Legislature(2015 - 2016)BUTROVICH 205
03/17/2015 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR15|| SCR4 | |
| SB42 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 42 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SJR 15 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
March 17, 2015
9:01 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Bill Stoltze, Chair
Senator John Coghill, Vice Chair
Senator Charlie Huggins
Senator Bill Wielechowski
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lesil McGuire
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15
Making application to the United States Congress to call a
convention of the states to propose a countermand amendment to
the Constitution of the United States as provided under art. V,
Constitution of the United States; and urging the legislatures
of the other 49 states to make the same application.
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4
Relating to the duties of delegates selected by the legislature
to attend a convention of the states called under art. V,
Constitution of the United States, to consider a countermand
amendment to the Constitution of the United States; establishing
as a joint committee of the legislature the Delegate Credential
Committee and relating to the duties of the committee; providing
for an oath for delegates and alternates to a countermand
amendment convention; providing for a chair and assistant chair
of the state's countermand amendment delegation; providing for
the duties of the chair and assistant chair; providing
instructions for the selection of a convention president; and
providing specific language for the countermand amendment on
which the state's convention delegates are authorized by the
legislature to vote to approve.
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 42
"An Act providing priority to personal use fisheries when
fishing restrictions are implemented to achieve a management
goal."
- MOVED SB 42 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 15
SHORT TITLE: CALL FOR US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STOLTZE
02/13/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/15 (S) STA, JUD
03/17/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SCR 4
SHORT TITLE: US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION DELEGATES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STOLTZE
02/13/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/13/15 (S) STA, JUD, FIN
03/17/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 42
SHORT TITLE: PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) STOLTZE
02/04/15 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/04/15 (S) STA, RES
03/10/15 (S) STA AT 8:30 AM BUTROVICH 205
03/10/15 (S) Heard & Held
03/10/15 (S) MINUTE(STA)
03/17/15 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
STUART KRUEGER, Staff
Representative Shelly Hughes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 15 and SCR 4, on behalf of
Representative Hughes, sponsor of HJR 14 and HCR 4, House
companion legislation.
MIKE COONS, National and State Director
Citizen Initiatives
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided comments during discussion of
SJR 15 and SCR 4.
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself
Kasilof, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SB 42.
RICHARD BISHOP, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SB 42.
GARY STEVENS, Member
Board of Directors
Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC)
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 42.
AL BARRETTE, representing himself
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 42.
TOM BROOKOVER, Acting Director
Division of Sport Fish
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Responded to questions during discussion of
SB 42.
ACTION NARRATIVE
9:01:13 AM
CHAIR BILL STOLTZE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators Huggins, Coghill, and Chair Stoltze.
SJR 15-CALL FOR US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION
SCR 4-US COUNTERMAND CONVENTION DELEGATES
9:01:34 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE [announced that the first order of business would
be a hearing on both SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 15, Making
application to the United States Congress to call a convention
of the states to propose a countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as provided under art. V,
Constitution of the United States; and urging the legislatures
of the other 49 states to make the same application; and SENATE
CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 4, Relating to the duties of delegates
selected by the legislature to attend a convention of the states
called under art. V, Constitution of the United States, to
consider a countermand amendment to the Constitution of the
United States; establishing as a joint committee of the
legislature the Delegate Credential Committee and relating to
the duties of the committee; providing for an oath for delegates
and alternates to a countermand amendment convention; providing
for a chair and assistant chair of the state's countermand
amendment delegation; providing for the duties of the chair and
assistant chair; providing instructions for the selection of a
convention president; and providing specific language for the
countermand amendment on which the state's convention delegates
are authorized by the legislature to vote to approve].
At ease from 9:02 a.m. to 9:04 a.m.
9:04:31 AM
STUART KRUEGER, Staff, Representative Shelly Hughes, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Hughes, sponsor
of HJR 14 and HCR 4, House companion legislation, relayed that
SJR 15 and SCR 4 would together address an application by the
State of Alaska to pursue a constitutional convention under
powers granted by Article V of the Constitution of the United
States. Under the proposed resolutions, however, the proposed
constitutional convention is supposed to be limited to just one
subject, that being what he referred to as a "countermand
amendment" as outlined in SCR 4. He offered his understanding
that such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution would provide
the states with "veto power" over federal law.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI joined the committee meeting.
