Legislature(2021 - 2022)BUTROVICH 205
02/10/2022 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
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 | |
| SB156 | |
| HB123 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 123 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 92 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 66 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 167 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 156 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 123-STATE RECOGNITION OF TRIBES
3:58:03 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and announced the
consideration of HOUSE BILL NO. 123 "An Act providing for state
recognition of federally recognized tribes; and providing for an
effective date."
He noted that this was the first hearing.
3:58:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TIFFANY ZULKOSKY, Alaska State Legislature,
Juneau, Alaska, sponsor of HB 123 introduced the legislation
reading the following prepared statement:
HB 123 is a bill that would codify federal recognition of
Alaska's Tribes in State law for the first time. To be
clear, the recognition of and inherent responsibilities
granted to Tribes exists solely between those Tribes and
the federal government. HB 123 carries a zero fiscal note
and does not compel the State to take any particular
action. Per the memo from Legislative Legal provided to the
committee, passing this bill would not change Alaska's
relationship with Tribes. In other words, HB 123 does not
create any additional rights or privileges that Tribes do
not already have.
So you may wonder, if this bill does not change the legal
relationship between the State and its Tribes, why is it
worth pursuing in the first place? Tribes have been
recognized by the federal government, and by the Executive
and Judicial branches of Alaska's government. But we, the
Legislature, have not held up our end of the bargain and
officially acknowledged Tribes in law.
Regardless of this, the State looks to our Tribal partners
to leverage significant federal resources and provide a
litany of essential services to Alaskans living in remote
parts of the State. Tribes provide services from public
safety and transportation to healthcare and economic
development. This keeps the footprint of state government
small.
For example, for decades the Alaska Tribal Health system
brings in significant federal funding annually, expanding
the reach of Alaska's Medicaid spending. In 2017, Northern
Economics found that Alaska's Tribal Health System
generated over $1.1 billion in annual income, resulting in
total economic output in Alaska of nearly $2.4 billion. In
2017, the State of Alaska entered into its first ever
compact with Tribes when it signed the Tribal Child Welfare
Compact. A compact continued today under Governor
Dunleavy's Administration. There have also been recent and
on-going conversations in this building, by the Governor
and members in both bodies, on both sides of the political
aisle, to continue pursuing program innovation through
Tribal compacting in the area of education and other ways
the State can expand its relationship with Tribes.
It is difficult for us in the Legislature to speak about
expanding our relationship with Tribes, leveraging these
federal dollars, when we don't statutorily acknowledge
their existence to begin with. Particularly on the heels of
a pandemic where Tribal health organizations, absent
sufficient Alaska Public Health resources, played an
integral role in keeping the people in our State healthy
and safe, now feels like a timely, albeit long overdue,
moment to recognize tribes. HB 123 opens the door for us to
simply affirm in Alaska's legal code, the special and
unique relationship that exists between Tribes and the
federal government.
Mr. Chair, members of the committee, the time has come for
Alaska to acknowledge our Tribes and to officially open the
door for healing and reconciliation by recognizing our
first people in statute.
4:02:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY clarified that when the United States
settled the aboriginal land claims for Alaska Natives in the
early 1970s, Congress used a unique system rather than the
treaty and reservation model used for American Indian tribes in
the Lower 48. The promise was that Alaska Natives would not be
disadvantaged compared to American Indians in federal and tribal
matters. The more than 200 Alaska Native regional and village
corporations established under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) are state chartered corporations that
enjoy no special loopholes to avoid taxation under federal law.
As a consequence, the land that Congress transferred to the 12
regional Alaska Native corporations and their respective
regional village corporations are taxed by the State of Alaska.
She assured the committee that HB 123 has no bearing on the
taxation of these corporation lands.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Mr. Basner to walk through the sectional
analysis.
4:03:50 PM
LOGAN BASNER, Staff, Representative Tiffany Zulkosky, Alaska
State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, presented the sectional
analysis for HB 123. He described HB 123 as an affirmation of
status that has been recognized by the three branches of the
federal government as well as the judicial and executive
branches of the State of Alaska.
