Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/22/1995 01:45 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE JUDICIARY STANDING COMMITTEE
March 22, 1995
1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Brian Porter, Chairman
Representative Joe Green, Vice Chairman
Representative Con Bunde
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative Al Vezey
Representative Cynthia Toohey
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 33: Requesting the Congress to amend Title VIII of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 57: "An Act relating to driver's licensing; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HB 219: "An Act authorizing special medical parole for
terminally ill prisoners."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
ART NELSON, Fisheries Specialist
Kawarek, Incorporated
Nome, AK 99762
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 33
JONAH POKIENNA, Chairman
Walrus Commission
Nome, AK 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4728
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 33
ROY ASHENFELTER
Nome, AK 99862
Telephone: Not Available
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 33
JULIE KITKA, President
Alaska Federation of Natives
1577 C Street
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 274-3611
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HJR 33
STAN SMITH
4352 Rendezvous Circle
Anchorage, AK 99504
Telephone: (907) 337-1266
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 33
GEORGE MOERLEIN
7300 O'Malley
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-3784
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 33
WARREN OLSON, plaintiff
McDowell II v. U.S. Government
5961 North Circle
Anchorage, AK 99516
Telephone: (907) 346-1811
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 33
JACK HENDRICKSON, President
Alaska Waterfowl Association
3105 A Lakeshore, No. 102
Anchorage, AK 99517
Telephone: (907) 243-3235
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 33
KEN JACOBUS, Attorney
425 G Street, No. 760
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-3338
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HJR 33
KEN JOHNS, Board Member
Copper River Native Association
Drawer H
Copper Center, AK 99573
Telephone: (907) 822-5241
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 33
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR.
Grand Camp Alaska Native Brotherhood
P.O. Box 21713
Juneau, AK 99802
Telephone: (907) 586-2061
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 33
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General
Department of Law
P. O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465- 2133
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 33
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 418
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 33
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant
Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 120
Juneau, AK 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4931
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 57
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Public Safety
P.O. Box 20020
Juneau, AK 99811-0020
Telephone: (907) 465-4361
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 57
MARK JOHNSON, Chief
Emergency Medical Services Section
Department of Health and Social Services
P.O. Box 110616
Juneau, AK 99811-0616
Telephone: (907) 465-3027
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in favor of HB 57
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 33
SHORT TITLE: AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK,Toohey,James,Bunde
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 529 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 529 (H) JUDICIARY
03/06/95 623 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/17/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
03/17/95 (H) MINUTE(JUD)
03/22/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 57
SHORT TITLE: LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) GREEN,Bunde
JRN-DATE
01/06/95 35 (H) PREFILE RELEASED
01/16/95 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 35 (H) TRANSPORTATION,JUDICIARY,FINANCE
01/19/95 90 (H) COSPONSOR(S): BUNDE
03/08/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/08/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/10/95 697 (H) TRA RPT 2DP 3NR
03/10/95 697 (H) DP: JAMES, WILLIAMS
03/10/95 697 (H) NR: MASEK, SANDERS, G.DAVIS
03/10/95 697 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DPS)
03/22/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
BILL: HB 219
SHORT TITLE: PAROLE OF TERMINALLY ILL PRISONERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER,Foster
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/01/95 531 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/01/95 531 (H) JUDICIARY, FINANCE
03/22/95 (H) JUD AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 120
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-34, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Judiciary Standing Committee was called to order at 1:45
p.m. on Wednesday, March 22, 1995. All members were present. The
meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage, Fairbanks, Dillingham,
Glennallen, Kotzebue, Nome, Sitka, Bethel, and Kenai. CHAIRMAN
BRIAN PORTER stated that the following bills would be heard: HJR
33, HB 57, and HB 219. CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that he would be
leaving for a few minutes to introduce a bill in another committee,
so VICE CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN would facilitate the meeting during that
portion of the meeting. He began taking testimony on HJR 33.
HJR 33 - AMENDMENTS TO ANILCA
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that the committee would take public
testimony on HJR 33 only from those who had been available to
testify on the previous Friday, who he had named, and also someone
from the Governor's Office.
