Legislature(2007 - 2008)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2008 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR39 | |
| HB412 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 39 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 412 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HCR 23 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 27, 2008
8:07 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Bob Roses, Vice Chair
Representative John Coghill
Representative Kyle Johansen
Representative Craig Johnson
Representative Andrea Doll
Representative Max Gruenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39
Urging the United States Senate to ratify the Law of the Sea
Treaty.
- MOVED CSHJR 39(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 412
"An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Legislative
Council and the membership of the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 23
Proposing amendments to the Uniform Rules of the Alaska State
Legislature relating to withdrawing measures, to sponsors of
measures, to prefiling measures, and to the three readings of
bills.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 39
SHORT TITLE: URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
SPONSOR(s): STATE AFFAIRS
03/20/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/08 (H) STA
03/27/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 412
SHORT TITLE: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & LB&A MEMBERSHIP
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRUENBERG
02/19/08 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/19/08 (H) STA, RLS
02/21/08 (H) BILL REPRINTED: 2/21/08
03/20/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/20/08 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed to 03/27/08>
03/27/08 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
ISAAC EDWARDS, Legislative Director
Senator Lisa Murkowski
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained the concerns of proponents and
opponents of HJR 39.
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the hearing on
HJR 39.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:07:56 AM. Representatives Roses, Coghill,
Johnson, Gruenberg, Doll, and Lynn were present at the call to
order. Representative Johansen arrived as the meeting was in
progress.
HJR 39-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY
8:08:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39, Urging the United States Senate to
ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
CHAIR LYNN
8:09:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG introduced HJR 39 on behalf of the
House State Affairs Standing Committee, sponsor, which is
chaired by Representative Lynn. He said the proposed
legislation is based upon the "Compass" piece penned by U.S.
Senator Lisa Murkowski [included in the committee packet]. He
paraphrased the sponsor statement, which read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
This resolution urges the U.S. Senate to ratify the
United States Convention on the Law of the Sea ("Law
of the Sea") treaty. As Senator Lisa Murkowski said
in her recent address to the joint session,
ratification of this treaty is extremely important to
protect U.S. interests concerning the use and
development of the high seas off Alaska and elsewhere.
For example, other nations are aggressively seeking to
stake their claims to the Arctic Ocean as far as the
North Pole itself. The treaty permits member nations
to extend their exclusive economic zones and will
govern the development of oceanic resources, the uses
and navigational rules governing ocean transit, and
other issues, as well.
155 nations, including all allies of the United
States and the world's maritime powers, as well as all
other nations bordering the Arctic Ocean, have
ratified the treaty. Although some critics have
stated that this country can reap the benefits of the
treaty without binding itself to its limitations, this
ignores the over-riding interest the United States has
in participating fully in all negotiations,
deliberations, and ratification of key documents
emanating from the treaty. Only treaty signatories
will have the right to sit on the important governing
bodies convened under the auspices of the treaty.
Because the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
has now reported the treaty to the Senate floor, it is
particularly important and timely that this
legislature passes HJR 39 and transmits it to all
members of the U.S. Senate expressing this state's
strong interest in the treaty and support for its
th
passage during the remaining months of the 110
Congress.
8:12:49 AM
ISAAC EDWARDS, Legislative Director, Senator Lisa Murkowski,
United States Congress, testified on behalf of Senator Murkowski
in support of HJR 39. He emphasized Senator Murkowski's support
of the treaty and her hope that it would be ratified this year.
Regarding the treaty, he noted that on October 31, 2007, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 17:4 to recommend
Senate advice and consent to the treaty. That is the second
time a committee has recommended advice and consent - the first
time occurring in 2004. The treaty is now pending on the full
Senate's calendar, but no time has been set aside for the
consideration. Treaties require 67 votes in order to be
ratified, he said.