He presented a summary of the sectional analysis for HB 123:
Section 1 is intent language.
MR. BASNER explained that the House Tribal Affairs Committee
added intent language to provide a contextual basis for what is
important legislation in the history of the State of Alaska's
relationship with its tribes.
Sections 2, 3, and 4 make technical changes.
Section 5 is the operative part of the bill that
consists of four sentences.
• The first sentence recognizes that tribes'
unique status is really a federal question. It
uses the works "special and unique," words that
appeared in Richard Nixon's 1970 special
address on Indian affairs.
• The second sentence recognizes the list of
federally recognized tribes. It acknowledges
and defers to the federal government for
recognition of tribal status. (References the
Recognized Tribal List Act in U.S. code)
• The third sentence states explicitly that this
bill does not interfere with the federal
government's trust relationship with Tribes or
create a State trust of its own.
• [The fourth sentence defines "federally
recognized tribe" as it is in AS 23.20.070(c).]
MR. BASNER stressed that this legislation is not seeking to
intrude into, replace, or diminish the federal relationship
with tribes.
4:05:41 PM
MR. BASNER clarified what HB 123 does not create any additional
rights or privileges that tribes do not already have and it does
not interfere with access to natural resources. At the sponsor's
request, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) provided a
legal review of the bill and determined that it did not elicit
any concern.
MR. BASNER thanked the committee for its time and noted that
Natasha Singh and Joy Anderson were available to provide
testimony and respond to questions.
4:06:12 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked if Lower 48 states such as Kansas and
Oklahoma have agreements that specifically recognize the
American Indian tribes within their borders that the federal
government recognizes.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred the question to Julie Kitka or
the general counsel Indian law experts.
CHAIR SHOWER suggested he hold the question until those
individuals testify.
SENATOR REINBOLD expressed amazement that there were 565
federally recognized tribes, 229 of which are in Alaska.
CHAIR SHOWER said he was writing that number down because he had
heard dozens of different figures mentioned.
He asked if it would be preferable to codify specific sections
of federal law as opposed to citing the Federally Recognized
Indian Tribe List Act [of 1994].
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY answered that this was bipartisan
legislation that started in the House before she picked it up.
The intention was to codify the tribes in the Federally
Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994. She offered her
perspective that it includes all the tribes that exist in Alaska
although the federal law was crafted to be efficient so it does
not recognize each of those tribes by name. She suggested Joy
Anderson and Natasha Singh could supplement her answer as they
participated in the original drafting of the bill.
4:09:43 PM
CHAIR SHOWER suggested they respond to the question when they
testify.
He referenced the language in Section 2, subparagraph (13)(B) on
page 3, that says "federally recognized tribe"
(B) includes any subdivision, subsidiary, or business
enterprise wholly owned by a federally recognized
tribe;
CHAIR SHOWER asked whether HB 123 would enhance a tribe's
ability in state jurisdiction to use sovereign immunity to
indemnify its business enterprises against tort claims.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY suggested the invited testifiers respond
to the question.
CHAIR SHOWER directed attention to Section 5 and the new
section:
Article 2. Intergovernmental Relations with Tribes.
Sec. 44.03.100. Recognition of tribes.
He asked how intergovernmental relations with tribes would
change if the bill were to pass.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered her perspective that the bill
simply codifies the federal recognition of tribes in state law,
so the mechanisms of the relationship between the state and its
tribes would not change.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if the intergovernmental relationship would
change if in Section 5 the state were to acknowledge as opposed
to recognize tribes.
4:11:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY offered her perspective that in this
context, the terms recognize and acknowledge are
interchangeable.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his reading that Sections 3 and 4 have
technical changes, but no policy changes.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY replied that was her understanding.
CHAIR SHOWER offered his belief that Alaska Natives were not
well represented at the Constitutional Convention in 1955. He
continued to say:
I think it is long overdue that the State of Alaska
and tribes acknowledge each other - as they exist and
as it exists in the U.S. Constitution when you look at
the deeper side of the law. This bill does acknowledge
that. That tribes do, in fact, exist with rights and
authorities granted by the federal government. I think
that we need to acknowledge that it doesn't add
authority or rights to that. That's an important
distinction here, which is why we're so key on the
language. I think this bill simply reaffirms what
already exists for clarity. To remove any ambiguity,
the State does retain its sovereignty and the tribes
retain theirs.
