Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/01/2022 01:00 PM House TRANSPORTATION
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB322 | |
| HB352 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 366 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 322 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 352 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE TRANSPORTATION STANDING COMMITTEE
March 1, 2022
1:04 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Grier Hopkins, Chair
Representative Sara Hannan, Vice Chair
Representative Louise Stutes
Representative Harriet Drummond
Representative Tom McKay
Representative Kevin McCabe
Representative Mike Cronk
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 322
"An Act relating to the Alaska marine highway system vessel
replacement fund; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 322(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 352
"An Act requiring the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities to establish a consultation process to rename the
Glenn Highway."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 322
SHORT TITLE: AK MARINE HWY SYSTEM VESSEL REPL. FUND
SPONSOR(s): TRANSPORTATION
02/14/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/14/22 (H) TRA, FIN
02/24/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/24/22 (H) Heard & Held
02/24/22 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/01/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 352
SHORT TITLE: CONSULT W/TRIBES TO RENAME GLENN HWY
SPONSOR(s): FIELDS
02/22/22 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/22/22 (H) TRA
03/01/22 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KERRY CROCKER, Staff
Representative Louise Stutes
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: On behalf of Representative Stutes, prime
sponsor, made comments on HB 322, Version B.
MEGAN WALLACE, Director
Legislative Legal and Research Services
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered legal questions during the hearing
on HB 322, Version B.
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director
Legislative Finance Division
Legislative Affairs Agency
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information during the hearing on
HB 322, Version B.
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments during the hearing on HB 322,
Version B; addressed the fiscal note and answered questions on
HB 352.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, introduced HB 352 and
gave a PowerPoint presentation.
JOSHUA ALBEZA BRANSTETTER
Alaskan Asian Pacific Islander Desi Americans
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352.
JOEL ISAAK, representing self
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352.
LISA WADE, Executive Director
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council
Chickaloon, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352.
DAVID REAMER, Historian
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony on HB 352.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:04:43 PM
CHAIR GRIER HOPKINS called the House Transportation Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:04 p.m. Representatives
Hopkins, Hannan, Stutes, Drummond, McKay, and McCabe were
present at the call to order. Representative Cronk arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
HB 322-AK MARINE HWY SYSTEM VESSEL REPL. FUND
1:06:00 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the first order of business would
be HB 322, "An Act relating to the Alaska marine highway system
fund; relating to the Alaska marine highway system vessel
replacement fund; relating to the Alaska higher education
investment fund; and providing for an effective date." [Before
the committee, adopted as a working document on 2/24/22, was the
proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 322, Version 32-
LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, ("Version B").]
1:06:34 PM
KERRY CROCKER, Staff, Representative Louise Stutes, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Stutes, prime sponsor,
explained that HB 322, Version B, would move the Alaska Marine
Highway System (AMHS) fund and the vessel replacement fund from
the general fund to the state treasury. By doing this, he
explained, under Article IX, Section 17(d) of the Constitution
of the State of Alaska, the funds will not be subject to the
constitutional sweep. He stated that funds subject to the sweep
must be both available for appropriations and reside in the
general fund. He noted that the proposed legislation would not
create dedicated funds, as the legislature still maintains the
ability to prorate these funds in any manner. He maintained
that it is also critical for AMHS to maintain the endowment of
money every year for continuity within the system and not suffer
the destabilizing effect of a constitutional sweep.
1:07:40 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS suggested this would deal with money going into a
fund, not necessarily how the money would be used in the future.
MR. CROCKER responded in the affirmative. He stated that the
two funds would be moved from the general fund to the treasury,
and then the AMHS fund would collect receipts from the marine
highway.
1:08:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that he objects to the use of the
terms "designated" and "dedicated." He argued that the verbs
are transitive and "mean exactly the same thing," and, because
this has not been reviewed by the court system, a "big chance"
would be taken. He referred to the memorandum ("memo") dated
March 17, 2020, from Legislative Council which defines
"designated fund" as revenue for a specific purpose; however, it
could be appropriated for any purpose. He argued that while the
fund would be taken out of the sweep by changing the name from
"designated" to "dedicated," it would be left open for the
legislature to reappropriate it for any purpose. He questioned
whether his understanding was correct.
