Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/23/1995 08:05 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 015 HSTA - 2/23/95 HJR 22 - ALASKA/RUSSIA MARITIME BOUNDARY REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, sponsor of HJR 22, stated this bill is not the first time this subject has been before the legislature. He said that on at least two previous occasions, the legislature has passed resolutions dealing with Wrangell Island. He asked for the opportunity to give the committee some historical background, as he said there were some who argued resolutions of this type were somehow meant to provoke some type of conflict with the Russian government. He said this was not true, that Wrangell Island was discovered and claimed by Americans, as well as occupied by them. He said that in the 1900s, Arctic exploration had the glamour and mystique that space exploration has for us today. It wasn't until 1909, that man actually reached the Polar Regions. Siberia, he said was still a vast unexplored wilderness. A Swedish naval officer with Russian citizenship, by the name of Von Wrangell, was a very famous Arctic explorer. He stated there was a lot of speculation about what was in the Arctic Ocean in the 1900s, including thoughts that there was a large continent there and that it was a warm water ocean if you could just get past the ice blockade that cut it off from the Bering Straits or the Atlantic Ocean. There is some speculation, he said, that Von Wrangell first spotted Wrangell Island, but most historical facts indicate that he could not have possibly done so, based on the coordinates of his location and the actual location of Wrangell Island. He stated that in 1867, an American whaling boat was the first to spot Wrangell Island and record it on a map. He said one of the most famous Arctic explorations of the last century was the voyage of the USS Jeannette. He said the USS Jeannette was a navy vessel staffed with naval officers, but that it was sponsored by private enterprise and it's crew was made up of private citizens. He said the actual sponsor of the voyage was the publisher of the New York Herald, James Bennett. He was the most flamboyant newspaper publisher of the day. He said that he sponsored many such voyages, with the intent of selling newspapers. With his sponsorship, the USS Jeannette went north into the Arctic under Captain Delong. In 1879, the USS Jeannette got stuck in the polar ice and was unable to get out. For two years, this vessel drifted in the Arctic ice. On July 12, 1881, the ice crushed the Jeannette, which sank, and whose crew abandoned ship and got separated as they made their way to the Siberian coastline. Half of the crew perished from starvation and the remainder was saved by some Siberian Eskimos off the Lena River Delta. Meanwhile, rescue missions had been launched to try and find the Jeannette. One of these was the US Revenue Marine ship, Thomas Corwyn. While sailing in this area, the ship spotted Wrangell Island and landed on it, claiming it in the name of the United States. One of the crewman present on the Thomas Corwyn was the founder of the Sierra Club, John Muir. He said this was well documented in the Congressional record and in official naval histories. This expedition was followed by the USS Rogers just a few weeks later, which landed on Wrangell Island and surveyed the entire 3,000 square mile island. Prior to this, it was not known whether this was an island or a peninsula of a large continent. Original maps showed this not as Wrangell Island, but as Wrangell Land. He said that to back up in history, Von Wrangell was the governor of Russian Alaska in the 1840s. He clarified that Von Wrangell did not ever really sight Wrangell Island. Subsequent to its discovery and claim by the United States in 1881, many things took place on Wrangell Island. He said that in 1910, there was actually a Hollywood movie filmed on Wrangell Island. Wrangell Island was also the base for many polar bear hunts and expeditions by museums in New York and Chicago. In 1921, an American citizen named Val Maar Stephenson, received title from the U. S. State Department and attempted to start a settlement on the island. This settlement failed and in 1923, a rescue vessel finally reached it. Only one survivor remained, an Eskimo woman named Ata Blackjack. At that point, the Loman brothers of Nome paid Stephenson $100,000 for title to Wrangell Island, with plans to turn it into a large reindeer station. They proceeded with their plans until 1924, when the Russian gunboat, Red October, landed with a company of soldiers and took the American colonists prisoner. Several of the colonists died in captivity and those that survived were returned to the United States without their property or valuables. Subsequent to this event, there have been numerous correspondences and meetings with first Russia, then the Soviet Union, and now Russia again, regarding Wrangell Island. He stated that the U.S. always maintained that the Wrangell Islands, the Delong Islands, and Henrietta Island were sovereign possessions of the United States. He said this correspondence went on until 1984, at which point the U.S. State Department took the position that the United States did not have sovereignty over the islands. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that he wanted to back up in history to 1867, and the United States' purchase of Alaska. He said that with that purchase, there was never established a boundary between Alaska and Russia. He stated that we had what was called a conference line, which amounts to a purchase agreement. He said this conference line could not be represented on a map and that to this day, there was no boundary between Russia and Alaska. He mentioned that in 1986, the U.S. Department of the Interior set up an offshore lease sale in the Navarin Basin, estimated to hold 1.9 billion barrels of petroleum. In the lease sale, he said, the Department of Interior clarified the boundary between the United States and Russia was uncertain and that actual title to these leases could not be ascertained for certain. He stated that after a couple of years, the Department of Interior was forced to return the lease deposits to the bidders, as they were unable to clarify the boundary between the United States and Russia. At that time, the U.S. State Department started taking the position the United States had no claim on Wrangell Island. The United States Senate never ratified a proposed treaty the State Department put forward to the Soviet Union, but the State Department said it would abide by the terms of the treaty until it was ratified. He said the U.S. Congress actually issued a resolution stating they were not going to give up this territory. Following the proposed treaty, the Soviet Union dissolved, and the treaty still has not been ratified. Thus, the status of Wrangell Island and the boundary between Alaska and Russia still remains unsettled. He said that in reality, we were talking tens of thousands of square miles of continental shelf territory, as well as the islands themselves. He stated this resolution takes the position that the legislature of this state feels that Alaska has an interest in these negotiations, and that if there are any negotiations between the United States and Russia, regarding this matter, then the State of Alaska should have a delegate present. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said the original resolution contained language that requested the Governor to take extensive steps to pursue Alaska's interests in these properties. Because of this, the Department of Law attached a $150,000 fiscal note to this resolution to compensate attorneys to do research. He said he did not intend to make a big issue of this or a large fiscal note, in fact, he did not want to create any fiscal impact with this resolution. He stated the research on this issue had already been done by other interested parties. An example of support for this issue is the state of California, whose legislature has passed resolutions in support of Alaska's claim and participation in any talks regarding the Wrangell Islands. They have a very similar situation with islands off their coast, in that there is not a clear boundary with Mexico. Again, the boundary between California and Mexico was not established by the treaty between Mexico and the United States. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked that the committee adopt another committee substitute for HJR 22, which adds wording requesting the Governor take action to protect Alaska's interests in this matter, but keeping it simple to avoid adding costs in a fiscal note for this resolution. He mentioned that the committee had before them, the attached fiscal note for $150,000 from the previous committee, but stated this note had been changed to a zero dollar fiscal note by the previous committee. He wanted to note that there were two witnesses on teleconference, who have been working on this matter for over 20 years and were personal friends with Ralph Loman, the individual who actually held title to Wrangell Island. He said they have conducted several interviews with him and were responsible for gathering much of the data the committee had before them. He added this was just a small part of the research that has taken place on this matter. He urged the committee to keep Alaska's interests in these islands in the forefront, and if the United States is going to negotiate away a part of Alaska's territorial boundaries, then at least Alaska should be allowed to participated in these negotiations. He concluded by saying he would be happy to answer any questions of the committee. CHAIR JAMES stated that she thought that the committee should hear the testimony from the witnesses on teleconference before asking any questions. She asked if Carl Olson was available to testify. Number 328 CARL OLSON, Chairman, State Department Watch, stated that his group had been fighting this giveaway of U.S. territory to the Russians for over ten years. He added that they were the only group allowed to testify at the U.S. Senate hearings when the U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement came up for consideration. Mr. Olson said he strongly urges the passage of this resolution, because in the 15 years that the State Department has been working on these negotiations, they have never allowed the state of Alaska or the general public to participate. He thought definite legal action was needed as soon as possible to correct this. He stated past Alaska legislatures have passed a series of resolutions on this matter over the last eight years, and even sent a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations urging renegotiation to include full participation and consent by the state of Alaska. To this date, it has been to no avail. He said that to add further to Alaska and the United States, at the time that the agreement was signed in 1990, Secretary of State James Baker signed a side agreement stating the terms of this agreement would be abided by regardless of whether it was ever ratified by the Congress. He said this act amounted to in effect a unilateral amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which gives the Secretary of State the power to adopt agreements that would normally take a completed treaty to implement. He added that this was a secret agreement, not mentioned at the time or mentioned at the time the proposed U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary Agreement was transmitted to Congress. He said it was not mentioned in State Department's testimony at the Senate hearings on this issue, or even in Senate floor debate on the matter. He said that as a result of their efforts, tens of thousands of letters have been transmitted to the State Department opposing this giveaway and several organizations have adopted resolutions opposing the State Department agreement. MR. OLSON stated that the state of California was strongly backing Alaska's right to participate in this issue, as a threat to one state's territorial sovereignty was a threat to all. He added that a few days ago, he had been told by California Senator Don Rogers, that he was planning to introduce an updated version of this resolution, and expected it to pass overwhelmingly. He concluded by saying he thought legal issues needed to be pursued with regard to this matter and the Governor and Attorney General needed to be impressed with the magnitude of this problem. He stated that his group had done extensive legal research on this matter, amounting to hundreds of hours, and would be happy to make it available. He thanked the committee for the opportunity to testify. CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Olson for his testimony and asked Mark Seidenberg if he was available to testify. Number 372 MARK SEIDENBERG, Vice-Chairman, State Department Watch, said he wanted to impress on the committee the magnitude of the loss for the state of Alaska if it fails to fight for its' rights. He stated that most people are aware that Alaska is over twice the size of Texas, but that too few know that in 1977, the United States grew by about three times the size of Texas in the vicinity of Alaska, because it was now entitled to 200 miles of exclusive economic zone extending seaward from every coastline. As a result of the proposed U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary, the federal government is intent on giving away enough seabed in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea, equal to about one-tenth its size in territory. He added the state of Alaska faces a loss of sovereignty, property, minerals and other resource rights, and related businesses and jobs. The total could easily range into the billions of dollars. Mr. Seidenberg said that as a result of the Submerged Lands Act, states own the rights to submerged lands up to three miles from their coastline. Thus, the state of Alaska will be deprived of its submerged lands around Wrangell, Harold, Bennett, Jeannette, and Henrietta Islands in the Arctic Ocean. It would also be deprived of its rights to the submerged lands around Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock, and Sea Otter Rock at the western-most part of the Aleutians. He said in addition, the submerged lands around Little Diomede Island in the Bering Straits, have been arbitrarily chopped off by the federal government negotiators in their drawing of the proposed maritime boundary. He stated that it slices the western-most part of the island and doesn't even pretend to be an equidistant boundary between Little Diomede and Big Diomede Island. He argued that the hasty manner in which the federal government negotiated the proposed boundary line, can be seen in its ignorance of traditional boundary surveying practice. Mr. Seidenberg stated the baseline is supposed to be set by using the average mean water line on the relevant coast, but that the U.S. Coast and Geodetic survey has told them it has never conducted the necessary surveys to establish the baseline along the relevant coast. Thus, it becomes apparent, that the federal government never intended to do a thorough and accurate job to begin with. He summarized the possible loss of resources to Alaska, by saying there was a good chance that valuable oil and gas deposits exist throughout the Chukchi Sea. Furthermore, Alaska is the largest fishing state in the country and the Texas size seabeds to be abandoned to Russia include valuable fishing grounds. This would mean a great loss to the U.S. fishing fleet and related shore-based processing facilities. He thought that if this proposed agreement is allowed to go unopposed, then the federal government is being allowed to unconstitutionally alienate a portion of the territory of the sovereign state of Alaska, without it's consent, thereby affecting the rights and economic health of Alaska. He argued that this was a plight, not just for Alaskans, but for all Americans. Mr. Seidenberg said that their group pledged their assistance to help Alaska to assert and win it's rightful sovereignty, property, minerals and other resource rights. He said he would be willing to answer any questions the committee might have. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any questions that the committee might have of either of the testifying witnesses. REPRESENTATIVE ED WILLIS asked what some of the past Presidential administrations had done with regards to this issue. Number 448 MR. OLSON responded that the negotiations over this proposed boundary had started back in 1978, with the U.S. State Department and have gone through four administrations, whose bureaucracy maintained the same position of giving this area away to the Russians and not allowing the participation of anyone but themselves. Mr. Olson indicated they had actually kept a series of negotiations secret so that no one else could participate. Unfortunately, he said there had been a bi-partisan effort to deny Alaska it's rights and property. REPRESENTATIVE WILLIS further queried what the position had been from Alaska's own congressional delegation. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered by saying that in the packet was enclosed an Attorney General's opinion by Avrum Gross, dating from 1975. The state had taken a position back then, he said. He stated that subsequent to that time, there had been a somewhat non-committal position. He said roughly speaking, the congressional delegation position has been that Alaska should not get involved with international negotiations. He thought that they were not really taking a position one way or the other. He urged Carl Olson to update the committee on the position of our congressional delegation. Number 476 MR. OLSON said he could not speak directly for either Senator Murkowski or Stevens, but that they had not been very helpful in the matter. He stated they had not been vigorously pursuing the interests of the state of Alaska. Mr. Olson said that he did want to mention that Congressman Don Young was a co-sponsor of a bill that would have required that any of these types of maritime boundary negotiations were in the form of a treaty, requiring congressional ratification. He stated our two U.S. Senators had not been helpful at all in this matter, and had actually spoken in favor of the proposed U.S./U.S.S.R. Maritime Boundary agreement. CHAIR JAMES commented that it appeared to her that Alaska's interest would be more with regards to the maritime boundary with Russia, as opposed to the issue of sovereignty over Wrangell Island. She said knowing the relationship between the federal government and Alaska, if it was determined the United States had sovereignty over Wrangell Island, they would more than likely not want to include it as territory of Alaska. She said though, that we certainly have an interest in the proposed maritime boundary, especially considering the arbitrary line they have drawn cuts off a corner of Little Diomede Island. She thought we certainly needed to correct this deficiency and determine a more fair boundary, and that we were certainly a player in any negotiations. She felt this was a very valid resolution and that it ought to go forward to the next committee. She said that we have to make a statement. She asked if there were any further comments or questions from the committee. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wanted to clarify that the State Department did issue title to Wrangell Island to first Stephenson and then the Loman Brothers Company, and they recognized this for many years. He thought that Carl Olson could possibly elaborate, but he believed this title was actually recorded in Alaska. CHAIR JAMES asked though, whether they bought it for the state of Alaska or for themselves. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY responded that they obviously bought for themselves, that when any individual buys property, they do so for themselves not the state of Alaska. He pointed out though that the governance and the laws were all under the authority of Alaska, and that as he understood it, the documents were recorded in Alaska. MR. SEIDENBERG stated he thought he was better prepared to answer those questions than Mr. Olson. He said that in 1881, Mr. Hooper the captain of the ship, Thomas Corwyn, gave the order for the United States government to take possession of Wrangell Island. All five of these islands were determined by the United States geological survey, to be inclusive within Alaska. They published a publication called Altitudes in Alaska, in 1900. Mr. Seidenberg indicated it was already part of Alaska during the time that the Treasury Department administered Alaska, during its stewardship between 1877 and 1884, prior to Alaska's first organic act. He said it was the federal government that placed those islands in Alaska. When the Loman Brothers purchased the island on April 1, 1924, they had a conversation with the current Secretary of State, Charles Evans Hughes, on May 13th of that year, and he acknowledged that they were the owners of the property. Mr. Hughes later became a Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court and was an international lawyer. At that time, he said that the Russians had no claim to the islands under international law, and that the Loman Brothers were the rightful owners of the island. The island has been a part of Alaska since 1881, and the U.S. Department of Interior published a map and numerous documents up through 1977, and listed it as U.S. territory on those documents as a part of Alaska. CHAIR JAMES stated she supposed that whatever the case with regards to sovereignty over Wrangell Island, Alaska should be a player in any negotiations. She said this was what the resolution stated and she would urge the committee to pass it out. She asked if there were any other questions or comments from the committee, or if Representative Vezey wanted to add anything to his sponsor statement. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY encouraged the committee members to hold on to this packet, as it was quite a compilation of Alaskan history and not easily attainable without considerable effort. CHAIR JAMES agreed and added that she had the book which told the story of the U.S.S. Jeannette expedition if anyone was interested in borrowing it. Number 555 REPRESENTATIVE CAREN ROBINSON asked what had amounted to the letter, which was sent May 17,1991, and signed by the Alaska State Legislature. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said he did not think that anything had come of any of the correspondence regarding this matter, as the issue was still in limbo. He stated that the issue was still unresolved. REPRESENTATIVE ROBINSON asked if he had any suggestions as to how we could keep this issue at the forefront, instead of having to continually send resolutions that they just ignore. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that he thought the main thing that this resolution would accomplish is to keep the issue in the public eye, so that the federal government would not be able to abrogate our rights without an explanation. He said there was always the option of pursuing legal action and there was tremendous legal grounds for at least appealing to the International Court of Claims. He thought we could, if we wanted to, appeal this whole issue to the United Nations. He stated he did not think anyone was advocating that we get involved in a long drawn out legal expense at this time, but that as recent as the last decade, there were people recovering claims dating back to the Civil War for international incidents that occurred in this region. CHAIR JAMES verified that the committee members had a copy of the proposed committee substitute version F. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that they did not, but that his aide would pass them out at that time. CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Vezey to explain the difference between the proposed substitute and the original draft of HJR 22. Number 567 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated that the proposed committee substitute adds wording, page three line 26, requesting the Attorney General and the Governor pursue these matters. CHAIR JAMES asked whether this was a recommendation from the House Special Committee of World Trade and State/Federal Relations. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY answered that the original draft contained much stronger language with more detail and this version was toned down and just requests that the Administration get involved and take a position. CHAIR JAMES asked for a motion adopting CSHJR 22(STA) version F as the committee's working document. Number 595 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN moved to adopt CSHJR 22(STA) version F as the committee's working document. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the motion passed. She asked for a motion to pass the bill out of committee. Number 602 REPRESENTATIVE OGAN moved to pass CSHJR 22 (STA), version F, out of committee with a zero fiscal note and individual recommendations. CHAIR JAMES asked if there were any objections. Hearing none, the resolution was passed out of the House State Affairs Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|