MR. EDWARDS said opponents of the treaty express concern that
there would be a loss of sovereignty if the U.S. were to become
a party of the treaty. Opponents question why the U.S. would
put itself in situation where it might be limited in its
actions. Proponents, including the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard,
he said, respond that it is necessary to "lock in" the freedom
of navigation, rather than depend on customary international
law. Currently, the U.S. Navy transits through narrow straights
around the world, which are shown to be international waters.
The Law of the Sea Treaty would secure those navigational
rights.
MR. EDWARDS, as an example of the tendency for international
customary law to change, reminded the committee that over one
year ago, 15 British sailors were seized for being in Iranian
waters, although evidence shows they were in Iraqi territorial
waters. Following the Iraq/Iran war from 1988, there was
dispute over which country owned what water. He said, "Since
that point in time, it's been more of a custom or a practice of
who owns what, rather than a specific delineation." Proponents
of the treaty say [the U.S.] should not put itself in a similar
position where customary law could change over time, but rather,
should secure the rights now.
MR. EDWARDS pointed out that the Law of the Sea Treaty expands
[the United States'] territorial waters, in which it has
absolute sovereignty to 12 nautical miles. In a previous treaty
from 1958, the territorial water of the U.S. was only extended
to 3 nautical miles. Furthermore, he noted, the Law of the Sea
Treaty would provide for a new, 200 nautical mile exclusive
economic zone - a provision that has not existed in any treaty
to which the U.S. has heretofore been a party. He stated, "So,
although we're currently operating as if we have rights provided
under the Law of the Sea Treaty to those zones and sovereignty,
as a non-party to the treaty, other nations do not necessarily
need to recognize our claims to those areas." That fact is
particularly important to Alaska, because over half the nation's
coastline is in Alaska.
8:16:33 AM
MR. EDWARDS named international treaties that resulted from the
Law of the Sea Treaty: the Convention on Straggling and Highly
Migratory Stocks, which provides both access to and protections
for fish stalks that migrate through the high seas and
jurisdictions of other nations, including the pollock fishery in
the Bering Sea; and the Convention of Fisheries in the Central
Bering Sea, which gives an unprecedented degree of control over
the activities of other fishing nations in the central portion
of the Bering Sea beyond the United States' and Russia's
exclusive economic zone.
MR. EDWARDS pointed out that the 1991 Maritime Boundary Treaty,
between Russia and the United States, which is widely regarded
as highly favorable to the U.S., in terms of fishing grounds and
mineral rights, is consistent with the Law of the Sea Treaty.
The U.S. Senate has ratified the Maritime Boundary Treaty, but
the Russian Duma has not. He stated, "There are increasing
cries from Moscow to renegotiate that treaty because it's so
favorable to the U.S." He explained that if the U.S. does not
become part to the Law of the Sea Treaty, its Maritime Boundary
Treaty "may also be in doubt," because Russia has not ratified
it, and "it would be extremely difficult to renegotiate a
boundary agreement with similar popular results for the U.S."
MR. EDWARDS, regarding sovereignty, said the issue of subjecting
the U.S. to an international dispute resolution tribunal has
been raised as an objection. Opponents question why the U.S.
should put its interests, including its military activities, in
hands not sympathetic to the United State's position. Mr.
Edwards said that concern is valid, and is addressed in the
Senate Resolution on Advice and Consent that would ratify the
treaty. He continued:
Article 287 of the treaty allows for declaration of
which form of dispute resolution a party wishes to
use. And the Senate Resolution on Advice and Consent
... says that the U.S. would choose a special
arbitration tribunal for matters related to fisheries,
marine environment, marine scientific research, and
navigation - including pollution from vessels.
... Most importantly, Article 298 of the treaty says
that a state may declare that it does not accept any
other procedures for dispute settlement for any of
three types of disputes. ... Those include: boundary
delimitations for territorial waters, exclusive
economic zones, or the continental shelf; disputes
concerning military activities or law enforcement
activities, including the definition of those
activities; and disputes in which the U.N. Security
Council is exercising its ... function. And so, the
Senate Resolution on Advice and Consent exempts the
U.S. from all three of those categories, from
boundaries, military activities, and U.N. Security
Council activities. So, we're not subject to
international dispute resolution under the Law of the
Sea Treaty in those areas.