The following people were unable to testify and were told their
written testimony would be attached for the record:
Those in support include:
W.E. BARBER, Fairbanks
LORREN R. SCHEEL, Fairbanks
KATHLEEN DALTON, Fairbanks
RICHARD H. BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council,
Inc., Fairbanks
BILL J. ALLEN, Fairbanks
NANCY J. SHIKORA, Fairbanks
GREG MACHACCK, North Pole
DENNIS O. PETRE, Salcha
KEITH C. KOONTZ, Fairbanks
VELMA KOONTZ, Fairbanks
CERENE J. PAUL, North Pole
KATHERINE RICHARDSON, Fairbanks
JAMES E. MOODY, Fairbanks
HARRY JENKINS, Fairbanks
BYRON W. HALEY, President, Chitina Dipnetters' Association,
Fairbanks
LAURA JANE WINEINGER, Chickaloon
DAVID M. CARRY, Wasilla
HARRY E. BYLYM, Wasilla
MARRELLA WILBUR, Wasilla
SANDRA K. WRIGHT, Wasilla
CARL W. WILBUR, Wasilla
ROBERT H. PARKERSON, Palmer
GABE MILLER
BONNIE I. WILLIAMS, Fairbanks
THOMAS N. SCARBOROUGH, Fairbanks
JEANNE EVERHART, Fairbanks
PHIL SUMMERS, Fairbanks
GARY GUNDERSEN, Fairbanks
ROBERT E. HILL, North Pole
ROBERT L. BERG, Fairbanks
DOUG EVERHART, Fairbanks
HEIDI K. JOHN, Fairbanks
MARK A. ANDERSON, Fairbanks
ALASEN S. LINCK, Fairbanks
GARY JOHN NUSSBAUMER, Fairbanks
DARYL SOBEK
JERRY L. FREEL, Fairbanks
EDDIE GRASSER, Alaska Outdoor Council, Juneau
WILLIAM BREWER, JR., Fairbanks
DALE BONDURANT, Soldotna
ANDY WARWICK
ROBERT FOX, Fairbanks
RICK SCHIKORA, Fairbanks
DAN FAILONI, Fairbanks
RUSS AND DONNA REDICK, Anchorage
RENEE D. LOZIER, Fairbanks
RICHARD AND CAROL SWISHER, Fairbanks
TOM RAMSEY, Fairbanks
TED MORPHIS, Fairbanks
DAVID M. JOHNSON, Anchorage
CHRISTOPHER BATIN, Editorial Director, Batin Communications,
Fairbanks
WAYNE L. CLARK
TRACY MORPHIS, Fairbanks
LARRY RIVERS, Talkeetna
MIKE SHIELDS, Fairbanks
MARY BISHOP, Fairbanks
STEVEN D. DANIELS, Fairbanks
JOHN W. HENDRICKSON, Anchorage
KIM M. PENDLETON, Anchorage
Those persons who submitted written testimony against HJR 33 are as
follows:
CLARE SWAN, Tribal Chairperson, Kenaitze Indian Tribe, IRA,
Kenai
COMMISSIONER FRANK RUE, Department of Fish and Game
RAYMOND S. NIELSEN, JR., Sitka Tribe of Alaska
MAX AHGEAK, President, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation, Barrow
HARRY K. BROWER, Barrow
JIMMY P. ERICK, Venetie
CLYDE WILLIAMS, Fort Yukon
KEVIN B. CHARLES, Minto
STEVE GINNIS, Native Village of Fort Yukon
CHUGACHMIUT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
LUCY D. ASHENFELTER, White Mountain
Number 070
ART NELSON, Fisheries Specialist, Kawarek, Incorporated, testified
via teleconference. He said the rural conference, as outlined in
ANILCA is only intended to apply in times of resource shortages.
In an ideal world there would be no shortage of resources, and the
rural conference would not even need to be applied. But shortages
do occur, and it is during those times of shortage that the rural
residents of the state of Alaska need to be given our highest
priority. It is those people who may not have access to a car or
to a Fred Meyer to get food at a reasonable cost. It is those
people who need to get a moose or a salmon to feed their family
when there may not be enough moose or salmon for everyone to share.
