Legislature(2013 - 2014)CAPITOL 106
03/27/2014 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB293 | |
| SB116 | |
| HB216 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 293 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 270 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 116 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 216 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 216-OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF THE STATE
9:07:16 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE
BILL NO. 216, "An Act adding the Inupiaq, Siberian Yupik,
Central Alaskan Yup'ik, Alutiiq, Unangax, Dena'ina, Deg Xinag,
Holikachuk, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Gwich'in, Tanana, Upper
Tanana, Tanacross, Hän, Ahtna, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, and
Tsimshian languages as official languages of the state."
9:07:37 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, as joint-prime sponsor,
introduced HB 216. He noted the other joint-prime sponsors were
Representatives Millett, Edgmon, Nageak, and Herron. He stated
that HB 216 would acknowledge Alaska Native languages as
Alaska's languages. The proposed legislation would amend a part
of statute that was created with the 1998 U.S. English Voter
Initiative, which did two things: Created English as the
official language of Alaska in a ceremonial sense, and in a
legal and binding sense stated in statute that English had to be
used by the State of Alaska government. He said the latter has
been litigated and "some of it's still in the books today." He
clarified, "This bill does not touch that at all; it just
relates to the first part of the statute that was created by
that voter initiative, which created sort of a ceremonial
official language of Alaska - that language being English." He
said HB 216 would acknowledge the Alaska Native languages that
have existed long before his own ancestors existed.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS characterized HB 216 as a
grassroots bill, and he ventured there were hundreds of people
listening to the meeting. He said the testimony heard on HB 216
in the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee a
couple weeks prior was some of the most inspirational he has
experienced as a legislator. He said there are people
dedicating their lives trying to prevent the extinction of these
languages. In 2008, the last fluent speaker of the Eyak
Language, Chief Marie Smith Jones, died. He said there are a
number of other languages currently with only a handful of
speakers alive. He noted that just before the current hearing,
he learned from a woman present in the room that she had moved
from the Yukon Territory to Juneau in order to take classes from
the University of Southeast, Juneau, in the Tlingit language.
He said that is representative of what hundreds of people in
Alaska are doing to try to "turn the tide of language loss." He
said the proposed legislation would acknowledge those efforts.
9:10:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that
there was an amendment available.
9:11:02 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked if every current Alaska Native language would
be included under HB 216.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the list was
obtained from the linguists from the University of Alaska
Fairbanks and is inclusive of all Alaska Native languages today.
9:11:35 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28-
LS0905\U.1, Martin, 3/14/14, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
Page 1, following line 5:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of
Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read:
LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the
legislature that the amendment to AS 44.12.310 adding
20 languages as official languages of the state is
symbolic and is not intended to require the government
to provide additional services in those 20 additional
languages."
Page 1, line 6:
Delete "Section 1"
Insert "Sec. 2"
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS objected for the purpose of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the proposed
Amendment 1 would clarify that HB 216 would neither amend the
part of statute that relates to day to day government functions
nor force government [documents] to be printed in 20 languages.
He indicated that Amendment 1 was in line with the legal
perspective, which the committee would hear about later, and the
zero fiscal note, included in the committee packet.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated an objection to Amendment 1. He
indicated that he wanted to hear from someone at Legislative
Legal and Research Services.
9:13:03 AM
HILARY MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature,
echoed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' statement that Amendment 1
solidifies the intent of making the recognition of the state's
Native languages a symbolic one that would not require the
government to provide services in these languages.
9:14:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned the concept of taking a law
that has litigation attached to it and calling it symbolic.
MS. MARTIN indicated that the language of Amendment 1 was intent
language in uncodified law. She said she was not certain if
calling a law symbolic had been done before. She said there has
been a court case about the official language statutes, which
she offered to discuss. She stated that intent language in
uncodified law lessens the impact, because the language would
not go into statute.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what the ramifications would be for
naming the languages "official".
MS. MARTIN answered, "The statute doesn't define official
language aside from declaring what the official language is."
She continued as follows:
The [Alaska] Supreme Court has said that part of the
... official language statute is unconstitutional ....
Right now, the statute says English language has to be
used in the preparations of all official documents and
records, but the [Alaska] Supreme Court has said that
that means it has to be done in English. That does
not prevent using another language, and that statute
is not being amended in this bill. So, beyond that it
is not entirely clear what the effect is of declaring
something is an official language. There's ...
nothing else, really, that forces the use of the other
languages that I'm aware of.
9:17:45 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked what the effect of uncodified law
is in a legal proceeding.
