Legislature(2009 - 2010)BARNES 124
03/08/2010 01:00 PM House RESOURCES
Download Mp3. <- Right click and save file as
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HJR 49-OPPOSING EPA CLEAN AIR ACT REGULATIONS 1:05:14 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN announced that the first order of business is HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 49, Urging the United States Congress to enact S.J. Res. 26, a resolution disapproving the Environmental Protection Agency's imposition of climate regulations that would harm Alaska's economy and the livelihoods of the state's citizens. 1:05:47 PM JOHN COAN, Staff, Representative Bill Stoltze, Alaska State Legislature, began by noting that the sponsor has worked closely with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski on the issue of climate regulations. He said HJR 49 is a resolution disapproving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) intention to use the Clean Air Act to impose backdoor climate regulations. Such regulations would be hurtful to all economic areas of Alaska and would include any areas that produce greenhouse gases, such as Alaska's refineries, pipelines, hospitals, and other entities. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, he said the sponsor is worried that many of the major economic drivers of the state would be severely impacted by any greenhouse gas and environmental regulations imposed by the EPA. Over 80 percent of Alaska's unrestricted general fund revenue comes directly from oil and gas. 1:07:33 PM MR. COAN pointed out that a November 3, 2009, letter from Governor Parnell to U.S. Senators Boxer and Inhofe states that Alaska produces approximately 13 percent of the nation's oil supply. Alaska's economy relies heavily upon responsible development of natural resources, unburdened by superfluous regulations; the sponsor therefore feels this message to stop the EPA from commencing on this path must be sent to Alaska's congressional delegation as well as the rest of the U.S. Congress. He said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is in the position now of using its endangerment finding, which is a scientific study based on six greenhouse gas emissions, to create economy-wide command and control regulations that would stifle the economic development of Alaska. The climate regulations would be fundamentally detrimental to Alaska's economy, stifle the state's economic development, and potentially create enormous job losses within the state. 1:09:05 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked who the sponsor seeks to influence with this resolution. MR. COAN responded that HJR 49 urges the U.S. Congress to enact U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's Senate Joint Resolution 26, a resolution that would disapprove the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's rule relating to the endangerment finding and the cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG inquired whether there is an upside to changing the carbons emissions. MR. COAN replied the upsides are very minimal and most of the literature seen by the sponsor has been to the negative. He said he will get back to Representative Guttenberg in this regard. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON interjected he is unsure he could ever see an upside to having a non-elected bureaucracy making decisions. The resolution says this issue should be put in the hands of elected officials who go home to face their constituents. 1:12:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI requested an explanation of section 202 of the Clean Air Act. MR. COAN answered that section 202 deals specifically with motor vehicle emissions and fuel standards and the curtailing of emissions from the tailpipes of passenger cars, buses, trucks, off-road vehicles, and construction equipment. It is a progressive limitation. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Mr. Coan to provide copies of section 202 to committee members. 1:13:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired how long section 202 has been around and why it is impacting the state today as opposed to 10 or 20 years ago. MR. COAN responded he does not know, but he believes section 202 has been around since the act went through and, if not, then it was part of the amendment in the 1970s. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON offered his belief that there has been a real reluctance by previous administrations to enact such wide- sweeping changes through an agency rather than the U.S. Congress. However, this administration's policy is different as it is exhibiting the willingness to enact laws and to inflict great pain on states through regulations and not through laws. 1:15:13 PM REPRESENTATIVE OLSON stated that the underlying research [on climate change] is flawed to an unknown degree and for that reason he supports HJR 49. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked whether someone will be testifying to that effect instead of just making statements about it being flawed. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN suggested the sponsor could be asked to find someone to look into that. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN requested Mr. Coan to talk about what other countries are doing in regard to carbon emissions. MR. COAN answered that his research was specifically on the two vehicles in the U.S. Senate - House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733. However, the sponsor believes that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong vehicle to pursue these standards; rather, it should be taken care of by the U.S. Congress. While he is not up on the latest globally, he believes that the push is for some measure to control greenhouse gas emissions. He is unsure of the most common or best vehicle out there, but he is sure U.S. Senator Murkowski's office has looked into that more thoroughly than he has. 1:17:31 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN inquired whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency would be imposing taxes on carbon emissions. MR. COAN responded the sponsor feels that could very well be the case. If the "cap and trade" tax goes into effect, federal revenues would go into the billions of dollars and there would be detriments throughout the economy due to industries having to be curtailed. In further response, he explained that if House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 are enacted the nation would be allotted to produce only so much in greenhouse gases and this would also go back into the endangerment finding because it might become a more severe imposition of these restrictions. The nation's allotment would have to be divided amongst all its industries and the industries would have to pay to get their share; this tax is where the federal revenues would come in. The sponsor feels this would be especially unfair for Alaska due to the state's size, population, arctic climate, and so forth, and would unfairly hamper the state. 