Legislature(1995 - 1996)

03/22/1995 01:45 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
               HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE                              
                         March 22, 1995                                        
                           1:45 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                                                            
 HJR 33:     Requesting the Congress to amend Title VIII of the                
             Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.                  
             PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                           
 HB 57:      "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing             
             for an effective date."                                           
             PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE                                           
 * HB 219:   "An Act authorizing special medical parole for                    
             terminally ill prisoners."                                        
             SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                           
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 ART NELSON, Fisheries Specialist                                              
 Kawarek, Incorporated                                                         
 Nome, AK  99762                                                               
 Telephone:  Not Available                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 JONAH POKIENNA, Chairman                                                      
 Walrus Commission                                                             
 Nome, AK  99762                                                               
 Telephone:  (907)  443-4728                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 ROY ASHENFELTER                                                               
 Nome, AK  99862                                                               
 Telephone:  Not Available                                                     
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 JULIE KITKA, President                                                        
 Alaska Federation of Natives                                                  
 1577 C Street                                                                 
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  274-3611                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified against HJR 33                                 
 STAN SMITH                                                                    
 4352 Rendezvous Circle                                                        
 Anchorage, AK 99504                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  337-1266                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 GEORGE MOERLEIN                                                               
 7300 O'Malley                                                                 
 Anchorage, AK 99516                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  346-3784                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 WARREN OLSON, plaintiff                                                       
 McDowell II v. U.S. Government                                              
 5961 North Circle                                                             
 Anchorage, AK 99516                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  346-1811                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 JACK HENDRICKSON, President                                                   
 Alaska Waterfowl Association                                                  
 3105 A Lakeshore, No. 102                                                     
 Anchorage, AK 99517                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  243-3235                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 KEN JACOBUS, Attorney                                                         
 425 G Street, No. 760                                                         
 Anchorage, AK 99501                                                           
 Telephone:  (907)  277-3338                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HJR 33                             
 KEN JOHNS, Board Member                                                       
 Copper River Native Association                                               
 Drawer H                                                                      
 Copper Center, AK  99573                                                      
 Telephone:  (907)  822-5241                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HJR 33                                           
 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR.                                                          
 Grand Camp Alaska Native Brotherhood                                          
 P.O. Box 21713                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99802                                                              
 Telephone:  (907)  586-2061                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HJR 33                                           
 BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General                                               
 Department of Law                                                             
 P. O. Box 110300                                                              
 Juneau, AK 99811-0300                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465- 2133                                                  
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Opposed HJR 33                                           
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK                                                  
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 418                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-2679                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Sponsor of HJR 33                                        
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant                                             
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Alaska State Legislature                                                      
 State Capitol, Room 120                                                       
 Juneau, AK 99801-1182                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4931                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Introduced HB 57                                         
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services                                       
 Division of Motor Vehicles                                                    
 Department of Public Safety                                                   
 P.O. Box 20020                                                                
 Juneau, AK 99811-0020                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-4361                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 57                              
 MARK JOHNSON, Chief                                                           
 Emergency Medical Services Section                                            
 Department of Health and Social Services                                      
 P.O. Box 110616                                                               
 Juneau, AK 99811-0616                                                         
 Telephone:  (907)  465-3027                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in favor of HB 57                              
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 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                       
 03/17/95              (H)   MINUTE(JUD)                                       
 03/22/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB  57                                                               
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde                                     
 01/06/95        35    (H)   PREFILE RELEASED                                  
 01/16/95        35    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 01/16/95        35    (H)   TRANSPORTATION,JUDICIARY,FINANCE                  
 01/19/95        90    (H)   COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE                               
 03/08/95              (H)   TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17                        
 03/08/95              (H)   MINUTE(TRA)                                       
 03/10/95       697    (H)   TRA RPT  2DP 3NR                                  
 03/10/95       697    (H)   DP: JAMES, WILLIAMS                               
 03/10/95       697    (H)   NR: MASEK, SANDERS, G.DAVIS                       
 03/10/95       697    (H)   FISCAL NOTE (DPS)                                 
 03/22/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 BILL:  HB 219                                                                
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER,Foster                                   
 JRN-DATE     JRN-PG               ACTION                                      
 03/01/95       531    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 03/01/95       531    (H)   JUDICIARY, FINANCE                                
 03/22/95              (H)   JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 95-34, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:45            
 p.m. on Wednesday, March 22, 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:  HJR             
 33, HB 57, and HB 219.  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 the meeting.  He began taking testimony on HJR 33.                 