MR. EDWARDS said another issue raised asks why the U.S. should
become a party to the treaty now, rather than waiting. He
offered his view that the answer concerns the amendment process
of the treaty. He explained that when the treaty was formed, it
delayed the possibility of any amendment being made to it until
10 years after its entry into force. That 10 years came about
as of November, 2004. He stated that the U.S. needs to be a
party to the treaty to block objectionable amendments. He
continued:
... Even if an objectionable amendment would somehow
come into force, ... if the U.S. were to be a party to
the treaty, the language doesn't necessarily impact us
because the only language that impacts us is what the
Senate provides in the Advice and Consent to Ratify
the treaty - not language that occurs after the Senate
has ratified the treaty, unless ... the Senate ...
provides an amendment to the treaty. So, that's why
it's important to be a party now, before any
objectionable amendments might be adopted.
8:20:39 AM
MR. EDWARDS stated that the U.S. needs to be able to defend its
claims to the Arctic in its extended continental shelf. He said
the Arctic ocean covers about 3 percent of the earth's surface,
but accounts for about 25 percent of the world's continental
shelf. The mapping expedition by the Coast Guard Cutter Healy
found that the continental shelf off of Northern Alaska extends
for an additional hundred miles beyond what was previously
thought. However, the U.S. cannot claim that area and the
resources that are in it, without being a party to the treaty,
or at least cannot have its claims recognized by the
international community. He reviewed that Russia has already
laid claim to its extended continental shelf, which gives it
control over half of the Arctic. The Commission on the Limits
of the Continental Shelf currently is examining that claim.
Other nations are making claims as well, he relayed. In fact,
eight submissions have already been made for extended
continental shelf claims since December 2001, and more are
expected. Mr. Edwards said the aforementioned commission is
made up of 21 members who not only are experts in various fields
of geology, geophysics, and hydrography, but also are parties to
the Law of the Sea Treaty. The U.S. cannot have a member on
that commission, because it is not party to the treaty.
8:22:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL, regarding sovereignty, asked if the
[area of continental shelf] claimed by Russia has been
authorized under the treaty.
MR. EDWARDS answered that Russia can make that claim through the
Commission on the Limitation of the Continental Shelf. He
explained that a country can claim an extended portion of the
continental shelf if it can show that the subsurface area comes
from the land mass that belongs to the that country.
Previously, he said, countries were not able to make those
claims because technology did not exist with the necessary
mapping capabilities under the ocean. In response to a follow-
up question from Representative Coghill, he clarified that in
order to be internationally recognized, the claims Russia made
had to be submitted to the commission.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if the Maritime Boundary has not
been ratified because of the change in government from the
U.S.S.R. to Russia.
MR. EDWARDS said no, but said he would not rule that possibility
out. He stated that the Russian government has said it will
"follow this agreement" and "act as if this treaty is in place."
He said there have been an increasing number of articles and
comments from Russia that show that the country does not like
the good deal the U.S. got regarding fishing grounds and
potential mineral rights, and Russia wants to renegotiate that
deal.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he would argue that Russia is "ever
encroaching." He asked, "How many disparate resolutions have
happened within this treaty that have been resolved to the
U.N.'s satisfaction?"
MR. EDWARDS said he does not know, but he emphasized that the
U.N. plays a limited role in this issue - "in name only."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said he is glad to hear that.
MR. EDWARDS added that the treaty was negotiated under the
offices of the U.N., but that entity has no role in the
governance of the treaty itself or the commissions that are set
up by the treaty.
MR. EDWARDS, in response to a question from Representative
Coghill, explained that a treaty does not need the vote of the
U.S. House of Representatives. The last step in the process is
Senate ratification of the treaty.
