Legislature(1995 - 1996)

05/01/1995 01:25 PM JUD

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= 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           
                 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             
 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                                                               
 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                                                               
 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                     
 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            
 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               
 "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            
 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              
 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               
 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             
 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               
 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             
 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               
 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                
 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               
 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              
 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                  
 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           
 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             
 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.                                                 
 The House Judiciary Committee meeting adjourned at 3:30 p.m.                  

Document Name Date/Time Subjects