Legislature(2011 - 2012)CAPITOL 106
02/21/2012 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB304 | |
| HB254 | |
| HJR34 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 304 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 34 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 254 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 34-COAST GUARD ICEBREAKERS & ARCTIC BASE
8:53:05 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 34, Urging the United States Congress to
fund all the facilities and vessels necessary for the United
States Coast Guard to fulfill its Arctic missions, including
icebreakers and an Arctic Coast Guard base.
[Before the committee was CSHJR 34(MLV).]
8:53:21 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, which read as
follows:
Page 4, lines 26 - 28:
Delete "icebreakers, including charging for
icebreaker escorts, the option to lease rather than
own the icebreakers needed in the Arctic, and selling
our aging icebreakers to the private sector for
refurbishment"
Insert "the refurbishment of our current polar
class icebreakers, the acquisition of new icebreakers,
and the long-term maintenance funding of the United
States Coast Guard icebreaker fleet and Arctic
facilities"
8:53:47 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected [for the purpose of
discussion].
8:53:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BOB HERRON, Alaska State Legislature, presented
HJR 34 as sponsor. He stated his support of Amendment 1, which
he said is a result of testimony heard in the previous committee
of referral. He explained that "when you lease, you don't have
full control over icebreakers at all times," which he said could
be important in emergency situations. He said charging for
icebreaker escorts is illegal in international waters, where
freedom of navigation is guaranteed under international law. He
said "this" makes sense in regard to the northern sea route -
the Russian side; it does not make so much sense in regard to
the Bering Strait. He relayed that although selling icebreakers
may make sense on rare occasion, refurbishing them is probably
the best plan.
8:56:51 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. [There being no
further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.]
8:57:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON stated that [CSHJR 34(MLV), as amended,]
asks U.S. Congress to fund all facilities and vessels necessary
for the U.S. Coast Guard to fulfill its mission, including a
forward Arctic base, icebreakers, and ice capable vessels. He
said the genesis of the proposed resolution came from a study
done by the Northern Waters Task Force, in particular from
conversations and testimony heard during that process regarding
national and state securities, for which the USCG is
responsible. He explained that during the testimony, the
opinion was voiced that the State of Alaska should urge the
federal government to strengthen and broaden USCG capabilities
with more icebreakers.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said currently the only operational ice
breaker is the Healy, and its life expectancy is to 2029; the
Polar Star is due back in 2013, after its refurbishment, but is
only expected to last until 2023. In response to Chair Lynn, he
said all three icebreakers are in the Pacific Northwest
currently. He relayed that the Polar Sea is slated to be
decommissioned. He indicated that President Barack Obama has
put $8 million toward studies and a new icebreaker. He said a
new icebreaker costs up to $1 billion and can take 7-10 years
from the time it is funded to the time it is launched. He
further indicated that the rationale of the proposed legislation
is contained within its language.
8:59:44 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said the ideas inserted in the proposed
joint resolution were from Lt. Governor Mead Treadwell, whose
history with the Arctic is well chronicled. He noted that the
last committee of referral amended HJR 34 so that all foreign
ministers of "the appropriate Arctic jurisdictions" would
receive a copy.
9:00:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated his support of the proposed
joint resolution. He asked if there is a need to purchase
additional aircraft.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON replied that under the proposed
legislation, the legislature is asking the U.S. Coast Guard to
work with its federal funders for an icebreaker with helicopters
that would be stationed on the icebreaker. He suggested a
shorter term goal would be the establishment of a forward base
somewhere between Nome and Barrow that would house a C 1-30. He
offered his understanding that in the recent past, a C 1-30 had
to overnight in Barrow in freezing weather and, because there
was no housing for it, parts froze, and the C 1-30 was grounded
to wait for new parts to be brought in.
9:02:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN pointed to the reference to "the United
States Arctic Region Policy" on page 1, line 13, and asked for
information about that policy.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON relayed that on January 9, 2009, there was
a Presidential directive to the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security regarding the security of the Arctic region. He said
he would make copies available to the committee.