8:27:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL explained that he had asked about
disparate resolution history because his understanding is that
Russia has displayed an absolute disregard for treaties. He
said, "I'm feeling that ... we might end up being 155, plus one,
if we sit on the council, or we might be just one to one, if we
stay outside of the treaty."
MR. EDWARDS pointed out that the Convention on the Straddling
and Highly Migratory Stocks and the Convention on Fisheries in
the Central Bering Sea both have dispute resolution arbitration
clauses, which are what the U.S. would adhere to in the Law of
the Sea Treaty. Russia is involved in those, as well, he noted.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL emphasized his need to know who would be
in charge of the dispute resolution and how it would be handled
before supporting the proposed resolution. He stated, "Because
what we're going to do is subject ourselves, as a nation, to a
panel that may not be ... of our choosing, and may not be
sympathetic at all to the United States."
8:28:57 AM
MR. EDWARDS, explained how the members of the panel are
selected, as follows:
Article 287 says that a state can choose from a number
of mechanisms for dispute resolution: You have the
international tribunal for a law of the sea; there's
the International Court of Justice; and then there's
the Arbitration Tribunal. There's two different types
of arbitrating tribunals: a plain arbitration
tribunal and a special arbitration tribunal.
The Senate's Resolution on Advice and Consent says the
U.S. will choose the arbitration. ... Under the
special arbitration process, which is the principally
chosen one for maritime issues, both parties select
two arbitrators, and then those four arbitrators
select a fifth and a final arbitrator. If they are
unable to agree on that fifth arbitrator, they can
agree on a third party to select a fifth arbitrator.
And if still no agreement can be reached, the
Secretary General of the U.N. would then appoint the
fifth arbitrator.
Under regular arbitration, each party selects one
arbitrator, and then mutually agree on three other
arbitrators. And if there's no agreement, a third
party may appoint the three remaining arbitrators.
MR. EDWARDS, in response to Representative Coghill, said the
third party would not necessarily have to be the Secretary
General of the U.N. - it could be whatever the two countries
agreed to.
8:30:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if there have been instances in the
past when the U.S. has wished that it had been part of the
treaty.
MR. EDWARDS answered that currently Senator Murkowski wishes the
U.S. could be part of the treaty, because of Russia's claim to
the Commission on the Limitation of the Continental Shelf that
it should have control of over half of the Arctic Ocean.
Without being part of the treaty, the U.S. is not in a position
where it can refute that claim. In response to Representative
Doll, he said the Law of the Sea Treaty was "open to signature"
in 1982 - the text having been more or less agreed to by the
negotiators, and then it was opened up to countries around the
world to become a party to it if they so wished. The U.S.
declined to be a party to it because of a provision on deep
seabed mining, which Mr. Edwards said was socialistic in nature,
in terms of the transfer of technology. No developed nation
wanted to be involved, because they would not get any of the
benefits. A renegotiation of that portion of the treaty led to
a 1994 agreement on deep seabed mining. He stated, "Enough
parties - enough states - had ratified and become a member to
the Law of the Sea Treaty by 1994, with the agreement of this
deep seabed mining provision, that it went into effect ..., and
so, that's when the 10-year clock started ticking in terms of
when amendments could take place."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL clarified that she wants to know if there
have been any times in the past, not including current times,
when the U.S. has been limited by not being a party to the
treaty.
MR. EDWARDS answered, "Not so much." He explained that was
partially because of the 10-year window of time when no
amendments to the treaty could be offered. He said the U.S.
has, since the Reagan Administration, been operating as if under
the treaty, so there have been no times when the U.S. has been
"challenged on it." He reiterated that the military wants the
U.S. to lock into those rights.
8:34:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Mr. Edwards to confirm that "all
of the administrations" and "both parties" have supported the
treaty since its initiation.