This bill is a small step toward a more respectful
relationship between the sovereign State of Alaska and
sovereign tribes.
CHAIR SHOWER said, "We can do better than where we are today."
4:16:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY stated that the language on page 2, line
30 through page 3, line 3 underscores that point and addresses
the concern. She read:
The state recognizes all tribes in the state that are
federally recognized under 25 U.S.C. 5130 and 5131.
Nothing in this section diminishes the United States
government's trust responsibility or other obligations
to federally recognized tribes in the state or creates
a concurrent trust relationship between the state and
federally recognized tribes.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that the debate about the intent is very
important for the record.
4:17:39 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recognized that Senator Kawasaki had joined the
committee online and Senator Begich was in the audience
[awaiting the hearing on SB 92].
SENATOR REINBOLD referenced Resolution #22-35 from the Koniag,
Inc. Board of Directors regarding HB 123 and the Alaskans for
Better Government Ballot Initiative. She asked whether the
language in the bill and the ballot initiative were identical.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she was aware of the ballot
initiative but her focus is and has been to get HB 123 across
the finish line. It sends a powerful message to Alaskans and
across the nation that it is possible to come together on issues
that matter.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked what the third WHEREAS in the resolution
means. It reads:
WHEREAS, the inherent sovereignty of Alaska Native
peoples and communities to govern themselves is a
birthright, not something granted by the state of
federal government, and
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY deferred the question to the individuals
invited to testify.
4:19:36 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD read the seventh WHEREAS in the resolution and
asked for the definition of tribal sovereignty. It read:
WHEREAS, the Alaska legislature has failed multiple
attempts to advance resolutions and bills that would
have the State acknowledge Tribal sovereignty; and
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY answered it would be hard to speculate
about Koniag's intention, but she though the invited testimony
would be able to offer a good perspective on tribal sovereignty,
in the historical context. Speaking as the Chair of the House
Special Committee on Tribal Affairs and as a tribal member, she
added that Alaska Native people have lived in the state since
long before statehood and at its heart, the bill is about the
long history of obligations that this country has to the Alaska
Native people.
4:21:35 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD said she looked forward to the additional
context because she wanted to figure out what that means to
avoid unintended consequences. She also noted that the second
page of the Koniag resolution talks about intergovernmental
relationships, and reiterated her desire to figure things out
now instead of waiting for a judicial decision when there is an
issue about tribal sovereignty versus state sovereignty in the
future.
CHAIR SHOWER turned to invited testimony.
4:24:21 PM
NATASHA SINGH, introduced herself as the Vice President of Legal
Affairs for the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium in
Anchorage; and Dinyee Hu'tanna of Stevens Village.
4:24:32 PM
JOY ANDERSON, General Counsel, Association of Village Council
Presidents (AVCP), Bethel, Alaska, introduced herself.
4:25:34 PM
MS. SINGH began the presentation on the valentine slide and drew
a parallel between HB 123 regarding tribal recognition and
giving valentines in elementary school classrooms to recognize
the other students in the class. HB 123 is simply an
acknowledgement and recognition that tribes exist. She pointed
out that both the judicial and executive branches of state
government have recognized that tribes exist in Alaska. In fact,
tribes have existed from time immemorial. She referenced Senator
Reinbold's questions about the specifics in the language in the
bill and encouraged anyone with similar questions to read the
Alaska Supreme Court decision in John v. Baker. It provides the
legal basis for why the United States and the Alaska judicial
branch recognize tribes. She relayed that in U.S. v. Wheeler,
the U.S. Supreme Court found that the powers of Indian tribes
are inherent powers. That Court recognized that tribes existed
before the United States.