1:19:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether a senate joint resolution by the U.S. Congress has the full effect of law. MR. COAN replied he is unsure, but he does know from a recent conversation with the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) that Senate Joint Resolution 26 would have to be heard on the floor. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG surmised that Senate Joint Resolution 26 has not yet been heard. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether the Alaska State Legislature is being asked to weigh in on a congressional resolution even though it is unknown what a congressional resolution does. In response to Co-Chair Neuman, he clarified that he is asking what Senate Joint Resolution 26 actually does and whether it is the sponsor's intent with HJR 49 to support a resolution in Congress that has no effect of law. MR. COAN said the question is out of his realm of expertise. However, he could say for sure that as a disapproval resolution, HJR 49 has a place to go. 1:21:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG, in regard to the whereas clause on page 3, line 17, offered his belief that development of an Alaska gas pipeline would be promoted, not made harder, should high carbon emission fuels become detrimental. In response to several questions from Co-Chair Neuman, he stated that if oil cannot be used there would be pressure to find a replacement, and gas would be one of the main replacement fuels. While the intent is to keep the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from doing things that committee members think it should not be doing, he thinks members need to have a better understanding given that gas development in Alaska is the committee's main concern. He thinks that rather than hampering development of an Alaska gas pipeline, it would be enhanced, and therefore this whereas clause should not be included in HJR 49. MR. COAN responded that this whereas clause is specifically about the construction of a gas pipeline. If the EPA gets its hands around this specific regulatory ability, it might be able to stymie the actual construction of the pipeline due to the greenhouse gas that would be produced by the bulldozers and other construction equipment. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG added that if greenhouse gases become the important thing, then alternative fuels will need to be developed and he thinks gas is it. Thus, he does not think the proposed gasline would be hurt and Alaska would be hurting itself by including this whereas. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN opened public testimony. 1:27:09 PM MARY SHIELDS requested each committee member to state whether he or she thinks climate change has positive or negative effects on Alaska. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN replied that committees do not generally answer questions from the public. He asked whether Ms. Shields is representing herself. MS. SHIELDS said she is representing herself and believes that Congress will not be passing any legislation to decrease greenhouse emissions because its members are pre-occupied with getting re-elected, not finding solutions. Solutions require people to change behavior and she recognizes that changing behavior is uncomfortable. Fairbanks has a serious air quality problem, yet people are unwilling to trade in their old wood stoves for cleaner, more efficient new ones. Congress is not composed of scientists, while the EPA employs professional scientists who understand the problems and create scientific solutions. Alaska is probably being impacted by climate change more than any other place in the world. For example, Fairbanks has had very warm weather this winter and things are thawing early. People who live on permafrost are having severe problems and repair of roads and infrastructures will be much more expensive in 10 years than dealing with the problem now. She urged that U.S. Senator Murkowski's resolution not be endorsed and instead the EPA's scientists should be relied upon and their suggestions be followed on how Alaska can be a part of solving the problem rather than contributing to the problem. 1:30:38 PM MS. SHIELDS related that the first paragraph of Alaska's constitution states dedication to the principles that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of rewards of their own industry, and that all persons have corresponding obligations to the people and to the state. Thus, even if businesses lose a little money on this, they have an obligation to provide that natural right to life, and life is in trouble in Interior Alaska. Cooling off the environment would help keep the permafrost from thawing and would help the Interior's trees from becoming even more infected with insects, which in turn increases the tinder problem for wildfires. She asked committee members to be brave enough to stand up for what really needs to be done. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN urged Ms. Shields to visit the legislature's website should she wish to ask questions of legislators or submit her viewpoints via public opinion messages. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that Ms. Shields lives in his district and runs a recreational dog mushing facility. 1:32:27 PM CARL STRALEY (ph) stated he believes HJR 49 is misguided and shortsighted, as is Senate Joint Resolution 26. The world is coming to grips with carbon emissions being a problem for the climate as well as the acidity of the oceans, something that may already be impacting Alaska's fisheries. Scientists in the Environmental Protection Agency formulate the regulations based on science. Elected officials have an important role, but they are not scientists and do not necessarily understand the subtleties of atmospheric and oceanic chemistry; therefore, he does not think it is their place to step in and make short- sighted decisions to inhibit the ability of the EPA to do its job. He said HJR 49 is an inappropriate resolution and discouraged its passage. 