1:09:11 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS noted that the memo from March 17, 2020, has not
been posted on the legislature's Bill Action & Status Inquiry
System (BASIS); therefore, it is not available to all committee
members. He requested that Legislative Legal Services address
Representative McCabe's question.
1:09:38 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS, responding to a request from Representative
Hannan, confirmed the referenced memo will be distributed to the
committee and posted on BASIS.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE apologized to the committee and stated
that the memo had been part of his independent research.
1:10:25 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, concurred with the general
description of the difference between "designated" and
"dedicated" funds. She explained that a designated fund would
have an established policy for its intended use. She continued
that the designation of a fund would not create a dedicated
fund, to the extent that money is required to be used by law for
these purposes, and its annual budgeting process the legislature
would independently determine whether to continue to use these
funds for the designated purposes. In other words, concerning
the proposed legislation, the legislature would have the power
to decide whether to use these funds as originally intended, or
for other appropriate purposes. She advised that the general
structure of the designated fund would not change under the
proposed legislation.
1:12:13 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS interjected that the use of "designated" and
"dedicated" would only concern the distribution of revenue. He
expressed the understanding that the fund created by the
proposed legislation would be outside of the general fund, and
appropriations from ferry earnings and sales would be put there;
however, the purpose for the money is not being specifically
laid out. He suggested that the fund would not be "designated"
or "dedicated" but simply a fund outside of the treasury.
MS. WALLACE responded in agreement, as Version B would move the
existing funds out of the general fund into a separate fund
within the state treasury, and no provision in the bill would
modify its designated usage.
1:14:34 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS directed attention to the memo in the committee
packet from Legislative Legal Services, dated February 11, 2020.
He suggested that this memo could be discussed while the other
memo is being copied and passed to the committee.
1:15:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE provided that "dedicate" means to set to a
definite use, while "designate" means to set apart for a
specific purpose. He reiterated the argument that the two words
are the same, and he pointed out there have been two lawsuits in
the state on this topic. Concerning the [March 17 and February
11] memos, he said Legislative Legal Services indicated "it is
possible" the court may find the AMHS replacement fund not
subject to the sweep. In other words, he argued that "it is
possible" the fund would be subject to the sweep. He questioned
why the legislature would do this. He expressed agreement with
putting aside money for the vessel replacement fund; however, he
expressed disagreement with the legislation because it is trying
"to dance around" the fact the legislature cannot
constitutionally dedicate funds. He suggested the court could
become involved, costing the state money. He pointed out that
the legislature has done this twice, winning one case and losing
one case. He urged the committee not to go down this "road."
He expressed the concern that Version B has no sectional
analysis, no sponsor statement, and no fiscal note. He
suggested this is being rushed, and the bill should be tabled
until the discussion is settled, possibly with an outside legal
opinion. He said, "It seems to me in both of these letters the
legal opinion is not what we think it is."
1:17:47 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS commented that legal opinions are often in
"legalese." In regard to the fiscal note and the full legal
analysis, he suggested the bill be moved to the House Finance
Standing Committee where it will get a "hefty vetting," as it
deals more with finance policy than transportation specific
policy.
1:18:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN commented that the language used in law is
connotative and different from "plain" English, and transitive
verbs could have a different meaning in reference to law. She
explained this often happens in the practice of accounting. She
argued that memos written in 2020 would not reflect the two
legal cases Representative McCabe referenced. She continued
that legal cases concerning "dedicated" versus "designated" may
go back further in Alaska case law, and the line is not as
bright as asserted. She described the committee as "non-
lawyers" debating what the law says.
1:19:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE noted his experience in negotiations and
responded that lawyers often use the "plain language" meaning.
He argued that the language would not necessarily have a
different meaning just because it is written by a lawyer. He
asserted that the line is not bright, rather it is blurry, and
"we are dancing on the wrong side of it."
1:20:21 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS expressed the importance of understanding the
intent behind the language used in negotiations. He argued that
the intent in Version B is to make these funds not subject to a
constitutional sweep, and this has been agreed upon and clear.
He suggested this argument is not about the intent, rather the
legalese. He continued that putting the intent clearly on the
record in the discussion will help with future discussions.
