Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/10/1997 08:08 AM House STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
April 10, 1997
8:08 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Ivan Ivan
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
Representative Al Vezey
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Reggie Joule
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 188
"An Act relating to calculation of compensation for the public
employees' retirement system."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act.
- HEARD AND HELD
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to support for federal legislation permitting state
concealed handgun permittees to carry concealed handguns in other
states.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 188
SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION IN PERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/12/97 640 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/12/97 640 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
04/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HJR 21
SHORT TITLE: REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Ogan
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/12/97 314 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/12/97 314 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES)
04/01/97 893 (H) RES RPT 2DP 2DNP 3NR
04/01/97 893 (H) DP: MASEK, OGAN
04/01/97 893 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA, JOULE
04/01/97 893 (H) NR: DYSON, GREEN, HUDSON
04/01/97 894 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.RES)
04/01/97 894 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS
04/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/08/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3090
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 188.
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 21.
ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer
The Alaska Boating Association
P.O. Box 210430
Anchorage, Alaska 99521
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
JUNE BURKHART
P.O. Box 204
Willow, Alaska 99688
Telephone: (907) 495-6337
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
CHESTER BALLOT
P.O. Box 256
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-7657
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
PETE SCHAEFFER
P.O. Box 6
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3703
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks
Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc.
122 First Avenue, Suite 600
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8251
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
NOEL PUTMAN, Representative
Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club
P.O. Box 5122
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-0687
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
RUSSEL COCKRUM, Board of Director Member
Southeast Alaska Steamboat Owners and Operators
4677 North Tongass Highway
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-3419
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
DON SHERWOOD, President
The Alaska Boating Association
P.O. Box 210430
Anchorage, Alaska 99521
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
FRANCISCA SHERWOOD
1640 Brink Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 333-6268
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
HERMAN MORGAN, Chair
Central Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee
P.O. Box 78
Aniak, Alaska 99557
Telephone: (907) 675-4393
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 21.
PATRICK OMIAK
Address not provided
Little Diomede, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 686-3071
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
RICHARD SLATS
Chevak Traditional Council
P.O. Box 140
Chevak, Alaska 99563
Telephone: (907) 858-7428
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
ALFRED McKINLEY, Sr., Executive Committee Member
Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp
P.O. Box 21713
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1713
Telephone: (907) 586-2061
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director
Alaska Outdoor Council
211 4th Street, Number 30-A
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director
Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association
P.O. Box 21951
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-4970
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton and Ivan. Members
absent were Berkowitz, Hodgins and Vezey. Representative Berkowitz
arrived at 8:10 a.m.
HB 188 - DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION IN PERS
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 188, "An Act relating to calculation of
compensation for the public employees' retirement system."
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced the House State Affairs Standing
Committee would only be taking testimony today on HB 188.
Number 0146
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA-
Alaska), was the first person to testify in Juneau. The NEA-Alaska
currently opposed HB 188 as written. The NEA-Alaska represented a
number of Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) employees
including janitors, custodians, and maintenance men who at one
point in their careers were 12-month employees. However, as school
funding had been reduced over the years, their employment had
dropped to eight or nine months losing their ability to get a years
credit in the retirement system. And, because they were school
employees they were not eligible for unemployment in the summer.
In addition, the work that was done traditionally in the summer,
such as, heavy cleaning and painting, was now being done during
Christmas break, spring break and in the evenings picking up a few
hours of overtime. Therefore, overtime was scheduled by their
supervisors; it was not something that they asked for. It was mean
spirited to deny them access to use overtime towards their
retirement. "We're not talking about people who are at the top of
the pay scale. We're talking about people who - generally speaking
- don't make a lot of money. They are residents of the communities
that they live in." The majority of our members in rural Alaska
fell under this category. The NEA-Alaska would ask that you vote
"no" on this bill.
Number 0347
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if there was a way to
modify the bill so that it did not affect the employees who worked
part-time?
Number 0374
MR. CYR replied school district employees could be removed from the
bill somehow. It would take an amendment.
Number 0406
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if he had any other problems
with the bill?
MR. CYR replied - obviously - the NEA-Alaska had a philosophical
objection to the bill. The NEA-Alaska believed that all people who
worked should get the benefits of their labor. This was a
management issue; overtime was scheduled by management. "It seems
to us that the working people are being hurt by management's
problems."
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if he believed - philosophically
- that the principle of retirement should be based on exceptional
pay and not on salary?
MR. CYR replied there was a difference between a salaried and an
hourly employee. An hourly employee's wage was based on the number
of hours he or she worked.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he misstated his question. He meant
hourly only.
MR. CYR replied hourly employees should - absolutely - get the
benefit of all of their labor.
Number 0540
CHAIR JAMES explained she did not call overtime time and a half.
She called overtime the premium that had to be paid because a
person worked longer than allowed. She saw some sense in
disallowing the premium time. Therefore, it did not make a
difference if a person was hired to work overtime because the
straight time was the charge to get the job done. The premium time
was an extra bonus for working over the scheduled hours and not
really the amount of hours times the rate of work.