MS. MARTIN answered that although uncodified law is not entered
into statute, if a statute is ambiguous, a court can look to
intent language to determine how the statute should be
interpreted.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referenced AS 44.12.320 and questioned
whether, without a clear statement of intent, there may be an
unintended consequence of that statute being mandated.
MS. MARTIN reiterated that AS 44.12.320 would not be amended
under HB 216, and she stated her belief that it would not
"mandate the ... use of all of the official languages to prepare
documents and records." She reiterated that currently the
government could choose, but is not required, to prepare
documents in the other languages. She clarified, "I don't think
that ... this bill would change that circumstance."
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON expressed his desire to hear from the
Department of Law.
9:20:06 AM
The committee took a brief at-ease due to technical
difficulties.
9:21:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, participating on the committee via
teleconference, said she is a joint-prime sponsor of HB 216.
She relayed that the proposed legislation is personal, because
she is one-quarter Inupiaq and grew up not knowing her language.
She said her grandmother was born in White Mountain and at a
young age taken to Oregon, where she was taught English and told
not to speak in her Native language. When she returned to
Alaska years later, she did not pass on her Native tongue to her
daughter or granddaughter, and Representative Millett expressed
feeling the loss of an opportunity to learn.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said HB 216 is symbolic and would not
require any change to statute or have any legal standing. She
indicated that her intent in testifying is to ensure that "we
still have English as our first and only language in Alaska."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT talked about Native youth in Alaska
trying to cope, and she said, "We are number one for domestic
violence; we are number one in suicide." She said the intent of
the proposed legislation is to create an environment where
Alaska Native youths can take pride in their ancestry and,
through learning their languages and hearing their stories told,
know that they are not the outsiders, but rather are "the people
that we should be learning from."
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked that care be taken with the
proposed legislation, such that any amendments to it would not
result in future litigation. In response to Chair Lynn, she
said she did not oppose the proposed Amendment 1.
9:25:03 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated that several years ago, a bill
passed that allowed Alaska to preserve its Native languages. He
stated his belief that HB 216 would open a door to an unintended
consequence. He said, "This is something that has already been
through the courts and has a huge history." He asked for DOL's
feedback as to the effect of uncodified law on legal
proceedings.
9:26:40 AM
LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State
Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law
(DOL), said she essentially agreed with the answer provided by
Ms. Martin that [uncodified law] is viewed as legislative
intent. She said that in interpreting the statute, the court
would first look to the constitution, then to statute, and
finally to regulations or legislative intent language. She said
she did not think [intent language] would have any legal impact,
but would weigh in the court's determination in a disputed issue
over the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON reiterated his concern that HB 216 would
create an unintended consequence, because people would not see
the intent language, which may result in the legislature or DOL
in the future thinking it should "align this section" with the
aforementioned statute to mandate that all official documents
include all the official languages.
MS. BAKALAR responded, "I think that would be a separate bill
entirely; this bill, standing alone, in my view, even without
the intent language, does not impose any additional requirements
on the government to produce documents in the listed languages."
She said the phrase "official language" does not appear anywhere
else in Alaska statute. Further, she said the bill would not
change any of the other requirements in the Official Language
initiative that expressly provide for government documents and
publications in English. She said the case that Ms. Martin
mentioned held that a statute that is reduced to a statement
that English is the official language of the state could not be
given legal affect, because it would only be a statement of
policy. She continued:
Based on that, the amendment to the statute that adds
all these languages is really what ... the sponsors
both mentioned - a policy statement without legal
impact - so, even regardless of intent language, I
think the statute standing alone doesn't impose any
additional obligations on the state to produce
government documents in these listed languages.
9:29:32 AM
CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Bakalar if the proposed Amendment 1 would
be detrimental to HB 216 in any way.
MS. BAKALAR answered that she did not think it would affect the
bill itself, because the statutory language was clear. She
offered her understanding that the purpose of Amendment 1 was to
reiterate what was already true in statute and in the
constitution, as interpreted by the [Alaska] Supreme Court, that
"it is largely symbolic."
9:30:27 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what the proposed legislation, with
or without Amendment 1, would change, within the context of the
law, in terms of Alaska's official language.
MS. BAKALAR answered, "I don't believe we have changed anything
in terms of what that phrase means, because that phrase is not
actually defined anywhere in the statutes."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER sought clarification that the term is not
used in other statutes. He then asked, "Will it not be ...
looked at in law or in court cases, maybe, in the future ...,
here ... along with the other places it might be used?"