This legislature needs to stop trying to undermine ANILCA. Trust
the voters of this state and let them decide.
JONAH POKIENNA, Chairman, Walrus Commission, testified via
teleconference, saying they strongly opposed HJR 33.
Number 145
ROY ASHENFELTER testified via teleconference. He is opposed to HJR
33. In regards to the questions at the last meeting about welfare,
he felt that people who qualify for welfare should not be penalized
in any way for choosing the subsistence lifestyle. You have to
remember that people living out in the villages have very limited
resources. The resources that they do depend on are from the land
and from the water. People who live in urban areas have access to
other places such as "Carrs" and malls, or whatever. We need to
have the people of the state of Alaska vote on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE commented on the urban welfare question.
People call subsistence "work" in the rural areas, yet they can
still qualify for welfare; yet, people in urban areas who go to
work no longer qualify for welfare, nor would they qualify for
subsistence under ANILCA.
Number 195
JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives, testified via
teleconference. She urged the committee to vote down this
Resolution. HJR 33 is an exercise in public relations, not policy
making. HJR 33 will not help return the management of fish and
game to state government. We cannot take the time and use our
positions to arbitrate between Alaskans on issues such as
subsistence. With the federal government managing the fish and
game, the Native people for the first time have seen what a fair
regulatory system looks like. Natives are suspicious of any return
to state management. The rural subsistence preference is going to
remain a federal law. The real issue is survival of the Native
culture in the 21st century. She urged the legislature to
vote against this.
Number 270
STAN SMITH testified via teleconference. He expressed deep
gratitude to Representative Beverly Masek for taking this issue on.
He totally disagreed with Ms. Kitka. This is a state rights issue,
it is not a subsistence issue. The state does have the
responsibility and authority to manage fish and game in Alaska.
HJR 33 should be able to get that message across. He did not think
that the subsistence question was a life or death issue for rural
Alaska. What the state needs to look at is bringing the villages
into the 21st century, instead of trying to remain in the 17th or
18th century. He urged the immediate passage of this Resolution.
Number 300
GEORGE MOERLEIN, a 34 year Alaska resident, testified via
teleconference. He applauded the efforts of the current
legislature to get the federal government to return to Alaska what
was promised us in the Statehood Act. The current federal law has
been proven contrary to our own Constitution. HJR 33 needs to be
passed, with the amendment requesting that Title VIII of ANILCA be
repealed in its entirety. Only then will Alaska be able to join
the other 50 states in the ability to manage our fish and wildlife
with no strings attached.
Number 345
WARREN OLSON, a 37 year Alaska resident and plaintiff in McDowell
II v. the U. S. Government testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said ANILCA violates Article 1, Section 1, of the
Alaska Constitution. It also violates Article 8, Sections 3, 15,
and 17 of the Constitution. We are the only state in the Union
that has an article in regards to natural resources for sharing
among its residents as stipulated in the State Constitution.
Resources should be shared among all of Alaska's citizens. ANILCA
causes divisiveness. He encouraged equal opportunity for all
Alaskans.
JACK HENDRICKSON, President, Alaska Waterfowl Association, and
Secretary, Alaska Chapter of Waterfowl, U.S.A, testified via
teleconference. ANILCA is the most divisive legislation in Alaska.
It purports to divide Alaskans into rural against urban. A lot of
the subsistence rights are allocated by zip code. ANILCA was not
brought about by some congressman, it was lobbied by the Alaska
Federation of Natives. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Alaska Native
Settlement Claims Act (ANSCA), the federal government gave Native
corporations $462 million and 44 million acres of land. That is
larger than Wisconsin. The state of Alaska paid $500 million to
the Native Settlement Act. Now, in a more clearly disguised
attempt, Section 8 gives the rural residents greater hunting and
fishing rights than they had. Section 8 of ANILCA is racially
discriminatory, it is poor fish and game management, and it
violates the state of Alaska's right to manage fish and game
resources. No other state has been so treated by the federal
government. It is time that Sections 8.01 - 8.16 of ANILCA be
repealed.
