Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/15/1997 08:05 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 15, 1997
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jeannette James, Chair
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Fred Dyson
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Ivan Ivan
Representative Al Vezey
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Mark Hodgins
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14
Relating to support for federal legislation permitting state
concealed handgun permittees to carry concealed handguns in other
states.
- MOVED SJR 14 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 78
"An Act relating to the definition of certain state receipts; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 78(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21
Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act.
- HEARD AND HELD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SJR 14
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORT FEDERAL CONCEALED GUN LEGISLATION
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) HALFORD, Green, Taylor, Leman, Miller,
Sharp, Mackie
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/05/97 236 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/05/97 236 (S) STATE AFFAIRS
02/13/97 (S) STA AT 3:30 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
02/13/97 (S) MINUTE(STA)
02/14/97 354 (S) STA RPT 4DP 1NR
02/14/97 354 (S) DP: GREEN, WARD, MACKIE, MILLER;
02/14/97 354 (S) NR: DUNCAN
02/14/97 355 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.STA)
02/25/97 (S) RLS AT 10:30 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/25/97 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/25/97 493 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/25/97
02/25/97 496 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/25/97 496 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
02/25/97 496 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SJR 14
02/25/97 496 (S) COSPONSOR:LEMAN, MILLER, SHARP, MACKIE
02/25/97 497 (S) PASSED Y15 N5
02/25/97 497 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/26/97 525 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/26/97 525 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/27/97 500 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/27/97 500 (H) STATE AFFAIRS
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/10/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/10/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
BILL: HB 78
SHORT TITLE: AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/97 88 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/97 88 (H) STA, L&C, FINANCE
01/16/97 88 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV\VARIOUS DEPTS)
01/16/97 88 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
03/11/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/11/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/13/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/20/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/22/97 (H) STA AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/22/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/25/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/97 (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
04/15/97 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/15/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
WITNESS REGISTER
BILL STOLTZE, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford
State Capitol, Room 121
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4958
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided sponsor statement on SJR 14.
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 SJR 14 and
HJR 21.
GUY BELL, Director
Division of Administrative Services
Department of Commerce and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110803
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0803
Telephone: (907) 465-2505
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HB 78.
BEN HASTINGS
P.O. Box 8432
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-5014
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
JOHNNY RICE
P.O. Box 1535
Ward Cove, Alaska 99928
Telephone: (907) 247-3595
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
CLARK WHITNEY
43735 Sport Lake Road
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-4979
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
JOE HARDY
P.O. Box 3391
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-9881
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
CHARLIE CURTIS, President and CEO
NANA Regional Corporation
P.O. Box 48
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3301
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
JOHN ERLICH, Deputy Director
Kotzebue IRA Council
P.O. Box 296
Kotzebue, Alaska 99752
Telephone: (907) 442-3467
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
SAM JACKSON, Executive Director
Akiak IRA Council
P.O. Box 52185
Akiak, Alaska 99552
Telephone: (907) 765-7888
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
CARL JACK, Subsistence Director
Rural Alaska Community Action Program
731 East 8th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 279-2511
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
PATRICK CLEVELAND, Tribal Administrator
Eek Traditional Council
P.O. Box 87
Eek, Alaska 99578
Telephone: (907) 536-5128
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
CARL ROSSIER, Representative
The Territorial Sportsmen
P.O. Box 20761
Juneau, Alaska 99802
Telephone: (907) 463-3830
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
DONALD WESTLUND
P.O. Box 7883
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9319
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
DICK COOSE
P.O. Box 9533
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 247-9266
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
RANDY SHUMATE
P.O. Box 443
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-6033
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
GARY HULL
P.O. Box 1964
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907) 262-5661
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
APRIL FERGUSON
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-4340
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
FRITZ WILLIE
P.O. Box 37
Napakiak, Alaska 99634
Telephone: not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
ROD ARNO, President
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 2790
Palmer, Alaska 99645
Telephone: (907) 376-2913
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
WALTER JOHNSON, Sr.
P.O. Box 145
Yakutat, Alaska 99689
Telephone: (907) 784-3503
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
EILEEN NORBERT
P.O. Box 1858
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5231
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
LORETTA BULLARD, President
Kawerak Inc.
P.O. Box 948
Nome, Alaska 99762
Telephone: (907) 443-5231
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
RUSSELL NELSON, Natural Resources/Environmental Protection Manger
Bristol Bay Native Association
P.O. Box 310
Dillingham, Alaska 99576
Telephone: (907) 842-5257
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21.
JOHN PECKHAM
P.O. Box 8394
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-6047
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
KAY ANDREW
P.O. Box 7211
Ketchikan, Alaska 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-2463
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-43, SIDE A
Number 0001
The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by
Chair Jeannette James at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson, Ivan and Vezey.
Members absent were Elton and Hodgins. Representative Elton
arrived at 8:06 a.m.
SJR 14 - SUPPORT FEDERAL CONCEALED GUN LEGISLATION
The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was SJR 14, Relating to support for federal
legislation permitting state concealed handgun permittees to carry
concealed handguns in other states.
CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES called on Bill Stoltze, Legislative Assistant
to Senator Rick Halford, to present the bill.
Number 0116
BILL STOLTZE, Legislative Assistant to Senator Rick Halford,
explained Senator Halford was out of town. The resolution was
straight forward endorsing a measure currently before the U.S.
Congress allowing intrastate reciprocity for concealed handgun
permittees. There was support for the right to bear arms in Alaska
as evidence indicated in the 1994 constitutional amendment
referendum. The concealed handgun legislation had been very
effective without the dire consequences that he had predicted as a
staff person witnessing the hearings. He asked that the committee
members support the resolution.
Number 0202
CHAIR JAMES noted over the last few years there had been a large
amount of these types of bills passed in various states. There was
also evidence to indicate that the frequency of violent crimes had
reduced as a direct result of this type of legislation throughout
the United States. The president had been taking full credit for
this when it really was a collection of things - crime legislation
and concealed handgun legislation.