MS. BAKALAR answered, "I don't believe it is used anywhere else
in the statute."
9:32:12 AM
REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK, Alaska State Legislature, as
joint-prime sponsor, asked permission to make a statement in his
Native language of Inupiaq. In response to Chair Lynn, he said
he would follow that statement with a translation. He then gave
his testimony in Inupiaq.
9:34:42 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK said he initially came in anger to testify
on HB 216, but then he realized the emotion was not anger, but
passion to keep "our language" alive. He emphasized the
importance of this issue. He stated that as recent as 1969, "we
were second-class people." Representative Nageak told of a time
when he and his cousin were walking along a street at night, in
Fairbanks, Alaska, when two large men attacked them. He said
police were around but "nothing happened."
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK stated disagreement with the labeling of
the proposed bill as symbolic. He opined that it is a
recognition that the people who have lived in Alaska since time
immemorial spoke other languages. He relayed that Barter Island
got its name, because it was the place where the Gwich'in and
Inupiat people met to trade. He said people did not always get
along, but recognized they needed each other to trade.
Representative Nageak said today people need each other. He
talked about the unintended consequences of diseases that were
brought to Alaska by non-Natives and killed many Native people
who had no immunity to them. He said there are unintended
consequences for everything. He said he does not think the bill
would change anything, but is a recognition of those who are
speaking the languages of their ancestors and trying to keep
those languages alive. He added, "Just like you. You want
English to be alive. And so, we have the same passion you do in
protecting what you ... know." He said that is human nature.
He reiterated that the bill is not symbolic, but is a
recognition that there were people here before the Russians
came.
9:38:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he had spent time on the North Slope,
and he wished he knew more than some words in Inupiaq. He
concurred with Representative Nageak that the issue is not
symbolic; it is about the desire to preserve languages that are
in danger of becoming extinct, which in turn would protect the
cultures that use those languages. He commented on how many
words for different types of snow there are in Inupiaq. He
questioned why the issue is being addressed in "this format,"
when there are so many other things that could be done. For
example, he said there could be a designated day to honor all
the languages of Alaska. He said he would co-sponsor such
legislation.
CHAIR LYNN interjected that he also would co-sponsor such
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that the state could provide
funds to ensure that Native languages do not get lost. He
stated, "I'm passionately with you, and I appreciate your
language ... but I'm really struggling with this format."
CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Keller to clarify if he was
struggling with the format of Amendment 1 or the format of HB
216.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered the format of the proposed bill.
He mentioned a "voter bill" that was passed, in which he
indicated the word "official" was used, which "politicized it to
a point that it seems like it might work against us; it actually
might ... deepen the wedge that we don't need."
9:42:24 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK indicated that the format used for HB 216
was the same as was used to make English the official language,
and both are recognitions. He stated, "It's a recognition that
language is used officially in a lot of things." He spoke of
the period of time when he was growing up and was told not to
speak his language, but people did speak it to keep it alive.
He said his generation was the last to speak, read, and write
his language. He said his children are struggling. He talked
about language being emotional.
9:46:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated that he shares [Representative
Nageak's] passion, and would support the efforts to honor and
preserve Native languages, but he struggles with the vehicle
being used. He shared a word that he said meant "white guy,"
and he indicated that he was described as such when he was [on
the North Slope].
9:46:24 AM
CHAIR LYNN reminded the committee that Amendment 1 was before
it.
9:46:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said her parents came from Russia, but she
does not speak Russian, because her parents learned English to
assimilate, since the English language is "what the United
States speaks and reads." She observed that the proposed
legislation would do nothing to keep the Native languages alive,
but it also would not hinder [efforts to do so]. She concurred
with Representative Keller that a different vehicle could be
used to keep the languages alive and utilize them in an
educational setting. She indicated that even though she
appreciated the comments from Representative Nageak, the
proposed legislation is of a symbolic nature; therefore,
"there's a little bit of separation there."
CHAIR LYNN remarked, "It's almost like two separate bills."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS concurred.
CHAIR LYNN recognized Representative Isaacson to speak and asked
him if he would be speaking to the proposed amendment or bill.