4:28:05 PM
MS. ANDERSON displayed slide 4, and explained that federally
recognized tribes include Alaska Native or American Indian
tribal entities that are recognized as having a government-to-
government relationship with the United States. Further, they
are eligible to receive certain funding and services from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). Federally recognized tribes have
inherent rights of self-government, which is also called tribal
sovereignty. She referenced the earlier question about tribal
sovereignty and explained that means that the tribe determines
how it will govern its own affairs. Examples of tribal
sovereignty include but are not exclusive to the type of
government the tribe will have; citizenship requirements; the
authority to make and enforce laws over areas where tribes have
jurisdiction; and regulate matters pertaining to tribal members.
She related that federally recognized tribes are also called
domestic dependent nations, particularly in older case law. This
means that tribes are sovereign and are able to exercise all
rights as a sovereign unless the U.S. Congress has specifically
limited certain rights. This is similar to the sovereign U.S.
states whose powers have been limited in certain ways by
Congress. She continued to explain that federally recognized
tribes are eligible to receive certain federal benefits,
services, and protections because of their relationship with the
United States.
MS. ANDERSON stated that federal recognition of a tribe can
happen through an act of Congress; by administrative procedure;
or by a decision of a U.S. court. Because it can only happen in
those three specific ways, HB 123 will not establish any new
tribes or make any new entities. As previously mentioned, there
are 574 federally recognized tribes in the U.S. included 229 in
Alaska.
4:30:46 PM
MS. SINGH turned to slide 5 and explained that anyone who
studies federal Indian policy will learn about seven policy
eras, all of which were to address "the Indian problem."
• Colonial 1492-1820
• Removal/Relocation 1820-1850
• Reservation/Treaty Making 1850-1887
• Allotment & Assimilation 1887-1934, which accounts for the
allotments in Alaska.
• Indian Self-Government 1934-1953
• Termination 1953-196? that was an acknowledgement that past
efforts to solve "the Indian problem" had failed. The new
approach was to simply terminate the tribes altogether.
This was extremely costly and ultimately failed, but it was
successful in that it intended for neither federal Indian
policy nor Alaska Native history to be taught.
• Self Determination 196? to the present was championed by
President Nixon. There was a bipartisan movement in
Congress that acknowledged tribes' inherent rights to self-
governance. It paid off for the U.S. and states because
Alaska Natives and American Indians are better off for it.
MS. SINGH encouraged the members to study the federal Indian
policy periods to get a better understanding of how Indian
tribes in the U.S. have been treated and why the Termination era
was so damaging. She opined that HB 134, which is a recognition
bill, would get the last foot out of the Termination era.
4:33:48 PM
MS. ANDERSON turned to the map on slide 6 to talk specifically
about tribes in Alaska. She referenced an earlier question about
whether HB 134 will affect the state and expand the rights of
tribes. She said it has been established that states have no
authority over tribal governments unless expressly authorized by
Congress. However, states may choose to have a government-to-
government relationship with tribes just as they have a
government-to-government relationship with the federal
government. There are also examples of states collaborating with
other states through compacts and other agreements. She
mentioned the question about how many recognition bills have
been put forward and offered to follow up with the answer if
other presenters did not have that information.
4:34:57 PM
MS. ANDERSON turned to slide 7 to discuss the position that
Alaska previously held which was that tribes did not exist. She
pointed out that the State has not always recognized tribes or
established government-to-government relations, despite the fact
that the federal government acknowledged the existence of tribes
as early as the 1867 Treaty of Cession when the U.S. purchased
Alaska from Russia. She described the two more recent examples
listed on the slide. The 1988 case, Native Village of Stevens v.
