Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/17/1995 01:22 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 17, 1995                                        
                           1:22 p.m.                                           
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Brian Porter, Chairman                                         
 Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman                                       
 Representative Con Bunde                                                      
 Representative Bettye Davis                                                   
 Representative Al Vezey                                                       
 Representative Cynthia Toohey                                                 
 Representative David Finkelstein                                              
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HB 47:    "An Act relating to the crime of unlawful evasion."                 
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 HB 48:    "An Act relating to motorcycle safety and to use of                 
           helmets by operators of motorcycles."                               
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 HB 127:   "An Act increasing the minimum term of imprisonment for             
           assaults in the fourth degree committed against a peace             
           officer, fire fighter, correctional officer, emergency              
           medical technician, paramedic, ambulance attendant, or              
           other emergency responders."                                        
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 HB 38:    "An Act relating to criminal sentencing; relating to the            
           availability for good time credit for offenders convicted           
           of certain first degree murders; relating to mandatory              
           life imprisonment, parole, good time credit, pardon,                
           commutation of sentence, modification or reduction of               
           sentence, reprieve, furlough, and service of sentence at            
           a correctional restitution center for offenders with at             
           least three serious felony convictions; and amending                
           Alaska Rule of Criminal Procedure 35."                              
           PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                             
 *HJR 33:  Requesting the Congress to amend Title VIII of the                  
           Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.                    
           HEARD AND HELD                                                      
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 517                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4998                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsored HB 47                                          
 GERALD BAILEY, Program Director                                               
 Gastineau Human Services                                                      
 5597 Aisek                                                                    
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  780-4338                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 47                              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 426                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3466                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsored HB 48                                          
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General                                      
 Criminal Division                                                             
 Department of Law                                                             
 P.O. Box 110300                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4037                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 48                              
 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner                          
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 111200                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-1200                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4322                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 48                              
 SCOTT HAMANN, Legislative Representative                                      
 Alaska Bikers Advocating Training and Education (ABATE)                       
 P.O. Box 934                                                                  
 Kenai, AK 99611                                                               
 Telephone:  (907)  283-4481                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 48                              
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant                                      
  to Representative Pete Kelly                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 513                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2327                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced HB 127                                        
 FATE PUTMAN                                                                   
 Alaska State Employees Association                                            
 641 West Willoughby                                                           
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  463-4949                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 127                             
 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant                                              
 Office of the Commissioner                                                    
 Department of Corrections                                                     
 240 Main Street, Suite 700                                                    
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4640                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 127                             
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide                                                
 House Judiciary Committee                                                     
 State Capitol, Room 120                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4990                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on HB 127                           
 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Legal Counsel                                    
 Legislative Legal Services                                                    
 Legislative Affairs Agency                                                    
 130 Seward Street, Suite 409                                                  
 Juneau, AK 99801-2105                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2450                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Provided information on CSHB 38                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK                                                  
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 418                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2679                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HJR 33                                        
 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 405                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4833                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 503                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4942                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 501                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4527                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 PATRICK WRIGHT                                                                
 P.O. Box 90386                                                                
 Anchorage, AK 99509                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  279-1340                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 WILLIE KASAYULIE, Chief Executive                                             
 Akiachak Tribal Council                                                       
 P.O. Box 70                                                                   
 Akiachak, AK 99559                                                            
 Telephone:  (907)  825-4626                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 ANDY GOLIA                                                                    
 Bristol Bay Native Association                                                
 P.O. Box 310                                                                  
 Dillingham, AK 99576                                                          
 Telephone:  (907)  842-5307                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 ORVIL HUNTINGTON, Tribal Member                                               
 Huslia Tribe                                                                  
 P.O. Box 85146                                                                
 Fairbanks, AK 99709                                                           
 Telephone: Not Available                                                      
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 MARK JACOBS JR.                                                               
 Central Council, Tlingit and Haida                                          
 P.O. Box 625                                                                  
 Sitka, AK 99835                                                               
 Telephone:  (907)  747-8168                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 LORETTA BULLARD, President                                                    
 Kawerak, Inc.                                                                 
 P.O. Box 948                                                                  
 Nome, AK 99762                                                                
 Telephone:  (907)  443-5231                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 BOB CHARLES, Vice President of Operations                                     
 Association of Village Council Presidents                                     
 Yukon-Kuskokwim/Delta Region                                                  
 P.O. Box 219                                                                  
 Bethel, AK 99559                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  543-3521                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 TERESA CLARK                                                                  
 P.O. Box 311                                                                  
 Galena, AK 99741                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  656-1829                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 RUTH WILLARD, First Vice President                                            
 Tlingit and Haida                                                             
 Alaska Federation of Natives Board Member                                     
 1200 Eagle Street, No. 3                                                      
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  272-4885                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 DALE BONDURANT                                                                
 HC 1, Box 1197                                                                
 Soldotna, AK 99669                                                            
 Telephone:  (907)  262-0818                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 EILEEN NORBERGE, Deputy Director                                              
 Kawerak, Inc.                                                                 
 P.O. Box 948                                                                  
 Nome, AK 99762                                                                
 Telephone:  (907)  443-5231                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 LORETTA LOLNITZ, Athabascan Indian                                            
 P.O. BOX 25                                                                   
 Koyukuk, AK 99754                                                             
 Telephone:  (907)  927-2253                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 HAROLD MARTIN, President                                                      
 Southeast Native Subsistence Committee                                        
 320 West Willoughby Avenue, Suite 300                                         
 Juneau, AK 99801                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  586-1432                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 VERNON OLSON, Vice President                                                  
 Bering Straits Native Corporation                                             
 P.O. Box 1008                                                                 
 Nome, AK 99762                                                                
 Telephone:  (907)  443-5252                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 STANLEY JONAS                                                                 
 P.O. Box 13                                                                   
 Canyon Village, AK 99740                                                      
 Telephone:  (907)  662-2944                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 ROBERT FIFER                                                                  
 P.O. Box 60300                                                                
 Fairbanks, AK 99706                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  876-5014                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 ISAAC JUNEBY                                                                  
 P.O. Box 107                                                                  
 Eagle, AK 99738                                                               
 Telephone:  (907)  547-2307                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 HARRIET CARLO                                                                 
 P.O. Box 285                                                                  
 Galena, AK 99741                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  656-1764                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 First Chief, Anvik Tribal Council                                             
 P.O. Box 10                                                                   
 Anvik, AK 99558                                                               
 Telephone:  (907)  663-6331                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 JERRY SAM, Chief                                                              
 General Delivery                                                              
 Aletna, AK 99720                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  455-8946                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 CESA SAM, Tribal Administrator                                                
 P.O. Box 70                                                                   
 Huslia, AK 99746                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  829-2294                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 JEREMIAH RILEY                                                                
 P.O. Box 285                                                                  
 Galena, AK 99741                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  656-1764                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 STANLEY NED                                                                   
 P.O. Box 27                                                                   
 Allakaket, AK 99720                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  479-6805                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 MARTHA FALK, House Researcher                                                 
 Representative Eileen MacLean                                                 
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 405                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4833                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 MIKE LOPEZ, Petersburg resident                                               
 Did not give address                                                          
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB  47                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BROWN,Robinson                                  
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        33    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        33    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        33    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/02/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/02/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/03/95       227    (H)   STA RPT  CS(STA) 4DP 2NR                          
 02/03/95       228    (H)   DP: JAMES,WILLIS,ROBINSON,IVAN                    
 02/03/95       228    (H)   NR: OGAN, PORTER                                  
 02/03/95       228    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, CORR)                   
 03/06/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/06/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB  48                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: MOTORCYCLE SAFETY                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BRICE,Brown,Navarre                             
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        33    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        33    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        33    (H)   TRA, JUD, FIN                                     
 01/27/95       162    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BROWN                               
 02/01/95       210    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): NAVARRE                             
 02/15/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 02/20/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 02/20/95              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                       
 02/22/95       442    (H)   TRA RPT  7DP                                      
 02/22/95       442    (H)   DP: BRICE, MACLEAN, JAMES, MASEK                  
 02/22/95       442    (H)   DP: WILLIAMS, SANDERS, G.DAVIS                    
 02/22/95       442    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                                 
 02/22/95       442    (H)   3 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DPS, DOT, LAW)               
 03/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 127                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: 120-DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KELLY                                           
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/27/95       156    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/27/95       156    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 02/14/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 519                       
 02/14/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/21/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/21/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/22/95       444    (H)   STA RPT  7DP                                      
 02/22/95       444    (H)   DP: PORTER, GREEN, IVAN, ROBINSON                 
 02/22/95       444    (H)   DP: WILLIS, OGAN, JAMES                           
 02/22/95       444    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (CORR)                                
 02/22/95       444    (H)   2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DPS)                    
 03/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB  38                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) BUNDE,Toohey                                    
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 01/06/95        30    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        30    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        30    (H)   STA, JUD, FIN                                     
 01/20/95       105    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): TOOHEY                              
 02/09/95              (H)   STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102                       
 02/09/95              (H)   MINUTE(STA)                                       
 02/10/95       295    (H)   STA RPT  4DP 3NR                                  
 02/10/95       295    (H)   DP: JAMES, PORTER, GREEN, OGAN                    
 02/10/95       295    (H)   NR: ROBINSON, IVAN, WILLIS                        
 02/10/95       295    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (CORR)                                
 03/08/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 03/08/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HJR 33                                                                
 SHORT TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA                                             
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK,Toohey,James,Bunde                        
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 03/01/95       529    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/01/95       529    (H)   JUDICIARY                                         
 03/06/95       623    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                               
 03/17/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-31, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:22            
 p.m. on Friday, March 17, 1995.  All members were present.  The               
 meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Fairbanks, Dillingham,              
 Glennallen, Kotzebue, Nome, Sitka, Bethel, and Kenai.  CHAIRMAN               
 BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard:  CSHB
 47, HB 48, CSHB 127, CSHB 38, and HJR 33.  He announced that the              
 committee would take public testimony on HJR 33, but the Governor's           
 Office had requested that the committee hold it over until                    
 Wednesday, as they had not completely formulated their position,              
 and asked for a few extra days to do so.  CHAIRMAN PORTER noted               
 that he would be leaving for a few minutes to introduce a bill in             
 another committee, so VICE CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN would facilitate the            
 meeting during that portion of time.  He called Representative Kay            
 Brown forward to introduce HB 47.                                             
 HB 47 - UNLAWFUL EVASIONS CLASS A MISDEMEANOR                               
 Number 050                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN introduced HB 47.  Sponsor statement for             
 CSHB 47:                                                                      
 "Current law has two degrees of unlawful evasion--which is the                
 failure to return to detention at a correctional facility or a                
 `half-way' house when so required.  For individuals charged with or           
 convicted of a felony, the offense of unlawful evasion is a class             
 "A" misdemeanor, carrying a sentence of up to one year.  For those            
 charged with or serving time for misdemeanor offenses, the crime              
 becomes unlawful evasion in the second degree and is lowered to a             
 class "B" misdemeanor.                                                        
 "CSHB 47 would eliminate the distinction between first and second             
 degree unlawful evasion, creating a single crime of unlawful                  
 evasion with a possible maximum class "A" misdemeanor penalty.                