Number 0298
REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ said he was not opposed to the
resolution, but was concerned about resolutions of this nature
impinging on state's rights.
Number 0327
MR. STOLTZE replied we weighed both the Tenth and Second Amendments
and concluded that the Second Amendment strengthened the argument.
Number 0348
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY applauded the sponsor for his efforts.
However, he was one of the few who believed that the Tenth
Amendment had not been repealed. Therefore, he could not support
this piece of legislation because he did not support federal
mandates. He did not have a problem voting the resolution out of
the committee. The Tenth Amendment was equal in provenance with
the Second Amendment.
Number 0388
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON asked Mr. Stoltze, if an Alaskan went to
Oklahoma that restricted the carrying of a concealed firearm into
a bar, would the same restriction apply to the Alaskan?
Number 0452
MR. STOLTZE replied, "Correct." That was the intent - absent
another state having concealed weapon permit legislation.
Number 0476
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Mr. Stoltze, for clarification, if
another state did not have a concealed weapons permit law, would an
Alaskan still be allowed to carry a concealed weapon in that state?
Number 0498
MR. STOLTZE replied, "Correct." According to the federal
provisions.
Number 0514
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Stoltze if there were states that did not
allow a person to carry a concealed handgun? Vermont did not have
a law against it so a person could carry a gun any where or any
way.
Number 0534
MR. STOLTZE replied, "Yes."
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Stoltze if he had a list of those states?
MR. STOLTZE replied they were the following: the Central (indisc.)
States, California, some of the upper Mid-West States, most of the
Southern States, Vermont and New York.
Number 0583
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Stoltze if California had local permitting
rather than state permitting?
Number 0596
MR. STOLTZE replied he did not know.
Number 0601
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained the state of California had a
county-wide permitting process.
Number 0620
CHAIR JAMES announced that she shared the same concerns as
Representative Vezey in regards to mandates from the federal
government to the states. She felt comfortable with the condition
that a person had to follow the same rule as the state he or she
was in at the time, as opposed to the state he or she was from.
There was the feeling in Alaska to not let those in who had not
undergone our stringent background and Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) check. She did not have a problem moving the
resolution out of the committee, however. She was not sure how she
would vote on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Number 0696
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Stoltze if he had seen any legal
arguments about the effect on the full faith and credit clause of
the U.S. Constitution?
Number 0713
MR. STOLTZE replied, "No."
Number 0721
REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON wondered if there was anybody else here
to testify today?
Number 0760
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was
the first person to testify in Juneau. The AOC supported the
resolution. It was an important resolution. The key to the
resolution was expressed in the letter from Mr. Brian Judy, Alaska
State Liaison, National Rifle Association of America, dated
February 5, 1997, that indicated it was appropriate that people had
similar rights from state-to-state. He did not discount the
importance of the Tenth Amendment and hoped it was on its way to a
full recovery. This issue was not the compromise to it, however.
Number 0831
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Bishop if he would construe the Second
Amendment as a federal mandate to the states?
Number 0864
MR. BISHOP replied the Second Amendment was a statement of a right
rather than a statement of a mandate that applied to all of the
citizens of the United States.
Number 0881
CHAIR JAMES stated what she really meant to say was, in light of
the Tenth Amendment, that there were underlying rights that the
states were subject to as well when they made their laws.
Number 0906
MR. BISHOP stated, based on his understanding of the Constitution
of the United States, he agreed that the rights extended to all of
the people of the U.S. and they could not be infringed upon by the
states.
Number 0952
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY moved that SJR 14 move from the committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s). There
was no objection, SJR 14 was so moved from the House State Affairs
Standing Committee.
HB 78 - AMEND DEFINITION OF "PROGRAM RECEIPTS"
The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs
Standing Committee was HB 78, "An Act relating to the definition of
certain state receipts; and providing for an effective date."
CHAIR JAMES explained there was a committee substitute (0-GH0049/E,
Utermohle, 4/10/97). The change was on page 3, line 14, "expressly
approved by the legislature by law;" The language would not give
carte blanche authority for agencies to include any kind of gift,
grant, or bequest contract for a program receipt that had not
received legislative approval and authorization. She did not want
to give the agencies too much leeway to collect money to pay their
way without legislative approval.
CHAIR JAMES called for a motion to adopt the committee substitute.
Number 1096
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved that the committee substitute (0-
GH0049/E, Utermohle, 4/10/97) be adopted. There was no objection,
the committee substitute was adopted.
Number 1118
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY asked why this was needed?
CHAIR JAMES replied, "I don't have the answer to that." She
disagreed that it was needed, but she had been requested to move
the bill from the committee by the Majority - the Speaker of the
House.
Number 1147
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated, if someone wanted to give the
state something and dedicate it to a particular program, it should
not be the responsibility of the legislature to determine if that
was acceptable.
CHAIR JAMES replied accepting the money was not the issue. The
issue was how it would be spent. The bill designated the money,
but she believed that the designation should be done by the
legislature which was why the language was added to page 3, line
14. She cited an example of a big company giving $100,000 to the
Department of Natural Resources to hire additional people to
expedite the permitting process was possible because it would be
considered a designated receipt. This was a real problem.
Parameters were needed. She did not want carte blanche authority
for the agencies similar to the concept of "open for business".
Number 1257
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ responded that he understood what Chair
James was saying. What about somebody that had $10,000 who wanted
the money to go to the hunter safety program, for example, as a
personal gift. Nothing would be expected in return. It would be
a problem, however, if the state or legislature said it did not
want the money.
Number 1279
CHAIR JAMES replied she understood the concerns of Representative
Berkowitz. She was not sure how it had been treated before the
bill. She did not think it would be treated any differently after
the bill, however.