KEN JACOBUS, Attorney, representing Sam McDowell, testified via
teleconference. The state should have control of all fish and game
in Alaska. Some people say the subsistence issue is white versus
Native, or urban versus rural. Unfortunately, it is much more
divisive than that. Subsistence is quickly becoming Native versus
Native, village versus village. Because of subsistence, chum
salmon are not making it upstream. We need to amend ANILCA and get
our statehood back. He supported HJR 33.
KEN JOHNS, Board member, Copper River Native Association (CRNA),
testified via teleconference. He spoke against HJR 33. His region
would probably be the most impacted area in Alaska by this
Resolution. We are very fortunate to have an abundance of moose
and caribou at times. The current system under state management is
not working for our area. There are too many people taking
wildlife resources. The eight Native villages belonging to CRNA
have gone to the Game Board regarding hunting. Two years ago there
were approximately 1200 moose taken out by our unit which we hunt
with. Our eight villages accounted for only seven moose. Most of
our villages were satisfied with how the system was working. The
rural preference allowed us to hunt five days before the urban
people came out, and also during an extended period of time
afterwards. We used to have a lot better system than we do now.
Everybody is eligible for subsistence and we are still competing.
He is totally against amending ANILCA in any way.
Number 630
ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., represented the Alaska Native Brotherhood
(ANB), encompassing 15 - 25 villages in Southeast Alaska. The ANB
opposes HJR 33. Title VIII of ANILCA protects the subsistence
lifestyle and the subsistence culture of Alaska's Native tribes.
The harvesting done by subsistence users is approximately 4
percent. We fail to understand all of the fear over rural
preference. Such preferences only take effect when a resource
population declines. It is our tribal obligation to pass on to our
children and grandchildren the knowledge of our cultural existence.
HJR 33 sends the message that the state of Alaska intends to manage
the land and waters regardless of the culture of Alaska Native
tribes. Our people are protected by the Constitution of the United
States, and we are also protected under the Treaty Session of the
Alaska Purses from Russia, where it states that we shall not be
usurped. Hopefully, one day, the urban and rural communities will
get together and, as Senator Ted Stevens has said, we should all
come into one room, lock the door and throw away the key until we
compromise.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. McKinley if he felt there was no
shortage of resources, such as moose.
MR. MCKINLEY answered that he does not see anything wrong with
ANILCA and the resources are plentiful. Individuals in the state
of Alaska are entitled to those resources. However, if the
resources become depleted, the rural preference goes into effect.
As long as we have good management, there is no problem. When the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act was actually forced upon us,
the oil companies actually pushed us right into the corner because
they wanted to get the oil right away. We actually had aboriginal
title to the state of Alaska. As a result, we only got about three
dollars for an acre, which is not very much. We got the short end
of it at the end.
BRUCE BOTELHO, Attorney General, Department of Law, disagreed with
HJR 33, but appreciated the fact that it is a vehicle for dialogue
on one of the most important issues the state has yet to adequately
resolve. In the State of the State Address, Governor Knowles
reiterated two points. First of all, he indicated that there were
two principles that should govern the Resolution, from his
perspective, and from this Administration's perspective. One, that
we work to return fish and game management to the state's control.
Second, that we respect the priority for rural subsistence uses.
MR. BOTELHO stated the second point Governor Knowles made was that
any solution had to be an Alaskan based solution, which is the
result of a genuine dialogue between Alaskans. He felt it was fair
to say that Governor Knowles was very heartened by the fact that
our Congressional Delegation delivered substantially the same
message to Alaskans during the course of this session. It is quite
clear that the resolution may involve a constitutional amendment,
perhaps amendments to ANILCA, revisions to the structure of the
state Fish and Game Board. ANILCA clearly articulates purposes
that are rational, that are not arbitrary, and that this
Administration subscribes to. People may disagree with the
rationale provided, but to claim that they are arbitrary falls
short.
MR. BOTELHO continued, saying Congress made three specific
findings. A continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses
by rural residents of Alaska include both Natives and non-Natives
on the public lands. Allowing Alaska Natives on Native lands is
essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural
existence, and to non-Native physical, economic, traditional, and
social existence. The situation in Alaska is unique, in that in
most cases, no practical alternative means are available to replace
the food supplies and other items gathered from fish and wildlife
which supply rural residents, dependent on subsistence uses.