Number 0610
MR. CYR replied employees were being asked to do the same amount of
work that had been done in 12-months in 8-months or 9-months now.
"It is impossible to do that work in that amount of time."
Overtime was a matter of getting the job done. "I believe they
should be compensated for that over and above their regular pay,
and that compensation, because they are giving us that section of
their life, should go towards their retirement."
Number 0708
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Cyr if the extra work done
was pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement?
MR. CYR replied, "Correct."
Number 0726
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced he had an amendment to exempt
any work performed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement
from the overtime provision. He asked Mr. Cyr what would his
position be on an amendment like that?
Number 0750
MR. CYR replied he had not seen the amendment yet. It made sense
to exempt those covered by a collective bargaining agreement. He
did not have an official reaction, however.
CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment included everybody. There would
not be anybody left over.
CHAIR JAMES announced the amendments would not be looked at today.
The bill would be held over.
HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HJR 21, Relating to amendment of Title VIII
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Beverly Masek, sponsor of HJR
21, to present the resolution.
Number 0894
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, Alaska State Legislature, explained
HJR 21 offered a new approach to solving the subsistence dilemma by
asking Congress to allow the people of Alaska to try to solve the
problem amongst all of us here in the State. The resolution also
requested that Congress make several amendments to Title VIII of
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to
clarify issues such as the following: what are public lands, who
had management authority on state and private lands and water,
should navigable waters be considered state or federal waters,
should subsistence resources be sold for cash, what does "rural"
mean, what does "customary and traditional" mean, and where should
federal oversight occur. In addition, HJR 21 kept rural preference
in Title VIII of ANILCA; it would give back to the state the
authority to give a definition to "rural" and "traditional and
customary." "I think that's probably one of the biggest
"opposement" against this resolution is that it thinks it's going
to take away that, but in fact, Madame Chairman, it's going to give
the state the deciding point on how we should define them." Right
now, it was clear in the Constitution of the State of Alaska that
resources could not be given to one specific group. They went to
all Alaskans. It was also important to note that in a time of
shortage, resources would not be shut off to users, especially to
users in rural areas. This had been an on-going issue in the state
and there had been several approaches to try to resolve it. The
members of the special task force established by Governor Hickel
came up with a resolution, of which, the Alaska Federation of
Natives (AFN) did not accept or support. Lt. Governor, Fran Ulmer,
became involved using quiet diplomacy with a resolution as well.
The AFN also decided not to support her concept of subsistence. "I
think it's pretty much a slap in the face to the state of Alaska
for AFN who has pretty much taken charge of the issue and is not
being able to work with the state or with other groups set up to
work on the issue." We had waited long enough; it was time to come
to the table and work on a solution. The resolution was a
compromise to get everybody to the table to work on the issue. In
October of 1997, the federal government would start imposing their
regulations on hunting and fishing on Alaska. We were the only
state in the union that had this type of problem with its fish and
wildlife resources. In other states, the state had the authority
over its fish and wildlife resources. She was ashamed that the
state of Alaska was going through this process. It was an issue
that should be worked out as Alaskans. It was also important to
not think of this as a decisive issue because we all lived in
Alaska and we were all Alaskans. "I don't think that we're trying
to take away the subsistence from the rural areas." She had not
heard of any new ideas or approaches on how to solve the
subsistence issue which was why the resolution was put in. It was
a compromise to bring people to the table.
Number 1230
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated it was not just AFN that could not
move towards the middle; it was other groups as well. It seemed
that Representative Masek was blaming AFN for being the only party
that was not willing to move.
Number 1251
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied, during her years in Juneau and as a
member of the Alaska Natives Commission, it seemed that AFN was the
driving force to get everybody together. There were a lot of
Native people who were not involved with AFN that would like to see
the issue resolved but they lived in villages. It was not easy to
be in a political war in a village; it was not easy to give an
opinion. All the groups had to get together and right now it was
AFN and the tribal entities that were coming forth. The resolution
tried to bring AFN and the people from the urban and rural areas
together to work on the issue.
Number 1335
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Masek if she had personally tried
to negotiate with AFN? Had she asked for advise on language that
AFN would like to see, for example?
Number 1350
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied AFN testified in the House Resources
Standing Committee. She had its no net loss statement. The AFN
had also held several meetings with RURALCAP in Anchorage.
Basically, AFN did not want to see the definition of the term
"rural" taken away. The resolution did not do that.
Number 1381
CHAIR JAMES stated there was an additional definition of the term
"rural" designed by the courts. The resolution would question that
definition which, in her opinion, needed to be questioned. She
asked Representative Masek if she would be willing to participate
in discussions in a one-on-one meeting with AFN?
