03/28/2013 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR10 | |
| HCR3 | |
| HB59 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HCR 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 59 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 28, 2013
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bob Lynn, Chair
Representative Wes Keller, Vice Chair
Representative Lynn Gattis
Representative Shelley Hughes
Representative Doug Isaacson
Representative Charisse Millett
Representative Jonathan Kreiss-Tomkins
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10
Relating to the presence and interests of the state and the
nation in the Arctic; urging appointment of a representative of
the state to the Arctic Council; relating to icebreakers; and
relating to United States Coast Guard operations and facilities
in the Arctic.
- MOVED HCS CSSJR 10(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3
Establishing the Joint Committee on Federal Overreach.
- MOVED CSHCR 3(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 59
"An Act relating to missing vulnerable adult prompt response and
notification plans."
- MOVED CSHB 59(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 10
SHORT TITLE: ARCTIC: POLICY, USCG, ARCTIC COUNCIL
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) GIESSEL
02/27/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/27/13 (S) RES
03/04/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
03/04/13 (S) Moved CSSJR 10(RES) Out of Committee
03/04/13 (S) MINUTE(RES)
03/06/13 (S) RES RPT CS 6DP 1NR SAME TITLE
03/06/13 (S) DP: GIESSEL, MICCICHE, BISHOP, MCGUIRE,
FAIRCLOUGH, DYSON
03/06/13 (S) NR: FRENCH
03/18/13 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
03/18/13 (S) VERSION: CSSJR 10(RES) AM
03/20/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/20/13 (H) STA
03/28/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HCR 3
SHORT TITLE: JOINT COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL OVERREACH
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) MILLETT
02/06/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/06/13 (H) STA, FIN
03/05/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/05/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/05/13 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
BILL: HB 59
SHORT TITLE: MISSING VULNERABLE ADULT RESPONSE PLAN
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GRUENBERG
01/16/13 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/11/13
01/16/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/13 (H) MLV, STA
02/28/13 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
02/28/13 (H) Heard & Held
02/28/13 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/12/13 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/12/13 (H) Moved CSHB 59(MLV) Out of Committee
03/12/13 (H) MINUTE(MLV)
03/13/13 (H) MLV RPT CS(MLV) 4DP 3NR
03/13/13 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, SADDLER, FOSTER, LEDOUX
03/13/13 (H) NR: HIGGINS, HUGHES, REINBOLD
03/21/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
03/21/13 (H) Heard & Held
03/21/13 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/28/13 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 106
WITNESS REGISTER
JOE BYRNES, Intern
Senator Cathy Giessel
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 10 on behalf of Senator
Giessel, sponsor.
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of SJR 10.
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff
Representative Charisse Millett
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Reviewed the changes made in Version N of
HCR 3 on behalf of Representative Millett, sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 59 as sponsor.
RODNEY DIAL, Lt.;
Deputy Commander, A Detachment
Alaska State Troopers
Division of Statewide Services
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Ketchikan, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 59.
MIKE O'HARE, Deputy Director
Division of Homeland Security/ Emergency Management
Department of Military and Veterans' Affairs
Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions during the discussion of
HB 59.
ACTION NARRATIVE
8:08:24 AM
CHAIR BOB LYNN called the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting to order at 8:08 a.m. Representatives Gattis, Hughes,
Isaacson, Keller, Kreiss-Tomkins, Millett, and Lynn were present
at the call to order.
SJR 10-ARCTIC: POLICY, USCG, ARCTIC COUNCIL
8:09:11 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the first order of business was the CS
FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10(RES) am, Relating to the
presence and interests of the state and the nation in the
Arctic; urging appointment of a representative of the state to
the Arctic Council; relating to icebreakers; and relating to
United States Coast Guard operations and facilities in the
Arctic.
8:10:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt the proposed House
committee substitute (HCS) for CSSJR 10, Version 28-LS0542/C,
Nauman, 3/22/13, as a work draft.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT objected for the purpose of discussion.
