Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/25/1995 09:37 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 312 - EXTEND CURRENT SUBSISTENCE LAW Number 132 KYLE PARKER, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, SPEAKER GAIL PHILLIPS, PRIME SPONSOR, told committee members Liza Gay was available on line. He said she is the former Assistant Attorney General and headed the Natural Resources Section in the Anchorage office up until about two years ago. Ms. Gay has been contracted by the legislature to work on the subsistence issue. He stated Ms. Gay is very knowledgeable in state subsistence law. MR. PARKER said the 1992 state subsistence law is set to sunset in October 1995. HB 312 repeals the sunset clauses of that 1992 law, thereby extending the 1992 law indefinitely. LIZA GAY, ATTORNEY, said the sponsor statement before the committee explains the reasons why HB 312 is a good bill to pass. HB 312 keeps the 1992 law intact rather than reverting back to the 1986 law. She stated even though the two are similar, there are many advantages in the 1992 law. She pointed out HB 312 provides that the existing language the legislature worked out in 1992 remain in place. She told committee members the sponsor statement explains why the 1992 law is an improvement over the 1986 law in terms of definitions. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES stated he is puzzled as to how HB 312 preserves the 1992 law. He said in Section 1 of HB 312, it says Section 3, special session law 1992 is repealed. When looking at special session law 1992, Section 3 is a repeal and reenactment. He felt if there is a repeal of a repeal and reenactment, the amendment is being eliminated and the 1986 law is being preserved. MS. GAY said HB 312 was drafted by the Legislative Affairs attorneys and the repeal of Section 3 takes away the 1986 law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES disagreed. He said Section 3 in special session law 1992 repeals the 1986 law and reenacts it to read differently. He stated Section 3 of special session law 1992 was an amendment to the existing statute AS 16.05.258 and if the amendment is being repealed before the effective date of the amendment, then the amendment is eliminated and the 1986 law remains. MS. GAY said that was not her understanding. She stated HB 312 takes away the reversion to the 1986 law. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES said he checked with Legislative Affairs Legal Services and they concur with his interpretation. MS. GAY reiterated Legislative Affairs Legal Services drafted HB 312. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES repeated HB 312 is repealing an amendment before the effective date of the amendment and therefore, the amendment does not have an effect. He stressed if the amendment does not have an effect, the 1986 law stands. Number 245 MR. PARKER stated Section 2 of the 1992 law is the 1992 law. Section 3 is the 1986 law. He pointed out Section 12 of that law says "Sections 3 and 5 of this Act take effect October 1, 1995." He said in Section 3, the state would be reverting back to the 1986 law, as amended, to replace the 1992 law which sunsets in October 1995. He pointed out Representative Davies was correct in saying that the 1986 law was changed in Section 3. However, the intent was that Section 2 remain in effect but in the event Section 2 sunsetted in October 1995, the state would go back to the 1986 law by Section 12 of the 1992 law. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked why the effective date of October 1, 1995, was put in Section 12. MR. PARKER said that was the sunset date to ensure the provisions of the 1986 law would come back into effect. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS clarified HB 312 extends the existing situation indefinitely. MR. PARKER replied the extension in HB 312 will extend the 1992 law indefinitely. Number 293 GERON BRUCE, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME (ADF&G), said the Governor has asked the Lieutenant Governor to take the lead in trying to bring together the various parties who are in dispute about subsistence in the state. He noted the Lieutenant Governor will be working on the issue over the summer and next winter and hopefully will come up with a solution to the subsistence issue which will last and be satisfactory to most Alaskans. He stated the Governor is willing to support a one-year extension of the status quo while that process is ongoing. MR. BRUCE pointed out HB 312 is not simply an extension of the status quo and for that reason, the Governor cannot support it. He stated the 1992 law struck a balance of terror by adopting a new subsistence law during the 1992 special session but leaving on the books, in obeyance, the 1986 law and said there would be a review of the 1992 law in 1995, a report would be issued and there would be an examination of the performance under the 1992 law to determine if that law was an improvement over the 1986 law. He explained if the 1992 law was not considered to be an improvement, then the 1986 law would come back on the books. MR. BRUCE said HB 312 removes the 1986 law and the sunsetting provision. Therefore, HB 312 essentially undermines the crafted mechanism to keep pressure upon people to come up with a lasting solution. He stated the Administration is willing to work with the sponsors of this legislation to come up with a vehicle that will extend the status quo for one year while an attempt to find a permanent solution to the subsistence issue is ongoing. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES asked what the key differences are between the 1986 and 1992 laws. MR. BRUCE replied the 1986 law contains the rural priority for subsistence use. He said the 1992 law established a mechanism to put together nonsubsistence areas which were, in some people's view, designed to be around the urban areas where subsistence was not a part of the way of life of the people there. He explained the 1986 law does not have nonsubsistence use areas in it. He noted the nonsubsistence areas have been ruled by a lower court to be unconstitutional and a decision from the Alaska Supreme Court is being waited on. MR. BRUCE added the steps the Boards of Fish and Game are required to go through in order to make a determination on subsistence are laid out in more detail in the 1992 law than they are in the 1986 law. He stated the other significant difference between the 1992 law and the 1986 law is the 1992 law has some definitions which the 1986 law lacks such as customary trade and customary and traditional. He added there is a definition in the 1992 law for reasonable opportunity. Number 383 JERRY MCCUNE, PRESIDENT, UNITED FISHERMEN OF ALASKA (UFA), said UFA supports HB 312. He felt there is a need to extend the current subsistence law because it has good definitions. He noted the current law is not a total package but there is a need to extend it until a determination on where the state is at with other rulings is made and a consensus is developed. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES clarified UFA prefers the 1992 law over the 1986 law. MR. MCCUNE said that was correct. He stated UFA prefers the 1992 law because of the definitions it contains and because there is a need to see the rulings on the nonsubsistence areas. CO-CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS announced HB 312 would be held until Thursday's hearing at 4:00 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|