SENATE BILL 74 "An Act extending lapse dates for certain prior year appropriations; making supplemental, capital, and special appropriations; and providing for an effective date." BRUCE BOTELHO, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, provided the Committee an overview of the proposed legislation, speaking in favor of it's passage. He noted that the legislation would provide funding for the Department of Law to advocate the State's legal position on the sovereign powers of Native tribal governments in Alaska addressing the Venetie issue. Attorney General Botelho suggested that the Venetie decision would raise questions about the proper interpretation of the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in providing a basis that Indian country exists in the State. A circuit court decision requires a realignment of inter-government relations throughout Alaska. He continued, a subject as important as the issues raised in the Venetie case should be taken to the Supreme Court so that it will be the final arbitrator of what Congress intended when it passed ANCSA in 1971. Attorney General Botelho noted that in order for the Department of Law to adequately cover the case, the entire $500 thousand dollars 2 appropriation would be necessary. The Department is requesting the entire amount in one appropriation, rather than an increment to cover only the initial expenses. The Legislature will have adjourned before the Supreme Court has made their final decision. The allocation will cover all anticipated costs for both FY97 and FY98. Attorney General Botelho elaborated, the Supreme Court receives petitions for 7.5 thousand cases per year, although, only hears between 80 and 90 of them. He added, this is a matter of great importance to all Alaskans and as it will address a fundamental examination of Indian law in the United States. He believed that this case could be one that the Supreme Court would take, given the overall ramifications to the State. Attorney General Botelho continued, additional concern has been voiced as to why the Department of Law would seek additional funding, knowing that an appropriation had been allocated for statehood defense. Statehood defense money was never allocated to the Venetie case. That case has been supported by the General Fund budget, while the statehood defense money has been directed to other significant cases. JOHN HOPE, PAST PRESIDENT OF TLINGIT-HAIDA CENTRAL COUNCIL, BOARD OF DIRECTORS - SEALASKA, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He noted that the Indian Health Service (IHS) had appropriated to Alaska, $3.1 million dollars; the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) appropriated $92 million dollars; and SEARCH received $35.7 million dollars. He noted that there is at least an additional $100 million dollars spent in Alaska for Indian housing. Mr. Hope stressed that Alaska receives approximately $500 million dollars a year because of the tribe status. The Federal government has no legal obligation to distribute funding to Natives; their obligation is to fund tribes. Mr. Hope reiterated that if the State of Alaska was successful in this case, there would be no obligation from the federal government to make annual appropriations. He voiced fear, that within a few years, U.S. Congress would note Alaska's action and realize that they have no financial obligation to the Natives of the State. KATHERINE MIYASCOTO, PRESIDENT, DOUGLAS CAMP #3, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SB 74. She stated that the amount of money being appropriated belongs to both Native and non Native people of Alaska and that she opposed her portion being spent on negotiations against Native people. Ms. Miyascoto suggested that the appropriation be used for 3 education and other interests that cover the entire State. SELINA EVERSON, PAST PRESIDENT, ALASKA NATIVE SISTERHOOD (ANS), JUNEAU, testified in opposition to the proposed legislation, agreeing that concerns of education and subsistence should be funded at greater levels. AL KETZLER SR., (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OFFICER, TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE, spoke against SB 74 as currently written. He stated that the Tanana Chiefs Conference specifically opposes the $500 thousand dollars appropriated to the Legislative Operating Budget. He reminded Members of the case presented two years ago, State versus Babbitt legislation that went before the Circuit Court. That case challenged the ability of the State Legislature seeking to represent the State in litigation. Any attempt of the Legislature to represent the State, in State Court, is a violation of the Constitution in doctrine and separation of powers. Mr. Ketzler believed that inclusion of Section (b) would be "unwisely used" to determine policy grounds. He stressed that political legislative intervention, divides the elements and creates racial overtones. The relationship between a tribal state and the federal government is a political relationship. Intervention by the Legislature on this bill brings unwarranted and vindictive actions which will be counter productive. Mr. Ketzler urged the Committee to strike the appropriation to the Legislative Operating Budget. LORETTA BULLARD, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), PRESIDENT, KAWERAK, INC., KAWERAK, voiced opposition to SB 74. She asked