Number 1297
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented the language said approval "by law"
which meant that the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee could
not approve it.
CHAIR JAMES stated that was what it meant.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON further commented that it seemed we were
trying to establish a system that would make it very difficult for
a donor to donate money. He could support the committee substitute
if the language "by law" was deleted. Why couldn't the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee determine what was an acceptable gift to
an agency? he asked.
Number 1344
CHAIR JAMES stated last year we struggled and struggled with the
increased airport fee issue in the Legislative Budget and Audit
Committee which took up a lot of time and discussion. She could
see the process for a small donation; but, if it was allowed it
would open up the door for larger and more intensive incursions on
the public. She would feel more comfortable if it was done by law.
A bill could be written to provide for approval by the Legislative
Budget and Audit Committee for certain types of gifts and bequests
for specific purposes, but it was not possible in HB 78.
Number 1414
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he agreed with a lot of what Chair
James said, but her comments were misleading to indicate that the
bill addressed gifts. There were provisions in state law that
controlled how funds from gifts were used. The change addressed
grants, bequests, contracts, and federal receipts. The provision
included a plethora of program receipts; it was much broader than
the concept of a gift. He reiterated statutes were written
strictly to cover how gifts could be used for the public good.
Number 1457
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated there would be a problem if there
was a conflict between the law and a judicial interpretation of the
statute. The court would look at the most recent statement made by
the legislature which would be HB 78. Therefore, the statement on
gifts would supersede any preceding legislation if or when there
was a conflict between the laws.
Number 1480
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated he disagreed because there were entire
statutes to cover non-profit corporations and charities, for
example. There were separate statutes to govern how money could be
used for public purposes. This statute addressed money that came
into the state treasure subject to appropriation by the
legislature. Granted, the other programs did not do that; but, the
provision was totally unnecessarily because we already had vehicles
whereby a philanthropist could affect a public purpose and take
full advantage of the tax situation.
Number 1521
CHAIR JAMES explained the purpose of the bill was for budgeting,
according to her understanding. The intent was to suggest that the
receipts were "designated program receipts" rather than "General
Fund program receipts" or "other funds". It appeared to be an end-
run around the current budget process. It was already available by
simply making an additional column to identify them so that it
would be clear in a reduction that we were also reducing incoming
funds.
Number 1570
GUY BELL, Director, Division of Administrative Services, Department
of Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), was the first person
to testify in Juneau. The DCED had a number of programs that would
be in the category of "designated program receipts" as defined by
the bill. He cited the Division of Occupational Licensing, the
Division of Insurance, the contract with the Alaska Visitors
Association, the receipts of the Alaska Seafood Marketing
Institute, and a number of smaller ones. He called HB 78 a
"definitional" bill. The bill tried to address an issue that had
been raised over the past several years about money in the budget
when reduced did not change the fiscal gap because there was a
corresponding reduction in revenue. All of the funds were subject
to appropriation and legislative review already, therefore, it was
a definitional bill. Agencies would not be able to spend money
without an appropriation. It defined what category, for budgeting
purposes, was not considered General Fund receipts.
Number 1651
CHAIR JAMES explained she did not want an agency to set up a
contract or a gift that was part of a designated receipt without
legislative approval which was why the language was added.
Number 1679
MR. BELL replied whether the language was there or not the receipts
would still be subject to legislative appropriation. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska required that agencies needed
the authority from the legislature before spending money either
through a budget request, a supplemental request, or the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, for example.
Number 1707
CHAIR JAMES said she understood that part. It would be political
suicide not to designate the money accordingly. However, she did
not want the agencies to enter into a contract with the public to
help supplant their budgets. She wanted the legislature to have
the authority to identify the designated receipts: Where did the
money come from and for what purpose could it be used for? She
understood the appropriation process once the money was in the pot
and understood that if the legislature did not designated it
accordingly it would be in dire circumstances.
Number 1773
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON moved that HB 78, as amended, move from the
committee with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal
note(s).
Number 1802
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY objected. A roll call vote was taken.
Representatives James, Berkowitz, Dyson and Elton voted in favor of
the motion. Representative Vezey voted against the motion. The
CSHB 78(STA) was so moved from the House State Affairs Standing
Committee.
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.
Number 1885
CHAIR JAMES explained HJR 3 by Representative Ivan Ivan proposed a
resolution to the Constitution of the State of Alaska relating to
subsistence uses of fish and wildlife by residents. She asked that
the testimony today include an opinion in regards to the concept of
a constitutional amendment.
Number 1983
BEN HASTINGS was the first person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. He thanked Representatives Ogan and Masek for
introducing HJR 21. He had a problem with the federal government
running our lives which was exactly what was taking place under
ANILCA. At the current time, the federal government was only
allowed to control game management and we just experienced an
example of this type of management in game management area number
two where a decision was made without consideration of state or
federal biologists. There was no reason to shut the area to deer
hunting, but the council chose to close it down anyway. The
decision was based on greed, not need. In October the federal
government would take over our fisheries, and after observing the
way the game was being dealt with, a takeover was totally
unacceptable. He further mentioned that there were some parts of
ANILCA that needed to be addressed - barter and trade for tens of
thousands of dollars, for example. He was also concerned about the
definition of the term "rural". Under ANILCA there were five areas
in Alaska that were not considered rural, such as, Ketchikan.
"What I see happening is the federal government is moving back into
our lives and creating two classes of people - rural versus non-
rural. And ladies and gentlemen, that is not only unacceptable,
but it is unconstitutional under our state constitution." The
Governor's answer was to change the state's constitution, but when
ANILCA came about, the constitution was already in place. "Leave
our constitution alone," he declared.
Number 2111
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Hastings if he had seen the language in HJR
3?
MR. HASTINGS replied, "Yes."