1:35:01 PM JOE GELDHOF, Alaska Climate Action Network, said his organization is interested in energy policy and the impacts of climate change on Alaska. No other state in the U.S. needs energy legislation more than Alaska. While Alaska is a huge oil producer, the high cost of diesel is literally destroying the state's communities and needs to be addressed. He related that there is federal legislation companion to legislation now being considered by Alaska's legislators and that that federal legislation is critical to the success of Alaska in terms of economy and environment. He urged committee members to work with their colleagues to come up with a better, more positive resolution that is oriented to the actual needs of Alaska and the nation. Alaska's legislators know the building blocks that are needed to move forward with a coherent national energy policy; for example, Alaska needs federal loan guarantees of approximately $40 billion to move Alaska's gas to market. Alaska clearly needs the federal resources that go with the adaptation and mitigation of issues; one issue being communities that are literally falling into the ocean and rivers. 1:38:17 PM MR. GELDHOF further noted that Alaska is directly involved with troop deployments that are intimately related with national security and energy policy. All the polling data in Alaska and most of the polling data in the U.S. indicate that citizens want to reduce the nation's almost suicidal dependence on foreign energy sources. He urged members to step back and re-calibrate this, and in a positive way give U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Mark Begich what Alaska wants to see in an energy bill. Alaska's legislators are like President Obama and the administrator of EPA in that no one wants to have to do any of this. 1:40:15 PM MR. GELDHOF stated that, according to discussions he has had with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski and her staff, the likelihood of Senate Joint Resolution 26 passing the U.S. Senate is close to zero and signing by the president is zero. Alaskans should not get balled up in the politics of Washington, DC. Instead, Alaska should provide the building blocks that are necessary to move forward, be it loan guarantees or anything else. The cap and trade bill is essentially dead. Alaska's legislators can contribute to a decent energy bill. He noted that when confronted with the ozone layer issue 25 years ago, then- President Ronald Reagan took the advice of the scientists and worked off the Montreal Protocol. Alaska can come up with something positive by working on this rather than reducing itself to partisan bickering and being against everything. 1:43:06 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN disagreed that it is all politics because resolutions coming before Alaska's legislators drive discussion and that is a positive step. Policy makers put forth much effort to be informed when making decisions. Legislators are working on an in-state gasline as well as getting gas to America, which would reduce carbon emissions. He asked whether the Alaska Climate Change Network supports the Alaska gas pipeline and getting gas to the Lower 48. MR. GELDHOF responded, "Absolutely." He said he thinks most everyone who has looked at the use of energy believes that gas, particularly Alaska gas, holds great potential as a bridge fuel. He is not saying that legislators have not been working on this issue arduously; rather, his plea is that legislators take their knowledge about what is needed to unlock Alaska's gas potential and unlocking hydropower to solve the debilitating use of diesel in the Bush. That would become part of the punch list for a resolution about what Alaska wants and how to build a federal plan via the U.S. Congress. 1:48:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI inquired whether Mr. Geldhof considers HJR 49 to be a partisan resolution. MR. GELDOF replied it depends upon the glasses one is wearing as to whether it is partisan. He said his guess is that all of the committee members agree on the substance of what is needed. For example, would there be any disagreement that $40 billion in federal loan guarantees is needed to move Alaska's gas? Agreement on that would not be partisan and would be useful to U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski, he said. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI pointed out that the very first line of HJR 49 says it is the President of the United States and members of the President's party that are trying to enact this climate legislation; therefore, to him, the resolution has a partisan tinge. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN closed public testimony after ascertaining no one else wished to testify. 1:50:53 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON said he wholeheartedly supports HJR 49. He said that when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shuts down the ability of the Fairbanks witnesses to use wood or pellet stoves to generate heat, they will be calling Alaska's congressional delegation and their state legislator. In turn, since the congressional delegation did not make the policy, the witnesses will be told to call a nameless, faceless bureaucrat that made this policy. He said HJR 49 would affix accountability to the local officials elected by the state's citizens. 1:52:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON supported HJR 49 and related that U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski is eager to receive this resolution. While he concurs about the larger issue of setting energy policy, scientific analysis does not take into account the economic effects. Sometimes a forceful message must be sent and he agrees with the resolution's intent. 1:54:38 PM REPRESENTATIVE P. WILSON stated that if the climate issue was cut and dried, members would not have to be talking about it. She wants to listen to what the researchers and scientists say, but they are divided about what needs to be done. Actions could be taken that cost the state billions of dollars in the long run for things that do not even happen in the long run. She said that for those reasons she believes every angle must be looked at. Legislators care and are trying to be careful in their deliberations. People have put faith in their legislators and hold legislators accountable and this resolution expresses legislators' concerns. Given this, and that a lot of questions remain unanswered, she supports HJR 49. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON related that according to a text message he just received from the counsel for the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy, Senate Joint Resolution 26 would have the force of law. In response to Representative Guttenberg, he agreed that it does have to pass the U.S. House of Representatives as well. 1:57:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK agreed with the previous witness that opportunities to direct change should be taken and that it not be jabs at people or situations. Such opportunities allow Alaska to lay out its energy needs; for example, renewable energy should include hydropower. He said he does not want to debate whether climate is manmade or natural, but care must be taken to not make jabs at people. In this regard, he offered Conceptual Amendment 1 to remove on page 1, line 5, the words "the President's party in". MR. COAN, in response to Co-Chair Neuman, stated that Conceptual Amendment 1 would be fine with the sponsor. There being no objection, Conceptual Amendment 1 was adopted. 2:01:07 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that he agrees with the language on page 4, [lines 8-10], regarding support of measures by the U.S. Congress for encouraging investments in technology to reduce carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. However, he said it appears to him that the second, third, and fourth whereas clauses on page 1 oppose the legislation that is before the U.S. Congress. He said he is just pointing out this apparent conflict and not offering an amendment. He added that HJR 49 does not include anything about ocean acidification, which he thinks should be included. He suggested it also be said that this legislature has looked at dealing with carbon emissions because the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA) requires that the pipeline builder identify how it will handle the carbon emission that will be used in the transmission of that gas. He said today's public testimony makes it sound like the legislature has not dealt with carbon emissions when it has. 2:03:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI noted that he still does not know what House Resolution 2454 actually does. MR. COAN responded that House Resolution 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, and Senate Bill 1733, the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, are both vehicles that institute the ability for these EPA mandates to come about. These measures open it up for "cap and trade" and they are brought up in HJR 49 because they are in Congress and will allow this to happen. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN commented that the committee is debating HJR 49, not the bills in Congress. 2:05:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON requested Mr. Coan to address the apparent conflict that he brought up earlier. MR. COAN replied the purpose is to stop this vehicle of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through the Clean Air Act, to regulate greenhouse gases; the sponsor wants to keep this in the hands of elected officials who have some accountability to constituents. The first whereas clause on page 1 states that [House Resolution 2545 and Senate Bill 1733] are improper vehicles for this to come about. While the sponsor believes that greenhouse gases are a real thing and are having an effect, the sponsor does not want the control to come from an outside entity that has the ability to come in and take over everything. 2:08:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he does not have a problem with that; however, it seems incongruous to oppose bills that are currently in Congress [page 1] while asking that Congress pass measures [on page 4]. He asked Mr. Coan to explain why those two are not incongruous. MR. COAN answered that House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 are setting out the ability for the "cap and trade" requirements to come into effect as well as the EPA to take over the greenhouse gas emissions. The bills are included in HJR 49 to illustrate where they are currently at in Congress. The two bills would result in unnecessary regulation and economic interference by the federal government. It goes back to the issue of nameless, faceless bureaucrats rather than to constituent accountability. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN urged Representative Seaton to discuss this further with Representative Stoltze. 2:10:47 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG commented to Co-Chair Johnson that if the Fairbanks North Star Borough, by a vote of the people, takes the authority away from EPA to come up with a solution to the wood stove and clean air issue, and if the people come back to the legislature, then it is because the legislature did not act and not because the EPA over-reacted. He offered his hope that the borough does come up with a solution to that problem. REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG continued, noting that a lot of things in HJR 49 are troubling in regard to policy and how they are said. It would have been much easier to make the one small amendment and support the resolution unanimously. Based upon his conversations with people who have observed Congress, he thinks the Alaska legislature deals more with energy issues than does Congress, as well as all national issues such as salmon and ocean policy. Therefore, Alaska legislators have a better understanding than most members of Congress. Regardless of the administration, when people from Washington, DC, come to Alaska they always say how they had not really known what Alaska was actually like until seeing it personally. In a resolution like HJR 49, the legislature could have taken the high road and laid it out for them instead of complaining about things. It is a given that the desire is for the elected officials to make the policy. He agreed there are conflicts with some of the resolution's statements and some of the things the legislature is working on. He said he does not think HJR 49, in its current form, "gets us there." 2:14:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON offered Conceptual Amendment 2 to remove the second, third, and fourth whereas clauses on page 1, lines 8-15, continuing to line 1 on page 2. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON objected. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON explained he is offering Conceptual Amendment 2 because he thinks there is another resolution before the legislature that opposes House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733, and that other resolution has not come before this committee. Therefore, incorporating this language into HJR 49 is like members are presuming to oppose a resolution that they have not passed. He reiterated his earlier opinion that the second resolve language on page 4 is incongruous with the second, third, and fourth whereas clauses on page 1. In response to Co-Chair Johnson, he stated that Conceptual Amendment 2 would take out all of the references to House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 for which there is no factual information available to committee members. 