9:48:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that the committee had been
speaking to both, and offered to remove his objection to the
motion to move Amendment 1, but noted that he had some questions
about Amendment 1. He stated that he and Representative Nageak
were "brothers - heart and soul," but said that on this issue,
he had "heartburn." He indicated that he had supported a bill
to preserve Alaska's languages that passed through the
legislature. He related that he was a linguist who held a
Bachelor of Arts and Linguistics, and he said he was published
with a Ph.D. candidate in a peer-reviewed article in a Salish
Indian dialect. He said he grew up in a family where his
grandfather on his father's side did not allow his children to
speak Norwegian, because they were in America. He said although
he could not speak Norwegian, he had studied, formally and
informally, about 10-12 languages, was in Alaska as a Russian
linguist, and was in a Spanish singing group; therefore, he
understood language as emotional and from the heart.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said preserving languages takes more
than declaring it is official. He said, "We have never declared
any language in America official - not Cherokee, not English,
not German, not Spanish - and yet we've accepted English as the
language of trade, and now Spanish is coming on board." He
noted that when Teddy Roosevelt was President, he warned that
the country could become "a boarding house of polyglot
residents," where people would be unable to communicate at all.
Representative Isaacson indicated there may be an unintended
burden of making something official when trying to establish
culture and pride and trying to be "one people recognizing the
multifaceted diversity of our culture." He noted that Amendment
1 used the word "symbolic," and he offered his understanding
that Representative Nageak was saying "it is a recognition - a
symbolic recognition." He questioned whether "this vehicle"
would "really accomplish what you and the sponsor are trying to
do."
9:51:55 AM
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if [the people who traded on]
Barter Island really had one language of trade.
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK said he thought they did, but the language
was not perpetuated.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said many cultures throughout history
have adopted a trade language. He asked Representative Nageak
if he would speak against Amendment 1, because of the use of the
word "symbolic."
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK reiterated that "it's a recognition; it's
not symbolic." He emphasized that those who spoke Native
languages were in what is now Alaska much longer than those who
came along after. He asked Representative Isaacson not to
"parse words" with him.
REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON responded that when the legislature is
speaking about law, it must parse words. He indicated that
[Amendment 1] is an attempt to establish intent, and he
emphasized the importance of ensuring that intent follows the
law, so that future legislatures are not encumbered with, for
example, "having to provide everything in 20 different
languages." He said, "The next step is progression. Somebody
will do something more, and someone will try to infer an intent
that is not in this intent, because intent doesn't follow the
codified law; it won't be in the books." He asked
Representative Nageak to help him understand.
9:55:29 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK answered, "Let me remind you: We're using
the same format that was used to place English as a recognized
language."
9:55:49 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated that she does not understand the
pushback from recognizing the first people that were in Alaska
before it became part of the U.S. She indicated that the
legislature passed other symbolic bills, such as making the
malamute Alaska's official dog, without nearly as much
discussion. She emphasized that HB 216 would be a beginning
step towards restoring pride in Alaska Natives by righting a
wrong that was done years ago. She continued as follows:
I'm very passionate about this bill. I'm so upset
that I don't know Inupiaq, that I don't know the
language. I wish that my grandma wasn't beaten and
told not to speak the Native language. I wish my
mother wasn't ashamed of being Native and not wanting
to learn her indigenous language. I want to right
that wrong.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she has heard many stories from
elders about Natives being beaten for speaking their language.
She ventured that others may not understand without having
walked "in some of those shoes." She asked people to "look in
their hearts" and consider that "we're not doing anything with
force of law": no statutes would be changed under HB 216;
"English is our language"; and learning a Native language would
not be mandatory. She emphasized that the proposed legislation
is "a symbolic gesture to just pass on to the youth of our ...
state" to encourage pride, the learning of Native languages, and
a knowledge of personal history.
9:59:06 AM
CHAIR LYNN indicated that what he saw happening was not a push-
back, but a committee process. He opined that the proposed bill
and amendment are important and worthy of committee discussion.
He suggested that if the proposed legislation was not that
important, perhaps the committee would not be spending so much
time vetting it.
10:00:19 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS reviewed that Alaska already has a
symbolic official language, which is English. That was passed
in the aforementioned 1998 voter initiative. That initiative
excluded the 20 Native languages of Alaska. He said the intent
of HB 216 is to recognize the people who are dedicating their
lives to learning the languages, by recognizing that the
languages - in the official and ceremonial sense - are to the
State of Alaska equally important and just as much Alaska's
languages [as English]. He concluded, "That's the significance
of this bill."
CHAIR LYNN asked the committee to focus again on the proposed
Amendment 1.
10:01:32 AM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS [maintained] her objection to the motion
to adopt Amendment 1.
10:01:51 AM
CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 216 was held over.
[The motion to adopt Amendment 1 was left pending, with an
objection.]