Legislature(2019 - 2020)CAPITOL 106
02/13/2020 08:00 AM House TRIBAL AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB221 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 221 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 221-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
8:04:52 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that the only order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 221, "An Act providing for state recognition
of federally recognized tribes; and providing for an effective
date."
8:05:26 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 221, which
would provide for state recognition of federally recognized
tribes in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP imparted to the committee that the impetus
to pursue HB 221 came from his father, who had been raised on a
mission field in China and had survived the [Second] Sino-
Japanese War [1937-1945], when Japan invaded China. He said his
father experienced what it was like to see the hearts of the
local people be broken when their children were brought back to
them a year later, how much the children had changed in their
thinking and in their values. Representative Kopp related a
story his father told in which, during the time their children
were away, the parents would save extra rice so that upon the
return of their children they could have a celebration. Then,
when the kids did come home, they reported their parents for
having the extra rice because it was against the rules, which
broke the hearts of the Chinese people.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP told the committee that at the time his
father told him this story they were living in Newhalen, Alaska,
on Lake Iliamna, and that his father was the only schoolteacher
in the village. His father pointed to this time in China as the
one time that a people had no control of the education of their
own youth, as well as no ability to exercise self-determination
in education. According to Representative Kopp, his father saw
the wound in those spirits and worked hard as a "lone voice in
the wilderness" to obtain more self-determination and more
control [for] the local people and for the education of their
youth. He added that, growing up in rural Alaska, most of the
mentors in his life were adult, Native men, and that [through
their eyes] he began to see how Alaska is interdependent in
every way; that every relationship is not an island unto itself.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP wrapped up his introduction by letting the
committee know that HB 221 is a way of honoring and recognizing
Alaska people who have been in Alaska since time immemorial; a
step to reestablish healing and brokenness in the trust
relationship with the first people [in the United States], and
to give honor and respect for the same reason it would be given
to any self-determined people. He then referenced The U.S.
Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-
evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed
by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
8:09:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP put forth that HB 221 is an attempt to help
live up to the ideal [put forth by our forefathers]: first
Alaskans should not be invisible in the narrative of Alaska
history, but should be respected first and foremost as a proud
people. He added that HB 221 would cause the committee to
discuss concepts such as sovereignty and what it means: it is
incorrect to pretend tribes do not exist and yet ask them to
waive their sovereignty. He imparted that worldwide only eight
countries have a larger land mass than Alaska, and that it is
inconceivable that Alaska can solve its health and social
services issues, its public safety issues, and its education
issues unless they are handled through collaboration and
interdependence with the Alaska people: HB 221 is a step toward
acknowledging that.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP added that change is hard work and
encompasses both emotional and spiritual healing, and that it is
his belief that it is time to acknowledge Alaska's tribal
citizens and "open the door to healing" and restoration.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP pointed members of the committee to the
following supporting materials for HB 221: President Richard
Nixon's Special Message on Indian Affairs [July 8, 1970], the
1999 Alaska Supreme Court Case Baker v. John, and Attorney
General Jahna Lindemuth's letter to Governor Bill Walker on the
legal status of tribes in Alaska. He referred to President
Nixon's address, which he described as a seminal moment in
American history, when the U.S. moved from the termination era
for government tribal relations to self-determination. He drew
attention to an excerpt of the address, which read as follows:
The story of the Indian in America is something more
than the record of white man's frequent aggression,
broken agreements, intermittent remorse, and prolonged
failure. This record is also one of survival,
endurance, adaptation, and creativity in the face of
overwhelming obstacles. It is a record of enormous
contributions to this country, to its art and culture,
to its strength and spirit, to its sense of history
and its sense of purpose.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP, as someone who worked in public safety and
as someone who comes from a military background, wrapped up his
presentation of HB 221 by informing the committee that Alaska
Natives have the highest demographic rate of service [in the
U.S.]; more than two and a half times higher than any other
demographic group in Alaska.
8:13:46 AM
KEN TRUITT, Staff, Representative Kopp, Alaska State
Legislature, said the Baker v. John Alaska Supreme Court case
helped signal the moment the Alaska courts stopped the era of
termination and acknowledged tribes and self-determination, and
Mr. Lindemuth's letter signified when the executive branch
acknowledged the legal status that the Alaska Supreme Court
defined for Alaskans. Mr. Truitt added that HB 221 serves to
underscore the role of the Alaska State Legislature itself: in
its declaration of the end of the termination era as the
official state policy, Alaska will no longer ignore the
existence of tribes.