Number 1401
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied she would not have a problem with
that. There were other individual Natives in the rural areas who
wanted to see the issue resolved, but they did not have the same
vision as AFN. Those were the people that she wanted to hear from.
CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Masek. She had talked to a
lot of them too. There was a group out there that would like to
resolve this issue.
Number 1423
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN apologized for arriving late this morning.
He was not feeling well: bronchitis. The issue was too important
not to come today, however. The Alaskan Native community had gone
through the political process with the Venetie case a few weeks ago
when the state appropriated $1 million. The issue was still
festering in rural Alaska. He saw the resolution as "throwing salt
to the wounds." "I don't believe we need this at all." He asked
Representative Masek, in her opinion, what process would it take to
amend ANILCA with 100 Senators and 427 Representatives in Congress?
And, what would happen once the door was opened?
Number 1514
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied the resolution sent a clear message to
Congress. Right now, the state had senior representation in
Congress. The process would begin by sending the resolution to
Alaska's congressional delegation to give the message that Alaskans
wanted to see the issue resolved. There were minor changes to
ANILCA that would require additional legislation in Congress as
well. At the state level, we would have to do what it spelled out
in the resolution.
Number 1565
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated in no way were his questions tied to
Representative Masek personally. He only spoke to the resolution.
The senior Senator she referred to recently spoke to the Alaska
State Legislature indicating that he did not support the
resolution. And he was one of the most senior senators in the
nation in terms of appropriations. Therefore, he would go by his
word and not go forward with a message like the resolution because
he would turn it down. In addition, a lot of his constituents did
not appreciate what was being done in forwarding the resolution.
Number 1621
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied Senator Murkowski and Representative
Young were willing to work on the resolution. They would not have
a problem with a discussion or a debate on the issue. "We need to
do something in the state," she declared. Alaska was large and
diverse, but the issue was destroying the state and hurting people
not only in the rural areas but throughout Alaska as well. "We
can't continue to shut the door on one another." It was not
appropriate for the future of Alaska or for the future generations
of Alaskans. Where do we want to see our state go? she asked. If
we continued to do nothing then the federal government would
continue to come in and take over. The federal government was
allowing the resources to go to a closed class group of people. It
was not appropriate. The state had enough fish and game to satisfy
the needs of most Alaskans. It was especially important to
continue that in the rural areas. The resolution would not take
that away.
Number 1702
CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with the statements in the resolution
and the general concept. However, the Native population felt
comfortable and protected with the term "rural" and the court's
definitions. The resolution asked the federal government to insert
authority for the state to decide what was rural. Thus, the change
was threatening to the current status with only a promise to fix
it. She asked Representative Masek if it would be better to fix it
first then ask for a change?
CHAIR JAMES further stated there was the possibility that the issue
could be addressed under the "Common Use" clause of the
Constitution of the State of Alaska thereby not amending the
constitution and putting rural in as a preference. She asked
Representative Masek if it would be more prudent if there was a
piece of legislation on the table that would in fact show how to
address the subsistence needs via the "Common Use" section of the
constitution before asking the federal government to change its
language so that it compared with what the state already agreed to?
Number 1803
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied the issue could not be resolved unless
everybody came to the table to work on it. The resolution sent a
message on how to begin. Some of the provisions would bring
compromise between the urban and rural areas in regards to rural
preference in ANILCA. The Constitution of the State of Alaska was
in conflict with Title VIII of ANILCA and until it was addressed we
could not start with other discussions.
Number 1857
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Masek what would be the effect, if
the resolution was passed and sent to Washington D.C., while at the
same time AFN put together a resolution and sent it to Washington
D.C.? In her opinion it would send a message that the state was
still mixed up with no solution.
Number 1911
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied it was important to start the
approach. The stepping stones begin with the passage of the
resolution. There were other states that also saw our problems and
they would be willing to listen to both sides of the issue.
Number 1938
CHAIR JAMES explained to Representative Masek that she honestly and
sincerely appreciated her for bringing the resolution forward. She
was not being critical towards Representative Masek. She was being
critical about whether or not this was what should be done and what
should be said. She was not discrediting her; she admired her for
bringing the issue forward.
Number 1972
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated the resolution said plainly what should
be done and said. It would start a trail on its own as it was
doing here in the committee hearings in Alaska.
CHAIR JAMES agreed the issue was the most serious before the state.
Number 1996
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the state was not even together yet in
regards to this issue. He did not agree with the resolution and
his constituents did not agree with it either. He would submit for
the record the correspondence that he had received from his
constituents. He reiterated he did not agree with the concept or
the route that Representative Masek was taking.
Number 2040
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, in conclusion, that the House State
Affairs Standing Committee pass the resolution out of the committee
as soon as possible.
CHAIR JAMES opened the meeting up to the legislative teleconference
network. She asked that the testifiers keep their testimony to the
following two aspects: should a message be sent to Washington D.C.
requesting help to solve this dilemma; and, if a message should be
sent, what should it say?