8:11:10 AM
JOE BYRNES, Intern, Senator Cathy Giessel, Alaska State
Legislature, presented SJR 10 on behalf of Senator Giessel,
sponsor. He stated that SJR 10 would urge Congress and advises
the U.S. to increase its interest in the Arctic Council by
expanding the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker fleet to maintain its
growing Arctic responsibilities. The joint resolution would
advise the U.S. to assert its political, strategic,
environmental, and economic interests in the Arctic by pursuing
America's vast diplomatic, military, and economic means. He
said that interest in the Arctic has been renewed globally due
to the diminishing levels of Polar Sea ice, which presents new
opportunities to the world. Geologists believe that the Arctic
holds the potential for large quantities of natural resources
that could promote domestic energy security and Alaska's
economy. The decline in amount of Polar Sea ice can enhance
commercial interests with an opportunity to reduce international
shipping times compared to conventional routes by navigating the
Arctic Ocean. Though the rest of the world appears to recognize
the potential of the Arctic, there has been relatively
inadequate resolve exhibited at the federal level in advancing
Arctic interests.
8:12:37 AM
MR. BYRNES referred to a handout in the committee packet
entitled, "Major Icebreakers of the World," which was published
by the U.S. Coast Guard and reveals the number of icebreakers,
which indicates how other countries have demonstrated Arctic
interests. Icebreakers are essential to carrying out operations
in the Arctic and projecting a nation's presence in northern
waters. He pointed out that Russia has 17 state-operated
icebreakers, Canada has 6, and the U.S. has 3, of which only 1
is currently in service. He said that U.S. interests are at
stake in the Arctic, particularly of interest to Alaskans.
International Arctic policy affects Alaska uniquely compared to
other states.
MR. BYRNES said SJR 10 highlights Alaska's engagement with the
Arctic Council, which since 1996 has emerged as a leading
channel for the discussion of international Arctic affairs among
the Arctic states. The relayed [the sponsor's] belief that
Alaska's Arctic interests are fundamentally America's Arctic
interests, and whatever avenue that is available to convey those
interests should be pursued. The U.S. should seek to unlock the
Arctic's potential by having the U.S. take a leadership role in
guiding international Arctic policy. He stated that adopting
the provisions of SJR 10 would be a good first step in advancing
that goal.
8:14:08 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked whether this resolution has anything to do with
the Law of the Sea Treaty.
MR. BRYNES answered that SJR 10 does not specifically promote or
oppose the Law of the Sea Treaty.
8:14:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked why Argentina, Chile, and South
Africa have ice breakers.
MR. BRYNES answered that those countries are near the Antarctic.
In response to Representative Isaacson, he offered his
understanding that the key on the handout indicates where
icebreakers have operated.
CHAIR LYNN remarked that it is amazing how many icebreakers
Russia has.
8:16:30 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES noted that Russia started building
icebreakers in the '60s and the U.S. got a late start. She
wondered if Alaska encouraged the U.S. with respect to
icebreakers. She expressed curiosity about the history of
icebreakers.
8:16:58 AM
MR. BRYNES offered his understanding that Alaska's delegation
has been fighting for more icebreakers for a long time, but it
has only been recently, due to global warming and Arctic ice
melting, that the interest has shifted to the Arctic.
8:17:29 AM
SENATOR CATHY GIESSEL, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska,
as sponsor of SJR 10, interjected that Alaska was a new state in
the '60s, and the country is just now realizing that it is an
Arctic nation. She said, "We are attempting to raise the
urgency of the need for icebreakers." She said as a result of
diminishing Arctic ice, shipping lanes have opened up. She
commented that the Bering Strait has become a popular conduit
for significant shipping between Asia, the Arctic, and Russia;
therefore, the U.S. needs additional icebreakers for national
security.
8:18:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked for the cost of an icebreaker,
whether any private companies build them, and if the state could
consider building one.
MR. BRYNES answered that that the cost issue was raised in the
Senate Resources Committee meeting on 3/4/13. According to a
High Latitude Study provided to the Congress in July 2011, and
reported in a Congressional Research Service report, the cost
for one ship would be about $856 million. The report also
estimated that building six ships would cost $4.7 billion. He
noted that major ice breakers, the Nathaniel B. Palmer and the
Aiviq, are privately owned.
SENATOR GIESSEL added that the Aiviq is owned by Royal Dutch
Shell plc, was at one time harbored in Seward, but is being
transported to Asia for additional retrofitting. She said that
the Sikuliaq is an Arctic-equipped research vessel operated by
the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
8:20:44 AM
MR. BRYNES, in response to the chair, said the icebreakers owned
by the U.S. are operated by the U.S. Coast Guard, which reports
to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. In response to
Representative Keller, said he does not know all the locations
in which the Arctic Council has met, but knows it meets on a
rotation schedule, which began in 1996, with Canada as chair,
then rotated to the U.S. in 1998. He referred to page 3, [lines
18-20], which notes that "following the chairmanship of Canada
beginning in May 2013, the United States will assume
chairmanship of the Arctic council in May 2015".