MR. KRUEGER, referring to SCR 4, paraphrased the language on
page 11, line 14, through page 12, line 16, which read:
"Section 1. The Article restores State sovereignty in
our Constitutional Republic by providing State
Legislatures Countermand authority.
"Section 2. State Legislatures in the several States
shall have the authority to Countermand and rescind
any Congressional Statute, Judicial decision,
Executive Order, Treaty, government agency's
regulatory ruling, or any other government or non-
government mandate (including excessive spending and
credit) imposed on them when in the opinion of 60
percent of State Legislatures the law or ruling
adversely affects their States' interest. When the
Countermand threshold has been reached, the law or
ruling shall be immediately and automatically
nullified and repealed. This Countermand authority
shall also apply to existing laws and rulings.
"Section 3. From the time the initial Countermand is
issued by a State Legislature, the other Legislatures
shall have 18 months to complete the Countermand
process. If the Countermand process is not completed
in 18 months, then the law or ruling that is being
challenged shall remain enforceable.
"Section 4. Each State Legislature shall complete
their Countermand affidavit and deliver a certified
copy to the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court, the Leader of the United States Senate, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President
of the United States, and when applicable the
Government Agency or Body that is being challenged.
"Section 5. Congress shall have the power to enforce
this Article by appropriate legislation.
"Section 6. Individual States shall have authority to
prosecute violators of this Article under State laws
in the absence of Federal prosecution after 90 days
from the date of the alleged violation. Multiple
prosecutions, by multiple States, for the same alleged
crime are prohibited.
"Section 7. The Article shall be immediately part of
the United States Constitution upon ratification by
three quarters of the State Legislatures in the
several States.
"Section 8. The provisions of this Article are
enforceable within the United States, which shall
include the Several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands and the territories and
possessions of the United States.";
MR. KRUEGER indicated that the concepts embodied in the proposed
resolutions were brought forth by Mike Coons and an organization
called Citizen Initiatives, and offered his belief that the
resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the Constitution
of the United States could be viewed as a nonpartisan issue. In
response to a question, he indicated that [if the resolutions
are passed, and a constitutional convention addressing the
proposed countermand amendment is convened, and ratification of
the proposed change to the Constitution of the United States
occurs, then] any state in disagreement with a federal law could
seek repeal/nullification of that law through a specific
process.
9:13:06 AM
MIKE COONS, National and State Director, Citizen Initiatives,
opined that a countermand amendment to the Constitution of the
United States is sorely needed, indicated that an application to
Congress to call a constitutional convention must still be made,
and mentioned that the resolutions' proposed constitutional
convention is defined in one of the resolutions. He, too, noted
that the resolutions' proposed constitutional convention is
supposed to be limited to just the subject of a countermand
amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Referring
to what he termed a "credentials committee," he offered his
understanding that it would be appointed by the State of Alaska,
and would control the delegates, including picking them,
overseeing them, and responding to their questions.
MR. COONS, in response to a request, offered a hypothetical
example involving state and federal lands, and predicted that
with ratification of a countermand amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, resolutions passed by the states would
then have the force of law. In response to questions involving
other hypothetical examples, he, too, offered his understanding
that [if the resolutions are passed, and a constitutional
convention addressing the proposed countermand amendment is
convened, and ratification of the proposed change to the
Constitution of the United States occurs, then] states in
disagreement with a federal law could seek repeal/nullification
of that law.
SENATOR COGHILL, mentioning "federal overreach," characterized
the resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States as a tool to be used by states
that disapprove of federal law, and expressed support.
SENATOR HUGGINS predicted that should the resolutions' proposed
countermand amendment to the Constitution of the United States
be ratified, it would not be used in his lifetime.
SENATOR WIELECHOWSKI cautioned against allowing a majority of
the states to overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions, venturing
that had the resolutions' proposed countermand amendment to the
Constitution of the United States been ratified in the past, a
majority of the states could have gotten together to overturn
the significant civil-rights decisions that have been made -
decisions such as ending segregation, for example.
[SCR 4 and SJR 15 were held in committee.]
At ease from 9:43 a.m. to 9:35 a.m.
SB 42-PERSONAL USE FISHING PRIORITY
9:35:23 AM
CHAIR STOLTZE announced that the final order of business would
be SENATE BILL NO. 42, "An Act providing priority to personal
use fisheries when fishing restrictions are implemented to
achieve a management goal."