 "The success of a community corrections program depends on                    
 responsibility and trust.  An individual serving time for a felony            
 or a serious misdemeanor like drunk driving, earns the privilege of           
 participating in a community corrections program by demonstrating             
 personal responsibility and trustworthiness.  Appropriate sanctions           
 for violating that trust must be in place for the system to have              
 the respect of participants.                                                  
 "A class "B" misdemeanor charge for unlawful evasion in the second            
 degree, is not considered a serious enough offense to warrant                 
 efforts by law enforcement and prosecutors to apprehend and convict           
 offenders.  The penalties are relatively insignificant and carry              
 little or no leverage to deter an inmate from simply failing to               
 return to custody when required.                                              
 "The crime of unlawful evasion is as much a violation of trust by             
 an individual serving time for a serious misdemeanor as for one               
 serving time for a felony.                                                    
 "It is appropriate that there be only the single crime of unlawful            
 evasion carrying the potential maximum class "A" misdemeanor                  
 penalty.  When it comes to a violation of trust, the status of the            
 offender (felon or misdemeanant) should be irrelevant."                       
 Number 090                                                                    
 GERALD BAILEY, Program Director, Gastineau Human Services, urged              
 support for HB 47 and made himself available for questions.                   
 Misdemeanants tend to have less respect for the minor points of the           
 law and feel that the sanctions are not significant, so they are              
 more likely to walk away than someone facing more serious                     
 Number 120                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 47 (STA) out of           
 committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal             
 notes.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                               
 HB 48 - MOTORCYCLE SAFETY                                                   
 Number 130                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE, sponsor of HB 48, introduced the bill.              
 He said it is basically a clean-up bill addressing an inconsistency           
 in statute.  Sponsor statement:                                               
 "The federal highway safety act, ISTEA, requires each state to                
 adopt a mandatory helmet law.  The penalty for noncompliance in the           
 first year (FY95) is 1.5 percent of federal transportation funding            
 which must be transferred from the Department of Transportation &             
 Public Facilities (DOTPF) to the 402 fund for safety, training, and           
 enforcement.  In October 1994, (FY95) $2.6 million was transferred            
 to the 402 fund.  Each year thereafter for the remaining four years           
 of the act 3 percent will be moved.  Depending on whether the act             
 is fully funded by the U.S. Congress, $5.2 million will be moved to           
 402 each year.  Over the life of ISTEA the total would be                     
 approximately $23.5 million.                                                  
 "During the summer and fall of 1993, the state's Attorney General's           
 office, in an attempt to bring Alaska into compliance with ISTEA              
 mandates, issued an opinion supporting the state's ability to                 
 mandate the use of a helmet for motorcycle operators.  The                    
 opinion's argument revolved around the use of `singularly licensed            
 to drive a motorcycle.'  Although the opinion has been withdrawn,             
 this is a new interpretation of a statute that has been on the                
 books since 1976, and is contrary to legislative intent and current           
 enforcement policy.                                                           
 "To address this, HB 48 clarifies the statute to ensure that some             
 of these funds would be used for improving motorcycle safety, a               
 motorcycle safety program would be established under the Department           
 of Public Safety (DPS)."                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that he would be proposing two                     
 Number 180                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked how this would impact the federal funds            
 that we would receive for mandating helmets.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that it does not impact the current             
 status quo one way or another.  The passage of this legislation               
 would not cause us to lose any more money, nor would it cause us to           
 garner any more money, though there are attempts at the federal               
 level, to take the blackmail clauses out of the ISTEA legislation.            
 REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY was concerned about the clause giving the             
 Department of Public Safety the authority to enact regulations                
 regarding motorcycle helmet safety standards.  He recommended the             
 committee adopt a standard, rather than passing it on to an agency            
 to go through the administrative procedures and take 90 days or 6             
 months to adopt regulations, which may end up being regulations               
 that we do not want.  Standards would be fairly easy for us to                
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that concern had been raised in the             
 Transportation Committee as well.  According to the testimony given           
 by the DPS, it was understood that those standards are currently on           
 the books.  What this language would require is to go through yet             
 another administrative process to reimplement those regulations,              
 thereby inflicting a fiscal note.  The attempt here was to, in one            
 way or another, have the fiscal note removed.  To do that, we would           
 take out Sections 1 and 2 of the bill.  It is at the will of the              
 committee whether or not to make that decision.                               
 Number 250                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY clarified that he was referring more to                  
 adopting regulations as to what makes a safe helmet.  In Section 3            
 we would be a whole lot more free to adopt a standard.  We do not             
 need to repeat the efforts of agencies in testing motorcycle                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted it is his understanding that the                   
 department has those types of standards and there are national                
 standards that helmets in this state must comply with, that have              
 been established through various federal procedures.                          
 REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY asked if the updating of new helmet             
 standards would be affected by this bill.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE answered that this does not have anything to             
 do with changing those regulatory standards of the helmet itself.             
 This has to do with updating the statute to reflect the practice of           
 endorsements for motorcycle drivers, versus having motorcycle                 
 drivers singularly licensed to operate a motorcycle.  That is the             
 question this legislation is addressing.  It is not in any way,               
 shape or manner, changing the standards for helmet safety, or for             
 the type of helmet.                                                           
 Number 310                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN asked Representative Brice to                
 explain it one more time.  AS 28.35.250 says a person who is an               
 adult does not have to wear a motorcycle helmet.  What is different           
 about that in (b) on page 2?   He could not tell the difference               
 between the bill and existing law.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Representative Finkelstein was                  
 referring to a memo from Deborah Boyd, dated September 28, 1993.              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said yes he was.                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that memo gives an inaccurate citation              
 (AS 28.35.250).  The concern should be AS 28.35.245 (b).  What they           
 are saying is that the person is the holder of a license which,               
 under regulations, is classified as a license to operate only a               
 motorcycle.  The department had made the interpretation that if you           
 are singularly licensed to operate a motorcycle, meaning you can              
 operate a motorcycle but no other type of motor vehicle that would            
 require a license, then you are required to wear a helmet.  That              
 flies in the face of a state policy that has been implemented since           
 the inception of this statute, which currently says if you are                
 endorsed to drive a motorcycle, and you are over 18, then you are             
 not required to wear a helmet.  The department, in an intent to say           
 that they had substantially complied with the ISTEA requirements of           
 having helmet laws in the books, stated that, if you are singularly           
 licensed you are not required to wear a helmet but everybody else             
 is required to.  The fact of the matter is, the state almost                  
 provides endorsement now; we do not singularly license anybody to             
 operate motorcycles.                                                          
 MARGOT KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division,                  
 Department of Law, said she was representing Governor Knowles who             
 supports this legislation and asked that it be passed, especially             
 without an amendment to subsection (b), which would require helmets           
 only for those under the age of 18.  The Governor believes that it            
 is inappropriate for government to intrude itself on every decision           
 made by persons in the state, and that whether to wear a motorcycle           
 helmet or not is a matter that should be left to the judgment and             
 responsibility of an individual.                                              
 Number 395                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why we do not just put the motorcycle              
 helmet standard in the statute, and save a lot of trouble and                 
 expense of writing regulations.                                               
 MS. KNUTH answered that they already have a standard set out in               
 regulation that was adopted some time ago.  The reason why is                 
 because the standards change with increased technology, and with              
 what we learn from traffic accidents.  If it were set out in the              
 statute, we would have to come back and ask for it to be amended              
 regularly, to keep up with new information.  At this point the                
 standard is what is required by the federal government.  There is             
 a uniform standard.  Regulations are typically easier to amend than           
 statutes, at least historically they have been.  Even though there            
 is a process and expense, it is not as great as that involved in              
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE suspected there is a national organization               
 that tests motorcycle helmets, and that with their information, the           
 Department of Public Safety would formulate standards.                        
 Number 480                                                                    
 LEE ANN LUCAS, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department of           
 Public Safety, spoke in support of HB 48 without the amendment to             
 delete Section 2.  She said they do have existing regulations that            
 are broad enough to provide for the licensing and certifying of               
 those programs.  They currently have a program in Anchorage which             
 provides motorcycle training.  Alaska Bikers Advocating Training              
 and Education (ABATE) currently has an application in to begin                
 providing for a commercial driving school for motorcycles.                    
 MS. LUCAS explained that they had a 3.9 thousand dollar fiscal note           
 for the adoption of motorcycle regulations.  If Section 2 was                 
 deleted, that fiscal note would be zero.  She said the department             
 feels it does and can cover programs, as they have been.                      
 Number 500                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if motorcycle passengers were required             
 to wear helmets.                                                              
 MS. LUCAS answered that their current regulations do provide for              
 equipment for riders.  A person operating or riding upon a                    
 motorcycle on a public roadway is required to wear a helmet.                  
 Persons 18 years of age or older are not required to do so, under             
 REPRESENTATIVE BRICE clarified that current statute says if you are           
 riding off road, in other words, dirt biking, you are required to             
 wear a helmet regardless of your age; and if you are a passenger on           
 a motorcycle, you are required to wear a helmet.  This will not               
 affect that either way.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move Amendment One, dated               
 3/16/95.  The amendment would make the following changes:                     
      Page 1, line 1:                                                          
           Delete "motorcycle safety and to"                                   
      Page 1, lines 4 - 7:                                                     
           Delete all material.                                                
      Page 1, line 8:                                                          
           Delete "Sec. 3."                                                    
           Insert "Section 1."                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected and asked if public testimony             
 was complete.                                                                 
 VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if anyone else wished to testify.  There            
 was a person on the teleconference network waiting to speak.                  
 SCOTT HAMANN, Legislative Representative, ABATE, said they support            
 the amendments deleting Sections 1 and 2.  He said they were not              
 too worried about Section 3, because the national standards are so            
 bogus anyway.  They do not mean anything to us.  They only test               
 helmets at 12 miles an hour.  They are really not in the real world           
 anyway, so we are not too concerned about that.  He urged passage             
 of the bill.                                                                  
 VICE CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was objection or discussion on             
 the amendment.  Hearing none, Amendment One was adopted.                      
 CHAIRMAN PORTER returned.                                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he would not object to the bill,            
 but did have great hesitancy on it.  He remembered the great debate           
 on mandating seatbelts, and the argument that maybe it was not in             
 the best interest of our citizens.  He said that death records                
 since then show that it is in the interest of our citizens.  He did           
 not think it would be out of line for the state to look into these            
 matters, and he was not convinced the case has been made that                 
 requiring helmets would save lives.                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY made a motion to move CSHB 48(JUD) with                  
 individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes out of                   
 committee.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                           
 HB 127 - 120 DAY JAIL: ASSAULT ON OFFICERS                                  
 Number 600                                                                    
 BRUCE CAMPBELL, Administrative Assistant to Representative Pete               
 Kelly, introduced CSHB 127, version F.  Sponsor statement:                    
 "It is the intent of this bill to enhance a serious tool for police           
 officers and others on the front line.  It will increase severity             
 of punishment for acts committed against a police officer while in            
 the performance of official duties.                                           
 "This bill sends a clear message to individuals that once the                 
 police arrive the fight must stop.  Alaska is not sending in our              
 `tag team blue' for the next round.  Expanding the fracas to                  
 include a police officer will result in jail time.                            