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed curiosity as to when Alaska
would be chairing the Arctic Council.
8:22:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON questioned the effectiveness of the
resolution. He referred to language on page 2, [lines 11-14],
which states that the U.S. Coast Guard "does not have a base on
or adjacent to the Arctic Ocean, inhibiting the nation's ability
to respond to situations", and then highlighted language on page
4, [lines 14-15], which "urges the United States to continue to
assert its political, strategic, environmental, and economic
interests in the Arctic". He asked for the likelihood of a base
ever existing in Alaska. He recalled that former U.S. Coast
Guard members have indicated that the Midwest U.S. has not yet
recognized the U.S. as an Arctic nation; therefore, because of
the prohibitive costs of an icebreaker, it may be a long time
before one is built. He further asked for the likelihood of SRJ
10 gaining traction in Congress.
MR. BRYNES expressed the sponsor's hope that the proposed joint
resolution would have a receptive audience in Congress. The
Alaska Congressional Delegation has always been supportive of
increasing the number of icebreakers in the U.S. Coast Guard
fleet, as well as supporting the construction of Arctic posts.
In 2012, Senator Begich co-sponsored an amendment to the U.S.
Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, which would prolong the life of
one of the four aging icebreakers. He offered his belief that
measures such as this one emphasize to the Lower 48 the reasons
icebreakers are important to the U.S.
8:25:34 AM
SENATOR GIESSEL encouraged members to become active members in
the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER), which has a
subcommittee called Arctic Caucus, which has been focused on
these issues. She reported that PNWER comprises Alaska and the
Northwest and Yukon Territories of Canada. She explained that
the caucus provided the momentum for the Northern Waters Task
Force and ultimately the Arctic Policy Commission that Alaska
has formed. She agreed that the U.S. has federal financial
issues; however, if the concern is never raised, it will never
happen. She stated that with the Arctic Council's presence in
the U.S., the state is partnering with Canada to emphasize the
North American Arctic to potentially effectively leverage the
Arctic presence. She characterized the involvement as being a
"challenging uphill battle," which [Alaska and Canada] are
fighting together.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted the resolution calls for a member
of the State of Alaska to serve on the Arctic Council. He asked
whether SJR 10 is being "done in cooperation" or is "knocking on
the door" to raise awareness.
SENATOR GIESSEL answered it is the latter. She reported that a
northern Canadian First Nations woman from Nunavut chairs
Canada's position on the Arctic Council, and she indicated that
the proposed resolution asks that an Alaskan be considered to
chair [the United States' position on the council]. She
indicated that Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell is the governor's
designee as official delegate from Alaska to speak on Arctic
issues before the federal government.
8:28:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES recalled reading that during recent
chairmanship of the Arctic Council by Norway, Finland, and
Sweden, focus has been on environmental protection, and now that
Canada will be chairing, followed by the U.S., the emphasis will
be on North American issues. She said she was delighted that
part of the emphasis will be on resource development and perhaps
shipping. She expressed an interest in how the emphasis would
change. She further asked whether Western States support the
Arctic, in particular, for additional icebreakers - due to the
impact it will have on the Arctic shipping route.
SENATOR GIESSEL explained that the Arctic Council has a very
broad emphasis which includes environmental, shipping, and
resource development. She related that the Alaska Arctic Policy
Commission (AAPC) is actually divided into [policy teams], and
she heads the team focused on [oil and gas development,
resources, and mining]. Consequently, she has been reviewing
other Arctic nations in the council, and she has found each of
them to have a balanced perspective for each of the issues,
including transportation, development, and environment. She
turned to the Western states and pointed out that she is also a
member of the Energy Producing States Coalition (EPSC), whose
members are predominately Western states that produce energy.
She said she has been trying to emphasize the Arctic importance
to the coalition. She encouraged members to make their voices
known to other states as they participate in meetings in the
Lower 48 and other countries.
8:31:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT removed her objection to the motion to
adopt the proposed House committee substitute (HCS) for CSSJR
10, Version 28-LS0542/C, Nauman, 3/22/13. There being no
further objection, Version C was before the committee as a work
draft.