9:04:17 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he thinks it is logical that "we
have a presence and move towards this," but explained that he is
trying to clarify language within the proposed joint resolution.
He directed attention to language on page 2, line 1, which
states that "ice cover in the Arctic is at historic lows", and
he questioned the scientific accuracy of that statement.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded that he thinks that brief
statement could be "further and better explained."
9:05:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to language on page
4, lines 8-10, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
WHEREAS having a sufficient number of ice-capable
vessels, including shallow-draft vessels with
icebreaking capability, is vital for the United States
Coast Guard to fulfill its expanding mission in the
Arctic; and
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked the sponsor if he is familiar with
the U.S. Coast Guard's plans for the future.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON deferred to Admiral Garrett.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN directed attention to the term, "Bering
Strait chokepoint", on page 4, line 12, and asked for the
sponsor's definition of "chokepoint".
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that "chokepoint" is a common
phrase heard during visits to the Nome area, Wales, and Little
Diomede, but he deferred to Admiral Garret for further
explanation.
9:07:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the bill sponsor if he would
consider adding another "whereas" and another "be it resolved"
to HJR 34, to ask U.S. Congress to ratify the Law of the Sea
Treaty "for reasons expressed in here."
9:09:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said the legislature has passed a
resolution related to the Law of the Sea Treaty, which is in
court.
9:10:49 AM
ADMIRAL JEFFREY GARRETT (Retired) related that he spent much of
his career with the U.S. Coast Guard serving in the icebreaker
fleet both in the Arctic and the Antarctic. He continued as
follows:
I think, as the Arctic has transformed in the past few
years, these assets have become increasingly critical
to the Coast Guard's ability to perform all its
mission responsibility in the Arctic, and I think
right now we're starting to see the consequences of
the nation's long-term disinvestment in our icebreaker
fleet.
ADMIRAL GARRETT said the U.S. Coast Guard has been unable to
deploy an icebreaker for Arctic multi-mission purposes for over
two years, and planned missions for the Polar Sea have had to be
cancelled. He said, "The nation's had no icebreaker available
to provide the critical annual resupply of U.S. bases in
Antarctica this year, forcing reliance on the expensive, short-
term charter of a Russian vessel." Furthermore, he relayed, the
icebreaker Healy was used to supply Nome with its fuel supply
last month, and, while the mission to Nome was successful, it
was accomplished only at the cost of extending Healy's lengthy
Arctic deployment and disrupting planned maintenance and future
operations.
ADMIRAL GARRETT said he thinks Alaskans clearly understand what
is happening in the Arctic today. He said he is glad to see the
need for adequate Arctic resources summarized in HJR 34, as well
as the resolution's strong call for the federal government to
provide the U.S. Coast Guard with the means to "meet our
national needs in the Arctic" - particularly in regard to
icebreakers. He said the fact that the President's 2013 budget
includes funding to begin icebreaker requisition is encouraging;
however, he opined that "this important action must move forward
quickly, and we have to ensure that the Polar Star and Polar Sea
remain fully operational in the interim." He said, "There's
really no substitute for having the right tool to meet the
challenges of a transforming Arctic."
ADMIRAL GARRETT echoed Representative Herron's mention of a
Presidential directive to the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security regarding the security of the Arctic region, and said
it is a "high-level document." He noted that the U.S. Coast
Guard has a high-level document called, "A Strategic Arctic
Approach." He said, "Really what's missing, I think, is the
actual tool to do these things."
9:14:50 AM
ADMIRAL GARRETT, in response to a previous question from
Representative Johansen asking for a definition of "chokepoint",
explained that any entrance to or from the Western Arctic
requires travel through the Bering Strait, which forces
international traffic "through U.S. waters in Nome." He said
the U.S. Coast Guard is concerned about having the ability to
monitor that traffic. He said icebreakers are the key to
situations related to defense, security, search and rescue, and
pollution.