 HJR 33 - AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA                                               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take public                
 testimony on HJR 33 only from those who had been available to                 
 testify on the previous Friday, who he had named, and also someone            
 from the Governor's Office.                                                   
 The following people were unable to testify and were told their               
 written testimony would be attached for the record:                           
 Those in support include:                                                     
     W.E. BARBER, Fairbanks                                                    
     LORREN R. SCHEEL,  Fairbanks                                              
     KATHLEEN DALTON, Fairbanks                                                
     RICHARD H. BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council,            
        Inc., Fairbanks                                                        
     BILL J. ALLEN, Fairbanks                                                  
     NANCY J. SHIKORA, Fairbanks                                               
     GREG MACHACCK, North Pole                                                 
     DENNIS O. PETRE, Salcha                                                   
     KEITH C. KOONTZ, Fairbanks                                                
     VELMA KOONTZ, Fairbanks                                                   
     CERENE J. PAUL, North Pole                                                
     KATHERINE RICHARDSON, Fairbanks                                           
     JAMES E. MOODY, Fairbanks                                                 
     HARRY JENKINS, Fairbanks                                                  
     BYRON W. HALEY, President, Chitina Dipnetters' Association,               
     LAURA JANE WINEINGER, Chickaloon                                          
     DAVID M. CARRY, Wasilla                                                   
     HARRY E. BYLYM, Wasilla                                                   
     MARRELLA WILBUR, Wasilla                                                  
     SANDRA K. WRIGHT, Wasilla                                                 
     CARL W. WILBUR, Wasilla                                                   
     ROBERT H. PARKERSON, Palmer                                               
     GABE MILLER                                                               
     BONNIE I. WILLIAMS, Fairbanks                                             
     THOMAS N. SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks                                          
     JEANNE EVERHART, Fairbanks                                                
     PHIL SUMMERS, Fairbanks                                                   
     GARY GUNDERSEN, Fairbanks                                                 
     ROBERT E. HILL, North Pole                                                
     ROBERT L. BERG, Fairbanks                                                 
     DOUG EVERHART, Fairbanks                                                  
     HEIDI K. JOHN, Fairbanks                                                  
     MARK A. ANDERSON, Fairbanks                                               
     ALASEN S. LINCK, Fairbanks                                                
     GARY JOHN NUSSBAUMER, Fairbanks                                           
     DARYL SOBEK                                                               
     JERRY L. FREEL, Fairbanks                                                 
     EDDIE GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau                             
     WILLIAM BREWER, JR., Fairbanks                                            
     DALE BONDURANT, Soldotna                                                  
     ANDY WARWICK                                                              
     ROBERT FOX, Fairbanks                                                     
     RICK SCHIKORA, Fairbanks                                                  
     DAN FAILONI, Fairbanks                                                    
     RUSS AND DONNA REDICK, Anchorage                                          
     RENEE D. LOZIER, Fairbanks                                                
     RICHARD AND CAROL SWISHER, Fairbanks                                      
     TOM RAMSEY, Fairbanks                                                     
     TED MORPHIS, Fairbanks                                                    
     DAVID M. JOHNSON, Anchorage                                               
     CHRISTOPHER BATIN, Editorial Director, Batin Communications,              
     WAYNE L. CLARK                                                            
     TRACY MORPHIS, Fairbanks                                                  
     LARRY RIVERS, Talkeetna                                                   
     MIKE SHIELDS, Fairbanks                                                   
     MARY BISHOP, Fairbanks                                                    
     STEVEN D. DANIELS, Fairbanks                                              
     JOHN W. HENDRICKSON, Anchorage                                            
     KIM M. PENDLETON, Anchorage                                               
 Those persons who submitted written testimony against HJR 33 are as           
     CLARE SWAN, Tribal Chairperson, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA,               
     COMMISSIONER FRANK RUE, Department of Fish and Game                       
     RAYMOND S. NIELSEN, JR., Sitka Tribe of Alaska                            
     MAX AHGEAK, President, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, Barrow              
     HARRY K. BROWER, Barrow                                                   
     JIMMY P. ERICK, Venetie                                                   
     CLYDE WILLIAMS, Fort Yukon                                                
     KEVIN B. CHARLES, Minto                                                   
     STEVE GINNIS, Native Village of Fort Yukon                                
     CHUGACHMIUT BOARD OF DIRECTORS                                            
     LUCY D. ASHENFELTER, White Mountain                                       
 Number 070                                                                    
 ART NELSON, Fisheries Specialist, Kawarek, Incorporated, testified            
 via teleconference.  He said the rural conference, as outlined in             
 ANILCA is only intended to apply in times of resource shortages.              