Number 2166
ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer, The Alaska Boating
Association, was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. The association supported the resolution for a number of
reasons. Subsistence was not the primary reason, however. This
was a case where the federal government had passed a law that was
in contradiction to the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The
state's constitution was in compliance with the federal
constitution. Now the federal government was asking the state to
change its constitution. This was wrong irregardless of the issue
and we should take a stand. In addition, Representative Ivan had
stated that the Natives in the bush were upset regarding the
state's appropriation of $1 million for the Venetie case. He
reminded Representative Ivan that many of the benefits and wins of
the Native Americans had come from the court system. The same
court system that the state was going into to address the issue.
Therefore, the state did have a right to appropriate money to go to
court. Moreover, he believed that Senator Stevens was not really
against the resolution. The senator believed that he could not get
the resolution through Congress which was okay. The resolution
would send a message that the people of the state of Alaska would
stand by its constitution. Whether Senator Stevens could get the
resolution passed or not was not the point. In addition, Senator
Stevens was against Indian country. The issue should not be based
on whether or not Senator Stevens was for or against the
resolution. It should be based on what the people of Alaska wanted
and the state government. In conclusion, he thanked Representative
Masek for submitting the resolution. She had been criticized from
a lot of the Natives because of this. The criticisms were false
and the reason that she took a stance such as this was because she
believed that the Native people did not need a special handout.
Number 2294
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained to Mr. Burkhart that Senator
Stevens was specifically asked if he supported the resolution; and
he replied: "I oppose this resolution." Representative Ivan was
correct in his characterization of the senator's position.
Number 2294
MR. BURKHART replied he was not there so he bowed to that.
Number 2313
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated to Mr. Burkhart that he had constituents
that believed the resolution would be the wrong message to
Congress.
Number 2336
JUNE BURKHART was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Mat-Su. She was testifying today to ask that the House State
Affairs Standing Committee support HJR 21 by Representative Masek
and Ogan. It was long overdue and a brave act by two fine young
legislators. "I truly hope it leads to paving the way for
necessary amendments to Title VIII of ANILCA." The encroachment of
federal agencies upon the ability of the state to manage its
resources was unfair; it jeopardized the power and rights of the
people. The Constitution of the State of Alaska conformed to the
Constitution of the United States, therefore, it should not have to
be amended. The just and clear way to accomplish this was to amend
ANILCA. The state should not sit back and not try just because it
believed that there would not be support in Washington D.C. when
the resolution was an excellent tool to be heard at the national
level. She encouraged a swift adoption; it was a must.
Number 2414
CHESTER BALLOT was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kotzebue. He opposed the resolution. He turned over his remaining
time to Mr. Pete Schaeffer.
Number 2430
PETE SCHAEFFER was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kotzebue. He opposed the passage of HJR 21. The people needed to
get together first before trying to modify the federal law.
Experience had shown it was difficult to go to Washington D.C. with
a split plate of support. He was against the resolution because it
gutted ANILCA. The approach was backwards.
TAPE 97-39, SIDE B
Number 0016
GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks, Tanana Chiefs Conference
Inc., was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Fairbanks. The chiefs were opposed to HJR 21 on the grounds of the
definition of "public lands" excluding state and private land. The
chiefs also opposed the authorization of the state of Alaska to
define the terms "rural" and "customary and tradition" for the
purposes of the definition of subsistence uses. The term "rural"
had already been defined in Title VIII of ANILCA. The chiefs also
opposed amending the subsistence preference established in ANILCA
under 16 U.S.C. 3114 to provide a preference for a reasonable
opportunity to take fish and wildlife for subsistence uses.
Reasonable opportunity was too vague inviting more litigation. The
chiefs also opposed clarifying that ANILCA neither affirmed or
denied the existence of tribal sovereignty and Indian country in
Alaska. It was a separate issue. The chiefs also opposed allowing
the state of Alaska to choose whether it would establish a regional
subsistence advisory council system. There already was a federal
advisory council so why duplicate the efforts. The chiefs also
opposed providing that regional subsistence advisory councils were
only advisory to regulatory boards. It was a bit confusing. The
chiefs also opposed eliminating commercial use and sale of fish and
wildlife taken for subsistence uses.
Number 0151
NOEL PUTMAN, Representative, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club,
was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan.
The club supported the passage of HJR 21. The membership wanted to
know where it stood in regards to its right to hunt and fish on
public land. The gray area - Title VIII of ANILCA - had been
prevalent for too many years; it needed to be addressed now. The
resolution was the best start currently being proposed to hopefully
see an end to the federal take over of Alaska's resources. The
club adamantly would refuse changing the Constitution of the State
of Alaska in regards to ANILCA. The club suggested, if Title VIII
of ANILCA was not changed, that it should apply to all federal
lands within the lower forty-eight states. "I think that you would
hear an uproar so loud the walls of Congress would collapse."