9:15:49 AM
ADMIRAL GARRETT, regarding previous mention of the Law of the
Sea Treaty, stated:
This has been on the table for many years: multiple
chiefs of naval operations, multiple commandants of
the Coast Guard, joint chiefs of staff have all
(indisc.) incentive to pass the Law of the Sea
[Treaty], which will enable the United States to make
Continental Shelf claims and will preserve U.S. rights
and give us (indisc. -- coughing) standing, basically
to participate in future Law of the Sea items. And
this is particularly germane to the Arctic, where, for
the past 6 years, the icebreaker Healy has been doing
survey work to justify and defend this against foreign
claims of the outer Continental Shelf.
9:16:48 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recollected that in history, there were
seven or eight vital straits named, and he questioned if the
Bering Strait was one.
ADMIRAL GARRETT said he does not believe "in those days" that
the Bering Strait "figured much into the worldwide strategic
construct," but he opined that it should today.
9:18:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to a book entitled, The
Influence of Sea Power on History, and indicated that updating
related to straits would be necessary.
ADMIRAL GARRETT concurred. He mentioned the effect of climate
change on naval operations. He said he thinks the Bering Strait
has to be considered a critical waterway.
9:19:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN said this issue is interesting, but questioned
whether it is germane to the proposed joint resolution.
9:19:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON asked that the committee not include
language regarding the Law of Sea Treaty in HJR 34.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said The Study of Sea Power shows that
battles and wars are won by who controls the straits. He
referenced the word "chokepoint", on page 4, line 12, and
emphasized the importance of controlling the entire Bering
Strait, which he said will "have a lot of importance as we have
more global warming."
9:21:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON mentioned the National Academy of
Sciences' 50-year U.S. Navy research project, and indicated that
the proposed legislation could be amended on the House floor.
9:22:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered his office's service in that
effort. He reemphasized, "It's more than a chokepoint; it's a
strategic strait."
CHAIR LYNN suggested that the word "strategic" may be better
than the word "chokepoint".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN remarked that "perhaps another Arctic
resolution ... might be your answer."
9:22:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN closed public testimony.
9:22:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 2, as follows:
Page 1, lines 6-7:
Delete "on equal footing with the previously
admitted states"
9:23:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
He asked why Representative Johansen thinks Alaska was not
admitted on equal footing.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN opined that since the original thirteen
colonies, no state has been admitted on equal footing,
especially Alaska, where most of the land is owned by the
federal government and the state is controlled by the federal
government like no other state in the Union.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said the effect of Amendment 1 would be
to imply that Alaska was admitted on less than equal footing.
He said he thinks it is important to establish that Alaska has
the rights of all other states, even if it is not always
accorded those rights.
CHAIR LYNN questioned whether Amendment 1 would have an effect
on the heart of the proposed joint resolution, which is that
Alaska needs more icebreakers.
9:25:34 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to Chair Lynn, asked why
the language is in HJR 34 if it does not make a difference. In
response to Representative Gruenberg, he said the language
directly before that which would be deleted under Amendment 1
shows that "Alaska was admitted to statehood in 1959". He
reiterated that stating Alaska is on equal footing is admitting
that Alaska is treated equally, which he does not believe is
true.
9:26:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG maintained his objection.
9:26:16 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON ventured there is a legal question wherein
there may be debate as to whether Alaska was the only state
admitted having subsurface rights to gas, oil, and other
minerals, and he remarked that almost all of Alaska's budget is
based upon the particularity of receiving oil and all the
subsurface rights. He said the legislature has had discussions
regarding the amount of land "given to education" and "whether
some of them were resolved by money and trust instead of actual
land." He said he thinks the intent of the first four or five
"WHEREAS" statements in HJR 34 is to say that Alaska was
purchased and admitted on equal footing, and in recognition of
that, Alaska deserves the same protection and preferences as any
other state. He stated, "I think that the sequence in hear is
to make a continuity between the second whereas and the fifth
whereas following in conjunction." In response to the chair, he
clarified that he was speaking in objection to Amendment 2.
9:28:28 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated his support for Amendment 2.