 In an ideal world there would be no shortage of resources, and the            
 rural conference would not even need to be applied.  But shortages            
 do occur, and it is during those times of shortage that the rural             
 residents of the state of Alaska need to be given our highest                 
 priority.  It is those people who may not have access to a car or             
 to a Fred Meyer to get food at a reasonable cost.  It is those                
 people who need to get a moose or a salmon to feed their family               
 when there may not be enough moose or salmon for everyone to share.           
 This legislature needs to stop trying to undermine ANILCA.  Trust             
 the voters of this state and let them decide.                                 
 JONAH POKIENNA, Chairman, Walrus Commission, testified via                    
 teleconference, saying they strongly opposed HJR 33.                          
 Number 145                                                                    
 ROY ASHENFELTER testified via teleconference.  He is opposed to HJR           
 33.  In regards to the questions at the last meeting about welfare,           
 he felt that people who qualify for welfare should not be penalized           
 in any way for choosing the subsistence lifestyle.  You have to               
 remember that people living out in the villages have very limited             
 resources.  The resources that they do depend on are from the land            
 and from the water.  People who live in urban areas have access to            
 other places such as "Carrs" and malls, or whatever.  We need to              
 have the people of the state of Alaska vote on this issue.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE commented on the urban welfare question.             
 People call subsistence "work" in the rural areas, yet they can               
 still qualify for welfare; yet, people in urban areas who go to               
 work no longer qualify for welfare, nor would they qualify for                
 subsistence under ANILCA.                                                     
 Number 195                                                                    
 JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives, testified via           
 teleconference.  She urged the committee to vote down this                    
 Resolution.  HJR 33 is an exercise in public relations, not policy            
 making.  HJR 33 will not help return the management of fish and               
 game to state government.  We cannot take the time and use our                
 positions to arbitrate between Alaskans on issues such as                     
 subsistence.  With the federal government managing the fish and               
 game, the Native people for the first time have seen what a fair              
 regulatory system looks like.  Natives are suspicious of any return           
 to state management.  The rural subsistence preference is going to            
 remain a federal law.  The real issue is survival of the Native               
 culture in the 21st century.  She urged the legislature to                    
 vote against this.                                                            
 Number 270                                                                    
 STAN SMITH testified via teleconference.  He expressed deep                   
 gratitude to Representative Beverly Masek for taking this issue on.           
 He totally disagreed with Ms. Kitka.  This is a state rights issue,           
 it is not a subsistence issue.  The state does have the                       
 responsibility and authority to manage fish and game in Alaska.               
 HJR 33 should be able to get that message across.  He did not think           
 that the subsistence question was a life or death issue for rural             
 Alaska.  What the state needs to look at is bringing the villages             
 into the 21st century, instead of trying to remain in the 17th or             
 18th century.  He urged the immediate passage of this Resolution.             
 Number 300                                                                    
 GEORGE MOERLEIN, a 34 year Alaska resident, testified via                     
 teleconference.  He applauded the efforts of the current                      
 legislature to get the federal government to return to Alaska what            
 was promised us in the Statehood Act.  The current federal law has            
 been proven contrary to our own Constitution.  HJR 33 needs to be             
 passed, with the amendment requesting that Title VIII of ANILCA be            
 repealed in its entirety.  Only then will Alaska be able to join              
 the other 50 states in the ability to manage our fish and wildlife            
 with no strings attached.                                                     
 Number 345                                                                    
 WARREN OLSON, a 37 year Alaska resident and plaintiff in McDowell            
 II v. the U. S. Government testified via teleconference from                 
 Anchorage.  He said ANILCA violates Article 1, Section 1, of the              
 Alaska Constitution.  It also violates Article 8, Sections 3, 15,             
 and 17 of the Constitution.  We are the only state in the Union               
 that has an article in regards to natural resources for sharing               
 among its residents as stipulated in the State Constitution.                  
 Resources should be shared among all of Alaska's citizens.  ANILCA            
 causes divisiveness.  He encouraged equal opportunity for all                 
 JACK HENDRICKSON, President, Alaska Waterfowl Association, and                
 Secretary, Alaska Chapter of Waterfowl, U.S.A, testified via                  
 teleconference.  ANILCA is the most divisive legislation in Alaska.           