Number 0191
RUSSEL COCKRUM, Board of Director Member, Southeast Alaska
Steamboat Owners and Operators, was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Ketchikan. There were some real problems on the
horizon for the great state of Alaska. The cold, hard facts were
that if the legislature did not do something this session, there
was a real possibility that the federal government would take over
the management of all aspects of fish and game resources by
October. The ANILCA had to be amended and the points addressed in
HJR 21 needed to be resolved - now. Any lack of action by the
lawmakers would be a tremendous injustice to the commercial fishing
fleet and other users. "I believe the fox is in the hen house, and
he's our federal government."
Number 0244
DON SHERWOOD, President, The Alaska Boating Association, was the
next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He was an
avid hunter and fisherman. He thanked Representatives Masek and
Ogan for introducing the resolution. The Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture said that the state had to amend its
constitution to confirm to Title VIII of ANILCA as a precondition
to "partial" relinquishment of federal management of fish and
wildlife on public lands and waters. The Constitution of the State
of Alaska conformed to the Constitution of the United States and
the state should not have to change it in any way. The only clear
way to resolve this issue was to convince the Congressional
legislators that ANILCA was where the changes should be made. The
resolution needed grass-roots support to be successful. The
association thanked the committee members for listening to its
comments and for doing a great job towards its future.
Number 0306
FRANCISCA SHERWOOD was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Anchorage. She had been a proud Alaskan citizen
for over 31 years. She had raised two sons who had given her five
grandchildren in Alaska. She thanked Representatives Ogan and
Masek for introducing HJR 21 to the people of Alaska. She
supported HJR 21 and asked that the committee members act swiftly
to approve the resolution. It was necessary if the agencies of
Alaska were to gain control of the management and use of the
state's fish and wildlife on public lands and waterways. Only
ANILCA could stop the intervention. Amending the Constitution of
the State of Alaska was not necessary and it was unfair to ask the
people to do so. She pleaded with the committee members to approve
the resolution to let the federal government know that the state
wanted ANILCA to be amended so that the state could control its
resources.
Number 0372
HERMAN MORGAN, Chair, Central Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory
Committee, was the next person to testify via off-net in Aniak. He
was also on the federal advisory committee recently formed. He was
a half-breed so he was not prejudiced towards anybody. If the
resolution passed, it would not prevent the federal takeover of
Alaska's fish and game management. By this time next year when
Alaska did not have control of its fishing and resources, who would
be remembered as the person who could have done something to stop
this? In addition, a lot of the different management areas did not
know if they were on state or federal land creating a death mill
for Alaska's resources. He cited the wolf issue as an example.
The state could not do anything to stop it. If the federal
government took over fishing there would be a lot more
restrictions. "We Alaskans should stop fighting amongst
ourselves." Let's do it for ourselves and the resources and the
only way to do this was to amend the state's constitution.
Number 0450
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Morgan if the only other agreement was to
amend the constitution and put the rural preference in?
MR. MORGAN replied the people should be allowed to vote on whether
we wanted that or not. We owe it to the resources. At the rate
right now, we were not going to have any kind of control. Just
look at the salmon condition in the lower forty-eight states.
Decisions were made by extremists wanting to protect the resources.
We did not want to see that up here in Alaska. This was almost the
last place on earth that was not destroyed.
Number 0480
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Morgan if he would agree that there was
another way to define what the real subsistence need was in Alaska
without amending the constitution?
Number 0489
MR. MORGAN replied there were a lot of people out there that were
poor. They only made $10,000 a year, for example, relying on
wildlife to eat, and they were in competition with a doctor who
made $300,000 a year hunting for fun. He reiterated it was not
fair that the people could not vote on the issue.
Number 0519
PATRICK OMIAK was the next person to testify via off-net in Little
Diomede. The Native village of Diomede Island was opposed to HJR
21. If ANILCA needed to be amended he wanted to see that the
Natives were involved. In addition, the state and federal
government needed to learn how to work together.
Number 0558
RICHARD SLATS, Chevak Traditional Council, was the next person to
testify via off-net in Chevak. The council opposed HJR 21. He
read the following statement into the record:
"The Kashunamiut are a federally recognized tribe who is
represented by their tribal government, the Chevak Traditional
Council whose primary goal is to protect the health, safety and
welfare and the inherent traditional and cultural rights of the
Kashunamiut and for their best interests. Let this affidavit
acknowledge that we are in Opposition to the House Joint Resolution
No. 21 as it infringes upon our inherent rights and will exploit
our ancestral lands which are located on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta
National Wildlife Refuge and has been protected by Alaska National
Interest Land Conservation Act - Title VIII (ANILCA, Title VIII,
hereinafter). Subsistence Use and Management as it is written.
"ANILCA Title VIII, should not be amended because the Resolution
HJR 21 contradicts the whole purpose of the Policy and Purpose of
the Title VIII. These amendments are directly contradicting the
RURALCAP Subsistence Round Table, held in Anchorage February 1997.