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Hastings if he agreed that this could be done
under Section IV of the Constitution of the State of Alaska?
Number 2127
MR. HASTINGS replied he would have to study it before answering her
question.
CHAIR JAMES asked him to think about it and get back to her.
Number 2140
JOHNNY RICE was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. He felt the subsistence issue was the most important
one facing the state of Alaska. He had not had the time to study
HJR 3, but he would read the language. He strongly supported HJR
21, as it stood now. Title VIII of ANILCA was inherently flawed
and in direct conflict with the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution
of the United States. He could not understand why ANILCA was
viewed as a mighty policy immune to any type of amending in some
circles in the state. If we without compromise amend our state
constitution to comply with a federal mandate, was that not in fact
surrendering our right as Alaskans to have a state government? he
asked. "I myself do not see it stopping here." He shuddered at
the thought of having a Washington D.C. commission set bag limits
and post fishery announcements in the state. He cited an example
of two million acres of coal land in Utah taken over by the federal
government. Utah did not have a very big voting base so "let's
just trample the state legislature." Alaska was next, he
announced, unless we send a clear message to the federal
government. We need to do everything possible to preserve a life
off of the land environment.
Number 2229
CLARK WHITNEY was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He was a 35 year resident of Alaska and the father of 4
children. We were all consumptive users of Alaska's wildlife
resources. He strongly urged the committee members to support HJR
21 for fear of losing the right to the resources. It had been
obvious so far that any intervention of the federal government in
the management of Alaska's resources had only served to divide the
state racially and politically. The state had an excellent track
record of managing its fish and game in the past. He was also
concerned about the financial ramifications of an expanded
subsistence right in commercial fishing, guiding, timber and
tourism. As a resident of rural Alaska prior to ANILCA, he had
never observed a problem of the management of Alaska's fish and
game. He announced he would not propose any amendment to the
Constitution of the State of Alaska.
Number 2290
CHAIR JAMES explained she was more interested in the language of
HJR 3. She was not proposing it as an amendment.
MR. WHITNEY stated the ultimate goal of the Governor and those
opposing HJR 21 would be an amendment.
CHAIR JAMES replied she agreed with his assessment. She did not
like amending the constitution, but the debate had been so far
either to amend ANILCA or the constitution. There had not been
debate in the middle ground yet.
Number 2347
JOE HARDY was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. The subsistence issue had been a divisive one on the Kenai
Peninsula. The Governor dropped the ball when he withdrew the
state from the Babbitt lawsuit, therefore, the legislature needed
to represent the people of the state on this issue. The
Constitution of the State of Alaska held that fish and game was for
the common use for all of the people. While the federal
subsistence laws disenfranchised a vast majority of the people. He
did not feel that an amendment was a reasonable solution to the
problem. The resolution was a step in the right direction by
putting pressure on the congressional delegation. "Subsistence was
a big brother attempt to control Alaska's future. The
ramifications are onerous. This will have long-term economic
ramifications on Alaska's businesses if not resolved, not excluding
the sport use of our wildlife." And this was only the subsistence
issue; the tribal rights controversy needed to be resolved as well.
House Joint Resolution 21 was a step in the right direction. He
noted, as a side, that the Ninilchik Native Council was asking for
subsistence priority for grouse that had been transplanted in the
Kenai. In addition, the middle ground was where the state was in
the mid-1970's when the boards made the seasons more favorable to
the local residents and when it was available to others who chose
to hunt in the area, for example. Others were not disenfranchised.
Number 2460
CHAIR JAMES commented that the identification of subsistence
"areas" as opposed to "users" was not intended under ANILCA. She
asked Mr. Hardy if the identification of an area was a possible
solution to the problem?
TAPE 97-43, SIDE B
Number 0001
MR. HARDY replied yes and no. The average state hunter had not
been disenfranchised from many areas, but it was coming based on
the way the subsistence board had been ruling. There was a problem
if a subsistence hunter from Barrow could hunt on the Prince of
Wales Island, for example, when the local Ketchikan residents could
not hunt on the island themselves.
Number 0026
CHAIR JAMES commented that Senator Stevens was heard saying "local"
instead of "rural". She asked Mr. Hardy if the identification of
local was a solution to the problem?
Number 0037
MR. HARDY replied as long as it did not disenfranchise non-rural or
non-local people from utilizing wildlife resources in an area.
Number 0046
CHAIR JAMES explained she had seen people disenfranchised from an
area because of other reasons besides subsistence.
Number 0056
MR. HARDY said he did not disagree with a de facto approach. He
believed that game reservations should benefit the locals. If you
did not live in the area it was up to you to figure out how to
enter the area to hunt, but you should not be totally kept out of
the area.
Number 0083
CHARLIE CURTIS, President and CEO, NANA Regional Corporation, was
the next person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue. He
spoke today in opposition to HJR 21. The NANA Regional Corporation
represents the interest of the people of the Northwest Arctic and
over 1,500 shareholders living in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and other
parts of the state. The protections offered under ANILCA were
necessary for the people the corporation represented and the
culture.
Number 0111
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Curtis if the solution was for the state to
define the terms "rural" and "customary and traditional" for the
purposes of subsistence uses as called for on page 2, line 26?
Number 0132
MR. CURTIS replied it was an obvious intent to skew the definitions
of these key terms to include urban residents.
Number 0156
JOHN ERLICH, Deputy Director, Kotzebue IRA Council, was the next
person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue. The council
opposed HJR 21 and all the amendments to ANILCA. There was not a
message yet that could be sent to Congress and HJR 21 was certainly
not a credible message.
Number 0182
SAM JACKSON, Executive Director, Akiak IRA Council, was the next
person to testify via off-net in Akiak. The council was a
federally recognized tribe sitting on Indian country. He spoke
today in opposition to HJR 21. He explained a few of the young men
from Akiak were cited for fishing without a sport license for trout
with a rod and reel - a fish commonly caught for subsistence. They
were told by the fish and game officers that they needed to use a
piece of string and a hook to fish subsistently. There was not a
problem with ANILCA or subsistence in his home town. He asked that
a copy of HJR 3 be faxed to him so that he could comment on it
later.