8:31:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to report HCS CSSJR 10, Version 28-
LS0542/C, Nauman, 3/22/13, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER objected.
8:32:12 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gattis, Hughes,
Isaacson, Keller, Kreiss-Tomkins, Millett, and Lynn voted in
favor of reported Version C for SJR 10 out of committee.
Therefore, HCS CSSJR 10(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee by a vote of 7-0.
8:32:58 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:32 a.m. to 8:36 a.m.
HCR 3-JOINT COMMITTEE ON FEDERAL OVERREACH
8:36:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 3, Establishing the Joint
Committee on Federal Overreach.
The committee took an at-ease from 8:36 a.m. to 8:38 a.m.
8:38:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HCR 3, Version 28-LS0440\N, Gardner, 3/27/13
as a work draft. There being no objection, Version N was before
the committee.
8:38:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, as sponsor, introduced HCR 3, Version N.
She explained that she amended the original resolution after
discussions with the administration, organizations, and members.
She characterized it as a clearinghouse so the legislature can
decide which issues to focus on and can communicate in a
streamlined fashion with all legislators when federal action is
being taken on Alaska's land. She said the legislature can
decide whether to encourage the attorney general to take legal
action or start a letter writing campaign, which sometimes is
effective.
8:40:13 AM
VASILIOS GIALOPSOS, Staff, Representative Charisse Millett,
Alaska State Legislature, presented HCR 3 on behalf of
Representative Millett, sponsor. He referred to a list of
changes to HCR 3 incorporated into Version N, as per the handout
in members' packets, which were:
A new "WHEREAS" clause at:
a. Page 1, line 8;
b. Page 2, line 13;
c. Page 2, line 19;
d. Page 2, line 25;
e. Page 2, line 28;
f. Page 2, line 31;
g. Page 3, line 3;
h. Page 3, line 5;
i. Page 3, line 12;
MR. GIALOPSOS said the language aligns with presentations made
by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) earlier in the
legislative session with respect to federal overreach, relating
not only to R.S. 2477s, but also to the state compact. He
explained that these changes give the resolution more
substantive language that pertains to access, rights-of-way, and
easements that affect residents of this state at the local level
and at the statewide level. He referred to concerns members
raised earlier with respect to the deluge of information and how
to vet exigent concerns and legitimate concerns. The sponsor,
in conjunction with the governor's office, decided what is
pressing about R.S. 2477, with respect to federal overreach, is
that the sources of knowledge are dying out. He explained that
in order to validate the claims, individuals must be able to
verify they used specific trails for subsistence or commercial
use predating statehood. However, the state does not have the
biological advantage at this point so it must use technological
advantages. Therefore to be able to form a cohesive
clearinghouse at a time when state resources need to be
consolidated is important from an internal component. Still,
the second part of the "whereas" clause, is that it is a stated
policy under the current administration that the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) will contest "every" R.S. 2477 application as
an institutional policy. He clarified that this is not a
judgment call on whether it is a valid position on the part of
the administration, but is simply a statement of fact. He said
whereas previous administrations had more of a collaborative
working environment between states with R.S. 2477 applications
and the BLM, "this particular" [administration] is taking a
harder stance. Thus, he emphasized the importance of the need
to "incorporate this into a body" that can take action now.
8:44:14 AM
MR. GIALOPSOS referred additional changes were to the "RESOLVED"
clause. New clauses were added, as follows:
a. Page 3, line 26;
b. Page 3, line 31;
c. Page 4, line 4;
d. Page 4, line 11;
e. Page 4, line 14;
f. Page 4, line 19;
MR. GIALOPSOS said two factors were used. First, language was
utilized from HB 83, which recognizes that the legislative and
administrative branches of state government need to have ways to
share information in a direct way that doesn't impede the
process. He emphasized the importance to hear from all parties
and receive all perspectives to help ensure that there are not
any unintended consequences. This language was meant to ensure
that a committee was not overreaching, but at same time using
all the resources at its disposal and institutional capacity
available to do so. Finally, the language addresses the need
for a forum that the public can participate in, which was a
concern raised by Representative Kreiss-Tomkins at the last
hearing on the resource. He characterized this as being a means
by which residents of, for example, Hoonah, Tok, or Kotzebue,
can directly impact the process of how an R.S. 2477 right-of-way
village access is determined. This could provide a good balance
between the various stakeholders since they want their local
input valued while maintaining the balance between the national
and state level. Mr. Gialopsos relayed that after collaborating
with the governor's office and the committee, the sponsor
believes the changes have substantially improved HCR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she has no ownership on this but
would like it to be the best it can be.
8:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he is very excited about the
resolution. He stated the reason he would like to offer an
amendment is to acknowledged the number of people who are
working on this issue in the administration and the private
sector, for example, the Alaska Outdoor Council, who is
concerned about subsistence issues; or the Alaska Health
Commission, which has been working on the effects of the
Affordable Care Act (ACA). He turned to the "be it resolved"
section, which asks the governor to put together a working group
to act as a clearinghouse.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she supports Conceptual Amendment 1.
8:50:46 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HCR 3.
8:51:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
labeled 28-LS0440\U.N, Keller, 03/18/2013, which read [original
punctuation provided, with handwritten changes]:
Whereas, the legislature recognizes the numerous
private sector Alaskans who are being forced to
respond to federal overreach in the context of
business, industry, subsistence, and recreation; and
Whereas, the legislature recognizes the various public
sector entities engaged in responding to federal
overreach, including but not limited to; CACFA, PAAD,
and the ANILCA team in DNR, litigators in the
Department of Law, the Alaska Health Commission in
HSS, and
Page 3, Line 10 insert
(1) request the Governor to use existing resources to
form a working group to formulate recommendations for
the makeup, role, name, and organizational location of
a permanent State sovereignty preservation authority
to increase the effectiveness of the numerous semi-
independent efforts, to coordinate with the
legislature, to enhance information exchange and
collaborative responses to federal overreach. This
working group should consist of leaders in the before-
mentioned private and public sectors already engaged,
two legislators appointed by the speaker of the House
and the President of the Senate. This working group
should be tasked with providing recommendations that
can be implemented in the next gubernatorial budget
proposal for consideration in the 2014 legislative
session.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that the handwritten change to
Conceptual Amendment 1 was in the label: "U.A" was crossed out
and replaced with "U.N" to align the proposed amendment with
Version N. He further noted that he had used acronyms within
Conceptual Amendment 1, and said he expected the Legislative
Legal and Research Services drafters to clean up the language.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON objected for the purpose of discussion.
He noted that Conceptual Amendment 1 proposes language to be
inserted at page 3, line 10, of a previous version of HCR 3, and
he asked where the language would be inserted in HCR 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that he was unsure of where the
bill drafter would insert the language.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked whether the intent is to have the
governor form a working group to take the place of the proposed
legislative Joint Committee on Access and Federal Overreach.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered no. He said HCR 3 proposes the
formation of a standing committee and also requests that the
governor respond with an administrative clearinghouse. He
clarified that the two entities would not be in competition.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON surmised that the two legislators
appointed to the working group proposed under Conceptual
Amendment 1 would likely serve on the proposed Joint Committee
on Access and Federal Overreach.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER replied that is not a preconceived plan.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked how the governor's working group
and the joint committee would effectively communicate if there
were no shared members.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER explained that he didn't spell that out
because he presumed the normal action between the legislature
and the executive branch, wherein the legislature would make
rules and the administration would create an office with
regulations [related to those rules].
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON encouraged an amendment to Conceptual
Amendment 1 to insist that the working group legislators also
serve on the proposed Joint Committee on Access and Federal
Overreach. He expressed concern that the legislature has no
ability to predict the future. He cautioned against assuming
effective communication would occur, because the past has shown
that without direct communication, the legislature or the
administration can sometimes "pencil whip procedures without
true evaluation." He said he hopes the members on the proposed
Joint Committee on Access and Federal Overreach would
passionately serve as watchdogs, whereas someone on the
executive side may act without any passion, depending on who may
be serving as the governor at the time.
8:56:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER remarked that he does not resist the
proposed amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1. He said that as
chair of the Citizens Advisory Council of Federal Areas (CACFA),
he has worked closely with the administration and know "they
have passion." He said that his intent by including members of
both houses was to ensure that the passion and engagement is
present since he is interested in a collaborative effort.