The State of Alaska may be of compliance of ANILCA TITLE VIII,
concerning Subsistence. The State of Alaska tends to lean towards
"sports, commercial and other special interest group" that are not
aware of the importance of subsistence issues and use for the rural
communities.
"The following are section responses to `FURTHER RESOLVED' of the
proposed resolution:
"(1) `Public Land' is already defined in the Federal Register.
Volume 57 No. 20 and ANILCA, Title VIII.
"(2) Congress is already authorized to take over management if the
State is not in compliance.
"(4) `Section 807' provides for protection of subsistence users and
repeal would undermine authority of the Federal Judicial System.
"(5) The terms Customary and Traditional Use, Subsistence Use, and
rural are defined and established in the Federal Registrar of the
Department of Agriculture, and Interior, under Sec. 4 Definition of
Subpart A-General Provision. They listed as such in the Final,
Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska which
attests to the Webster's definition of. The definition of the
aforementioned terms are already defined and what this resolution
proposes to do is authorize the State of Alaska to rewrite the
Webster's Dictionary to soothe Masek's an Ogan's HJR 21.
"(6) Under ANILCA Title VIII, Sec. 804, the subsistence preference
is addressed. HJR 21 contradicts the purpose and policy of Title
VIII.
"(7) Tribal Sovereignty and Indian Country issues have been awarded
to the Tribes across Alaska but is presently in the Appeal process,
no amendments should even be considered as Court cases are and may
be pending.
"(8) The State of Alaska should not have an option. If subsistence
management is handed to the State of Alaska, than it would be their
obligation to establish regional advisory councils, meaning they
should be mandated to establish such councils rather than choose
to.
"(9) The Sections (8) and (9) proposed amendments are addressed in
Sec. 805 (a)(2) and (3) (D) (IV).
"(10) The sale of Fish and Wildlife taken for subsistence uses,
supplements incomes for expenses incurred for hunting necessities,
i.e. ammunition, gasoline and oil, and other gears to do more
subsistence hunting and fishing.
"There are provisions in the ANILCA Title VIII, Section 16 USC 3110
that the State can enter into an Cooperative Agreement rather than
rewriting the whole purpose and policy of the Act.
"ANILCA, Title VIII should not be Amended the resolution would
undermine the purpose of ANILCA and the groundwork that has been
established for Subsistence Management.
"The items that are addressed in HJR 21 are already defined and
addressed by the Dept. of Agriculture and Department of Interior
published in Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 21 January 1992,
Proposed Rules.
"THE KASHUNAMIUT, THE CHEVAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, THE CHEVAK TRIBAL
COURTS AND THEIR DEPARTMENTS URGES DO NOT PASS THIS RESOLUTION!!!"
Number 0885
ALFRED McKINLEY, Sr., Executive Committee Member, Alaska Native
Brotherhood Grand Camp, was the first person to testify in Juneau.
He read the following statement into the record:
"Madame chairman, State Affairs. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify before your. My name is Alfred McKinley,
Sr. I am executive committee members of the Alaska Native
Brotherhood Grand Camp, I am also a elected delegate to a
recognized tribe of central council Tlingit-Haida Indian tribes of
Alaska. I am here to testify in opposition to HJR 21 because it
annuls or alters ANILCA.
"ANILCA Title VIII, Sec. 801 (4) states `in order to fulfill the
policies and purposes of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
and as a matter of equity, it is necessary for the Congress to
invoke the constitutional authority over Native affairs and its
constitutional authority under the property clause and the commerce
clause to protect and provide the opportunity for continued
subsistence uses on the public lands by Natives and non-Natives
rural residents.'
"The Alaska Native community maintains that the current level of
federal subsistence protections granted under Title VIII of ANILCA
must be guaranteed in any solution to resolve the ongoing
subsistence impasse. The Alaska Natives will not support any
compromise that diminishes the subsistence preference, Title VIII's
geographical jurisdiction. The powers and the responsibilities of
the federal agencies and federal court oversight on that mandates
federal judicial deference to state courts or state regulatory
decisions. The Alaska Native community will not support any
amendment to ANILCA other than that which guarantees a Native
subsistence preference.
"The Alaska Native community endorses an amendment to the state
constitution that brings the state into compliance with ANILCA.
"Madame chairman this is our concrete position on HJR 21 which we
strongly oppose. If the bill is passed by the state legislatures,
we will strongly oppose any amendment to ANILCA at the
Congressional level."
MR. McKINLEY, Sr. read the following reply into the record to the
anticipated issue of extinguished aboriginal fishing rights by
Congress in 43 U.S.C. S 1603(b):
"Congress expected that the state and federal agencies would
protect subsistence hunting and fishing, 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2247,
2250. In 1980, frustrated with their failure to do so, Congress
enacted ANILCA. Title VIII of ANILCA required that rural Alaska
residence be accorded a priority for subsistence hunting and
fishing on public lands - 16 U.S.C. 3113, 3114.