MR. TRUITT pointed committee members to the operative provision
of HB 221: first, it is recognized that [state recognition of
tribes] is a federal question. The words "special" and
"unique", also used by the Supreme Court as well as by President
Nixon [in his address], were chosen to indicate the legislature
understands the special, unique nature of the relationship. The
second sentence incorporates the federally recognized Tribal
List Act and where the Act resides in U.S. code. Mr. Truitt
explained that the bill does not create a state-only recognition
process, but that it acknowledges and defers to the federal
government for the recognition of tribal status. The third
sentence signifies that the State of Alaska is not to touch the
Federal Trust Relationship between the federal government and
tribes, "even with a ten-foot pole."
8:21:00 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease from 8:21 a.m. to 8:22 a.m.
8:22:06 AM
JOY ANDERSON, Association of Village Council Presidents (AVCP),
introduced herself and let the committee know that she would be
giving a PowerPoint presentation with Natasha Singh.
NATASHA SINGH, Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), began the
presentation by bringing the committee's attention to the second
slide [of 18], which stated "Native peoples and Tribes have
existed in the Americas from time immemorial." She then
referenced the following quotation from Baker v. John: "Before
the coming of the Europeans, the tribes were self-governing
sovereign political communities."
MS. SINGH pointed out to the committee that the existence of a
tribe or tribal government does not require a federal or state
determination, and that tribal sovereignty does not originate
with the federal or state government. She went on to say that
before the U.S. and before Alaska there were tribes, and the
tribal form of government is something not easily comprehensible
to most people, especially to non-Native speakers, as notions of
government and economy are fully embedded in Native languages.
Tribal governments were based on a rule of law determined by the
Creator, the land, and the animals, Ms. Singh imparted, and
tribal leaders created tribal governance in reflection of these
laws.
MS. SINGH stated that present-day tribes have remnants of these
traditional governments despite hundreds of years aimed at
extinguishing tribes. Chief Nancy James of Gwichyaa Zhee in
Fort Yukon, Alaska, described it in this way to Ms. Singh:
Tribal leaders are tasked with protecting the land and the
children.
8:25:17 AM
MS. ANDERSON showed the committee the slide "Federal Indian
Policy Periods" [slide 5] in which the "pathway" to recognition
of tribes by the U.S. is broken down. A federally recognized
tribe is an American Indian or Alaska Native tribal entity that
has a recognized government-to-government relationship with the
U.S., Ms. Anderson explained. She added that this relationship
is described as a "domestic dependent nation."
MS. ANDERSON related that as governments, tribes have inherent
power and authority as well as the right to self-government
Self-government, Ms. Anderson explained, is a tribe's decision
of what form of government they will have as well as who is
eligible to be a tribal citizen or member. Tribes exercise all
of their inherent power, Ms. Anderson said, unless those powers
have been expressly limited by Congress. Tribes have always
existed, so they have always had these powers, she related. As
part of self-government, tribes regulate matters pertaining to
tribal members, which are exemplified in taxation, property
regulation, and members' conduct, such as domestic relations.
Tribes are immune from lawsuit. Not states, not part of the
federal government, not non-profits: tribes are distinct, Ms.
Anderson put forth.
8:27:44 AM
MS. SINGH referenced policy periods, the distinct periods in
which the U.S. government dealt with tribal governments. She
read all of the periods to the committee: the colonial period
from 1492-1820; the removal/relocation period, including the
Trail of Tears, from 1820-1850; the reservation and treaty
making period, from 1850-1887; the allotment & assimilation era,
from 1887-1934; Indian self-government, from 1934-1953; the
termination era, from 1953-1960; and tribal self-determination,
from 1960-present. Tribal self-determination, she imparted, is
the only policy that has been successful in the history of the
relationship between tribes and the U.S. She related that self-
determination has been the policy since the Indian Self-
Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) of 1975, and
it has been successful since.
8:30:05 AM
MS. ANDERSON turned the committee's attention to the
removal/relocation period [again slide 5]. From the beginning,
she imparted, tribes were recognized as being distinct entities
with power and authority of individual government, subject even
as they were to U.S. authority. Being subject to U.S.
authority, she continued, was what resulted in lasting
oppression. In 1831, a few decades before Alaska become a
territory, Ms. Anderson informed the committee, and only about
50 years after the U.S. came into existence, the U.S. Supreme
Court under Chief Justice [John] Marshall determined that Indian
tribes were what Marshall referred to as distinct independent
political communities under the control of the U.S., or domestic
dependent nations.
