Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1995 01:45 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= 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 None 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 SHORT TITLE: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde JRN-DATE 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 SHORT TITLE: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS 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, Fairbanks 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, Fairbanks 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 follows: CLARE SWAN, Tribal Chairperson, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA, Kenai 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 Alaskans. 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 repealed. 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 compromise. 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 short. 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 subsistence. 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 resources. 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 issue. 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 into. 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 suspended. 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 situation? 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. ADJOURNMENT The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:15 p.m.