"If the state legislature were to amend the state constitution or
otherwise comply with ANILCA's rural subsistence priority, the
state could resume management of subsistence uses on public lands
including navigable waters.
"Its up to the Alaska State Legislatures to act."
MR. McKINLEY, Sr. further stated that according to the statistics
the debate was over less than 1 percent of the fish and wildlife
that Native people took to their communities. "It's kind of
ridiculous to be debating over 1 percent."
Number 1114
CHAIR JAMES stated there was not anybody out there who would
disagree with Mr. McKinley, Sr. nor who would want to take the
right away. However, the court definition of the term "rural" was
not the same as how Alaskans understood the term. In particular,
the Kenai Peninsula, and along the Parks and Glen Highways, for
example, were classified as rural. Therefore, the definition of
rural brought in other people than what was intended by ANILCA in
the first place. "I believe the `rural' definition in ANILCA was
put in there to protect that very lifestyle that you're talking to
me about."
Number 1202
MR. McKINLEY, Sr. replied he had been involved in the subsistence
issue since 1977. At that time, his people fought against
subsistence because of the simple reason that Native women were
marrying or had married non-Native men and the off-spring was
family. In 1978, his people could not fight the issue anymore
because they were out numbered. The alternative was legislation
including both non-Natives and Natives. As-long-as there was good
management in the system everybody would be treated equally. In
other words, as-long-as there were resources available. However,
if the resources were scarce then the rural communities would have
priority over urban communities. Consequently, the terms "rural"
and "urban" had to be defined. The urban areas were defined as:
Anchorage, Ketchikan, Juneau, and Fairbanks. He understood why the
areas mentions were chosen because everybody wore a tie to go to
work. Therefore, divide the offices and scatter them over the
rural communities so that everybody would have a job and there
would be equality.
Number 1370
CHAIR JAMES commented on the subsistence versus hunting issue of
deer in Ketchikan. The decision to allow subsistence hunting only
was not based on science.
Number 1459
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied according to ANILCA Ketchikan was
considered an urban area. The state managed the fish and game as
of today, however. If the management was left up to the Natives as
they were taught through the generations they would not have a
problem managing the resources because they knew more than the
superior court judge who adjudicated the problem. "If you see one
fish up stream, for example, we were taught to leave it alone."
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., further stated if the resources were scarce the
decision was left up to the Secretary of Interior and the state of
Alaska to enact the priority. However, the politicians went with
the popular contest and decided not to put the gavel down for fear
of criticism. As a result, it was snuck into ANILCA. "If you had
left it to us, this topic would not be here today."
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he was confused by the testimony of Mr.
McKinley, Sr. He read clearly in his statement that the
distribution of subsistence game should be based on ethnicity or
race -Natives only. Later on, in seemed that subsistence priority
should be based on rural peoples including Natives and non-Natives.
Number 1786
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied in the event that the resources were
depleted then Natives and non-Natives in the rural communities
would have priority.
Number 1820
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr., on what basis did he
want state resources - fish and game - to be distributed on the
basis of race?
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied as an urban Juneau resident it should be
based on necessity for survival.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr. regardless of race?
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied he did not know how to answer the
question.
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr. to explain his
testimony regarding the marriage of Native women to non-Native men.
MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied his people did not want this type of law
at all because of Native women marrying non-Native men and vice
versa. The off-spring would become our blood, therefore, we should
just leave it alone. It was not our people who brought this
subsistence issue out and he did not know where it came from
either. The only alternative was to provide input resulting in the
issue of today.
Number 2215
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was
the next person to testify in Juneau. The AOC was a statewide
organization of outdoor conservation user groups that supported
sound management of fish, game and habitats consistent with the
state constitution. It promoted the safe and ethical use of
firearms as well. The council strongly supported at its meeting
recently to support HJR 21 because of the potential threat of a
federal take over in fisheries management to the extent that it had
taken over game management. The council also supported HJR 21
because it identified Title VIII's elements of infringement on the
state's traditional rights and responsibilities to provide to its
citizens the benefits of fish and wildlife use. It also supported
the resolution because it did not reject the recognition of
subsistence embodied in the federal law. It did not throw the
concept out; it modified it so that it would work and be fair. The
AOC strongly supported the values associated with subsistence use
of wildlife and other renewable resources. He became involved in
the issue in 1975.
TAPE 97-40, SIDE A
Number 0001
MR. BISHOP further stated that he became personally involved
because there were no provisions that overlapped the areas of use
by Alaskans. Unfortunately, he had not been able to let go since.