Number 0314
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN thanked Mr. Jackson for his comments
today.
Number 0329
CHAIR JAMES explained she agreed that in his area rural did not
mean anything. She asked Mr. Jackson if he could understand that
in other areas of the state rural was not a good definition?
MR. JACKSON replied, "Yes." The term "local", however, was not a
good definition either.
CHAIR JAMES replied she understood it also did not meet the needs.
Number 0355
CARL JACK, Subsistence Director, Rural Alaska Community Action
Program (RURALCAP), was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Anchorage. The resolution was really designed to
repeal Title VIII of ANILCA. The resolution was driving a wedge
between Natives and non-Natives; urban and rural; and did not
provide a consensus platform to resolve the dual management issue.
The congressional delegation had repeatedly stated that they would
not introduce any legislation to amend ANILCA unless there was
consensus interest in Alaska. Senator Stevens in his annual
address to the legislature said that he did not agree with the
resolution; it would not pass the U.S. Senate and that a solution
layed with an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Alaska.
He announced he would forward a legal analysis of HJR 21 to the
committee members; there was not enough time today. In addition,
the effect of the resolution, if adopted, would be to drive a wedge
between Natives and non-Natives; urban and rural; and the views
promoted by the Alaska Outdoor Council and rural Alaskans. He
recommended to the committee members to table the resolution. "Do
not pass it out of the committee," he declared. Let's work towards
a real solution that everyone could agree with and support.
Number 0483
REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Jack how the legislature could
extend a hand to rural Alaska to get people to the table to form a
consensus agreement?
Number 0499
MR. JACK replied - personally - he would look at the resolution of
the Lt. Governor and amend the provision dealing with the boards.
In addition, he suggested an interim committee that would travel to
rural Alaska to discuss the issue. He believed there was room for
compromise on both sides.
Number 0565
PATRICK CLEVELAND, Tribal Administrator, Eek Traditional Council,
was the next person to testify via off-net in Eek. The council
opposed HJR 21 because the track record was not good in regards to
the rural areas. He cited the closure of subsistence use of fish
in the Yukon River and the closure of Area M fisheries as examples.
The resolution was just another tool to fight tribes in Alaska and
a way to eliminate a very small amount of income for those who
already lived in a third world condition. It would make life that
much harder. He asked that a copy of HJR 3 be faxed to him.
Number 0662
CARL ROSSIER, Representative, The Territorial Sportsmen, was the
first person to testify in Juneau. The sportsmen dated back to
1945 and had been very active in fish and wildlife issues in the
state as well as statehood and the constitution. The sportsmen
believed that there was no solution in amending the Constitution of
the State of Alaska. "We just feel to change our constitution in
the face of what's currently in place within ANILCA is a road to
disaster for us." It would provide a future of pitting one Alaskan
against another. For that reason, the sportsmen supported HJR 21.
It was not a perfect document but it was a step. There was not a
"silver bullet" that would solve the issue. A solution was going
to require a multi-faceted approach, such as, court disputes and
lawyers. The feds were here already and the state would see
further involvement come October 1, 1997 with the take over of the
commercial fishing industry. At that point, a lot of people would
suddenly come awake just like what happened in Ketchikan when it
found that the federal subsistence board was closing the residents
from deer hunting on the Prince of Wales Island. There were
examples like this all over the state and we could not continue to
support this. We had to take the initial step and he considered
the resolution as an initial step. "We've got to get off of the
fence and get off of the dead center that we've been on for too
long here on this issue." Consensus, he explained, would probably
be 51 percent.
MR. ROSSIER further noted that Sydney Huntington (ph) also
supported HJR 21. He was hurt and in the hospital so was unable to
get his comments to the committee members.
Number 0858
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Rossier if he would say that subsistence was
a valid use of resources in some cases?
MR. ROSSIER replied, "Absolutely." The sportsmen had never, as a
group, opposed subsistence. The boards had been doing a pretty
good job over the last 30 years of balancing the needs of the
various user groups. Subsistence had always been the priority,
although it was not always evident in the minds of those who raised
the issues.
Number 0914
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Rossier if he had any specific suggestions
that should be included in HJR 21?
Number 0922
MR. ROSSIER replied the sportsmen would like to see the whole
"tamale" go, so to speak, in terms of what the resolution covered.
The resolution stated that state and private lands were the
responsibility of the state and they should not be included in the
federal takeover of fish and wildlife management.
Number 0965
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that he had a problem with the
resolution because it admitted that the state accepted some of the
current court rulings. He did not accept the Department of
Interior's definition of "public lands". He asked Mr. Rossier to
comment on the resolution amending the definition of "public lands"
to exclude state and private land and water?
Number 0999
MR. ROSSIER replied he tended to agree with Representative Vezey.
It would ultimately be resolved through the courts.
Number 1010
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY stated, if there was a legislative solution,
the courts were suppose to follow the law. He did not have a
problem with removing any possibility of state and private lands
being considered public lands. He wondered, however, if by passing
a resolution that said amend, it would be an admission of accepting
the definition. He would like to see the wording clarified.
Number 1039
MR. ROSSIER replied he would not have a problem with what
Representative Vezey was suggesting. Who knew how the courts would
ultimately decide on the issue.
Number 1053
CHAIR JAMES stated that if legislation was not written specifically
enough the courts would interpret it in a way that was not
intended. A court decision was not final; it could always be fixed
by new legislation. The intent of ANILCA was good, but the
language was lousy. It did not explain what subsistence uses in
Alaska meant and the court decisions were even worse. The
definition of "rural" did not fit Alaska's definition nor did it
identify where subsistence uses was needed. She agreed with
Representative Vezey; she did not want to admit to any of the court
decisions or assumptions. She asked Mr. Rossier if he would be
willing to work on changing the language?
