Legislature(1995 - 1996)
05/01/1995 01:25 PM JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE May 1, 1995 1:25 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 All members present COMMITTEE CALENDAR CSSJR 19(RES): Requesting the Congress to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act to clarify that the term "public lands" means only federal land and water and that any extension of federal jurisdiction onto adjacent land and water is expressly prohibited. PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 176: "An Act relating to errors in surveys of land." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 242: "An Act relating to the establishment, modification, and enforcement of support orders and the determination of parentage in situations involving more than one state; amending Alaska Rule of Administration 9; amending Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure 79 and 82; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE HB 244: "An Act relating to administrative establishment of paternity and establishing paternity by affidavit; relating to child support enforcement; and providing for an effective date." PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE WITNESS REGISTER TERESA SAGER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 125 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4976 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced SJR 19 AL MCKINLEY, SR., President Grand Camp, Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) 816 Dixon Avenue Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2061 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19 DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director Bristol Bay Driftnetter's Association P.O. Box 21951 Juneau, AK 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-4976 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 BYRON HALE Chitina Dipnetters Association 1002 Pioneer Road Fairbanks, AK 99701 Telephone: (907) 456-4426 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 KELLY JOHNSON 161 Trumpeter Soldotna, AK 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-2578 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 LORETTA BULLARD Kawerak, Incorporated P.O. Box 948 Nome, AK 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-5231 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19 JOEL BLATCHFORD 1983 Waldron Drive Anchorage, AK 99502 Telephone: (907) 563-3743 POSITION STATEMENT: Provide information on SJR 19 CARL L. ROSIER Tongass Sportfish and Territorial Sports 8298 Garnet Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 789-9117 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 19 HUGH DOOGAN 359 Slater Road Fairbanks, AK 99701 Telephone: (907) 456-1869 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 19 LES PALMER P. O. Box 631 Sterling, AK 99672 Telephone: (907) 262-7788 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 VERN OLSON, Vice President Bering Strait Native Corporation (BSNC) and Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) Corp. P.O. Box 1632 Nome, AK 99762 Telephone: (907) 443-4779 POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 19 JERRY MCCUNE, President United Fishermen of Alaska 211 Fourth Street, Suite 112 Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-2820 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 ELAINA SPRAKER P.O. Box 2534 Soldotna, AK 99669 Telephone: (907) 262-9592 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 DICK BISHOP Tanana Valley Sportsman's Association 1555 Gus's Grind Fairbanks, AK 99709 Telephone: (907) 455-6151 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 HAROLD GILLAM 104 Second Avenue Fairbanks, AK 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-2534 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 THEO MATHEWS, Executive Director United Cook Inlet Driftnetters Association (UCIDA) P.O. Box 389 Kenai, AK 99611 Telephone: (907) 283-3600 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of SJR 19 EDDIE GRASSER Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC) P.O. Box 22394 Juneau, AK 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SJR 19 TOM KNOX, Municipal Surveyor Municipality of Anchorage 632 West Sixth Avenue Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 343-4433 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 176 JOHN BENNETT, President Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors 3123 Penguin Lane Fairbanks, AK 99712 Telephone: (907) 474-2413 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 176 WILLIAM MENDENHALL, Registered Land Surveyor 1907 Yankovich Road Fairbanks, AK 99709 Telephone: (907) 479-2786 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of CSHB 176 ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide House Judiciary Committee Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 120 Juneau, AK 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-4990 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on CSHB 176 GLENDA STRAUBE, Director Child Support Enforcement Agency Department of Revenue 550 West 7th Avenue Juneau, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 269-6801 POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 242 MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General Collections and Support Section Civil Division Department of Law 1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200 Anchorage, AK 99501-1994 Telephone: (907) 269-5100 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on HB 242 STUART HALL, Ombudsman State of Alaska P.O. Box 113000 Juneau, AK 99811-3000 Telephone: (907) 465-4970 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 242 PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: SJR 19 SHORT TITLE: ASK FEDS TO AMEND ANILCA SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) MILLER, Pearce, Green, Taylor, Halford; REPRESENTATIVE(S) Toohey, Bunde JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/06/95 494 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/06/95 494 (S) RESOURCES 03/23/95 771 (S) COSPONSOR: GREEN 03/25/95 (S) RES AT 12:00 PM FAIRBANKS 03/29/95 (S) RES AT 10:00 AM FAIRBANKS 03/29/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 04/08/95 (S) RES AT 09:00 AM SOLDOTNA 04/08/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 04/10/95 (S) RES AT 03:30 PM BUTROVICH ROOM 205 04/10/95 (S) MINUTE(RES) 04/11/95 976 (S) RES RPT CS 5DP 2DNP SAME TITLE 04/11/95 976 (S) ZERO FN (F&G) 04/11/95 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203 04/11/95 (S) MINUTE(RLS) 04/12/95 996 (S) RULES RPT 3 TO CAL 4/12/95 2 OTHER 04/12/95 1012 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME 04/12/95 1013 (S) RES CS ADOPTED Y13 N7 04/12/95 1014 (S) AM NO 1 FAILED Y8 N12 04/12/95 1014 (S) COSPONSOR(S): TAYLOR, HALFORD 04/12/95 1014 (S) ADVANCE TO THIRD READING FAILED Y12 N8 04/12/95 1014 (S) THIRD READING 4/13 CALENDAR 04/13/95 1033 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 19(RES) 04/13/95 1034 (S) ADPTD LINCOLN LETTER OF INTENT Y10 N9 E1 04/13/95 1034 (S) PASSED Y12 N7 E1 04/13/95 1035 (S) ADAMS NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION 04/18/95 1076 (S) RECON TAKEN UP - IN THIRD READING 04/18/95 1076 (S) PASSED ON RECONSIDERATION Y13 N6 E1 04/18/95 1077 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H) 04/19/95 1364 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 04/19/95 1364 (H) JUDICIARY 04/19/95 1391 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): TOOHEY, BUNDE 04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 05/01/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 176 SHORT TITLE: ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/10/95 304 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/10/95 304 (H) COMMUNITY & REGIONAL AFFAIRS, JUDICIARY 04/18/95 (H) CRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 124 04/18/95 (H) MINUTE(CRA) 04/19/95 1365 (H) CRA RPT CS(CRA) NEW TITLE 6NR 04/19/95 1365 (H) NR: ELTON, AUSTERMAN, VEZEY, KOTT 04/19/95 1365 (H) NR: NICHOLIA, IVAN 04/19/95 1365 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 05/01/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 242 SHORT TITLE: UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/08/95 642 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/08/95 642 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/08/95 642 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, REV) 03/08/95 642 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (LAW, DCRA) 03/08/95 643 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/25/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/26/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/26/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/28/95 1620 (H) HES RPT CS(HES) NT 5DP 1NR 04/28/95 1621 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, BUNDE, TOOHEY, ROBINSON 04/28/95 1621 (H) DP: BRICE 04/28/95 1621 (H) NR: G.DAVIS 04/28/95 1621 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (REV, DHSS) 3/8/95 04/28/95 1621 (H) 2 ZERO FNS (CRA, LAW) 3/8/95 04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 05/01/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 BILL: HB 244 SHORT TITLE: PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/08/95 645 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/08/95 645 (H) HES, JUDICIARY, FINANCE 03/08/95 645 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, REV) 03/08/95 645 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, LAW) 03/08/95 645 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 04/25/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/25/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/27/95 (H) HES AT 02:00 PM CAPITOL 106 04/27/95 (H) MINUTE(HES) 04/28/95 1622 (H) HES RPT 5DP 2NR 04/28/95 1622 (H) DP: ROKEBERG, BUNDE, TOOHEY, ROBINSON 04/28/95 1622 (H) DP: BRICE 04/28/95 1622 (H) NR: G.DAVIS, VEZEY 04/28/95 1622 (H) 2 FISCAL NOTES (REV, DHSS) 3/8/95 04/28/95 1622 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DHSS, LAW) 3/8/95 04/28/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 04/28/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD) 05/01/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 95-55, SIDE A Number 000 The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:25 p.m. on Monday, May 1, 1995. All members were present. CHAIRMAN BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard: SJR 19, CSHB 176(CRA), HB 242, and HB 244. The hearing was teleconferenced to Fairbanks, Anchorage, Kenai and Nome. He announced that SB 53 would not be heard, but would be waived as soon as the committee receives it. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted HB 154, "An Act relating to the Regulatory taking of private property," will be assigned to an interim subcommittee. That committee will be chaired by Representative Al Vezey, and also on the committee will be Representatives Con Bunde, and Bettye Davis. He then called Teresa Sager forward to introduce SJR 19. SJR 19 - ASK FEDS TO AMEND ANILCA TERESA SAGER, Legislative Assistant to Senator Mike Miller, introduced SJR 19. SJR 19 is a resolution that requests a couple of things from Congress that Senator Miller feels are of critical importance, especially at this time. It asks Congress to clarify that the original intent of the Congress was not to violate the statehood compact, or to preempt state management of fish and wildlife. That provision in this resolution is, in Senator Miller's opinion, of critical importance. It also asks Congress to clarify that the definition of "public land" in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) is in reference to federal land and does not refer to state or private land in Alaska. So this resolution asks Congress to clarify that in ANILCA, and reaffirm state management authority on state and private lands. Ms. Sager said there are a couple of things that Senator Miller wanted her to point out to the committee and to clarify for their information. There is a further resolved section, the last one, which is on page 3 starting on line 11. This change was added in the Senate Resources Committee. It asks Congress to oppose any other amendments to ANILCA until Congress takes action to confirm state management and to limit the definition of public lands. That is an important resolved section, and that is part of the reason why it is important that this resolution go to Congress this year, because Congress is intending to take up other ANILCA amendments this fall. If this resolution does not pass this year, that resolved section essentially will have no impact. MS. SAGER stated that the other important point is that Senator Miller wants to make it clear that this resolution is in no way an attack on the federal subsistence priority in ANILCA which provides for a rural preference on public lands. I do not think it is any secret that Senator Miller does not support that provision of ANILCA, but this resolution does not address that and Senator Miller wanted to make that clear on the record. REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said the resolution states that we respectfully urge Congress to amend ANILCA to clarify that Congress did not intend to preempt state management of fish and wildlife in Alaska, and of course the essence of the rural preference is preempting state management of fish and wildlife in Alaska. So if I was to support this you could not possibly have a rural preference, because that is what a rural preference is. It is the preemption of state management in that area. MS. SAGER answered that it is her understanding that Congress' intent, when they adopted ANILCA was to provide for rural preference on federal public lands. But their intention was also to maintain state management. In other words, the state was expected to recognize that rural preference and manage accordingly. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said of course the essence of this issue is what happens if the state does not adopt that rural preference, in which case federal law requires the federal government to do exactly what we are saying not to do on line 30, page 2, which is to preempt state management of fish and wildlife in Alaska, which is what the issue boils down to. MS. SAGER stated that is essentially the crux of the Babbitt lawsuit. There was a question as to whether even if the state was out of compliance with Title VIII of ANILCA, in the State's opinion when they filed the lawsuit, that did not necessarily give the federal government the power to take over management even though the state was out of compliance. REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked if there was a letter of intent that was supposed to come over with the legislation. MS. SAGER understood that there was a letter of intent offered on the original vote on SJR 19 that was not re-offered under reconsideration. AL MCKINLEY, SR., President, Grand Camp, Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) submitted a written statement with his testimony: "When the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 became law, the conference committee of U.S. Senate and U.S. House members expected the Secretary of Interior and the state of Alaska to use their existing authority to take action necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Alaska Natives. The failure of the federal and state governments to heed congressional admonitions caused the Natives to seek a solution through federal legislation. As a result, there is a Title VIII of ANILCA. Congress recognized the need to preserve the subsistence lifestyle as practiced by Alaska Natives from `time immemorial' and the fact that the final version contained provisions for rural Alaskans did not dilute the primary purpose of protection and preservation of the Native subsistence lifestyle. "With this background to my remarks, I now state Alaska Native Brotherhood's opposition to the passage of Senate Joint Resolution No. 19. The Resolution, on its face, would seek to nullify recent Native subsistence victories in the U.S. District Court, including the decision in the Katie John case (on appeal to the ninth circuit) which held that federal jurisdiction (for Title VIII) should extend to all navigable waters in the State of Alaska. At least 60 percent of Native subsistence takes place in navigable waters in Alaska. Unless the state comes into compliance with Title VIII of ANILCA Natives will not fully benefit from the subsistence priority provided by Title VIII of ANILCA. Federal jurisdiction must be able to regulate non federal hunting and fishing activities that impact on subsistence harvest efforts. "Additionally, I support the petition submitted to the secretaries of Interior and Agriculture on behalf of a number of Native organizations that seek to expand federal subsistence management jurisdiction beyond federal public lands. "I cannot, now, support a resolution calculated to restrict the Native subsistence rights beyond what is set out in Title VIII and interpreted by the courts. I emphatically oppose any effort to amend Title VIII that does not first, through a series of consultations, gain the support of the Alaska Natives." Number 370 DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Driftnetter's Association, spoke in support of SJR 19. He believes Alaska desperately needs to have these issues clarified. Our sense of the issue is that no one will benefit from a continuation of the present uncertainty. We do not see this resolution as an attack on subsistence. We feel that Congress owes us more than we are being given. All Alaskans deserve better than this present uncertainty. The alternative, which to him is unacceptable, is to do nothing and to have these issues decided piecemeal by a series of inconclusive decisions handed down by federal courts which are going to be disappointing to everyone. Number 400 BYRON HALE, Chitin Dipnetters Association, testified via teleconference in support of SJR 19. When Alaska became a state in 1959, it was given the right to manage its fish and game by a statehood compact. This compact cannot be legally changed without the consent of both parties, and the Alaska party are the residents of Alaska. We have never voted to agree to give up our rights to manage Alaska's fish and wildlife. The federal government has broken this compact by taking over the management of fish and wildlife on federal lands in Alaska to manage subsistence because they say the state of Alaska is not in compliance because we do not have the rural preference in our constitution. Congress accepted the Alaska Constitution as written in 1959. When Alaska entered into this union it was on equal footing with all other states, and statehood compacts brought in the authority over fish and wildlife in the State of Alaska. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture have threatened to preempt Alaska's management on state and private waters. This is a breach of the compact. ANILCA needs to be amended to make sure that public lands mean only federal public lands and waters. MR. HALE continued, saying that rural preference should also be taken out of ANILCA. There is one thing to remember that seems to fall by the wayside in discussions on Title VIII of ANILCA, that by ending the rural preference the Constitution of Alaska does not stop subsistence use, as the State of Alaska still has subsistence law. With the Federal government out of the general management of fish and wildlife, the State of Alaska could take care of its residents who have a true subsistence need of fish and wildlife. When Governor Tony Knowles dropped the state's lawsuit, Alaska was saddened. He went against Alaska's Constitution, which he has sworn to uphold and the State's right to manage fish and wildlife resources and this resolution is one step on the road to get the state's right back that has been illegally taken from the state of Alaska by the Secretary of the Interior. KELLY JOHNSON testified via teleconference from Soldotna. He stated that when this issue had been brought up in the past, it received overwhelming support by Alaska residents, but has been consistently defeated by our representatives. It is becoming rather interesting. This also happened in Anchorage with HJR 33. That bill received 1,800 signatures but fell through. There is a lot of support for SJR 19 to pass. He wondered if people's voices were going to be heard. LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak, Incorporated, provided a written statement with her testimony: "Kawerak is the regional Native non-profit corporation which provides services to the 20 villages of the Bering Straits Region. "I am speaking in opposition to the CS for SJR 19. While the resolution is presented as a state's rights issue, it is clearly an attempt to weaken the federal government's authority to regulate subsistence during this time of the State's continued non compliance with ANILCA. "The resolution, which calls for Congress to narrowly define public lands in Alaska, does nothing to resolve the dual management system in Alaska. Basically it calls for Congress to turn over fish and game back to the State of Alaska even though the State of Alaska has not upheld federal law. I wonder how Congress will respond to this resolution in light of the Senate's actions to zero out the State Subsistence Division's budget. "Upon passage of this resolution, we will be no closer towards resolving the subsistence issue. Indeed language in the resolution which says `While the federal courts are resolving the federal/state conflicts created by ANILCA,' says to me that the State of Alaska Legislature, through it's continuing refusal to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, has abrogated it's leadership authority to the federal courts. This in a forum which the sponsor's statement graphically highlights is not ruling in the State's interest. "In the resolution, there is language requesting Congress to amend ANILCA to expressly prohibit preemption of state jurisdiction on state and private lands and water unless specifically authorized by the Congress and the State of Alaska. I cannot see the Congress of the United States agreeing to ask the permission of the State of Alaska to manage federal lands and waters in Alaska. "I disagree with the language in the sponsor's statement that Congress did not intend the term 'public lands' to include state or other `non-public' lands. As a citizen of the State of Alaska, I consider state lands to be part of the public domain. There is no doubt in my mind that Congress intended for the rural preference provision on ANILCA to include State lands. There is no doubt in my mind that when the Alaska Legislature passed the subsistence law to comply with ANILCA and when Alaskans voted to uphold the subsistence preference law, that Alaskans understood the subsistence preference law applied to rural state lands. "Subsistence is the backbone of the rural