Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/22/1999 01:11 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 15 - SUPPORT AMERICAN LAND SOVEREIGNTY ACT CO-CHAIR SANDERS announced that the first item of business would be House Joint Resolution No. 15, relating to support for an "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act" in the United States Congress. Committee packets contained a sponsor statement; CSHJR 15(WTR); and a compilation of faxed documents and Internet print-outs including a copy of H.R. 883 and fact sheets about Biosphere Reserves. Number 0110 REPRESENTATIVE JEANNETTE JAMES, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, came forward, introducing staff member Myrna McGhie, who has worked for three years on this issue. MYRNA McGHIE, Legislative Administrative Assistant to Representative Jeannette James, told members this is the second time they have put this legislation through, which is to support Congressman Don Young's effort in Washington, D.C., on his "American Land Sovereignty Protection Act." That federal legislation had gone through the House, but not the Senate, in the 105th Congress. Ms. McGhie said HJR 15 reaffirms support for Alaska State Legislative Resolve 31, sent to Congress in March 1997. Now, Congressman Young has a new bill, H.R. 883. MS. McGHIE advised members that because of a technical error, she proposes amending page 3, lines 12 and 14, to change the number "833" to "883". Number 0288 CO-CHAIR OGAN made a motion to adopt that as an amendment. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. Number 0330 MS. McGHIE explained that World Heritage Sites are being designated in the United States without congressional oversight or approval, and with little public notice; HJR 15 aims to ensure that Congress has authority to designate lands in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked if Congress has taken any action on these World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves. Number 0412 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said she suspects that the Biosphere Reserves are the more serious of the two, as those stem from the "Man and the Biosphere Convention." Those designations have been accepted by the President but not approved by the U.S. Senate, although international conventions or agreements are supposed to be approved by the Senate. Congressman Young's resolution is intended to not allow any of that to happen without congressional approval. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated: I think that we've all thought of the United Nations as something of some kind of a benefit to all of us, and that there shouldn't be anything bad about the United Nations. And, of course, the thing about these World Heritage Sites and Biosphere Reserves that are identified as special places, and have a UN committee to oversee them and be sure that they're protected, and so forth, doesn't sound bad. In fact, it's in the writing, in the United Nations compact, it says that the sovereignty of the United States, or the several states, will not be affected. But you can't say that the sovereignty is not affected when you have these voices that come and interfere with what you're trying to do in your own state, or in your own nation. An example is in Yellowstone National Park; when they wanted to do some mining outside of the park area, the international committee came in and set the stage for a hearing, and it was determined that the mine should not go forward because it just might interfere with the Biosphere Reserve, the World Heritage Site that Yellowstone National Park was. ... It sounds innocent, but it isn't." Number 0588 CO-CHAIR OGAN referred to page 1, lines 10 and 11 of CSHJR 15(WTR). He asked what the buffer zones entail and how far they extend. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained that a Biosphere Reserve consists of a core area, in which it is intended that there is no interference by man at all. Around that is another area, the buffer zone, in which there is limited activity by man. Beyond that, they want to measure all of the normal activity of man. The problem is that the buffer zones extend far beyond the area of the park. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated, "They haven't been implementing this very much, which is one of the reasons why that it is slipping in under the rug, I believe, and part of the reason is because they haven't been funded. But if they were ever to get funding, it would be horrible, because a lot of the things that you're now doing in and around parks would be prohibited because of their scientific study of how the man and the biosphere affect one another." MS. McGHIE noted that packets contain information on that [see fact sheets]. CO-CHAIR OGAN asked how far those areas extend. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said it can go as far as 250 miles, but each is drawn independently, based on the core area and other information. The proposed mine near Yellowstone National Park was three miles outside of the park, in an area considered to be a buffer zone. CO-CHAIR OGAN declared that he intends to co-sponsor this legislation, as one of the largest veiled threats to state and national sovereignty is to allow a foreign entity to have this kind of say. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES indicated Northwest Alaska residents have been fighting the designation of Cape Krusenstern National Monument, as well as the Beringian Heritage International Park, which would include portions of both the Seward Peninsula and Russia, across the Bering Strait. There is also talk of making the Bering Sea a "Marine Biosphere Reserve," although Representative James said nobody can explain to her what that means. Number 0902 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE referred to Cape Krusenstern and said the road from the Red Dog Mine to the port site goes through there; he wondered whether such a designation could stop that activity. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES expressed her belief that it could. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE mentioned the potential for stopping any development, specifically with regard to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) land throughout the state. Number 0991 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES restated that the United Nations documents seem benign, and the program doesn't appear to threaten sovereignty. However, when they start to implement it, man is in the way. She expressed concern about restrictions to snow machine use on the sides of the highway in Denali National Park and Preserve, then stated, "If we want to be controlling our own lands, then we have to able to have the congressional process to determine whether or not any of these ideas are good ideas, and that they're best interests of us here in the United States." Number 1093 CO-CHAIR OGAN acknowledged that the language states that nothing will undo existing sovereignty. However, ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act] says the same thing, yet the state is now looking at amending its constitution. He suggested the need to be consistent whenever the state's sovereignty is challenged to manage its resources. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES commented that public opinion is the strongest political power there is, and anything that persuades public opinion is very likely to interfere with sovereignty. Number 1238 DENNY K. WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, reading as follows: "Once again, Representative James is trying to improve the lives and opportunities for Alaskans, and at the same time trying to protect Alaska from foreign invasion by the United Nations and regain our sovereignty. I commend her for this, but I do not believe supporting Congressman Don Young or his resolution is constitutional or right. If Congressman Young were truly concerned about Alaska's sovereignty, he would propose a constitutional amendment to remove a particular power from the President, such as executive orders and proclamations." MS. WEATHERS read from Article I of the federal constitution, then asked members two questions. First, did the federal government or the United Nations purchase any lands in Alaska with the consent of the Alaska State Legislature? And second, did the state of Alaska, with consent of the legislature, cede any lands to the federal government or United Nations? MS. WEATHERS asked legislators to make no bargains with the federal government, saying, "We, the sovereigns, have other options if the federal government and United Nations do not withdraw their illegal invasion from the lands and waterways of Alaska." She suggested supporting HB 109 and HCR 2, and, if that doesn't work, seceding from the Union. She said if she could get answers to her questions, she would really appreciate it. CO-CHAIR SANDERS requested that Ms. Weathers fax her testimony, offering to do research on her questions and get back to her. Number 1484 CO-CHAIR OGAN concurred with Ms. Weathers about executive orders that undermine state sovereignty; he cited the recent national monument designation in Utah as an example. Number 1605 STAN LEAPHART, Executive Director, Citizens' Advisory Commission on Federal Areas (CACFA), testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, noting that the commission had voted unanimously to support HJR 14, a resolution similar to HJR 15, in the previous legislature. He told members he would discuss how management of some areas designated in Alaska as Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites has played out. Mr. Leaphart then named the Biosphere Reserves in Alaska. [Documents provided by the sponsor's staff, obtained from the Internet at www.mabnet.org/brprogram/usbrl.html, list current and proposed sites as follows: Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve; Glacier Bay-Admiralty Island Biosphere Reserve/Admiralty Island National Monument (2 units); Denali National Park and Biosphere Reserve; Noatak National Preserve (2 units); Gates of the Arctic National Park; and the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge.] MR. LEAPHART next listed the eight World Heritage Sites in Alaska, two of which are "inscribed" and six of which have been nominated: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; Denali National Park and Preserve; Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve; Katmai National Park; Wrangell-Saint Elias National Park and Preserve [inscribed 1979]; Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve [inscribed 1992]; Cape Krusenstern Archaeological District, which is a major portion of the Cape Krusenstern National Monument; and the Aleutian Island Unit of the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Leaphart said he has discovered over the years that there is little difference between nominating a site and actually inscribing it. MR. LEAPHART emphasized that a number of areas have dual designations, and the extra layer of recognition comes to play in management decisions by the various federal agencies. For example, when the Department of the Interior nominated Glacier Bay as a World Heritage Site in 1991, the submittal letter noted "environmental threats to the area proposed by the patented mineral claims on the Brady Icefield, ten Native allotments within the park, and the existence of commercial fishing in Glacier Bay." Mr. Leaphart said that in the environmental impact statement (EIS) and in virtually every meeting of the state-sponsored working group, the issue of Glacier Bay's status as a Biosphere Reserve and a World Heritage Site was brought up. MR. LEAPHART told members there are no clear-cut regulatory guidelines that the NPS, Department of the Interior, or other managing agencies have for Biosphere Reserves. He stated, "They will tell you that that designation does not supersede any of their authorities under federal statute or federal regulation. However, there is virtually no decision made, with respect to management of any of these areas that are so-designated, where the issue of that designation doesn't become a factor." MR. LEAPHART referred to the closing of the bulk of the old Mount McKinley Park to snow machine use, saying the status of Denali National Park and Preserve as a Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site had been cited extensively in those findings. Number 1882 MR. LEAPHART next advised members that a bill before Congress, H.J.R. 482, would regulate aircraft overflights or "flightseeing" over Haleakala National Park and Hawaii Volcanoes National Park; in it, the statement of purpose