 It purports to divide Alaskans into rural against urban.  A lot of            
 the subsistence rights are allocated by zip code.  ANILCA was not             
 brought about by some congressman, it was lobbied by the Alaska               
 Federation of Natives.  Pursuant to Section 6 of the Alaska Native            
 Settlement Claims Act (ANSCA), the federal government gave Native             
 corporations $462 million and 44 million acres of land.  That is              
 larger than Wisconsin.  The state of Alaska paid $500 million to              
 the Native Settlement Act.  Now, in a more clearly disguised                  
 attempt, Section 8 gives the rural residents greater hunting and              
 fishing rights than they had.  Section 8 of ANILCA is racially                
 discriminatory, it is poor fish and game management, and it                   
 violates the state of Alaska's right to manage fish and game                  
 resources.  No other state has been so treated by the federal                 
 government.  It is time that Sections 8.01 - 8.16 of ANILCA be                
 KEN JACOBUS, Attorney, representing Sam McDowell, testified via               
 teleconference.  The state should have control of all fish and game           
 in Alaska.  Some people say the subsistence issue is white versus             
 Native, or urban versus rural.  Unfortunately, it is much more                
 divisive than that.  Subsistence is quickly becoming Native versus            
 Native, village versus village.  Because of subsistence, chum                 
 salmon are not making it upstream.  We need to amend ANILCA and get           
 our statehood back.  He supported HJR 33.                                     
 KEN JOHNS, Board member, Copper River Native Association (CRNA),              
 testified via teleconference.  He spoke against HJR 33.  His region           
 would probably be the most impacted area in Alaska by this                    
 Resolution.  We are very fortunate to have an abundance of moose              
 and caribou at times.  The current system under state management is           
 not working for our area.  There are too many people taking                   
 wildlife resources.  The eight Native villages belonging to CRNA              
 have gone to the Game Board regarding hunting.  Two years ago there           
 were approximately 1200 moose taken out by our unit which we hunt             
 with.  Our eight villages accounted for only seven moose.  Most of            
 our villages were satisfied with how the system was working.  The             
 rural preference allowed us to hunt five days before the urban                
 people came out, and also during an extended period of time                   
 afterwards.  We used to have a lot better system than we do now.              
 Everybody is eligible for subsistence and we are still competing.             
 He is totally against amending ANILCA in any way.                             
 Number 630                                                                    
 ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., represented the Alaska Native Brotherhood               
 (ANB), encompassing 15 - 25 villages in Southeast Alaska.  The ANB            
 opposes HJR 33.  Title VIII of ANILCA protects the subsistence                
 lifestyle and the subsistence culture of Alaska's Native tribes.              
 The harvesting done by subsistence users is approximately 4                   
 percent.  We fail to understand all of the fear over rural                    
 preference.  Such preferences only take effect when a resource                
 population declines.  It is our tribal obligation to pass on to our           
 children and grandchildren the knowledge of our cultural existence.           
 HJR 33 sends the message that the state of Alaska intends to manage           
 the land and waters regardless of the culture of Alaska Native                
 tribes.  Our people are protected by the Constitution of the United           
 States, and we are also protected under the Treaty Session of the             
 Alaska Purses from Russia, where it states that we shall not be               
 usurped.  Hopefully, one day, the urban and rural communities will            
 get together and, as Senator Ted Stevens has said, we should all              
 come into one room, lock the door and throw away the key until we             
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. McKinley if he felt there was no               
 shortage of resources, such as moose.                                         
 MR. MCKINLEY answered that he does not see anything wrong with                
 ANILCA and the resources are plentiful.  Individuals in the state             
 of Alaska are entitled to those resources.  However, if the                   
 resources become depleted, the rural preference goes into effect.             
 As long as we have good management, there is no problem.  When the            
 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was actually forced upon us,              
 the oil companies actually pushed us right into the corner because            
 they wanted to get the oil right away.  We actually had aboriginal            
 title to the state of Alaska.  As a result, we only got about three           
 dollars for an acre, which is not very much.  We got the short end            
 of it at the end.                                                             
 BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General, Department of Law, disagreed with            
 HJR 33, but appreciated the fact that it is a vehicle for dialogue            
 on one of the most important issues the state has yet to adequately           
 resolve.  In the State of the State Address, Governor Knowles                 
 reiterated two points.  First of all, he indicated that there were            
 two principles that should govern the Resolution, from his                    
 perspective, and from this Administration's perspective.  One, that           
 we work to return fish and game management to the state's control.            
 Second, that we respect the priority for rural subsistence uses.              
 MR. BOTELHO stated the second point Governor Knowles made was that            
 any solution had to be an Alaskan based solution, which is the                
 result of a genuine dialogue between Alaskans.  He felt it was fair           
 to say that Governor Knowles was very heartened by the fact that              
 our Congressional Delegation delivered substantially the same                 
 message to Alaskans during the course of this session.  It is quite           
 clear that the resolution may involve a constitutional amendment,             
 perhaps amendments to ANILCA, revisions to the structure of the               
 state Fish and Game Board.  ANILCA clearly articulates purposes               
 that are rational, that are not arbitrary, and that this                      
 Administration subscribes to.  People may disagree with the                   
 rationale provided, but to claim that they are arbitrary  falls               
 MR. BOTELHO continued, saying Congress made three specific                    
 findings.  A continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses             
 by rural residents of Alaska include both Natives and non-Natives             
 on the public lands.  Allowing Alaska Natives on Native lands is              
 essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural             
 existence, and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and             
 social existence.  The situation in Alaska is unique, in that in              
 most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace           
 the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife             
 which supply rural residents, dependent on subsistence uses.                  