 "This bill also discourages an officer from `engaging in a fair               
 fight.'  There is no reason for such a fight to continue, and this            
 bill makes that quite clear.                                                  
 "Although initially intended as a tool for police, it has even more           
 meaning when applied to individuals with even less training or                
 expectation of dealing with persons physically.  Volunteers                   
 responding to a medical emergency or fire are neither equipped nor            
 trained to handle assault or violence directed against their                  
 MR. CAMPBELL explained that the essence of the committee substitute           
 is the same as the original bill, but they have expanded the                  
 language to include correctional nurses and parole/probation                  
 officers.  This language is better than that in the original bill,            
 which refers to peace officers and correctional officers.  In                 
 working with the Department of Law, it was found that those terms             
 did not actually address the issues they were considering.                    
 Number 690                                                                    
 FATE PUTMAN, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), stated that           
 ASEA is the organization who requested these changes.  They are in            
 support of the bill and of the committee substitute, which would              
 deter criminal behavior against members of their organization,                
 particularly people who work in correctional institutions, such as            
 nurses and probation officers.  The state is concerned with their             
 well-being, and believes there should be a punishment if they are             
 JERRY SHRINER, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,                 
 Department of Corrections, noted that the previous two speakers had           
 said most of what he wanted to say.  The Department of Corrections            
 does support this bill, particularly as modified to include                   
 correctional employees.  He said people who may be prosecuted under           
 this bill would more likely fall into the peace officer and                   
 emergency responder categories than in the correctional employees             
 category.  Nevertheless, he believes it is important in terms of              
 employee morale to know that their employer is behind them in the             
 performance of duties that can be dangerous and certainly stressful           
 every day that they go to work.  We want them to know that we are             
 behind them.  In most incidents occurring in institutions, there              
 are a variety of ways in which these problems can be dealt with.              
 They can take good time away or isolate individuals without                   
 charging the person with an offense.  They probably will continue             
 to do that inside institutions, so he does not expect that there              
 will be a significant number of new cases.  But again, we want our            
 employees to know that we are behind them, and we are glad that               
 they are specifically named in this.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that occurrences of this nature taking              
 place inside a correctional facility should not necessarily affect            
 the fiscal impact.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if a contract employee would also fall            
 into this protected category.                                                 
 MR. CAMPBELL said he did not know, but perhaps Margot Knuth would             
 Number 745                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that if a person were not covered as an                
 employee, he/she would certainly still be covered as a private                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked what the maximum penalty is for assault            
 in the fourth degree.                                                         
 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee,                    
 explained that it would have the same penalty as for a class A                
 misdemeanor, according to Mr. Luckhaupt, which is one year maximum            
 in prison.                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY wondered what the need was to raise the                  
 minimum sentence from 30 days to 120.  If someone was found guilty            
 of a violent act, they could be given a year right now.                       
 MR. CAMPBELL said he would not pretend to be replacing something.             
 The questions seem to be relatively legal in nature here.  If                 
 somebody committed an act that was particularly egregious, then it            
 would be subject to a higher level of penalty, and would be under             
 either a felony assault or another higher penalty phase.  That is             
 why, in this amendment, we now have four pages, because we have               
 added and corrected the phrase "correctional employee" in the                 
 assault statutes, so we are not dealing just with the fourth degree           
 assault level that we were initially starting out with.  Those also           
 include the areas of specificity, those existing statutes for                 
 felonious assault, or whatever they are referred to in a legal                
 phrase.  Those have special sentencing sanctions and minimum                  
 sentencing for assaulting correctional officers, and this would               
 expand the language to include correctional employees.                        
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said that did not answer his question, because           
 he was referring only to Section 5 where we are talking about                 
 assault in the fourth degree, which is already a class A                      
 misdemeanor.  He was curious why they only wanted to raise the                
 minimum sentence from 30 days to 120.  He could visualize some                
 situations of assault in the fourth degree which are not exactly              
 life threatening.  Would we really want to put somebody in jail for           
 120 days for assault in the fourth degree?  Punching someone in the           
 nose is an assault in the fourth degree.                                      
 MR. CAMPBELL said these issues are a little out of his realm, but             
 the initial discussion with the police officers they talked with,             
 particularly Chief Gunn, is that in their experience, something               
 like punching a police officer, in most jurisdictions, gave them an           
 automatic felony sentence.  It automatically jumped it from a                 
 misdemeanor into the felony category.  We did not go that far.  We            
 simply raised the minimum time of sentencing from 30 to 120 days,             
 rather than changing the issue from fourth degree assault to                  
 felonious assault, just because it was a police officer.  Deputy              
 Chief Gunn found this to be a particularly effective means of                 
 deterring and essentially bringing to a stop, fights.  When the               
 police arrived, the fight was over.  You were not throwing in `tag            
 team blue' to see who had the best wrestling match.  Not all                  
 people, but many people understood that because there was a police            
 officer arriving, to continue the issue and drag the police officer           
 into a fight or carry on in that fashion, is a much more serious              
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY did not realize that what they were trying to            
 address here was reluctant arrestees.  That certainly is a problem,           
 and people probably do not give consideration to what the penalties           
 are when they get into fisticuffs with a police officer.  We are              
 talking about correctional employees, that is what the change is              
 here.  We are talking about the institutional employee.  Do we                
 really want to raise the minimum time in jail from 30 days to 120             
 days for fourth degree assault?  That is not really a physical                
 endangerment.  It is just an assault.                                         
 MR. SHRINER said that inside the institution, by expanding this to            
 include correctional employees, that includes a significantly                 
 larger number of people than if we said correctional officers.                
 Correctional officers, to some extent, while they certainly do not            
 expect to be assaulted as part of their occupation, are trained to            
 deal with a different level of behavior than, for example, a                  
 teacher, or mental health worker, or some other nurse who is one of           
 our employees, those people would be more protected if higher                 
 consequences awaited the potential offender.  Those workers within            
 an institution have more narrowly defined roles in ability to                 
 arrest.  They frequently make home visits in situations where they            
 do not carry weapons, and where they are not always sure what the             
 situation is going to be when they get there.  This is not a                  
 frequent occurrence, but he believed it was worthwhile to the                 
 extent that this gives them some additional protection, and it is             
 worth the effort to try it.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE felt that someone guilty of punching an                  
 officer in the nose has committed a far more serious offense than             
 someone who gets in a fender bender and punches a civilian in the             
 nose.  That is why officers wear uniforms.  You know who is in                
 charge.  He would certainly endorse placing a serious consequence             
 on people who want to be violent.                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN had concerns in a situation where                  
 someone goes and punches the police officer in the nose and is                
 guilty of fourth degree assault, and is already subject to a year             
 in jail.  He would be interested to see what the sentencing pattern           
 TAPE 95-31, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN continued.  He guessed the low end of              
 this category is people who are drunk, and where the action was               
 clearly not premeditated.  Perhaps they are whaling on somebody               
 else, the officer intervenes, and they get some degree of assault.            
 Certainly, if they take a pounding and suffer some actual damages             
 of assault, the penalty should be higher.  If there is a weapon               
 involved, it goes to higher levels.  This is the very bottom level.           
 Is there something out there in the world of these actions where a            
 person hits the officer, and quickly realizes that, "Whoops! I'm in           
 a new world now."  Is there some place out there that ought to be             
 the low end?  The judge is going to have discretion to give                   
 anywhere between nothing and a year.  Is there never going to be a            
 situation where the person realizes quickly what they have done,              
 and it does not cause any damage to the officer, does not do any              
 damage at all, and quickly reverses himself, that it would be                 
 appropriate for something more on the order of 30 days?  That was             
 his question.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he guessed they did not need to talk                
 about prosecutorial discretion and jury trials, and that sort of              
 thing.  Many first time misdemeanants do not get any jail time at             
 all.  To jack it from a potential 30 days to 120 days is just a               
 reflection of a step up in the violation of civil order, when you             
 attack a police officer, whether intentional or unintentional.                
 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY felt we were wrestling with taking away the              
 court system's ability to have some control over the population of            
 our prisons.  If we are going to deny them any flexibility in                 
 sentencing, and we do not have much flexibility on how we fund                
 Corrections, that is what it comes down to.  If we are only talking           
 about a very small number of cases, but if we are going to mandate            
 how long people stay in jail for every crime, regardless of the               
 mitigating circumstances, we are just going to have to open up our            
 wallets and build more prisons.                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER did not disagree with the concerns that have been             
 expressed, but from his obviously biased position, he felt assaults           
 on peace officers and other first responders in emergency                     
 situations were serious offenses.  It is not unusual for our                  
 statutory structure to require mandatory sentences for serious                
 offenses.  We have had that in place for some time.  These kinds of           
 things do not happen very often anymore, but they used to.  This is           
 either due to societal changes or is the result of this kind of               
 legislation.  In getting down to a fundamental level, when he                 
 started in law enforcement, if someone took a poke at a police                
 officer, the police officer was entitled to take a poke back.  He             
 or she is not now.  This kind of provision makes up for that                  
 imbalance.  It is an infrequent event, and is, consequently,                  
 admittedly, more of a statement of recognition by us to these                 
 people that we appreciate the jeopardy they are placing themselves            
 in on our behalf, and we will do what we can to support that                  
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said it used to be in a tort situation that if           
 `A' intended to do something to `B', but missed and hit `C', there            
 was thing called "transfer of intent" and there was a question                
 asked earlier about an officer stepping in between two fugitives.             
 Does this imply that there could be that transfer of intent, or               
 would it have to be an overt action?                                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said to charge and convict under this statute, you            
 would have to be able to establish intent to assault on a specific            
 correctional officer.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said if there is something going on that                 
 causes a police officer to be assaulted, there is probably an                 
 accompanying crime; and one of the tools our judicial system uses             
 is to place multiple charges on the defendant, which has impact on            
 the sentence.  He has known of a situation in which a police                  
 officer was assaulted, and he would have been very happy to see a             
 compound sentence.  Expanded and compounded sentences are justified           
 for this type of conflict.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said he assumed that at the low end of             
 fourth degree assaults involving an officer, most of these would              
 involve alcohol.                                                              
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said most of the criminal offenses we deal with               
 involve alcohol in some respect.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said though alcohol influence does not             
 excuse anyone's actions, however, downtown bar brawls go on all the           
 time.  A person is not going to have in mind that they might get              
 120 days instead of 30 days.  The influence of alcohol will prevent           
 that incentive.  It would not work at that level.  It would not               
 happen in a situation like that.  There are plenty of cases  where            
 a person deserves a year, but there are also cases where 30 days              
 would be appropriate.  Societal interests are not being served by             
 giving someone 120 days.  When there is no other aggravating                  
 factors, 30 days is still a pretty serious sentence.                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the public hearing.                                 
 Number 125                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 127(JUD) out of               
 committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal                 
 notes.  Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                               
 HB 38 - SENTENCING; 3RD SERIOUS FELONY OFFENDER                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, bill sponsor, made a motion to adopt the                
 committee substitute for HB 38 (JUD), Version C, dated 3/10/95.               
 Seeing no objection, the committee substitute was adopted.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said CSHB 38 clears up some language concerns            
 expressed about the original bill.  He called the bill drafter,               
 Jerry Luckhaupt forward to answer questions about the committee               
 substitute.  He stated that basically, it makes Section (j) apply             
 to the previous Section (f), so that they mean the same thing.                