and findings prominently mention that both areas are Biosphere Reserves. That legislation is being watched closely by CACFA, although currently Alaska is exempt from its effects. Mr. Leaphart noted that flightseeing over national parks is a major industry in the Lower 48, and one that is growing in Alaska. There is effort by the NPS, Department of the Interior, to regulate such activity. MR. LEAPHART stated his belief that Congressman Young's bill is aimed at giving Congress a say in such designations, which affect both sovereignty and private property rights of individuals. He added, "I don't think anyone has to be opposed to the idea of the notion of Biosphere Reserves or World Heritage Sites as recognition for critical habitat areas, or some very special sites around the world." Number 2018 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked Mr. Leaphart whether, when ANILCA was considered, the environmental community had pushed hard to limit aircraft flights over national parks and monuments. She stated her belief that that had been rejected, and she requested confirmation. MR. LEAPHART said he believes that is correct, adding, "That was one of the major compromises that our delegation hammered out, as part of that bill. Not only are the aircraft overflights not regulated, but we also have guaranteed access rights ... in ANILCA, which allows aircraft landings. So, as I said, the several bills that are in Congress right now that address this issue of aircraft overflights do contain specific exemptions for ... aircraft activities in Alaska." Number 2090 ELZIE ISLEY testified briefly via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying, "I'm a citizen of the state of Alaska. I am against any other country or organization telling us what we can do in our own country, so I fully support this resolution." Number 2137 DEAN CURRAN testified via teleconference from Cordova on his own behalf, as follows: I am glad to see the state taking a stand to get its rights back. The federal government has been overstepping its boundaries for a long time. The constitution is very explicit about keeping foreign powers out of the United States. The President has no power to cut deals with the UN and give them the use of any land in the United States, and especially land in the state of Alaska. I want this misuse of designating lands stopped immediately. Not only that, all lands that have been designated to the UN previously must be revoked, as well. You cannot allow a foreign entity to have power in this state of Alaska or any part of the 50 states. If you do, you are setting up the demise of this great nation. It will eventually be taken over by the UN if we don't get them out now. Number 2206 ERIC MUENCH testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan, saying he supports HJR 15 and hopes it is the strongest action the legislature can take in this regard. Any government organization in which the citizens of the United States are not represented, any non-government organization, and any international organization including the United Nations should have absolutely no say in the United States or Alaska. He concluded by saying the representatives of the United Nations don't represent United States citizens, and he completely supports HJR 15. Number 2279 ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova, saying he is a "sovereign from the republic of Alaska." He referred to Article I, Section 8, clause 17, of the federal constitution and stated: Alaska cannot be owned or suppressed by the federal government or the United Nations. The government did not buy Alaska; the people of the United States of America paid the money, and the U.S. government did not and has not paid them back. The state of Alaska is, and should be, sovereign to themselves as one of these states of the United States of America. One of the first acts of war is to take land that no one has direct interest in. The UN is a foreign power by definition, and it is a foreign enemy by its actions. ... In the United States, persons who promote the United Nations, and organizations that advance it, are domestic enemies and traitors. Executive orders designating land to the United Nations or any foreign or special entities is treason. Congress can and must stop these unconstitutional executive orders and proclamations. It is their constitutional duty. If the federal government and the United Nations refuse to withdraw from the sovereign state of Alaska, then they must be forcefully removed. Number 2409 DONALD WESTLUND testified next via teleconference from Ketchikan, stating, "I want to commend you on this line of sight. I support this resolution, and I tend to agree with the last person that spoke, and also the lady that spoke earlier: If you can't get 'em out, then we'll secede." CO-CHAIR OGAN commented that Alaska wouldn't have the fortitude to secede "because we have to follow the money, and too much money comes from the federal government." Number 2467 LAIFE WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HJR 15. A commercial fisherman, he said it is no coincidence that "unconstitutional" starts with "UN," and the United Nations needs to be kicked out of Alaska and the United States. He added, "I believe in 'constitution or revolution,' no compromise." Number 2513 EDWARD FURMAN testified next via teleconference from Cordova, saying he is retired from the military after 20 years of service. He expressed concern about Alaska, cautioning that someone who lies where a dog has been will have fleas. He said he loves his country. He offered to send a fax to the committee about executive orders, written by an unspecified well-known writer, then discussed Executive Order "1383" (1998), signed by President Clinton [much of that brief discussion was indiscernible due to poor sound quality]. REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that if Alaska were to secede, it could probably receive foreign aid, with fewer strings attached. CO-CHAIR SANDERS asked whether anyone in Juneau wished to testify; there was no response. Number 2628 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHJR 15(WTR), as amended, from the committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note(s); she asked unanimous consent. There being no objection, CSHJR 15(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|