why the appropriation was on a "fast" track. Ms. Bullard reiterated previous concerns that the Supreme Court will only hear a small number of cases brought before them; thus, questioned the $1 million dollar appropriation for a 1% chance of being successful. Ms. Bullard questioned how the Legislative leadership proposed to use the $500 thousand dollar suggested appropriation. She pointed out that Senator Al Adams had proposed an amendment that would grant the $500 thousand dollar appropriation if the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. She stated that her agency supported that amendment. Ms. Bullard continued, State funding for social services has been cut for the past four years. Because of limited funding, Village Public Safety Officers (VPSO's) have "their lives on the line" for $11.71/hour. With welfare reform and the infrastructure changing throughout the State, Ms. 4 Bullard surmised that there are more appropriate places to put the money. JOAN DANGELI, ALASKA'S FIRST NATIONAL NATIVE RIGHTS ALLIANCE, JUNEAU, voiced concern with the proposed legislation, reiterating that Native Alaskan's tax money would be used to fight against themselves. She stated that the bill was "aggressive" and the issues confusing. DELORES CADIENTE, SELF, JUNEAU, testified in opposition to SB 74. She requested that Members of the Finance Committee consider a better spending plan for the proposed allocation. Ms. Cadiente suggested addressing health, education and social issues in the light of welfare reform. She continued, a national study rating schools in the United States for quality of teaching, fair distribution of money and student achievement rated Alaska very low. The $1 million dollars could be used more meaningfully than to fight tribal governments and their inherent rights. Ms. Cadiente questioned why tribal governments should not receive the same rights that municipal governments do. CALEB PUNGOWIYI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KNOWLES COMMISSION, KAWERAK, spoke in opposition to the $500 thousand dollars being appropriated to the Legislature for the purpose of supporting the State's interest on the issue of sovereign powers of the Native tribal governments. He concurred that there were more appropriate places to spend that allocation. LLOYD MILLER, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ATTORNEY, TRIBAL CITIZEN, voiced strong opposition to the legislation. He asserted that $1 million dollars was a very generous amount allocated for outside consultation for a Supreme Court case. Mr. Miller stressed that once again, the public has been kept in the dark as to how the funds would be used. He commented that the $500 thousand dollar portion which would be used to support the Legislature, would be ten times more than necessary; the Legislature, independent of the Executive Branch, has no constitutional standing to participate in the case. Mr. Miller added that the $1 million dollar appropriation is an "outrageous" expense to make when the Legislature is seeking to cut the budget by such proposed large amounts. He suggested that the bulk of the appropriation would be much better used to establish a thoughtful process for working out a State plan of cooperation. LUKE SAMPSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), BETHEL, spoke 5 on behalf of Mayor Chuck Green, North Slope Arctic Borough, in opposition to SB 74. He suggested that money be spent on water and sewer concerns which exist in the rural communities. He pointed out that the legislation would be harmful to the State. Mr. Sampson noted that when village areas receive 1/10th of the amount requested to bring jobs to those places, they are required to have feasibility and marketing studies as a portion of the business plan. Using that request standard, this legislation would not pass. DON LONG, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), FORMER REPRESENTATIVE -STATE OF ALASKA, PRESIDENT, INUIT COMMUNITY OF THE ARCTIC SLOPE, BARROW, spoke in strong opposition to the proposed legislation. He suggested that a $1 million dollar allocation should be used to cover problems that exist in the village areas. He pointed out his concerns with the depleted municipal aide and revenue sharing. (Tape Change, HFC 97-23, Side 2). PAUL SWETZOF, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), ALEUT TRIBAL GOVERNMENT, AFN BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALEUT VILLAGES, noted that every village which he represents opposes to the appropriation. He stated that this was the modern day equivalent of a "war chest" against the Indian people. Mr. Swetzof suggested the money be used to set up a dialogue with tribal governments working cooperatively. He stressed that the legislation takes a stance against Native people. ALFRED MCKINLEY, SR., EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEMBER, ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD (ANB), JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to the proposed legislation. He pointed out that the money appropriated by the Legislature to the rural communities was matched with federal dollars. Each year, close to $1 billion dollars are appropriated. He thought that the State would not continue funding that amount without receiving federal incentive. Mr. McKinley questioned why the language "sovereign immunity" was being included in the