 Finally, Congress found continuation of the opportunity for                   
 subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands in Alaska             
 is threatened by the increasing population of Alaska, with                    
 resultant pressure on subsistence resources suddenly claiming the             
 populations of some wildlife species which are crucial subsistence            
 resources, by increased accessibility of remote areas containing              
 subsistence resources, and by taking fish and wildlife in a manner            
 inconsistent with recognized principles of fish and wildlife                  
 management.  HJR 33 also asserts in its preamble that ANILCA is               
 intended to allocate resources without individual regard to a                 
 resident's traditional or historic use or need to engage in                   
 subsistence use.  In some respects that Resolution is correct, but            
 in a larger sense, it is not.  ANILCA does not purport to limit or            
 bar subsistence use by any resident, except when the resources are            
 so limited that choices must be made between those who are                    
 subsistence users.  Here there is no doubt, ANILCA has clearly                
 sided with rural users, and the need to protect and defend the                
 rural subsistence interests.                                                  
 MR. BOTELHO's third comment notes that the allocations are contrary           
 to the principles of common use of and equal access to fish and               
 wildlife that are inherent in the Constitution of the State of                
 Alaska.  In this respect, the Resolution perhaps misses the mark.             
 The Constitution gives the power to the people to determine the               
 amount of authority and the manner in which that authority would be           
 exercised by government.  It is for that reason that Governor                 
 Knowles has urged that we look to the people of Alaska to have the            
 opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment.  They are the            
 source of power, that is the inheritance.  There is nothing                   
 inherent in the principles of common use and equal access.  The               
 people should have a right to choose.  HJR 33 lays upon the                   
 Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior the responsibility for            
 requiring the state to amend its Constitution, and to note that               
 Congress has provided or directed that if the state wishes to                 
 manage its fish and game, it is to be responsible for bringing the            
 state's laws into consistency with federal law.  He noted that to             
 his knowledge, Congress has taken no action to modify the efforts             
 of its predecessor.  He made it clear that the Administration does            
 not support HJR 33.  It does not purport to protect the rural                 
 subsistence priority, and they believe that it contains several               
 factual legal inaccuracies.  But most importantly, we do not see it           
 as a vehicle in itself to unite Alaskans in finding a solution.  He           
 assured that nothing he has said was meant in any way to denigrate            
 their view of the sponsor's motives, their integrity, or their                
 desire to find a genuine solution.  He sees this as a vehicle for             
 dialogue.  This Resolution puts the topic on the table.  He looked            
 forward to participating with the sponsors of the Resolution,                 
 Representatives Masek and Toohey, in trying to fashion some                   
 opportunity for resolution and reconciliation among Alaskans on               
 REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked Mr. Botelho to speak on Title 7,            
 Sections 3 and 17, which was referenced in the opposition coming              
 from the Department of Fish and Game.  She wanted to know how this            
 would apply.  They interpreted it to say it should be noted that              
 the Constitution says there is a provision for common use and equal           
 application of the law.  According to this, there is something in             
 the Constitution saying there are times when you do not have to               
 provide equal access, according to the State Constitution.                    
 MR. BOTELHO said Representative Davis was referring to an Article             
 in the State Constitution which does provide for the common use.              
 There have, at times, been challenges to that equal access.  The              
 one most notably so, was the challenge to the state's ability to              
 impose limited entry.  The state does, in fact, limit use in a                
 variety of ways, to the resources of the state.  Those have                   
 generally been held as constitutional.  Nevertheless, the Supreme             
 Court, with respect to subsistence, has specifically struck down              
 legislation originally enacted by this body in 1986, that would               
 have provided for a specific rural subsistence priority, and that             
 is really what has triggered where we are today, which is trying to           
 reconcile federal and state law, so that the state would be able to           
 manage to the maximum extent possible its fish and wildlife                   
 TAPE 95-34, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 000                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Botelho if there were any appeals,                  
 reviews, or other approaches that could be made to the Supreme                
 Court regarding their decision that seems to be driving this whole            
 MR. BOTELHO answered that there are perhaps vehicles to have the              
 issue re-examined, but in the courts, the decision was a four to              
 one vote.  He frankly doubted that under the present circumstances,           
 given not only this matter, but generally, the courts would rarely            
 reverse their decision unless there had been some fundamental                 
 change in the law itself.  It is very unusual, and he felt on this            
 one, the court struggled a great deal before it reached its                   
 conclusion, and it would be very unlikely that trying to pursue               
 another case would lead to a different result.                                