Finally, Congress found continuation of the opportunity for
subsistence uses of resources on public and other lands in Alaska
is threatened by the increasing population of Alaska, with
resultant pressure on subsistence resources suddenly claiming the
populations of some wildlife species which are crucial subsistence
resources, by increased accessibility of remote areas containing
subsistence resources, and by taking fish and wildlife in a manner
inconsistent with recognized principles of fish and wildlife
management. HJR 33 also asserts in its preamble that ANILCA is
intended to allocate resources without individual regard to a
resident's traditional or historic use or need to engage in
subsistence use. In some respects that Resolution is correct, but
in a larger sense, it is not. ANILCA does not purport to limit or
bar subsistence use by any resident, except when the resources are
so limited that choices must be made between those who are
subsistence users. Here there is no doubt, ANILCA has clearly
sided with rural users, and the need to protect and defend the
rural subsistence interests.
MR. BOTELHO's third comment notes that the allocations are contrary
to the principles of common use of and equal access to fish and
wildlife that are inherent in the Constitution of the State of
Alaska. In this respect, the Resolution perhaps misses the mark.
The Constitution gives the power to the people to determine the
amount of authority and the manner in which that authority would be
exercised by government. It is for that reason that Governor
Knowles has urged that we look to the people of Alaska to have the
opportunity to vote on the constitutional amendment. They are the
source of power, that is the inheritance. There is nothing
inherent in the principles of common use and equal access. The
people should have a right to choose. HJR 33 lays upon the
Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior the responsibility for
requiring the state to amend its Constitution, and to note that
Congress has provided or directed that if the state wishes to
manage its fish and game, it is to be responsible for bringing the
state's laws into consistency with federal law. He noted that to
his knowledge, Congress has taken no action to modify the efforts
of its predecessor. He made it clear that the Administration does
not support HJR 33. It does not purport to protect the rural
subsistence priority, and they believe that it contains several
factual legal inaccuracies. But most importantly, we do not see it
as a vehicle in itself to unite Alaskans in finding a solution. He
assured that nothing he has said was meant in any way to denigrate
their view of the sponsor's motives, their integrity, or their
desire to find a genuine solution. He sees this as a vehicle for
dialogue. This Resolution puts the topic on the table. He looked
forward to participating with the sponsors of the Resolution,
Representatives Masek and Toohey, in trying to fashion some
opportunity for resolution and reconciliation among Alaskans on
subsistence.
REPRESENTATIVE BETTYE DAVIS asked Mr. Botelho to speak on Title 7,
Sections 3 and 17, which was referenced in the opposition coming
from the Department of Fish and Game. She wanted to know how this
would apply. They interpreted it to say it should be noted that
the Constitution says there is a provision for common use and equal
application of the law. According to this, there is something in
the Constitution saying there are times when you do not have to
provide equal access, according to the State Constitution.
MR. BOTELHO said Representative Davis was referring to an Article
in the State Constitution which does provide for the common use.
There have, at times, been challenges to that equal access. The
one most notably so, was the challenge to the state's ability to
impose limited entry. The state does, in fact, limit use in a
variety of ways, to the resources of the state. Those have
generally been held as constitutional. Nevertheless, the Supreme
Court, with respect to subsistence, has specifically struck down
legislation originally enacted by this body in 1986, that would
have provided for a specific rural subsistence priority, and that
is really what has triggered where we are today, which is trying to
reconcile federal and state law, so that the state would be able to
manage to the maximum extent possible its fish and wildlife
resources.
TAPE 95-34, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked Mr. Botelho if there were any appeals,
reviews, or other approaches that could be made to the Supreme
Court regarding their decision that seems to be driving this whole
issue.
MR. BOTELHO answered that there are perhaps vehicles to have the
issue re-examined, but in the courts, the decision was a four to
one vote. He frankly doubted that under the present circumstances,
given not only this matter, but generally, the courts would rarely
reverse their decision unless there had been some fundamental
change in the law itself. It is very unusual, and he felt on this
one, the court struggled a great deal before it reached its
conclusion, and it would be very unlikely that trying to pursue
another case would lead to a different result.
