Legislature(2011 - 2012)BARNES 124
03/14/2011 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Audio | Topic |
---|---|
Start | |
HJR19 | |
HB174 | |
HB89 | |
HJR8 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ | HJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 174 | TELECONFERENCED | |
*+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED | ||
+= | HJR 8 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 19-URGING US TO RATIFY LAW OF THE SEA TREATY 1:06:31 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON announced that the first order of business is HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 19, Urging the United States Senate to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. [Before the committee was CSHJR 19(EDT).] 1:06:37 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, speaking on behalf of the House Special Committee on Economic Development, International Trade and Tourism that he chairs and who is the sponsor of HJR 19, informed the committee that the Law of the Sea treaty has been around for quite awhile. However, the U.S. Senate has chosen not to debate it or vote on it. Representative Herron stated that the U.S. is an Arctic nation because of Alaska, which results in broad and fundamental interest in the Arctic region where the U.S. seeks to meet its national security needs, protect the environment, responsibly manage and develop the nation's resources, protect and account for [the nation's] indigenous communities, support scientific research, and strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues. The aforementioned is what HJR 19 will accomplish, he opined. 1:08:39 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON clarified that before the committee is CSHJR 19(EDT). 1:09:11 PM ROB EARL, Staff, Representative Bob Herron, Alaska State Legislature, stated: The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) was entered into force in November 1994. This convention establishes a treaty regime to govern activities on, over, and under the world's oceans. Mr. Chairman, it builds on the four 1958 Law of the Sea conventions and sets forth a framework for future activities in parts of the oceans that are beyond national jurisdiction. The treaty comprises 320 articles and 9 annexes .... The convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations and their use of the world's oceans. As Representative Herron mentioned, this particular resolution, HJR 19, urges U.S. Senate ratification of the treaty. And [U.S.] Senator Lisa Murkowski, in her speech to the legislature on February 24th requested such a resolution to help her get a ratification vote to the [U.S.] Senate floor. Under the treaty, member nations can claim an exclusive economic zone (EEZ) up to 200 miles from their coast with sovereign rights to explore, develop, and manage the resources within that zone. A claim can extend beyond the 200 mile limit if a connection can be proven that the nation's continental shelf extends beyond 200 miles. It's estimated the area off ... the north coast of Alaska is about the size of California. 1:10:53 PM MR. EARL then directed the committee's attention to the slides entitled "Chinese Claims," which were provided by U.S. Coast Guard Admiral Colvin. On slide 1 he highlighted the quote from the Chinese admiral who said that since one-fifth of the world's population lives in China, China is entitled to one-fifth of the resources in the Arctic's international waters. The second slide tracks the Chinese in the Arctic in the summers of 2009 and 2010. 1:11:53 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON interjected that the slides that provide the tracking of the Chinese vessel were provided in concert with the Marine Exchange. 1:12:19 PM MR. EARL then directed attention to slide 4, which illustrates the remaining unclaimed space in the Arctic. Slide 5 illustrates the portion of the unclaimed space in the Arctic that the U.S. could claim, which is where the Chinese have been operating. In response to Representative Gardner, Mr. Earl confirmed that with ratification of UNCLOS the U.S. could extend its claim as illustrated in slide 5. The UNCLOS has to first be ratified before the U.S. can make a claim. 1:12:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON pointed out that under Article 76 of the convention a coastal state with a broad continental margin limit may establish a shelf limit beyond 200 miles. Therefore, the [claim] could be for 350 miles. Because of the extension of the continental shelf, there are areas of potential that are beyond imagination. As the prior slides illustrate the Chinese are exploring from 201-400 miles, and thus it's in the best interest of the nation in terms of national security to have jurisdiction over the extra 150 miles. 1:14:04 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE related his assumption that the Russians have signed onto this treaty. MR. EARL replied yes, adding that all Arctic nations, save the U.S., have signed on to the treaty. CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to why the Canadians haven't extended their EEZ. MR. EARL answered that the Canadians have made their claim with the United Nations, but he didn't believe that it has been approved yet. 1:14:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON, addressing Russia's 2001 claim to the international boundary that extends to the North Pole, informed the committee that all the other nations don't believe that is a legitimate claim. He explained that once a nation joins the treaty, it has only 10 years to make extended claims. However, even a nation that's not a member of the treaty can still provide comments about the claims. 1:16:01 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON inquired as to the reason the U.S. hasn't signed on to the treaty. MR. EARL responded that some people are concerned about a loss of sovereignty, although the benefits greatly outweigh anything that's given up. The UNCLOS hasn't been ratified because there are certain U.S. Senators who oppose its ratification. In further response to Representative P. Wilson, Mr. Earl informed the committee that 161 countries have signed the treaty thus far. 1:17:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON noted that the committee packet includes pro- and anti-ratification arguments in the packet. Since the U.S. isn't a member of the committee, it cannot make extended claims and has little to say about the claims other countries make. Representative Herron highlighted that the U.S. would have the largest EEZ area in the world, if it signed the treaty. 1:18:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON moved to adopt CSHJR 19, Version 27- LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, as the working document. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected for discussion purposes. 1:19:13 PM MR. EARL informed the committee that the Legislative Research Services report dated March 11, 2011, precipitated Version I. The Legislative Research Services was asked to vet the "WHEREAS" clauses and they found the need for a couple of changes. On page 3, lines 14-17, the language was reworded in recognition that there wasn't a hearing in 1994 but rather was pending. Also, Legislative Research Services found that the "WHEREAS" clause on page 3, lines 12-13, had inadvertently been eliminated and thus is reinserted in Version I. 1:20:09 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection. There being no further objection, Version I was before the committee. 1:21:03 PM DR. LAWSON BRIGHAM, Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy, University of Alaska Fairbanks, provided the following testimony: My name is Lawson Brigham and I am a Distinguished Professor of Geography and Arctic Policy at the University of Alaska Fairbanks. I was a Coast Guard officer for 25 years, icebreakers at both ends of the world. I have also served as the Alaska Office Director of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission in Anchorage. Of relevance to this topic, during 2005-09 I was Chair and U.S. Lead for the Arctic Council's Arctic Marine Shipping Assessment (AMSA), a large assessment that deals with enhanced marine safety and environmental protection for the Arctic Ocean, including the coastal waters of the U.S. Arctic. A central finding of AMSA was that the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) was the key legal framework from which we viewed all else in our work; governing Arctic shipping and all other marine uses. In our review in AMSA, we restated that since the Arctic Ocean is one of earth's oceans, UNCLOS provides the legal basis for managing the new maritime Arctic. No new treaty or any comprehensive new agreement by the Arctic States or other states is necessary. Importantly, UNCLOS preserves and codifies the principal of freedom of navigation for the Arctic Ocean and the global oceans; a key tenant for U.S. security and economic well-being. UNCLOS provides two important articles one of which you've heard today. Article 76 allows the coastal states in an orderly process to assert sovereignty on the extended continental shelf beyond the 200-mile Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), out to 350 miles. Article 234 allows the coastal states the right to adopt and enforce non-discriminatory laws and regulations for the prevention, reduction and control of marine pollution from vessels in ice-covered waters within the EEZ. Both of these [articles] have important implications for Alaska and the United States maritime Arctic. [In December I had an opportunity to join some 200 experts at the U.S. Naval War] College for a Global Shipping Game that dealt with the Arctic and future Panama Canal. One overwhelming outcome was that the U.S. continued failure to ratify UNCLOS would create substantial risk for the United States in terms of economic development in the Arctic, and will threaten the U.S. position as a global leader in maritime issues. In summary, U.S. ratification of UNCLOS is essential for all future challenges and opportunities in the Arctic Ocean. In my mind, it is at the heart of much of what we in Alaska and the United States will do to protect, develop, manage and lead in the future maritime Arctic. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to speak. 1:24:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE MUNOZ inquired as to the effect an extension of the U.S. economic zone would have on the educational missions the Chinese are performing in the Arctic. 1:24:43 PM DR. BRIGHAM pointed out that the nation's sovereignty extends to the fisheries and seabed resources, but doesn't restrict the freedom of navigation and transit of those [Russia] ships. With regard to education opportunities, Dr. Brigham surmised that would refer to tourism. He said that all of the aforementioned is allowable under UNCLOS. 1:25:25 PM PAUL FUHS, Chairman, Board of Directors, Marine Exchange of Alaska, began by informing the committee that the Marine Exchange of Alaska was started by all the major elements of shipping within Alaska and has provided vessel tracking services. He then thanked Representative Herron for taking a leadership position on this matter. Through the vessel tracking it has become clear that there is much activity in the Arctic. Mr. Fuhs opined that if the U.S. doesn't ratify UNCLOS, it's surrendering its sovereignty. He identified one of the issues as regulatory oversight in that there would be concern with regard to [nations] not following the same rules that the [U.S.] must. There has also been much concern with regard to oil and gas development in the Arctic and discussing how best to regulate that. He then presented a slide that illustrated the receiving stations within Alaska, of which there are about 80. Due to international maritime organization law, vessels over a certain size are required to have a transponder [on the vessel]. With the increased concern regarding activity in the Arctic, more receiving stations have been constructed. He also presented a slide that relates the various types of vessels operating in the Arctic. 1:28:19 PM CO-CHAIR FEIGE inquired as to the range on the transponders. MR. FUHS answered that it depends upon the location and the amount of radio activity in the area. For a "clean" site the range is beyond 200 miles, with the longest range being 350 miles. The lowest range is 20 miles. He noted that they can track vessels all the way over to the Russia coast line. 1:29:19 PM MR. FUHS provided a picture of the Chinese ice breaker "Xue Long." Although Xue Long is very large vessel, the Chinese are building one that's even larger, and will perhaps be the largest in the world, and intends to operate in the Arctic. He then presented a picture of a bulk vessel that's delivering fuel to the coast of Russia, which is always a concern. He also presented a slide of the Gamble site, where there are Russian vessels operating. The tanker in the slide is bound for Canadian oil field development. He then provided a slide of the offshore area of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) that's open to other nations. When one moves past the OCS, it becomes so deep that it's not rational for anyone to mine unless they're going to mine deep sea nodules. Under the Law of the Sea Treaty, deep sea mining of nodules is completely regulated, but "for the rest, it would establish rights for us as a coastal state." 1:30:41 PM MR. FUHS, in response to Representative Gardner, clarified that the slide with the tanker is not a Russian tanker, but rather is bound for a Canadian oil field. He noted that the tracking of the vessels provides the following information: type of vessel, country of origin, cargo type, depth of vessel, various operational aspects, and for some the rudder angle of the vessel. 1:31:32 PM MR. FUHS highlighted that the Marine Exchange of Alaska has the technical ability to know what's going on in the Arctic and a lot of activity is occurring in the Arctic. As policy makers, he surmised that they would have to weigh the costs and benefits [of the treaty]. However, he opined that failing to ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty would result in surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S. 1:32:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON asked if there is any way Alaska could make a commitment [to the treaty], but not the entire U.S. MR. FUHS replied no, adding that treaties of the U.S. are controlled exclusively by the U.S. Senate. 1:32:57 PM KATHIE WASSERMAN, Executive Director, Alaska Municipal League (AML), informed the committee that in November AML passed a resolution in support of ratifying UNCLOS. Upon doing research of the treaty, Ms. Wasserman discovered that the last seven or eight presidents have been in favor of ratification of the treaty as have most of the state department employees. However, there is a holdout by a few members of the Senate who believe they would be giving up economic sovereignty. Research also resulted in AML believing that the most important aspect of the Law of the Sea Treaty is to claim the seabed mineral resources in the continental shelf, even beyond the 200 mile EEZ. The limit of Alaska's area in Alaska's Arctic is unknown as hydrographic surveys haven't determined the full extent of the potential area along the Chukchi cap. The area is believed to be very extensive and thought to even reach the North Pole. She then recalled attending a meeting at which it was revealed that seven or eight countries that don't border the Arctic were making claims on Arctic mineral resources all the while the U.S. twiddles its thumbs, which she characterized as very irresponsible. She informed the committee that just last week she was in Washington, D.C., where she and other western state representatives had a meeting with the undersecretary of the Department of Natural Resources. The big issue was the black- footed ferret. Upon asking the undersecretary if he was aware of all the mineral resources in the Arctic, the undersecretary blankly stared at her and said he didn't believe that's in his department. However, Ms. Wasserman said she believes otherwise. She emphasized that it doesn't seem that the U.S. is tied into this issue as well as it should be, although she related her understanding that Alaska's Congressional delegation has done quite a bit of research on the issue. The lack of ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty would simply retain the status quo. Although the U.S. already abides by many of the laws of UNCLOS, it doesn't have a voice. Therefore, she expressed hope that the committee would support HJR 19. 1:36:42 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON, upon determining no one else wised to testify, closed public testimony. 1:37:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK inquired as to who the U.S. Senators are who oppose [ratification of the treaty] and their arguments against it. REPRESENTATIVE HERRON identified U.S. Senator Imhof as one of the handful of U.S. Senators opposing ratification of the treaty. The opposition is based on their belief that [ratification of the treaty] would negatively impact the sovereignty of the U.S. such that the U.S. sovereignty would be giving up sovereignty to a tribunal. However, that's not the view of the majority of folks who believe [ratification of the treaty] would merely be surrendering the sovereignty of the U.S. 1:38:27 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON, recalling a presentation by U.S. Senator Wicker during the Energy Conference, related that U.S. Senator Wicker expressed the need for the Secretary of State to utilize due diligence to gain control of the minerals and oil and gas resources [in the Arctic]. However, upon follow up regarding the Law of the Sea Treaty, U.S. Senator Wicker was more reticent because some interest groups feel there is some conflict with sovereignty. He highlighted that every time the U.S. signs a treaty, it's an international protocol to perform something. Therefore, some feel that the U.S. shouldn't sign any international protocol or treaty. Co-Chair Seaton highlighted that initially there were four reasons why the Heritage Foundation opposed UNCLOS. Upon corrections and changes, only one of those reasons remain, which is that signing a treaty gives up some sovereignty because of agreeing to a process that includes more people than [only the U.S.] Co-Chair Seaton said that's the only issue of which he is aware. 1:40:42 PM REPRESENTATIVE DICK noted that he, too, is concerned about the nation's sovereignty, which he believes has been compromised in the past. Referring to the language on page 2, lines 5-8, that relates the estimate "that the Arctic contains conventional oil and gas resources totaling approximately 90,000,000,000 barrels of oil", Representative Dick pointed out that Alaska can't even access the oil on its own land. Therefore, accessing other oil doesn't seem meaningful to him. Representative Dick said that until he has more details regarding what would be given up in terms of sovereignty, he couldn't support HJR 19. 1:41:42 PM CO-CHAIR SEATON related his understanding that the U.S. Coast Guard, Navy, and other military [branches] have all supported this. In fact, [Rear Admiral Christopher C. Colvin], Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard District, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security, obtained special permission to testify at a previous hearing. He mentioned that Rear Admiral Colvin's written testimony is included in the committee packet. 1:42:26 PM REPRESENTATIVE HERRON clarified that the language to which Representative Dick referred merely specifies that if the U.S. does not sign the treaty, then it's surrendering [those resources] to other nations. These are resources to which the U.S. has legitimate claim. Once the treaty is signed, the U.S. could extend 150 miles [beyond the existing zone] and the U.S. would be in first position. However, if the U.S. chooses not to ratify the treaty and another country lays claim to those resources, then the U.S. is in second position. 1:43:28 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER moved to report CSHJR 19, Version 27- LS0608\I, Kane, 3/9/11, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHJR 19(RES) was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee. 1:44:06 PM The committee took an at-ease from 1:44 p.m. to 1:46 p.m.