 Number 040                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what Mr. Botelho's opinion was on              
 the fact that the federal government does not have the right to               
 dictate to states that which has not been specifically granted in             
 the Constitution.                                                             
 MR. BOTELHO said there is a very strong movement originating in the           
 West, resounding throughout the country, and the actions by the               
 electorate in November are a reflection of that.  At the same time,           
 the very fact that the steps being taken are largely through                  
 congressional actions, rather than through litigation, is tacit               
 recognition that much of what has been done, Congress probably had            
 the power to do, and people are exercising their right to revisit             
 Congress.  He is heartened by the fact that the solution is not               
 being sought primarily through court action, but through direct               
 legislative action to reduce the kinds of impacts on this state and           
 others.  It is quite clear that Congress would not take any action            
 in this area, unless our Congressional Delegation were of one mind.           
 It is the kind of intrusion into legislative prerogatives that                
 Congress has generally, but not always, been sensitive to.  ANWR is           
 a good example where they have not been sensitive to our desires,             
 but absent a support from our Congressional Delegation, he does not           
 believe that Congress would expend any resources to make the kinds            
 of changes that this Resolution calls for.  The delegation itself             
 has made it quite clear that it will not entertain sponsoring such            
 changes, unless and until there is some sort of Alaska consensus.             
 That brings us back to the dilemma we are in today.                           
 Number 115                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said this brings to mind the                 
 question of whether or not the federal government has the right to            
 manage wildlife, and to what degree?  The case came up years ago in           
 New Mexico regarding the Wild Horses and Burros Act, where the                
 state felt the federal government was imposing on their right to              
 manage wildlife.  It was determined that not only does the federal            
 government have the right to manage fish and game on federal lands,           
 but also on state and private lands, in some cases.  It happens all           
 the time in such cases as the Endangered Species Act.  People may             
 not agree with the policy, but it has been upheld by the courts as            
 being constitutional.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Botelho what vehicle he would                  
 recommend for resolving this issue.                                           
 MR. BOTELHO answered that a constitutional amendment would be one             
 part of the puzzle.  What may be required is to see major interest            
 groups entering into a dialogue and reaching an agreement amongst             
 themselves.  There are a lot of Alaskans who do not pay a lot of              
 attention to this issue.  It will be looking to the leadership of             
 groups such as the AFN, various commercial and sport fishing                  
 groups, and those concerned about the impacts on economic                     
 development this impasse may have on our inability to engage in               
 economic development.  Hopefully they will force the issue and                
 bring some sort of consensus that people are prepared to live with,           
 and both the Administration and the legislature as a whole can buy            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the public testimony on HJR 33, and                 
 announced that many faxes of public testimony were coming in which            
 would be included for the record.                                             
 Number 225                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, Sponsor of HJR 33, said this has been           
 a pretty upbeat time for all of us, hearing the different sides of            
 this issue.  That is part of our democracy.  Everyone has a right             
 to their opinions and they must be respected.  This is just a                 
 Resolution which has no fiscal impact, and because it does not have           
 the force of law, however, it is an urgent message for                        
 congressional relief from an unconstitutional federal law.  Why is            
 it drawing so much attention?  And why is it being used to                    
 resurrect the subsistence cry from rural Alaska?  We, as                      
 legislators, must not be drawn into the emotional trap of                     
 eliminating subsistence.  To the contrary, this will begin the                
 process to really resolve the issue.  First, we ask for relief, and           
 if Congress will assist us, we will be free to implement a                    
 subsistence law based on individual criteria, not classes of                  
 people.  Each Alaskan, no matter where they live, under state law             
 may apply for a preference on an individual basis.  Under ANILCA,             
 they cannot.  Under ANILCA a federal employee in Bethel who makes             
 $150,000 per year, automatically has a preference, while an Alaska            
 Native resident from Palmer, who makes less than $10,000 per year,            
 cannot.  This is why ANILCA must be amended.  Villages are being              
 pitted against villages, neighbors against neighbors.  Actually, in           
 her case, from hearing the testimony last week, it is her brother             
 against her, his sister.  Her brother, under federal law, has an              
 automatic preference based solely on where he lives.  Her son has             
 no preference because of where they live.  How can we call this               
 nonsense under ANILCA protecting a culture?  Cultures know no lines           
 on maps, and are not to be identified by zip codes.  To survive,              
 cultures, societies and individuals must be able to be free to                
 practice their lifestyle no matter where they live.  Her point here           
 is to show what the federal law is doing to people, communities and           
 families.  Our state law does not do this and it can be improved so           
 that all Alaskans can be treated fairly, no matter where they live            
 or how they live.  She urged the committee's support for and                  
 passage of this Resolution.                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HJR 33 from the                    
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected and a roll call vote was taken.                 
 Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Green and Porter voted yes.                    
 Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted no.  Representative               
 Vezey had stepped out.  HJR 33 moved out of committee with a four             
 to two vote.                                                                  
 HB 57 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS                                
 Number 330                                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, bill sponsor, announced that his staff                  
 member, Jeff Logan, would describe the bill.  Juanita Hensley from            
 the Division of Motor Vehicles would also add important testimony             
 as well as answer questions.  HB 57 attempts to cut down on the               
 carnage created by skillful, albeit perhaps immature drivers in the           
 state who have been granted the privilege of driving on our                   
 highways.  Quite often they are not to the point of maturity that             
 is required to manipulate a machine of such potential killing                 
 capacity.  This would provide for a graduated license that                    
 continually reminds the teen-ager of his responsibility when                  
 driving an automobile.                                                        
 JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,                
 introduced HB 57.  HB 57 provides three steps to graduated                    
 licensing:  An instructional permit, a provisional license, and a             
 regular license.  The point is to phase a young driver into                   
 "driverhood," if you will.  Most bicyclists do not start out on a             
 bicycle, they start out on a trike, from which they move on to a              
 bicycle with training wheels, and then on to "bikeriderhood," and             
 then gradually into full control.  The sponsor would like to apply            
 the same principle to learning how to drive a car.  Under terms of            
 the bill, if the person is 21 years of age, they must hold a                  
 provisional license for one year, before being issued an                      
 unrestricted license; so 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds must            
 first hold a provisional license before they get an unrestricted              
 license.  If a person is under 18 years of age, they must also                
 first hold a learner's permit for at least six months.  The                   
 learner's permit requirement does not exist if you are over 18.               
 There are two key differences between a regular driver's license              
 and a provisional or restricted, or graduated license.  The first             
 difference is the holder of a provisional driver's license is                 
 prohibited from driving between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., with the                   
 exception of driving to and from work in a direct route.  It is               
 essentially a curfew for those young drivers.  Regular drivers can            
 accumulate 12 points in 12 months before their license is                     
 suspended, or 18 points in 24 months.  A provisional license holder           
 may only accumulate 6 points in 12 months before their license is             
 Number 420                                                                    
 JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor                    
 Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, stated that the department,            
 as well as law enforcement agencies statewide, support this concept           
 of a graduated driver's license.  A graduated license is basically            
 a restricted license program that allows youth drivers to learn               
 over a period of time, with restrictions.  The idea is to help                
 beginners to learn to drive step-by-step, by controlling their                
 progression towards full driving privileges.  Restrictions are                
 lifted gradually and systematically until the driver graduates to             
 an unrestricted license.  This helps in two ways:  It assures that            
 new drivers accumulate the behind-the-wheel-training and experience           
 in low risk settings.  It also means that drivers are older and may           
 be more mature by the time they get their driver's license.  Youth            
 drivers in Alaska are definitely over-represented in all of the               
 statistics in the state.  Drivers between 16 - 20 represent 6.2               
 percent of the licensed drivers in Alaska; however, they represent            
 12.9 percent of the total traffic crashes in the state.  Over 28              
 percent of the total fatal crashes involved youths between 16 and             
 20.  The states that have implemented graduated licenses have                 
 benefitted.  California and Maryland both report a reduction of               
 crashes between ages 15 through 17.  California had a 5 percent               
 reduction in crashes, and  Maryland had a 10 percent reduction.               
 Oregon reported a 16 percent reduction in crashes for male drivers            
 ages 16 - 17 with the graduated license program.  The bill, if                
 implemented in Alaska, will have a learner stage, an intermediate             
 stage, and then they will have the full licensure stage.  After a             
 period of time, as they drive accident free, those restrictions are           
 lifted.  Various police departments felt this bill would have the             
 potential to reduce some crimes being caused by juveniles between             
 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.  The following organizations support the bill:              
 The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the                 
 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the International                     
 Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the           
 National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives,            
 the National Association of Independent Insurers, the National                
 Safety Council, the National Transportation Safety Board, the                 
 Alaska Peace Officers, and the Chiefs of Police for Alaska.                   