1:20:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES concurred with Chair Hopkins, as she has
read the March 17 memo. She restated the memo's descriptions of
"dedicated" and "designated" funds. She expressed the opinion
that the appropriations from the fund would be determined by
precedence; however, this is not the issue. The issue is to
simply move the funds from one place to another.
1:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE argued this goes back to the original
question, which needs to be "hammered out." He maintained that
because the designated funds may be appropriated for any
purpose, a future legislature could use the money for "a bridge
to nowhere."
1:22:52 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS deferred to the Legislative Finance Division.
1:22:58 PM
ALEXEI PAINTER, Director, Legislative Finance Division,
Legislative Affairs Agency, stated that a designated fund could
be appropriated for any purpose.
1:23:20 PM
MS. WALLACE, not having a copy of the March 17 memo, referenced
the legal opinion in the February 11 memo. She stated that
recent litigation related to the sweep had not been concerned
about whether funds were dedicated or designated, rather the
issues were centered on whether the funds were available for
appropriation and whether the funds were in the general fund.
In respect to dedicated funds, she pointed out in recent
litigation the Alaska Supreme Court discussed whether the
permanent fund dividend was part of a dedicated or designated
fund.
1:25:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN requested the administration speak to
this.
1:25:30 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities, commented that in an early February
conference the governor's chief of staff referred to this type
of legislation as "conceptual." He expressed the understanding
that "from a conceptual standpoint, the administration does wish
to provide stability to the Alaska Marine Highway." He added
that, conceptually speaking, having these funds not subject to
the sweep, would support stability. In response to Chair
Hopkins, he expressed uncertainty concerning the issue's
progress.
1:26:43 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS noted that the March 17 memo was handed out to
committee members. He pointed out it relates that a dedicated
fund is a revenue source which is dedicated by law for a
specific purpose. Concurring with Ms. Wallace and Mr. Painter,
he stated that this would be a structure for placing money.
1:28:07 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS opened public testimony on HB 322, Version B.
After ascertaining there was no one who wished to testify, he
closed public testimony.
1:28:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN moved to report HB 322, Version 32-
LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
1:28:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE objected.
1:29:01 PM
The committee took a brief at ease at 1:29 p.m.
1:29:32 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Drummond, Hannan,
Stutes, and Hopkins voted in favor of the motion to move CSHB
322, Version 32-LS1501\B, Marx, 2/23/22, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the attached fiscal notes.
Representatives McKay, McCabe, and Cronk voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 322(TRA) was reported out of the House
Transportation Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.
1:30:07 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:30 p.m. to 1:32 p.m.
HB 352-CONSULT W/TRIBES TO RENAME GLENN HWY
1:32:35 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced that the final order of business would
be HB 352, "An Act requiring the Department of Transportation
and Public Facilities to establish a consultation process to
rename the Glenn Highway."
1:33:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 352. He thanked the local historian,
David Reamer, who brought the concept of HB 352 to his attention
by informing him that the Glenn Highway had been named after
Edwin Glenn, who had been convicted of a war crime. After
researching the topic, he stated that he had come to the
realization that renaming the road would be worth considering.
He displayed slide 2 and referenced that Mr. Glenn was in the
military and had explored Alaska in an expedition with Joseph
Castner in the late 1890s. This exploration established the
route of the present-day Glenn Highway. He noted that Joseph
Castner was the actual person to establish the route, not Edwin
Glenn. After this expedition, he noted that Mr. Glenn had been
sent to the Philippines and participated in the Spanish-American
War. In this role, Mr. Glenn was involved in torturing a local
government official. For this Mr. Glenn was tried, convicted,
and court martialed. He continued that in 1942 the Alaska Road
Commission had renamed the Chickaloon Highway to the Glenn
Highway. He noted that the Chickaloon Highway was named after a
tribal community in the Matanuska Valley. He continued that he
has conferred with local tribal governments concerning a more
suitable name. He stated that the proposed legislation would
set a path for tribal consultation to develop a new name.
1:37:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY questioned whether Glennallen is also
named after Edwin Glenn.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS deferred the question to David
Reamer.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY noted the zero fiscal note and
suggested there would be a fiscal note if the highway is
renamed. He remarked that road signs and maps would need
to be changed, and possibly the town name of Glennallen.