Number 040
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN asked what Mr. Botelho's opinion was on
the fact that the federal government does not have the right to
dictate to states that which has not been specifically granted in
the Constitution.
MR. BOTELHO said there is a very strong movement originating in the
West, resounding throughout the country, and the actions by the
electorate in November are a reflection of that. At the same time,
the very fact that the steps being taken are largely through
congressional actions, rather than through litigation, is tacit
recognition that much of what has been done, Congress probably had
the power to do, and people are exercising their right to revisit
Congress. He is heartened by the fact that the solution is not
being sought primarily through court action, but through direct
legislative action to reduce the kinds of impacts on this state and
others. It is quite clear that Congress would not take any action
in this area, unless our Congressional Delegation were of one mind.
It is the kind of intrusion into legislative prerogatives that
Congress has generally, but not always, been sensitive to. ANWR is
a good example where they have not been sensitive to our desires,
but absent a support from our Congressional Delegation, he does not
believe that Congress would expend any resources to make the kinds
of changes that this Resolution calls for. The delegation itself
has made it quite clear that it will not entertain sponsoring such
changes, unless and until there is some sort of Alaska consensus.
That brings us back to the dilemma we are in today.
Number 115
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN said this brings to mind the
question of whether or not the federal government has the right to
manage wildlife, and to what degree? The case came up years ago in
New Mexico regarding the Wild Horses and Burros Act, where the
state felt the federal government was imposing on their right to
manage wildlife. It was determined that not only does the federal
government have the right to manage fish and game on federal lands,
but also on state and private lands, in some cases. It happens all
the time in such cases as the Endangered Species Act. People may
not agree with the policy, but it has been upheld by the courts as
being constitutional.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked Mr. Botelho what vehicle he would
recommend for resolving this issue.
MR. BOTELHO answered that a constitutional amendment would be one
part of the puzzle. What may be required is to see major interest
groups entering into a dialogue and reaching an agreement amongst
themselves. There are a lot of Alaskans who do not pay a lot of
attention to this issue. It will be looking to the leadership of
groups such as the AFN, various commercial and sport fishing
groups, and those concerned about the impacts on economic
development this impasse may have on our inability to engage in
economic development. Hopefully they will force the issue and
bring some sort of consensus that people are prepared to live with,
and both the Administration and the legislature as a whole can buy
into.
CHAIRMAN PORTER concluded the public testimony on HJR 33, and
announced that many faxes of public testimony were coming in which
would be included for the record.
Number 225
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, Sponsor of HJR 33, said this has been
a pretty upbeat time for all of us, hearing the different sides of
this issue. That is part of our democracy. Everyone has a right
to their opinions and they must be respected. This is just a
Resolution which has no fiscal impact, and because it does not have
the force of law, however, it is an urgent message for
congressional relief from an unconstitutional federal law. Why is
it drawing so much attention? And why is it being used to
resurrect the subsistence cry from rural Alaska? We, as
legislators, must not be drawn into the emotional trap of
eliminating subsistence. To the contrary, this will begin the
process to really resolve the issue. First, we ask for relief, and
if Congress will assist us, we will be free to implement a
subsistence law based on individual criteria, not classes of
people. Each Alaskan, no matter where they live, under state law
may apply for a preference on an individual basis. Under ANILCA,
they cannot. Under ANILCA a federal employee in Bethel who makes
$150,000 per year, automatically has a preference, while an Alaska
Native resident from Palmer, who makes less than $10,000 per year,
cannot. This is why ANILCA must be amended. Villages are being
pitted against villages, neighbors against neighbors. Actually, in
her case, from hearing the testimony last week, it is her brother
against her, his sister. Her brother, under federal law, has an
automatic preference based solely on where he lives. Her son has
no preference because of where they live. How can we call this
nonsense under ANILCA protecting a culture? Cultures know no lines
on maps, and are not to be identified by zip codes. To survive,
cultures, societies and individuals must be able to be free to
practice their lifestyle no matter where they live. Her point here
is to show what the federal law is doing to people, communities and
families. Our state law does not do this and it can be improved so
that all Alaskans can be treated fairly, no matter where they live
or how they live. She urged the committee's support for and
passage of this Resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HJR 33 from the
committee with individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS objected and a roll call vote was taken.
