Legislature(1997 - 1998)

03/13/1997 01:20 PM RES

Audio Topic
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
                HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE                             
                          March 13, 1997                                       
                             1:20 p.m.                                         
 MEMBERS PRESENT                                                               
 Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chairman                                       
 Representative Scott Ogan, Co-Chairman                                        
 Representative Beverly Masek, Vice Chair                                      
 Representative Ramona Barnes                                                  
 Representative Fred Dyson                                                     
 Representative Joe Green                                                      
 Representative William K. ("Bill") Williams                                   
 Representative Irene Nicholia                                                 
 Representative Reggie Joule                                                   
 MEMBERS ABSENT                                                                
 All members present                                                           
 COMMITTEE CALENDAR                                                            
 HOUSE BILL NO. 138                                                            
 "An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank Assistance; and                 
 providing for an effective date."                                             
      -  MOVED HB 138 OUT OF COMMITTEE                                         
 * HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21                                               
 Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest           
 Lands Conservation Act.                                                       
      - HEARD AND HELD                                                         
 HOUSE BILL NO. 19                                                             
 "An Act relating to licensing of sport fishing services operators             
 and fishing guides; and providing for an effective date."                     
      - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD                                                
 (* First public hearing)                                                      
 PREVIOUS ACTION                                                               
 BILL:  HB 138                                                                 
 SHORT TITLE: BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE                                 
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 02/13/97       334    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/13/97       335    (H)   RESOURCES                                         
 03/11/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 BILL:  HJR 21                                                                 
 SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Ogan                                     
 JRN-DATE      JRN-PG                 ACTION                                   
 02/12/97       314    (H)   READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)                 
 02/12/97       314    (H)   RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS                          
 03/13/97              (H)   RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124                        
 WITNESS REGISTER                                                              
 JOHN C. BARNETT, Executive Director                                           
 Board of Storage Tank Assistance                                              
 410 Willoughby Avenue                                                         
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 4665-5219                                                   
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HB 138.                                     
 JOHN BORBRIDGE                                                                
 603 West 10th Street                                                          
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 586-2132                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 21.                                     
 CARL L. ROSIER                                                                
 Territorial Sportsmen                                                         
 8298 Garnet Street                                                            
 Juneau, Alaska  99801                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 789-9117                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HJR 21.                          
 APRIL FERGUSON                                                                
 Kawerak, Incorporated                                                         
 P.O. Box 1545                                                                 
 Nome, Alaska  99762                                                           
 Telephone:  (907) 443-5231                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 NOEL WOODS                                                                    
 P.O. Box 827                                                                  
 Palmer, Alaska  99645                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 745-3027                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HJR 21; suggested                
 BEN HASTINGS                                                                  
 P.O. Box 8432                                                                 
 Ketchikan, Alaska  99901                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 225-5014                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 21.                                     
 ART IVANOFF, Subsistence Coordinator                                          
 Maniilaq Association                                                          
 P.O. Box 254                                                                  
 Kotzebue, Alaska  99752                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 442-7690                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 DALE BONDURANT                                                                
 HC1, Box 1197                                                                 
 Soldotna, Alaska  99669                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 262-0818                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 21.                                     
 HERBERT SMELCER, Board Member                                                 
 Tazlina Village Council                                                       
 P.O. Box 373                                                                  
 Glennallen, Alaska  99588                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 822-5146                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21 but                    
                      suggested statewide hearings on it.                      
 DICK BISHOP, Executive Director                                               
 Alaska Outdoor Council                                                        
 P.O. Box 73902                                                                
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99707                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 455-4262                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in support of HJR 21.                          
 MICHAEL PEDERSON                                                              
 Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd.                                         
 P.O. Box 1232                                                                 
 Barrow, Alaska  99723                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 852-2762                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 HEATHER KENDALL, Staff Attorney                                               
 Native American Rights Fund                                                   
 310 K Street, Number 708                                                      
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 276-0680                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on behalf of Alaska Inter-Tribal               
                      Council in opposition to HJR 21.                         
 JULIE KITKA, President                                                        
 Alaska Federation of Natives                                                  
 1577 C Street, Number 201                                                     
 Anchorage, Alaska  99501                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 274-3611                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 SID SMITH                                                                     
 P.O. Box 591                                                                  
 Dillingham, Alaska  99576                                                     
 Telephone:  (907) 842-3325                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 JOHN AMIK, Tribal Administrator                                               
 Kipnuk Traditional Council                                                    
 (No address provided)                                                         
 Kipnuk, Alaska 99614                                                          
 Telephone:  (907) 896-5515                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 ANTHONY CALOI, Tribal Administrator                                           
 Native Village of Quinhagak                                                   
 P.O. Box 149                                                                  
 Quinhagak, Alaska  99655                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 556-8167                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 GEORGE YASKA, Executive Officer                                               
 Tanana Chiefs Conference, Incorporated                                        
 122 1st Avenue, Suite 600                                                     
 Fairbanks, Alaska  99701                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 452-8251                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 21.                                     
 KAY ANDREW                                                                    
 P.O. Box 7211                                                                 
 Ketchikan, Alaska  99901                                                      
 Telephone:  (907) 225-2463                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified on HJR 21.                                     
 LUKE SAMPSON, Special Assistant to the Mayor                                  
 Northwest Arctic Borough                                                      
 P.O. Box 1110                                                                 
 Kotzebue, Alaska  99752                                                       
 Telephone:  (907) 442-2500                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 NICK JACKSON                                                                  
 P.O. Box 123                                                                  
 Gakona, Alaska  99586                                                         
 Telephone:  (907) 822-3869                                                    
 POSITION STATEMENT:  Testified in opposition to HJR 21.                       
 ACTION NARRATIVE                                                              
 TAPE 97-26, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0001                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN SCOTT OGAN called the House Resources Standing                    
 Committee meeting to order at 1:20 p.m.  Members present at the               
 call to order were Representatives Ogan, Hudson, Masek, Green and             
 Williams.  Representative Nicholia was present prior to the call of           
 order but left, returning at 1:21 p.m.  Representatives Joule,                
 Dyson and Barnes joined the meeting at 1:22 p.m., 1:23 p.m. and               
 1:30 p.m., respectively.                                                      
 HB 138 - BOARD OF STORAGE TANK ASSISTANCE                                     
 Number 0135                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the first order of business was House              
 Bill No. 138, "An Act relating to the Board of Storage Tank                   
 Assistance; and providing for an effective date."                             
 JOHN C. BARNETT, Executive Director, Board of Storage Tank                    
 Assistance, came forward to testify.                                          
 Number 0191                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to the zero fiscal note by the Department           
 of Environment Conservation (ADEC) and said he had requested                  
 clarification.  The explanation had been that the costs associated            
 with the board's activities are already in the ADEC's FY 98 budget            
 request.  However, the fiscal note extends beyond that, to the year           
 2000.  He asked whether it should reflect those costs.                        
 MR. BARNETT said current statutory provisions for underground                 
 storage tank owners allow them to appeal costs related to financial           
 assistance.  In addition, they allow owners who have a disagreement           
 with the ADEC to appeal costs for cleanup plans for a leaking tank            
 site.  The ADEC believes those appeals would still have to be dealt           
 with, resulting in hiring an unbiased hearing officer and other               
 costs to deal with appellants over the next few years.                        
 MR. BARNETT said those costs have already been considered while the           
 board is in place.  If the board were not in place, those costs               
 would be carried forward in the ADEC's budget.  It would not be an            
 increase to the existing budget but would basically maintain the              
 status quo over the next few years.                                           
 Number 0375                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN suggested there should be a savings.  He             
 asked whether this meant the allocated time and expense would be              
 borne by the ADEC.  He further asked whether there was so much                
 leeway in the ADEC that it could either operate the program or not.           
 MR. BARNETT said the board contains volunteer members who serve               
 without compensation.  He himself is the sole employee.  In                   
 addition, there is a travel budget, plus minor miscellaneous costs.           
 If the board did not exist, the ADEC would hear appeals through an            
 independent hearing officer.  That would probably cost more than              
 the combined expenses for travel and the executive director.                  
 MR. BARNETT advised members there was a review the previous summer            
 by the ADEC.  Hearing officers are predominantly attorneys, and               
 those appeals would take place in communities statewide.  On the              
 other hand, the board has tried to minimize costs by conducting               
 teleconferences.  Only when an appeal is complex or involves a                
 serious issue does the board go to that location.  Adding a hearing           
 officer when needed, on an on-call basis, plus the costs associated           
 with that, was determined to cost the same as the existing                    
 configuration.  In addition, Mr. Barnett believed if he were a tank           
 owner, he would rather talk to private-sector members, who were               
 volunteers and somewhat unbiased, than to an attorney.                        
 NUMBER 0547                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to a letter by Michele Brown,           
 Commissioner of the ADEC, explaining the zero fiscal note is                  
 appropriate because costs associated with the board's activities              
 are already in the FY 98 budget request.  Representative Masek                
 asked what the total budget request is for FY 98.                             
 MR. BARNETT said the total annual cost is $110,000.  This has been            
 pretty much the same since the board's inception in 1990.                     
 Number 0606                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it seems the fiscal note should be zero for             
 1998 and $110,000 for every year past that.  There being no House             
 Finance Committee referral, he would take it upon himself to see              
 whether a zero fiscal note is appropriate.  He said from a                    
 resources standpoint, he has no opposition, and he believes it is             
 a good program.                                                               
 Number 0640                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN BILL HUDSON made a motion to move HB 138 from the                 
 committee with a zero fiscal note.  He asked unanimous consent.               
 There being no objection, it was so ordered.                                  
 HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA                                  
 Number 0681                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced the next order of business was House               
 Joint Resolution No. 21, relating to amendment of Title VIII of the           
 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).  He                 
 called on Representative Masek to present the resolution.                     
 Number 0760                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK, sponsor, said HJR 21 shifts the emphasis for            
 resolving the subsistence issue from a debate over whether to amend           
 ANILCA or the state constitution to one in which the legislature              
 and the Alaskan people must decide what the terms in ANILCA mean              
 and how they should be applied.                                               
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said it also requests that the U.S. Congress             
 clarify such issues as what is meant by "public lands"; who has               
 management authority on state and private lands; whether navigable            
 waters should be managed by the state or the federal government;              
 whether subsistence-taken resources should be allowed to be sold              
 for cash; and what the terms "rural" and "customary and                       
 traditional" mean.                                                            
 Number 0812                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said HJR 21 requests the U.S. Congress to                
 eliminate the federal court oversight provisions for subsistence              
 management in Alaska that apply to state and private lands.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK explained that HJR 21 also requests an                   
 amendment to ANILCA that would continue to provide a preference for           
 subsistence but provides a "reasonable opportunity."  If Alaskans             
 cannot agree to this approach, a constitutional amendment may                 
 eventually be required to allow for the rural preference required             
 by ANILCA, she noted.                                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK indicated additional provisions return                   
 authority to the state to define rural preference.  Currently,                
 there is debate over amending ANILCA or the state constitution.               
 The resolution gives a good outline of where to start making                  
 changes.  The subsistence issue has been debated for 20 years,                
 including the question of whether the federal government, the state           
 or the Alaskan people should take charge.  She believes Alaskans              
 must all work on this issue together.                                         
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concluded by saying HJR 21 sends a message to            
 the congressional delegation that they must act to change ANILCA              
 before the state can start making management decisions on how to              
 solve the subsistence issue.                                                  
 Number 1008                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA expressed concern that only one                 
 village was on teleconference because of a shortage of lines.  She            
 hoped there would be an additional hearing.  Her district has 75              
 communities.  She has received numerous letters, telephone calls              
 and public opinion messages from people wishing to testify.                   
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA read Resolution No. 97-03-01 from the                 
 Village of Kwethluk into the record.  The heading included Kwethluk           
 Joint Group; Kwethluk Indian Reorganization Act Council; Kwethluk             
 City Council; and Kwethluk, Incorporated.  She read:                          
 "A Resolution opposing Alaska Legislature House Joint Resolution 21           
 Requesting Amendments to Title VIII of Alaska National Interest               
 Lands Conservation Act.                                                       
 "Whereas, the Kwethluk Indian Reorganization Act Council (IRA) is             
 the lead entity in various areas of concerns covering land, water,            
 fish and wildlife, sanctuaries and habitats in the permanent                  
 subsistence Kwethluk River and tributaries upon which its tribal              
 members heavily depend on for their keeping of cultural integrity             
 of traditional and customary subsistence way of living; and                   
 "Whereas, in 1959 when Alaska became a state, many Alaska Native              
 residents living in rural villages were, and still are, intelligent           
 in the way of their respective cultures and their Native language             
 during the period when the English language could be barely spoken            
 or understood, and this brings to question who voted for statehood,           
 and which included the management of fish and wildlife natural                
 renewable resources; and                                                      
 "Whereas, HJR 21 insults the Alaska Native community way of life by           
 seeking that the State of Alaska define the terms `rural,'                    
 `subsistence uses' of the natural renewable resources when the                
 State of Alaska has done dismally poor with respect to these                  
 concerns; and                                                                 
 "Whereas, since 1959 the Alaska Native community has experienced              
 poor `reasonable opportunity' to practice customary and traditional           
 subsistence way of life; and                                                  
 "Whereas, Kwethluk has a history of elder tribal members having had           
 their subsistence fishing nets wrapped around holding poles,                  
 dragged onto beach with fish catches, creating wanton waste, which            
 truly is suppression of `reasonable opportunity' to practice                  
 customary and traditional subsistence way of life; and                        
 "Whereas, public law 96-487, ANILCA, enacted 1980, Title VIII of              
 which is providing positive protection to Alaska Natives'                     
 subsistence way of life, legally encourages Alaska Native entities            
 for co-management agreements with the federal and Alaska state                
 agencies involved, enhances fish and wildlife conservation with               
 sustained yield principles; and                                               
 "Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Kwethluk Joint Group                 
 composed of the Kwethluk IRA Council on behalf of its tribal                  
 members, the Kwethluk City Council on behalf of its residents, and            
 the Board of Directors of Kwethluk, Incorporated on behalf of its             
 shareholders oppose passage of House Joint Resolution 21 in the               
 Alaska State Legislature; and                                                 
 "Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution are sent to            
 Tony Knowles, Governor of Alaska, and then other members of the               
 House and members of Congress."                                               
 Number 1234                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN, referred to item (2) on page 2 of HJR 21, which             
 reads, "prohibit federal preemption of state fish and wildlife                
 management on state and private land and water unless expressly               
 authorized by the Congress".  He noted that the statehood compact             
 guarantees the state the right to manage its fish and wildlife.  He           
 believes it was an egregious breech of that compact for the federal           
 government to have preempted state management, which is one reason            
 he is a cosponsor of HJR 21.                                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to item (4), which requests repeal of               
 federal court oversight of state subsistence management programs.             
 Because he does not believe lawyers are necessarily qualified to              
 make biological and socioeconomic decisions in the state, he is               
 very supportive of that.                                                      
 Number 1305                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to item (5), regarding definition of                
 "rural" and "customary and traditional".  He believes Alaskans can            
 work together to decide their fate as a state, rather than having             
 decisions by a judge in California or the U.S. Congress, 5,000                
 miles away.                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that Alaskans need not fear each other.            
 He believes there is more than enough fish and game resources to go           
 around.  The people he knows personally believe that someone who              
 has traditionally used a resource, and who is dependent on it,                
 should have first shot at it.  "And I think we can accommodate that           
 as Alaskans, rather than having the federal government do it for              
 us," he said.                                                                 
 Number 1372                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to item (7), which requests clarification           
 that ANILCA neither affirms nor denies the existence of tribal                
 sovereignty and Indian country in Alaska.  He does not believe                
 ANILCA is the place to define that.                                           
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN referred to item (10) on page 3, requesting                  
 elimination of commercial use and sale of fish and wildlife taken             
 for subsistence uses.  He believes subsistence means taking what              
 one needs to subsist, to live and to eat.  Commercial sale and                
 taking under subsistence is, to him, frankly criminal.  "I know if            
 I did it, I would be charged with a crime," he said.  "And I don't            
 think any class of people should have that privilege above and                
 beyond what other Alaskans have."                                             
 Number 1444                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS suggested listening to public                    
 testimony and indicated much could be said in defense of the                  
 current subsistence law.  He asked for a short recess.                        
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called for an at-ease at 1:41 p.m.  He called the            
 meeting back to order at 1:42 p.m.  He opened the meeting for                 
 public testimony.                                                             
 Number 1558                                                                   
 JOHN BORBRIDGE came forward to testify on behalf of himself and his           
 family.  He said his observations and opinions largely derived from           
 past experience as a lead lobbyist for Southeast Alaska Natives;              
 president of the central council of the Tlingit and Haida Indians             
 of Alaska during congressional consideration of Alaska Native                 
 Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) legislation; and thereafter as                  
 president and chairman of the board of Sealaska Corporation during            
 congressional consideration of Title VIII of ANILCA.                          
 Number 1587                                                                   
 MR. BORBRIDGE said the subsistence provisions of ANCSA and ANILCA             
 are integrally related.  The three primary Alaska Native objectives           
 sought to be realized in ANCSA legislation were lands, subsistence            
 and compensation.  Just prior to 1971, the U.S. Senate enacted its            
 version of ANCSA legislation, which contained detailed provisions             
 relating to protection of Alaska Native subsistence uses.                     
 MR. BORBRIDGE said the U.S. House of Representatives bill enacted             
 at approximately the same time contained no provisions to protect             
 subsistence uses.  Members of both bodies agreed Native subsistence           
 uses should be protected.  However, the views of the House                    
 prevailed in that "they did not want the statutes unnecessarily               
 cluttered with laws that were already being addressed, in that the            
 Secretary of the Interior was assumed to have sufficient authority            
 to act, given his authority, in such a manner as to protect the               
 Native subsistence rights," he said.                                          
 MR. BORBRIDGE said as a consequence, when ANCSA became law, it not            
 only did not contain specific provisions protecting subsistence,              
 but one needed to read the report of the joint conference committee           
 to see subsistence mentioned.  That committee had declared, in a              
 joint statement, that the Senate amendment to the House bill                  
 protected the Native people's interest in the subsistence resources           
 on public lands.  That report concluded that they expected both the           
 Secretary of Interior and the state to take necessary action to               
 protect subsistence needs of Natives.                                         
 MR. BORBRIDGE said in the four-to-six ensuing years, Natives                  
 believed subsistence uses were being protected by neither.  The               
 U.S. Congress agreed.  Consequently, Title VIII of ANILCA came                
 about.  It provided a subsistence priority for rural Alaskans, "of            
 whom a large part all knew would be Alaska Natives," he said.                 
 Number 1741                                                                   
 MR. BORBRIDGE believes this is important partly because Section               
 4(b) of ANCSA extinguishes any aboriginal hunting or fishing                  
 rights.  He noted that Section 4 does not apply to subsistence.               
 MR. BORBRIDGE said it would be a mistake to say the Natives made a            
 deal, and that they had ANCSA, and that they had no right to come             
 before Congress for a particular treatment on subsistence.  In                
 fact, Congress promised they would accord the Native people, the              
 subsistence users, the protections of Title VIII, which is                    
 derivative of ANCSA.                                                          
 MR. BORBRIDGE said, "And I feel that all of these things are                  
 important because we want to have our assertion of our subsistence            
 uses and rights as something that is not a misreading of the law.             
 We want it understood that we did not, in ANCSA, give up our rights           
 to subsistence."  He stated that a strong starting position is                
 important in negotiations.                                                    
 MR. BORBRIDGE said, "ANCSA is Indian legislation, and thus a cannon           
 of construction derives from the trust relationships existing                 
 between the federal government and the Native Americans.  And this            
 means that statutes affecting Indian rights are to be liberally               
 construed, doubtful expressions being resolved in favor of the                
 Indians.  And Congressman Udall, the prime mover of Title VIII,               
 declared that Title VIII is Indian legislation in all of its                  
 Number 1843                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES asked whether Mr. Borbridge believes             
 that if subsistence were simply feeding one's family, rather than             
 barter and trade, the current problems would still exist.                     
 MR. BORBRIDGE said he was not prepared to answer completely.  He              
 noted, however, that he had written on the bill's margin:                     
 "Wouldn't it be better to say that not all sales will be                      
 prohibited, but that a certain level of sales would be prohibited?"           
 MR. BORBRIDGE stated, "The first thing I thought of is that I, as             
 a city Tlingit, am heavily dependent upon my relatives and friends,           
 who actually put up the food in the traditional manner.  And some             
 of we city Indians have to buy our smoked fish, for example.  And             
 so we have a processed food there that is available only if we buy            
 it.  We know that up high, the significant commercial enterprise              
 would be bothersome to everyone.  But I'm also equally concerned as           
 to the possible barring of any kind of sales, because I think that            
 would start to handicap and deprive a lot of us who are in a city             
 situation and are not able to benefit from the subsistence priority           
 set out in Title VIII."                                                       
 Number 1936                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied that therein lies the problem.  The             
 reference in Title VIII is not to city dwellers.  In discussing               
 subsistence under Title VIII, she believes if it were simply about            
 feeding people in rural areas without a cash economy, today's                 
 problems would not exist.                                                     
 Number 1963                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said HJR 21 seeks clarity on definitions that              
 are ambiguous or not described at all.  Over the years, that has              
 been a major problem.  Even the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)            
 policy resolving the subsistence issue contains definitions that              
 the AFN would like to subscribe to as a final solution.  To find a            
 solution, everyone must work together.  To do so, there must be               
 definitions all agree upon.                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON requested that Mr. Borbridge provide the                   
 committee, in writing, some of his ideas on defining those                    
 ambiguous areas.                                                              
 Number 2045                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked whether, during negotiations over               
 ANCSA, subsistence was something "we wanted to keep for sure, that            
 we weren't going to negotiate that away?"  He also asked for                  
 confirmation that Mr. Borbridge had helped negotiate ANCSA.                   
 MR. BORBRIDGE said yes.  He explained, "First of all, subsistence             
 was one of the three major objectives that we who were lobbying for           
 a settlement act sought to advance and to protect, land and                   
 compensation being the other two.  And thus when the proposal,                
 which became a provision in ANCSA, to extinguish aboriginal hunting           
 and fishing rights was brought forward, we on the Native side,                
 representing the various organizations, opposed it.                           
 Notwithstanding our opposition, it was inserted into and became a             
 part of ANCSA."                                                               
 MR. BORBRIDGE continued, "However, we, at the same time, were                 
 successful on the Senate side in having a bill with very detailed             
 protective provisions as to subsistence.  And that was enacted by             
 the House.  And so we sought to have subsistence protected all the            
 way through the whole process.  And as a consequence, when we had             
 the final statement inserted into the record to indicate what the             
 intent of the Congress was, it made clear, because we were                    
 insisting on the side, that subsistence would be protected.  It               
 would not in effect be extinguished or lost because of the Section            
 4, which speaks of extinguishing aboriginal hunting and fishing               
 rights.  It is a delicate thing because yes, aboriginal hunting and           
 fishing rights are extinguished.  No, subsistence rights                      
 Number 2150                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS referred to the conference committee report           
 of December 13, 1971, which said that committee expected the                  
 Secretary of Interior and the state to take action necessary to               
 protect subsistence needs of the Natives.  He asked how "rural"               
 came into ANILCA.                                                             
 MR. BORBRIDGE replied that in early lobbying for Title VIII, Native           
 representatives were pretty much pushing for a Native preference.             
 However, then-governor Jay Hammond urged a compromise between the             
 state and the Native people.  The language "rural Alaskans" rather            
 than "Native Alaskans" resulted.                                              
 Number 2217                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said it seemed a logical conclusion because                  
 aboriginal hunting and fishing rights had been extinguished and               
 could not be reestablished.                                                   
 MR. BORBRIDGE replied, "The position that we take is that, with               
 respect to the subsistence rights, it was clearly the intention of            
 the Congress, in enacting ANCSA, that it was not necessary to have            
 a specific provision preserving the Native subsistence use rights             
 simply because it was felt that the Secretary had sufficient                  
 authority to do just that.  And in the statement from the                     
 conference committee, the Congress again made it very clear that              
 what they wanted was to see the Native rights protected as a matter           
 of national policy and a realization that the Natives in the bush             
 depend a great deal on a subsistence lifestyle.  And it is the                
 lifestyle they've enjoyed from time immemorial."                              
 MR. BORBRIDGE said there is a distinction between 1) the                      
 extinguishment of aboriginal hunting and fishing and 2) subsistence           
 hunting and fishing.  Clearly, subsistence uses under Title VIII              
 were not aboriginally based, but depended on expressed desire and             
 the statutory provision of Title VIII of ANILCA itself.  "It                  
 becomes a delicate little thing," he added.                                   
 Number 2305                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked how to best balance the rural                 
 subsistence priority with good, sound game management and not be              
 discriminatory on a racial basis.                                             
 MR. BORBRIDGE said because the tribes are identifiable politically            
 and legally, this is not an act that runs afoul of anti-                      
 discrimination laws.  "Particularly crystal clear is when an act of           
 the Congress is directed at, as beneficiaries, federally recognized           
 Indian tribes, and of course, that's what we have in Alaska," he              
 said.  In that case, as long as it is directed at the tribes and              
 their members, it is not subject to a negative finding in the event           
 of a constitutional challenge.  Looking at Title VIII and                     
 congressional intent in dealing with Alaska Natives, they are on a            
 very sound footing constitutionally, he asserted.                             
 MR. BORBRIDGE suggested they were discussing how to come up with              
 provisions, regulations and definitions that serve all Alaskans.              
 One problem is that Title VIII clearly provides a preference for              
 subsistence hunting and fishing.  However, it only applies in the             
 event of a shortage of the resource.  The system in place on the              
 federal side, where he served for seven years, seems to work                  
 because there seems to be a genuine concern about the management of           
 the resource, so that there will always be a resource left to enjoy           
 in the following years.                                                       
 Number 2461                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked in the case of migratory game such as              
 caribou, how Mr. Borbridge would envision handling an instance                
 where one tribal group overhunted the stock [question cut off mid-            
 speech by tape change].                                                       
 TAPE 97-26, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 MR. BORBRIDGE cited his own experience.  There had been ten                   
 regional advisory councils, each with members knowledgeable about             
 subsistence living within the area encompassed by that council's              
 boundaries.  In specific situations, one council might allow a hunt           
 but another would say no.  "And we'd have to convene them over a              
 larger area because of the very thing you say," he said.  The                 
 movement of the herds necessitated going beyond a small                       
 jurisdiction.  Mr. Borbridge acknowledged that was only part of the           
 Number 0061                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES disagreed with Mr. Borbridge's assertion that           
 ANILCA was Indian legislation or federally recognized as tribal               
 legislation.  She stated, "I believe very specifically in ANILCA,             
 Metlakatla was recognized.  The other Native groups around the                
 state were called Native entities, not tribes."                               
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said in talking about the intent of Congress,           
 as with intent of the Alaska legislature, if something is not part            
 of the law itself, it has no bearing in law.  Furthermore, in                 
 talking about Indian law, Congress voted as Alaska did on the                 
 statehood compact and the Constitution of the State of Alaska,                
 which gives the state jurisdiction over those resources.                      
 Number 0150                                                                   
 CARL L. ROSIER, Territorial Sportsmen, came forward to testify in             
 support of HJR 21.  Formed in 1945, the organization numbers 1,500            
 to 2,000 members.  Referring to fish and wildlife management and              
 the state constitution during the establishment of statehood, he              
 noted, "They saw the state as one people, with equal access to the            
 fish and wildlife resources.  And that's what they stood for, and             
 that's what we still stand for today."                                        
 MR. ROSIER said his organization, which strongly supports HJR 21,             
 believes amendments to ANILCA are the means to resolve the                    
 subsistence issue.  Modifying the state constitution under                    
 conditions that exist today is not reasonable.  Without changes to            
 ANILCA, the state is destined for a future of conflict.                       
 MR. ROSIER said HJR 21 addresses most of the problems they see with           
 ANILCA.  However, it still does not make Alaska "a first-class                
 citizen in the hall of states" regarding fish and wildlife                    
 management.  He is convinced Alaskans can settle the subsistence              
 issue if the federal government is not involved.  Otherwise, he               
 foresees a future of conflict and polarization of Alaskans.                   
 Number 0282                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred that Alaskans can solve the problem.               
 "If Congress allows us to, I'd be one of the first to come to the             
 table," he added.                                                             
 MR. ROSIER referred to page 2, item 7) of a document he had                   
 provided, entitled, "AFN Policy on Resolving the Subsistence                  
 Issues."  He noted it says:  "The subsistence priority applies at             
 all times, not just when there is a resource shortage."                       
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked the source of that document.                    
 MR. ROSIER said it had been provided to him by Dick Bishop,                   
 Executive Director of the Alaska Outdoor Council.                             
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA asked whether the AFN had sent it to Mr.              
 MR. ROSIER said he did not know.  He noted that the document was an           
 official record from the AFN board meeting of March 4, 1996.                  
 Number 0374                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS agreed something must be done with the                
 subsistence issue to regain management that Alaska is losing.  He             
 indicated ANCSA protects Native subsistence.  He asked for Mr.                
 Rosier's thoughts on that.                                                    
 MR. ROSIER said that seems to be the crux of the problem.  The                
 state constitution provides everyone access to the resources.  He             
 does not believe allocating resources to one group or another in              
 Alaska is the way to go.  He understands that under ANCSA, and                
 ultimately ANILCA, those aboriginal rights had in fact been                   
 Number 0434                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked whether Mr. Rosier is familiar with HB
 960, passed in 1977.                                                          
 MR. ROSIER said he remembered it vaguely.                                     
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES explained that was the subsistence law that             
 passed and was then supported by the Special Committee on                     
 Subsistence.  She served on that committee in 1979.  From the                 
 beginning, she believed that law was unconstitutional, which it was           
 later found to be.  The legislature had been advised during                   
 testimony that if HB 960 passed, establishing a subsistence                   
 priority for rural residents, there would no longer be a need to              
 bring this to the federal level.                                              
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said it first became an issue at the federal            
 level under that debate.  After passage, HB 960 was used in                   
 Washington, D.C., as ammunition to get subsistence into Title VIII            
 of ANILCA by saying, "See, this what the Alaska legislature wants."           
 She asked if that refreshed Mr. Rosier's memory.                              
 MR. ROSIER said it did.  As he recalled, that was the avenue the              
 state was moving down until the Supreme Court decision.                       
 Number 0559                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that HJR 21 is looking for an                
 avenue to resolve the subsistence issue.  The federal government is           
 taking over management of the state's fish and wildlife.  Although            
 a Native who grew up in rural areas, she had taken an oath to                 
 uphold the state constitution, which gives equal treatment to all             
 Alaskans, not depending on where they live or come from, nor on               
 what racial or other background they have.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK believes it is important to all work together.           
 She suggested looking to the future rather than getting caught up             
 in the past.  She believes HJR 21 will help build a bridge,                   
 resulting in fair and equal treatment.                                        
 Number 0677                                                                   
 MR. ROSIER complimented Representative Masek and Co-Chairman Ogan,            
 as cosponsor, on the resolution.  He said the federal government              
 would be "in our hair," messing in fish and wildlife management in            
 Alaska, from here on.  However, he does not believe that is                   
 Number 0720                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced there were time constraints.  However,             
 he would try to take testimony from all communities signed up.                
 Number 0747                                                                   
 APRIL FERGUSON, Kawerak, Incorporated, testified via teleconference           
 from Nome.  She personally believes HJR 21 is not in the long-term            
 best interests of Alaska nor that it proposes constructive                    
 mechanisms for Alaskans to remedy the current impact of management.           
 It proposes changes in ANILCA that will dissolve the fragile                  
 protections of the subsistence way of life.                                   
 MS. FERGUSON questioned the viability of returning management to              
 the state.  She said HJR 21 proposes disenfranchising the most                
 successful component of federal management, the regional advisory             
 council.  In addition, it portrays our state legislature as                   
 extremists to all members of Congress to whom it has been faxed.              
 MS. FERGUSON concluded by saying with the singular exception of               
 Representative Masek, the Native community of Alaska would accept             
 no more compromise on subsistence.                                            
 Number 0822                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that subsistence is being                    
 protected right now.  She asked whether Ms. Ferguson understands              
 the problems they would face if the federal government took over              
 management of Alaska's fish and wildlife.  She believes the state             
 is providing that opportunity for fishing and hunting, and that HJR
 21 in no way would take away protection for all Alaskans, including           
 Natives, both rural and urban.                                                
 MS. FERGUSON said she respectfully disagrees.  She feels more                 
 comfortable with the responsiveness of the federal management                 
 system than with the state or the legislature.                                
 Number 0895                                                                   
 NOEL WOODS testified via teleconference from Mat-Su, saying he                
 fully supports HJR 21.  He believes some of the terms in the                  
 existing laws are ill-defined or not defined at all, and thus                 
 subject to misconception or misusage by the federal government on             
 this matter.                                                                  
 MR. WOODS referred to item (9) on page 3, line 4.  He suggested               
 inserting the phrase "if established" between "provide that                   
 regional subsistence advisory councils" and "are only advisory to             
 regulatory boards".  He concluded by saying HJR 21 is a good start            
 on a needed discussion.                                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred that part of the problem is that much of           
 the language in ANILCA is subjective.                                         
 Number 0980                                                                   
 BEN HASTINGS testified via teleconference.  A third generation                
 Alaskan, he had lived in Ketchikan 45 years.  He thanked the                  
 sponsor for introducing HJR 21.  He noted that in October, the                
 federal government is threatening to take over management of our              
 fish and game.  He had observed the federal advisory council in               
 action, on the Prince of Wales Island deer hunting issue concerning           
 the harvesting of does.  The council had not considered any                   
 biological input from state or federal biologists.  He had                    
 concluded that the state, not the federal government, should deal             
 with fish and game issues, as it has since statehood.  The state              
 constitution should not be changed to comply with ANILCA, which is            
 a law.  Rather, ANILCA should be changed.                                     
 MR. HASTINGS said a deal is a deal only if ANILCA meets with                  
 Alaska's state constitution.  He emphasized that all Alaskans are             
 created equal.  He offered to assist.  He believes it is the most             
 important issue to surface since statehood.                                   
 Number 1094                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS invited Mr. Hastings to attend the                    
 informational meeting on subsistence he planned for Tuesday, March            
 18, at 5:30 p.m. at the Ketchikan Civic Center.                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON said Mr. Hastings brought up an interesting                
 point.  No Alaska law can go on the books without being                       
 constitutional, both under the state and federal constitutions.  He           
 presumed the former had been found constitutional in accordance               
 with the latter.  He suggested an attorney address the question of            
 what responsibility the federal government has with its laws to the           
 constitutionality of the existing states, for example, if a federal           
 law is passed to essentially nullify a provision within Alaska's              
 constitution, which obviously was established under the federal               
 constitution.  He believes this is an important element in                    
 ultimately solving the issue.                                                 
 Number 1173                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said the state cannot act now because it is              
 not complying with Title VIII of ANILCA.  One or the other must               
 change.  A change to ANILCA would give the state authority to                 
 define "rural" and "customary and traditional."                               
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said these issues had been headed for the Supreme            
 Court, which would have provided some answers.  However, that was             
 headed off by the state Administration.                                       
 Number 1243                                                                   
 ART IVANOFF, Subsistence Coordinator, Maniilaq Association,                   
 testified via teleconference from Kotzebue in opposition to HJR 21.           
 He referred to Article XII, Section 12 of the state constitution,             
 which states in part:  "The State and its people agree that, unless           
 otherwise provided by Congress, the property, as described in this            
 section, shall remain subject to the absolute disposition of the              
 United States."                                                               
 MR. IVANOFF then read from a preceding portion of Article XII,                
 Section 12, which states:  "The State and its people further                  
 disclaim all right or title in or to any property, including                  
 fishing rights, the right or title to which may be held by or for             
 any Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, or community thereof, as that right             
 or title is defined in the act of admission."                                 
 MR. IVANOFF said Article XII, Section 12, implies the state                   
 realized and honored the right of the federal government to protect           
 the property rights of any Indian, Aleut or Eskimo and help in the            
 development of aboriginal rights that were wrongly extinguished by            
 ANCSA.  ANILCA is a compromise between the Natives, the state and             
 the federal government.  He believes Alaska Natives are now being             
 asked to compromise again.                                                    
 MR. IVANOFF stated, "We find it necessary for the federal                     
 government to live up to its legal, moral and political                       
 relationship it shares with Alaska's first people," he stated.                
 "HJR 21 attacks the only real protection the rural communities have           
 against pressure from effective and powerful interest groups like             
 the commercial and sport interests."                                          
 MR. IVANOFF referred to item (5) on page 2 of the bill.  He said              
 defining "rural" and "customary and traditional" for purposes of              
 the definition of "subsistence uses" under 16 U.S.C. 3113 must                
 remain in the hands of tribal government.                                     
 MR. IVANOFF opposes item (10) on page 3, where proposed language              
 would eliminate commercial use and sale of fish and wildlife taken            
 for subsistence uses.  He said customary trade among Alaska Natives           
 has been an essential part of the economics in rural Alaska since             
 time immemorial.  The cost of living there is extremely high, and             
 opportunities to trade must be provided so that revenue generated             
 can provide for rural families.                                               
 Number 1449                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked whether Mr. Ivanoff or his family had              
 ever been denied the right to hunt or fish in the Kotzebue area.              
 MR. IVANOFF said no.  However, he believes there is a problem in              
 some areas.  He mentioned Nome in particular, where he believes               
 state practices preclude adequate escapement or a sustained                   
 population that would allow for a subsistence take.                           
 Number 1173                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said HJR 21 would return to the state the                
 right to manage fish and game.  The current dual management is not            
 working.  Amendments to ANILCA would allow all Alaskans to work on            
 it, with more local control, rather than having the federal                   
 government come in and make regulations with no idea of what it is            
 like to live in Alaska.                                                       
 Number 1618                                                                   
 DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai, stating he            
 supports equal rights for all people.  He believes the federal and            
 state constitutions support and obligate all citizens to these                
 standards of equality.  He had testified before Congress that                 
 ANILCA was a moral and legal obligation of the nation.  However, he           
 believes Title VIII of ANILCA violates the validity of (indisc.) of           
 ANCSA, which was an agreement between the federal and state                   
 governments and the Native people.                                            
 MR. BONDURANT opposes any amendment to Alaska's constitution that             
 would give special privileges to any identity of people.  Giving              
 privileges to one group denies equal rights to the others.                    
 MR. BONDURANT believes the Native people realize there is no longer           
 a Native preference in subsistence.  He said Congress had reasoned            
 that giving a Native preference would make it a racial issue, which           
 is improper.  It was required that the state first vote for a                 
 constitution during the statehood act, and that the state have a              
 fish and wildlife management program, before the Secretary of                 
 Interior would give up federal management.  "And he did qualify               
 that our management program met that requirement," he said.  "Now,            
 they're coming back and saying Alaska does not have ... this right            
 to manage all of Alaska's fish and wildlife."  He commended                   
 Representative Masek for living by her belief that all people are             
 equal here on the earth.                                                      
 Number 1806                                                                   
 HERBERT SMELCER, Board Member, Tazlina Village Council, testified             
 via teleconference from Glennallen in opposition to HJR 21.  He               
 said they would support more hearings on this resolution throughout           
 the state, and they support a subsistence priority for rural                  
 MR. SMELCER said local people had been denied subsistence use or              
 opportunity, including seeing their fish wheels shut down.  New               
 people in the state had obtained permits to hunt caribou or moose,            
 whereas locals had been unable to.  "So we've had an impact by                
 state regulations, and we feel that dual management is working for            
 us, and we depend on it," he concluded.                                       
 Number 1882                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK pointed out that HJR 21 preserves the federal            
 requirement for a rural preference in order for Alaska to maintain            
 management.  She asked whether Mr. Smelcer had seen that.                     
 MR. SMELCER said yes.  However, he believes taking away                       
 requirements under ANILCA, and putting decisions on definitions               
 under state jurisdiction, will not benefit the subsistence priority           
 for rural Alaska.                                                             
 Number 1955                                                                   
 DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified            
 via teleconference from Fairbanks.  His organization is a statewide           
 umbrella group with 50 member clubs, plus individual members,                 
 totally 11,000 members.  It promotes sound scientific management of           
 Alaska's fish, wildlife and habitats, as well as public access to             
 public resources, provided that an allocation is consistent with              
 the state constitution as presently written.                                  
 MR. BISHOP said the council supports HJR 21.  It opens a new avenue           
 of discussion and catalogs most of the major flaws in the federal             
 law that demand amendment in order to have sound conservation and             
 reasonable rules relating to resource uses.                                   
 MR. BISHOP explained that the council has consistently opposed                
 amending the Alaska constitution by including a rural priority for            
 subsistence.  It continues to do so on two grounds.  First, it                
 would violate the common use and equal protection provisions of               
 Alaska's constitution.  Second, it would be arbitrary and                     
 discriminate against the majority of Alaskans, solely on the basis            
 of the postal zip code.  The council maintains a subsistence                  
 priority is not needed to accommodate Alaskans who depend on                  
 personal use of fish and game for their livelihood.                           
 MR. BISHOP said if there were such a priority, it should be based             
 on how people live, not where.  The federal priority is not based             
 on need, nor on how dependent people are on fish and game.                    
 Furthermore, it is absolutely not triggered by a shortage that is             
 in place at all times, he said.                                               
 Number 2081                                                                   
 MR. BISHOP said in 1992, the Alaska Outdoor Council agreed to a               
 compromise in state law on workable priorities.  However, that was            
 defeated in the legislature through efforts of proponents of the              
 federal rural priority.  Now, the federal government is grinding              
 along in its plan to preempt state management of all fish and                 
 wildlife, everywhere in Alaska, urged on by the AFN and other                 
 political entities.                                                           
 MR. BISHOP cautioned that the federal management regime will serve            
 nobody well.  Even the federal rural subsistence priority comes in            
 a distant second because ANILCA puts nonconsumptive use as a higher           
 MR. BISHOP concluded that there cannot be meaningful Alaskan                  
 management unless federal court oversight is removed.  He said HJR
 21 provides a context to discuss the subsistence priority issue and           
 identifies many of the functional flaws of Title VIII of ANILCA.              
 Number 2172                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE REGGIE JOULE asked whether the Alaska Outdoor                  
 Council existed when ANCSA and ANILCA were passed.                            
 MR. BISHOP said it was formed around 1954 or 1955 by a coalition of           
 the Territorial Sportsmen, the Matanuska Sportsmen and the Tanana             
 Valley Sportsmens Association, and it had a slightly different                
 name.  About 1983, it took its present configuration as the Alaska            
 Fish and Wildlife Federation and Outdoor Council, commonly known as           
 the Alaska Outdoor Council.  He noted that the Tanana organization            
 went back as far as 1915.                                                     
 Number 2257                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the council had supported or               
 opposed ANCSA and ANILCA.                                                     
 MR. BISHOP did not know whether the council had been active on                
 those issues.  However, he did know, however, that groups                     
 associated with the council were concerned with ANILCA in general,            
 not just with the subsistence priority but also, probably more                
 important at that time, with establishment of the extensive federal           
 conservation system units that threatened to reduce opportunity for           
 hunting, fishing, trapping and so forth.                                      
 MR. BISHOP believed it was reasonable to say that those same                  
 groups, and most likely the council, probably opposed a rural                 
 subsistence priority.  He did know that members at least advised              
 Congress that the federal provision for a rural priority was                  
 undoubtedly inconsistent with the Alaska state constitution.                  
 "However, Congress, in its wisdom, chose to not take a close look             
 at that and passed it anyway," he commented.  "That I am personally           
 familiar with."                                                               
 Number 2420                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES recalled that the Alaska Outdoor Council was            
 involved, as were a number of other groups.  Having been in                   
 Washington, D.C., at the same time they were, she had personal                
 knowledge on that subject.                                                    
 TAPE 97-27, SIDE A                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 MR. BISHOP commented that the legislative history of ANCSA includes           
 reference to the fact that lands intended to be transferred to                
 Native corporations were to be transferred not only for economic              
 gain but for the support of subsistence uses.                                 
 Number 0077                                                                   
 MICHAEL PEDERSON, Arctic Slope Native Association, Ltd., testified            
 via teleconference from Barrow.  An Inupiat Eskimo who had lived in           
 Barrow and Unalakleet, he opposes HJR 21.  He believes it will                
 destroy existing federal subsistence protections that Alaska                  
 Natives have.  One reason land selections under ANCSA were made               
 near villages was so people could practice their subsistence                  
 lifestyles.  He believes HJR 21 would change that and would                   
 overturn the Katie John decision.  "We've tried working with the              
 state, and we're just not getting anywhere," he said.  "And you               
 want us to have a weaker standard of reasonable opportunity to                
 catch fish and wildlife."                                                     
 MR. PEDERSON said HJR 21 would also make the regional subsistence             
 advisory councils under the federal management program ineffective.           
 "But that's one of our only strongholds that we have," he said.               
 "We're lucky that the federal subsistence board listens to us."               
 MR. PEDERSON asked what time line there was for submitting written            
 comments for the public record.                                               
 Number 0228                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN confirmed that the committee would accept written            
 testimony and submit it to future committees and to the floor.  He            
 had no set deadline but suggested a week or two.  He said his door            
 is open to anyone at anytime to discuss this.  He noted that the              
 intention with HJR 21 is to get everyone to the table to discuss              
 and settle this issue as Alaskans.                                            
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN explained his intention of hearing from a broad              
 variety of people from around the state that day.                             
 Number 0462                                                                   
 HEATHER KENDALL, Staff Attorney, Native American Rights Fund,                 
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage on behalf of the Alaska           
 Inter-Tribal Council, which opposes HJR 21.  She said the council             
 is a consortium consisting of the majority of 220 federally-                  
 recognized tribes in Alaska.  She called HJR 21 ill-conceived.  She           
 said rather than address specifics, she would make general                    
 MS. KENDALL said HJR 21 attempts, very broadly, to repeal many of             
 the most important provisions of ANILCA's protections.  She                   
 referred to the sponsor statement, which indicates HJR 21 is                  
 intended to bring people to the table to discuss the importance of            
 subsistence and to allow Alaskans to decide how to resolve this               
 issue.  However, Ms. Kendall believes that is not occurring.                  
 MS. KENDALL stated, "You, as a body, have already determined what             
 provisions of ANILCA you believe to be important in terms of                  
 repealing them," she said.  "You have not opened this debate up to            
 the public, and in fact, most of the Native communities that have             
 a vested interest in this debate have been excluded from giving               
 their testimony here today because there are insufficient lines for           
 them to be able to testify."  She urged another hearing at least              
 and suggested that "bush Alaska" be able to testify in person.                
 Number 0577                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES disagreed that the committee was excluding              
 MS. KENDALL said the committee would not hear testimony that day on           
 behalf of the Native community because they were only plugged into            
 urban centers.  She suggested they were not allowing a broader                
 forum for debate.                                                             
 Number 0694                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES replied that this debate had been going on 20           
 years.  She suggested getting testimony in writing from any                   
 community they were unable to reach by teleconference.                        
 MS. KENDALL referred to discussion about whether ANILCA was Indian            
 legislation.  She claimed the Alaska State Legislature has little             
 respect for federal law, especially for 9th Circuit Court of                  
 Appeals opinions on federal cases.  She said 11 or more 9th Circuit           
 cases refer to Title VIII of ANILCA as Native legislation.  Title             
 VIII was a response to extinguishment of aboriginal hunting and               
 fishing claims through ANCSA.  It is remedial legislation and a               
 treaty substitute.  It is federal law that protects federal rights,           
 and it has been repeatedly upheld in the 9th Circuit.  "That law is           
 not subject to this body's termination or amendment," she                     
 Number 0745                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN concurred with Representative Barnes.  He resented           
 the implication that the committee was not hearing from people                
 around the state.  "I have deliberately gone to every community               
 that is hooked up to teleconference," he said.  "We have not, other           
 than for technical reasons because of the lack of capacity for                
 phone lines, not hooked anybody up."                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE NICHOLIA noted that only one community in her                  
 district was able to be on teleconference.                                    
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN acknowledged that.  He said he especially wanted             
 to hear from anyone with testimony that stands out or offers                  
 something new.                                                                
 Number 0857                                                                   
 JULIE KITKA, President, Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN),                   
 testified via teleconference from Anchorage.  She said one common             
 ground is the need to protect habitat for Alaska's fish and game.             
 She urged the committee to seek to improve the state's management             
 of fish and game.                                                             
 MS. KITKA suggested increasing appropriations for a management                
 system that would be world-class, state-of-the-art and the envy of            
 the Arctic and the United States, if not the world.  She believes             
 there is much room for improvement and that Alaska has the                    
 resources, should that be a priority.                                         
 MS. KITKA suggested an appropriation to enable the House Resources            
 Standing Committee to develop into the group in the legislature               
 with the greatest expertise on this issue.  She urged them to meet            
 with people face-to-face in 25 or 30 rural communities.                       
 MS. KITKA said subsistence is an economy in rural Alaska.  She                
 suggested the legislature strengthen this economic system however             
 it can, realizing many people depend on it.  Subsistence is the               
 sole reason why many people can live on such low cash incomes.                
 With recent federal welfare reform and its negative impacts, those            
 most dependent on subsistence would have even more difficulty                 
 providing for basic needs.  She expressed concern that the economic           
 component could get buried by political issues.                               
 Number 1160                                                                   
 MS. KITKA indicated the AFN's main concern is that Natives                    
 depending on subsistence be allowed to continue doing in peace what           
 they have done for many, many years, and that they not be undercut            
 in their ability to provide for their families and live their                 
 lives, in any way, by the legislature or anybody else.                        
 MS. KITKA said the AFN adamantly opposes HJR 21.  A more                      
 appropriate approach would be seeking common ground and acting on             
 some of the suggestions she had made.                                         
 MS. KITKA expressed concern that the state would lose credibility             
 with the U.S. Congress if the legislature adopts HJR 21.  The AFN             
 believes HJR 21 guts Title VIII of ANILCA.  A more constructive               
 approach would be building expertise as she had suggested, and then           
 going forward to address the issue.                                           
 Number 1267                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES responded that she and other committee                  
 members have been to the rural areas.  She believes all areas of              
 Alaska must be held as one, and all people treated fairly.                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said the preferential use of Alaska's fish              
 and game should be allowing subsistence for anyone in Alaska, no              
 matter where they live, who needs to feed themselves and their                
 families.  However, it should not be for one segment of Alaska's              
 population over another.                                                      
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES had brought committees to rural areas and               
 enjoyed a great friendship with people living there.  She believes            
 thinking there is only one way misses the point.  She said Ms.                
 Kitka is saying, "If you don't do it our way, then we support                 
 federal management of fish and game or a dual management system,"             
 and then she is asking the state to pay for it through habitat and            
 appropriations for increased resource management.  Representative             
 Barnes said she cannot agree with that.  She asked why not let the            
 dual management, i.e., the federal government, pay for it.                    
 Number 1422                                                                   
 MS. KITKA clarified that she was not saying the committee had no              
 expertise on this issue.  She was suggesting they might want to               
 build it up.  Rural parts of the state would invite the committee             
 to come out and engage in discussions, with the goal of seeking               
 common ground.                                                                
 MS. KITKA restated earlier suggestions on the state management                
 system.  She believed it would do a lot of good if all citizens               
 could point towards the state management system as being the very             
 best, even better than the federal system.  However, the AFN's                
 experience with the federal subsistence board had been very                   
 positive.  She suggested people would rather work with the state              
 system than the federal system if the former did not fall short.              
 Number 1570                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that he had traveled and worked                    
 extensively throughout rural Alaska.                                          
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK concurred with Representative Barnes on having           
 more expertise.  She asked Ms. Kitka how much money the AFN had               
 spent in the past few years on the subsistence issue.                         
 MS. KITKA replied she did not have a dollar amount.  To her                   
 knowledge, there had been no state general fund money spent.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked how much had been spent on attorney fees           
 and travel costs to Washington, D.C., and to statewide hearings.              
 She asked for a round figure and specified she was asking about               
 Natives' money, not state funds.                                              
 MS. KITKA said she did not know.  "That's not how we keep track of            
 things," she said.                                                            
 Number 1713                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Ms. Kitka to provide, in the future, how           
 much the AFN has spent on battling this issue.  She also wanted to            
 know what the AFN has done constructively to work with all the                
 entities in the state to resolve it.  She said she would follow up            
 with Ms. Kitka at a later time.                                               
 MS. KITKA noted that Representative Masek had served on the Alaska            
 Native Commission, a joint federal-state commission.  The AFN had             
 been very much involved in creating that.  The commission produced            
 a three-volume report to the U.S. Congress and the state                      
 legislature, one volume of which was on the subsistence issue.  She           
 recommended the committee review that.                                        
 Number 1776                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN commented that he would be more than happy to                
 spend time in the interim traveling around rural Alaska.                      
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS asked Ms. Kitka to have an AFN attorney               
 look at the conference committee report of December 13, 1971.                 
 "What I'd like to know is, we gave up our aboriginal fishing and              
 hunting rights," he said.  "And I'd like to see how the other                 
 portion, where the conference committee expects both the Secretary            
 [of Interior] and the state to take necessary action to protect the           
 subsistence needs of the Natives.  I'd like to know ... if we did             
 give up the subsistence issues ... in that conference committee."             
 MS. KITKA replied that the AFN would gladly provide a short paper             
 on that specific issue.  She agreed with John Borbridge's                     
 recitation of the history on that process.                                    
 Number 1866                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked what impacts, if any, the proposed                 
 amendments to ANILCA would have on ANCSA.  He suggested an answer             
 could be provided in writing or at another hearing.                           
 MS. KITKA said the AFN would be glad to provide an analysis.                  
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said ANCSA had passed first, and ANILCA was             
 in no way tied to it.  And it is the latter that HJR 21 addresses.            
 MS. KITKA said she was uncertain whether Representative Joule was             
 asking about impact on Native land.  She said HJR 21 negatively               
 impacts Native lands, which comprise 12 percent of the entire state           
 and the bulk of private land in the state.                                    
 Number 2014                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN noted the time constraints and asked that further            
 questions be brief.                                                           
 MS. KITKA extended an invitation to the committee and offered to              
 help plan a trip "to further the search for common ground."                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated the desire to stay in touch on that                
 Number 2079                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON referred to his earlier request to John                    
 Borbridge to provide the committee with an assessment.  He stated             
 his belief that everyone ultimately wants control of the management           
 of Alaska's fish and wildlife to be by Alaska residents.  He                  
 stated, "It seems to me where we break down is when we try to                 
 define what the description or definitions are on one side, that              
 seems to create almost a total, exact opposite on the other side.             
 And what I'd like to find out is where the common ground is, and              
 then, if we can, try to find a common solution to ultimately                  
 gaining back ... our control here."  He believes the solution is              
 changing ANILCA, not the state constitution.                                  
 CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON requested that Ms. Kitka critique the elements             
 of the resolution and providing specific justification, reasons or            
 citations as to her position, as a beginning of finding common                
 MS. KITKA offered to provide a written statement or meet with the             
 committee later.                                                              
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN asked that she submit it in writing.                         
 Number 2233                                                                   
 SID SMITH testified via teleconference from Dillingham.  He noted             
 he was the first president of the subsistence committee "that also            
 passed in Washington, D.C., in 1978."  He provided a brief history.           
 Representative Barnes had been at many meetings he attended.  In              
 the late 1970s, the state management was poor.  The federal                   
 government wanted to take over, and there had been much discussion            
 of local control.  It was decided to let the state do the                     
 MR. SMITH said from 1978 to 1992, there was supposed to be a                  
 regional board set up, funded by the federal government.  "The only           
 time the thing changed is when Babbitt came to Dillingham and I               
 mentioned it, that we do have tribes, and also, we need to set up             
 regional boards around the state," he said.  "And it took 14 years.           
 And my question is, ... why didn't the state set up these boards              
 when they had the opportune time in 1979?"                                    
 Number 2313                                                                   
 MR. SMITH referred to dual management.  He said what he opposes in            
 HJR 21 relates to changing the definitions.  He suggested that if             
 there was a vote, it should be by majority of the users of the                
 "reasonable resource."  He was bothered by emotionalism on the                
 issues.  He agreed with Julie Kitka that the committee should come            
 to the rural areas.  He advised members that he had put out two               
 movies.  He indicated rural people depend on the economic system              
 just like others depend on a cash economy.                                    
 MR. SMITH asked about the phrase "State of Alaska" versus "Alaska             
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he interprets both to be the same entity.               
 Number 2431                                                                   
 JOHN AMIK, Tribal Administrator, Kipnuk Traditional Council,                  
 testified via teleconference.  Opposed to HJR 21, they do not want            
 regulations that would prevent Native people from hunting and                 
 fishing "in our traditional and cultural way."  They depend on the            
 resources and have little income for store-bought foods, which cost           
 sometimes double or more those in Anchorage.                                  
 MR. AMIK stated, "It is complicated for us to put our own                     
 regulations in writing, but it's ... easy enough for us to learn              
 from our elders as they teach us to respect our land and the                  
 resources we depend on."  He indicated such knowledge allows self-            
 regulation that enables them to put food on their tables and to               
 share it with neighboring villages.                                           
 TAPE 97-27, SIDE B                                                            
 Number 0006                                                                   
 MR. AMIK said they want a diversified diet that they can depend on            
 and are used to eating.  He invited the committee to visit his                
 village for a month to live as they do.                                       
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said he would work on getting to rural Alaska this           
 Number 0070                                                                   
 ANTHONY CALOI, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of Quinhagak,             
 testified via teleconference.  With him were Wassilie Bavilla,                
 President; Henry Small, General Manager; and Frank Fox, Natural               
 Resources Director.  Also with him, from the village corporation of           
 Qanirtuuk, Incorporated, was George Pleasant, board member.                   
 MR. CALOI said in Quinhagak, the city and tribal councils operate             
 under a memorandum of agreement by which the administrations are              
 consolidated.  The Native Village of Quinhagak and the village                
 corporation oppose HJR 21.                                                    
 MR. CALOI discussed the trend away from guaranteed rural and                  
 indigenous preference for subsistence.  In the international arena,           
 there is a trend of international treaties deteriorating indigenous           
 subsistence rights.  Eliminating federal oversight and the threat             
 of federal preemption will remove the only force protecting                   
 subsistence.  It will also eliminate the "federal avenue for                  
 ensuring co-management of the resources with the tribes," he said.            
 MR. CALOI stated, "Our experience is that state management of the             
 resources is biased towards sport and commercial fisheries at the             
 expense of subsistence resources."  In his village, they sued the             
 state and the federal government in order to take rainbow trout for           
 subsistence, because under state law it is illegal.  However, it is           
 not illegal for sport fishermen.                                              
 Number 0129                                                                   
 MR. CALOI said co-management is the key to sustained resources in             
 the future.  The state alone cannot succeed.  Title VIII is the               
 vehicle through which the tribes can co-manage.  "We all know that            
 the state has been reluctant to co-manage with the tribes," he                
 said.  "Therefore, we must not diminish or weaken Title VIII in the           
 law.  Rather, we should strengthen it."                                       
 MR. CALOI said, "In Quinhagak, we have demonstrated the                       
 indispensable role that tribes are playing in the management of the           
 resources.  In our village, where thousands of salmon have been               
 harvested without sufficient escapement data, we were told by the             
 state's Sport Fish division that accounting time would be a waste             
 and doomed to failure.  But we prevailed.  We secured the funds.              
 And in conjunction with Fish and Game and the Fish and Wildlife, we           
 successfully operated (indisc.) in the (Indisc.) River.  That                 
 success was a result of the collective knowledge of tribal members            
 participating in the project."                                                
 MR. CALOI said under state management, there has been fecal                   
 contamination of a local river because of a dramatic increase in              
 sport fishing.  Although they have wanted to support the Department           
 of Fish and Game restrictions to deal with this problem, they had             
 been told if they restrict sport fishing, they must also restrict             
 their own subsistence.                                                        
 MR. CALOI read a statement from Frank Fox, Natural Resources                  
 Director:  "Subsistence way of life is not a matter of law.  It is            
 a matter of the right to live.  (Indisc.) bring food to the table.            
 Hunting, fishing, berry picking, egg gathering, all forms of food             
 gathering bring food to the table.  Maybe it is time that we change           
 our strategy.  Maybe it is time that we look at subsistence as a              
 right-to-live issue.  No one can argue that we, as Native people,             
 actually have a right to live.  Right to live means that we can go            
 out and harvest and gather food when it is around, so that we can             
 feed our families.  Without a guaranteed rural protection for                 
 subsistence hunting and fishing, we will not survive as a people."            
 Number 0297                                                                   
 GEORGE YASKA, Executive Officer, Tanana Chiefs Conference,                    
 Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Fairbanks.  He said           
 recent actions within the Native subsistence movement and HJR 21              
 may represent some progress towards a meeting of minds on the                 
 subsistence issue.  In February, the Rural Alaska Community Action            
 Program (RuRAL CAP) sponsored a subsistence round table in                    
 Anchorage, which produced a proclamation on subsistence                       
 representing a shift in positions.                                            
 MR. YASKA explained that prior to the proclamation, the consensus             
 in the Native community favored return to state unitary management            
 and a constitutional amendment that would comply with ANILCA.                 
 However, the round table produced a new recognition that Alaskans             
 have reached an impasse and that dual management will be a                    
 permanent feature of fish and game management in Alaska in the                
 foreseeable future.                                                           
 MR. YASKA said the proclamation calls upon the Native community to            
 refocus efforts to make the dual management system work, through              
 development of greater cooperation between land managers and                  
 development of co-management systems that will meet subsistence               
 users' needs.                                                                 
 MR. YASKA said interestingly, HJR 21 is premised upon a similar               
 realization that dual management is likely to continue in the near            
 future.  It may signify progress that both sides acknowledge this.            
 Rather than focusing on co-management, however, HJR 21 calls for              
 amendment to ANILCA, which would erect an impenetrable wall between           
 state and federal game management.                                            
 MR. YASKA urged the committee to consider co-management options.              
 Conservation is the greatest concern.  Under dual management,                 
 someone must ensure conservation goals are met.  Generally, the               
 federal subsistence board is restricted to making allocation                  
 decisions on federal land.  However, federal regulators may go                
 outside federal lands to regulate migratory species for                       
 conservation purposes.                                                        
 MR. YASKA said recent actions by that board had extended federal              
 restrictions on state and private lands to prevent overharvest on             
 state lands that adversely affect game populations found on federal           
 lands.  The resolution proposes to prohibit federal regulation on             
 state land.  It begs the question of how conservation goals will be           
 coordinated and attained on federal-state land.                               
 MR. YASKA acknowledged the time limits and indicated he had further           
 written testimony.                                                            
 Number 0433                                                                   
 KAY ANDREW testified via teleconference from Ketchikan.  A lifelong           
 Alaska resident, she is being denied subsistence because of where             
 she chooses to live.  To Representatives Masek and Ogan she said,             
 "You're the only ones that are guarding my rights as an Alaskan."             
 MS. ANDREW said she was hearing that some rural residents do not              
 care about her rights.  With the federal government taking over               
 fishing management in October, and the recent proposal to the                 
 federal subsistence board by the federal advisory committee for               
 closing all of Prince of Wales Island, including all adjacent                 
 islands and waterways, she believes she is being denied her civil             
 rights as a United States citizen because of where she chooses to             
 MS. ANDREW referred to item (10) on page 3 of the bill, which                 
 requests elimination of commercial use and sale of fish and                   
 wildlife taken for subsistence use.  She believes this is the most            
 important issue.  Under no circumstances should sales be allowed.             
 She wants the state to initiate a new lawsuit and said Ketchikan              
 residents are pursuing that.  She would also like the committee to            
 visit her way of life.                                                        
 Number 0539                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS informed Ms. Andrew of the upcoming meeting           
 in Ketchikan.                                                                 
 MS. ANDREW thanked Representative Williams for putting that                   
 Number 0566                                                                   
 The teleconference operator from Kotzebue advised members that Pete           
 Schaeffer had departed but had left testimony.                                
 LUKE SAMPSON, Special Assistant to the Mayor, Northwest Arctic                
 Borough, testified via teleconference from Kotzebue on behalf of              
 Mayor Chuck Greene.  He said he had probably been in the same room            
 as Representative Barnes, discussing the same issue, 20 years ago.            
 MR. SAMPSON said the borough opposes HJR 21.  He stated, "In any              
 form whatsoever, it does not represent the sentiment of our                   
 constituents in the Northwest Arctic Borough and the 11 communities           
 we serve."  He said it takes away a significant Alaskan way of life           
 necessary to both indigenous and rural Alaskans.  These citizens              
 are being deprived of local control by deceptive use of a                     
 "legislative mechanism called a joint resolution."                            
 MR. SAMPSON said HJR 21 only creates more conflict for all                    
 Alaskans.  It is either insensitive, by ill-informed legislators,             
 or deliberately ignores the needs of constituents most directly               
 impacted.  He concluded that the borough's past record on the issue           
 of protecting subsistence still stands.                                       
 Number 0726                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN confirmed that all off-net testifiers had been               
 Number 0777                                                                   
 NICK JACKSON testified via teleconference from Glennallen.  He had            
 spent two terms on the Board of Game and listened to rural                    
 residents testify.  Mr. Jackson opposes HJR 21.  He agrees with               
 testimony by John Borbridge, Art Ivanoff and Julie Kitka.  He                 
 believes HJR 21 would make rural people second-class citizens.                
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN announced that public testimony was concluded.  He           
 apologized to those unable to testify because of the long list.               
 However, he believed a fair representation from around the state              
 had been heard.  Referring to Representative Nicholia's complaint             
 that not enough people had been hooked up, he noted that her office           
 had only begun attempting to hook up sites the previous day.  He              
 suggested that with earlier notice, more lines could be arranged.             
 He emphasized that the lack of hook-ups was not deliberate.                   
 Number 0887                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion that HJR 21 move from the                 
 committee with individual recommendations.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS objected.  He had excerpts from the ANCSA             
 conference committee report and from ANILCA.  When he asked to have           
 it copied for committee members, Co-Chairman Ogan replied that the            
 conference committee was not the law of the land that was passed.             
 Representative Williams said he does not think that is relevant.              
 He said it was passed and is the law of this land.  ANILCA was                
 started because of what was said in ANCSA.                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS read from the ANCSA Conference Report,                
 dated December 13, 1971, "C. Other Issues," item 2, which states:             
 "The Senate amendment to the House bill provided for the protection           
 of the Native people's interest in and use of subsistence resources           
 on the public lands.  The conference committee, after careful                 
 consideration, believes that all Native interest in subsistence               
 resource lands can and will be protected by the Secretary through             
 the exercise of his existing withdrawal authority.                            
 "The Secretary could, for example, withdraw appropriate lands and             
 classify them in a manner which would protect Native subsistence              
 needs and requirements by closing appropriate lands to entry by               
 nonresidents when the subsistence resources of these lands are in             
 short supply or otherwise threatened.  The Conference Committee               
 expects both the Secretary and the State to take any action                   
 necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Natives."                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS read from Title VIII of ANILCA, "Findings,"           
 subsection (4), saying it explains why Title VIII was added.  It              
 states:  "in order to fulfill the policies and purposes of the                
 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it             
 is necessary for the Congress to invoke its constitutional                    
 authority over Native affairs and its constitutional authority                
 under the property clause and commerce clause to protect and                  
 provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses on the                 
 public lands by Native and non-Native rural residents".                       
 Number 1052                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMS said he looks at that as an agreement with            
 the Native people of Alaska.  When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was              
 being built, there was a great push to get it built.  A land-freeze           
 was put on land throughout Alaska.  He said this bill passed on               
 December 18, 1971.  He said at the end of any session, things pass            
 quickly.  He would like to think that through all of this, that               
 this is the law of the land.  He looks at this as a deal that has             
 been made, and he would hope the committee would recognize that.              
 Number 1123                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN said under the settlement, all aboriginal titles,            
 if any, and claims to aboriginal title in Alaska based on use and             
 occupancy, including submerged land underneath all water areas both           
 inland and offshore, and including any aboriginal hunting and                 
 fishing rights that may exist, are extinguished.  "That was what              
 was passed in the law," he stated.  "I didn't mean to be                      
 disrespectful.  It's just that the conference committee was what              
 was debated in the conference committee.  Unless I misunderstand              
 it, that was what was debated.  This was what was settled."                   
 Number 1160                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES referred to the first statement read by                 
 Representative Williams and said that was not part of the law.  It            
 was intent language, which does not carry the force of law.  "And             
 it very clearly said that if you were to limit the taking of fish             
 and game, it would be done to nonresidents," she stated.  "We                 
 aren't talking about nonresidents here, we're talking about                   
 Alaskans."  She said ANILCA was a follow-up to ANCSA.  And HJR 21             
 specifically speaks to Title VIII of ANILCA, which goes to the                
 heart of Alaska's constitution and statehood compact.                         
 Number 1228                                                                   
 REPRESENTATIVE JOULE objected to moving HJR 21 at this time.  A               
 small sampling of people had testified.  He hoped the committee               
 could hear it over the next couple of weeks, which had been his               
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN indicated he had not committed to further                    
 Number 1309                                                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN called an at-ease at 4:09 p.m.  He called the                
 meeting back to order at 4:11 p.m.  He announced he would hold HJR
 21 until the next meeting.                                                    
 REPRESENTATIVE BARNES asked to leave the motion to move HJR 21,               
 which includes a zero fiscal note, pending.                                   
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN advised members that there could be discussion in            
 the meantime.                                                                 
 CO-CHAIRMAN OGAN adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee             
 meeting at 4:12 p.m.                                                          

Document Name Date/Time Subjects