Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/24/1993 01:47 PM Senate JUD
* first hearing in first committee of referral
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE March 24, 1993 1:47 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Senator Robin Taylor, Chairman Senator Rick Halford, Vice-Chairman Senator George Jacko Senator Dave Donley Senator Suzanne Little MEMBERS ABSENT NONE COMMITTEE CALENDAR SENATE BILL NO. 67 "An Act amending provisions of ch. 66, SLA 1991, that relate to reconstitution of the corpus of the mental health trust, the management of trust assets, and to the manner of enforcement of the obligation to compensate the trust; and providing for an effective date." CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 64(FIN) "An Act creating the crimes of stalking in the first and second degrees and providing penalties for their violation; providing a peace officer with the authority to arrest without a warrant a person the peace officer has reasonable cause to believe has committed stalking; relating to the release before trial of a person accused of stalking; prohibiting the suspension of imposition of sentence of a person convicted of stalking; relating to the crime of assault in the third degree; and providing for an effective date." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY. SENATE BILL NO. 152 "An Act changing the frequency of certain state inspections of weights and measures and relating to the issuance of citations for weights and measures violations." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY. CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 101(HES) "An Act relating to eligibility for and payments of public assistance; and providing for an effective date." SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD THIS DAY. PREVIOUS SENATE COMMITTEE ACTION SB 67 - See Resources minutes dated 2/3/93 and 2/5/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/1/93 and 3/8/93. HB 64 - See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93 and 3/24/93. SB 152 - See Labor and Commerce minutes dated 3/16/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93 and 3/24/93. SB 101 - See HESS minutes dated 3/10/93, 3/12/93, and 3/15/93. See Judiciary minutes dated 3/22/93 and 3/24/93. WITNESS REGISTER Rick Johannsen, Attorney Coalition Drafting Counsel 1029 West 3rd Ave., #300 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67. Timothy Mabery 1664 Montana Road Fairbanks, Alaska 99709 POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67. Mrs. Rebecca Knight P.O. Box 1331 Petersburg, Alaska 99833 POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67. Brian Bjorkquist, Asst. Atty. General P.O. Box 110300 State Capitol Juneau, AK 99811-0300 POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67. Lois Ann Reeder 9600 Slalom Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99516 POSITION STATEMENT: Listened to SB 67. David Walker, Attorney 417 Harris Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67. Tom Koester, Contract Attorney Department of Law 229 Fourth Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 POSITION STATEMENT: Worked on SB 67. R. B. Stiles, President/Owner D. & R. Ventures 1227 W. 9th Ave., Suite 210 Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SB 67. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 93-30, SIDE A Number 001 Chairman Robin Taylor called the Judiciary Committee meeting to order at 1:47 p.m. SENATOR TAYLOR returned SB 67 (MENTAL HEALTH TRUST AMENDMENTS) introduced by the Senate Resources Committee to the Judiciary Committee. SENATOR TAYLOR reviewed a number of amendments in the bill packet submitted to the committee. He queried those wishing to testify on the teleconference network if they had Amendments A.3 and A.4 contained in an attached memorandum dated March 18, 1993 from the Division of Legal Services from JACK CHENOWETH, Legislative Counsel. SENATOR TAYLOR noted the memorandum, "Comments on Proposed Amendments to SB 67" from BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Assistant Attorney General for the Department of Law, dated 3/23/93. In addition to comments, the letter contained proposed amendments to be considered in SB 67. SENATOR TAYLOR also reviewed amendments from CHENOWETH, A.5 and A.1, dated 3/11/93 and 3/23/93. He then assured the teleconference sites they would have the amendments faxed to them now. SENATOR TAYLOR asked who would be first with their amendments, and RICK JOHANNSEN, the attorney for a coalition of intervener plaintiffs, came forward to testify. Number 068 MR. JOHANNSEN explained he had been advising two coal company clients, Usibelli Coal Mine and the Dimond