9:28:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON asked that the proposed Amendment 2 be
read again for clarification.
9:28:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN clarified Amendment 2. He said he would
like the bill sponsor's response to Amendment 2.
9:29:11 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he thinks Amendment 2 is in the
possession of the committee, and he said, "I have no opinion
either way."
9:29:40 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN asked for confirmation that Amendment 2
would not delete the word "and" [on page 1, line 7].
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN answered that is correct.
9:30:03 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives P. Wilson, Keller,
Petersen, Johansen, and Lynn voted in favor of Amendment 2.
Representatives Seaton and Gruenberg voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 2 was adopted by a vote of 5-2.
9:30:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 3, as follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "deserves"
Insert "expects"
Delete "and assistance"
9:31:46 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected. She said she would like to
split [Amendment 3] in two. She explained that she likes
"expects" but does not like "and assistance".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he would like to speak to Amendment
3 before any motions are made to change it. Regarding the
proposed change from "deserves" to "expects", he said, "I don't
want to sit around and think that I deserve anything."
Likewise, he said he does not want anyone to think he is waiting
around for assistance.
9:32:57 AM
REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he understands where
[Representative Johansen] is coming from, but does not believe
that the State of Alaska wants to be in the icebreaker buying
business and, thus, needs the assistance of the federal
government to procure icebreakers.
CHAIR LYNN reiterated that obtaining icebreakers is the key
element of HJR 34. He said he supports Amendment 3; however, he
indicated Alaska's involvement with the federal government in
terms of acquiring icebreakers.
9:34:10 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered his understanding that a motion
had been made to divide the question, and he said he supports
doing so.
9:34:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the committee would divide the
question to Amendment 3, such that there would be an Amendment
3a and 3b.
9:34:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON moved to adopt Amendment 3a, as
follows:
Page 1, line 8:
Delete "deserves"
Insert "expects"
9:34:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He explained that it is
possible to expect something but not deserve it. He opined that
it is more important that Alaska deserve [full recognition], and
he said he thinks the state deserves it. Furthermore, he said
he thinks the state deserves the assistance in this particular
case. He warned, "The effect of this amendment, whether it's
divided or not, will weaken the 'WHEREAS' clause." He said,
"This is not just semantics; this is the heart of the policy
behind the resolution." He concurred with Representative
Petersen regarding Alaska not being in the business of buying
icebreakers. He said this is a national issue of strategic
importance. He emphasized that without the assistance of the
federal government, Alaska will not have the icebreakers it
needs. He opined that the proposed language would weaken HJR
34.
9:36:13 AM
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said, "I'll withdraw my amendment to
divide."
CHAIR LYNN stated, "So, we're back to the original amendment."
He asked Representative Johansen to restate [Amendment 3].
9:36:33 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN renewed his motion to adopt Amendment 3
[language previously provided].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG restated his opposition to Amendment 3.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN explained that he thinks using the term
"deserves" makes Alaska sound like a spoiled little child, while
he thinks using the word "expects" means that high expectations
will be met. Regarding the previous remark that the amendment
is not germane to the issue, he said, the language addressed by
Amendment 3 is a part of the proposed joint resolution. He said
the current language states that Alaska deserves federal
assistance like any other state. He said, "I'm pretty sure
they're not building icebreakers in Kansas; they get other ways
of assistance."
9:38:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER offered his understanding that "expects"
presumes "the deserved part" and is, therefore, a much stronger
word.
9:38:28 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen, Keller,
and Lynn voted in favor of the motion to adopt Amendment 3.
Representatives Seaton, Gruenberg, Petersen, and P. Wilson voted
against it. Therefore, Amendment 3 failed by a vote of 3-4.
9:39:15 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 4, as follows:
Page 2, lines 4-5, following "activity":
Delete "related to shipping, oil and gas
development, commercial fishing, and tourism"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said the intent of Amendment 4 is to
broaden the language. He explained that there could be other
types of human activity in the Arctic region, including sail
boats and vessels related to science.
