Legislature(1999 - 2000)
02/22/2000 05:10 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE
AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
February 22, 2000
5:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Gail Phillips
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 35
"Relating to requesting the United States Congress to repeal the
Brady Handgun Protection Act."
- MOVED HJR 35 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
"Relating to mandates and other conditions imposed on the states
by the federal government."
- MOVED CSHJR 44(WTR) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 48
"Relating to the free flow of people and the fair trade of goods
and services across the border between the United States and
Canada."
- MOVED HJR 48 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 35
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL BRADY ACT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/31/99 624 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/31/99 624 (H) WTR, JUD
5/18/99 1638 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KOHRING
1/26/00 2018 (H) COSPONSOR(S): SANDERS
2/15/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/15/00 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 2/22/00 --
2/22/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 44
SHORT TITLE: CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON STATES BY FED GOVT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/14/00 1919 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/14/00 1919 (H) WTR, RES
2/15/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/15/00 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 2/22/00 --
2/22/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 48
SHORT TITLE: ACCESS ACROSS UNITED STATES/CANADA BORDER
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/26/00 2006 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/26/00 2006 (H) WTR
2/15/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
2/15/00 (H) -- Meeting Postponed to 2/22/00 --
2/22/00 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Legislative Aide
to Representative John B. Coghill
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement for HJR 35.
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 44.
SCOTT PETSEL, Legislative Aide
to Representative Gail Phillips
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement for HJR 48.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-3, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR RAMONA BARNES called the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting to order at 5:10 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes,
Cowdery, Phillips, and Joule. Representatives Masek, Green, and
Berkowitz arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HJR 35-REPEAL BRADY ACT
Number 0080
CHAIR BARNES announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 35, "Relating to requesting the United
States Congress to repeal the Brady Handgun Protection Act."
RYNNIEVA MOSS, Legislative Aide to Representative John B.
Coghill, Alaska State Legislature, presented the sponsor
statement of Representative Coghill, prime sponsor of HJR 35, on
his behalf. Ms. Moss read the following:
In reading the direction of congressional actions on
gun control, it appears that Congress has given up on
the Second Amendment. Congress is reviewing
legislation that would disallow civil suits against gun
manufacturers and disallow retention of criminal search
records of law-abiding citizens.
But Congress is doing too little to restore the ability
of individuals to protect themselves and their
families. The federal government regulates the sales
of guns through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms. There is a burdensome requirement of
licensing for gun dealers that includes criminal
background checks and reporting serial numbers of
firearms sold.
I checked with Del Smith, deputy commissioner of
[Department of] Public Safety, and they do not
participate in any of the crime checks. The question
has to be, Who does the Brady Act protect? We already
know that illegal weapons are the prized commodity that
comes with burglary and sometimes death. We have seen
from the Swiss practice of requiring citizens to be
armed that crime is reduced, yet we persist in
broadening the Brady Act that was created to establish
a criminal check and gun registry into a gun-ban law.
The fact of the matter is that criminals do not buy
firearms through legal means, and when criminals do
attempt to purchase firearms, contrary to the Brady
Act, the law is not enforced by this administration and
criminals are not prosecuted. But we continue to
intimidate law-abiding citizens and invade their
privacy.
If the Brady Act is not enforced, then there is no
compelling interest on the part of the federal
government to invade the privacy of law-abiding
citizens, restrict their ability to protect themselves
and their families against criminals left on the
streets, or, for that matter, limit their ability to
provide food for their families.
Number 0307
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked Ms. Moss if she knew of any law-
abiding citizens who had been denied [the right to purchase a
gun] once that person went through the background check. He said
he could understand its [the procedure's] being a bit cumbersome,
but he wondered if anybody had been denied.