Chuitna project proposed for South Central Alaska, and had been asked to work with the other attorneys and parties that are members of the coalition supporting changes to Chapter 66. MR. JOHANNSEN began by listing those in the coalition as being two of the four plaintiff groups in the Weiss litigation, including the Alaska Coal Association, the Alaska Miners Association, and the resource Development Council, the oil company intervenors in the Weiss litigation, Marathon and UNICAL, and all of the public interest intervenors in the Weiss litigation, eight groups represented by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Inc. MR. JOHANNSEN also mentioned a representative of the Alaska Environmental Lobby, who has participated in the coalition discussions. Because of the complicated legal aspects of the dispute, MR. JOHANNSEN said all of the coalition interests have attorneys who have participated in the deliberations of the coalition. He drew attention to amendments A.1 and A.3 in the bill packets as the work of the coalition. With these amendments, the coalition believes SB 67 would solve most, if not all, of the legal problems with Chapter 66. In addition, he explained the amendments were intended to address specific legal questions raised by the Alaska Department of Law. He noted a companion bill in the House, HB 201. MR. JOHANNSEN began by addressing Amendment A.1, which SENATOR TAYLOR explained as 8-LSO409\A.1, CHENOWETH, dated 3/11/93. Number 118 MR. JOHANNSEN said the first change on the amendment would be to eliminate Section 3 of SB 67, leaving AS 37.14.031 in its original form in Chapter 66, and he explained the background behind their recommendation. He said the plaintiffs in the coalition had initially wanted the incoming proceeds of original Mental Health Trust Lands to go to the trust corpus, but the Department of Law felt this could violate the terms of the 1956 Enabling Act. To eliminate this potential problem, he said the coalition has agreed to have all of the incoming proceeds go to the Trust Income Account as currently designated by Chapter 66. MR. JOHANNSEN explained the second change in A.1 would amend the collateral provision of the bill, which in turn would amend Chapter 66, by clarifying that the pledged legislatively designated areas, LDA, can continue to be developed by the state to the extent the law currently allows development. The Department of Law had expressed concern the pledge of these lands as security could prevent the state from doing anything that could diminish or impair the value of the collateral. MR. JOHANNSEN said the proposed revision is intended to clarify the state can continue to take actions that would otherwise be allowed by the legislative designation - even though the LDA land is pledged as collateral. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for a brief explanation, Number 156 MR. JOHANNSEN explained that SB 67 would generate income into a trust fund from a mixed land cash trust and would secure the payment of the cash in the trust income account each year. He said the plaintiffs are requiring collateral, which would be the LDA lands and original mental health trust lands set aside in previous years in parks, recreation areas, forests, and critical habitat lands. MR. JOHANNSEN said the concerns of the coalition were if the lands were collateral, the state would be unable to carry on activities that would normally be allowed. He gave as an example the harvesting of a forest area, saying the use as collateral wouldn't prevent the harvesting of the timber. SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to hear if there was opposition from the committee on Amendment A.1. SENATOR LITTLE clarified A.1 as allowing present activities to continue on the trust lands. MR. JOHANNSEN explained the legislatively designated areas and original mental health lands would be pledged as collateral, so these lands would not be part of the trust, but collateral to secure the state's payment each year. They discussed restrictions, business as usual, and change of ownership. Number 218 SENATOR TAYLOR polled persons in the audience as to who was opposed to Amendment A.1, those supportive, and anyone opposed on the teleconference network. He checked with TIMOTHY MABERY in Fairbanks, but he didn't have a copy of the amendments, and neither did MRS. REBECCA KNIGHT in Petersburg. SENATOR TAYLOR turned to MR. BJORKQUIST in Anchorage for his comments or opposition to the amendment. MR. BJORKQUIST said the comments from the Department of Law dealt with A.1 on page 3, subsection (2) and were outlined in their letter. He expressed concerns over A.1 in that there is a potential for ambiguity as to