economy. Village sites were selected because of their proximity to the resources on which we continue to depend to this day. This resolution seeks to undermine many communities' very reason for being. "This issue has divided Alaskans long enough. I place the responsibility for this dual management nightmare squarely on the shoulders of the Alaska Legislature. I encourage the members of the House Judiciary Committee to vote this Resolution down. I further encourage the Legislature to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot which would provide for a rural preference for subsistence in times of shortages." Number 540 JOEL BLATCHFORD testified via teleconference. His family moved to Anchorage from Eagle. He harvests belugas, sea otters and seals through subsistence. The only thing he lacks is fish. They say he cannot have subsistence right on fish. There are many tribes in Anchorage who get some subsistence rights, but not for everything. He hoped the legislature would fix this problem so he will be allowed to subsist on fish. A lot of Natives do not have jobs, and to them it is like living in a rural community because they are just as broke as a lot of other people that live in rural communities. There are some that do make a lot of money, but most of them do not. In the Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated (CIRI) Corporation, about 90 percent of us are low income, which kind of makes us rural, and we would like to be able to get our fish. CARL L. ROSIER, Tongass Sportfish and Territorial Sports, testified in support of SJR 19. He has been associated with fish and wildlife issues since 1955, and he remembers well the euphoria of statehood and Alaskans finally coming together and gaining management control of the state's resource base of 1959. It seems ironic that after 36 years of statehood and successful state management of those resources, we are here today embarking upon a strategy to avoid preemption of state management by the federal government, and a return to the abysmal record of the feds in management of those resources. Certainly at statehood, the people of Alaska, our congressional delegation and our legislators came together to develop the fish and wildlife program that has proven to be exceptional. There were truly some wise legislators that developed the basic management practices and policies provided for in Title 16. The boards and advisory committee system, coupled with the time and energy of many residents in the international fisheries and wildlife arenas, the state has developed a management program about which we all should be extremely proud. We have never in the history of the state produced more salmon than we have in recent years. In the early 1970s, we were producing 30 million or so salmon, and in 1994, the harvest was 194 million salmon. As a state we have had a very strong voice in many arenas that affected the fish and game resources and the resident users: IMPFC, the bilaterals that preceded extended jurisdiction, The International Pacific Halibut Commission, The Interstate Compacts, Waterfowl and Marine Mammals, other federal legislation and re- authorization of federal acts; that really will, in my view, be seriously jeopardized if we permit the feds to take over the management of the resources in which we have invested so much over the last 36 years. This resolution is aimed at a state's rights issue, important to all residents of our proud state. Passage is not an action against subsistence, as some would characterize it. The resolution speaks to the fact that our major problem is with the federal law that should never have become law in its present form. Resolution of that issue is down the road, but the Territorial Sportsman and the Tongass Sport Fishing Association strongly support the Legislature taking this initial step to urge Congress, with all speed, to clarify Congressional intent on the lands provisions of ANILCA. This appears to be providing an avenue for the feds, through the federal courts, to assume fish and wildlife management on state and private lands and waters, as well as federal lands. I find it very difficult to understand why any resident of Alaska could fail to support the state's rights provisions of SJR 19. Number 640 HUGH DOOGAN testified via teleconference in support of SJR 19. He was concerned about rural preference. Our state Constitution was written in 1955, passed by the people in the state of Alaska in 1956. There were three ordinances: The state constitution; the Tennessee plan; and to get rid of fish traps in coastal waters. Fish wheels were left out for a reason because fish wheels were to be used for subsistence only. The Natives are having a problem in that they can use fish wheels for subsistence only, and they will have to use that first before they can go to commercial fishing. That way they can get in the food (indisc.), used by man since time (indisc.) fish and game since time, all over the world, man has used it for time and eternity. LES PALMER testified in support of SJR 19. One of the main reasons we wanted statehood was so we could have some control over our lands and waters. Alaskans, and he included our congressional delegation in that word, would have never agreed to ANILCA had we known we were returning the control to the federal government, not by any stretch of the imagination. It is high time our congressmen were told that we would like them to do something with ANILCA, rather than tell us they will not touch it without our consensus. We will never achieve such a consensus as long as one side in this very divisive game holds all the cards. It would be a travesty to amend our constitution to comply with ANILCA when it is so riddled with ambiguities. SJR 19 is not an attempt to undermine subsistence. It is simply an attempt to clear up one of ANILCA's many vague terms, "public lands." If nothing else, SJR 19 puts every legislator's feet to the fire. If they are against it, they are against the very reason why Alaska became a state - to control its own destiny. If they are against SJR 19, they are against all Alaskans. VERN OLSON, Vice President, Bering Strait Native Corporation (BSNC) an Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) Corporation, testified via teleconference, and provided written testimony as well: "We have approximately 6,400 shareholders all around the world with about 4,500 living in the Bering Straits Region. I am testifying in opposition to SJR 19. "Much of the land selected by the ANCSA Corporations was selected in light of their importance to the subsistence lifestyle of Alaska's Native peoples. If dual management continues much longer, I would expect the Native corporations to petition Congress to transfer their lands to federal management to protect our ability to subsistence hunt and fish on our own lands. Under the current state management system, every Alaskan has the right to subsistence fish and hunt on the 44 million acres of Native lands. The only way the corporations can protect their wildlife resources is to: 1) Close Native lands to hunting by non-shareholders; or 2) Petition for the lands to be transferred to federal management. No one wants to take this step, but I think the corporations will, if necessary, to protect their shareholders' ability to subsistence hunt. This would result in the state having even less management authority over lands in Alaska. "If the state legislature continues on its present course of action, I foresee a day when the 500,000 plus subsistence users in Alaska (according to state law) will seek to exercise their priority for taking fish and game on state lands, 100,000,000 acres, and rural Alaskans