Subsistence was an issue that he got sick of over the years, but
never go tired of it. The AOC strongly supported the values
associated with subsistence uses. He discussed a bill (HB 552)
that was introduced five years ago on behalf of Governor Hickel to
try to come up with a new version of the state subsistence law that
would work and fairly accommodate both subsistence uses and other
uses. The difficulty was in conveying the idea and importance of
the value of subsistence to the legislature and to the public. He
read the following findings from the bill:
"The legislature finds that there are Alaskans both Native and non-
Native who have a traditional, social, or cultural relationship to
and dependence upon the wild renewable resources produced by
Alaskans land and water. The harvest and use of fish and game for
personal and group consumption is an intricate part of those
relationships. Although, customs, traditions and beliefs vary,
these Alaskans share ideals of respect for nature, the importance
of using resources wisely and the value and dignity of a way of
life in which they use Alaska's fish and game for a substantial
portion of their sustenance. This way of life is recognized as
subsistence. Customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and
game originated with Alaskan Natives and had been adopted and
supplemented by many non-Native Alaskans as well. These uses,
among others, are culturally, socially, spiritually, and
nutritionally important and provide a sense of identity for many
subsistence users."
MR. BISHOP read the statement to reemphasize that the members of
the AOC appreciated and consider important the values associated
with subsistence uses. It was not opposed to subsistence use or a
subsistence lifestyle. He explained that only portions of HB 552
were incorporated into state law due to the opposition of AFN.
Other groups also opposed the bill, but the AFN was the principle
group that opposed it in the legislature even though it did not
affect federal law. The AOC was a group that agreed with the bill.
However, the council had consistently been unwilling to negotiate
away sound conservation or fairness and allocation uniquely
protected by Alaska's law.
Number 0480
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Bishop if anyone who objected to amending the
constitution to include the term "rural" or supported the
resolution by sending it to Washington D.C. could not be construed
to oppose subsistence in the bush areas? In other words, was the
issue of whether or not the bush communities even had subsistence
argued by the public? This was a dispute trenched into position
and neither side appeared to want to get off of their position and
assume the other position - amend ANILCA or amend the constitution.
The individuals who wanted to amend the constitution felt it was
the only way to protect their subsistence lifestyle. She wondered,
therefore, if the individuals who wanted to amend ANILCA wanted to
do away with a subsistence lifestyle.
Number 0589
MR. BISHOP replied there were people who believed that there should
not be any priority whatsoever in state law for the use of fish and
game. They took the terms "common use" and "equal protection"
literally. Most people would say that if a family, for example,
was in need of those resources for its livelihood there ought to be
a way to accommodate it for its needs, especially if there were few
alternatives. The idea, however, was muddled in ANILCA. The AOC
believed that subsistence use was appropriate. It did not need to
be institutionalized in law to accommodate and prioritize it,
however. There was no "rural priority" prior to 1978; it was
simply a "priority". The operation of fish and game boards and
departments attempted to accommodate the uses where needed.
Personally, he felt that the majority of the people would support
the idea of a preference where there was a need for it. Rural
preference was over inclusive because it included people in rural
Alaska who did not need a priority, and it was under inclusive
because it excluded people in urban Alaska who should be able to
exercise it.
Number 0775
DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Driftnetters
Association, was the next person to testify in Juneau. He was
deeply concerned about the issue addressed in HJR 21. He had been
involved in either the management or utilization of wildlife
resources since residency 42 years ago. He was concerned
financially as a representative of a commercial fishing group. He
was also concerned emotionally as a long-term resident. He
admitted to being confused by the widely varying responses to the
resolution. He saw Alaskans becoming more and more polarized which
troubled him. Some said ANILCA was not broken while other said the
short comings were creating problems that would change the way
society functioned. "I guess that you must number me in this group
because I feel that the preeminent concern here is that Alaskans
remain united as Alaskans." He came to Alaska with scant knowledge
of her past, but with great hopes for her future. He had lived for
20 years in rural Alaska before moving to Juneau. His major
concern was not financial but emotional and psychological. He had
repeatedly looked at HJR 21 and he did not see it as anti-Native.
If it were anti-Native, he could not support it. He supported a
subsistence priority where needed, but as a prior resource manager
he recognized that wildlife and fishery resources were finite. He
also supported the direction of HJR 21 because the alternative
should not be acceptable to society and to all Alaskans. The
inter-racial marriage issue raised earlier was a fact. "It is us.
For what it's worth in my veins you have the blood of Scottish
kings, German peasants, and French nobility. I'll sell all of that
to you for 25 cents, the price of a cup of coffee upstairs." He
did not know of any other way to get from where we were to where we
needed to go except by re-examining ANILCA. He cited, the failure
to address the ambiguities of ANILCA would result in a federal
takeover of the management of Alaska's commercial fishery this
year. Those who had knowledge of federal management prior to
statehood, especially of the commercial fisheries, really would
want to go back. Federal management was control from a far by
those academically concerned. In other words, those who did not
really care. The failure to address the shortcoming of ANILCA as
a major step towards the recolonization and Balkanization of Alaska
and an end to the prospects of going forward into a shinning future
with a strong and united Alaskan society.
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held over until Tuesday,
April 15, 1997.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1161
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:00 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|