whether the provision that allows the use of lands in legislative designated areas would also include restrictive use of trust lands. MR. BJORKQUIST suggested a modification to add language to the Amendment A.1, and MR. JOHANNSEN explained he would support the insertion of additional language to 8- LSO409\A.1,CHENOWETH dated 3/11/93. This would be an amendment to Amendment A.1.) It would read on Page 2, line 31, after "and,"; Insert "(1) notwithstanding the pledge of the land as security or that the land was granted to the state under the Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act of 1956, P.L. 84-830, 70 Section 709, the state may continue to conduct all activities on the land that are authorized by law; and (2)" SENATOR TAYLOR surveyed all parties to the legislation and to the LIO in Anchorage to hear from LOIS REEDER, CLIFF EAMES, BILL BOBRICK, and KANDIE LITTLER for their opinions. MS. REEDER had polled everyone in Anchorage, and they all agreed with the amendment to the Amendment A.1. Number 283 SENATOR LITTLE moved to pass the amendment to Amendment A.1. Without objections, so ordered. MR. JOHANNSEN was asked to explain Amendment A.3, dated 3/18/93, give an overview, and answer questions. MR. JOHANNSEN explained that Amendment A.3 contained three substantive provisions, with the first being a land management provision, the second, a public interest safeguard provision, and the third, a definition of unrestricted general fund revenue. He explained the importance of the land management provision which requires the trust to take back original mental health trust land subject to existing third party interest such as leases, gravel sale contracts, or land use permits. It would require the Department of Natural Resources to manage these lands with the rules and regulations under which the third party bargained. In exchange for allowing their land to return to the mental health trust, MR. JOHANNSEN said the lessees he represented would be guaranteed that the rules would not change as long as their third party interests were in effect. He explained AS 38.04 and AS 38.05 would continue to apply to these lands, and these will be called Section 802 lands because they would be managed under a new Section 802 in the bill. All other original trust lands, MR. JOHANNSEN explained would be returned to the reconstituted trust, including those lands that are truly vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved, and not subject to third party interest. He further explained these lands would be managed under whatever management standards the trust authority may adopt, and there was a presumption that the trust authority will contract with the Department of Natural Resources to manage lands under the Trust Authority's fiduciary obligations. MR. JOHANNSEN discussed possible arrangements for the management of these lands which he called Section 9 lands, because they would be managed pursuant to Section 9 of AS 37.14, except these lands would not be subject to any third party interest at this time - vacant, unused, and unreserved lands. He emphasized the Trust Authority could do as it wished with the lands, in contrast to the 802 lands with a third party interest. Number 333 SENATOR LITTLE clarified the difference between the two types of land. MR. JOHANNSEN addressed the second of the three substantive provisions in Amendment A.3, the public interests safeguard provision. He explained that reconstituted trust land, not Section 802 land, would be managed by the Trust Authority, and he reviewed the safeguards in the statutes that would not apply to the Section 9 land. To protect the bill from constitutional challenges, MR. JOHANNSEN said Amendment A.3 would require multiple purpose use of Section 9 trust land, while recognizing trust principals as the priority in any conflict with the objective of multiple use. SENATOR TAYLOR asked for any questions on the aspects as described. MR. JOHANNSEN addressed the third substantive provisions which is reflected in Amendment A.3 as a definition of "unrestricted general funds." He explained the definition tied the meaning of the phrase to the manner in which money is categorized under the statewide accounting system. MR. JOHANNSEN said there would be no limitation on the power of the people, or the legislature to restrict general fund revenue, and he described the calculations of the 6% to be paid to the trust income account based on the way state funds are categorized today. Number 380 SENATOR JACKO expressed concerns the legislation would bind future legislators to use the general fund, but MR. JOHANNSEN said the bill really provides that 6% of the unrestricted general fund from the revenue of the