MS. ANDERSON directed the committee to the next slide, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
...a weaker power does not surrender its independence
- its right to self-government - by associating with a
stronger, and taking its protection. A weak state, in
order to provide for its safety, may place itself
under the protection of one more powerful, without
stripping itself of the right of government, and
ceasing to be a state.
MS. ANDERSON informed the committee that the preceding quotation
was taken from what is known as the Marshall Trilogy, three
cases that form the basis of Federal Indian law in the U.S., and
through which the following principles were conceived:
aboriginal land claims, tribal authority, and Federal Trust
Responsibility. The cases are Johnson v. M'Intosh in 1823,
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia in 1831, and Worcester v. Georgia in
1832. Ms. Anderson offered an explanation of each principle.
Aboriginal land claims refer to the rights of aboriginal
peoples' right to retain use and occupancy of land, that only
the U.S. government can settle aboriginal land claims, and that
the U.S. has a legal duty to protect aboriginal title until land
claims are officially settled.
MS. ANDERSON also explained tribal authority, the second
principle in the basis of Federal Indian Law in the U.S. as
broken down by the Marshall trilogy: tribes are nations with
the authority to govern themselves, and the source of that
authority is inherent, meaning it comes from tribes being self-
governing long before settlers and explorers came to the
Americas. Third, she explained that under Federal Trust
Responsibility, the federal government has a responsibility to
protect Indian lands and resources, and to provide essential
services to Indian people. This comes from the fact that the
federal government took away the vast majority of Indian lands,
Ms. Anderson imparted, and in return promised to provide these
things.
8:33:07 AM
MS. ANDERSON then referenced The Alaska Purchase, also known as
the Treaty of Cession: in 1867, Russia sold its claims to
Alaska to the U.S. She went on to paraphrase the treaty, which
stated that Native people were uncivilized, so the colonial
government had the power to civilize them with laws. Because of
the wording in the treaty, tribes in the U.S. fell under U.S.
authority. From the very beginning of Alaska entering
statehood, Ms. Anderson pointed out, there was the awareness
that tribes existed in Alaska.
8:34:12 AM
MS. SINGH related that the basis of Federal Indian Law is in the
U.S. Constitution, [Article 1], which states that Congress shall
have the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and
among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" [slide 9].
This article of the Constitution lays out Congress's plenary
power: Congress has the final word when it comes to tribes in
the U.S. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [signed into
law in 1971], Ms. Singh related, is an example of Congress using
its plenary power. The law extinguished Alaska Native rights to
over 360,000,000 acres of land including [Native Alaskans']
hunting and fishing rights to those lands.
MS. SINGH spoke of the passing of the ISDEEA by Congress, the
first major piece of legislation in the self-determination era.
Self-determination policy has worked, she related, to make
significant progress in reversing otherwise distressed social,
cultural, and economic conditions in Native communities, and
reflects a political equilibrium which has held for four decades
and which has withstood various shifts in the party control of
Congress and the White House.
8:36:36 AM
MS. ANDERSON informed the committee that an example of the U.S.
recognition of the government-to-government relationship it has
with federally recognized tribes is called tribal consultation.
"Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments"
is the title of Executive Order 13175, which was issued by
President Bill Clinton on November 6, 2000 [slides 11-12]. Ms.
Anderson added that on November 5, 2009, President Barack Obama
issued a memorandum directing each agency to give a detailed
plan of action of how they would implement the policies of the
executive order, which would establish regular, meaningful
concentration and collaboration with tribes in the development
of federal policies that have tribal implications.
MS. ANDERSON added that Executive Order 13175 also recognized a
trust relationship with Indian tribes, the right of Indian
tribes to self-government, tribal authority, and self-
determination, and all federal agencies' respect of all of
these.
8:38:15 AM
MS. SINGH brought members' attention to Alaska Administrative
Order 125 from Governor [Walter J.] Hickel in 1991, in which he
declared "The State of Alaska opposes expansion of tribal
governmental powers and the creation of 'Indian Country' in
Alaska" [slide 14]. The history between Alaska and tribes
"hasn't been great," Ms. Singh put forth, adding that defining
what the new relationship between the state and tribes will look
like has been harder than winning [recognition] in the courts.