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a teen-ager coming from another state                
 would have to start at ground zero.                                           
 MS. HENSLEY answered that the teen-ager's experience from another             
 state would count towards this program.                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Ms. Hensley to explain the new               
 restrictions in that category.                                                
 Number 485                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY explained that if you are between 14 and 17 years of              
 age, you have to hold an instruction permit for at least six months           
 before you can apply for the next stage, which is the provisional             
 license stage.  That does not mean we are going to give a 14-year-            
 old a driver's license after six months.  They are not eligible to            
 apply for the provisional license until they are at least 16.  At             
 age 16, before you can get a provisional license, you have to hold            
 at least an instruction permit for six months.  If you have done              
 that, then you are issued a provisional license.  You hold that               
 provisional license for one year, violation free, before you can go           
 to the full license stage.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the only difference between the           
 provisional license and the regular license was the amount of                 
 points you can get.                                                           
 MS. HENSLEY said there are two aspects - the amount of points you             
 can get, and a restricted curfew on the license.  No driving is               
 allowed between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. unless it is needed for work.               
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the curfew applied to ages 14 - 21.                  
 MS. HENSLEY said it applies through 20 years of age, for the                  
 provisional license portion, not the instruction permit.                      
 CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if in that case, someone who did not get into           
 their provisional license status until they were 19 or 20 years               
 old, could not drive between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.                                
 MS. HENSLEY said that was correct, unless they needed it for work.            
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he supports the bill and the need to                
 learn to drive in a more sheltered learning environment, but he               
 wondered what the statistics were for those who learned to drive              
 over the age of 20, and what their accident rate is during the                
 first year they drive.                                                        
 MS. HENSLEY said she did not have statistics for someone's first              
 year of driving.                                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked how this would be applied to a teen-ager           
 who is married and has children, if her husband is not home during            
 those hours.  Would she be restricted to not being able to drive a            
 car in case of emergencies?  Is she not considered to be an adult             
 because she is married?  And what about the male in the same                  
 MS. HENSLEY said this does not speak to whether they are married or           
 single.  This is to do with age and experience in driving.  Under             
 those situations, she thought the person would be helped out by law           
 enforcement to get that child to the hospital.                                
 CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the emergency response availability is             
 better in some areas than in others.  In unincorporated areas such            
 as rural sections of Alaska, those kinds of responses involve long            
 routes, and he would have some concerns about this himself.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS wondered how other states handle that.                   
 MS. HENSLEY did not know if that had actually been addressed in               
 other states.                                                                 
 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said it should be looked at; however, she was            
 in support of the bill.                                                       
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE did not think that just because a teen-ager is           
 married they are an adult.  They cannot enter into contracts, they            
 cannot drink, etc.                                                            
 CHAIRMAN PORTER said the age of adulthood is 18, so he was                    
 concerned about putting restrictions on people all the way up to              
 age 21.                                                                       
 Number 610                                                                    
 MARK JOHNSON, Chief of the Emergency Medical Services Section,                
 Department of Health and Social Services, added that they support             
 the legislation.  The number one cause of hospitalization for teen-           
 agers and young adults in our state is motor vehicle trauma.  The             
 second highest cause of fatality is also motor vehicle trauma                 
 following suicide.  The average cost of hospital care for these               
 young people is over $20,000, not counting physician charges billed           
 separately, or ambulance charges for post-hospital care or                    
 rehabilitation.  This is also a public health issue.                          
 Number 700                                                                    
 MS. HENSLEY mentioned that the state of Alaska received a federal             
 grant for $75,000 to implement the curfew restriction.  Without the           
 curfew provision, we would not be able to implement this program              
 with federal funds.                                                           
 CHAIRMAN PORTER admitted he has a philosophical problem with this             
 restriction from age 18 years on.  An average 17-year-old will have           
 a full license at that stage anyway, so it would only apply to                
 someone who got started later.                                                
 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN still felt this problem was related to             
 alcohol.  We are creating a dilemma for someone who is at a party,            
 doing whatever kids and young adults are going to be doing, and now           
 it is approaching one o'clock.  Their first choice is to go home              
 early, which not very many of them are going to do realistically,             
 or their second choice is to violate the law by going home sometime           
 between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., which is more likely.  This certainly              
 gets the message across to ignore the law, which is basically                 
 unenforceable.  The third option is to wait until 5 a.m. to go                
 home.  He did not feel it was a reasonable restriction that was               
 achieving much.                                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 57 out of committee             
 with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations.  Ms.               
 Hensley explained that the fiscal impact would actually make money.           
 Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.                                       
 Number 790                                                                    
 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced there would not be time to hear HB 219,             
 but it would be continued to Friday at 1 o'clock.                             
 The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:15 p.m.                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects