Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/16/1999 05:05 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HCR 2 - SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE; RESOURCES Number 2171 CHAIR BARNES announced the next order of business was House Concurrent Resolution No. 2, Relating to the sovereignty of the State of Alaska and the sovereign right of the State of Alaska to manage the natural resources of Alaska. Number 2190 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR., Alaska State Legislature, provided the sponsor statement for HCR 2, and reported that it has a companion bill, SCR 3. He indicated that HCR 2 is part of an appeal process that he feels needs to happen in Alaska. He said, "Being born and raised in this country, the issue of the subsistence issue, the issues raised by ANILCA [Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act], especially with regard to the subsistence issue, has torn us, and the reason I'm bringing this resolution forward is we're searching for a remedy. The remedy is not the problem within Alaska, really. We have, I think, some wonderful opportunities in Alaska to build this country, but we're being torn because we're being pushed from our own federal government. A lot of it has to do with the ANILCA regulation that is going to demand that we prioritize our fish and game resources based on a rural preference." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued, "This resolution, HCR 2, is simply an appeal. It is an appeal to the [United States] Supreme Court. What is being brought upon us as a people is to appeal to the people of the state of Alaska to amend their constitution, and I ... I submit to you, that is not an appeal at all. That would be a compromise on our part to both the national and state constitution[s]. So, really, I think this appeal properly belongs to the Supreme Court." REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred the committee to the first resolve in the resolution, and indicated that it points to a legitimate dispute. He observed that it has been designed by the people to go to the highest court in the land to take care of these disputes, and that would be the United States Supreme Court. Doing so, he added, would be appropriate and consistent with the statehood compact and articles in state constitution. HCR 2 also appeals to the governor of Alaska to assert the parts of our constitution that leave the fish and wildlife resources of the land available to all people. HCR 2 resolves that Alaska go directly to the United States Supreme Court for final resolution. Number 2358 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that everyone has been a party to, in one form or another, different degrees of the resolution process. In unions, for example, arbitration is used, and in some public unions they have binding arbitration. He felt it would be wise for the state of Alaska to appeal to the highest court in the land for that arbitration. He added, "I think you'll find that, if we had our day in court, that Alaska, as a state, would be able to prevail, to make sure that all of the citizens in Alaska have access and availability to the fish and game resources. I don't think that it would be as discriminatory as some people do, but I think that that should be an issue that needs to be settled at the Supreme Court level, and then handed to whoever the Supreme Court rules on." Number 2406 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL declared that Alaskans are dividing themselves, "sometimes along racial lines, sometimes by zip code," and that this is unnecessary. The state currently has a real economic problem that requires the cooperation of everyone, he said. He felt that the divisiveness of being forced by the federal government to amend the constitution will hurt the state, and that the pressure will "fall on bad ground, because, even it we could amend our constitution, it is my understanding, under the provisions of law that we now live under, that, according to our supreme court, that that would create the need to have a constitutional convention. So even if we could comply with the Ombudsmen Act, as I understand it, we would not be able to comply with that under our present supreme court ruling." He summarized by emphasizing that Alaska should grow in unity, rather than tear each other apart, and he felt that the court of appeal should be the United States Supreme Court. Number 2490 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Berkowitz, who is an attorney, if it is possible to go directly to the United States Supreme Court, or if it the state would have to go through the court procedure. Number 2518 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that there is access to direct rights of appeal, but he had no personal experience taking a case to the United States Supreme Court. He referred the question to Mr. Popely. Number 2539 TED POPELY, Legislative Assistant, House Majority, Alaska State Legislature, again came forward to testify. He indicated that he was, unfortunately, unable to give an exact answer to Representative Green's question. He specified that there are very few and limited circumstances where the United States Supreme Court will take up a case on original jurisdiction, rather than through an appeal process through the federal courts. One of the instances where original jurisdiction exists, he understood, occurs when a state sues the federal government, either through an agency or another branch of the federal government. He noted that this is a technical question of federal appellate procedure. He admitted that there were probably a lot of examples of states trying to get to the United States Supreme Court through original jurisdiction; however, he felt that they probably fail more than they succeed. MR. POPELY understood the resolution, HCR 2, to be a statement of intent that a case of this nature, if not through