Representatives Toohey, Bunde, Green and Porter voted yes.
Representatives Finkelstein and Davis voted no. Representative
Vezey had stepped out. HJR 33 moved out of committee with a four
to two vote.
HB 57 - LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVERS
Number 330
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN, bill sponsor, announced that his staff
member, Jeff Logan, would describe the bill. Juanita Hensley from
the Division of Motor Vehicles would also add important testimony
as well as answer questions. HB 57 attempts to cut down on the
carnage created by skillful, albeit perhaps immature drivers in the
state who have been granted the privilege of driving on our
highways. Quite often they are not to the point of maturity that
is required to manipulate a machine of such potential killing
capacity. This would provide for a graduated license that
continually reminds the teen-ager of his responsibility when
driving an automobile.
JEFF LOGAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Joe Green,
introduced HB 57. HB 57 provides three steps to graduated
licensing: An instructional permit, a provisional license, and a
regular license. The point is to phase a young driver into
"driverhood," if you will. Most bicyclists do not start out on a
bicycle, they start out on a trike, from which they move on to a
bicycle with training wheels, and then on to "bikeriderhood," and
then gradually into full control. The sponsor would like to apply
the same principle to learning how to drive a car. Under terms of
the bill, if the person is 21 years of age, they must hold a
provisional license for one year, before being issued an
unrestricted license; so 16-, 17-, 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds must
first hold a provisional license before they get an unrestricted
license. If a person is under 18 years of age, they must also
first hold a learner's permit for at least six months. The
learner's permit requirement does not exist if you are over 18.
There are two key differences between a regular driver's license
and a provisional or restricted, or graduated license. The first
difference is the holder of a provisional driver's license is
prohibited from driving between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., with the
exception of driving to and from work in a direct route. It is
essentially a curfew for those young drivers. Regular drivers can
accumulate 12 points in 12 months before their license is
suspended, or 18 points in 24 months. A provisional license holder
may only accumulate 6 points in 12 months before their license is
suspended.
Number 420
JUANITA HENSLEY, Chief, Driver Services, Division of Motor
Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, stated that the department,
as well as law enforcement agencies statewide, support this concept
of a graduated driver's license. A graduated license is basically
a restricted license program that allows youth drivers to learn
over a period of time, with restrictions. The idea is to help
beginners to learn to drive step-by-step, by controlling their
progression towards full driving privileges. Restrictions are
lifted gradually and systematically until the driver graduates to
an unrestricted license. This helps in two ways: It assures that
new drivers accumulate the behind-the-wheel-training and experience
in low risk settings. It also means that drivers are older and may
be more mature by the time they get their driver's license. Youth
drivers in Alaska are definitely over-represented in all of the
statistics in the state. Drivers between 16 - 20 represent 6.2
percent of the licensed drivers in Alaska; however, they represent
12.9 percent of the total traffic crashes in the state. Over 28
percent of the total fatal crashes involved youths between 16 and
20. The states that have implemented graduated licenses have
benefitted. California and Maryland both report a reduction of
crashes between ages 15 through 17. California had a 5 percent
reduction in crashes, and Maryland had a 10 percent reduction.
Oregon reported a 16 percent reduction in crashes for male drivers
ages 16 - 17 with the graduated license program. The bill, if
implemented in Alaska, will have a learner stage, an intermediate
stage, and then they will have the full licensure stage. After a
period of time, as they drive accident free, those restrictions are
lifted. Various police departments felt this bill would have the
potential to reduce some crimes being caused by juveniles between
1 a.m. and 5 a.m. The following organizations support the bill:
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the International
Association of Chiefs of Police, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, the
National Association of Governors' Highway Safety Representatives,
the National Association of Independent Insurers, the National
Safety Council, the National Transportation Safety Board, the
Alaska Peace Officers, and the Chiefs of Police for Alaska.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if a teen-ager coming from another state
would have to start at ground zero.