CHAIR STOLTZE, sponsor, explained that under SB 42, in times of
shortages, personal use fisheries would be given a priority
after subsistence use fisheries, and that the Board of Fisheries
would make allocation determinations.
9:37:47 AM
GEORGE PIERCE, representing himself, said he opposes SB 42, and
used the term, "overreach" to describe the Board of Fisheries.
He offered his beliefs that so-called "personal use fisheries"
have already been ruled unconstitutional by the Alaska Supreme
Court, and that by providing for such fisheries, the Alaska
State Legislature and the Board of Fisheries are therefore
breaking the law.
9:42:02 AM
RICHARD BISHOP, representing himself, testified in favor of SB
42. He offered his understanding that Alaska's personal use
fishery is the largest Alaska-resident fishery in the state and
constitutes an important source of wild foods for various
peoples in the state, particularly those with limited income.
Noting that Article I, Section 23, of the Alaska State
Constitution specifically says that the Alaska State
Constitution does not prohibit the State from granting
preferences, on the basis of Alaska residence, to residents of
the State over non-residents, he offered his understanding that
personal use fisheries are an instance where such a preference
has been granted. In conclusion, he ventured that SB 42 would
ensure that the people who want access to Alaska's personal use
fisheries can continue to have access by being given a
preference.
9:45:37 AM
GARY STEVENS, Member, Board of Directors, Alaska Outdoor Council
(AOC), said he is in support of SB 42 because he is of the
opinion that Alaska's personal use fisheries are really just
subsistence use fisheries for Alaska residents that live in what
he termed, "non-subsistence areas"; personal use fisheries
should therefore be given the same priority as subsistence use
fisheries.
9:46:33 AM
AL BARRETTE, representing himself, said he is in support of SB
42, and considers it to be a long time coming. Noting that he
is an "Interior guide" and uses what he called "the Chitna dip
netery," and remarking that he would like to be able to catch
more fish than he is currently allotted, he ventured that SB 42
would provide statutory guidance to the Board of Fisheries for
prioritizing fisheries other than subsistence use fisheries. He
opined that personal use fisheries are really just subsistence
use fisheries occurring in urban areas of Alaska.
CHAIR STOLTZE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on SB 42.
9:51:26 AM
TOM BROOKOVER, Acting Director, Division of Sport Fish,
Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), in response to questions,
confirmed that the ADF&G has not taken a position on SB 42, and
explained that personal use fisheries are regulated by the Board
of Fisheries. He then paraphrased portions of 5 AAC 77.001(a),
which read:
5 AAC 77.001. Intent and application of this chapter
(a) The Board of Fisheries finds that
(1) before the enactment of the state's
subsistence priority law in ch. 151, SLA 1978, an
individual could fulfill that individual's personal
use needs for fish under subsistence fishing
regulations;
(2) the state's subsistence priority law changed
the definition of subsistence in a manner that now
precludes some individuals from participating in
customary and traditional subsistence fisheries and
efficiently harvesting fish for their personal use;
(3) there presently are areas of the state with
harvestable surpluses of fish in excess of both
spawning escapement needs and present levels of
subsistence, commercial and sport uses; and
(4) it is necessary to establish a fishery
classified as "personal use" because
(A) since the sale of fish is not
appropriate or permissible, this fishery cannot be
classified as commercial;
(B) since the use is not a customary and
traditional use, this fishery cannot be classified as
subsistence; and
(C) since the gear for this fishery is often
different from that historically associated with sport
fishing, this fishery should not be classified as a
sport fishery, to prevent confusion among the public.
MR. BROOKOVER, offering his understanding that 5 AAC 77.001
became effective in 1982, noted that the Board of Fisheries
considers certain criteria for the allocation of resources
between the personal use, sport use, and commercial use
fisheries. In response to further questions, he provided some
allocation statistics for some personal use fisheries in some
locations during some times.
CHAIR STOLTZE mentioned that the ADF&G has submitted a zero
fiscal note for SB 42.
SENATOR COGHILL offered his belief that SB 42's proposed change
would be allowed under the Alaska State Constitution, and
characterized it as a good approach.
10:06:44 AM
SENATOR HUGGINS moved to report SB 42 out of committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. There
being no objection, SB 42 was moved from the Senate State
Affairs Standing Committee.
10:07:35 AM
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Chair Stoltze adjourned the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee at 10:07 a.m.