original jurisdiction, could eventually be resolved in the United States Supreme Court. He added, "I think it reflects a certain level of dissatisfaction at the state level of the sorts of decisions that have come down on this issue through the appellate courts through the 9th Circuit." He summarized by stating, "So, while I can't tell you today that you could bring this lawsuit directly before the United States Supreme Court and that they would accept it under original jurisdiction, I can tell you that, the way I read the resolution, the intent is that it eventually make it there, whether it be through original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction - traditional means." Number 2629 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HCR 2 would weaken the state's position. MR. POPELY responded that he did not think it would; rather, it expresses a desire to attempt to bring a case to the United States Supreme Court through original jurisdiction. He said, "It's a long shot. It always is. It's a big court, and there are a lot of cases and a lot of people who want to be there." Number 2669 REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL admitted that he was not a lawyer, but stated his belief that "under our system of government, when people come up from the ranks as we do in the legislature and represent people, we have the right to appeal." He felt that it had been tried in some court cases within the legislature, but not directly to the United States Supreme Court. He emphasized, however, that the state of Alaska is facing the loss of its sovereignty based on the movement of an agency. The Department of Interior, he explained, is forcing Alaska to amend its constitution or the responsibility of managing fish and game within the state will be taken over by the Department of Interior, and this responsibility was turned over to Alaska at statehood. He added, "I think we have a definite case, but beyond that, I think we have a responsibility. We in Alaska are feeling the pressure to fall upon one another based on however you want to line it up, ethnically or culturally or by zip code, however you want to do it. The pressure is on us, and the temptation is for us to fight amongst ourselves, and, at this point, our only court of appeal is the Supreme Court." He summarized by stating, "If we do not at least make the attempt, I think we are failing our duty to our citizens." Number 2783 ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HCR 2. He read the following statement into the record: I support HCR 2, but I believe it is too little, too late. The federal government already manages the fisheries, directly or indirectly ... such as the state closures for Pacific cod in state waters. They closed it with federal closures, forcing fishermen to remove all their gear from the water in the fishing area, which forces the state to reopen the season a week later. The gross mismanagement of federal management on sea otters has wiped out and closed Orca Inlet Dungeness crab since 1980. I'm a crab fisherman. The management of sea lions has had a negative effect on all fisheries in the state. The feds have opened doe season early in direct conflict with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and they are constantly messing with the bear, moose and goat management in Prince William Sound. At present, the U.S. Forest Service is trying to dictate on where and when the hunters in Prince William Sound can use their ATVs [all-terrain vehicles], while ignoring the traditional use patterns and will of the people. The federal government must be removed from the state. They did not buy Alaska; the people of several states did, and the federal government has not paid the people back. They don't own it. The federal government cannot own land. The people own Alaska, not the federal government. Before statehood, Alaska had a way of taking care of the vermin. It paid a bounty for them dead. Perhaps it is time for that again. Any questions? Number 2884 DENNY K. WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support of HCR 2. She read the following statement into the record: This is an excellent piece of legislation and I will support it wholeheartedly, as it is constitutional. The Alaska Statehood Act of July 7, 1958, also reinforces this resolution in every aspect, such as Section 3, "The Constitution of the State of Alaska shall always be Republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence." If Alaska changes its constitution to authorize a rural subsistence preference, it will be repugnant to both the Constitution of the United States and the principles of the Declaration of Independence. It would be repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence due to the following: that all men are created equal. This is the foundation of our American legal philosophy of equality for all under the law, and the grievances in the Declaration of Independence state, Number 13: "He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, given his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation;" Number 22: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever;" Number 29: "We have warned them from time to time of attempts made by their legislature to extend [an] unwarrantable jurisdiction over us." It would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United States due to the following: "Article III. Section 2. Clause 1: [The] Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..." The definition of equity is justice or freedom from bias or favoritism, and a rural preference would be unjust bias/favoritism. "Article IV. Section 4.: ...and shall protect each of them against Invasion..." The state of Alaska is being invaded by the United Nations, federal government and foreign treaties made without our consent, and the United States must protect Alaska from invasion, foreign or domestic. [Tape switched sides and a small amount of testimony was lost] TAPE 99-06, SIDE B Number 0010 MS. WEATHERS next referred the committee to the Alaska Statehood Act, Section 11 A. She noted that section only speaks of one national park the United States would retain exclusive jurisdiction over, Mount McKinley, and only the boundaries set on or before July 7, 1958. She testified that the new state of Alaska was granted all fish and wildlife resources under Section 6.E., and all submerged lands under Section 6.M. She summarized by stating, "Apparently, the United States forgot to tell the federal government about the admission of Alaska into the union, and what was granted. The state of Alaska, its government and people, need to stop allowing the federal government to intrude. The only reason they, the forest service, park rangers, federal fish and wildlife, BLM [Bureau of Land Management], and even the United Nations is on Alaskan soil is because the state of Alaska, its government and people, refuse to do anything for fear of losing that almighty federal dollar. No more 'let's make a deal.' Feds out. It is time to make Governor Knowles do his job and defend Alaska instead of selling it to the highest bidder for his pet projects. If this does not work, we the people of the great state of Alaska can secede from the United States or/and become our own nation, using most of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence ... as a basis for independence." CHAIR BARNES and REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Mr. and Ms. Weathers for spending their money and efforts in traveling from a remote area to testify in Cordova. Number 0157 LYNN LEVENGOOD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HCR 2. He pointed out that HCR 2 actually "dovetails" HB 109. He stated, "HB 109 is a sovereignty issue. It's the federal government trying to encroach upon the sovereign rights of the state of Alaska. HCR 2 is an excellent piece of legislation which should be supported by everyone." He declared that the United States Supreme Court law definitively shows that Alaska has the absolute sovereign right to manage its own wildlife resources. He said, "During this legislative session, if any piece of legislation is being heard, in regardless of what committee, and its being touted as a solution to the 'subsistence issue,' you need to view it through the glasses of four words." He went on to outline those four words as: 1) abundance, 2) state sovereignty, 3) equality, and 4) finality. Number 0253 MR. LEVENGOOD stressed that HCR 2 satisfies all four of the above words, and would provide finality through the United States Supreme Court. He reopened the question of whether or not the Supreme Court would hear a direct-action suit from the state of Alaska, and commented that direct-action lawsuits for a dispute between the states and the United States of America fall under the category of original jurisdiction. He explained that if Alaska files an original lawsuit saying that the federal government is encroaching upon its sovereignty, the issue would go directly to the United States Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction. If, however, the state challenges an administrative regulation as being unconstitutional, it would then have to be argued up through the appellate court system. Number 0322 MR. LEVENGOOD pointed out that all the legislators and the elected officials of the state of Alaska have sworn their allegiance and their duty to uphold Alaska's constitution as written; therefore, if and when the federal government takes over a fishery, whether it is in Glacier Bay or somewhere else, the state has the ability to file an original action in the United States Supreme Court challenging federal takeover of the sovereign authority of the state of Alaska. He summarized his testimony by congratulating the legislature for taking a leadership role in this issue, because "it's time to either lead, follow or get out of the way." Number 0374 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Levengood for clarification regarding whether or not the United States Supreme Court would have to hear such a direct-action suit because it is a matter of state sovereignty. MR. LEVENGOOD answered, "If the dispute is one which involves sovereignty of a state versus sovereignty of the United States, the supreme court cannot dodge the issue. It must entertain the suit." He referred to the Dinkum Sands case as a specific example where the United States of America sued the state of Alaska, and also to New York v. United States (1992), where the state of New York sued the federal government directly to the United States Supreme Court on an issue of sovereign authority. Number 0439 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the New York v. United States of America case went through an appellate process. MR. LEVENGOOD agreed, and added that case was a challenge of a regulation regarding disposal of waste, whereas, the Dinkum Sands case was an action directly in the U.S. Supreme Court. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the Dinkum Sands case involved the federal government versus the state of Alaska, and he wondered if the same thing would apply in reverse. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that it would have been faster to take Dinkum Sands through the appellate process. Number 0576 DALE BONDURANT again testified via teleconference from Kenai, this time addressing HCR 2. He stated his belief that Alaska has an ideal situation to force the issue into the United States Supreme Court. He referred to the Totemoff case in the Alaska Supreme Court, which, in a unanimous decision, stated that, for a number of reasons, the state of Alaska had the authority to manage hunting and fishing in its navigable waters. They had cited six explicit reasons why, and quoted over 20 cases, stating that they did not give deference to any federal court except the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Bondurant emphasized that the highest legal authority in the state of Alaska was telling the legislators and the governor that "they have the right to manage fishing and hunting in Alaska," and he wondered why the state did not take it over. If the state did take such management over, he added, the federal government would have the responsibility to take Alaska to the United States Supreme Court, and that is all that the state is asking for. Number 0576 DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council, again came forward to testify. He expressed the council's "wholehearted, unreserved support for House Concurrent Resolution 2." He added, "The [Alaska Outdoor] council has long championed the constitutional sovereign right of the state of Alaska to manage its lands, waters and fish and game on an equal footing with all the other states. We are confident that, should our case get to the United States Supreme Court, that the court will rule in Alaska's favor in this matter. The council believes that the only honorable course for Governor Knowles is to request that the United States Department of Interior restore all traditional state authorities to manage fish and game until this matter is resolved by the nation's highest court. The council also believes that the Governor did the state of Alaska a great disservice by dropping Alaska's federal lawsuit asserting our sovereign rights with prejudice so that it couldn't be brought up again. The Governor's action essentially left Alaska defenseless against this federal preemption of our sovereign rights. The Governor now should use every means at his disposal to take ... to side with the Legislative Council and get this case to the U.S. Supreme Court as rapidly as possible. The governor must demonstrate unity with the Alaska Legislature in the defense of Alaska's sovereign right to manage fish and game, or he must be held publicly accountable for his failure to exercise his public duty." Number 0678 RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, again testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, this time in support of HCR 2. He reported that he came from a family of seven children, and that his older brother and he shared a bed. He said, "There was a line down the middle of that bed that defined the sovereignty," and that both little boys knew where that line was. Every once in awhile, he noted, one would push over into the sovereign territory of the other, they would have to yell "MOM!," and the highest authority in that home would come in and redefine the line of sovereignty down the middle of the bed. He observed that this is the exact issue that the state of Alaska is currently involved in. MR. SEEKINS emphasized that this is not a hunting and fishing issue; rather, it is about where the line is between state and federal authority. He encouraged the committee to read the entire text of the New York v. United States case, as it says, "when Congress exceeds its authority relative to their -- to the states therefore, the departure from that constitutional plan cannot be ratified by the consent of state officials." He urged the committee to be careful what type of legislation is enacted, because if it is outside of the constitutional plan, it cannot be consented to and is null and void. Number 0769 MR. SEEKINS reported that he used to build houses with his father while growing up, and one of the first things they did was put in a foundation. What we would ask the United States Supreme Court to do in this case, he noted, is establish the legal foundation. He asked, "Is ANILCA right or is it wrong? If it's right, and the Supreme Court says it is, we'll march to that tune. We have the solid legal foundation on which then we can build the house. If it's not right, we're trying to build the house from the top down." He summarized by stating, "What this resolution does, in our opinion, is it goes right back there and, it quotes it on the second page of your resolution, it says some of its most interesting, but yet most challenging, cases of the Supreme Court are those where it tries to define where the line is between state/federal sovereignty and state/federal power." He commended the legislature for taking this step, and indicated the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association would do whatever they can to help. Number 0828 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he had not read the entire 200-page case [New York v. United States], but that he had read a relevant section that says that in ascertaining whether any of the challenged provisions overstep the boundary between federal and state power, the court must determine whether it is authorized by affirmative grants to Congress contained in Article I's commerce and spending clauses, or whether it invades the province of state sovereignty reserved by the 10th amendment. He asked Mr. Seekins, "In other words, if it doesn't say it's okay under the commerce clause, it's not okay under the 10th amendment, right?" MR. SEEKINS indicated that he could not state whether that was right or wrong, but that it would be part of the text. He did note that the case says that the constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the consent of the governmental units whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the executive branch or the state. He explained that this means, "If it exists, it exists, and someone has to define where that line is." He felt that the Governor may have consented to a voluntary, unilateral narrowing of the state's domain when he dismissed the Alaska v. Babbitt case, and he stated that cannot be done according to New York v. United States. He summarized by stating, "It is what it is, and that's all we are really asking for anyone to do, is to determine what it is." Number 0920 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed his concern that the New York v. United States case is completely inapplicable to the situation the state of Alaska is currently in. He explained that ANILCA is predicated on the federal government's trust relationship with the Native people, and under Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, it allows Congress to regulate commerce with the Indian tribes. With that in mind, he added, the whole argument about this violating the commerce clause falls apart. He reiterated that the New York v. United States case just doesn't seem to hold here. MR. SEEKINS testified that in the history of the United States Supreme Court, the commerce clause of the constitution has never been used to narrow the user group; rather, it has always been used to expand the user group. He emphasized that ANILCA is not Indian law, but that ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act] and Venetie extinguished that as an Indian law. He added, "Yes, they are tribes. We are not dealing with sovereign nations. We are not dealing with sovereign lands, except the sovereign lands of the state of Alaska." He observed that the discussion he and Representative Berkowitz were having was an example of why this issue needs to go to the Supreme Court. He said, "We don't want to argue the issue ad infinitum. It's time for someone to yell, 'Mom!' in an effort to find out exactly what power the United States has and if they are pushing over the line." Number 1015 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared that the people have already yelled, and in McDowell v. State, Judge Holland ruled that ANILCA was constitutional. He added, "We still keep pushing and pushing." He felt that the state has waited too long before we yelled for "mom," and added, "We waited until no one was even lying in the bed any longer." MR. SEEKINS disagreed, and stated that the constitution has no statute of limitations if Congress exceeds its authority. He argued that, even if there was a statute of limitations, we have new regulations put in place that create a new cause of action and a new statute of limitations. Number 1073 BILL HAGAR again testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in support of HCR 2. He felt that the two previous witnesses did very well in explaining the necessity of going to the United States Supreme Court. He urged taking a friendly posture, if possible, in going to the highest court in the land, and that we be prepared to live with the results. He indicated that the state has asked United States Senator Ted Stevens to adjudicate this for over 25 years. CHAIR BARNES asked if there was anyone else in the audience or on-line that wished to testify. Hearing none, she inquired if the committee members had any additional questions of Representative Coghill. Number 1158 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ quoted from the sponsor statement, where it says: "Putting an equal protection to a vote on the ballot would set a precedence of allowing fundamental rights to become vulnerable to politics and rhetoric." He pointed out that two such questions were placed on the ballot last session, and he asked Representative Coghill if he was generically opposed to those questions appearing on the ballot. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said no, and added that he appreciated the question. He said, "Those were the outcropping of some Supreme Court decisions that I think needed to be dealt with in a public policy, and if this issue, once again, came from a Supreme Court problem, I think that maybe the people need to be asked once again. But, at this point, I think it's important that we appeal to the Supreme Court on this, and this one is not an issue that can be dealt with within state policy. This is a national issue - one dealing with state sovereignty. So, with respect to your question, I think it's important that our appeal go straight to the Supreme Court, rather than to the people, and I think what they are trying to do is they're trying to force us into an issue where it is pushed on the people before it has a chance to have a good hearing as to what is the constitutional basis of this." He added, "This is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I know there was talk of secession at one time in Alaska's history, and ... you might question the right to vote on that, but I can understand it coming from the grass roots up. But this particular point, this is a contest between the state and the federal government that needs to be answered at Supreme Court level, and I think that appeal is entirely proper. Appealing to the people first, at this point, I think is out of line." CHAIR BARNES pointed out that the questions on the last ballot were placed before the court and the court found that they were constitutional; then they were allowed to be placed on the ballot. Number 1290 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered, "What assurances would there be that, if the side you support lost in the Supreme Court, that we wouldn't have to suffer through ballot initiative time and time again on this?" REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he was a reader of history, and that there is never a guarantee of anything, but there is always either a course of appeal or force. In this particular case, however, he felt that Alaska would live under the decision made by the United States Supreme Court. He admitted there might be a ground swell of opposition, but he advised the appeal needs to be made at this point in state history. Number 1354 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to one of the resolves in HCR 2, which states it is the duty of legislators to defend the constitution. He asked Representative Coghill if he was insinuating that trying to change it would be a violation of the constitution. REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Not entirely." He explained that the Constitution of the State of Alaska is replete with guarantees for equality. If a complete revision was sought, he added, there should be a call for a constitutional convention. He stated his opinion that there is a constitutional guarantee at the national level that overrules even ANILCA, especially in this respect. The resolution would state the beliefs of the state of Alaska and put them before the United States Supreme Court, so he believes that the state constitution is in line with the federal constitution, and that ANILCA is out of line. He emphasized that the most civil way to appeal is by taking a case like this to an arbiter who would have the final say. Number 1465 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that, throughout the debate and in the resolution, there has been a discussion on equality. He wondered what that was supposed to mean. [A small part of this testimony was indiscernible until the microphone was moved closer to Representative Joule]. He said, "When I think of that and I look at and compare equality to some of the parts of state that I represent, sometimes I can't help but feel that equality is like a one-way street." He added, "We're talking in this resolution about equality to the resources, and yet when we talk about equity to public safety ... I can name several communities that don't have public safety." He also mentioned equality with regard to adequate education. He stated that he had a question for Chair Barnes regarding a case that members of the Legislative Council have already put forth, and he asked, "Where is that in terms of judgement and in terms of when that will be finalized?" Number 1616 CHAIR BARNES clarified that individuals of the Legislative Council could not put forth a case acting alone, but that the case Representative Joule is referring to was put forth by the Legislative Council acting for the body under the Constitution of the State of Alaska to sue or be sued in the name of the legislature. She explained that the case is currently in the 1st Circuit Court in Washington, D.C. REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this resolution would tag on to that suit or if it would be completely different. Number 1672 CHAIR BARNES pointed out that HCR 2 is entirely different, because it speaks to the cause of original jurisdiction, which the legislative body has not asserted in the suit currently in the 1st Circuit Court. She added, "I don't know that we, as a legislative branch, could assert original jurisdiction in the United States Supreme Court. I think that has to be a state action. I'm not sure whether we would have that power to do that or not." CHAIR BARNES addressed Representative Joule's previous concern about equity in the case, for example, of public safety in the rural areas of the state. She commented that most parts of the rural areas of the state are unorganized boroughs, and that the legislative branch has a duty to sit as assembly for them. As such, she added, taxes have never been imposed on those areas to force people to pay. She stated, "These are all choices we make. Some of us choose to live in Anchorage. Some of us choose to live in Fairbanks. Some of us choose to live wherever we choose to live in the state, and most areas of the state have to pay for public safety." She noted that the legislature has never fostered those types of taxes on the rural areas of the state. The equity may not be there, she admitted; however, individuals in urban areas pay taxes for public safety. She expressed her support for Village Public Safety Officers and Alaska State Troopers. She cited an example of state troopers' patrolling in the Hillside area [of Anchorage], and how she personally worked to ensure those residents paid taxes to the Anchorage Police Department, moving the troopers out of that area onto the highway system where they should be, keeping them available to respond to needs in rural areas. She summarized by stating, "Equity is often based on our choices and choices of places we live, with the exception of those equities guaranteed to us under the constitution." Number 1886 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HCR 2 out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). She asked for unanimous consent. Number 1905 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He indicated that the legislature has wrestled with this issue for the last two sessions, and the only thing that has resulted is the division of both the legislature and the state. He stated, "When it comes time to advancing solutions or proposals for solutions, a very important part of that is the process by which solutions are advanced. This resolution, to my knowledge, was not a resolution born of good process. There was no effort to speak with people who are on the other side of the subsistence issue to try and seek input. I know the composition of this committee, and I understand the composition of the legislature. I know when things will move and when they won't move, and why they will and why they won't, and this resolution will move through here. That doesn't make it right. It just makes it another example of angry people trying to impose ...." Number 2048 CHAIR BARNES declared that Representative Berkowitz was out of line. She said, "You are questioning the motives of members of the legislature, and we do not do that." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ observed that he was entitled to speak. CHAIR BARNES argued that he was not entitled to question the motives of anyone, and stated that he had no way of knowing whether or not individuals involved with this legislation were angry. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the failure of those involved with sponsoring this legislation to seek the input of those who have a different perspective does not signal the real search for a solution. He indicated that it signaled to him that another collision would result with more divisiveness, and that it would not bring the state any closer to resolving the issue. Number 2124 CHAIR BARNES admitted that she did not know the prime sponsor of HCR 2 really well; however, she said, "The one thing I do know about him is that he is a fine, Christian gentleman, and he would not intentionally seek to divide or promote hate in any way. I know that not to be his nature. That much I know about him. I know that he is also a preacher, so I'd be very careful about raising issues of him promoting divisiveness or hatreds in any manner. I believe that not to be the case." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he was referring to the process by which this legislation moved. He assured Chair Barnes that he was not impugning or referring to an individual's motives. He emphasized that he was not questioning anyone's faith, and that faith should not have been brought into the conversation. The issue, he continued, is not about an individual's faith or goodwill; rather, it is about getting to a solution. He said, "The process by which this resolution is before us is flawed. The process and the content, the language, is inflammatory. It burns bridges. It doesn't build them, and as long as people are more interested in making statements than finding answers, we are not going to get to a resolution, and this is a statement, it's not a search for an answer." Number 2300 CHAIR BARNES acknowledged, "That is your opinion; however, you have no idea what process that the prime sponsor of this legislation went through before he submitted it to the body." REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that this is her fifth year serving in the legislature, and this issue has come up since the beginning of her first term. She believed there has been adequate input on all sides of this issue. She added, "It saddens me to see the remarks that have been made by this certain representative, because we do have good public process, and I have sat through hours and hours of testimony from the public, from rural Alaska to urban Alaska." She expressed her belief that the legislature has been dedicated to getting down to the roots of the problem and trying to resolve it, and that HCR 2 is in good faith and will be a step towards bringing the state back together once more. She emphasized that she did not believe that this legislation is trying to divide the state, and added that she would not be working towards anything that would do so. She observed that rural people have been on-line, and that she grew up in a rural area. She disagreed with the emphasis being placed on rural areas versus urban areas, and said, "We are all equal, no matter where we live. We are American." She felt downhearted that the issue had reached this level, and said, "Once we get to that level, then I believe it's going to be real difficult to find a solution." She agreed the sides do have to come together on this issue, and she believes HCR 2 is the right way to approach it. She summarized by pointing out there is still time for additional testimony because there are two more committees of referral; however, it should be remembered that there has already been 20 years of testimony on this subject. Number 2525 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN took exception to Representative Berkowitz' comments. He said, "I think it is a sovereignty issue, and while there may be references within it to fish and game, it's only one of many issues. We Alaskans, as a resource state, see federal intervention on all fronts, including the threatened closure of ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], which I agree is a federal park, but it is within the state quarters. We are having all sorts of difficulty in even trying to get an ability to develop our resources in an area that was set aside by a prior administration nearly 100 years ago as a naval petroleum reserve, and still we find that this Administration is creating havoc ... in just trying to do that. It's already been drilled on several occasions, so now to come back and say that we need to satisfy a bureaucratic edict that says now we have to have all these hoops and hurdles of environmental review to do that which was set aside to do, and has been done historically, I think just opens Pandora's box to the fact that we, along with many of the western states, find that there is oppressive governmental interference with our activities. We are a sovereign state, and we should be accorded that sovereignty, and for a bureaucrat or potential presidential order or other federal intervention into our rights as a sovereign state, we heard earlier is repugnant." Number 2684 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN declared that he has spent many hours trying to resolve these issues on a legislative or compromise or court basis; however, it is getting to the point to where time is running out. He added, "It irks me that we are still looking for some way to just passively say we'll try and work with the federal government. We know that they are not trustworthy, for one thing." He summarized by observing that it has come to a point where matters might have to be handled more aggressively, or not as diplomatically, as might be done in another case. Time is an issue, he emphasized, "and we are now to the point of pulling all the stops." Number 2810 CHAIR BARNES asked for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, she noted that the question before the committee was moving HCR 2 with individual recommendations, and that there have been objections. She asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Masek, Cowdery, Barnes and Green voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Berkowitz and Joule voted against the motion. Therefore, HCR 2 was moved from the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations by a vote of 4-2.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|