Alaska Management and Planning, was about a contract dispute
between a tribe and a contractor. The Alaska Supreme Court used
the statement, "There are not now and never have been tribes of
Indians in Alaska as that term is used in federal law." as the
basis for denying that the Native Village of Stevens was
entitled to sovereign immunity. Additionally, the State of
Alaska in [1991] issued Administrative Order 125 to oppose the
expansion of tribal governmental powers in Alaska. She said this
was the status of tribes and their relationship to the State of
Alaska in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
4:36:12 PM
MS. ANDERSON directed attention to slide 8 that outlines the
federal government's response to those cases. The Department of
Interior (DOI) oversees Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). The DOI
solicitor responded in 1993 in the Sansonetti Opinion. It
disagreed with the Alaska Supreme Court's historical analysis in
the Stevens Village case, pointing out that for more than 50
years Congress and the Department of Interior had treated Alaska
Natives as members of tribes. The opinion concluded that there
were federally recognized tribes in Alaska. In 1994, Congress
also responded by directing the BIA to publish lists of
recognized tribes, which included Alaska tribes. This is known
as the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994. She
noted that the sponsor referenced this Act earlier and it is the
definition in HB 123. The list is published annually and is
available online. It includes the names of all 574 federally
recognized tribes in the U.S., including the 229 tribes in
Alaska.
4:37:52 PM
MS. SINGH reviewed slide 9, Current State of Alaska Position re
Tribes. She said tribes have prevailed repeatedly over the last
decade when the State of Alaska has resisted tribal recognition
and the inherent authority of tribes. Those cases have been
decided. The cases and executive actions listed on the slide
reflect the shift in sentiment. It read as follows:
[Original punctuation provided.]
Alaska Supreme Court - "If Congress or the Executive
Branch recognizes a group of Native Americans as a
sovereign Tribe, we 'must do the same.'"
State of Alaska's Executive Branch - "[W]e will
improve government-to-government relations with Alaska
Tribes [...]." Alaska Admin. Order No. 300 (2018).
See also Alaska Department of Law 2017 Opinion -
Legal status of tribal governments in Alaska
("[T]here are no unresolved legal questions
regarding the legal status of Alaska Tribes as
federally recognized tribal governments.")
4:39:19 PM
MS. SINGH responded to some of the questions from committee
members. Regarding the question of sovereign immunity, she
explained that tribes have sovereign immunity just as the State
of Alaska has sovereign immunity. However, tribes often enter
into limited waivers of sovereign immunity with contractors so
that any dispute under the contract can be decided in a state
court. Limited waivers are also seen in the Alaska Child Welfare
Compact. In summary, tribes are able to assert and waive
sovereign immunity. To the question about similar laws, she said
about a dozen other states have recognition statutes. She
pointed out that what makes Alaska different is that it has
about half of all the federally recognized tribes in the nation,
and the state has been battling this question for the last two
decades in the courts. She opined that it would be powerful for
the legislature to reach out with that simple elementary school
valentine recognition that tribes exist. She said this would be
very meaningful to people who have lived here for time
immemorial and are trying to claw back the effects of historical
trauma. It is only right for the State of Alaska to recognize
tribes after it spent so many generations denying tribes'
inherent authority to solve their own problems.
4:42:51 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD opined that many questions were unanswered. She
asked, "When you say tribal sovereignty, is that on tribal lands
or is that a member of the tribe where you have tribal
sovereignty?"
MS. SINGH encouraged her to read the 1999 Alaska Supreme Court
decision in John v. Baker. That court held that tribes have
inherent authority over tribal members and it does not matter
whether or not a tribe has land.
4:43:53 PM
CHAIR SHOWER asked who determines which law prevails if a Native
government law conflicts with a State of Alaska law.
4:44:22 PM
MS. ANDERSON explained that in a domestic relations matter that
has arisen in tribal court, the tribal court takes precedence
and the state court cannot initiate a case on the same matter.
Similarly, if parties initiate an action in state court, the
tribal court may not initiate a case on the same matter. This is
similar to what would play out between states. There is
recognition that the court of first impression will handle the
specific issue. If the state does not have jurisdiction and it
is a tribal matter, the case would remain in tribal court or
tribal jurisprudence.
MS. ANDERSON supplemented the earlier response to the question
of whether HB 123 may extend tribal sovereignty. She explained
that the Indian law of jurisprudence on sovereignty dates to
1831. Since that time tribes have been recognized as having
sovereignty. HB 123 will not change that well-established
principle, she said.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if she agreed that based on precedence, the
Alaska Supreme Court would not be able to override Native law.