Notwithstanding that, he said he understood Representative
Isaacson's intent.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered her belief that the legislature
cannot tell the governor how to make up a committee, but could
just ask that he/she do so. She suggested that the committee be
as broad as possible. She further suggested the resolution's
vague language would allow the governor the latitude to decide
who would serve in this high-level working group; perhaps the
governor would decide the members should be the Speaker of the
House and the Senate President. She surmised that legislators
are pretty passionate about federal overreach, but said she
feels uncomfortable "spelling out" who the governor's selections
would be.
8:59:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said it occurred to him that he did not
spell out the purpose of the working group, which would be to
get ahead of the budget cycle for next fall. He expressed his
hope that this working group would make recommendations to the
governor with respect to the administration's efforts, and that
any legislation required would be put in place by 2014, which
would make this a very short-lived, interim working group. He
advised members that he has worked with the following people on
HCR 3: Randy Ruaro, the deputy chief of staff for Governor Sean
Parnell; the executive director of CACFA; and Ed Fogels of the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
9:01:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said that he would no longer consider an
Amendment to Conceptual Amendment 1. He said he understood how
the components of the working group would work with respect to
the next budget cycle.
9:02:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES said she liked the bill and Conceptual
Amendment 1. She asked for clarification on CACFA and whether
it would be appropriate for the working group to provide
recommendations to the proposed Joint Committee on Access and
Federal Overreach.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he had been thinking that the
standing committee would not exist unless the proposed
concurrent resolution passes. He remarked that the possibility
certainly exists that the resolution may have an impact even if
it doesn't pass, simply because it will raise the concepts. He
stated his assumption, with respect to HCR 3, that the
information would go through the normal budget process and the
communications would be worked out.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES responded that other than for a fiscal
matter, about which the two groups would communicate in the
normal process, she was unsure how the entities would
communicate.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER, in response to Representative Hughes,
again referred to the Citizens Advisory Commission on Federal
Areas (CACFA). He explained that CACFA meets three or four
times a year and tracks various federal issues and entities in
the state. He mentioned that 60 percent of Alaska's land is
federal land. Additionally, what CACFA does is work to ensure
that Alaska's rights are adhered to, in part, by checking the
federal register and monitor instances in which Alaska's rights
of access are imposed upon. He said it happens regularly,
sometimes blatantly. Furthermore, CACFA follows the attorney
general's actions on federal legislation. Representative Keller
opined that there is more to be done than can be performed by
one group. He said the executive director estimated 14,000
pages of compendiums. He remarked that many personnel are
acting in good faith, but they simply don't know how unique
Alaska's rights are. For example, Alaska has hunting and
fishing rights on federal land granted under Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
9:10:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES surmised that Alaska is more assertive
than many other states. She asked whether Alaska is "ahead of
the game" or if there is something else it could be doing.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered that Utah ahead of Alaska,
because it is doing wonderful things, especially in the area of
R.S. 2477s. He said Alaska is strong, since many people are
concerned, but it lacks the collective effort, which he
explained is why he brought forth HCR 3.
9:11:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT pointed out that some of the
organizations previously mentioned have been collaborating on
not only what will help Alaska, but also what will help other
states get what they need. She reported that the U.S. Senate
"Western States Coalition" and the [U.S.] House Energy Action
Team also assist, but said the resolution would provide an
entity that can recognize those groups, which could give the
legislature the power to get information. She envisioned the
proposed joint committee would meet regularly to conduct
overviews on many topics, including land use issues.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON removed his objection to Conceptual
Amendment 1.
9:13:20 AM
CHAIR LYNN, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HCR 3.
CHAIR LYNN announced that Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:13:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HCR 3, Version 29-LS0440\N, Gardner,
3/27/13, as amended, out of committee. There being no
objection, CSHCR 3(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
The committee took a brief at-ease.
HB 59-MISSING VULNERABLE ADULT RESPONSE PLAN
9:14:10 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the last order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 59, "An Act relating to missing vulnerable adult prompt
response and notification plans."
[Before the committee was the CSHB 59(MLV).]
9:16:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 59, Version 28-LS0260\Y, Strasbaugh,
3/21/13, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version Y
was before the committee.
9:16:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MAX GRUENBERG, Alaska State Legislature, as
sponsor of HB 59, referred to a memorandum dated March 26, 2013,
that mentions the single change on page 2, lines 22-29, which
reinserts original bill language regarding immunity. He
explained there was a misunderstanding where he thought the
administration wanted to delete the immunity language, so the
House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs took
it out. In response to a question, he identified Mike O'Hare as
the Deputy Director of the Division of Homeland
Security/Emergency Management, Department of Military and
Veterans Affairs (DMVA), and said Mr. O'Hare is involved since
the DMVA would set up this network.