 Section 6 discusses a definite term, and this clarifies the                   
 language.  In Section 7 the habitual criminal section gives the 40            
 to 99 year sentence, which is a change from the mandatory 99 year             
 sentence in the previous version of the bill.  Section 8 clarifies            
 the language about two prior felony convictions.  It specifies that           
 they are separate convictions.  It cleans up the language about a             
 definite sentence and a most serious felony.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his understanding was that whenever           
 we have used presumptive sentencing, we have also set up a three              
 judge panel to allow an appeal to see that justice is being served.           
 We did have comments from the previous representative of the                  
 Department of Law, Mr. McNally, who said presumptive sentencing               
 would be required to uphold the challenge.  It may be arguable, and           
 it may not be necessary, but it is a good policy, and if we are               
 going to say in the case of presumptive sentencing that you are               
 going to get these absolute sentences, there has to be some                   
 opportunity, some due process to determine if there are                       
 circumstances here where justice would not be served.  The                    
 discretion between 40 and 99 years is an improvement to the bill,             
 but still, for most people, 40 on up is a life sentence, or close             
 to it, even if it were reduced down to 30 years.  To impose                   
 presumptive sentencing, which has lower penalties, requires a three           
 judge panel.                                                                  
 JERRY LUCKHAUPT, Legislative Counsel, Division of Legal Services,             
 Legislative Affairs Agency, explained that for purposes of                    
 presumptive sentencing, the sentencing court has options.  If the             
 court finds clear and convincing evidence that the manifest                   
 injustice would result from imposing the presumptive term under the           
 statute, the court can then refer a case to a three judge panel.              
 That is done in all presumptive sentencing cases under current law.           
 For the most part, this is for second and third felony offenders,             
 and for all class A felony offenders.  There is one case where we             
 have imposed the mandatory term of 99 years.  That is for murder in           
 the first degree, with numerous aggravated circumstances.  Those              
 are torture murders, murders of a peace officer, or the murder of             
 an emergency responder while performing their duties.  It is in               
 situations like that where the court does not have the option of              
 deviating from that 99 year sentence, and going to the three judge            
 panel.  He did not know of any constitutional requirement or                  
 impediment that would require a referral to a three judge panel.              
 If the comments of Mr. McNally were from last year the comments, he           
 remembered were in reference to situations where we were imposing             
 the 99 year sentence, and there would have to be some sort of                 
 review; and that is provided through the direct appeal process that           
 would be available in these cases.                                            
 MR. LUCKHAUPT explained that in states where presumptive sentencing           
 is used, there has been concern that presumptive sentencing could             
 lead to particular consequences that are unjust, and hence, this              
 idea of the three judge panel exists.  But, again, it is under very           
 narrow circumstances that cases are referred to the three judge               
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered his amendment to the bill.                 
 First, he wanted to change the word "shall" to "may" on page 1,               
 line 15 of the amendment.  It makes it a little clearer.  The                 
 amendment reads:                                                              
 Page 6, following line 30:                                                    
      Insert new bill sections to read:                                        
      "Sec. 13.  AS 12.55.165 is amended to read:                              
           Sec. 12.55.165.  EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.  (a)                  
      If the defendant is subject to sentencing under                          
                (1)  AS 12.55.125(c), (d), (e), or (i) and the                 
      court finds by clear and convincing evidence that manifest               
      injustice would result from failure to consider relevant                 
      aggravating or mitigating factors not specifically included in           
      AS 12.55.155 or from imposition of the presumptive term,                 
      whether or not adjusted for aggravating or mitigating factors,           
      the court shall enter findings and conclusions and cause a               
      record of the proceedings to be transmitted to a three-judge             
      panel for sentencing under AS 12.55.175; or                              
                (2)  AS 12.55.125(l) and the court finds by                    
      clear and convincing evidence that manifest injustice would              
      result from imposition of the definite term, the court may               
      enter findings and conclusions and cause a record of the                 
      proceedings to be transmitted to a three-judge panel for                 
      sentencing under AS 12.55.175.                                           
           (b)  In making a determination under (a)(1) [(a)] of this           
      section, the court may not refer a case to a three-judge panel           
      based on the defendant's potential for rehabilitation if the             
      court finds that a factor in aggravation set out in AS                   
      12.55.155(c)(2), (8), (10), (12), (15), (17), (18)(B), (20),             
      (21), or (28) is present.                                                
      Sec. 14.  AS 12.55.175(b) is amended to read:                            
           (b)  Upon receipt of a record of proceedings under AS               
      12.55.165, the three-judge panel shall consider all pertinent            
      files, records, and transcripts, including the findings and              
      conclusions of the judge who originally heard the matter.  The           
      panel may hear oral testimony to supplement the record before            
      it.  If the panel finds that manifest injustice would result             
      (1) for a record of proceedings transmitted under AS                     
      12.55.165(a)(1), from failure to consider relevant aggravating           
      or mitigating factors not specifically included in AS                    
      12.55.155 or from imposition of the presumptive term, whether            
      or not adjusted for aggravating or mitigating factors, or (2)            
      for a record of proceedings transmitted under AS                         
      12.55.165(a)(2), from imposition of the definite term, it                
      shall sentence the defendant in accordance with this section.            
      If the panel does not find that manifest injustice would                 
      result, it shall remand the case to the sentencing court, with           
      a written statement of its findings and conclusions, for                 
      sentencing under AS 12.55.125.                                           
      Sec. 15. AS 12.55.175(c) is amended to read:                             
           (c)  The three-judge panel may in the interest of justice           
 sentence the defendant for a proceeding transmitted under                     
                (1) AS 12.55.165(a)(1), to any definite term of                
 imprisonment up to the maximum term provided for the offense                  
 or to any sentence authorized under AS 12.55.125(a), (b), (c),                
 or (i).                                                                       
      Sec. 16.  AS 12.55.175(e) is amended to read:                            
           (e) If the three-judge panel determines under (b)(1)                
 [(b)] of this section that manifest injustice would result from               
 imposition of the presumptive term and the panel also finds that              
 the defendant had an exceptional potential for rehabilitation and             
 that a sentence of less than the presumptive term should be imposed           
 because of the defendant's exceptional potential for                          
 rehabilitation, the panel                                                     
           (1)  shall sentence the defendant to the presumptive                
 term required under AS 12.55.125;                                             
           (2)  shall order the defendant under AS 12.55.015 to                
 engage in appropriate programs of rehabilitation; and                         
           (3)  may provide that the defendant is eligible for                 
 discretionary parole under AS 33.16.090 during the second half of             
 the sentence imposed under this subsection if the defendant                   
 successfully completes all rehabilitation programs ordered under              
 (2) of this subsection."                                                      
 Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE objected.                                                
 MR. LUCKHAUPT thought the word "shall" should not be changed to               
 "may" on page 1, line 15 of the amendment.  Under current law, and            
 the language that he has basically mirrored, it is already                    
 discretionary.  The judge must find by clear and convincing                   
 evidence that manifest injustice would result from sentencing the             
 defendant from 40 to 99 years.  The judge has the discretion to               
 find that or not.  Once the judge finds that, the word "shall" is             
 there, to make sure the judge enters the findings and conclusions             
 so that the three judge panel can then review the case.  Once the             
 judge finds that, the judge must send it to the three judge panel.            
 Then the three judge panel looks at the findings and conclusions,             
 and reaches their own decision on whether or not clear and                    
 convincing evidence exists that manifest injustice would result               
 from sentencing, and if the three judge panel disagrees, then they            
 can send it back.  The word "shall" is there to make sure the judge           
 enters findings and conclusions, and then sends the case up when he           
 finds that there is clear and convincing evidence that manifest               
 injustice would result.                                                       
 Number 445                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Representative Finkelstein if he wished to              
 rescind his amendment to his amendment.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said yes, he would rescind that part of            
 his amendment.  He would change "shall" back to "may."                        
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE was not sure they would want to apply a lower            
 standard offense to this bill, because they are talking about the             
 worst case scenarios of habitual offenders, and he is really                  
 concerned about keeping the fiscal impact down.  He then asked Mr.            
 Luckhaupt for his assessment of what this amendment would do to the           
 MR. LUCKHAUPT answered that the amendment would basically allow the           
 judge, when he finds this clear and convincing evidence of manifest           
 injustice, to refer the case to the three judge panel who would               
 make that finding.  The three judge panel would not have to                   
 sentence someone to the 40 to 99 years that is provided for in this           
 case.  The court would have to sentence the person to at least the            
 presumptive term for the offense.  This would be a third felony               
 offense, so they would have to give the minimum sentence, at least.           
 For first degree murder, we provide for a 20 year minimum term, and           
 for the other unclassified felonies, we provide for a five year               
 minimum.  Some of the presumptive terms for a third offense are as            
 follows:   For your third sexual offense, the presumptive term is             
 25 years; for your third felony conviction, if your current one is            
 a class A felony conviction, then your presumptive term is 15                 
 years.  Basically, this provides an option to throw out the                   
 habitual criminal sentencing process and go back to the regular               
 presumptive sentencing process, or the range of sentencing                    
 processes currently provided for unclassified felonies in law.  It            
 establishes the current sentencing structure as a minimum that the            
 three judge panel could sentence to.                                          
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said as far as the fiscal impact goes, if anything,           
 there might be a savings.  This review would be used in an                    
 exceptional case.                                                             
 Number 530                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said one of the initial reasons for the bill             
 was that the public has not been particularly happy in some cases             
 with the judicial system.  They feel that they have been too                  
 flexible, too liberal in their generosity; not in their political             
 sense.  He felt the amendment would deter from the message he is              
 trying to send, the message people have asked him to send.  He                
 continued to oppose the amendment.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said his focus in this legislation is              
 not so much on the habitual criminal, but on three strikes, and you           
 will get a higher penalty.  If you compare what we are doing                  
 here, it does that, even with this amendment.  You go up from                 
 either 15 years to 40 - 99, or you are going from 25 up to 40 - 99.           
 There is a big difference.  If the minimum of any of these                    
 sentencing processes is 30 years, if you are 30 when you go in, and           
 60 when you get out, this is close to life in prison, and                     
 therefore, still achieves the purpose, because it is upping the               
 minimum sentences for people who fit this third category.  That is            
 what people who feel this way would like to achieve.  Do we want to           
 have the minimum be 40 years, when there may be a circumstance out            
 there where justice would not be served?   Imagine someone who has            
 a DWI and kills someone, which is a very bad crime, but it is a               
 crime that could go on at any day in any one of our towns with a              
 hundred people on the road who are driving drunk.  It is a matter             
 of happenstance as to who actually kills someone.  Our laws reflect           
 that.  Manslaughter is one of the things that counts in this.  That           
 gets you into jail the first time.  Now you are in jail, and you              
 feel that your life is threatened if you stay in jail, so you try             
 to escape, and you manage to get your hands on a knife and escape,            
 and then you are eventually brought back to jail.  Someday, when              
 you are discharged, and you are out on the street again, your                 
 previous life is completely gone after serving all this time.  Now            
 you are involved in some other illegal activity such as dealing               
 drugs.  If you get arrested one time for dealing drugs, you have              
 had your third strike.  I think that is the kind of case where a              
 three judge panel would say, "Hmm, I do not think justice is being            
 served, and this is not necessarily in the best interest of                   
 society."  There are people who need to fill our jails who are                
 worse threats to society than this person.                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER responded, saying that one thing to keep in mind is           
 that it might very likely be the case that the prosecutors would              
 not elect to charge under this statute.  They do have that                    
 discretion in the first place.  It could be that a three judge                
 panel does have discretion to alter a minimum sentence.  The way he           
 reads "three judge panel" under 12.55.175, the panel may sentence             
 a defendant to any definite term of imprisonment up to a maximum,             
 or to any sentence authorized under AS 12.55.010, or AS 12.55.015;            
 and AS 12.55.015 is just a general provision for sentencing anyone.           