MS. MOSS said she did not have an answer to that question, and
that she suspected one would have to look at the direction in
which the Brady Act has gone, broadening the powers of the Brady
Act, which restrict what guns can be purchased. She said there
is a long list of guns that cannot be purchased anymore. In
fact, a lot of the hunting rifles used in Alaska are considered
semi-automatic weapons. One also has to look at the trend toward
people who have been convicted of a misdemeanor, domestic
violence; they are no longer qualified to purchase guns. If she
had to give an opinion [as to whether any law-abiding citizen had
been denied the right to purchase a gun], the answer would be
yes.
CHAIR BARNES asked if Representative Croft had not sponsored a
similar measure that the committee already had passed.
MS. MOSS said yes, the similar bill was House Joint Resolution 9,
"Urging the President of the United States and the Congress to
act to ensure that federal agencies do not retain records
relating to lawful purchase or ownership of firearms gathered
through the Brady Handgun Bill instant check system." It is now
in the Senate State Affairs Committee. Ms. Moss explained that
House Joint Resolution 9 encouraged Congress to enact legislation
that would prevent the retention of crime check [reports] on
citizens that said those citizens had no criminal records.
CHAIR BARNES asked if House Joint Resolution 9 specifically dealt
with the Brady Act.
MS. MOSS confirmed that it did.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HJR 35 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes. There being no objection, HJR 35 was moved out of
the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal
Relations.
HJR 44-CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON STATES BY FED GOVT
Number 0532
CHAIR BARNES introduced the next order of business, HOUSE JOINT
RESOLUTION No. 44, "Relating to mandates and other conditions
imposed on the states by the federal government."
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, prime
sponsor, began by explaining that the genesis of HJR 44 was a
booklet, "Sovereignty of the People and Devolution," from the
American Legislative Exchange Council. The council is a
bipartisan organization of state legislators whose agenda is to
restore the Tenth Amendment and states' rights as intended in the
United States Constitution. The council provides model
legislation that Representative Ogan said he used as a basis and
modified slightly to fit Alaskans' situation.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN reminded the committee that a little more
than 225 years ago, Americans started this great experiment, the
United States government, a popular sovereignty. They came from
a system of privileged sovereignty, in which the royalty had
power over the people and the people were subject to a hierarchy.
Having had a bad experience with that, the founding fathers
decided to empower the people of this nation with the sovereignty
and make the states subject to the people and the federal
government subject to the states. Representative Ogan asserted
that in the last 50 years, there has been a great undermining, a
little bit at a time, of the sovereign rights of the states.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN explained that the United States does not
have what is called a unitary government. Instead, all local
governments and the federal government are creations of and under
the control of the states. That is exactly the way the
constitution was designed. Representative Ogan said:
A person for whom I have great respect, Patrick Henry,
was invited to the Constitutional Convention, and he
declined to participate in it. And after the
convention was done, he advocated against the ratifying
of the U.S. Constitution because he felt it undermined
the sovereignty of the states and of the individuals.
He is credited by many people with being the father of
the first ten amendments, which were subsequently
ratified.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said the first part of HJR 44 talks about the
Tenth Amendment to the constitution and the scope and power of
that amendment. It also quotes a [United States] Supreme Court
decision, in the case of New York vs. the United States, that
said Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes
of the states by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a
federal regulatory program. House Joint Resolution 44 also
refers to the powers of Congress itemized in Article 1, Section
8, of the U.S. Constitution. It talks about the powers and the
duties of Congress, and then says, "and to exercise the authority
over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of
the state, and in the same state shall be for the erection of
forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful
buildings."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he thinks the federal government has a
little too much land in Alaska for the erection of forts and
magazines and arsenals and docks and other "needful buildings."
He wondered what George Washington would think if he saw the
situation in America today with the power that the federal
government has over the states and the amount of land that it
owns. He quoted from HJR 44:
This resolution serves as notice and demand to the
federal government to immediately cease and desist from
imposing mandates on the states that are beyond the
scope of its authority under the Tenth Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States; and making any
efforts to regulate, manage, or control the utilization
of fish and wildlife resources found within the State
of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN concluded by saying that regardless of how
one feels about the issue of the management of Alaskan resources
and the allocation thereof, he believes "that the true cusp of
the issue is whether or not the state, indeed, is sovereign and
what authority the federal government has to impose its will on
us."