will exercise the subsistence rural priority on all federal and Native lands. Through its continuing refusal to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, and the dependence on the federal courts to decide these issues, the Alaska Legislature is painting state fish and game management into a smaller and smaller corner." JERRY MCCUNE, President, United Fishermen of Alaska, said they support SJR 19 as a statement of the state's rights and ability to manage fish and game for all of the users in the state. We do not believe SJR 19 challenges the concept of state or the federal subsistence preference, and we support a subsistence preference in this state. SJR 19 states that ANILCA should not preempt state management of fish and game in Alaska. The second one is a statement of the state's right to manage all resources on state lands and navigable waters. The third resolved stresses that ANILCA does not preempt state jurisdiction on state private lands and waters. The federal government should not be able to claim title to resources and land through federal reserve water rights or navigable water rights, which is also done by the Katy John decision now, so we support this. We think this is only a public lands issue, and does not deny anybody of their subsistence preference rights. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said one issue is whether the federal government should preempt state management on federal lands. He asked Mr. McCune if he or his organization disagrees that the federal government in the case where rural preference is involved, has to preempt management on federal lands. MR. MCCUNE answered that is depends on who is in control of navigable waters, first of all. Although the subsistence preference is still there, too, it provides subsistence whether it is on the federal lands or the state lands. You also have a problem with the weak stock management. Are you aware of that? REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN answered that, yes, he understood that. He just wanted the difference between federal and state lands. He asked who is on the committee that runs UFA. Who decided to support this bill? Is it a statewide committee, or is it more from certain areas of the state? MR. MCCUNE explained they have different committees for different issues. We have a subsistence committee that makes recommendations to the full board, then the full board has to vote on whether they are in support or not. It does not just come from one committee, it goes to the full 23 member board. The committees do their work and then make their recommendations and then it is taken up by the full board. Number 850 ELAINA SPRAKER testified via teleconference in support of SJR 19. SJR 19 is even more important now that HJR 33 failed in the House. She explained what the federal subsistence law has done to their community on the Kenai Peninsula. Before rural preference came to the Kenai, we were a prime example of how different cultures, diversity of the resource use, fish and wildlife populations, and (indisc.) without a doubt in our community. Now, because of the unconstitutional discriminatory federal laws, we are seeing community pitted against community, culture against culture. It is hard for me to believe that some of our legislators do not support resolutions such as SJR 19. By not supporting these resolutions, you are also not supporting Alaska's state constitution. More importantly, you are dividing Alaskans into causes and chipping away at the foundation of what our country was founded on - protection of equal rights. Our resource is a lifeline to our community. By not restoring state management to our fish and wildlife resources, this federal law will have significant impacts on the Kenai Peninsula, both socially and economically. State management is the key. It provides priority and health to the fish and wildlife population. TAPE 95-55, SIDE B Number 000 DICK BISHOP, Tanana Valley Sportsman's Association, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. SJR 19 sends a vital message to Congress. Inclusion of the navigable waters or reserved waters in the definition of "federal public lands" is fundamentally wrong, and it must be changed. Reliability of sport and commercial, and even subsistence fisheries depends upon it. Equal footing granted to Alaska at statehood depends upon it. Fisheries management depends upon it. The federal rural priority demands that all of the uses must be delineated before customary and traditional subsistence uses can be regulated. That is bad enough on federal lands and waters, but it is potentially disastrous on fisheries in state waters. Courts have interpreted that priority as meaning no closed seasonal bag limit on the customary and traditional uses, and providing for allowance for commercial sale and substantial value of the resources taken out of the subsistence priority. MR. BISHOP said there are substantive reasons that this exclusion of navigable waters from ANILCA needs to be made. The timing of this vital message is critical. Alaska's Congressional delegation has indicated they plan to hold ANILCA oversight hearings sometime before the fall of 1995. There are numerous problems caused by the vague language of ANILCA regarding fish and game management. He strongly urged passage of SJR 19. HAROLD GILLAM testified via teleconference in support of SJR 19. He does not see this as an attack on federal subsistence. It would solve many of the problems we are now facing with ANILCA. He does not believe that fishery management in state waters by the federal government would be an improvement. If past history is any indication, we will be back at the disaster level. THEO MATHEWS, Executive Director, United Cook Inlet Driftnetters Association (UCIDA), testified via teleconference in support of SJR 19 and submitted written testimony as well: "UCIDA has a long time involvement in state and federal subsistence issues, especially active since the Kenaitze case. We support SJR 19 as a statement of the state's right and ability to best manage fish and game for all users. SJR does NOT challenge the concept of state or federal subsistence preference. It does NOT resolve broader issues of the current state subsistence statute or federal subsistence (ANILCA) on federal lands and non-navigable waters. "In order to resolve these broader issues, urban legislators must recognize that a subsistence preference for all Alaskans is not viable for their constituents. Rural legislators must also recognize that ANILCA is a poorly written federal law which systematically challenges other uses, and therefore, needs technical amendments to arrive at an honorable solution to protect villages. Number 350 EDDIE GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), testified in support of SJR 19. We represent many different interest groups. We have about 12,000 members overall. Most of our points were already raised by other people testifying in this hearing. We view SJR 19 as an essential piece of state's rights legislation, supporting Alaska's ability to manage its wild resources. We feel it is imperative that the legislature act on this in light of the recent Katy John decision at the Ninth Circuit Court level, because of the ambiguity of that decision. We are not sure what the federal government is going to be allowed to do under the federal reserve law rights. A portion of that decision is relevant in regard to managing fisheries on navigable waters. We do not believe this legislation is an attempt to diminish the subsistence priority either in the state law or the federal law. That is a misconception being perpetrated by people that do not want the status quo changed in the federal law. It is our view that the federal law is divisive and will continue to be so unless it is amended. We do not feel that Congress did intend for the federal government to manage on state and private lands, and navigable waters in the state. This resolution will clarify that intention. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS offered a letter of intent that she proposed to go along with this Resolution: "It is not the intent of the legislature for this resolution to be construed as a subsistence resolution." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE had a letter of intent himself, so he objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. The Letter of Intent failed with a five to two. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered an amendment to delete the resolve on page 2, lines 27 through 30. The reason for this amendment is that if you read through them all, the second resolve deals with public land, the third resolve deals with prohibiting preemption of state jurisdiction on state and private lands, and the other two are sort of unrelated. So the first resolve is preempting state management of fish and wildlife, if you take it out, you are basically just taking out the reference to federal land. As it was stated by the sponsor, this is not intended to apply to subsistence. The one point that is clear is that the preference does apply to federal lands. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN objected and a roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted yes. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment 1 failed with a five to two vote. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE offered his letter of intent: "It is not the intent of the legislature for this resolution to be an attack on the federal subsistence priority on federal public lands." Hearing no objection, the letter of intent was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to move the bill as amended with the attached letter of intent. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN objected. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted no. Representatives Bunde, Toohey, Vezey, Green and Porter voted yes. CSSJR 19(RES) passed out of committee with a five to two vote. Number 500 HB 176 - ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEFECTIVE SURVEY REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE, bill sponsor, introduced CSHB 176(CRA). He announced that Tom Knox from the Municipality of Anchorage was available to answer questions via teleconference. This bill allows adjustments to a subdivision when the survey has been determined manifestly defective, where the inside lines of some or all of the individual lots are incorrect. When this occurs no one in the subdivision is afforded a clear title which is necessary in title transfer or mortgage insurance financing. It is true that the property owners can bring title action against lots next to his/hers, it is not a practical solution when multi owner or multi lot owners fall under a single title action, when the outside markers are so far off. HB 176 will allow a party to join all property owners of record after they petition to the court, after a resolution by a local government, and the creation of a special assessment district. One can request a resurvey and a replat of a manifestly defective subdivision, lines and changes in adjacent lots, through a superior court action. The Municipality of Anchorage has requested this legislation to help correct two manifestly defective subdivision surveys, containing 347 lots in the Anchorage area. State block corners are not in the same position as shown on the plats, and in many cases, lot lines are 20 to 30 feet off of their known position on the plat. The person responsible for these surveys has left the state and is no longer available, therefore recourse to the surveyor does not exist. The Municipality has exhausted all other aspects of law to correct this problem and finds that this legislation is the only practical solution to offer relief to property owners in correcting this defect. While the immediate reason for this legislation occurs in Anchorage, the changes would be available statewide for other manifestly defective surveys. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE noted boundary disputes cannot be resolved under existing common law principles. This legislation is crafted to allow for a vote of all the affected land owners to determine if a resurvey of the entire subdivision should occur. A majority must concur to form a special assessment district. The municipality must also pass a resolution supporting this action in the formation of an assessment district, then a plaintiff must file an action in the court of the statement of facts surrounding the survey in the area of question. After the resurvey, the court may then modify, accept, or direct surveyors to modify those plats. The court assesses the special assessment district for the cost of replat, once the court has acted to replat. The subcommittee of the Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors concluded that when a subdivision survey is manifestly defective, it cannot be resolved on a piecemeal basis. Unless all of the landowners participate, it may never be resolved. This subcommittee worked with his office, the Municipality of Anchorage, the Department of Natural Resources, and other entities to try to create a bill that would solve this problem. Number 650 TOM KNOX, Municipal Surveyor, Municipality of Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He has been working with the immediate survey problems for approximately nine years. That is where this bill has come from. It has come from the people, not from the municipality. All we did was assist them. This bill will give property owners a mechanism to resolve the problems within their subdivision. You cannot just go and correct a problem inside the subdivision. Every change affects the whole subdivision, and everyone is affected. One of the primary reasons this bill is necessary is because we could have all aspects and all problems solved at one time. The Municipality of Anchorage supports the bill. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked Mr. Knox if he had seen the Community and Regional Affairs Committee substitute (CS) which was before the Judiciary Committee. MR. KNOX did not, however, he had seen the comments written by George Shroeder from the Mat-Su Valley, concerning this bill. He had several concerns because their properties are totally different than ours. We are more densely populated, and so he did not know how this bill would affect them. He did not know what changes were made in the CS. Number 700 JOHN BENNETT, President, Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors (ASPLS), testified via teleconference, in support of this solution to the problem. He said however, their support is quite weak. As they testified previously before the Community and Regional Affairs Committee hearing. They were wondering whether a legislative solution was even necessary. Several members feel that this bill could curtail the rights of individuals, and maybe there is no provision for it anywhere else, and they may not need this solution. As far as his job as president, he found that their voting membership was basically split six to six as to whether they would support or oppose this bill. Number 740 WILLIAM MENDENHALL, testified via teleconference. He is a registered land surveyor in Fairbanks. He is also a member of the Board of Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors. He was not speaking for them, but only for himself. He urged passage of the CS. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if he knew of any other states that had statutes regarding this issue. They have been unable to locate any, but are sure we have not been the only state to have these types of problems. MR. MENDENHALL answered that he could not comment on that. He was not aware of what other states do. He does know that in the public land system, if some things seems to be grossly defective the contractors can come in and resurvey. This was the case in the late 1800s. A lot of our work in the western states was done by contract, some of which was outright fraudulent, and so there had to be some solution by doing a resurvey that effectively wiped out all of the earlier work. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if he was referring to corrections in the rectangular survey system. MR. MENDENHALL answered that yes, he was. He was not aware of any gross errors in Alaska, but he was referring to some in Kansas. He knew of some portions of land where boundaries were 50, 60, 70, or 80 feet different from one another. He considers that a grossly defective error. He felt that those types of instances were what this legislation was intended to resolve. Number 790 REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked if Mr. Mendenhall if 50 feet was the definition of gross error. MR. MENDENHALL said one principle that is used, is that whatever exists on the ground, once it is monumented, and once that plat is approved, that becomes the official position even if it is somewhat out of the normal specifications. So once the monument is platted, and the plat is approved, that is what it is. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked what would be the effect of the bill without the change in the Civil Rules Procedure. ANNE CARPENETI, Committee Aide, House Judiciary Committee, answered that the reason this was noted in the bill is because it extends the time for service of the answer by the people who have the right to answer. It also provides for a different type of notice service process, than the rules generally provide. TAPE 95-56, SIDE A Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN did not understand why it is critical to change the Civil Rules. What would happen if we just left that out? MS. CARPENETI said that by providing for a longer period for service of the answer, you are doing something outside the Civil Rules. It would be possible to amend this Section 3 by saying, "A (indisc.) has the effect of amending the Civil Rules by allowing a longer period of time." It might be clearer that way. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN was not certain that would be necessary. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 176(CRA) out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes as attached. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 100 HB 242 - UNIFORM INTERSTATE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT The next order of business was CSHB 242(HES) GLENDA STRAUBE, Director, Child Support Enforcement Agency (CSEA), Department of Revenue, explained HB 242. In child support enforcement, the most difficult cases for us to collect on are interstate cases, and that is 44 percent of our caseload. Most noncustodial parents know that crossing state lines is the best way to avoid paying child support. This would provide a tremendous tool for us to collect in those cases. The Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) has been passed already by at least 21 states, and is being considered in many other states right now. It is also part of, as is HB 244, part of the personal responsibility act, which passed out of the House in Congress recently. This bill would eliminate the multiple order system existing under current law. Right now, we are faced with people who come to us, where one party has got a California order, another has an order from Mississippi, then they are in Alaska, and it is really a mess. It really is up to our discretion to choose, and we do not like to be in that position. Better, that across the country there be only one jurisdiction, what they call continuing conclusive jurisdiction, and that is where the order comes from. That is what the modifications say that is where all the work is done. This bill would take care of that problem. MS. STRAUBE stated the bill also makes their job easier administratively. With this act, we would be using the same federal forms in all interstate cases. This will also provide a long arm jurisdiction to reach out of state obligors and would allow direct income withholding in other states. Currently, you hear complaints from custodial parents, and most of these complaints come from custodial parents in situations where the obligor is out of the state. We have to go through the long process in the other state, getting on their long list, and maybe we are not their priority. Our children are not their priority. It takes a very long time before they will go out to the employer, and withhold some money for the children. This would allow direct income withholding. MS. STRAUBE mentioned that there are no additional operating expenditures for this bill. However, we expect that in the first full year we will be able to collect $340,000, per year, just to reimburse the state's share of Aide to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). We usually do about double that amount, $680,000, per year, that goes directly to the children. We are talking about a lot more collections, and a lot more to reimburse AFDC, and a lot more money directly to the children who deserve this money and support. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why we should have the change in Section 6 of the Health, Education and Social Services Committee substitute CS, which provides an exemption for this law from Civil Rule Procedures 79 and 82. Why should we, under this area of law, give people different consideration in court in terms of getting their attorney fees if they are the prevailing party, as opposed to other areas of law where we have Rule 79 or Rule 82? MARILYN MAY, Assistant Attorney General, Collections and Support Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, answered his question. On page 13 of the CS, line 15, it says that a petitioner who files a petition under this chapter does not have to pay a filing fee or other costs. A petitioner could be either an obligor or an obligee. It is the person who is seeking some kind of relief, and that may be someone who is seeking to have a support order either adopted or enforced, or modified either up or down. That could be either an obligor or an obligee, whoever files the petition, under (a). Under (b) it states that if an obligee prevails, those costs and fees may be assessed against the obligor. She assumed that what Representative Vezey was referring to about the difference in the way it is treated is that it also says the tribunal may not assess fees, costs, or expense against the obligee or the Child Support Agency, except as required by other law, or court rule. She did not know specifically why the uniform law commissioners originally adopted that concept, but it was done without consideration of the way attorney's fees are assessed in Alaska. In Alaska, there are other laws or court rules that provide for the assessment of costs and fees in favor of the prevailing party, so in fact, this language would probably not change the way Alaska already does it. In other states, it would be true that a prevailing obligor could not get costs and fees against an obligee or the CSEA, but since in Alaska there is other laws or court rules that allows for that, then most likely they could get costs and fees. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY said Section 6 provides for a tribunal. He said he was not sure how they were defining tribunal. MS. MAY answered that a tribunal is either a court or the agency. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked how many states have adopted the provision allowing that they may not require a filing fee. MS. MAY answered that 23 states have so far. Number 370 STUART HALL, Ombudsman, spoke in strong support of HB 242 as well as its companion measurement in the Senate. Enactment of UIFSA would assist many who have sought the Ombudsman's help with the Alaska Child Support Enforcement Division. In fiscal year 1994 and 1995, the Ombudsman has assisted almost 1,700 individuals with complaints against the CSED, many of whom are custodial parents who depend upon the division to collect child support from an out of state parent. Ms. Straube said that 44 percent of her caseload reflected out of state or interstate ramifications. He suspected it was significantly more than that because a large number of those complaints that we see and hear from are from parents concerned about the slow pace of case establishment on child support collection. That occurs most typically in situations where there is not a support order. Under the present system where you have multiple support orders, and where you cannot take an Alaska order and go directly to the employer to collect that support, it is a very time consuming process under the existing uniform act, known as the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Child Support. We think that enactment of UIFSA would streamline the establishment process and in turn, prompt speedier collections. It will allow CSED to deal directly with employers in other states. Those are two very important changes in the law that we think will benefit Alaska's kids. MR. HALL explained that he felt the reason for the change in the Civil Rules is that the Alaska Constitution, which gives the courts the right to establish the Rules of Procedure, does not preclude the legislature from doing so, but says if they do amend or change a rule of court, they have to identify, in the Title, and you get the kind of boiler plate language that appears in Section 6 of the bill. Art Peterson, who was for some years a revisor of statutes, is not here. He is one of the commissioners on Uniform State Law. He could answer that question since he wrote the drafting manual for legislation, and also for Administrative Regulations. CHAIRMAN PORTER mentioned that Art Peterson, who had to leave, is in support of this legislation. REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY proposed an amendment that would delete Section 6. CHAIRMAN PORTER objected for discussion. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked if someone from the agency would like to speak to this amendment. Number 500 MS. MAY noted that the few very minor changes that have been made thus far from the language of the Uniform Act have been run by the Uniform commissioners and they were approved. The purpose of having a Uniform Act is to make things nearly the same in every state as possible. She did not know whether the amendment would be a change that is so substantive that the uniform law commissioners would now consider this not to be complying with the uniform law, but that would be the concern. The change is so minor to what the current rule says under Alaska Rule 79 and Rule 82, she did not think taking this would make a very substantial difference in what Alaska's current law is. It does in other states. In other states that do not have Rule 79 and Rule 82, this is a really big deal because it gives one party a right to attorney's fees, but in our state both sides have this possible right to attorney's fees. It does operate to amend Rules 79 and 82, but it is a very minor change that the court already has the authority to do. She did not think it is a very good idea, because it then conflicts with the uniform law. She does not remember if Ms. Straube testified to this but the U.S. Congress is looking at mandating the adoption of UIFSA by all states as part of the welfare reform movement. Again, the problem is how far away you can drift from the uniform law and still meet those requirements and be able to get the federal funding. CHAIRMAN PORTER asked for a roll call vote. Representatives Vezey and Toohey voted yes. Representatives Finkelstein, Davis, Bunde, Green and Porter voted no. Amendment 1 failed on a vote of five to two. CHAIRMAN PORTER moved his amendment, which would replace the language that was inadvertently left out of the CS which was in the original version. This is on page 1, and would address the change in the definition of the act. Hearing no objection, the amendment was adopted. REPRESENTATIVE TOOHEY made a motion to move CSHB 242(HES) out of committee with individual recommendations. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. Number 570 HB 244 - PATERNITY; CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT MS. STRAUBE discussed HB 244. This is about the administrative establishment of paternity. New federal guidelines require that 75 percent of all child support orders be established within six months of us getting the information. Before we can establish an order, we must establish paternity. What that really means is that we have to establish paternity and establish the order within six months. Because of court backlogs, it often takes them six months just to get to the paper work and to rubber stamp what we have done. Obviously we can shave off six months of the process if we were able to administratively establish paternity. We would use the same standards as the court does now, and the same standards we use to even send the cases to the court. We would provide full due process to those affected by the informal conference, and judicial review if they so desire. Basically, again, we are just faced with a really horrible dilemma of trying to live within federal time lines and the process is taking way too long. We believe for yearly general fund investment of approximately $73,000 we can bring in $850,000 per year in our share of AFDC reimbursements to the state. As far as the fiscal note goes, as usual, most of the costs of our programs are paid for by the federal government. They have also been asking for states to take a look at finding any administrative process that will speed up everything, as opposed to having the courts do it. MS. STRAUBE explained that right now, if a child is born in wedlock, and you have the husband and wife both say that the child is not the husband's, and you have a third party who says the child is theirs, and they all three agree, they have to go to court right now, they cannot do affidavits to change paternity. This would allow us to accept the affidavits of all three parties involved as to who the real father is. This happens often enough to be a big deal. MS. MAY added that Alaska is one of the states which has an administrative process for some portions of the child support enforcement system. It is working quite well. When this has been discussed with obligor groups, they are in favor of having administrative establishment of paternity so that they do not have to go through the court system. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS made amotion to move HB 244 out of committee with individual recommendations and zero fiscal notes. Hearing no objection, it was so ordered. ADJOURNMENT The House Judiciary Committee meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.