 MR. LUCKHAUPT stated that under current law that is true.  The                
 amendment is to avoid that.  That section would only apply to the             
 current cases that can be referred to the three judge panel.  At              
 that point, the panel can sentence to any term.  They can go below            
 the minimum for that offense.  This amendment separates it, so that           
 if you are being sentenced under the habitual criminal law, and you           
 are referred under that law to the three judge panel, then they               
 cannot go below the presumptive or minimum term.  That is on page             
 2, lines 17 - 19.  The section that deals with the judges finding             
 extraordinary circumstances is on page 1.  Page 2, Section 16 of              
 the bill describes sentencing authority.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt that in general, prosecutors go for           
 the highest level of crime that they have evidence for sustaining             
 the case, because they are upholding the laws by doing that.  That            
 is one of their responsibilities.  It also gives them more room if            
 they are trying to negotiate and to get the defendant to accept a             
 guilty plea.  In our system of justice, we cannot put too much                
 emphasis on the prosecutors to achieve this.  Their goal is to                
 prosecute.  We cannot always expect them to mitigate every one of             
 these concerns.  They have to go out and make their strongest and             
 best case.                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER did not dispute that.  He said that we also cannot            
 disregard history and what the normal practice of prosecution is.             
 Heinous cases normally receive heinous consideration; and those               
 cases that are not heinous, do not receive heinous consideration,             
 due to the high volume of cases that are presented.                           
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN agreed that was true under current law,            
 but this is a whole new area.  We never got into presumptive                  
 sentencing without any appeal option for the unusual circumstance.            
 Number 660                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS spoke in favor of the amendment.  She             
 understood what the sponsor was trying to do with the bill, and he            
 has worked hard to make this more palatable to more people, but she           
 sees this amendment as something that would be helpful to the bill.           
 She believed the bill was aimed at the wrong group of people.  She            
 has seen and read that violent crime is on the decline, and not on            
 the incline.  This bill is targeting older people.  It is not the             
 older people, but the younger people where we have the problem.  We           
 have teenage crime all across the nation.  She thought the                    
 committee should take their time and really consider what we                  
 actually want.  We would have to have more jails, and a place to              
 keep these older people.  The medical bills would be more                     
 expensive.  If we can keep a few people from falling into this                
 category simply by having this amendment added to the bill, it is             
 a good thing that we should do.  For that reason, she supported the           
 amendment.  It might not save but a precious few, but we could not            
 go wrong by doing it.                                                         
 Number 680                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that people in this category have already           
 been convicted twice before, so they have already had a two judge             
 panel review.  You have to work pretty hard to fall under the                 
 purview of this bill.                                                         
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote on the amendment.                  
 Representatives Davis and Finkelstein voted yes.  Representatives             
 Toohey, Bunde, Vezey, Green, and Porter voted no.  The amendment              
 failed two to five.                                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move CSHB 38(JUD) out of                
 committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal             
 notes.  Hearing no objection, it was so ordered.                              
 HJR 33 - AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA                                               
 Number 700                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER instructed the committee to stand at ease for a               
 moment while someone was sent to find Representative Masek.  He               
 acknowledged the presence of Representative Nicholia, in Fairbanks            
 on the teleconference, and Representatives MacLean, Moses and                 
 Ivan.  He mentioned once again that after the testimony, HJR 33               
 would be held over until Wednesday.  The testimony would not be               
 opened up again for the general public, but anyone who is now ready           
 and willing to testify that we do not get to today, will have the             
 opportunity to testify on Wednesday, as well as someone from the              
 Governor's Office.                                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN announced that he had to go to another             
 meeting, but did want to express that he has grave concerns over              
 this resolution.                                                              
 Number 775                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK introduced HJR 33.  Sponsor statement:           
 "I have introduced HJR 33 to preserve the equal protection, equal             
 access, and common use clauses of our State Constitution.                     
 "In 1992 the State Supreme Court threw out those portions of the              
 state subsistence law which violated these sections of our                    
 "That action by the court triggered a blackmail clause in ANILCA              
 which mandates federal fish and game management if the state does             
 not adhere to the conditions found in title VIII of ANILCA which              
 deals with subsistence.                                                       
 "Now we must change our state constitution and meet federal                   
 standards or lose permanently our fish and game management                    
 authority throughout Alaska.                                                  
 "What the State Supreme Court found offensive in the State law                
 (which they threw out) is even more offensive in Title VIII of                
 ANILCA.  For instance, the State law was based in part on need and            
 was only triggered in times of resource shortages.  The Federal law           
 on the other hand, is not need based and can be activated at                  
 "Even more disturbing have been the courts' implementation of the             
 federal law.  In the Lime Village Case the courts essentially found           
 that seasons, bag limits, methods and means do not apply to                   
 subsistence hunting.                                                          
 "In a more recent decision the courts found that it was permissible           
 for subsistence users to take fish (in this case herring roe) and             
 sell it for cash.                                                             
 "In effect the courts have established a new class of limited entry           
 based solely on where a person lives.  This should be a warning               
 signal to every commercial fisherman in the state.  Under ANILCA a            
 person may move to Wrangell from Seattle, declare a subsistence               
 priority immediately, harvest fish, and legally sell or trade them            
 to a broker in Seattle under the guise of trade and barter.                   
 "Finally it should be noted that in 1982 the U.S. Supreme Court               
 ruled that Eskimos in Northwest Alaska could not use subsistence to           
 halt oil development on sea ice located three miles from shore.               
 The most important part of that decision may have been a finding by           
 the court that all aboriginal titles and claims of title had been             
 extinguished under the terms and conditions of the Alaska Native              
 Claims Settlement Act.  This was based on a payment of 1 billion              
 dollars and 44 million acres of land.                                         
 "Yet today we find provisions of ANILCA which, in all likelihood              
 are based on an unconstitutional premise, stripping us of our                 
 authority to manage our fish and game.  Perhaps if our governor               
 were willing to challenge ANILCA in the federal courts we would               
 have a third option for resolving this dilemma.  Unfortunately, his           
 legal counsel, the Attorney General, recently told House and Senate           
 members on record that while amending or repealing ANILCA was the             
 only true legal solution for the State, it was politically                    
 unacceptable to the Governor.  It seems difficult to believe that             
 this Administration finds equal rights and common use unworthy                
 principles to defend.                                                         
 "It is now up to us as Representatives of the people to take the              
 lead on behalf of all Alaskans in defense of their most basic                 
 "This Resolution is an ardent request to Congress to amend ANILCA,            
 to respect our state constitution, to relinquish their management             
 of fish and game, and to honor the most critical elements of our              
 Statehood Compact.                                                            
 "I urge your support for this important Resolution.  Thank you."              
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said they must either change the Constitution            
 or be punished by the Department of Interior, the federal control             
 of state fish and game management.  No other state has been                   
 subjected to such a federal blackmail clause.  No other state has             
 been faced with eliminating their equal protection, equal access,             
 a common clause of their constitution because a provision in                  
 federal law conflicts with it.  This resolution seeks relief from             
 a Congress committed to restoring states' rights.  It must be made            
 clear that this resolution does not seek to throw out the concept             
 of subsistence, nor does it do any damage to it.  In McDowell,              
 Justice Moore stated that subsistence can be administered under our           
 state Constitution.  As soon as ANILCA conforms to our                        
 constitution, and we get back management of fish and game, we will            
 be free once again to address special needs of Alaskans who depend            
 heavily upon the resources of our state.  Until then, we are held             
 at an impasse.  HJR 33 is not just a message to Washington, it is             
 a request as old as the Continental Congress, as basic as the                 
 Gettysburg Address, and as plain as the voice of Patrick Henry.               
 She asked her staff liaison, Dave Stancliff to assist her in                  
 answering any questions on the history of the issue.  Mr. Stancliff           
 has been involved with this issue since 1978, and has tracked it              
 through 13 years of state legislative action.  Her office has not             
 received a single personal message of opposition to HJR 33.  To the           
 contrary, it has received a multitude of positive letters from many           
 areas of our state.  She read a couple of the letters to the                  
 committee.  The following message was sent from Ward Cove:                    
 "Thank you for the courage to take a stand and to make the                    
 statement about violence leading to violence and discrimination               
 leading to discrimination.  I am a Native Alaskan who has always              
 felt one of Alaska's greatest assets was taking people individually           
 on their own merit.  We need to be one people and continue to work            
 for our collective rights as Alaskans."                                       
 Another letter from Northway read:                                            
 "Hi.  I read your opinion on subsistence.  I could not agree more.            
 You are exactly right.  This is a blunted discrimination.  I am               
 white.  I qualify for subsistence..."                                         
 TAPE 95-32, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK continued reading the letter:                            
 "...but I can at least give you moral support."                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK read one more letter from Barrow:                        
 "Why should the 1959 Alaska Statehood Compact Act be purposely                
 thwarted behind the cloaks of subsistence or ANILCA when we can win           
 on all fronts.  Let's go to the polls, and let's keep our full                
 court press on the federal manipulators.  To Governor Knowles, I              
 say, `Uphold our original 49th Statehood Compact, as it was drafted           
 and as it was understood.  The Tenth Amendment is here for a                  
 reason, so do not sell us out to the pressures you are faced                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK then read a letter of support from Ketchikan:            
 "I wish to applaud your position on equal hunting and fishing                 
 rights for all Alaskans.  While we are not from the same region,              
 you have my wholehearted support for such a resolution.  It is                
 admirable to see a lawmaker stand up and finally declare that we              
 are all Alaskans, as well as Americans, and should conduct                    
 ourselves as such.  As an Alaska Native, I have watched as this               
 discrimination has separated those whose roots are in the state.              
 It is unhealthy, unproductive, and as you say, breeds further                 
 discrimination and segregation.  While your position puts you at              
 odds with several lawmakers, and of course, the Administration, I             
 encourage you to stand firm.  Others will follow your lead.  Again,           
 congratulations for standing up for your principles."                         
 Number 075                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE EILEEN MACLEAN, spoke, representing District 37,               
 North Slope, and the Northwest, also representing Alaska Natives              
 throughout the whole state.  It is very unfortunate that we have              
 this bill before us, HJR 33.  The sponsor is wrong to say that the            
 Nineteenth Alaska State Legislature acknowledges and wholeheartedly           
 supports HJR 33.  This Resolution is sending a very wrong message             
 to Congress; that three individuals firmly believe the Resolution             
 is speaking for the whole legislature is wrong.  She noted for the            
 record that the sponsor is from an urban area, and once again it              
 pits rural against urban.  Representative Masek is saying we need             
 to bring the state of Alaska as a whole, individually, connected,             
 in unity, but she is not doing that, not through this legislation.            