CHAIR BARNES invited questions. She then referred to "whereases"
in HJR 44 "that will cause a great uproar." She asked
Representative Ogan what he would think if instead of speaking
specifically to particular issues, the committee were to delete
some of those and address the resolution more specifically to
imposing mandates on the state that are beyond the scope and
authority of the Tenth Amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he understood the reasoning behind that
suggestion and would be willing to consider such a change.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS expressed concern about wording on page
2, line 22. She said she understood where the sponsor was coming
from, but for us [legislators] to be so presumptuous as to
"demand" that the federal government immediately cease and desist
"makes us look like a bunch of renegades."
CHAIR BARNES suggested deleting the word "demand," leaving the
phrase "serves notice and requests."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS concurred.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said in that case he might as well withdraw
the resolution. He explained:
We request a lot of things, and they pretty much ignore
it. I think we need to assert our sovereign rights
with as much authority as we possibly can. I don't
think it's a question of "Will you please not violate
our sovereignty." People have died and wars have been
fought over sovereign rights to manage our resources.
CHAIR BARNES proposed alternative wording: "This resolution
serves as notice (delete the words "and demands") to the federal
government to immediately cease and desist." She said she did
not think that change would do any harm whatsoever. "You don't
have to put in the 'request' word, and you've taken the slag
out," she added.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would accept that as a friendly
amendment.
There being no objection, the phrase "and demands" was stricken
from HJR 44 as Amendment 1.
Number 1321
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE said he did not object to the amendment, but
he was not supportive of HJR 44 in general because the state has
had ample opportunities to try to address some of these issues.
He added, "What is the weight of this resolution, anyway? It
tells what a portion of the legislature is feeling on this
issue."
CHAIR BARNES said that is a problem common to all of the
resolutions that the legislature sends.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if, technically, HJR 44 was just going
to sit and collect dust.
CHAIR BARNES expressed hope than no resolution would do that.
Number 1402
CHAIR BARNES directed Representative Ogan's attention to page 2,
lines 6-8, and on down to lines 26 and 27. She asked if he would
object to removing those lines [Amendment 2] to make his
resolution more compelling to a larger group of people.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN acknowledged that this is a sensitive issue.
He said he believes with all his heart that this could be
resolved within Alaska, if people were given the opportunity. He
added:
But we are wrapped around the axle over who has
authority over whom. I think this is not only in line
with the legislature, but the governor also has been
asserting the state's authority over sovereign rights
to manage its navigable waters right now."
CHAIR BARNES said she understood what Representative Ogan was
saying, but believed that HJR 44 goes directly to the heart of
the Tenth Amendment. She indicated she didn't think her proposed
amendment would do the resolution any injustice, but would take a
lot of obstacles out of the way.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "Madame Chair, I appreciate where you
are going and the sensitivity that you have, and I will go along
with your wisdom and your seniority and not object to the second
amendment."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked the chair and complimented the
author for cooperating. He said he thought HJR 44 was a good
resolution.
CHAIR BARNES made a motion to adopt Amendment 2. Hearing no
objection, she indicated Amendment 2 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK protested that the meeting was moving so
quickly that she had not had time to object to the amendment.
Number 1668
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN directed the committee's attention to page
1, line 14. He suggested rewording it to read, "have been
demonstrably mistreated by the federal government and used to
carry out ...." He explained that he knew where the sponsor was
coming from; he feels the same way. However, he thought the
rewording would result in a document of higher quality.
CHAIR BARNES clarified that Representative Green was suggesting
adding "mis" in front of "treated."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN added that he also was deleting "as tools."
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said he would accept Representative Green's
wording as a friendly amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the line would then read, "demonstrably
mistreated by the federal government and used to carry out ..."
