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