MR. EDWARDS answered that is correct, with the exception that
the Reagan Administration would not "sign off on it" in 1982
until the deep seabed mining provision had been "fixed." In
response to Representative Gruenberg, he speculated that it
would be possible to make sure there are the required 67 votes
in support of the treaty before bringing it up to a vote. He
said a resolution from the State of Alaska would be helpful in
showing that there is support for the treaty outside of
Washington, D.C., and in showing that the one state in the U.S.
that makes the U.S. an Arctic nation recognizes the importance
of the Law of the Sea and how it could impact the Arctic and
other nation's claims.
MR. EDWARDS, in response to Representative Gruenberg, noted that
in 2004, the Resolution on Advice and Consent was reported out
by a vote of 19-0; therefore, there "was no minority view." The
resolution in 2007 was voted out with a vote of 17-4, so there
were some objections. He stated, "I don't believe the committee
has yet put out the actual report on the treaty itself." In
response to a follow-up question, he said he will find out if
there is a report and get that information to the House State
Affairs Standing Committee if it is available.
8:37:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked if there are any other Arctic
nations outside of the northern coast of the U.S. that are not
part of the treaty.
MR. EDWARDS answered no. He said there are 155 nations that are
part of the treaty. He told Representative Coghill that he will
supply the committee with a history of dispute resolutions.
8:39 :07 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
8:39:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read
as follows:
Page 2, line 7:
Delete "for ratification"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "claims of"
Insert "claim of authority by"
Page 2, lines 23 - 26:
Delete "oil, gas, and mineral resources in the
Arctic Ocean and other northern waters, the conduct of
essential scientific research in the world's oceans,
the right of the United States to the use of the seas,
the rules of navigation, and the effect of the use of
the seas on the world's economic development and
environmental concerns"
Insert new paragraphs to read:
"(1) oil, gas, and mineral resources in the
Arctic Ocean and other northern waters;
(2) conduct of essential scientific
research in the world's oceans;
(3) right of the United States to the use
of the seas;
(4) rules of navigation;
(5) effect of the use of the seas on world
economic development; and
(6) environmental concerns related to the use of the
seas"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected for discussion purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his understanding that there
are no substantive changes made by Amendment 1; the changes
proposed address a typographical error, a correction of
terminology recommended by the bill drafter, and a
simplification of confusing language.
8:42:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection. There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
8:42:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON directed attention to Article 26, [shown
on page 33 of "Oceans and Law of the Sea; Division for Ocean
Affairs and the Law of the Sea; United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Seas Agreement Relating to the Implementation of Part
XI of the Convention; (Full texts)," prepared by Representative
Coghill's Office, included in the committee packet], which read
as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Article 26
Charges which may be levied upon foreign ships
1. No charge may be levied upon foreign ships by
reason only of their passage through the territorial
sea.
2. Charges may be levied upon a foreign ship
passing through the territorial sea as payment only
for specific services rendered to the ship. These
charges shall be levied without discrimination.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said he would like to know what effect
that would have on Alaska's taxation of cruise ships and "if we
would be in violation of the treaty if we didn't treat every
ship the same - specifically big ships and the smaller ships
that don't pay the tax."
8:43:49 AM
STEVEN DAUGHERTY, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law, stated,
"I don't believe this would have any impact on cruise ships that
are making landing in Alaska." He said the right of innocent
passage means passage through a territorial sea without making a
landing within the state.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON said the genesis of his question is
derived from paragraph (2) of Article 26 [text provided
previously].
8:44:42 AM
MR. EDWARDS said he would have to check with the state
department to find out what its reading of that language would
be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated for the record that he did not
support the cruise tax and, thus, hopes that "it might, in fact,
be something that the cruise line could hang their hat on."
8:45:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL cited language [beginning on page 2, line
31, through page 3, line 2], which read as follows:
WHEREAS the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea will not interfere with the intelligence-
gathering efforts of the United States or the
navigational freedom of the United States Navy; and
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked if that sovereignty is "under Article
298," to which Mr. Edwards previously referred.
