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.