MS. ANDERSON replied the court could not override federal Indian
law policy.
SENATOR REINBOLD asked if a tribe member who lives in Anchorage,
for example, must abide by all municipal ordinances and state
statutes and uphold the constitution.
MS. SINGH replied that tribal members must follow city
ordinances. She reiterated that a tribe's inherent authority
over its members is strongest in domestic relations. This
includes determination of who is a tribal member, eligibility,
child protection, marriage and divorce. She noted that this was
explained in John v. Baker. In that case a parent did not like
the outcome and took the matter to the state court. The state
court looked at whether the sovereign adjudicatory authority of
Native tribes existed outside of Indian country and concluded
that Native tribes do possess the inherent sovereign power to
adjudicate domestic disputes between tribal members in their own
courts. She highlighted that tribes have the inherent authority
and right to self determination with or without HB 123.
CHAIR SHOWER asked Megan Wallace to respond to the questions.
4:49:20 PM
MEGAN WALLACE, Director, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs
Agency, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, asked him to
repeat the question.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if HB 123 changes or increases a tribe's
ability to use sovereign immunity to indemnify their business
enterprises against tort claims.
MS. WALLACE said she largely concurs with the previous
statements that the bill does not alter the state's
relationship, create new obligations, or change the legal
landscape relating to the state and any intergovernmental
relationship with tribal entities. HB 123 provides state
recognition of tribes described in federal law, but it has no
effect on sovereign immunity claims any person might make
against a tribal government. Further, it would not increase or
decrease the ability of tribal governments to assert sovereign
immunity.
CHAIR SHOWER interpreted the answer to be "No."
He asked Senator Reinbold to restate her question.
4:51:30 PM
SENATOR REINBOLD asked where sovereign immunity ends in one
jurisdiction and begins in another.
4:52:30 PM
MS. WALLACE answered that it is Legal Services' position that HB
123 does not affect the current legal landscape for determining
what sovereign would have jurisdiction over specific matters.
Additionally, the issue might dictate the answer to the
particular question because one general answer does not fit all
circumstances.
4:53:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER recognized that Representative Cronk was in the
audience.
SENATOR HOLLAND wondered why some states recognize tribes that
are not on the federal list but do not recognize other tribes
that are on the federal list. He noted that Alaska was unique in
that all of its tribes are on the federally recognized list of
tribes. He said he would work to find the answer to that
question before the next meeting.
CHAIR SHOWER offered a law enforcement perspective on authority.
If a tribe member stole a car in Los Angeles, they would be
charged in that jurisdiction and a tribal authority could not
remove the individual from that jurisdiction.
4:56:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said the dialog today has been good and
the testimony indicates that federal Indian policy goes back to
the 1800s. She echoed Ms. Wallace and the Indian law attorneys
that provided testimony. "This bill does not change
jurisdictional issues. Those matters are settled outside the
context of HB 123." To Senator Holland's point, she explained
that the bill does not seek to create state recognized tribes.
Rather, the intent is to codify the federal recognition of
tribes through the 1994 List Act, which includes the tribes in
Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY said she appreciates the interest in
jurisdictional issues but the legal testimony has been that the
bill does not touch on that. In fact, Ms. Singh pointed out the
idea is to send a large message that despite past political
divisions in Alaska, it would be an incredible valentine for
state policy makers to acknowledge the special and unique
relationship between the federal government and tribes while
maintaining mechanisms that prevent jurisdictional confusion.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY expressed hope that the committee would
have time to hear from Julie Kitka. who is a commanding voice on
the issue of tribes and tribal recognition.
CHAIR SHOWER asked if Ms. Kitka would be available to come to
the next meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE ZULKOSKY replied she will be available to meet in
person tomorrow.
CHAIR SHOWER stated that his plan was to hear the bill again
next Tuesday and move it after the amendment process and public
testimony.
5:01:31 PM
At ease
5:02:51 PM
CHAIR SHOWER reconvened the meeting and invited Julie Kitka to
the table.