8:41:41 AM
MS. ANDERSON let the committee know that the U.S. Department of
the Interior (DOI) responded "rather quickly" to the Alaska
Supreme Court's position by issuing a list of federally
recognized tribes in Alaska via the Federally Recognized Indian
Tribe List Act [1994], which Congress confirmed, and which is
still published annually [slide 15]. She let the committee know
that Congress even overrode the omission of one tribe in the
original Act, hence confirming the DOI's opinion that tribes
existed in Alaska.
8:42:47 AM
MS. ANDERSON let the committee know that initially Alaska
challenged [the DOI's opinion], but in 1996, litigation was
discontinued. The state attorney general [in 1996] also issued
an opinion that outlined the status of federally recognized
tribes. This issuance contained some inaccuracies; for example,
that state courts could not transfer jurisdiction of child
protection cases to tribal courts. In 1999, she continued, John
v. Baker clearly recognized there were tribes in Alaska [slide
16].
MS. ANDERSON informed the committee that in 2018, Governor
[Bill] Walker [also recognized tribes]. She pointed out that
there had been a previous administration order from 1990
recognizing tribes, but it had been overturned. In 2018, she
continued, Alaska Administrative Order 300 stated that
government-to-government relations with Alaska tribes would be
improved [slide 16].
8:44:07 AM
MS. ANDERSON reiterated that it has been clearly stated by the
Alaska Supreme Court as well as by the state administration that
there are federally recognized tribes in Alaska. She added that
HB 221 would effectively move the legislature out of the
termination era and into the era of self-determination.
8:44:49 AM
MS. SINGH added that while "some dark times" have been seen,
there has also been a kind of awakening to an understanding of
Native history. Alaska has been looked down upon in the past
decade over its treatment of tribes, she continued, but Alaska
also has the potential to lead the nation into what will be the
next era.
8:46:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON said that he thought about all of the
years that Alaska tribes have not been properly recognized, and
that he thought HB 221 seemed to be lacking a preamble that
talks about the transition from one era to the next. He added
that he has heard many times that tribes are not an entity in
Alaska because they are not in the Alaska Constitution, but only
recognized in the U.S. Constitution. He opined that the journey
that is taking place and the progress taking place should be
documented for posterity's sake.
8:49:09 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP responded that it was important to step over
the threshold, and HB 221 is narrowly structured so as to not to
"poke anyone in the eye" while still stating the obvious. He
added that HB 221 couldn't be made any clearer. He said he was
still amenable to a legislative intent section; however, he
acknowledged that the goal was to keep HB 221 as concise as
possible to strictly address the policy of no longer denying
that tribes exist in Alaska and to open the door of a new era of
collaboration with tribes on every issue with which Alaska
desperately needs help.
8:51:14 AM
MR. TRUITT mentioned that codifying the preamble would need to
be a conversation with Legislative Legal Services. He added
that on the first draft of HB 221 the first and third sentences
had been removed because they were thought to signify
legislative intent, leaving only the second sentence. It was
insisted by the sponsor that the first and third sentence remain
in HB 221 primarily for the reasons being spoken about [by
Representative Edgmon] and for the importance of the legal
doctrine of the Federal Trust Responsibility.
8:53:04 AM
REPRESENTATIVE VANCE mentioned that from a non-Native
perspective it was difficult to understand the fullness of the
intergovernmental relationships with tribes. She added that it
is particularly challenging when the question "Why can't
[everyone] just be all Alaskan?" is raised. She offered her
understanding that the perception in many non-Native minds is
that recognition of tribes elevates tribes over other Alaskans.
She added that she would like to have a conversation in which
"uncomfortable things" were discussed, which would in turn help
shift the way Alaskans create understanding.
8:55:38 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP replied that a good foundation had been laid
throughout the past year regarding tribes being recognized. He
explained that the state government was "not caught up" to where
the federal government was going, and then the federal
government officially changed positions under President Nixon's
address. While the context of what self-determination means is
"always being determined in the courts," it is now known
conclusively, as he pointed out, that child custody issues,
welfare issues, adoption issues, and lower-level misdemeanor
criminal law issues are now recognized by the courts as being
solidly within tribal self-determination.
REPRESENTATIVE KOPP referenced Mr. Lindemuth's factual analysis
that the law is evolving, and that the scope of self-
determination in Alaska continues to be refined. Designed to
"step out of the shadow," HB 221 would further elucidate the
concept of self-determination to the point that it will become
noticeable that lack of recognition earlier has contributed to a
lot of the societal breakdown such as depression,
intergenerational trauma which leads to suicide, and substance
abuse. Representative Kopp continued by adding that this
"hurdle" must be overcome, and tribal citizens may be honored
for who they are.