MR. EDWARDS answered that is correct. In response to a follow-
up question from Representative Doll, he said it would be up to
the U.S. to determine what a military activity is and what
intelligence-gathering activity is, in terms of the U.S.'s own
activities. Along those lines, he said, under the Senate's
Resolution on Advice and Consent, the U.S. would have exempted
itself "from anybody questioning our ability to do that under
the Law of the Sea."
REPRESENTATIVE DOLL asked, "And so, that would also pertain to
Canada, Russia, and others who would also be gathering
intelligence?"
MR. EDWARDS answered:
If they have exempted themselves from that Article of
the Law of the Sea, they would define, in their own
terms, what they believe their military activity is.
8:47:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ROSES moved to report HJR 39, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
8:48:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL objected to state that he is not yet
comfortable with the Law of the Sea Treaty. He said he
understands that Alaska has the majority of coast line in the
U.S., thus, he said he is open to the discussion. He said he
will be checking out the dispute resolution claims and
settlements. He reiterated his observation that the Russians
have disregarded treaties in the past - even taking land from
the U.S. He said he is confident that the governments of
Canada, Greenland, Iceland, Denmark, and Norway will be easier
to deal with. He said he thinks "we" might inadvertently end up
in the position he previously described as being one of 155,
rather than 1:1. He said it seems that historically, America
has been willing to submit itself, while others have not. He
stated that he wanted these thoughts on the record, as well as
voiced to Senator Murkowski's office, and he said he needs "some
comfort level" before he is willing to "agree to this."
8:49:45 AM
CHAIR LYNN said he thinks Representative Coghill raises a valid
point. The U.S. must maintain its sovereignty.
8:50:22 AM
MR. EDWARDS said he understands that there is concern that other
nations may not live up to their commitment. He said, "We have
many, many treaties that we are a party to, both multilateral
and bilateral." He repeated that he would get information to
Representative Coghill regarding dispute resolution history and
"whether or not there have been issues out there with Russia, in
particular." The issue of whether or not other countries are
going to play by the rules is one that the U.S. will always
face, he remarked. He added, "I don't have a good answer to say
to that, other than that's part of what people look up to the
United States for is that we do play by the rules."
CHAIR LYNN noted that Representative Coghill chairs the House
Rules Standing Committee - the next committee of referral for
HJR 39.
8:51:43 AM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL removed his objection to the motion to
move HJR 39, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the attached fiscal notes. There being no
further objection, CSHJR 39(STA) was reported out of the House
State Affairs Standing Committee.
8:52:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in the interest of time, requested the
committee hear HB 412 next.
HB 412-LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL & LB&A MEMBERSHIP
8:52:36 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 412, "An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska
Legislative Council and the membership of the Legislative Budget
and Audit Committee."
8:52:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG introduced HB 412 as prime sponsor, on
behalf of every member of the House Minority. He said the bill
was introduced once before on behalf of every member of the
House Minority in the Twenty-Third Alaska State Legislature. He
stated that with one exception, HB 412 completes a concept that
began back in approximately 1987 or 1988, in the Fifteenth
Alaska State Legislature, when a member of the House Minority
approached Representative Gruenberg, then the House Majority
leader, asking for proportional representation on standing
committees. At that time, he noted, "we were not in a
coalition," and the members of the Democratic majority agreed to
the concept of proportional representation on the standing
committees and amended the Uniform Rules accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said that for whatever reason, the
membership of the Alaska Legislative Council and the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee was not made proportional at the same
time. He noted that those two committees were created by
statute and do not require a two-thirds vote, but rather follow
a majority vote. He said the only committee that has not been
included in HB 412 was the Joint Armed Services Committee,
because "we just didn't feel that that was necessary."
8:55:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said there are six sections to the bill
which provide proportional representation on the Alaska
Legislative Council and the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee. He said both the majority leader and the minority
whip support the legislation, although neither one was able to
attend today's meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question from Chair
Lynn, described the present make-up of the two committees and
how the bill would change them. He said he would have the
numbers written down for the chair by the next hearing of the
bill.
8:57:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 412 was heard and held.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
8:58:09 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|