There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HJR 44, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHJR
44(WTR) was moved out of the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations.
HJR 48 - ACCESS ACROSS UNITED STATES/CANADA BORDER
Number 1811
CHAIR BARNES announced that the next resolution before the
committee would be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION No. 48, "A Resolution
Relating to the Free Flow of People and Fair Trade of Goods and
Services across the Border between the United States and Canada."
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS, sponsor, explained that HJR 48 had come
about from Alaska's involvement in the Council of State
Governments (CSG) and concerns regarding the federal Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. In
that federal Act, Section 110 would restrict the free movement of
people across the Canadian border. When the Act was written,
Congress did not look at it as affecting the Canadian border, but
other borders. By March 31, 2001, an automated system is
intended to be put into place to document every non-United States
citizen entering and exiting the U.S. border.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS pointed out that the United States has
free trade with people across the Canadian border on a regular
basis, and it [the new system] would cause a huge bottleneck. So
the Western states and the states bordering Canada all are in the
process of adopting resolutions to ask Congress to rewrite
Section 110. The CSG West, the National Governors' Association,
and the Cascadia Mayors' Council all have adopted resolutions in
favor of this change. Canadian neighbors have asked Alaska for
help on this. Representative Phillips said she thinks it would
be very beneficial to pass a resolution in support.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS provided statistics from 1998. Bilateral
trade [between the United States and Canada] was worth $397
billion. With Alaska alone, Canada traded a total of $492
million worth of goods. Alaska exported $91 million in metals to
Canada and imported $140 million worth of machinery from Canada.
Furthermore, 62,000 Canadians and 109,000 Alaskans crossed their
mutual borders in 1998.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said HJR 48 supports action by CSG West,
passed in Anchorage in 1998. In Quebec in December 1999, the
overall CSG reiterated this resolution, since Congress has not
yet taken action.
Number 2004
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY mentioned problems at the Alaska-Canada
border related to the salmon fishery issue.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said that following the M/V Malaspina
incident about two years ago [in which there was a blockade of an
Alaska state ferry at Prince Rupert, British Columbia, by fishing
vessels], there were a few incidents of Alaskans being
challenged. She said she went to the State Department, however,
and there have not been any complaints [since].
CHAIR BARNES noted for the record that Representative Berkowitz
had joined the meeting some time ago.
Number 2062
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS called attention to a new sponsor
statement on committee members' desks. There is one-word change
in the third paragraph from the bottom, where it says, "Canada
and the United States share the longest undefended border in the
world, and bilateral trade exceeds $1 billion every day,
supporting over 10 million jobs." She noted that the old sponsor
statement said "$1 billion every year," and it is "$1 billion
every day."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if HJR 48 would affect crossings
only at U.S.-Canada borders or also would affect any Canadian
entering the United States at any point of entry.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS said HJR 48 applies only to the U.S.-
Canada borders.
SCOTT PETSEL, Legislative Aide to Representative Phillips, Alaska
State Legislature, said his interpretation is that HJR 48 is
referring only to the land borders between the United States and
Canada, as mentioned in the first and second lines of the
resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS referred members to copies before them of
the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, and, specifically, to Section 110
therein.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he understood the intent, but that
as he reads Section 110, it is collecting the record of departure
for every alien in the United States. It does not specify that
it applies only to the U.S.-Canada border.
MR. PETSEL said that might be a valid interpretation.
REPRESENTATIVE PHILLIPS emphasized that HJR 48 addresses only the
land borders between the U.S. and Canada. She had been in
contact with CSG West, and there is agreement that Congress did
not mean for this to apply to the Canadian borders with the
United States. For the record, all of the committees with which
she had been involved - the National Conference of State
Legislatures, CSG West and CSG nationally - take the same tack
that this [the federal Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act] was intended to stop illegal immigration
across the United States' southern borders.
Number 2254
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HJR 48 out of
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
notes. There being no objection, HJR 48 was moved out of the
House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal
Relations.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations
meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|