8:59:07 AM
The committee took an at-ease from 8:59 a.m. to 9:01 a.m.
9:01:35 AM
HOLLY HANDLER, Alaska Legal Services Corporation, informed the
committee that for eight years she litigated a single case to
recognize tribal child support orders in Alaska. Since the
Alaska Purchase in 1867, state recognition of tribes has been
the norm. She went on to say that what HB 221 proposes to do
has been the accepted truth in Alaska, and it's only been a
recent development that there is a battle over recognizing
Alaska tribes.
MS. HANDLER imparted to the committee that a large amount of
time, money, and resources has been expended "fighting against
truth," and it has been a failed investment. Ms. Handler echoed
Ms. Anderson and Ms. Singh's assertion that HB 221 really has
its roots in the Alaska Purchase, but she added that the 50,000
indigenous residents didn't agree to said purchase but would
instead think of it as dealing in stolen property. In 1867, she
continued, tribes were referred to as sovereign Native
governments, and it was uncontroversial that that tribes existed
in Alaska and have for 10,000 years.
9:05:40 AM
MS. HANDLER continued by explaining that dual citizenship had
been created, and this was uncontroversial. The U.S. did not
recognize indigenous people as citizens until 1924, she
continued, under the Alaska Citizenship Act in 1915, Native
Alaskans had to apply for Alaska citizenship, and could only
apply if they got certification from at least five white
citizens that they had severed all tribal customs or
relationships. Ms. Handler added that the legal status
recognizing tribes has been uncontroversial, but "that is not to
paper over" the racism and institutionalized discrimination that
has taken place for the last 150 years.
MS. HANDLER imparted that tribes not only exist but have
authority, something that can be traced back to the early 1900s
with laws enacting federal reserves for Alaska Native tribes as
well as allotments and townsites having been reserved for tribal
citizens in Alaska. In the 1930s, she continued, the federal
government recognized that tribal governments could enact their
own laws of marriage. In the 1930s, she added, the Indian
Reorganization Act also recognized Alaska tribes in the state.
In the 1970s, a series of legislation, including the Indian
Child Welfare Act of 1971, specifically recognized the existence
of tribes in Alaska.
9:08:53 AM
MS. HANDLER explained that anti-tribal advocates tried to
"twist" Public Law 280 [1953] to say that tribes were
extinguished in Alaska. Between 1986 and 1992, she continued,
several lawsuits took place including tribes using authority to
protect abused and neglected tribal children. In these cases,
she added, anti-tribal advocates asked the court to find that
tribes lost their sovereignty with the passage of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, and they argued
that without land tribes couldn't govern their own citizens.
9:10:57 AM
MS. HANDLER echoed Ms. Anderson and Ms. Singh, who had informed
the committee that when Baker v. John was litigated to the
Alaska Supreme Court in 1999, tribes and tribal advocates had
100 years of history to prove that anti-tribal advocates were
"off base" in trying to create new law in Alaska [that tribes
had been extinguished by ANCSA]. Ms. Handler added that in 1999
the State of Alaska and the U.S. Department of Justice sided
with the tribes in saying tribal jurisdiction exists in Alaska
because tribes are sovereign entities in Alaska. In 2000, she
continued, an entire set of policies and procedures including
the Millennium Agreement [between the Federally Recognized
Sovereign Tribes of Alaska and the State of Alaska, 2001] and
the inception of the Office of Children's Services [a division
of the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, based on
John v. Baker] made it seem that the road was one of progress.
MS. HANDLER informed the committee that in 2004 a new,
aggressively anti-tribal stance "tore up" all the work that
Alaska had done in the preceding five years. Without referring
to the 100 years of history, it was declared that tribal
sovereignty did not exist in Alaska.
9:14:11 AM
MS. HANDLER stated that all of the cases were decided in favor
of the tribes because history, research, and truth were on [the
tribes'] side. The Alaska Supreme Court and federal courts all
agreed that nothing in ANCSA extinguished the sovereignty of
tribes to exist in Alaska and [that tribes should] continue to
exercise jurisdiction over their own people. There was a huge
opportunity cost, Ms. Handler added: Alaska lost the
opportunity to partner with tribes on projects, on grants, and
on federal programs. Only since 2016, she continued, since
Alaska stopped actively litigating against the tribes in these
cases, has there been a "blossoming" of opportunity, from
transportation and road building to child protection. Alaska
signed a historic agreement to jointly support children in
tribal foster care to take some of the burden off the state and
also to empower the tribe to support its own foster families.