 Alaska Natives do not like HJR 33 because it divides the state as             
 a whole.  If this is what the sponsor intends to do, she is doing             
 a good job at it.  The sponsor has not been in rural Alaska for a             
 number of years, and Representative MacLean believes that                     
 Representative Masek has lost touch with her roots, whether Alaska            
 Native or not.                                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN defined "Alaska Native" and "native                    
 Alaskan."  An Alaska Native is an aboriginal from the state of                
 Alaska, born with Native blood.  A native Alaskan is born, not of             
 Native origin, but born and raised in Alaska.  Subsistence, to us,            
 is a way of life.  Rural people rely on subsistence to make a                 
 living.  If you go to the villages, you will notice that we do not            
 have a lot of stores, but they rely on subsistence to make their              
 living.  It is sad to say that HJR 33 is pitting one Native against           
 another Native.  The Resolution is arbitrarily dividing the state             
 into rural versus urban.  The Bush Caucus opposes HJR 33, and the             
 Bush Caucus is made up of primarily rural people.  We don't believe           
 in state management of subsistence.  The federal government has               
 taken better care of us with the issue on subsistence.  We have               
 been in touch with Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), and they               
 represent 13 regional corporations throughout the whole state of              
 Alaska.  They also represent 220 villages.  They oppose this bill             
 for the following reasons.  The federal preference is the only                
 legal source protecting the economic and cultural survival of                 
 subsistence.  Dependent rural communities through state law have no           
 effective protection at all.  Title VIII of ANILCA is the law and             
 must be implemented by the United States' courts and agencies                 
 whether the state complies with it or not.  The rural preference is           
 a policy compact agreed upon by the federal and state governments             
 in 1980,  but the state has refused to uphold its end of the                  
 agreement since McDowell in 1989.  Federal preference is a humane,            
 intelligent policy that allows rural villages to survive by their             
 only standing economic base, as contrasted with dependency on                 
 government and welfare.  Here we are trying to do away with                   
 welfare.  What is this resolution going to do?  It is going to                
 force more people on welfare in rural Alaska once you do away with            
 subsistence.  Without legal protection, rural villages will                   
 gradually deteriorate and disappear, with the social and economic             
 costs of their collapse falling on future Alaskan governors,                  
 legislators, and taxpayers.  Senator Stevens has told the                     
 legislature that the Congressional delegation will not use the                
 Congress and the federal law to resolve a dispute affecting only              
 Alaskans.  The Alaska Legislature, refusing to trust its own voters           
 with a constitutional amendment, has created this mess, which can             
 be resolved only by Alaskans, by the vote of the people.  She                 
 strongly opposed this legislation.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative MacLean if she believed            
 the government should be out of the purview of the Native                     
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that she believes the state                   
 government has not managed our fish and game resources properly for           
 rural people or Alaska Native people.  We have had this battle for            
 years.  She believes they had better protection under the federal             
 government than under the state.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if subsistence came back just for the             
 rural areas, would it also be okay, then, if we withdrew all state            
 aid?  If you have subsistence to enhance your life, and I                     
 understand that, then would you also agree to give up your welfare            
 checks, and these benefits that are part of the same government?              
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN answered that is exactly what they have                
 tried to do, is get the state out of rural areas, especially in the           
 subsistence division, because they have not protected our                     
 interests.  And, yes, of course we will see an after effect, like             
 a domino effect.  If you take away subsistence, then it creates               
 more welfare for the state.  We would have to start issuing checks            
 for Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC), and Public                
 Assistance.  It would create a domino effect.                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative MacLean if she believed            
 it would be in the best interest of the Native communities to do              
 away with the welfare system as long as they got subsistence?                 
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said, that yes, of course, the majority of             
 Alaska Natives believe in that.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said a concern he hears about is how                     
 subsistence would impact commercial fishing.                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said that no, it would not.  There is only             
 4 percent of subsistence harvesters throughout the whole state of             
 Alaska.  United Fishermen of Alaska support a constitutional                  
 amendment for subsistence to be put to the vote of the people.                
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if this were to pass, if she would not             
 be concerned about an out migration from the cities to the rural              
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said no, it would not happen.  You rely on             
 subsistence primarily for harvesting, and the people who choose to            
 live in rural areas, for them it their home.  Why not move to a               
 rural area to be a subsistence user?                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that is what he is saying.  You do not              
 expect that there would be a lot of people doing that?                        
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said no.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked about the urban Native population, if              
 she would expect that they would move back to rural areas.  They              
 are essentially denied subsistence rights because they are urban              
 REPRESENTATIVE MACLEAN said that is a freedom that they have, to              
 live where they choose to live.  One of the unique aspects of the             
 Alaska Natives is to share within their culture and so she is here            
 in Juneau, but has Native food in her freezer because they share              
 with her, her Native food.  She prefers caribou over beef any day.            
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he just gave his brother a wild goose the           
 other day, a Canadian honker that he had killed, so he understands            
 Number 300                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN, represents District 39, including                   
 Kuskokwim and Dillingham areas.  He respects the sponsor's beliefs,           
 and would like to make a few remarks.  He was sure all of the                 
 committee members have been hearing about this issue for quite some           
 time, and all the arguments and debates surrounding it.  He did               
 want to make comments about what subsistence means to him, and to             
 the constituents that he represents.  It has been defined as                  
 hunting, fishing and gathering activities which traditionally                 
 constituted the economic base of life for a group of people called            
 Alaska Native people.  They continue to do that today.  It is a               
 little more than that.  We have had our own history, culture, and             
 philosophy related to it, and we are taught to respect the fish and           
 game in order to protect it as much as we can.  That is also true             
 today, and we are trying to pass on that philosophy in history to             
 the younger generations and our children, so that they may continue           
 to provide that.  Our position has always been to let the state of            
 Alaska recognize that this way of life exists.  It is not going to            
 go away.  People will continue to hunt and fish and some of his               
 constituents have been so strong, and feel no matter how thick the            
 laws become in the state, they will continue to hunt and fish.                
 That is the strong comment I have heard throughout my district.               
 When I campaigned prior to coming here, that was one overwhelming             
 issue.  They kept asking me to represent their interests as far as            
 their subsistence way of life is concerned.  We are minorities, as            
 we all know.  You could look at the makeup of the legislature, and            
 there are a few of us who would really like to see this subsistence           
 way of life be recognized by the state of Alaska.  It has been                
 recognized for quite some time, but it has been struck as                     
 unconstitutional in the past.  Our folks have always lived their              
 way in their land, our land, and it is being challenged today by              
 different interests and competition as more people come to the                
 state of Alaska.  We are all looking at the same resource.  The               
 people who were here before grew up with the idea that it was never           
 against the law to hunt and fish.  It was a person's pride to take            
 care of one's extended family to make sure everybody had food on              
 the table.  It was very respected, and young people were encouraged           
 to do so.  That is part of growing up in our culture.  As it has              
 been in the past, the process is still going, but of course, we do            
 have snow machines, rifles, and modern equipment.  We have our own            
 controls in communities.  We have elders who tell the children to             
 hunt only for what they need, to not hurt the resources, or we will           
 go hungry in the future, if we do not take care of that now.  We              
 use as many parts of the animal as we can.  When we kill a moose,             
 we use the hide, the antlers, as much as we can.  It is a way of              
 life, and we do not have the infrastructure as you would see it in            
 many communities in the state of Alaska.                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated that the state of Alaska is a young                
 institution that has just recently come into being.  That is why              
 the Native people trust the federal government more, because the              
 United States federal government had a relationship with them, and            
 recognized and honored their way of life in the past.  As far as              
 Title VIII is concerned, the federal government looks at it as a              
 protective measure.  This Resolution speaks against it.  The                  
 feeling of his constituents is that it is there for our protection,           
 and to preserve our way of life.  If you look back at the history             
 of the United States government in the Lower 48, the tribes have              
 been recognized as tribes, and the forefathers have accordingly               
 dealt with those groups of Native Americans.  That is the type of             
 relationship that these villages would like to see.  As far as the            
 state of Alaska, it is a newer institution, and it does not, as far           
 as he and his constituents are concerned, recognize that way of               
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN explained that as far as the question of                  
 commercial fishing, he remembers getting out of school in the early           
 1960s.  Commercial fishing was introduced in the lower Kuskokwim.             
 The elders in the community looked at this new opportunity.  The              
 reservation of the majority of the folks was that we not deplete              
 the resource for subsistence purposes, but let us have commercial             
 fisheries, yet protect the resources from depleting.  The elders              
 wanted to see the continuity of going after the salmon resources              
 for annual food supply.  He asked the committee to seriously                  
 consider not passing this Resolution.  Hopefully, in the future,              
 the state of Alaska will recognize that this way of life needs to             
 be continued on.  At one time, my community, Akiak, was a                     
 reservation, under the federal law, but the folks opted out of it.            
 During that time when non-Natives were married into the community             
 to families, they were automatically treated as everyone.  People             
 in that area continue to hunt and fish.                                       
 Number 465                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY told Representative Ivan that she would be so           
 happy if he were going to live forever.  You are not going to live            
 forever.  The elders are going to die out.  There is going to be a            
 new wave of young people coming up.  We hope and pray that they               
 have the same care and love for their traditions that you have.               
 History has shown that does not happen, that there is a new age               
 coming up.   She fears, and feels that most people fear for the               
 resource.  More so for the resource than for your culture, because            
 if there is no care of the land and the resource, there will be no            
 resource.  She thinks that is a major fear.  Also, the herring roe            
 situation is very prevalent.  What is going to happen in a case               
 like that?                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN answered that as far as herring roe is                    
 concerned, that is another resource that our folks in the coastal             
 communities use, and barter with dried fish for.  He enjoys that,             
 and likes it very much, but if they continue to try and get that,             
 they hope to continue that pursuit.  That is the bottom line of his           
 testimony.  His people are resting uneasy and feel threatened, and            
 he speaks against this resolution.                                            
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY said bartering is not a problem, but the                
 problem is with bartering cash for the resource.                              
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN respected her position.                                   
 Number 505                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he appreciated Representative Ivan's                
 heartfelt comments, and understands that some of his constituents             
 might feel threatened, and it is certainly not his intention to add           
 to their discomfort.  He does not share Representative Ivan's                 
 opinion of our federal government.  He thinks the way our federal             
 government treated, in historic times, American Natives was                   
 shameful.  But maybe they have learned, and are better nowadays               
 than they were in the past.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said, referring to the commercial fishing, at            
 least the elders, if resources were to run short, would want                  
 commercial fishing to go away, in order to maintain subsistence.              
 What Representative Toohey has alluded to is that people would move           
 to the rural areas, catch $10,000 or $20,000 worth of fish and say            
 they are doing it as subsistence because they live in a rural area            
 now; and then sell it, in the name of subsistence, which would hurt           
 the resource.  That is a concern we share.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said another concern he has, is he represents            
 a district that includes urban Natives, and of course, the federal            
 government would disenfranchise urban Natives, unless they moved to           
 the rural areas.  The Bethel area is growing rapidly, and in 10 or            
 20 years, could be considered a city, and would be classified as an           
 urban area.  Would we then exclude Bethel from subsistence, if it             
 grows big enough?                                                             
 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN believes in local self government.  He believes           
 when we get to that point, we can revisit that issue.  But as far             
 as he is concerned, regardless of what the population of Bethel is,           
 if there are people who depend on the resources and do not have               
 jobs to do so, he would certainly like them to utilize the                    
 available resources, the fish, the moose, the caribou.  He                    
 understands the concerns about conservation, and it is our number             
 one priority.  We can deal with it as time goes on, or if our                 
 population grows, as we have adjusted to it for all these years               
 throughout our life.  We have adjusted to very harsh seasons, we              
 have adjusted to game being low in number at times.  Nothing has              
 always been abundant.  We are very versatile, and can adjust easily           
 to that situation.  We can do it through discussion, debate, and              
 Due to the number of teleconference sites on line all at one time,            
 the quality of taping for this meeting was unfortunately less than            
 audible through many parts, particularly for Fairbanks.                       
