I readily admit that I am not an expert on Alaska's mining taxation and royalty laws. However, prior to adding my name as a co-sponsor of HB156, I had read and heard enough to know that there is considerable public debate on this topic and that portions of these laws have not been amended since statehood. At several different times over the last 2 decades, the legislature has (justifiably) spent countless weeks scrutinizing, debating, and revising various aspects of the state's taxation and royalty structure for the oil industry. The state has been through similar debates and revisions over the years regarding taxation and assessments for the seafood industry. Yet laws pertaining to mining taxation have been left largely untouched.

       The Alaska Constitution states that "The legislature shall provide for the utilization, development, and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including land and water, for the maximum benefit of its people." Therefore, as a legislator, I feel it is my responsibility to help ensure that that the legislature fully address the question of whether the state's tax structure meets our constitutional mandate to encourage development of Alaska's mineral resources while maximizing the benefits to the state as a whole.

       Additionally, I represent a district that is in the midst of significant local mining development. As a legislator and as a citizen of Juneau, I want to do all I can to support local mining projects that bring maximum benefits to our area and the state while keeping any potential negative impacts to an absolute minimum. It takes local and state support to keep such projects moving ahead. Securing such support depends, in part, on the public's confidence that the mining industry is paying its fair share in taxes and royalties.

       From what one hears and reads, and indeed, even from recent statewide polling, there appears to be a growing risk that if the legislature does not fully and openly analyze and address questions about mining taxes, there will eventually be an attempt by members of the public to address them through the ballot initiative process. I think this would be very unfortunate. The legislative committee process can provide a public forum for careful deliberation, with input and participation from the industry, the public, agencies, and elected officials. As we've seen from the recent ballot initiative on the cruise ship industry, addressing public sentiment and concern through a more rigid all-or-nothing, take-it-or-leave-it ballot measure can lead to a far less well-crafted solution.