[Public testimony, which was closed on 3/21/13, was reopened.]
9:19:19 AM
RODNEY DIAL, Lt.; Deputy Commander, A Detachment, Alaska State
Troopers, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety (DPS), said the department is supportive of the changes
and having immunity back into the bill.
9:19:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he thought everyone would support the
"Silver Alert System." He offered his belief that this would be
the first time the legislature would create a search and rescue
plan for a particular group of people. He asked whether the
department has any concern about that the proposed legislation
may generate other groups seeking specific search and rescue
plans.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that the department envisions that [HB
59] would create a plan that would provide notifications to the
media via an e-mail, phone, or facsimile ("fax") system and
potentially use the regional dispatch centers to receive the
information. He stated he does not believe the number of
notifications that HB 59 would generate would impact the
department in a significant manner. He concluded by stating
that the department really does not have any concerns with the
proposed legislation.
9:20:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked Mr. O'Hare how many times "Silver
Alerts" would have been activated in last five years if this
bill had been passed.
8:21:39 AM
MIKE O'HARE, Deputy Director, Division of Homeland Security/
Emergency Management, Department of Military and Veterans
Affairs (DMVA), answered there are not many instances where this
would be in play. He deferred to Lieutenant Dial for further
comment.
LIEUTENANT DIAL guessed that it would probably be six or fewer
"Silver Alerts" per year, in terms of the DPS; however, it would
be hard for him to comment on municipalities. He said that many
of these issues are resolved fairly quickly, so part of the
discussion would consider the timeframe. For example, often
times AST can patrol an area and within a few minutes resolve
the matter by locating the missing person. He surmised about a
dozen cases in total if municipalities were included.
9:23:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether the six instances previously
mentioned were ones that would require statewide notification.
LIEUTENANT DIAL answered that DPS would envision that it would
be local notification rather than statewide notification.
9:23:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referred to the provisions regarding
indemnity. He asked for any instance in which AST would not
consider it necessary to participate in a missing vulnerable
adult prompt response and notification plan.
LIEUTENANT DIAL said that part of the discussion would require
the department to be mindful of situations where someone is
abusing the plan, such as a domestic situation where a person
has left intentionally and the partner reports him/her missing.
He said the department would have concerns regarding liability
in such situations.
9:25:27 AM
CHAIR LYNN recalled one of the concerns voiced at last hearing
was to determine what the definition of missing person is.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said he appreciates the latitude that
would be given the department. He offered his belief that it is
important that language is in the bill so the department does
not get sued.
9:26:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his belief that members may
have been thinking that the [Alaska Tort Claims Act] in Title 9,
which generally covers when you can sue the state for tort,
would cover this. He agreed it would in certain cases, if it is
a discretionary act; however, someone could argue it is not
discretionary. He supported reinserting the immunity language,
because he said people must act quickly and must have the
discretion to do so.
9:27:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT referred to the definition of "vulnerable
adult", [on page 3, lines 5-7, of Version Y], which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
(d) In this section, "vulnerable adult" means a
person 18 years of age or older who, because of
physical or mental impairment, is unable to meet the
person's own needs or to seek help without assistance.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT offered her understanding that "that
would take out the boyfriend/girlfriend kind of situation,
because if they are not ... physically or mentally impaired,
then they wouldn't be considered under the Silver Alert
[System]." She asked if that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT posited that would remove concern about
malicious calls.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "That's the intent."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT mentioned work done "earlier this year,"
and suggested, "So, we could put 'mentally' or 'intellectually
disabled'."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded, "Of course; your bill."
9:28:34 AM
CHAIR LYNN reclosed public testimony on HB 59.
9:28:41 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT suggested changing the description of
vulnerable adult to match the language now in statute on mental
disability.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1, on
[page 3], line 6, to change "mental impairment" to
"intellectually and developmentally disabled". There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted.
9:30:05 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 59, Version 28-LS0260\Y, Strasbaugh,
3/21/13, as amended, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
no objection, CSHB 59(STA) was reported out of the House State
Affairs Standing Committee.
9:30:33 AM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
State Affairs Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 9:30
a.m.