2:17:58 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON understood the sponsor worked closely with U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski's office on drafting HJR 49. MR. COAN nodded yes. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON asked whether the third whereas on line 14, page 1, specifically came from the senator's office and that it is her opinion that support in the U.S. Congress for House Resolution 2454 and Senate Bill 1733 has weakened. MR. COAN responded correct. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON inquired whether the first and second whereas clauses on page 1 also came from U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski. MR. COAN replied these two were run through the senator's office, but were part of the sponsor's original draft. They are more to paint the big picture of where the congressional legislation is, are they are dealt with more in HJR 45, the "cap and trade" resolution. 2:19:00 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON expressed his support for deleting the first two whereas clauses, but not the third. He offered a friendly amendment to exclude deletion of the third whereas. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, would only delete lines 8-13 on page 1. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON accepted the friendly amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN objected to Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON removed his objection to the amendment. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN reiterated his objection the amendment. CO-CHAIR NEUMAN, in response to Representative P. Wilson, confirmed that the friendly amendment to Conceptual Amendment 2 had passed. 2:21:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI asked whether deletion of the second and third whereas clauses on page 1 would make some of the whereas clauses on pages 2 and 3 not fit anymore, given that Senate Joint Resolution 26 is the underlying part of HJR 49. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON replied no; he believes the other whereas clauses are talking about the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's initiation of these processes through the Clean Air Act. The two whereas clause that would be removed by Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, are directed at [proposed] congressional statutes and all the other whereas clauses are asking the U.S. Congress to develop responsible policy. Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, would just take out the presumption that the proposed laws currently before Congress are not responsible policy. 2:23:30 PM CO-CHAIR NEUMAN maintained his objection to the amendment. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kawasaki, Tuck, P. Wilson, Olson, Seaton, Edgmon, Guttenberg, and Johnson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended. Representative Neuman voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2, as amended, was adopted by a vote of 8-1. 2:25:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI, in regard to Co-Chair Neuman's earlier question about what other nations are doing, related that during a recent visit to France he learned that a goal was established in the 1960s to go to nuclear power. France now produces all of its electric base load, as well as a significant portion of the electricity of adjoining countries, by nuclear power. Some of the countries that are anti-nuclear are using the nuclear electricity produced by France. He also visited Poland, a cold weather country that reminded him of Fairbanks, and learned that 80 percent of Poland's electric base load is from coal. While Poland was worried about the upcoming "Copenhagen talks," it had a lot to look forward to because of the incredible amount of air pollution due to the coal. While Poland does not support some of the European Union initiatives, it was promising for him to see that many of Poland's young political leaders and emerging leaders have adopted the idea of getting away from fossil fuels. It was interesting to see that Poland is looking toward hydropower and geothermal power, as well as other technologies that have less impact on the environment. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI added that during his recent visit to Washington, DC, with other Alaska legislators, there was no visible way to tell whether a person walking down the halls of Congress was a Democrat or a Republican. He said he does not know what section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act does and whether he wants an outright repeal of that section, and the problem is that neither does anyone else on the committee. Therefore, he thinks it is disingenuous to say that a statement needs to be made when it is unknown what statement is trying to be made. He said he thinks HJR 49 is another resolution in a line of silly resolutions that are being sent to Congress to object to something that Congress is doing. Along with having no teeth, HJR 49 fans a lot of flames with the people in his district and across the state about the things the legislature is not doing while it is in session. An hour and a half has now been spent on something that the sponsors of HJR 49 could have included in a letter to Congress. 2:30:12 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI said he will object to HJR 49 until he knows what it actually says. It is a waste of time to do these partisan joint resolutions, he continued, and he would prefer to be working on something like state energy policy. CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to call the question. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Tuck, P. Wilson, Olson, Seaton, Edgmon, Neuman, and Johnson voted in favor of calling the question. Representatives Guttenberg and Kawasaki voted against calling the question. Therefore, the motion passed by a vote of 7-2. 2:32:30 PM CO-CHAIR JOHNSON moved to report HJR 49, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE KAWASAKI objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives P. Wilson, Olson, Seaton, Edgmon, Neuman, and Johnson voted in favor of HJR 49, as amended. Representatives Guttenberg, Kawasaki, and Tuck voted against it. Therefore, CSHJR 49(RES) was reported out of the House Resources Standing Committee by a vote of [6-3].