He argued that to say the fiscal note is zero is
misleading.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded that HB 352 would not
rename Glennallen; however, signs may need to be replaced.
He stated that the proposed legislation would not address
this point.
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY argued that if the proposed
legislation changed the name of the road, the road signs
would have to be changed.
1:39:22 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS questioned whether the bill would change the
signs.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS deferred to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT&PF) on the fiscal
note. He stated that the bill would set up the process to
rename the highway.
1:39:41 PM
ANDY MILLS, Legislative Liaison, Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities, stated that the
fiscal note represents the current language in HB 352. He
stated that the fiscal note is this way because DOT&PF
would be directed by the proposed legislation to establish
a process for gathering input. In other words, this would
be a consultation, and the fiscal note captures this. He
added that DOT&PF gathers input all the time through
different processes. He continued that the department
often works in this capacity, and sometimes there are other
efforts involved; however, in this case little
administrative work is envisioned. In answering the
question concerning signage, he estimated the signage along
the highway, with other indirect costs, would be easily
over $2 million. He allowed that this is just an
evaluation in the central area, as there would also be the
northern region to consider. He reiterated that the
replacement of signs with a new name would be costly. He
stated that there is not a comprehensive amount because the
department would need specific language, and HB 352 only
proposes a consultation.
1:41:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE stated that he has nothing against
the idea because Mr. Glenn was a "bad guy," but he
questioned renaming a highway without changing the signs.
He referenced the large cost of this.
1:42:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed the opinion that the
proposed legislation would lay out a consultation process,
and renaming the highway is not an absolute foregone
conclusion. She questioned whether the acceptance of a new
name would need to come back to the legislature. She
expressed the understanding that there is not a process in
law for consultations concerning renaming public property.
She questioned whether the fiscal note would be written
after the authorization of the new name.
MR. MILLS responded that if the highway were to be renamed,
the legislature would have to produce a bill under Alaska
Statute (AS) 35.40, just like any other renaming
legislation. He pointed out the requirement that a road
can only be named by law is in a different statute. He
stated renaming the highway would have to come through a
different piece of legislation in the context of AS 35.40.
1:44:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK suggested that the town of Glennallen
was named after Edwin Glenn and Henry Allen.
1:44:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed the opinion that the
proposed legislation represents "cancel culture." He said,
"This is canceling out somebody who, when he did
waterboard, did not think that it was torture." He argued
that waterboarding is accepted even today as a way of
questioning. He expressed the understanding that Mr.
Glenn's charges were minimal because the disciplinary
actions only removed him from his command for one month
with a fine of $50. He expressed the opinion that the
proposed legislation would not be needed if renaming the
highway is "done correctly," and he questioned why a bill
to have a consultation is needed when there is already a
process in place to change the names of roads, which could
be done tomorrow, with a fiscal note. He continued that
the proposed legislation would only "besmirch the name of a
long-dead guy," and the highway could be renamed without
creating a "big kerfuffle" about Mr. Glenn being a "bad
guy" and without using cancel culture.
1:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed agreement for the dislike
of cancel culture and offered that most people have "good
and bad" within them. He stated that Mr. Glenn is admired
for his expeditions; however, he did not personally cut the
trail. He indicated that the intention of the bill is not
to cancel Mr. Glenn; however, he argued that the few roads
and major landmarks in Alaska should be named after the
most deserving people. He continued that, if the
committee, "in its wisdom," decides to rename the Glenn
Highway to the Katie John Highway, with a $2 million fiscal
note, then he would "love" to speak on the floor in support
of this. He continued that the road used to be called the
Chickaloon Highway, with at least three tribal communities
living the longest in this corridor; therefore, the
appropriate process would be speaking with these people and
creating a consensus.
1:48:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE commented that renaming the highway
could involve honoring the Native Alaskans without "putting
all this stuff in there concerning cancel culture." He
opined that no one really knows what Mr. Glenn did
concerning torture, as "we were not there."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded by expressing the
importance of informing the committee about Mr. Glenn in
the context of the proposed legislation.
1:49:44 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced the committee would hear invited
testimony.
1:50:21 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:50 p.m. to 1:51 p.m.
1:51:19 PM
JOSHUA ALBEZA BRANSTETTER, Alaskan Asian Pacific Islander
Desi Americans (AKAPIDA), provided invited testimony on HB
352. Talking about the importance of names, he referred to
his middle name, which is his mother's maiden name. He
stated that the Filipino culture is matriarchal, carrying
history in this way. He stated that Filipinos have been in
Alaska for 100 years, and they currently number around
25,000. He stated that it is important for this community
to not have a highway named after someone convicted of [war
crimes against Filipinos] in a war where over 200,000
Filipinos died. He added that this history has been
"cancelled" from school books. He concluded that the
proposed legislation is not about dragging a dead man
"through the mud"; instead, it is a way to celebrate
community in Alaska. He concluded that a participation
trophy should not be given to a man who contributed little
to the history of Alaska.
1:54:41 PM
JOEL ISAAK, representing self, shared that he works for the
Department of Education and Early Development as the tribal
liaison and is a member of Kenaitze Indian Tribe, but he is
testifying on behalf of himself. He stated that for
thousands of years Alaska Natives have named places after
geographic features and events, which is different from the
European tradition. He expressed the importance of
representing people and not erasing them from a place. He
stated that the consultation process outlined in the
proposed legislation would provide the proper way of coming
to a decision, as it would meld the two cultures.
Regarding all of the highways that intersect between
Fairbanks and Anchorage, he stated that these routes were
determined by the Indigenous people traversing the
landscape and mountain passes for thousands of years, and
their knowledge was used to chart out the paths. He
expressed support for the proposed legislation because the
consultation would be a "good first step." He argued that
the possible cost of the fiscal note, with the large number
of signs, represents a worthwhile purpose. He reiterated
that the way people are represented matters. He explained
that because the highway's previous Indigenous name was
supplanted by a non-Indigenous name, this would not be
erasing anything, but simply bringing back what was before.
2:00:08 PM
LISA WADE, Executive Director, Chickaloon Village
Traditional Council, provided invited testimony on HB 352.
She said that she is speaking on behalf of the Chickaloon
Tribe, and, out of respect for the other Tribes, she is not
speaking on their behalf. She expressed the opinion that
the proposed legislation does not represent cancel culture,
rather it represents an opportunity to show respect and
reconciliation for the past harms committed against Native
Alaskans during the time the highway had been created. She
added that the bill also addresses the harms against the
Filipino people. She stated that the Chickaloon Tribe
suffered great losses during the time the road had been
constructed, and disease and other negative health results
continue to affect the Tribe today. She explained that
history is not one dimensional; however, in this context it
has been told from one dimension. She explained that
because of the glamorization of people like Edwin Glenn,
Indigenous people have become invisible. She added that
Native Alaskans live with these impacts today, as
Indigenous peoples from this area have thousands of ancient
place names describing the area, but these names have been
"washed away." She provided examples of Native place names
in the area. She pointed out that for spiritual reasons
these places were named after geographical features and
uses, not after notable people; however, she added that in
a respectful, collaborative government to government
relationship, the Chickaloon Tribe would support names
selected by other people. She explained that when people
collaborate, outcomes are unifying. She stated that the
Chickaloon Village Traditional Council is available for any
questions.
2:04:15 PM
DAVID REAMER, Historian, provided invited testimony on HB
352. He confirmed that the town of Glennallen is named
after Edwin Glenn and Henry Allen. He stated that Mr.
Glenn had overseen the expedition and delegated the work
but had not made the trail. Referring to Mr. Glenn's
journals, he indicated they show a man who was mostly
concerned with local gossip. He indicated the journals are
kept at the University of Alaska, Anchorage and can be
found online. He remarked that Mr. Glenn's history record
consists of his journals, the record of his court martial,
and the highway named after him. He stated that the court
records show Mr. Glenn admitted to committing torture,
ordering torture, and overseeing torture. He stated that
the torture referenced was called "the water cure," which
is similar to current day waterboarding. He provided
details of the torture process.
2:06:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY called a point of order.
2:06:21 PM
The committee took a brief at ease at 2:06 p.m.
2:06:44 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS recommended that the account of the torture
be less specific.
2:07:07 PM
MR. REAMER summed up the torture as being extremely
painful. He stated that the trial documents reveal Mr.