MS. HENSLEY answered that the teen-ager's experience from another
state would count towards this program.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked Ms. Hensley to explain the new
restrictions in that category.
Number 485
MS. HENSLEY explained that if you are between 14 and 17 years of
age, you have to hold an instruction permit for at least six months
before you can apply for the next stage, which is the provisional
license stage. That does not mean we are going to give a 14-year-
old a driver's license after six months. They are not eligible to
apply for the provisional license until they are at least 16. At
age 16, before you can get a provisional license, you have to hold
at least an instruction permit for six months. If you have done
that, then you are issued a provisional license. You hold that
provisional license for one year, violation free, before you can go
to the full license stage.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked if the only difference between the
provisional license and the regular license was the amount of
points you can get.
MS. HENSLEY said there are two aspects - the amount of points you
can get, and a restricted curfew on the license. No driving is
allowed between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. unless it is needed for work.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if the curfew applied to ages 14 - 21.
MS. HENSLEY said it applies through 20 years of age, for the
provisional license portion, not the instruction permit.
CHAIRMAN PORTER asked if in that case, someone who did not get into
their provisional license status until they were 19 or 20 years
old, could not drive between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m.
MS. HENSLEY said that was correct, unless they needed it for work.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said he supports the bill and the need to
learn to drive in a more sheltered learning environment, but he
wondered what the statistics were for those who learned to drive
over the age of 20, and what their accident rate is during the
first year they drive.
MS. HENSLEY said she did not have statistics for someone's first
year of driving.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS asked how this would be applied to a teen-ager
who is married and has children, if her husband is not home during
those hours. Would she be restricted to not being able to drive a
car in case of emergencies? Is she not considered to be an adult
because she is married? And what about the male in the same
situation?
MS. HENSLEY said this does not speak to whether they are married or
single. This is to do with age and experience in driving. Under
those situations, she thought the person would be helped out by law
enforcement to get that child to the hospital.
CHAIRMAN PORTER noted that the emergency response availability is
better in some areas than in others. In unincorporated areas such
as rural sections of Alaska, those kinds of responses involve long
routes, and he would have some concerns about this himself.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS wondered how other states handle that.
MS. HENSLEY did not know if that had actually been addressed in
other states.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said it should be looked at; however, she was
in support of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE did not think that just because a teen-ager is
married they are an adult. They cannot enter into contracts, they
cannot drink, etc.
CHAIRMAN PORTER said the age of adulthood is 18, so he was
concerned about putting restrictions on people all the way up to
age 21.
Number 610
MARK JOHNSON, Chief of the Emergency Medical Services Section,
Department of Health and Social Services, added that they support
the legislation. The number one cause of hospitalization for teen-
agers and young adults in our state is motor vehicle trauma. The
second highest cause of fatality is also motor vehicle trauma
following suicide. The average cost of hospital care for these
young people is over $20,000, not counting physician charges billed
separately, or ambulance charges for post-hospital care or
rehabilitation. This is also a public health issue.
Number 700
MS. HENSLEY mentioned that the state of Alaska received a federal
grant for $75,000 to implement the curfew restriction. Without the
curfew provision, we would not be able to implement this program
with federal funds.
CHAIRMAN PORTER admitted he has a philosophical problem with this
restriction from age 18 years on. An average 17-year-old will have
a full license at that stage anyway, so it would only apply to
someone who got started later.
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN still felt this problem was related to
alcohol. We are creating a dilemma for someone who is at a party,
doing whatever kids and young adults are going to be doing, and now
it is approaching one o'clock. Their first choice is to go home
early, which not very many of them are going to do realistically,
or their second choice is to violate the law by going home sometime
between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m., which is more likely. This certainly
gets the message across to ignore the law, which is basically
unenforceable. The third option is to wait until 5 a.m. to go
home. He did not feel it was a reasonable restriction that was
achieving much.
REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to move HB 57 out of committee
with attached fiscal notes and individual recommendations. Ms.
Hensley explained that the fiscal impact would actually make money.
Seeing no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 790
CHAIRMAN PORTER announced there would not be time to hear HB 219,
but it would be continued to Friday at 1 o'clock.
ADJOURNMENT
The House Judiciary Committee adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|