 Number 560                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA testified via teleconference from               
 Fairbanks against the bill.  She gave a list of how much several              
 groceries cost in rural areas.  She stressed the importance of                
 subsistence as a means for survival and also the spiritual aspects            
 involved.  The Native people want to carry on their traditions that           
 have passed from generation to generation.  It is all about caring            
 and sharing within communities.  ANILCA is the only legal force               
 protecting the economic and cultural survival of subsistence within           
 communities.  There is no protection in state law.  ANILCA must be            
 implemented by federal and state agencies because it is the law.              
 If you go back and review the rural history of Alaska, you will               
 find that rural preference is a policy contract, redefined by the             
 state and our federal government in 1980.  She feels that this                
 measure would be detrimental to rural Alaskans.                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER was allowing unlimited testimony to the elected               
 Representatives because, quite frankly, they are elected to                   
 represent large districts; but he did ask those remaining people              
 wishing to testify to limit their remarks to three minutes, which             
 is the standard for large testimony taking.  He said he would try             
 to rotate through the sites.                                                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked if Representative Nicholia would endorse           
 the elimination of commercial fishing, if subsistence were to                 
 require that.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that subsistence should have the                 
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked Representative Nicholia the same                  
 question she had asked Representative MacLean.  Do you also believe           
 that if subsistence is going to be your standard way of life, that            
 you would do away with the welfare system in the rural villages?              
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA said that time will tell if those programs            
 would continue to be needed, as there are no jobs in rural Alaska.            
 Number 700                                                                    
 PATRICK WRIGHT testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  He is            
 a long time Alaska resident in Anchorage.  He stated that it had              
 just snowed about two feet, and several people who wanted to                  
 testify were unable to come out during the snowstorm.  Alaskans are           
 rugged and are able to take care of themselves.  That is exactly              
 the concept he wanted to bring into this HJR 33, regardless of                
 where we live.  Specifically, to the Judiciary Committee, he wanted           
 to make some comments from the Alaska State Constitution.  In                 
 Article I, the inherent right talks about this constitution being             
 dedicated to the principles.  All persons have the natural right to           
 seek the pursuit of happiness, the enjoyment of the reward of their           
 own industry, and that all persons are equal, and entitled to equal           
 rights opportunities and protection under the law.  That is a                 
 pretty good guiding concept to direct our lives.  He commended the            
 legislators who introduced this bill, because this is good Alaska             
 legislation to get rid of bad federal legislation, which has been             
 suppressive and divisive of Alaskans.  Since statehood, Alaska was            
 supposed to come into the Union on equal footing with all the other           
 states.  In fact, control of fish and game was a major impetus for            
 statehood.  It is very commendable that Alaskans were able to do              
 away with the fish traps, and rid a privileged user group of our              
 resources.  Our fisheries have certainly been enhanced since that             
 occurred.  ANILCA addresses only one state, and that leaves Alaska            
 not being considered the same as other states.  It sets up                    
 duplication of state efforts, but it is put in federal agencies               
 that are really just empire buildings.  Alaska has an excellent               
 process for public involvement in our fish and game, through the              
 Board of Game, the Board of Fisheries, and the local advisory                 
 committee.  We have the mechanism to do this, and we also have an             
 obligation to do it.                                                          
 MR. WRIGHT explained that Title VIII of ANILCA is really a                    
 statistical time bomb.  In times of shortage, even though these               
 resources may be renewable, they are not infinite, they are                   
 limited, and Title VIII is not working because in the future we               
 will have increasing demands on our resources.  The Tenth Amendment           
 of the United States Constitution is something he would like the              
 legislature to involve itself with.  He concluded by saying he                
 supports HJR 33 as a means of taking control of our own destiny,              
 for our present residents, and for equity for future generations of           
 Number 770                                                                    
 WILLIE KASAYULIE, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for the                
 Akiachak Native Community in Bethel, one of 227 federally                     
 recognized tribes, testified via teleconference.  He added that the           
 Alaska tribes comprise over 40 percent of the federally recognized            
 tribes across the nation.  He drove down from the Akiachak on the             
 Kuskokwim River to testify against HJR 33 because of the potential            
 impact on rural residents.  In light of the national and state                
 government activities to reduce public assistance, especially to              
 rural residents, amending Title VIII will have far reaching impacts           
 where economic development is nonexistent.  A constitutional                  
 amendment would be a short term solution to a long term problem,              
 unless the people in rural areas are allowed to participate in                
 developing regulations to our subsistence users.  When we talk                
 about having equal access, it would be incumbent upon the Alaska              
 Legislature to realize that those of us who are unincorporated                
 communities are being discriminated against by the state because of           
 our desire to run our communities under tribal authority, by not              
 giving us equal revenue sharing funding as is given to the state's            
 Number 800                                                                    
 ANDY GOLIA, Bristol Bay Native Association in Dillingham, testified           
 via teleconference.  He stated they are a nonprofit corporation who           
 serve 29 Tribal Councils.  The Native Association opposes HJR 33.             
 They feel the Bristol Bay region will suffer if this measure is               
 Number 830                                                                    
 ORVIL HUNTINGTON, Huslia Tribal Member, testified via                         
 teleconference from Fairbanks, against HJR 33.  He expressed                  
 concerns about giving up subsistence rights, and the need to                  
 protect the limited fish and wildlife resources.  He felt this                
 would be discrimination.                                                      
 TAPE 95-32, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 MARK JACOBS, JR. testified against HJR 33.  First of all, Title               
 VIII is a Native and non-Native preference in the federal ANILCA              
 provisions.  The sponsors of HJR 33 have told us that the Statehood           
 Act gives the state jurisdiction over fish and game resources.  But           
 in the Statehood Act, regarding admission to the Union, Alaska,               
 like every other state, is required to have in its Constitution a             
 disclaimer, mandated by Article IV of the Alaska Statehood Act.               
 The Alaska Constitution, Article 12, Section 12, has this                     
 disclaimer.  The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act did not negate           
 or repeal this section, because Article 12, Section 12 clearly uses           
 the words "forever disclaim" as a method of amending the State                
 Constitution; and in amending the Constitution, the words mean                
 forever.  Any changes to the State Constitution and the sections              
 have not been done legally.  Any other action would be illegal in             
 removing that provision.  If you can move it and amend the State              
 Constitution, in his opinion it would be a two faced, fork tongued            
 policy, because he takes the language at face value.  Forever means           
 forever.  If the legislature is successful in taking away rural               
 preference,  our white brothers will also be affected, the ones who           
 choose to live the Alaska lifestyle.  The 19th Congress must                  
 protect the Alaska Native rights.  Subsistence take is a very small           
 percentage, economically, to user groups.  Statistics show that it            
 has been 1 percent subsistence, 4 percent by sportsmen, and 95                
 percent by commercial fishermen.  These are state of Alaska                   
 statistics.  As a Native of Alaska, we have and possess tribal                
 sovereign distinction because our legal relationship is a nation to           
 nation, government to government relationship.  He opposes any                
 effort to amend the Alaska National Interest Conservation Act.  He            
 also informed the committee he is almost totally deaf.                        
 Number 160                                                                    
 LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Incorporated, a regional                 
 nonprofit organization providing services to the various state                
 regions, testified via teleconference.  She opposed HJR 33.  She              
 thinks if the state passes this legislation, it will heighten the             
 need for federal protection of the rural Alaskans' ability to                 
 subsistence hunt and fish during times of shortage.  It says loud             
 and clear that the leadership of this state will not protect those            
 who most depend on harvesting resources.  Congress did not                    
 arbitrarily divide Alaskans into groups.  They made a conscious               
 decision to protect those individuals who most depend upon those              
 resources in times of shortage.  This would hurt the families in              
 the bush.  This legislature needs to place a constitutional                   
 amendment on the ballot which will provide for rural preference               
 during times of shortage soon.  The federal government has been               
 more responsive to rural needs than the state has.                            
 Number 200                                                                    
 BOB CHARLES, Vice President of Operations, for the Association of             
 Village Council Presidents in the Yukon-Kuskokwim/Delta Region,               
 representing 56 villages on the Delta, testified via teleconference           
 from Bethel.  He is against HJR 33.  Rural Alaskans, and                      
 particularly indigenous people of Alaska will never be treated as             
 equals if this proposed resolution to amend ANILCA passes.  People            
 throughout rural Alaska bear the brunt of the decisions made by               
 state regulators and managers of fish and game, on the basis of               
 what determines equal access.  The only access they are interested            
 in is the access for wealthy and nonsubsistence users.  State law             
 does not protect the resources of the people who depend upon them.            
 Number 300                                                                    
 TERESA CLARK, Galena resident, testified via teleconference from              
 Fairbanks.  She opposed HJR 33.  She believes in equal access to              
 fish and wildlife resources for subsistence use.  The system we               
 have now does not provide equal access to the indigenous residents            
 of Alaska.                                                                    
 Number 360                                                                    
 RUTH WILLARD, First Vice President, Tlingit and Haida Central                 
 Council, and a Board member of the Alaska Federation of Natives,              
 testified via teleconference in opposition to HJR 33.  The federal            
 preference protects the economic and cultural survival of the                 
 subsistence dependent rural communities.  She has lived in                    
 Anchorage for over 30 years, but still considers Angoon home, which           
 is a little village on Admiralty Island, and still looked to her              
 people for subsistence.  She strongly agreed with one of their                
 leaders in a past AFN convention who said that Title VIII of ANILCA           
 is the last thread left to hang onto.  It should not be amended or            
 repealed.  She believes the legislature should let the people vote            
 on a constitutional amendment to conform with Title VIII.  The                
 sponsor of this resolution, in her February 29, 1995, memo to all             
 Alaska legislators asks for support because the law is breaking the           
 spirit of many Alaskans.  She asks the legislature to defeat this             
 resolution for the same reason.                                               
 Number 390                                                                    
 DALE BONDURANT, 40 year resident of Alaska, and fish and game user,           
 testified via teleconference.  He considered HJR 33 an important              
 piece of legislation.  He welcomed it, as a breath of fresh air,              
 and respected Representative Masek's acceptance of responsibility             
 to cut through the rhetoric and pursue equality for all Alaskans.             
 Any government authority that suggests and pressures the system of            
 this state to repeal the Alaska Constitution's equal protection               
 provision, speaks blatant blasphemy.  ANILCA has federally mandated           
 exclusive rights and special privileges for certain groups.  The              
 only way to cure the problem is to extinguish the mandates of                 
 unconstitutional quality.  Repeal Title VIII of ANILCA.  Alaska is            
 the only state with the only federal law that specifically excludes           
 all residents of specifically named cities from the equal right of            
 access to use our fish and game on our own dinner tables.  Do not             
 surrender the constitutional protection and rights of everybody.              