Glenn held the belief this was not torture because the
Filipino people were less than human. He explained the
torture at this time had been illegal, and he quoted the
historical law code. He described Mr. Glenn's actions
which led to his court martial. He stated these accounts
are supported by letters sent back to the states by
soldiers who were disturbed by the actions, and records
show that these actions became known to President Theodore
Roosevelt, who ordered the prosecution. It was noted by
other commanding officers that Mr. Glenn did not receive
the punishment he deserved. In conclusion, he said that
the Glenn Highway was not named by Alaskans but by the U.S.
Secretary of the Interior, before Alaska became a state.
He voiced the opinion that the name was more or less
imposed on the state.
2:12:02 PM
The committee took a brief at ease at 2:12 p.m.
2:12:08 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS acknowledged that Mr. Reamer's testimony was
interrupted because of technical difficulties.
2:12:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCKAY related an apology for "getting
upset." He expressed the opinion that everyone understands
about the torture. He continued that Edwin Glenn had named
Lake Louise after his wife, so the lake would have to be
renamed, too. He stated that he is not saying Mr. Glenn
was a "good guy" and argued that the testimony was one-
sided, as Mr. Glenn had continued to prosper in his career.
2:14:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES thanked the invited testifiers, as it
was appropriate and informative testimony.
2:14:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCABE expressed agreement with the
testifiers; however, renaming the highway should not be
done by the process laid out in the proposed legislation.
He said the legislation is "some sort of subterfuge to get
a zero fiscal note." He recommended creating legislation
which would rename the highway with a $2 million fiscal
note, and "do it the way we have always done it."
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS responded by expressing the belief
that there is a better name for the highway. He added that
when introducing the legislation, he had not addressed how
DOT&PF would treat the fiscal note. He said, "I assumed
that signs cost money. To say there is subterfuge is
completely inaccurate." He continued that if the highway
is renamed by the department, the legislature would receive
the request for the funds to be appropriated. He expressed
the desire to consult with the people who have been in the
area for thousands of years before a new name is assumed.
He said, "This is why I wrote the bill up the way I did."
2:16:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN expressed the opinion that the state
should undertake a renaming process which uses Indigenous
place names. She recommended that the renaming process
should not use the current power structure, but a
consultation process. She stated that, as a lifelong
Alaskan, she has never referred to the largest mountain in
the Interior by the name of a U.S. President who never came
to Alaska. She said, "It will always be Denali to me."
She argued that the renaming process should involve the
people who have been impacted by the land they have lived
on. She continued that the bill would not be truncating a
process but initiating an idea, which will take time and
have a price tag. She suggested that individuals may pay
to change the signs. She provided the example of
Utqiagvik, and the argument that the name would not catch
on, but it has. She said, "I applaud a people who ask to
call what has always been for millennium something they
referred to it, and with that I'm going to be a supporter
of the bill."
2:18:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRONK referred to the conversation
concerning "cancel culture" as negative. If the name is
going to be changed, he suggested this be done in the
positive light of the groups being represented.
CHAIR HOPKINS expressed appreciation for the sentiment.
2:20:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DRUMMOND commented that she has learned from
the discussion and welcomes the opportunity for more of
this. Regarding the cost, she said she has voted on a
number of bills renaming roads and bridges, and each one
has been specific, with a specific price for signage. She
referenced a recent piece of legislation which had allowed
donations for the cost. She spoke about the time and
effort to rename the street she lives on and related this
to the difficulty in renaming a 190-mile highway. She
stated that she supports the bill, as it is fair and
inclusive.
2:22:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS stated that the intention of the bill
is to elevate and celebrate the inspiring Alaskans who live
along the corridor. He argued that people should be aware
of the reasons behind the consideration for renaming the
highway, and the history needs to be laid out. He
clarified that the process would not rename every road in
the state, or require the consultation process, rather it
would be to find a better name for this highway. He
remarked that this process would allow for the inspiring
stories from people who lived in this corridor to be
discovered. He said, "I would like to do that."
2:23:18 PM
CHAIR HOPKINS announced HB 352 was held over.
2:23:42 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the
House Transportation Standing Committee meeting was
adjourned at 2:23 p.m.