9:40:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said the phrase, "related
to shipping, oil and gas development, commercial fishing, and
tourism" is meant to be illustrative, not exclusive. He said
the text focuses the attention of the reader on "things that are
involved and ... are essential to the icebreaker issue." He
said he does not think anyone would argue that the state needs
to purchase an icebreaker to enable a sail boat to travel in the
Arctic. He reiterated that the proposed change would weaken the
"WHEREAS" clause.
9:41:28 AM
CHAIR LYNN moved to amend Amendment 4, to add "including"
[instead of "related to"].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he would support that.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected. He said if an amendment is
made to Amendment 4, he would like the language to say
"including but not limited to".
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG called a point of order, and related
that [AS 01.10.040(b)] specifies that the meaning of "including"
in legislation is "including but not limited to".
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN maintained his objection to the
amendment to Amendment 4.
9:42:49 AM
CHAIR LYNN, in response to Representative Seaton, clarified that
under the amendment to Amendment 4, [page 2, lines 3-5 would
read as follows]:
WHEREAS the entire Arctic region, including the
Arctic region of the United States, is experiencing
increased human activity, including activity related
to shipping, oil and gas development, commercial
fishing, and tourism; and
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG returned to AS 01.10.040(b), which read
as follows:
(b) When the words "includes" or "including" are
used in a law, they shall be construed as though
followed by the phrase "but not limited to."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG acknowledged that the language being
considered is part of a joint resolution, but said he thinks the
term "including" would be read in accordance with AS
01.10.040(b).
9:44:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection to the proposed
amendment to Amendment 4.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON objected to the amendment to Amendment
4 to point out that AS 01.10.040(b) is Alaska law, and HJR 34
would be read by the federal government. She supported
Representative Johansen's suggestion to use the phrase
"including but not limited to".
CHAIR LYNN said, "That's fine with me; I'll amend the amendment
to the amendment, to include Representative Wilson's
modification."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN questioned whether it is in order for
the committee to amend an amendment to the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said, "No, but ... we got the gist."
CHAIR LYNN emphasized the conceptual nature of the amendment.
9:46:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he would like to hear feedback from
the sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON responded, "The list could have been
exhaustive, but I support the amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON removed her objection. [The amendment,
as amended, to Amendment 4 was treated as adopted.]
9:46:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG removed his objection to Amendment 4,
as amended.
9:47:14 AM
CHAIR LYNN confirmed that Amendment 4, as amended, was adopted.
9:47:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 5, as follows:
Page 2, line 7, following "United States":
Delete "to enable the responsible development of
resources, foster maritime commerce, safeguard the
well-being of Arctic residents and ecosystems,
facilitate emergency and disaster preparedness and
response, and protect United States sovereignty"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected. He said the existing
language focuses attention on specific problems. Under
Amendment 5, the language becomes general and does not give the
reason for the need for investment.
9:49:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON suggested that the committee not support
Amendment 5, because the findings of the Northern Waters Task
Force specifically outline governance, oil and gas exploration
and development, marine transportation, planning and
infrastructure investment, and fisheries.
9:49:41 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen and Keller
voted in favor of Amendment 5. Representatives Petersen, P.
Wilson, Seaton, Gruenberg, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 5 failed by a vote of 2-5.
9:50:18 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 6, as follows:
Page 2, line 16:
Delete "oil and gas and other potentially
hazardous"
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN, in response to the chair, clarified
that under Amendment 6, the "WHEREAS" clause [on page 2, lines
15-17], would read as follows:
WHEREAS, as Northern sea routes open and foreign
shippers set their sights on Asian markets,
international shipping of cargo through the Bering
Strait is rapidly increasing; and
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN argued that any ship going through the
Bering Strait has oil, gas, or other potentially hazardous cargo
on board, and he said he does not think it is appropriate to be
"pointing out a particular section of shippers."
9:51:53 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected for the purpose of discussion.
9:52:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON said he understands the intent of the
amendment. However, he said this "WHEREAS" would share with the
federal government the specific concern expressed by the U.S.
Coast Guard and others regarding the Northern Sea route - the
Russian side of the Arctic - and shippers that go through the
eastern side of the strategic strait or chokepoint. He said,
"We're not calling out ourselves on any oil and gas or hazardous
cargo on ships that are going through on our side of the
strait."
9:53:22 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he thinks this "WHEREAS" clause
specifically addresses hazards that are different from those
contained in the other "WHEREAS" clauses, such as the language
on [page 2], line 21, which addresses "marine safety, ports,
waterways, and coastal security". He said for those reasons he
opposes Amendment 6.
9:54:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN offered his understanding that there are
two choke points: one between Big Diomede and Little Diomede
and Alaska, and the other between the two islands and Russia.
He asked if the U.S. has any control over "what happens ... on
the ... Russian side of the chokepoint." He further asked how
the countries involved make decisions.
9:55:36 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON indicated that [the language of the
"WHEREAS" clause on page 2, lines 15-17] is "calling on the
potential" for an unfortunate incident wherein oil and gas and
any other hazardous cargo comes across international boundaries
into U.S. territory, at which point the U.S. would "have to deal
with it whether we like it or not."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN asked if there is a definite boundary
line drawn in that area, or if there is still "a triangle that
we're arguing over in that area."
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON answered that he is confident that the
line within the chokepoint is defined. He said there is a
triangle farther south in the Bering Sea. In response to a
follow-up question, he said the Northern Sea route in the Polar
Region is on the Russian side and follows along the Russian
Border over to Europe. In response to the chair, he said he
does not know the specific routes on the Russian side, but
clarified that the Northern Sea route is considered the Russian
route.
9:57:56 AM
REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, in response to Representative Johansen,
opined that the "WHEREAS" clause recognizes that "on that side
of the strategic strait there is international [of] shipping oil
and gas and other cargos, and it's just increasing." He
expressed his hope that "that will assist the federal government
in its wisdom to realize that maybe icebreakers are necessary
for us on this side of the strait."
9:58:58 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER stated support for Amendment 6. He said
he thinks the "WHEREAS" clause could be better written.
9:59:29 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Johansen and Keller
voted in favor of Amendment 6. Representatives Gruenberg,
Petersen, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 6 failed by a vote of 2-5.
10:00:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN moved to adopt Amendment 7, as follows:
Page 3, lines 19-21:
Delete all language
10:00:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG objected.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN said he has nothing against Nome or what
the [Russian] fuel tanker did [escorted by the U.S. Coast
Guard's icebreaker], although he offered his understanding that
necessity for such action was because someone forgot to get the
community's fuel order in on time. He explained that he does
not want to set the precedent that it is okay that "we're going
to run around with an icebreaker and plow a hole to whatever
community needs to get oil at the time." He opined that the
state needs to solve the bigger problem - "the energy issue" -
first. For example, he said if a road is built to Nome, then an
icebreaker would not have to provide fuel to that community. He
mentioned the Power Cost Equalization (PCE) Program and said,
"In a perfect world, PCE goes away."
10:03:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER removed his objection.
REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON said it is important to include this
"WHEREAS" clause, because people's lives are affected when fuel
cannot be delivered.
10:04:31 AM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Keller and Johansen
voted in favor of Amendment 7. Representatives Gruenberg,
Petersen, P. Wilson, Seaton, and Lynn voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 7 failed by a vote of 2-5.
10:04:54 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to report CSHJR 34(MLV), as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN objected. He said he believes "this" is
a valid effort. However, he expressed concern that if passed,
every word in [CSHJR 34(MLV), as amended,] would be sent to the
federal government as representing the position of the Alaska
State Legislature. He asked committee members to think about
that, and said chances are they would have another chance to
vote on the previously considered amendments on the House floor.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHANSEN removed his objection to the motion to
report CSHJR 34(MLV), as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no further objection, CSHJR 34(STA) was reported out
of the House State Affairs Standing Committee.