state would be allocated each year to the trust income account. He explained the definition of unrestricted revenue would help to categorize the mental health funds. SENATOR TAYLOR mulled over the concept and clarified this law would be gaining status as opposed to all future laws without change. MR. JOHANNSEN said he was correct in relation to the 6% allocation, and he explained the process for each year. SENATOR TAYLOR considered the problems with categorizing general funds in opposition to the Governor in the settlement of administrative litigation of old taxes. He discussed the concerns of the legislature on the proper designation of the funds. MR. JOHANNSEN had no opinion on the dispute but expressed some understanding on the problem. As to the debate over mental health funds and the unrestricted general fund revenue, he said it may have to be resolved by the courts and would follow the outcome from the problem outlined by SENATOR TAYLOR. Number 420 SENATOR TAYLOR wanted to preclude future legislatures from changing the definition of general fund income, but he wasn't sure it was possible to provide a high level of security for the litigants. MR. JOHANNSEN said SENATOR TAYLOR was correct in his surmise, since any legislation could be reversed or corrected by a subsequent legislature, but the bill did not attempt to prevent that. He also said SENATOR TAYLOR was correct in noting the discomfort of some of the plaintiffs, which was why they wanted collateral. MR. JOHANNSEN returned to SENATOR JACKO'S question to explain the bill talked about an allocation to the trust income account, but, he explained, the legislature still must appropriate money from that account to the mental health programs, pursuant to the procedures in Chapter 66. He said the coalition would welcome suggestions from the legislative staff on such a complicated accounting subject. MR. JOHANNSEN made a general comment on both amendments, explaining the coalition had kept the other plaintiffs and the Department of Law informed of the coalition activities and positions. He indicated the wish to work with all of the parties to resolve the problem in a fair and responsible manner but, since the matter is incredibly complicated, they would welcome constructive ideas. MR. JOHANNSEN reviewed two other amendments, A.4 and A.5, which he said were technical amendments identified by the legislative drafter, but do not alter the substance of the bill or the two amendments supported by his coalition. At some point he wanted to address the materials received from the Department of Law. Number 469 SENATOR TAYLOR noted that DAVID WALKER had arrived, but he hadn't seen either JEFFREY JESSEE or JIM GOTTSTEIN. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN to review Amendment A.3, and he suggested going page by page. MR. JOHANNSEN discussed the first provision that he thought was necessary to show there are two types of land, Section 9 land and Section 802 land. He explained the first insert would be placed in Section 9 to make the reader aware there would be a different land management program under Section 802. MR. JOHANNSEN referred to the second insert, which takes up the remainder of page 1, as the public interest safeguard provision proposed by the coalition. He also referred the committee to the letter from the Department of Law letter which speaks to the provision in the second part of Amendment A.3. MR. JOHANNSEN said it was important to understand that all the coalition had proposed was there be a preference for multiple purpose use for Section 9 land, whenever it was consistent with the trust fiduciary obligations. He explained it was already followed by the Department of Natural Resources for all state land, and he believed it was the minimum the Alaska Supreme Court would require. He also explained the Department of Law was concerned that more might be required by the Alaska Supreme Court, or the public interest language could generate litigation. MR. JOHANNSEN warned if the state and the plaintiffs, still supporting Chapter 66 in its current form without any public interest protection, think that the courts are going to let them run rough shod in their development of reconstituted trust land, they're being totally unrealistic. He cited the supreme court as imposing some balance between managing trust land to maximizing revenue to the trust and protecting the broader public interest. Number 500 MR. JOHANNSEN quoted the Department of Law as generating litigation, and he acknowledged it might, but he said the threat of litigation always exists and is no worse than the threat that currently exists each time the DNR makes a land management disposal decision. He described the limitations placed on a challenger by the safeguards of the legislation, and he considered the limited safeguard a reasonable balance between the trust desire to manage trust land without any consideration of the broader public interest and the need to protect the broader public interest of the people of the State of Alaska. MR. JOHANNSEN quoted the Department of Law letter saying the public interest interveners should publicly testify to accepting the present standard and promise not to go to court over more public safeguards. He rejected the state's suggestion and explained it was currently the subject of litigation in the Weiss case. He explained the interveners expected more from the courts if the litigation is allowed to run its course. SENATOR TAYLOR invited BRIAN BJORKQUIST, Assistant Attorney General, to respond to the remarks from MR. JOHANNSEN. MR. BJORKQUIST disputed the positions taken by the coalition as to the proposed amendments taking care of the potential challenges to Chapter 66. He referred to a statement by MR. JOHANNSEN later saying that might not be the case, and he offered the state's concerns over potential challenges to management by the Trust Authority. He gave some examples under Article E, Section 10 of the Alaska Constitution in relation to safeguards. MR. BJORKQUIST thought any litigation should resolve those issues dealing with the management obligations to the mental health trust. He disagreed with MR. JOHANNSEN over issues of multiple use and restrictions imposed under the proposed amendments as well as a trust principle exception to the multiple use provisions. He referred the committee to page 3 of the letter from the Department of Law and reviewed the comments on SB 67 to the committee in i) regarding what would become AS 37.14.009(b)(1), which he said should be referenced in multiple use management. SENATOR TAYLOR referred the committee to CHENOWETH, Amendment A.3, page 1, and asked MR. BJORKQUIST if he agreed with the sentence ending with "... trustee set out in AS 37.14.007:. MR. BJORKQUIST agreed and suggested adding "or AS 37.14.009. He described an aspect of unpredictability to those coming to DNR or the Trust Authority with ideas on developing those lands. He spoke of ways to encourage people to come forth to develop those lands. TAPE 93-30, SIDE B Number 001 SENATOR TAYLOR queried TIM MABERY Fairbanks, MRS. KNIGHT from Petersburg, JOHN MALONE from Bethel, and LOIS REEDER, but all had no comment. MR. WALKER, speaking from the audience, asked how the amendments were going to be moved. SENATOR TAYLOR said it was his intention to move the amendment, either in part or whole, as soon the discussion has been completed. He invited MR. WALKER to make his comments at this time. MR. WALKER explained he was the lead counsel for the settling plaintiffs in the litigation, those who support the provisions in Chapter 66 and the present settlement before the court now awaiting approval. He indicated he was aware of the actions of the coalition, but he explained the original plaintiffs, the Alaska Mental Health Association and Vern Weiss, were not part of the coalition and do not support another approach at the expense of the settlement, while maintaining it should be approved by the court and supported by the legislature. MR. WALKER said his purpose at the meeting is not to react to any of the amendments, because some of the amendments cause him considerable concern. He was concerned there needed to be a process that worked for everybody. If there is to be a new settlement, MR. WALKER thought the Administration should be negotiating with the parties, but he didn't think the legislature and the coalition should be negotiating a settlement agreement. He termed it a dangerous proposition and said the committee needed to keep aware the settling plaintiffs were not part of the coalition. Number 058 SENATOR TAYLOR expressed frustration by MR. WALKER'S testimony and how long the resolution of Chapter 66 will take. He then called on TOM KOESTER, Attorney for the settling plaintiffs, for his testimony. MR. KOESTER said everyone was looking for a solution that works and censured a remark by MR. JOHANNSEN that the interveners were confident that the Alaska Supreme Court will require more than this bill provides. He felt it was unfair for MR. JOHANNSEN to suggest to the committee that it was a solution. MR. KOESTER said the interveners can't have it both ways, and he said this was of great concern to the state. SENATOR TAYLOR also expressed some grave concerns as to the management proposal and was reluctant to accept some of the compromises in the spirit of achieving a solution. He didn't think the legislature could mandate a multiple use concept on a coal mine or a gold mine. BOB STILES of the Dimond Chuitna Coal project asked to testify. Number 107 MR. STILES explained to SENATOR TAYLOR how a coal mine was an example of multiple use, and he used his Wishbone Hill project as a specific example. He described the Wishbone Hill project as being within the MatSu Moose Range and an LDA. MR. STILES further explained a gold mine could be a temporary land use, and in his case the land would go back into wildlife habitat. MR. JOHANNSEN gave an other illustration of multiple use when land was harvested of its timber and then used for mining. He explained these were principles in AS 38.05.285 presently used by DNR and would be used by the Trust Authority. He explained the job of the Trust Authority was to maximize revenue, and he outlined some of the risks involved in litigating development. MR. JOHANNSEN said the interveners would prefer to compromise rather than litigate. SENATOR TAYLOR discussed with MR. JOHANNSEN the amendment to add AS 37.14.009 to Section 3 (1), and MR. JOHANNSEN said his clients had no problem with it. He thought it was a good suggestion and the result of compromise within the coalition. Number 150 SENATOR LITTLE moved to amend page 3 of Amendment A.3, Section 3, (1) after "AS 37.14.007(;) or AS 37.14.009; Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN to move on to his next proposed amendment. Before going further with the amendment, SENATOR TAYLOR expressed concern that within the old Chapter 66 the trust properties in the reconstituted mental health trust would be received by a board with the greatest level of autonomy possible in the management of the lands. He gave the Beluga Coal Fields as an example. MR. JOHANNSEN directed the next amendment to the top of page 2 of Amendment A.3, and the definition of "unrestricted general fund revenue." SENATOR TAYLOR asked what would happen to the interest income in present endowments such as the Science and Technology Endowment and the Railbelt Energy Fund within the general fund. MR. JOHANNSEN asked if it was revenue restricted by a law to a specific use, and SENATOR TAYLOR explained it was not designated but was restricted. He explained it was done by putting a fence around the account within the general funds. He also gave the example of the Anchorage International Airport Account. SENATOR TAYLOR was concerned all of the revenue streams would be tapped for 6% under the legislation, and MR. JOHANNSEN suggested it was probably the case with what he presently knew, and if it was not presently restricted by law to a specific use. SENATOR TAYLOR concluded by calling the discussion an accounting exercise in regards to the Mental Health Trust Fund within the general fund out of which, as a legislature, make appropriations for programs recommended by the Mental Health Board. MR. JOHANNSEN thought that was correct. MR. JOHANNSEN read the next proposed amendment on page 2 of Amendment A.3 for the definition of "conveyed or encumbered" land. Number 198 SENATOR TAYLOR invited MR. BJORKQUIST to address any comments or concerns to the committee on the subject of unrestricted general fund revenue of the state. He said the state had no comment at this time on the issue. SENATOR TAYLOR directed MR. JOHANNSEN to continue. MR. JOHANNSEN returned to the definition of "conveyed or encumbered" to explain why these were lands that would not be returned to the trust, and he further explained these lands were described under the intent of Chapter 66, but was never specified in Chapter 66. He thought it was an improvement on Chapter 66 and settled some of the ambiguities of Chapter 66. Again, SENATOR TAYLOR checked with MR. BJORKQUIST as to any problems with the proposed amendment on "conveyed or encumbered." MR. BJORKQUIST had some suggested additions to the amendment to clarify, and he referred to page 4 of the letter from the Department of Law to add to the meaning of "conveyed or encumbered." He explained the reasons for the addition of: "(F) is subject to an interagency land management agreement, interagency land management transfer, management agreement or management right but does not include land unnecessary to carry out the purpose of the interagency land management agreement, interagency land management transfer, management agreement or management right." SENATOR DONLEY suggested a proposed committee substitute should be written by the Judiciary staff to be adopted as a work draft. SENATOR TAYLOR thought that was an excellent idea since the legislation has become more complex. He said he would try to have it completed for the next meeting. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN for his opinion of Subparagraph (F), and MR. JOHANNSEN expressed agreement with the amendment to Amendment A.3. He thought it was a change that would continue the intent of the bill. Number 279 SENATOR LITTLE moved to amend Amendment A.1 to include a new Subsection (F) on page 3, line 12, under Subsection (E). Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR TAYLOR returned the meeting to MR. JOHANNSEN. MR. JOHANNSEN referred the committee to page 2 of Amendment A.3 to "Page 3, line 14" and said it was a drafting provision in the definition section of the bill to include the definition of "a lease." MR. JOHANNSEN said it was the same procedure for "Page 3, line 16," and would clarify that mining claims were also mining leasehold locations. He explained that in the same place, "Page 3, line 19," was intended to add to the list exactly those kinds of lands subject to third party interests and make it consistent with AS 38.05.802. SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. BJORKQUIST for any concerns on the proposed amendments, and MR. BJORKQUIST said the Department of Law had additional suggested amendments to Amendment A.3. He explained his suggested changes to allow sold land to include conversion rights to sale, and he explained the sale contracts. He referred the committee to page 5 of the letter from the Department of Law which would be: (F) "(G) is subject to a land lease issued with conversion rights to sale." MR. BJORKQUIST explained there would need to be conforming amendments later in the bill with reference to AS 38.05.809 (3) which would clarify the lease amendment without conversion rights to sale. MR. BJORKQUIST suggested under Subsection (C), designated as "Page 3, line 12," on page 2 of Amendment A.3, it should be amended to read: "(C) has been selected by a Native corporation under 43 U.S.C. 1611;" SENATOR TAYLOR clarified he wanted both that amendment and the previous suggestion of a new Subsection (G) under "conveyed or encumbered." SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN for his comments, and he said the proposed Subsection (G) had been discussed with one of the plaintiff's lawyers. The lawyer disagreed it was the best way to handle land subject to those particular interests, and he elaborated on the disagreement. After some discussion, SENATOR TAYLOR suggested they work on a better place to put the proposed amendment. Number 358 After some discussion of the placement of the word "Native," SENATOR LITTLE moved to include "Native" before "corporation" in "Page 3, line 12," Subsection (C) of Amendment A.3. Without objections, so ordered. SENATOR DONLEY praised SENATOR TAYLOR'S tenacity in working on the legislation, but renewed his suggestion to have the staff and all parties to the legislation work on a committee substitute. They discussed the technical nature of the legislation, and SENATOR TAYLOR asked MR. JOHANNSEN how much more detail would be needed to complete his dispute with the state. MR. JOHANNSEN thought SENATOR DONLEY'S suggestion was correct, and said he would be available to work on the legislation, since he thought it was important to move the bill forward. He stressed the need for a vehicle during this session to prevent more litigation. SENATOR TAYLOR suggested MR. JOHANNSEN work directly with both legislative and committee staff, MR. KOESTER, and other Department of Law staff to draft two committee substitutes - one sponsored by the state and one by the coalition. In addition, SENATOR TAYLOR wanted a specific chart to show the significant differences between the original Chapter 66 and the amendments as proposed. He didn't preclude other interests offering their amendments, also. Number 464 SENATOR TAYLOR charged the participants with using the remainder of the week to draft the proposed committee substitutes to SB 67 to be brought before committee on Monday, March 29, 1993. MR. WALKER thought the process would be helpful also to the settling plaintiffs. MR. JOHANNSEN indicated his willingness to work on the proposed committee substitute. MR. STILES, as a business man, explained the coalition had resolved all of the changes suggested by the Department of Law in concept, and he suggested a single committee substitute could be drafted. SENATOR LITTLE agreed with MR. STILES and implored the participants to agree on a single committee substitute to move forward on the bill. SENATOR TAYLOR reiterated his request to have the matter resolved, and he thanked the participants on the teleconference network in Anchorage, Bethel, Petersburg, and Fairbanks for their participation. There being no further business to come before the committee, the meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.