with a lot of the things that
are already taking place.
Number 453
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Captain O'Shea what is the State
Department's official position is on Wrangell Island.
CAPTAIN O'SHEA said he can't respond to that because he is familiar
with the south area, and mostly with regard to fisheries in the
Bering Sea.
CHAIR JAMES suggested Representative Kerttula conduct her
investigation and present her findings on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA reiterated that her greatest concern is
over the islands. Our claims start to sound much like we aren't
taking into account the previous territorial claims of the
indigenous people. She said she will do the research and will
provide that information.
Number 474
REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON moved to report CSHJR 27(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 492
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:21 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|