Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/02/2017 08:00 AM House COMMUNITY & REGIONAL 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 | |
| HB47 | |
| HB4 | |
| HJR10 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HJR 10 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 47 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 10-LIMIT DECLARATION OF NATL. MONUMENTS
8:37:06 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 10, Urging the United States
Congress to pass the Improved National Monument Designation
Process Act.
8:37:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER, as prime sponsor, presented HJR 10. He
stated that the proposed joint resolution would express the
Alaska State Legislature's support for Senate Bill 33, sponsored
United States Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan and
called the "Improved National Monument Designation Process Act."
The Act would amend the Antiquities Act to require the President
of the United States to obtain congressional approval, certify
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), and receive notice that the legislature [of the state
that would be affected] has enacted legislation approving the
designation of any new monument. Currently the President can
declare national monuments without these checks and balances and
has done so repeatedly in past history. He stated that passage
of Senate Bill 33 would ensure participation of the American
public, Congress, and local governments. He urged passage of
HJR 10.
8:40:20 AM
REPRESENTAIVE SADDLER expressed appreciation for HJR 10. He
asked the sponsor if he had come across any evidence that
previous administrations had considered the standard of ["the
smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of
the objects to be protected"]. He opined that there has been a
broad interpretation of the authority granted under the
Antiquities Act.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred to his staff.
8:41:08 AM
DARRELL BREESE, Staff, Representative George Rauscher, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Rauscher, prime
sponsor of HJR 10, stated that there has been no interpretation
of what "the smallest area" is. He said the most recent [past]
administration added 440,000 square miles to a monument on the
Atoll Islands, which are northwest of the Hawaiian Islands. He
questioned whether that was the smallest possible area.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the bill sponsor was aware of
the response of other states to U.S. Senate Bill 33 -
particularly the Western states.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER deferred again to his staff.
8:42:21 AM
MR. BREESE pointed to a press release from U.S. Senator Lisa
Murkowski's office included in the committee packet and noted
that 27 U.S. Senators had signed on in support of U.S. Senate
Bill 33, and they are listed as being from the following states:
Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, West Virginia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Idaho, Texas, Arizona, Utah, Iowa, Nevada,
Wisconsin, Kansas, South Dakota, Florida, Alabama, and North
Carolina.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER noted that on pages 5 and 6 of the
aforementioned press release, it reads that President Obama had
designated 555 million acres - an area five times the size of
California - as onshore national monuments, and that is well in
excess of twice the entire acreage designated by all previous
Presidents who had access to [the Antiquities Act]. He
concluded, "So, obviously I'm going to support this."
8:43:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked the bill sponsor if U.S. Senate
Bill 33 requires every state to provide a resolution in support.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER offered his understanding that the
answer is no; however, he deferred to his staff for further
comment.
8:44:07 AM
MR. BREESE said U.S. Senate Bill 33 does not require a
resolution of support, but does call for congressional approval
and approval from the state that would be affected. If a
President wanted to designate a monument in Alaska, for example,
under U.S. Senate Bill 33, he/she would have to get a letter
from the governor of Alaska stating that the Alaska State
Legislature approves the designation. If a monument was being
proposed in a marine environment, the President would need the
approval of all states within 100 miles of the marine area.
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked for confirmation that HJR 10 was
not required.
MR. BREESE confirmed that is correct. He said HJR 10 is
basically a letter of support for U.S. Senate Bill 33. In
response to a follow-up question, he said he was not aware of
any other states providing similar resolutions; however, he said
he would investigate and get back to Representative Drummond
with an answer.
8:45:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that the intent of HJR 10 was
not to be an approval of "whatever designation comes up," but
rather to be a simple expression of the legislature's support
for future legislatures to be able "to have their say on future
designations."
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER confirmed that is correct.
8:46:29 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH asked if the sponsor considered the requirement
under U.S. Senate Bill 33 that the governor of each state
deliver a letter reflecting his/her state's legislative approval
as a "bug" or a "feature."
MR. BREESE answered, "You could look at it as a bug." He said
he doesn't know if the governor would have a problem saying the
legislature "approved this."
8:48:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what the impact of designations of
National Monuments in Alaska has been.
8:48:42 AM
ED FOGELS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources
(DNR), offered his understanding that to date there have been
four national monuments created in Alaska: [Admiralty Island
National Monument, Aniakchak National Monument & Preserve, Cape
Krusenstern National Monument, and Misty Fiords National
Monument Wilderness]. He said all four were designated by
President Jimmy Carter by proclamation. He stated that once an
area has been designated as a national monument, it has an extra
layer of protection where uses are further limited in those
areas.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER indicated that he was looking at a list of 11
areas in Alaska and questioned why Mr. Fogels had listed only
four.
MR. FOGELS explained he had named only those areas designated as
national monuments. He suggested state archeologist, Judy
Bittner, could offer further details regarding the specific
designations that exist under the Antiquities Act. He stated
that the current [Alaska] administration supports HJR 10. He
continued:
Fundamentally our position is that the designation of
any additional national monuments in Alaska is counter
to the minimal "no-more" clauses of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act and therefore
should ultimately be authorized by the U.S. Congress
with the input of the State of Alaska.
8:51:08 AM
MR. BREESE explained to Co-Chair Fansler that currently there
are four national monuments in Alaska. He said there is a list
in the committee packet of the national monuments that have been
declared under the Antiquities Act. A majority of those names
on the list were subsequently made into National Parks by
Congress. In response to a follow-up question from
Representative Fansler, he offered his understanding that it
takes Congress to make a National Park, followed by the approval
of the President.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said a national monument has been clearly
defined as something different from a National Park, and he
suggested that "you're diluting what a national monument is
through this resolution" by "making it follow the exact same
path that a National Park would follow."
MR. BREESE responded that he does not believe that to be the
case. He said, "What you're doing is you're extending the
public process and ... limiting the powers that the Presidents
... [have]." He said the Antiquities Act was an important Act
to pass at the time, because many Native and tribal sites were
being raided by people "looking to make a quick buck stealing
some of the artifacts," for example. The Act gave the President
the ability to act quickly to protect and preserve national
monuments. He said that was 111 years ago, and there are
improvements and protections in place that he indicated has
resulted in less prevalence in the raiding of Native sites by
"grave robbers." Although it still happens, he opined the need
for such national declarations is not as it was before, and the
process that can be followed through to Congress is "a better
public process" involving more than just the President saying,
"I think my backyard should be a national monument." He said
that happened in Wyoming, when Franklin Roosevelt was offered
land by John D. Rockefeller back in the 1940s; Congress denied
making it part of the Grand Teton National Park, so President
Roosevelt declared it a national monument. Following that,
Congress passed a law requiring any further declarations of
national monuments in Wyoming be approved by Congress.
MR. BREESE stated that in the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), Congress added the "no-more clause"
for Alaska that required congressional approval for any further
national monuments to be designated in the state. Supporting
[U.S. Senate Bill 33] would extend that to the other states. He
emphasized, "We're not speaking in favor or opposed to any
specific monument or creating a monument, just ... [in favor of
having] a fair public process and having the checks and balances
that this country was founded on."
8:55:29 AM
CO-CHAIR FANSLER said [the theft of Native American artifacts]
still occurs, and "this was a mechanism to prevent that." He
asked if there is a better way to tailor "this" rather than
having to work through Congress, a state, and the President. He
said typically the U.S. does not have a unified President and
Congress, which he indicated could result in "a great problem
with grave robbery if we did need to move with speed."
MR. BREESE suggested that would be a question to take up with
Congress. He said the bill sponsor is putting forth a joint
resolution that would express the Alaska State Legislature's
support of the provisions in U.S. Senate Bill 33.
CO-CHAIR FANSLER remarked that Congress does not listen to him.
8:56:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE asked Mr. Fogel if the concern was that
the designation of lands as national monuments could result in
the stifling of development.
8:57:40 AM
MR. FOGEL answered yes. He said ANILCA already set aside "a
huge swath of Alaska for conservation" and "the deal was cut
that that should be it." Currently a President can designate
additional monuments in Alaska without the blessing of Congress,
and that could prevent development on federal lands in Alaska
someday.
8:58:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER, in response to the concerns expressed by
Co-Chair Fansler, said a state legislature and chief executive
can quickly pass legislation when there is a consensus and need
for it. He said he thinks one of the differences between the
time in which the Antiquities Act was passed and today is that
there now exists the National Park Service and Alaska has
resources such as a state archeologist and others that are
dedicated to the task of "identifying, inventorying, and
advocating for protection of antiquities"; therefore, the need
for a President to take action has been obviated by the state's
current ability "to identify these antiquities." He opined that
it is clear that federal authorities are overreaching their
ability, and having the consensus and review of states that
would be affected by the designation of a national monument is
entirely appropriate. He said the question of federal
designation of land and assertion of protection is a much
broader issue than the Antiquities Act. He said authorities can
go through the formal process of creating national parks,
forests, and protections, which as ANILCA. Further, he said
there have been creations of "quasi-legitimate areas of
ecological concern" and "marine areas of climate concern." He
stated there can be assertions that an area needs to be
considered for evaluation for wilderness, which can create
decades of de facto wilderness management. He said he thinks
HJR 10 and the U.S. Senate Bill 33, which it seeks to support,
is "an appropriate and narrow limitation of ... a runaway power
that's been, to my opinion, abused by the federal
administration."
9:00:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER indicated he thinks it is important for
Congress to see support from other states. He said obviously
Alaska has seen already the need for legislation such as U.S.
Senate Bill 33, because of "the no-more Act." He stated his
belief that the intent of the U.S. Senators in introducing their
bill is to help all the states be able to control what they
would like to see happen.
9:02:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND asked to hear from state's historic
preservation officer, Judy Bittner, regarding her history in the
state and her perspective on the need of the proposed joint
resolution and the action of the U.S. Senate.
9:02:44 AM
JUDY BITTNER, Chief/State Historical Preservation Officer,
Office of History & Archaeology Alaska Historical Commission,
Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), stated that within Alaska there are about 50
historic landmarks that have been designated under the
Antiquities Act. She deferred to Mr. Fogel to answer any
questions regarding HJR 10 and U.S. Senate Bill 33.
9:03:58 AM
MR. FOGELS reiterated that the current administration [of the
State of Alaska] supports HJR 10. He said ANILCA has several
"no-more" clauses, and he reemphasized that the designation by
the President of more monuments is counter to that and "should
ultimately be blessed by Congress with the state's input."
9:05:14 AM
CO-CHAIR PARISH, after ascertaining that there was no one else
who wished to testify, closed public testimony on HJR 10.
CO-CHAIR PARISH announced that HJR 10 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB004 ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sponsor Statement ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Sectional Analysis ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Fiscal Note DMVA-CO 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HB004 Explanation of Changes ver D 2.21.17.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HB 4 |
| HJR 10 sponsor statement.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Antiquities Act 1906.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Supporting Document Congressional Research Antiquities Act.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 Support - RDC.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |
| HJR 10 responses to Questions 3-2-2017.pdf |
HCRA 3/2/2017 8:00:00 AM |
HJR 10 |