From the legal perspective, Ms. Handler concluded, HB 221 is
nothing revolutionary in terms of law, but it is revolutionary
in terms of solidifying Alaska's commitment that there won't be
a reverting back to a period of litigation against its own
people.
9:17:03 AM
MS. SINGH pointed out as a follow-up to Ms. Handler that the
lack of understanding and lack of education regarding tribes by
Alaskans was purposeful: it was a decision made by policymakers
to attempt to "wipe" tribal governments from the history books.
Miseducation was a part of an Alaska termination policy, she
added, and still is today, as not only students but also
lawmakers do not understand the history of Alaska. As long as
the termination era continues, she added, the battle will go on.
Ms. Singh urged that now is not the time that Native Alaskans
are able to wait.
9:19:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE EDGMON posited that the U.S. did away with
treaties in 1872. Alaska became a state in 1958-59, he added.
He brought to committee members' minds William Paul, the first
Alaska Native attorney, in 1912, and the significance of his
efforts through the Indian Reorganization Act and other
groundbreaking work. Representative Edgmon emphasized that
Congress didn't know how to deal with Alaska, so Alaska drifted
along for many years, and has been doing some painful catch up
work.
9:23:06 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY opened public testimony on HB 221.
9:23:21 AM
RICHARD PETERSON, President, Tlingit & Haida, began by informing
the committee that as a lifelong Alaskan, he first identifies
through his clan, something that can be traced for 10,000 years.
He added that it doesn't make him any more important than anyone
else who was born in or who moved to Alaska, but that he thinks
it is deserving of some special historical recognition because
he came from the village of his forefathers. Mr. Peterson
pointed out that the resources often spoke about are what
exemplify what Alaska is and should be, and as a Native Alaskan
he feels as though Native culture and history add to that
richness.
9:26:16 AM
MR. PETERSON added that he thinks it's ironic to still be
talking about recognition especially having been in the position
of president and being able to bring funds in because of the
standing as a federally recognized tribe. It "always gave
pause" when he had to sign a waiver of sovereign immunity to the
State of Alaska, he said, because of the fact that Alaska does
not recognize tribes, and that he would like to see that go away
through [the implementation of HB 221]. Mr. Peterson added that
Tlingit & Haida is unique in that it's a regional tribe
recognized by an act of Congress, and, similarly to what Ms.
Anderson and Ms. Singh put forth, also represents some of the
village tribes through a compact. Alaska is home to 229
federally recognized tribes, Mr. Peterson continued, and
especially when taken into consideration that Alaska tribes make
up almost half the number of tribes nationwide, recognition is
long overdue.
9:29:17 AM
MR. PETERSON said that because Tlingit & Haida is a federally
recognized tribe, it is a formal trust relationship between the
tribal government and the federal government which has been
repeatedly upheld when sovereignty is questioned. Addressing
Representative Edgmon, Mr. Peterson cautioned that it may be the
"death of" HB 221 if it were to be expanded, and that its
simplicity is the beauty of it. Conversations with those who do
not understand tribal governments need to be expanded, he added,
and getting recognition [via HB 221] will be the start of those
conversations. Mr. Peterson cautioned against expanding HB 221,
even though, he admitted, it was contrary to his own beliefs,
because what was most important was "pushing it through."
MR. PETERSON related to the committee that he grew up in a small
village that viewed the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) as "the
enemy" because the USFS systematically went through the region
burning down Native homes and fish camps. These days, Mr.
Peterson has a good relationship with the USFS, but, as he told
the committee, he carried trauma for years because of what
happened with the burning of the village as a child. He drew a
parallel with Alaska's non-recognition of federally recognized
tribes. "Begin healing by passing HB 221," he urged the
committee. Recognition would be a powerful way to move forward,
not as a way of elevating, but as a way of recognizing Native
Alaskans' uniqueness.
9:38:25 AM
FREDERICK OLSEN, JR, tribal citizen, began by telling the
committee that tribes exist, and for Alaska not to recognize
tribes is to ignore reality and perpetuate the pain, suffering,
and negativity of the past. It's time to end the colony
mindset, he continued, and transition to a more civilized era,
the first step of which is recognizing tribes.
9:42:07 AM
CHAIR ZULKOSKY, after ascertaining there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 221.
CHAIR ZULKOSKY announced that HB 221 was held over.