 Instead, destroy the inequality of Title VIII, ANILCA.  Reunite               
 Alaskans for equal access.                                                    
 Number 450                                                                    
 EILEEN NORBERGE, Deputy Director, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified            
 via teleconference.  She totally opposed HJR 33.  She felt it to be           
 misleading and inaccurate.  People do not understand that ANILCA              
 provides for resource allocations only in times of resource                   
 shortage.  It provides protection for the people who rely upon                
 local fishing resources to feed their families.  The local                    
 population should have priority in the opportunity to continue                
 feeding their families, over sport fishermen from Anchorage or                
 Seattle.  If any of you on this committee oppose that, she felt               
 people were getting away from the issue.  The state has reneged on            
 its commitment to uphold the Constitution in regards to fish and              
 game resources.  The rural preference, under ANILCA, provides us              
 with some form of protection, which we need.  Through extended                
 families, we pool our resources together.  Subsistence is an                  
 economic system.  The state of Alaska needs to solve its own                  
 problems, and if it is unable to do so, then we turn to the federal           
 Number 550                                                                    
 LORETTA LOLNITZ, an Athabascan Indian, testified via                          
 teleconference.  She said this Resolution will do nothing to help             
 her, because of the way she was raised to live and the way she                
 chooses to live.  As it is now, our traditional heritage is                   
 constantly being abused by various legislative parties.  Our                  
 traditional hunting and fishing needs are essential to our way of             
 life.  We should never compare our subsistence way of life with               
 other states, because Alaska's conditions are unique, compared to             
 other states.  She opposed the Resolution.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY asked if Ms. Lolnitz, her husband, or                   
 children were receiving any benefits from the state.                          
 MS. LOLNITZ answered no.                                                      
 Number 600                                                                    
 HAROLD MARTIN, President, Southeast Native Subsistence Commission,            
 testified against the Resolution.  The Commission is made up of 18            
 community representatives elected locally by tribal members, and              
 four regional representatives appointed by the Central Council,               
 Tlingit and Haida Tribes of Alaska, Sealaska Corporation, Alaska              
 Native Brotherhood, and Alaska Native Sisterhood.  The Commission             
 represents over 20,000 tribal members.  He spoke against HJR 33 for           
 a number of reasons.  Title VIII of ANILCA and the federal                    
 preference protects the unique subsistence and cultural lifestyle             
 of rural Native communities.  State law has no effective protection           
 now.  Title VIII of ANILCA is a law that must be implemented by the           
 federal courts and agencies whether the state complies with it or             
 not.  This issue must be resolved within Alaska by Alaskans.  Why             
 did the state of Alaska relinquish management control of 60 percent           
 of Alaska lands on account of 8 percent of its people that harvest            
 less than 4 percent of the wild renewable resources on an annual              
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE understands the problem in Title VIII to be              
 that even if we amended the Constitution and put it to a vote,                
 there is no guarantee it would pass.  But if we amended the                   
 Constitution, we would still be under federal oversight, so we                
 would not really be accomplishing much by amending the                        
 Constitution.  He asked Mr. Martin to address the question of the             
 herring roe fishery.  He understands that $70,000 worth of herring            
 roe was sold in the name of barter.  What impact would that have on           
 commercial fishing if people were able to catch fish in the name of           
 subsistence and sell them?                                                    
 MR. MARTIN was not familiar with the case Representative Bunde was            
 talking about.  There has always been a barter system.  Commercial            
 fisheries take the majority of the herring roe that is available in           
 the Sitka area, and other areas.  Not a whole lot of people take              
 herring roe.  Some people do not eat it, and some do.  Not many               
 people sell it.  There are a few people who will exploit our                  
 natural resources, and we are on the lookout for these people.  We            
 had that experience with the sea otter not too long ago, and we               
 brought them under control.  He does not feel there is a threat               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that the question is not about                 
 herring roe, but people are concerned that if you can sell herring            
 roe, then you can sell herring, then you can sell troll-caught                
 fish, you can sell purse-seine fish, and call it subsistence.  That           
 is what people are concerned about, that commercial fishermen will            
 lose their right to fish, their limited entry permits would be                
 worthless, because people could say they are doing subsistence and            
 sell their fish.                                                              
 MR. MARTIN felt at this point, the subsistence preference kicks in            
 only when they run into a shortage of a particular species.  It is            
 not in effect all the time.  He does not see a threat there.                  
 VERNON OLSON, Vice President of Bering Straits Native Corporation,            
 testified via teleconference.  A majority of the 6,710 shareholders           
 of this corporation live a subsistence lifestyle.  He personally              
 has never received aid from the state or federal government.  We,             
 in this area, rely heavily upon subsistence.  What we are really              
 talking about here is culture and the necessity to put food on the            
 table.  If HJR 33 passed, we would have cultural genocide, because            
 it is not only food, it is also the way of life.  HJR 33 is a                 
 frivolous piece of legislation.                                               
 STANLEY JONAS testified via teleconference, against HJR 33.  He is            
 from Canyon Village, located about 110 miles north of Fort Yukon.             
 His village does not have a store or an airport, and we rely on the           
 subsistence way of life.  If we were to charter groceries in, it              
 would cost us about $400.  That is money we do not have here,                 
 because there are no jobs.  He lives out in the bush, and at 67               
 years old, that is really his way of life.  He is opposed to this             
 Number 745                                                                    
 ROBERT FIFER, testified via teleconference, representing the EGA              
 Village Council, and the 36 tribal members.  In response to                   
 Representative Masek's Resolution, it grossly misrepresents the               
 Native people of Alaska.  She has no self pride as a Native person            
 herself.  Before Ms. Masek introduces this Resolution, she should             
 talk to her people, in order to represent them respectfully.  The             
 word "subsistence" is foreign.  This is a way of life.  Do not                
 dictate my way of life.  Protect it.  He will not support any                 
 legislation except a constitutional amendment in our state, to                
 comply with federal law.                                                      
 Number 775                                                                    
 ISAAC JUNEBY, Eagle resident, testified via teleconference.  He               
 strongly opposed HJR 33.  He believes that rural residents should             
 have first priority for using the resources.                                  
 Number 790                                                                    
 HARRIET CARLO, Galena resident, testified via teleconference.  She            
 opposed HJR 33 and stated that her and her husband have four                  
 children.  They buy very little commercially processed meat, and              
 they both work full-time jobs, at low income.  They do have                   
 marketable skills.  She has a background working with drugs and               
 alcohol, teenagers, and in being a child advocate.  She has also              
 worked with the women's shelter.  They do not depend on income, due           
 to personal beliefs.  They share their harvests with family members           
 and communities.  They choose to live the subsistence way of life,            
 and they do not have the money to go to the store to buy food.                
 Chief, Anvik Tribal Council, opposed HJR 33.  The Council consists            
 of approximately 120 people.  He said the bill claims that its                
 purpose is to allocate the fish and wildlife of Alaska for                    
 subsistence use among residents of Alaska without individual regard           
 to the residents' use of, or need of subsistence.  He felt the                
 resolution would be placing rural against urban.  It is written in            
 black and white.  Also, in regards to sport fishing, the exclusion            
 goals have not been reached.  He urged the legislature to do some             
 research and go to the villages and see what is really happening.             
 Neither he, nor the Council has the staff and resources to do the             
 research, and to make proposals and such; but he took it upon                 
 himself to make sure that the committee understands that their                
 Tribal Council opposes the Resolution.                                        
 TAPE 95-33, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 JERRY SAM, Chief, Village of Aletna, testified via teleconference.            
 The only way to get supplies in and out of Aletna is to charter,              
 which is very expensive.  We rely on food that is provided from the           
 animals and the land.  He strongly opposed HJR 33.                            
 Number 100                                                                    
 CESA SAM, Tribal Administrator, Huslia, testified via                         
 teleconference, against HJR 33.  It is hard work to live a                    
 subsistence lifestyle, but they have been raised to work hard to              
 put food on their tables.  If she is laid off from her job, she               
 knows she can always put food on her table through subsistence                
 Number 140                                                                    
 JEREMIAH RILEY, 14 year old, testified via teleconference against             
 HJR 33, because it will have negative impacts on their resources.             
 This will not promote an abundant supply of fish and game for all             
 of the children of the future, due to the over harvesting that will           
 Number 165                                                                    
 STANLEY NED, ALLAKAKET resident, testified via teleconference.  He            
 opposed HJR 33.  His fathers and grandfathers have lived off of the           
 land, taking only what they need.  Not any more.  What we have now            
 are people that do not know what living off the land means.                   
 Talking to people that don't know what living off the land means is           
 like a fart in a blizzard.  They do not know how to make the                  
 necessary sacrifices.  He opposed HJR 33.                                     
 Number 200                                                                    
 MARTHA FALK, House Researcher for Representative MacLean, addressed           
 the statement that Representative Toohey made, in regards to our              
 elders dying off.  It is a real emotional issue for her.  She is              
 living testimony that she will pass on, yet she respects her                  
 cultural values, because it is their way of life, to keep them                
 unified.  Subsistence is a lifestyle.  The issue of food on the               
 table is not an economic issue, it is a way of religion for us.               
 And referring to Representative Toohey's comments to say that the             
 elders are dying off, and that there are a few bad eggs in their              
 race, or in the several different Native races, that is true.                 
 There are bad eggs in every race.  But she will proudly carry on              
 her subsistence lifestyle.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY answered that if Ms. Falk took her comments             
 as being flippant, they were not meant to be flippant.  She has a             
 great deal of respect for her and her lifestyle.  Her fear is that            
 there are children out there that are fetal alcohol syndrome, that            
 are coming into the big cities, and are being influenced by the               
 wrong kind of person.  They are going back to the villages without            
 your love of the land.  That is what she fears.                               
 MS. FALK said what she was referring to is there will always be a             
 remnant to carry on from generation to generation to generation,              
 because that is their rightful inheritance from their father in               
 MIKE LOPEZ, IRA Council Member from Petersburg, strongly opposed              
 HJR 33.  He is also a member of the Southeast Alaska Native                   
 Subsistence Commission.  Title VIII of ANILCA is intended to carry            
 out subsistence related policies and to fulfil the purposes of                
 ANSCA in this respect, that in some sense, a settlement of Alaska             
 Native's Aboriginal hunting and fishing claims seemingly                      
 extinguished in ANSCA.  Unlike previous such settlements, ANILCA              
 does not afford Alaska Natives off-reservation or other exclusive             
 rights to hunt and fish because of their membership in a particular           
 tribe.  Instead, bowing to present day political reality, ANILCA              
 established subsistence protection for most rural Alaska residents,           
 both Native and non-Native.  Nevertheless it is quite clear from              
 the congressional finding in Title VIII that ANILCA is also a                 
 federal legislation enacted to benefit Native Americans and is                
 intended, in significant part, to protect Alaska Natives' physical,           
 economical, cultural, or traditional existence.                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER recorded the names of persons to testify on                   
 Wednesday:  Kenny Johns, from Glennallen, Tom Tilden from                     
 Dillingham, Jake Ollana, Art Swanson from Nome, Larry Ashenfelter             
 from Nome, Al McKinley from Juneau, and of course somebody from the           
 Governor's Office.  He announced that the hearing would be                    
 continued to about 1:30 or 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday.                            
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concluded, expressed appreciation to the                 
 committee in taking on HJR 33.  She thanked everybody for their               
 opinions which are very helpful.  Our country allows differences,             
 because people died for equality in the history of our nation.  She           
 appreciated everybody's thoughts shared on this important issue.              
 The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 5:00 p.m.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects