Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/16/1999 05:05 PM House WTR
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON WORLD TRADE
AND STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS
March 16, 1999
5:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Ramona Barnes, Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Joe Green
Representative Ethan Berkowitz
Representative Reggie Joule
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Gail Phillips
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 109
"An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve and navigable waters."
- MOVED CSHB(WTR) 109 FROM COMMITTEE
* HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Relating to the sovereignty of the State of Alaska and the
sovereign right of the State of Alaska to manage the natural
resources of Alaska.
- MOVED HCR 2 FROM COMMITTEE
* HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 16
Congratulating the government and the people of the new Canadian
territory of Nunavut.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 109
SHORT TITLE: GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) OGAN, Dyson, Green, Kohring,
Cowdery, Austerman, Harris, Grussendorf, James, Porter, Coghill,
Whitaker, Mulder, Williams, Phillips, Sanders
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/22/99 278 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/22/99 278 (H) WTR, RESOURCES
2/24/99 309 (H) COSPONSOR(S): WILLIAMS, PHILLIPS,
2/24/99 309 (H) SANDERS
3/04/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
3/04/99 (H) FAILED TO MOVE OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/16/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HCR 2
SHORT TITLE: SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE; RESOURCES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) COGHILL, Barnes, Green
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/24/99 300 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
2/24/99 300 (H) WTR, FSH, RESOURCES
3/16/99 (H) WTR AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3878
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of HB 109; offered
amendment.
TED POPELY, Legislative Assistant
House Majority
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 116
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3439
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the proposed amendment to HB
109 and answered questions; answered
questions on HCR 2.
KATHRYN SWIDERSKI, Assistant Attorney General
Natural Resources Section
Civil Division (Anchorage)
Department of Law
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-1994
Telephone: (907) 269-5100
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on the proposed amendment
to HB 109.
RALPH SEEKINS, President
Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association
1625 Old Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907)459-4000
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of Alaska Wildlife
Conservation Association in support of HB 109 and HCR 2.
LYNN LEVENGOOD, Attorney
1008 - 16th Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907)452-5196
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HCR 2.
BILL HAGAR
431 Gaffney
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907)452-6295
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 109 and HCR 2.
GERRY MERRIGAN
Petersburg Vessel Owners Association
Box 232
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
Telephone: (907)772-9323
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Petersburg Vessel
Owners Association in support of HB 109.
DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE
Alaska Outdoor Council
P.O. Box 81452
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907)455-7882
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the Alaska Outdoor
Council in support of HB 109 as amended;
testified in support of HCR 2.
DALE BONDURANT
31864 Moonshine Drive
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
Telephone: (907)262-0818
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Kenai in
support of HB 109 and HCR 2.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR.
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 416
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907)465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sponsor statement for HCR 2.
ERIC WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Cordova in
support of HCR 2.
DENNY K. WEATHERS
P.O. Box 1791
Cordova, Alaska 99574
Telephone: (907)424-3745
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified via teleconference from Cordova in
support of HCR 2.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-06, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR RAMONA BARNES called the House Special Committee on World
Trade and State/Federal Relations meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
Members present at the call to order were Representatives Barnes,
Masek, Green, Berkowitz and Joule. Representative Cowdery arrived
at 5:06 p.m. Representative Phillips was not present.
Number 0032
CHAIR BARNES announced that the first order of business pertained
to two "housekeeping items." She called attention to upcoming
visits by Russian delegations and distributed their itineraries.
Second, she distributed subcommittee assignments, and invited
feedback regarding specific interests of committee members.
HB 109 - GLACIER BAY NATIONAL PARK
CHAIR BARNES invited Representative Ogan to come forward to present
his amendment for the first bill to be discussed, House Bill No.
109, "An Act relating to management of fish and game in Glacier Bay
National Park and Preserve and navigable waters." She asked if he
brought an attorney with him as requested.
Number 0211
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, came forward
to testify. He asked for a brief at-ease.
CHAIR BARNES called an at-ease at 5:08 p.m. She called the meeting
back to order at 5:09 p.m.
Number 0256
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN expressed his feeling that the concerns raised
during the last meeting have been addressed in the proposed
amendment, and that the reasons for needing an attorney present
were probably covered by that amendment as well.
Number 0326
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
1-LS0501\G.2, Utermohle, 3/8/99, which read:
Page 2, line 13, following "preserve":
Insert "This subsection does not prohibit an
agency, employee, or agent of the state from taking
action necessary to protect life or property or
from commenting on proposed federal statutes or
regulations."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He declared that, based on his
understanding of the legal concerns, this single sentence in the
amendment does nothing to alleviate the problems associated with AS
16.20.010, Section 2, subsection (b). He added, "I think we're
still in a situation where the ramifications, in terms of ... this
second paragraph's effects on agreements between state and federal
law enforcement, haven't been addressed." He felt that the
amendment solely addressed life and property, not investigation of
crimes or any other potential contingencies that might arise. The
fundamental concern about subsection (b), he emphasized, is that it
undercuts the strength of the state's case by overreaching. He
advised that there is no reason to go beyond a simple declaration
of intent, contained in Section 1 of AS 16.20.010, that the state
is not assenting to federal control.
Number 0488
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN read the amendment. He referred to an incident
in Glacier Bay where an individual took up residence in the park
and threatened those that came near him with a cache of guns and
ammunition. He respectfully disagreed with Representative
Berkowitz, and he emphasized that the state should not enforce laws
that it does not agree with. He cited the example of buying a car,
and noted, "If you pay for a car, you've bought the car." The
state does not agree with the fact that the National Park Service
(NPS) is claiming control of navigable waters, he said, so how can
it help them enforce that control?
Number 0631
CHAIR BARNES invited Mr. Ted Popely, Legislative Assistant for the
House Majority, to come forward. She asked if he felt that the
amendment before the committee alleviates the concerns expressed.
TED POPELY, Legislative Assistant, House Majority, Alaska State
Legislature, indicated that he understood the concern and that he
had read the amendment. He felt the amendment could reasonably be
interpreted to address those concerns. He added, "The way I
understood the objections, they were specifically related to this
amendment, but there would be no authority under this bill, as it
existed prior to the amendment, to assist in life-saving or
resource-saving actions when necessary." He summarized by saying,
"Yes, I believe it addresses the problem."
Number 0761
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Popely if he was able to
definitively state that the amendment would not negatively affect
any agreements between state and federal law enforcement.
MR. POPELY said no, but added that he did not believe anyone could
categorically say that.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered if he had looked into that.
MR. POPELY indicated that he had.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Popely had found anything
that would alleviate his concerns that those agreements might
reasonably be impacted or subject to challenge.
MR. POPELY admitted it would be possible, but stated that it was
his belief that the amendment would not have a negative effect on
those agreements.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ inquired if Mr. Popely had consulted with
anyone in the Department of Public Safety regarding this amendment.
MR. POPELY stated that he had not.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if Mr. Popely had discussed this
with anyone in the Department of Law.
MR. POPELY indicated that he has had several discussions with the
Department of Law regarding HB 109.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked if the Department of Law is in favor
of subsection (b) or not.
MR. POPELY pointed out that the Department of Law is on-line and
can answer that question for themselves.
Number 0864
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN observed, "I had an attorney general in my
office today, and we discussed this issue, and this section of the
bill didn't come up." He pointed out that the next committee of
referral is the House Resources Standing Committee, and he
discussed his willingness to clarify the objective of this bill by
means of "legislative-intent language." That objective, he
explained, is that the state does not feel it is necessary for the
federal government to take over management of its resources,
because the federal government has a history of managing those
resources poorly.
CHAIR BARNES asked if Kathryn Swiderski was present on-line and if
she had a copy of the proposed amendment before her.
Number 0954
KATHRYN SWIDERSKI, Assistant Attorney General, Natural Resources
Section, Civil Division, Department of Law, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She was uncertain whether or not
she had a copy of the proposed amendment before her; however, after
Chair Barnes read it to her, she indicated that she did not.
CHAIR BARNES requested that Ms. Swiderski consider the proposed
amendment in the context of Section 2, AS 16.20.010. She explained
that concerns were raised at the last committee meeting that this
particular section might prohibit federal and state officers from
fully participating with each other in the saving of lives and
property.
Number 1054
MS. SWIDERSKI admitted, "Of course, I am just looking at this now,
but I still have concerns about that." She felt that the
additional sentence in the proposed amendment might not clarify the
intent enough. The original draft, she explained, in Section 2,
subsection (b), line 11, talks about assisting in the
implementation of the federal regulatory program, and she advised
that she had some concerns whether the new sentence was clear
enough to narrow the focus of this "quite broad language."
CHAIR BARNES read lines 10 through 13 of subsection (b), and
respectfully disagreed with Ms. Swiderski. She declared that the
amendment clearly states that nothing in the subsection prohibits
"an agency, employee, or agent of the state from taking action
necessary to protect life or property or from commenting on
proposed federal statutes or regulations." She asked Ms.
Swiderski, "Do you not read it that way?"
Number 1192
MS. SWIDERSKI agreed that she did read the amendment that way, and
that the language would be very clear in many instances. She
stipulated, however, that she could also envision situations where
the language would not be that clear. She admitted that she missed
the first part of the hearing, but that the phrase "protect life or
property" is quite narrow if there is concern about joint
cooperation between state and federal law enforcement agencies.
CHAIR BARNES invited Ms. Swiderski to offer additional language to
clarify the amendment.
MS. SWIDERSKI indicated that she would be happy to do so at a
future date.
Number 1258
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN said, "I think this just boils down to a policy
call whether or not the legislature wants to cooperate with the
fed's program for control of fish and game." He indicated that it
was clear to him that the state of Alaska was not going to allow
their fish and wildlife protection officers "to arrest our citizens
for violating the federal law." The state would cooperate with a
boating safety issue or other threat to life and property. It is
the prerogative of the legislature, he added, to make that policy
call.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ asked Ms. Swiderski if Section 2 of AS
16.20.010 helped or hurt their ability to advance the state's case.
Number 1341
MS. SWIDERSKI responded that she was not prepared to offer any
testimony on that question. She declared that the Department of
Law had some concerns, but felt that they would be able to move
forward in either case.
CHAIR BARNES asked if there was any additional discussion on the
amendment. Hearing none, a roll call was taken. Representatives
Green, Masek, Cowdery, Barnes, Berkowitz and Joule voted for the
amendment. Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 6-0.
Number 1432
RALPH SEEKINS, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks. He stressed that the Alaska
Wildlife Conservation Association feels strongly that the state of
Alaska received full control over its resources. He referred the
committee to a United States Supreme Court decision from 1962,
Metlakatla Indians vs. Egan, 369 U.S. 45. He quoted page 2 of that
decision, which says, "When Alaska was established as a state,
Congress withheld jurisdiction for her fisheries until she made
adequate provision for their administration." He called attention
to footnote 2 on page 2 of that decision, which says, "Alaska
adopted a comprehensive fish and game code April 17, 1959, and
received full control over her resources soon afterward." He then
referred to page 57, which states, "Section 60 of the Alaska
Statehood Act, providing for the conveyance of United States
property, used for the sole purpose of conservation and protection
of the fisheries and wildlife of Alaska, contemplated transfer to
the state of the same measure of administration and jurisdiction
over fisheries and wildlife as possessed by other states."
MR. SEEKINS also testified that the issue came before the United
States Supreme Court in 1997 in the Dinkum Sands case, where the
decision was once again made that the ownership of submerged lands
carries with it the power to control navigation, fishing and other
uses of the public water, is an essential element of state
sovereignty. He indicated that the Alaska Wildlife Conservation
Association is very pleased to see that the legislature is standing
up and saying to the federal government, "this is our sovereign
land, and we want to keep it that way."
Number 1608
LYNN LEVENGOOD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He
testified that Mr. Seekins reflected his sentiment on HB 109, and
that he would like to reserve his testimony for HCR 2 that is up
for consideration next.
Number 1633
BILL HAGAR testified via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said,
"Ralph took all my thunder. It looks like the sponsor and
co-sponsor are well-keyed-in on this. I commend you and fully
support your efforts."
Number 1666
GERRY MERRIGAN, Petersburg Vessel Owners Association, testified via
teleconference from Petersburg in support of HB 109, especially
the first section that asserts ownership and not assenting to
federal control. He reported that he talked to Representative
Ogan's office about the second section. He stated that he did have
a problem trying to reconcile different documents; for example, the
"October legislation on Section 123 is the Omnibus Appropriations
Bill that starts off by saying, 'The Secretary of Interior in the
State of Alaska shall cooperate in development of a management plan
for the regulation of commercial fisheries in Glacier Bay.'" He
wondered how Section 2 of AS 16.20.010 works with legislation that
already passed Congress last fall. He added, "Additionally, there
is a master memorandum of understanding the state has with the
federal government, as well, that appears to be somewhat in
conflict. ...If this isn't a problem, if Department of Law doesn't
think it's a problem, then I suppose it's okay, but I have a little
difficulty in understanding how it couldn't be." He expressed
appreciation for HB 109 and its attempt to make a clear backdrop
for the lawsuit that he hoped would be filed in 180 days.
CHAIR BARNES pointed out that the committee just adopted Amendment
1 to HB 109, and she believed that amendment would address some of
his concerns.
Number 1780
MR. MERRIGAN acknowledged that Amendment 1 addresses life and
property, but he was uncertain if it captured the whole breadth of
"participating in development of a management plan." He stressed
that he did not want to hand the National Park Service the keys by
saying that the state would not cooperate, for fear that they might
say, "Okay, if you don't cooperate, well, by God, we're going to
take it."
Number 1843
DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council, testified on behalf
of the Alaska Outdoor Council in support of HB 108 as amended. He
agreed that the state of Alaska has not assented to federal control
of fish and game management on the lands or waters of Glacier Bay;
therefore, the state should assert its state sovereignty. It is
the belief of the Alaska Outdoor Council, he emphasized, that to do
otherwise would set a quite dangerous precedent, and that the state
should not facilitate any federal regulatory program meant to
preempt our state's sovereign rights to manage fish and game.
According to the sustained yield principle, he added, Alaska has an
exemplary record of managing fish and game, but, as evidenced by
the depleted condition of fisheries since statehood, and the most
recent example of the depletion of beluga whales in Cook Inlet, the
federal government has proved itself relatively incapable of
protecting fish and wildlife resources of great importance to
Alaska. Therefore, the Alaska Outdoor Council urged the
legislature to do everything in their power to "protect our
sovereign rights and our fish and wildlife resources from a
distant, and largely uncaring, federal bureaucracy."
Number 1938
DALE BONDURANT testified via teleconference from Kenai in support
of HB 109. He listed three different cases that he felt pertained
to HB 109 and the upcoming HCR 2. He quoted from Shapiro v.
Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), and Townsend v. Swank, 404 U.S. 282
(1971), which he quoted as saying, "Congress is without power to
enlist the state's cooperation in a joint federal/state program by
a legislation which authorizes the state to violate the equal
protection clause." He next referred to Dandridge v. Williams,
397 U.S. 471 (1970), which he said states, "The equal protection
clause of the 14th amendment gives the federal courts no power to
impose upon the state its view of what constitutes wise and
economic social policy." He concluded by emphasizing that he feels
it is time the state stands up and says, "Congress cannot force
this on us, and we do have these state sovereign rights."
CHAIR BARNES asked if there were any questions. Hearing none, she
reported that there were no more witnesses to testify.
Number 2036
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to move HB 109, as amended,
out of committee with individual recommendations and the attached
fiscal note(s). He asked for unanimous consent.
Number 2055
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He indicated that he felt
everyone in the room was concerned about the federal takeover of
fish and game management and was committed to Section 1 of HB 109.
He emphasized, however, that Section 2 of HB 109 gives him a lot of
pause for concern. He added, "I've spent enough time on boats to
know that you don't spit to weather, and when you spit into the
wind, you better hope it doesn't blow back you, and that's what we
are doing with Section 2. We're spitting at the federal
government. We haven't adequately understood the ramifications of
that action. We run the risk, which hasn't been answered to my
satisfaction in this committee, of jeopardizing law enforcement
relations between state and federal [agencies]. We haven't
answered, to my satisfaction, whether this helps or hurts the
state's case to secure state management, and, I think, until we
have definitive answers to those questions, it's a little bit
capricious of us to just send this on to the next committee of
referral. It's one thing to tell the federal government we want to
maintain state management; it's another thing for us to risk
benefits that the state has without adequately understanding what
those benefits are, and I think that's what Section 2 does. That's
why I'm going to vote against it. I hope that we amend it to
remove Section 2 in subsequent committees; otherwise, I'll be a
'no' vote all the way through."
Number 2100
A roll call was taken. Representatives Cowdery, Green, Masek and
Barnes voted in favor of the motion. Representatives Joule and
Berkowitz voted against the motion. Therefore, CSHB 109(WTR) moved
from the House Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal
Relations by a vote of 4-2.
HCR 2 - SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE; RESOURCES
Number 2171
CHAIR BARNES announced the next order of business was House
Concurrent Resolution No. 2, Relating to the sovereignty of the
State of Alaska and the sovereign right of the State of Alaska to
manage the natural resources of Alaska.
Number 2190
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COGHILL, JR., Alaska State Legislature,
provided the sponsor statement for HCR 2, and reported that it has
a companion bill, SCR 3. He indicated that HCR 2 is part of an
appeal process that he feels needs to happen in Alaska. He said,
"Being born and raised in this country, the issue of the
subsistence issue, the issues raised by ANILCA [Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act], especially with regard to the
subsistence issue, has torn us, and the reason I'm bringing this
resolution forward is we're searching for a remedy. The remedy is
not the problem within Alaska, really. We have, I think, some
wonderful opportunities in Alaska to build this country, but we're
being torn because we're being pushed from our own federal
government. A lot of it has to do with the ANILCA regulation that
is going to demand that we prioritize our fish and game resources
based on a rural preference."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL continued, "This resolution, HCR 2, is
simply an appeal. It is an appeal to the [United States] Supreme
Court. What is being brought upon us as a people is to appeal to
the people of the state of Alaska to amend their constitution, and
I ... I submit to you, that is not an appeal at all. That would be
a compromise on our part to both the national and state
constitution[s]. So, really, I think this appeal properly belongs
to the Supreme Court."
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL referred the committee to the first resolve
in the resolution, and indicated that it points to a legitimate
dispute. He observed that it has been designed by the people to go
to the highest court in the land to take care of these disputes,
and that would be the United States Supreme Court. Doing so, he
added, would be appropriate and consistent with the statehood
compact and articles in state constitution. HCR 2 also appeals to
the governor of Alaska to assert the parts of our constitution that
leave the fish and wildlife resources of the land available to all
people. HCR 2 resolves that Alaska go directly to the United
States Supreme Court for final resolution.
Number 2358
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL observed that everyone has been a party to,
in one form or another, different degrees of the resolution
process. In unions, for example, arbitration is used, and in some
public unions they have binding arbitration. He felt it would be
wise for the state of Alaska to appeal to the highest court in the
land for that arbitration. He added, "I think you'll find that, if
we had our day in court, that Alaska, as a state, would be able to
prevail, to make sure that all of the citizens in Alaska have
access and availability to the fish and game resources. I don't
think that it would be as discriminatory as some people do, but I
think that that should be an issue that needs to be settled at the
Supreme Court level, and then handed to whoever the Supreme Court
rules on."
Number 2406
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL declared that Alaskans are dividing
themselves, "sometimes along racial lines, sometimes by zip code,"
and that this is unnecessary. The state currently has a real
economic problem that requires the cooperation of everyone, he
said. He felt that the divisiveness of being forced by the federal
government to amend the constitution will hurt the state, and that
the pressure will "fall on bad ground, because, even it we could
amend our constitution, it is my understanding, under the
provisions of law that we now live under, that, according to our
supreme court, that that would create the need to have a
constitutional convention. So even if we could comply with the
Ombudsmen Act, as I understand it, we would not be able to comply
with that under our present supreme court ruling." He summarized
by emphasizing that Alaska should grow in unity, rather than tear
each other apart, and he felt that the court of appeal should be
the United States Supreme Court.
Number 2490
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Representative Berkowitz, who is an
attorney, if it is possible to go directly to the United States
Supreme Court, or if it the state would have to go through the
court procedure.
Number 2518
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ indicated that there is access to direct
rights of appeal, but he had no personal experience taking a case
to the United States Supreme Court. He referred the question to
Mr. Popely.
Number 2539
TED POPELY, Legislative Assistant, House Majority, Alaska State
Legislature, again came forward to testify. He indicated that he
was, unfortunately, unable to give an exact answer to
Representative Green's question. He specified that there are very
few and limited circumstances where the United States Supreme Court
will take up a case on original jurisdiction, rather than through
an appeal process through the federal courts. One of the instances
where original jurisdiction exists, he understood, occurs when a
state sues the federal government, either through an agency or
another branch of the federal government. He noted that this is a
technical question of federal appellate procedure. He admitted
that there were probably a lot of examples of states trying to get
to the United States Supreme Court through original jurisdiction;
however, he felt that they probably fail more than they succeed.
MR. POPELY understood the resolution, HCR 2, to be a statement of
intent that a case of this nature, if not through original
jurisdiction, could eventually be resolved in the United States
Supreme Court. He added, "I think it reflects a certain level of
dissatisfaction at the state level of the sorts of decisions that
have come down on this issue through the appellate courts through
the 9th Circuit." He summarized by stating, "So, while I can't
tell you today that you could bring this lawsuit directly before
the United States Supreme Court and that they would accept it under
original jurisdiction, I can tell you that, the way I read the
resolution, the intent is that it eventually make it there, whether
it be through original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction -
traditional means."
Number 2629
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if HCR 2 would weaken the state's
position.
MR. POPELY responded that he did not think it would; rather, it
expresses a desire to attempt to bring a case to the United States
Supreme Court through original jurisdiction. He said, "It's a long
shot. It always is. It's a big court, and there are a lot of
cases and a lot of people who want to be there."
Number 2669
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL admitted that he was not a lawyer, but
stated his belief that "under our system of government, when people
come up from the ranks as we do in the legislature and represent
people, we have the right to appeal." He felt that it had been
tried in some court cases within the legislature, but not directly
to the United States Supreme Court. He emphasized, however, that
the state of Alaska is facing the loss of its sovereignty based on
the movement of an agency. The Department of Interior, he
explained, is forcing Alaska to amend its constitution or the
responsibility of managing fish and game within the state will be
taken over by the Department of Interior, and this responsibility
was turned over to Alaska at statehood. He added, "I think we have
a definite case, but beyond that, I think we have a responsibility.
We in Alaska are feeling the pressure to fall upon one another
based on however you want to line it up, ethnically or culturally
or by zip code, however you want to do it. The pressure is on us,
and the temptation is for us to fight amongst ourselves, and, at
this point, our only court of appeal is the Supreme Court." He
summarized by stating, "If we do not at least make the attempt, I
think we are failing our duty to our citizens."
Number 2783
ERIC WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in support
of HCR 2. He read the following statement into the record:
I support HCR 2, but I believe it is too little, too
late. The federal government already manages the
fisheries, directly or indirectly ... such as the state
closures for Pacific cod in state waters. They closed it
with federal closures, forcing fishermen to remove all
their gear from the water in the fishing area, which
forces the state to reopen the season a week later. The
gross mismanagement of federal management on sea otters
has wiped out and closed Orca Inlet Dungeness crab since
1980. I'm a crab fisherman. The management of sea lions
has had a negative effect on all fisheries in the state.
The feds have opened doe season early in direct conflict
with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, and they are
constantly messing with the bear, moose and goat
management in Prince William Sound. At present, the U.S.
Forest Service is trying to dictate on where and when the
hunters in Prince William Sound can use their ATVs
[all-terrain vehicles], while ignoring the traditional
use patterns and will of the people.
The federal government must be removed from the state.
They did not buy Alaska; the people of several states
did, and the federal government has not paid the people
back. They don't own it. The federal government cannot
own land. The people own Alaska, not the federal
government. Before statehood, Alaska had a way of taking
care of the vermin. It paid a bounty for them dead.
Perhaps it is time for that again. Any questions?
Number 2884
DENNY K. WEATHERS testified via teleconference from Cordova in
support of HCR 2. She read the following statement into the
record:
This is an excellent piece of legislation and I will
support it wholeheartedly, as it is constitutional. The
Alaska Statehood Act of July 7, 1958, also reinforces
this resolution in every aspect, such as Section 3, "The
Constitution of the State of Alaska shall always be
Republican in form and shall not be repugnant to the
Constitution of the United States and the principles of
the Declaration of Independence." If Alaska changes its
constitution to authorize a rural subsistence preference,
it will be repugnant to both the Constitution of the
United States and the principles of the Declaration of
Independence.
It would be repugnant to the principles of the
Declaration of Independence due to the following: that
all men are created equal. This is the foundation of our
American legal philosophy of equality for all under the
law, and the grievances in the Declaration of
Independence state, Number 13: "He has combined with
others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our
constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, given his
Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation;" Number
22: "For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring
themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all
cases whatsoever;" Number 29: "We have warned them from
time to time of attempts made by their legislature to
extend [an] unwarrantable jurisdiction over us."
It would be repugnant to the Constitution of the United
States due to the following: "Article III. Section 2.
Clause 1: [The] Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases,
in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the
Laws of the United States..." The definition of equity
is justice or freedom from bias or favoritism, and a
rural preference would be unjust bias/favoritism.
"Article IV. Section 4.: ...and shall protect each of
them against Invasion..." The state of Alaska is being
invaded by the United Nations, federal government and
foreign treaties made without our consent, and the United
States must protect Alaska from invasion, foreign or
domestic.
[Tape switched sides and a small amount of testimony was lost]
TAPE 99-06, SIDE B
Number 0010
MS. WEATHERS next referred the committee to the Alaska Statehood
Act, Section 11 A. She noted that section only speaks of one
national park the United States would retain exclusive jurisdiction
over, Mount McKinley, and only the boundaries set on or before July
7, 1958. She testified that the new state of Alaska was granted
all fish and wildlife resources under Section 6.E., and all
submerged lands under Section 6.M. She summarized by stating,
"Apparently, the United States forgot to tell the federal
government about the admission of Alaska into the union, and what
was granted. The state of Alaska, its government and people, need
to stop allowing the federal government to intrude. The only
reason they, the forest service, park rangers, federal fish and
wildlife, BLM [Bureau of Land Management], and even the United
Nations is on Alaskan soil is because the state of Alaska, its
government and people, refuse to do anything for fear of losing
that almighty federal dollar. No more 'let's make a deal.' Feds
out. It is time to make Governor Knowles do his job and defend
Alaska instead of selling it to the highest bidder for his pet
projects. If this does not work, we the people of the great state
of Alaska can secede from the United States or/and become our own
nation, using most of the grievances in the Declaration of
Independence ... as a basis for independence."
CHAIR BARNES and REPRESENTATIVE GREEN thanked Mr. and Ms. Weathers
for spending their money and efforts in traveling from a remote
area to testify in Cordova.
Number 0157
LYNN LEVENGOOD testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HCR 2. He pointed out that HCR 2 actually "dovetails"
HB 109. He stated, "HB 109 is a sovereignty issue. It's the
federal government trying to encroach upon the sovereign rights of
the state of Alaska. HCR 2 is an excellent piece of legislation
which should be supported by everyone." He declared that the
United States Supreme Court law definitively shows that Alaska has
the absolute sovereign right to manage its own wildlife resources.
He said, "During this legislative session, if any piece of
legislation is being heard, in regardless of what committee, and
its being touted as a solution to the 'subsistence issue,' you need
to view it through the glasses of four words." He went on to
outline those four words as: 1) abundance, 2) state sovereignty,
3) equality, and 4) finality.
Number 0253
MR. LEVENGOOD stressed that HCR 2 satisfies all four of the above
words, and would provide finality through the United States Supreme
Court. He reopened the question of whether or not the Supreme
Court would hear a direct-action suit from the state of Alaska, and
commented that direct-action lawsuits for a dispute between the
states and the United States of America fall under the category of
original jurisdiction. He explained that if Alaska files an
original lawsuit saying that the federal government is encroaching
upon its sovereignty, the issue would go directly to the United
States Supreme Court as the court of original jurisdiction. If,
however, the state challenges an administrative regulation as being
unconstitutional, it would then have to be argued up through the
appellate court system.
Number 0322
MR. LEVENGOOD pointed out that all the legislators and the elected
officials of the state of Alaska have sworn their allegiance and
their duty to uphold Alaska's constitution as written; therefore,
if and when the federal government takes over a fishery, whether it
is in Glacier Bay or somewhere else, the state has the ability to
file an original action in the United States Supreme Court
challenging federal takeover of the sovereign authority of the
state of Alaska. He summarized his testimony by congratulating the
legislature for taking a leadership role in this issue, because
"it's time to either lead, follow or get out of the way."
Number 0374
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Mr. Levengood for clarification
regarding whether or not the United States Supreme Court would have
to hear such a direct-action suit because it is a matter of state
sovereignty.
MR. LEVENGOOD answered, "If the dispute is one which involves
sovereignty of a state versus sovereignty of the United States, the
supreme court cannot dodge the issue. It must entertain the suit."
He referred to the Dinkum Sands case as a specific example where
the United States of America sued the state of Alaska, and also to
New York v. United States (1992), where the state of New York sued
the federal government directly to the United States Supreme Court
on an issue of sovereign authority.
Number 0439
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that the New York v. United
States of America case went through an appellate process.
MR. LEVENGOOD agreed, and added that case was a challenge of a
regulation regarding disposal of waste, whereas, the Dinkum Sands
case was an action directly in the U.S. Supreme Court.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN noted that the Dinkum Sands case involved the
federal government versus the state of Alaska, and he wondered if
the same thing would apply in reverse.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ commented that it would have been faster
to take Dinkum Sands through the appellate process.
Number 0576
DALE BONDURANT again testified via teleconference from Kenai, this
time addressing HCR 2. He stated his belief that Alaska has an
ideal situation to force the issue into the United States Supreme
Court. He referred to the Totemoff case in the Alaska Supreme
Court, which, in a unanimous decision, stated that, for a number of
reasons, the state of Alaska had the authority to manage hunting
and fishing in its navigable waters. They had cited six explicit
reasons why, and quoted over 20 cases, stating that they did not
give deference to any federal court except the U.S. Supreme Court.
Mr. Bondurant emphasized that the highest legal authority in the
state of Alaska was telling the legislators and the governor that
"they have the right to manage fishing and hunting in Alaska," and
he wondered why the state did not take it over. If the state did
take such management over, he added, the federal government would
have the responsibility to take Alaska to the United States Supreme
Court, and that is all that the state is asking for.
Number 0576
DAVID G. KELLEYHOUSE, Alaska Outdoor Council, again came forward to
testify. He expressed the council's "wholehearted, unreserved
support for House Concurrent Resolution 2." He added, "The [Alaska
Outdoor] council has long championed the constitutional sovereign
right of the state of Alaska to manage its lands, waters and fish
and game on an equal footing with all the other states. We are
confident that, should our case get to the United States Supreme
Court, that the court will rule in Alaska's favor in this matter.
The council believes that the only honorable course for Governor
Knowles is to request that the United States Department of Interior
restore all traditional state authorities to manage fish and game
until this matter is resolved by the nation's highest court. The
council also believes that the Governor did the state of Alaska a
great disservice by dropping Alaska's federal lawsuit asserting our
sovereign rights with prejudice so that it couldn't be brought up
again. The Governor's action essentially left Alaska defenseless
against this federal preemption of our sovereign rights. The
Governor now should use every means at his disposal to take ... to
side with the Legislative Council and get this case to the U.S.
Supreme Court as rapidly as possible. The governor must
demonstrate unity with the Alaska Legislature in the defense of
Alaska's sovereign right to manage fish and game, or he must be
held publicly accountable for his failure to exercise his public
duty."
Number 0678
RALPH SEEKINS, President, Alaska Wildlife Conservation Association,
again testified via teleconference from Fairbanks, this time in
support of HCR 2. He reported that he came from a family of seven
children, and that his older brother and he shared a bed. He said,
"There was a line down the middle of that bed that defined the
sovereignty," and that both little boys knew where that line was.
Every once in awhile, he noted, one would push over into the
sovereign territory of the other, they would have to yell "MOM!,"
and the highest authority in that home would come in and redefine
the line of sovereignty down the middle of the bed. He observed
that this is the exact issue that the state of Alaska is currently
involved in.
MR. SEEKINS emphasized that this is not a hunting and fishing
issue; rather, it is about where the line is between state and
federal authority. He encouraged the committee to read the entire
text of the New York v. United States case, as it says, "when
Congress exceeds its authority relative to their -- to the states
therefore, the departure from that constitutional plan cannot be
ratified by the consent of state officials." He urged the
committee to be careful what type of legislation is enacted,
because if it is outside of the constitutional plan, it cannot be
consented to and is null and void.
Number 0769
MR. SEEKINS reported that he used to build houses with his father
while growing up, and one of the first things they did was put in
a foundation. What we would ask the United States Supreme Court to
do in this case, he noted, is establish the legal foundation. He
asked, "Is ANILCA right or is it wrong? If it's right, and the
Supreme Court says it is, we'll march to that tune. We have the
solid legal foundation on which then we can build the house. If
it's not right, we're trying to build the house from the top down."
He summarized by stating, "What this resolution does, in our
opinion, is it goes right back there and, it quotes it on the
second page of your resolution, it says some of its most
interesting, but yet most challenging, cases of the Supreme Court
are those where it tries to define where the line is between
state/federal sovereignty and state/federal power." He commended
the legislature for taking this step, and indicated the Alaska
Wildlife Conservation Association would do whatever they can to
help.
Number 0828
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated that he had not read the entire
200-page case [New York v. United States], but that he had read a
relevant section that says that in ascertaining whether any of the
challenged provisions overstep the boundary between federal and
state power, the court must determine whether it is authorized by
affirmative grants to Congress contained in Article I's commerce
and spending clauses, or whether it invades the province of state
sovereignty reserved by the 10th amendment. He asked Mr. Seekins,
"In other words, if it doesn't say it's okay under the commerce
clause, it's not okay under the 10th amendment, right?"
MR. SEEKINS indicated that he could not state whether that was
right or wrong, but that it would be part of the text. He did note
that the case says that the constitutional authority of Congress
cannot be expanded by the consent of the governmental units whose
domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the executive
branch or the state. He explained that this means, "If it exists,
it exists, and someone has to define where that line is." He felt
that the Governor may have consented to a voluntary, unilateral
narrowing of the state's domain when he dismissed the Alaska v.
Babbitt case, and he stated that cannot be done according to New
York v. United States. He summarized by stating, "It is what it
is, and that's all we are really asking for anyone to do, is to
determine what it is."
Number 0920
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ expressed his concern that the New York v.
United States case is completely inapplicable to the situation the
state of Alaska is currently in. He explained that ANILCA is
predicated on the federal government's trust relationship with the
Native people, and under Article I, Section 8 of the United States
Constitution, it allows Congress to regulate commerce with the
Indian tribes. With that in mind, he added, the whole argument
about this violating the commerce clause falls apart. He
reiterated that the New York v. United States case just doesn't
seem to hold here.
MR. SEEKINS testified that in the history of the United States
Supreme Court, the commerce clause of the constitution has never
been used to narrow the user group; rather, it has always been
used to expand the user group. He emphasized that ANILCA is not
Indian law, but that ANCSA [Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act]
and Venetie extinguished that as an Indian law. He added, "Yes,
they are tribes. We are not dealing with sovereign nations. We
are not dealing with sovereign lands, except the sovereign lands of
the state of Alaska." He observed that the discussion he and
Representative Berkowitz were having was an example of why this
issue needs to go to the Supreme Court. He said, "We don't want to
argue the issue ad infinitum. It's time for someone to yell,
'Mom!' in an effort to find out exactly what power the United
States has and if they are pushing over the line."
Number 1015
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ declared that the people have already
yelled, and in McDowell v. State, Judge Holland ruled that ANILCA
was constitutional. He added, "We still keep pushing and pushing."
He felt that the state has waited too long before we yelled for
"mom," and added, "We waited until no one was even lying in the bed
any longer."
MR. SEEKINS disagreed, and stated that the constitution has no
statute of limitations if Congress exceeds its authority. He
argued that, even if there was a statute of limitations, we have
new regulations put in place that create a new cause of action and
a new statute of limitations.
Number 1073
BILL HAGAR again testified via teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HCR 2. He felt that the two previous witnesses did very
well in explaining the necessity of going to the United States
Supreme Court. He urged taking a friendly posture, if possible, in
going to the highest court in the land, and that we be prepared to
live with the results. He indicated that the state has asked
United States Senator Ted Stevens to adjudicate this for over 25
years.
CHAIR BARNES asked if there was anyone else in the audience or
on-line that wished to testify. Hearing none, she inquired if the
committee members had any additional questions of Representative
Coghill.
Number 1158
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ quoted from the sponsor statement, where
it says: "Putting an equal protection to a vote on the ballot
would set a precedence of allowing fundamental rights to become
vulnerable to politics and rhetoric." He pointed out that two such
questions were placed on the ballot last session, and he asked
Representative Coghill if he was generically opposed to those
questions appearing on the ballot.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said no, and added that he appreciated the
question. He said, "Those were the outcropping of some Supreme
Court decisions that I think needed to be dealt with in a public
policy, and if this issue, once again, came from a Supreme Court
problem, I think that maybe the people need to be asked once again.
But, at this point, I think it's important that we appeal to the
Supreme Court on this, and this one is not an issue that can be
dealt with within state policy. This is a national issue - one
dealing with state sovereignty. So, with respect to your question,
I think it's important that our appeal go straight to the Supreme
Court, rather than to the people, and I think what they are trying
to do is they're trying to force us into an issue where it is
pushed on the people before it has a chance to have a good hearing
as to what is the constitutional basis of this." He added, "This
is kind of tongue-in-cheek, but I know there was talk of secession
at one time in Alaska's history, and ... you might question the
right to vote on that, but I can understand it coming from the
grass roots up. But this particular point, this is a contest
between the state and the federal government that needs to be
answered at Supreme Court level, and I think that appeal is
entirely proper. Appealing to the people first, at this point, I
think is out of line."
CHAIR BARNES pointed out that the questions on the last ballot were
placed before the court and the court found that they were
constitutional; then they were allowed to be placed on the ballot.
Number 1290
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ wondered, "What assurances would there be
that, if the side you support lost in the Supreme Court, that we
wouldn't have to suffer through ballot initiative time and time
again on this?"
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL indicated that he was a reader of history,
and that there is never a guarantee of anything, but there is
always either a course of appeal or force. In this particular
case, however, he felt that Alaska would live under the decision
made by the United States Supreme Court. He admitted there might
be a ground swell of opposition, but he advised the appeal needs to
be made at this point in state history.
Number 1354
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ referred to one of the resolves in HCR 2,
which states it is the duty of legislators to defend the
constitution. He asked Representative Coghill if he was
insinuating that trying to change it would be a violation of the
constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL said, "Not entirely." He explained that the
Constitution of the State of Alaska is replete with guarantees for
equality. If a complete revision was sought, he added, there
should be a call for a constitutional convention. He stated his
opinion that there is a constitutional guarantee at the national
level that overrules even ANILCA, especially in this respect. The
resolution would state the beliefs of the state of Alaska and put
them before the United States Supreme Court, so he believes that
the state constitution is in line with the federal constitution,
and that ANILCA is out of line. He emphasized that the most civil
way to appeal is by taking a case like this to an arbiter who would
have the final say.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE noted that, throughout the debate and in the
resolution, there has been a discussion on equality. He wondered
what that was supposed to mean. [A small part of this testimony
was indiscernible until the microphone was moved closer to
Representative Joule]. He said, "When I think of that and I look
at and compare equality to some of the parts of state that I
represent, sometimes I can't help but feel that equality is like a
one-way street." He added, "We're talking in this resolution about
equality to the resources, and yet when we talk about equity to
public safety ... I can name several communities that don't have
public safety." He also mentioned equality with regard to adequate
education. He stated that he had a question for Chair Barnes
regarding a case that members of the Legislative Council have
already put forth, and he asked, "Where is that in terms of
judgement and in terms of when that will be finalized?"
Number 1616
CHAIR BARNES clarified that individuals of the Legislative Council
could not put forth a case acting alone, but that the case
Representative Joule is referring to was put forth by the
Legislative Council acting for the body under the Constitution of
the State of Alaska to sue or be sued in the name of the
legislature. She explained that the case is currently in the 1st
Circuit Court in Washington, D.C.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked if this resolution would tag on to that
suit or if it would be completely different.
Number 1672
CHAIR BARNES pointed out that HCR 2 is entirely different, because
it speaks to the cause of original jurisdiction, which the
legislative body has not asserted in the suit currently in the 1st
Circuit Court. She added, "I don't know that we, as a legislative
branch, could assert original jurisdiction in the United States
Supreme Court. I think that has to be a state action. I'm not
sure whether we would have that power to do that or not."
CHAIR BARNES addressed Representative Joule's previous concern
about equity in the case, for example, of public safety in the
rural areas of the state. She commented that most parts of the
rural areas of the state are unorganized boroughs, and that the
legislative branch has a duty to sit as assembly for them. As
such, she added, taxes have never been imposed on those areas to
force people to pay. She stated, "These are all choices we make.
Some of us choose to live in Anchorage. Some of us choose to live
in Fairbanks. Some of us choose to live wherever we choose to live
in the state, and most areas of the state have to pay for public
safety." She noted that the legislature has never fostered those
types of taxes on the rural areas of the state. The equity may not
be there, she admitted; however, individuals in urban areas pay
taxes for public safety. She expressed her support for Village
Public Safety Officers and Alaska State Troopers. She cited an
example of state troopers' patrolling in the Hillside area [of
Anchorage], and how she personally worked to ensure those residents
paid taxes to the Anchorage Police Department, moving the troopers
out of that area onto the highway system where they should be,
keeping them available to respond to needs in rural areas. She
summarized by stating, "Equity is often based on our choices and
choices of places we live, with the exception of those equities
guaranteed to us under the constitution."
Number 1886
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK made a motion to move HCR 2 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the attached fiscal note(s).
She asked for unanimous consent.
Number 1905
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He indicated that the
legislature has wrestled with this issue for the last two sessions,
and the only thing that has resulted is the division of both the
legislature and the state. He stated, "When it comes time to
advancing solutions or proposals for solutions, a very important
part of that is the process by which solutions are advanced. This
resolution, to my knowledge, was not a resolution born of good
process. There was no effort to speak with people who are on the
other side of the subsistence issue to try and seek input. I know
the composition of this committee, and I understand the composition
of the legislature. I know when things will move and when they
won't move, and why they will and why they won't, and this
resolution will move through here. That doesn't make it right. It
just makes it another example of angry people trying to impose
...."
Number 2048
CHAIR BARNES declared that Representative Berkowitz was out of
line. She said, "You are questioning the motives of members of the
legislature, and we do not do that."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ observed that he was entitled to speak.
CHAIR BARNES argued that he was not entitled to question the
motives of anyone, and stated that he had no way of knowing whether
or not individuals involved with this legislation were angry.
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said that the failure of those involved
with sponsoring this legislation to seek the input of those who
have a different perspective does not signal the real search for a
solution. He indicated that it signaled to him that another
collision would result with more divisiveness, and that it would
not bring the state any closer to resolving the issue.
Number 2124
CHAIR BARNES admitted that she did not know the prime sponsor of
HCR 2 really well; however, she said, "The one thing I do know
about him is that he is a fine, Christian gentleman, and he would
not intentionally seek to divide or promote hate in any way. I
know that not to be his nature. That much I know about him. I
know that he is also a preacher, so I'd be very careful about
raising issues of him promoting divisiveness or hatreds in any
manner. I believe that not to be the case."
REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ clarified that he was referring to the
process by which this legislation moved. He assured Chair Barnes
that he was not impugning or referring to an individual's motives.
He emphasized that he was not questioning anyone's faith, and that
faith should not have been brought into the conversation. The
issue, he continued, is not about an individual's faith or
goodwill; rather, it is about getting to a solution. He said, "The
process by which this resolution is before us is flawed. The
process and the content, the language, is inflammatory. It burns
bridges. It doesn't build them, and as long as people are more
interested in making statements than finding answers, we are not
going to get to a resolution, and this is a statement, it's not a
search for an answer."
Number 2300
CHAIR BARNES acknowledged, "That is your opinion; however, you
have no idea what process that the prime sponsor of this
legislation went through before he submitted it to the body."
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK commented that this is her fifth year serving
in the legislature, and this issue has come up since the beginning
of her first term. She believed there has been adequate input on
all sides of this issue. She added, "It saddens me to see the
remarks that have been made by this certain representative, because
we do have good public process, and I have sat through hours and
hours of testimony from the public, from rural Alaska to urban
Alaska." She expressed her belief that the legislature has been
dedicated to getting down to the roots of the problem and trying to
resolve it, and that HCR 2 is in good faith and will be a step
towards bringing the state back together once more. She emphasized
that she did not believe that this legislation is trying to divide
the state, and added that she would not be working towards anything
that would do so. She observed that rural people have been
on-line, and that she grew up in a rural area. She disagreed with
the emphasis being placed on rural areas versus urban areas, and
said, "We are all equal, no matter where we live. We are
American." She felt downhearted that the issue had reached this
level, and said, "Once we get to that level, then I believe it's
going to be real difficult to find a solution." She agreed the
sides do have to come together on this issue, and she believes HCR
2 is the right way to approach it. She summarized by pointing out
there is still time for additional testimony because there are two
more committees of referral; however, it should be remembered that
there has already been 20 years of testimony on this subject.
Number 2525
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN took exception to Representative Berkowitz'
comments. He said, "I think it is a sovereignty issue, and while
there may be references within it to fish and game, it's only one
of many issues. We Alaskans, as a resource state, see federal
intervention on all fronts, including the threatened closure of
ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge], which I agree is a federal
park, but it is within the state quarters. We are having all sorts
of difficulty in even trying to get an ability to develop our
resources in an area that was set aside by a prior administration
nearly 100 years ago as a naval petroleum reserve, and still we
find that this Administration is creating havoc ... in just trying
to do that. It's already been drilled on several occasions, so now
to come back and say that we need to satisfy a bureaucratic edict
that says now we have to have all these hoops and hurdles of
environmental review to do that which was set aside to do, and has
been done historically, I think just opens Pandora's box to the
fact that we, along with many of the western states, find that
there is oppressive governmental interference with our activities.
We are a sovereign state, and we should be accorded that
sovereignty, and for a bureaucrat or potential presidential order
or other federal intervention into our rights as a sovereign state,
we heard earlier is repugnant."
Number 2684
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN declared that he has spent many hours trying
to resolve these issues on a legislative or compromise or court
basis; however, it is getting to the point to where time is running
out. He added, "It irks me that we are still looking for some way
to just passively say we'll try and work with the federal
government. We know that they are not trustworthy, for one thing."
He summarized by observing that it has come to a point where
matters might have to be handled more aggressively, or not as
diplomatically, as might be done in another case. Time is an
issue, he emphasized, "and we are now to the point of pulling all
the stops."
Number 2810
CHAIR BARNES asked for additional questions or comments. Hearing
none, she noted that the question before the committee was moving
HCR 2 with individual recommendations, and that there have been
objections. She asked for a roll call vote. Representatives
Masek, Cowdery, Barnes and Green voted in favor of the motion.
Representatives Berkowitz and Joule voted against the motion.
Therefore, HCR 2 was moved from the House Special Committee on
World Trade and State/Federal Relations by a vote of 4-2.
Number 2838
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on World Trade and State/Federal Relations
meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|