MR. ROSSIER replied he would be glad to help.
Number 1175
DONALD WESTLUND was the next person to testify via teleconference
in Ketchikan. He had been a resident of Ketchikan for over 20
years. The state would relinquish all of its authority over to
federal directives, not some as the sponsor statement read. It
would be the federal courts that would decide the laws. In
addition, the take over would not just affect commercial fishing
but all fisheries. He did not agree with HJR 3 but liked some of
the wording such as "direct dependence". He liked the wording
"regional dependency" even better. He agreed that ANILCA neither
affirmed nor denied the existence of tribal sovereignty and Indian
country in Alaska. He announced his support of HJR 21; it was the
way to go. We needed to send a strong message to our congressional
delegation in Washington D.C. "They need to know that they are not
running the state, that they are representing the state." And any
change to the Constitution of the State of Alaska would not change
what ANILCA could do to Alaska. He suggested sending a copy of
ANILCA to the other states that had federal lands because it would
go to them after Alaska.
Number 1348
DICK COOSE was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. He declared his support of HJR 21. Overall, if ANILCA
was not changed, the state would not have any control over its fish
and game. We could change the constitution, but ANILCA would still
control it. In addition, ANILCA was also controlling other
resources within the state. He cited recently at a subsistence
advisory meeting an environmentalist was explaining that any
support of timber sales would cut down on the number of deer in
Southeast. He suggested to first fix ANILCA then amend the
constitution, but only if Title VIII went away so that we could
move forward and control our own state in regards to subsistence
uses. In addition, if we did not take back control of Alaska for
Alaskans the federal government would turn us into a national park.
It was coming so we needed the voice of the legislators; the
Governor and the federal government were not representing us right
now. "You folks are our hope so hang tough and go with HJR 21 and
give the folks a chance to vote on a constitutional amendment. If
it's a good one we may pass it. If it's a bad one, it isn't going
to go anywhere." Consensus would be about 80 percent, not 51
percent as mentioned earlier.
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Coose if he was in support of HJR 21, for
clarification?
MR. COOSE replied, "Yes I am."
Number 1531
RANDY SHUMATE was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He was representing himself and was president of the Kenai
Peninsula Safari Club. What about the resources involved in this
issue? The misinterpretations of ANILCA were defeating its own
purpose and intent. There were documented cases of reverse
discrimination. In his opinion the intent of ANILCA was good, but
the language had mutated to the point that it was self-serving to
a minor percentage of the population. The provision in HJR 21 were
a step in the right direction. He reiterated he did not oppose the
intent of ANILCA; he opposed its interpretation and implementation.
Number 1668
GARY HULL, was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Kenai. He was a fish and game guide and a subsistence user. He
thanked Representatives Ogan and Masek for bringing the issue to
the floor. Subsistence was the most important issue facing Alaska
today. It was a black hole. We, as Alaskans, needed to demand
that ANILCA be amended to come in line with the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. "We don't need to amend our constitution to come
in line with ANILCA." he declared. Alaska needed to take back
control of its fish and game resources. The federal government had
no place running our resources. He asked the committee members to
act on the resolution now. He totally supported HJR 21.
Number 1752
APRIL FERGUSON was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Nome. She was opposed to the resolution. The legislature must
eventually address the subsistence issue, but the resolution was
not an effective or honest way to begin the conversation. The
resolution asked that the Native community give up its established
subsistence protection and place the future of their children and
heritage in the hands of the state when the climate was overtly
anti-Native. It would be suicidal and foolish. The resolution was
an ingenious delay tactic and she encouraged the legislators to
continue to invest their time, resources, and tax dollars in
pursing HJR 21 instead of searching for a solution. She also
applauded the delay of any genuine conversation until October when
the questions would be resolved for all of us.
Number 1842
FRITZ WILLIE was the next person to testify via off-net in
Napakiak. He announced he opposed HJR 21. Comments needed to be
heard from both sides. He suggested to the committee members not
to consider it.
Number 1908
ROD ARNO, President, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was the next
person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. He was a 25 year
resident of Palmer. The AOC delegates and board of directors
supported HJR 21 for two reasons. The first was their concern for
sound conservation of the natural resources in Alaska. The second
was their concern for fair allocation of the common use of the
natural resources found on federal public lands. He reiterated the
testimony of Dick Bishop, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor
Council. The AOC extended its support for a subsistence compromise
within the state by testifying in favor of HJR 21. The resolution
recognized a preference of subsistence under ANILCA creating
divisiveness. The resolution was a first step by placing an
unconstitutional act - ANILCA - back into the hands of the
congressional delegation. The statistics indicated at 41 percent
that Alaskans believed that the federal subsistence laws should be
repealed while only 32 percent did not know or did not have an
opinion. A larger mandate, he recognized, than what elected the
current Administration. The 32 percent was a clear indicator of
the complication of the subsistence issue. This was why an open
dialogue was needed. Therefore, he commended Representatives Ogan
and Masek for opening the concern up to the public through the
resolution. In addition, the courts recognized that their holding
were unsatisfactory and the solution would be in legislative
action.
Number 2293
WALTER JOHNSON, Sr. was the next person to testify via
teleconference in Yakutat. He was opposed to HJR 21. He was from
a small community and depended on the resources. He found the
resolution one of the most discriminatory actions taken against all
the citizens of Alaska. Subsistence was for rural Alaskan
residents of any color or creed. He did not know why big cities
were against subsistence because it kept us from moving to the
cities and off of welfare. In addition, it stated very clearly in
the Constitution of the United States that the federal government
had power over the states. He agreed with Ms. Ferguson's testimony
from Nome.