5:03:39 PM
JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN),
Anchorage, Alaska, stated that AFN fully supports HB 123. She
said she would confine her comments to the high top line. She
said a few takeaways are that Alaska Natives are a diverse group
that includes Inupiat, Yupik, Eskimos, Athabaskan, Tlingit,
Haida, Tsimshian Indians, and Aleut people. They comprise 20
percent of the population of the state and their use and
occupancy of this land stretches back more than 10,000 years.
The Village of Point Hope, for example, can document at least
10,000 years of continual occupancy. She said we were living
here before the pyramids were built.
MS. KITKA stated that Alaska Natives have a special relationship
with the federal government. It derives from the U.S.
Constitution although it continues to change with actions from
the U.S. Congress and federal court decisions. The relationship
also changes through demands from Alaska Native people. It is
not a one-way relationship. There are 229 federally recognized
tribes in Alaska, most of which are small. This is half of all
the tribes in the United States. There are also regional tribal
consortiums and nonprofit associations, including Native health
corporations that run the tribal health system.
MS. KITKA said the fourth takeaway is that Congress passed the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. This was a
historic land settlement in which Alaska Natives retained 44
million acres of traditional land in fee simple. This land and
its resources are held by 12 regional Native corporations and
several hundred village corporations. The federal government and
state government are the other two large landowners in the
state.
MS. KITKA continued to state:
Alaska Natives, despite our differences, have many
things in common. We have many shared values and
aspirations. We collectively want to have more self-
determination over their lives and over our homeland.
We greatly value partnerships. We want the right to
freely pursue our economic, social, and cultural
development - including the right to regain, enjoy,
and enrich our cultural heritage; affirm the right of
all of our members to education in our culture;
prevent our heritage, values and cultural identity and
way of life from being destroyed; and involve our
relationship with the land.
Six takeaways. We're in a period of rapid change.
Cultural renaissance and increased self-determination
are major sources of strength for our people. Efforts
to deal with rapid change of an unprecedented scale
can destabilize traditional communities and we
struggle to survive.
Our people are adapting. We're using our various
institutions to work together for the benefit of our
people, the people of Alaska, and our country. During
this time of rapid change, we need to pull together.
We need to be accepting of differences [and] think of
the challenges we face.
When we first start out with national security
interests, overlap with communications issues, energy
infrastructure, and transportation access. We live in
a strategic location. We have been told over our heads
is the primary route for any missile attack on the
United States. That's why we have a missile defense
system in our state. Our seafood provides critical
protein to our country, an export commodity and
potential challenges as the warming of the waters,
movement of fish stocks, increased competition, and
conflict.
We have big industry issues around land and
infrastructure development. Issues of ownership and
use of land, access and rights-of-way. Alaska
historically has been considered a massive reservoir
of energy, timber, fishing, and mining. And we have
big challenges with the change in climate, erosion,
and the need to mitigate and build resistance.
If this bill passes, nothing magical will happen, but
respect will be shown to our tribes. This respect
helps build trust. Increased trust allows for positive
discussions of mutual areas of cooperation. I can
envision new types of coordinating mechanisms we will
need in seeking federal infrastructure funding, for
example, especially in broadband, where you have
designated tribal funding and separate state funding.
Coordination and collaboration built on trust and
mutual respect will benefit us all. Further
collaboration on research agendas on what's happening
to our salmon, what is happening with the melting of
the permafrost. Collaboration on innovation, whether
or not it is in education or whether or not it is on
how we manage government and strengthening governments
to be more responsible to our citizens.
We're trying to blend change and stability. On change,
the ability of Native people to adapt and adjust to
the special needs of our time. Stability, the good
sense to carry forward our cultural values.
This bill will not magically change anything. There's
no fiscal note, no special trust relationship created
by the state. It's just basic. It's extending respect
to our people, to our tribes and allowing us to build
on the trust and build a relationship, open
opportunities for dialog and collaboration. And I
would say, at this point in time, when I look at all
the changes we're dealing with and the massive things,
there is no better time to build trust and build
collaboration than right now.
Further, HB 123 does not affect the federal/tribal
trust responsibility. HB 123 will not affect the
federal tribal recognition. HB 123 will not affect the
sovereignty of federally recognized tribes. HB 123
will not impact the federal recognition of Alaska's
229 federally recognized tribes. HB 123 will have no
bearing on the state's taxation of ANCSA land. Lastly,
state recognition is a function of state law. It
varies both in terms of the mechanism and the scope.
Sixteen different states recognize tribes in their
areas. For the most part, the state recognition has to
do with recognizing tribes that have not made it
through the federal tribal recognition process. And
for those of you who are familiar with that, that is a
nightmare of its own making. It goes on for decades
and decades. There are still tribes waiting for
consideration of tribal recognition on that and states
have given up on that federal recognition. Some states
recognize tribes through legislation, some states
recognize tribes through executive action. And some it
is in name only while others create legal obligations.
This bill before you creates no legal obligation. It
does it through [legislation] which is a regular
course of action in the state and hopefully allows an
opportunity for the governor to do a signing and truly
make it a respectful acknowledgment.
And I agree that recognition and acknowledgement are
interchangeable. This is not from our vantage point a
trick question. We're just saying let's open the
opportunity for respect to be built between what is
existing already in federal law and active in our
state and a very important part of our communities up
here. And they play a vital role. It is very important
to our people. Are they the only institutions we have
in the Native community? No. The land claims
settlement chose a different path. I could have gone
into that in the testimony but that would have taken
some time too.
But I do want to tell you that we stand united asking
for this recognition, as a sign of respect, as a way
to build trust.
MS. KITKA offered to put a Lunch and Learn together on any of
the subjects that have been raised. There is a lot of history
she did not talk about because it is not necessary before moving
HB 123. This bill is simply about offering respect.
5:12:59 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND thanked her testimony and said some of his
questions were answered.
MS. KITKA noted that she failed to mention that the federal
infrastructure bill contains $13 billion in direct funding for
Native Americans nationwide. For Alaska to get its fair share,
the state and its tribes need to coordinate and be aligned to
move forward on dual use infrastructure that can benefit other
sectors in the state.
She informed the committee about recent collaboration with the
state. Governor Dunleavy asked AFN to help capture $300 million
from the previous infusion of federal resources that would
bypass the state without targeted attention. AFN just finished
the report that informed the administration the federal funding
leveraged $771 million for even greater impact to the state.
This could not have happened without cooperation and
collaboration. This underscores the urgency of working together
now and this legislation will do nothing more than help in this
effort. HB 123 has nothing that can be construed to be hurtful,
she said.
CHAIR SHOWER said he contends that if there had been more
alignment in the past, the state would be a lot farther along in
resolving issues such as with the Village Public Safety Program
(VPSO) and the rehabilitation program Tlingit/Haida is
undertaking. Working together can be a win-win and he does not
understand why there is opposition to doing things better.
MS.KITKA restated the offer for one or a series of Lunch and
Learns.
CHAIR SHOWER restated his commitment to work together for a
solution.
5:20:03 PM
SENATOR HOLLAND asked where she lives.
MS. KITKA said she lives in Anchorage. Her family is from the
Cordova area but she also has family in Sitka and Nondalton.
SENATOR HOLLAND said he would likely see her in the Education
committee tomorrow.
MS. KITKA confirmed she would be there and was eager to discuss
compacting education. She noted that some of the documents for
that meeting may be of interest to this committee. These include
a white paper on the origins of self-determination and
compacting.
CHAIR SHOWER said he would like to take her up on the offer for
Lunch and Learns because his belief is that history informs the
future.
5:21:43 PM
CHAIR SHOWER held HB 123 in committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 2.10.22_HB 123 powerpoint.pdf |
SSTA 2/10/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| 2.10.22_HB 123 POWERPOINT UPDATED 2-10-22.pdf |
SSTA 2/10/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 123 |
| email of support 2-10-22 Jessica.pdf |
SSTA 2/10/2022 3:30:00 PM |
SB 167 |
| support mayor bronson.pdf |
SSTA 2/10/2022 3:30:00 PM |
HB 123 |