TAPE 97-44, SIDE A
Number 0030
CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Johnson if he could understand that the
concept of "rural" became blurred closer to the urban areas? She
cited Ketchikan was not considered rural, but Saxman was considered
rural when it was only a few miles away and had the same benefits
as Ketchikan. Plus, Ketchikan was having trouble because of the
closing of the pulp mill.
MR. JOHNSON, Sr. replied he could understand. He had lived in
Ketchikan, Nome, Bristol Bay, Sitka, Anchorage and the Aleutian
Chain. And during all those years he lived a subsistence
lifestyle. The citizens of Ketchikan had the ability to move to
rural Alaska if a subsistence lifestyle was what they wanted. The
blur was the result of the AOC, for example, that wanted its fair
share. "They have their fair share. They just want more." he
declared. He reiterated we did not want to be forced to go to the
city and to go on welfare. "We have our pride and would like to
stay in the villages."
Number 0247
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN explained that he represented the lower
Kuskokwim and Bristol Bay area. Historically the community of
Akiak was the first area to be settled followed by Bethel. Akiak
had a hospital, mining and government and at one time Akiak was
divided by a reservation. The Native side was on the reservation
while the other side was open to all. It was a matter of pride
being born into the Native side of the community. The children
were taught pride, the art of hunting and fishing, and the
preservation of the resources. Alaska was such a large state that
it was comparable to another country. Consequently, there was a
diversity of lifestyles. The people that he represented were full
of pride because of their lifestyle and this ability had been
recognized by the federal government prior to statehood. Thus, the
communities would rather work with the federal government. The
debate today was a product of statehood. "I'm sure you understand
that some of the comments made by testifiers from rural parts of
the state would like to hang to their way of life in the villages
to take care of themselves."
Number 0519
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if the definition in ANILCA
of "subsistence preference" was the same preference that Natives
had at the time?
Number 0562
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied ANILCA protected and guaranteed the
rights and abilities that we had in place. His constituents were
afraid of opening ANILCA because they feared the end result.
Number 0607
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan if he believed that the
supporters of amending ANILCA did not support subsistence uses as
it had been done over the years?
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it depended on the area that you came
from. The problem of equal access to common property was in the
areas like Ketchikan and other built up communities.
Number 0677
CHAIR JAMES commented the biggest problem was not the historical
and customary uses or the infringement on existing subsistence
uses, but the addition of more people participating in subsistence
by their zip code. It was not from the existing long-term people.
She cited two gentlemen who worked for the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) made the comment how wonderful it was to be in
Alaska where they could subsistence hunt. They came to Alaska on
a temporary basis and earned a substantial salary. She asked
Representative Ivan if they should be able to participate in a
subsistence lifestyle because of where they were living?
Number 0748
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it depended on where they were at. In
his community a lot of the non-Natives married into the Native
community and became community members. They had equal access to
the resources as the Natives and were in fact encouraged to take
care of themselves. There was no discrimination.
Number 0802
CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Ivan, if the people that she
referenced earlier had a salary of up to $60,000, should they still
have subsistence use of the resources?
Number 0854
REPRESENTATIVE IVAN replied it was a matter of lifestyle.
Number 0866
CHAIR JAMES said there was not a single solitary person in the
state who would take that right away. There was support for the
lifestyle. The issue was convoluted across the state, however.
Number 0888
REPRESENTATIVE VEZEY commented that the federal employee she
referred to were probably engaged in consumptive use guaranteed
under the sport hunting regulations. He could not see how they
would qualify under the subsistence regulations. If they had been
here more than one year, they could take advantage of the rural
preference, however.
Number 0922
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON commented the challenges that she referred to
would remain irregardless if there was resolution to ANILCA or the
constitution.
Number 1002
EILEEN NORBERT was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Nome. She was opposed to HJR 21. According to the division of
subsistence, the annual harvest of wild resources was 375 pounds
per person in rural areas compared to 22 pounds per person in urban
areas. It seemed that we were always in a position to fight for
the very food that we put on our tables for dinner. "It shouldn't
be that way." In addition, one year ago the board of fisheries
found that the False Pass fishery was more important economically
to the state than our subsistence fishery. That was an example of
how we were disadvantaged and how the state system hurt us.
Another example was the closing of the river near Nome to
subsistence fishing. It forced fishing on the ocean which required
a bigger boat, for example, causing economic hardship. She urged
the legislature not to adopt the resolution.
Number 1204
CHAIR JAMES stated that nobody wanted to take subsistence rights
away.
Number 1226
MS. NORBERT replied she disagreed. Gutting ANILCA, as HJR 21
proposed, took away our ability to hunt and fish subsistently.
Number 1250
LORETTA BULLARD, President, Kawerak Inc., was the next person to
testify via teleconference in Nome. She was opposed to HJR 21.
The majority of Alaskans favored placing a constitutional amendment
on the ballot to put the issue to rest. "This issue has divided
Alaska long enough." It was irresponsible that the issue had not
been addressed before this time. Rural Alaskans were fed up with
having to continually deal with the issue and not seeing any
movement by the legislature.
Number 1314
RUSSELL NELSON, Natural Resources/Environmental Protection Manger,
Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA), was the next person to
testify via teleconference in Dillingham. He read the following
from a letter of statement into the record:
"The Bristol Bay Native Association is a tribal organization
serving 31 Alaska Native communities, each of which is heavily
dependent upon subsistence use of Fish and Game.
"The laws of the State of Alaska provide no meaningful priority or
protection for subsistence use of Fish and Game because they equate
recreational.
"If the current policies and laws of the State of Alaska regarding
subsistence use of Fish and Game are extended to apply statewide,
then Alaska Native culture, traditions, and indeed village life
itself will eventually be destroyed because of continuing urban
population growth and resultant pressure on Fish and Game
resources.
"Cutbacks on government spending on welfare and other services in
rural Alaska are making subsistence even more essential.
"The only meaningful legal protection for subsistence and the
continued vitality of Native subsistence-based culture is Title
VIII of the Alaska Native Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
"House Joint resolution 21 has been introduced in the Alaska State
Legislature and asks Congress to amend Title VIII of ANILCA in a
manner which will effectively destroy the protection it gives to
subsistence.
"Some of the changes requested by HJR 21 would have no practical
effect as they reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the law,
for example:
- State and private land are already excluded from the
definition of public land in ANILCA
- ANILCA already neither confirms nor denies the existence of
tribal sovereignty and Indian Country in Alaska
"HJR 21 contains many other inaccuracies of law and fact.
"HJR 21 is cleverly worded to distort the truth and appears
intended to work a subterfuge upon the people of Alaska.
"Among the falsehoods in HJR are:
- its title implied is it asking for a mere amendment to Title
VIII whereas it actually would gut the protections for
subsistence uses in Title VIII.
- the views expressed in HJR 21 are not a `plurality' of
opinion in Alaska, but a minority, polls have continually
shown a majority preference for a constitutional amendment
to restore a rural subsistence priority to state law.
- Title VIII of ANILCA does not `unnecessarily' encroach upon
state authority but is a reasonable and necessary exercise
of Congressional authority to meet the trust obligations of
the United State government toward Native Americans.
- Title VIII of ANILCA does not contradict the 10th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution; both state and federal courts have
consistently upheld the constitutionality of Title VIII
against 10th Amendment and other constitutional challenges.
"The Board of Directors of the Bristol Bay Native Association, on
behalf of itself and the following Alaskan Native communities:
Aleknagik, Chignik Bay, Chignik Lagoon, Chignik Lake, Clarks
Point, Dillingham, Egegik, Ekuk, Ekwok, Igiugig, Iliamma,
Ivanof Bay, Kanatak, King Salmon, Kokhanok, Koliganek,
Levelock, Manakotak, Naknek, New Stuyahok, Newhalen,
Nondalton, Pedro Bay, Perryville, Pilot Point, Port Heiden,
Portage Creek, South Naknek, Togiak, Twin Hills, and Ugashik
ardently oppose HJR 21 and urge its defeat in the Alaska State
Legislature and its rejection by Congress."
Number 1510
JOHN PECKHAM was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. He was a commercial fisherman and supported making
changes to ANILCA similar to the ones in HJR 21 because the recent
court and federal interpretations were liberal. He saw stock
management as opposed to sustained yield management. He supported
changes to ANILCA because the regulatory body was not accountable
to the legislature or the Governor and, therefore, not the people.
He was not opposed to a change in the constitution or state laws if
it would help keep the federal government from managing the state's
fisheries. For example, changing the law so that subsistence was
based on need and a remote location. He liked HJR 3 as well, but
changes to ANILCA were necessary to keep the state's authority over
the management of its fish and wildlife.
Number 1587
CHAIR JAMES thanked Mr. Peckham for his testimony. He was the
first today to indicate that changing the constitution alone would
not solve the problem. It was important to get the feds out of the
state as well.
Number 1606
KAY ANDREW was the next person to testify via teleconference in
Ketchikan. She was a lifelong Alaskan and in total support of HJR
21. The federal takeover in October meant the possibility of no
place to hunt or fish abusing our civil and state rights. Congress
developed ANILCA knowing it was outside the Constitution of the
State of Alaska. "It is my belief Congress knew we could not come
in compliance with ANILCA." The federal government could still
come and manage our resources if someone did not like the way the
state was managing them if ANILCA was not amended. Therefore, the
only solution was to fix ANILCA. In addition, the Babbitt case,
dropped by the Governor, could have given us the avenue to deal
with the issue. We the urban people should ask the Governor why he
dropped the case. She encouraged the passage of HJR 21 to show the
congressional delegation we were trying to do something. Senator
Stevens needed to be reminded who elected him to office because the
congressional delegation could do something contrary to his
testimony before the legislature. It was their problem and they
needed to be pressured to do something. The legislature right now
was the only body protecting all of Alaskans rights. Ketchikan was
concerned because of its status of urban when Saxman was considered
rural. She did not consider Sitka rural either. There was no
consistency. The people who lived in urban areas provided the
ability for the rural communities to exist by paying income taxes
to the federal government. What would happen if the urban people
decided to not pay this money anymore?
Number 1778
DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, was the
next person to testify in Juneau. The testimony indicated there
was a high level of confusion and misunderstanding. Some argued it
was a race issue; other argued it was a trust relationship between
the state and federal governments. Mr. Russel from Dillingham
indicated it was a matter of economy as well which was true for
some areas of the state. The Bristol Bay district, however, had
consistently had a per capita income that far exceeded the national
average and had at times been the highest per capita for income in
the United States collectively. It was currently 145 percent of
the average national income in the United States. There needed to
be a fair way to extend the benefits of subsistence to all who
qualified. The rights were not distributed in a cookie cutter
fashion. The regulations indicated that was not how it operated;
there were allocation decisions made between the different kinds of
uses. The equal protection of the common use of the resources
should dictate that each Alaskan should have equal opportunity to
qualify for the benefits under a subsistence priority. Therefore,
the same opportunities should be the same as a resident of
Fairbanks who lived subsistently. The extent that he relied on
natural resources for a livelihood, despite his cash income, was
higher than many who lived in rural places. The reason the supreme
court ruled out the federal law was because it was both under and
over-inclusive. There were people in rural Alaska that it did not
fit, and there were people in urban Alaska that it did fit but were
precluded. The solution was to base the importance of the
resources to the lifestyle and well being of a person; it did not
have to depend on racial background or where a person lived. The
federal law was arbitrary in terms of fair treatment and sound
conservation.
Number 2066
CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held over until a later
date yet to be determined.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2075
CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee
meeting at 10:17 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|