legislation. He concluded that SB 74 would not be in the best interest for all Alaskans. DIANE WIRTH, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the proposed legislation. She suggested that a sense of equality and cooperative living should be encouraged. Ms. Wirth warned that the people from Venetie had begun a drain of money, and now other Native groups are implicated. She suggested that the proposed action could create 250 individual governments. Those concerns had been addressed in 1972 with the Alaska 6 Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). JOHN MARTIN, TEINNA GEY TLINGIT NATION, JUNEAU, spoke in opposition to SB 74. The Tribal Council is not in favor of the appropriation. He suggested that if the State government would like to spend the money on Indian issues, they should designate funds for health and education concerns in the rural communities. BURT PRIST, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), KOTZEBUE, spoke in opposition to SB 74 and concurred with statements made by those testifying against SB 74. Mr. Prist reiterated that the State has a 1% chance of being heard on the issue. The legislation contains racial overtones. Mr. Prist explained that Alaska villages see self- determination and self-governing as a necessary and fundamental step in gaining control over the devastation caused by alcohol in the Indian communities. He added, most Native villages disagree with the Venetie Tribal Government's intent, noting that village tribal sovereignty is inherent and that tribal government has the responsibility to deal with Native social issues, although, over the years have been undermined by State policies. APRIL FERGUSON, (TESTIFIED VIA TELECONFERENCE), NOME, spoke against SB 74. She stated that the legislation was fiscally irresponsible. She mentioned the challenges faced by the State in addressing welfare reform and questioned how the State could justify not allocating the $100 thousand dollars to Alaska Legal Services. The justification for pursuing the course of action would be an "all out declaration of war" on the Native community throughout the State. She recommended that the money should be used on educating the public in how to work with Native communities. Ms. Ferguson asked how the Legislature intended to use the $500 thousand dollars and demanded that the Legislature be held accountable for those expenditures. JOHN BORBRIDGE, PAST LOBBYIST, 1ST PRESIDENT OF THE SEALASKA CORPORATION, JUNEAU, emphasized that Natives want to focus on their land rights because the State selection of entitlement is seen as a "danger" of those lands claimed. Selection of lands should not proceed and the corpus of the controversy should be preserved until Congress has the opportunity to work it's will. He continued, to date, Alaska had been seen as the one area in which there is no conquest. As a consequence of that realization, the worth of the settlement was raised as the values would determine how much in general would be received 7 for compensation and lands. The settlement act contains no provision that specifically states the intention by Congress to due away with and not recognize Indian tribes. Mr. Borbridge continued, at this time, tribal status is being addressed and he asked that there be more communication with the tribal communities regarding tribal responsibilities. Representative G. Davies asked what powers, Mr. Borbridge would anticipate a "tribe" to have. Mr. Borbridge responded that a tribe has inherent certain powers and spoke to the additional powers in the signing of Indian country. Absent the defining of Indian country, there exists the powers of the tribes over the membership to administer benefits. With the presence of the Indian country, they would then have the increased opportunity to address the status of the lands where there would be a finding of Indian country. Presently, these are not identified. Given that definition, there would be an exercise of greater powers. He was unsure of the powers that would result in addressing the resources of the land. SHARON LEE, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against the proposed legislation and applauded the words shared among previous testimony regarding this concern. (Tape Change, HFC-24, Side 1). REPRESENTATIVE RAMONA BARNES commented on previous testimonies requesting that the allocation represented in SB 74 be distributed for "additional services" in the State. She reminded the Committee members that $500 million dollars had been paid to establish the regional Native Corporations. Representative Barnes referenced Alaska Constitution, Article #10. The purpose of the article was to provide for maximum local self government and to prevent duplication of tax levying jurisdictions. The article clearly establishes how the local governments are identified. The Legislature identified those governing bodies. She emphasized that the body was appropriated on a constitutional provision back-up by law in Title #29. Attorney General Botelho replied that the constitutional framers devoted substantial energy to looking at the type of government structure which should be in Alaska. As a consequence, Article #10 came into being. It demonstrated municipal government existing in either two forms, boroughs or cities. Individuals in those communities should be empowered to have as much control over their lives as possible. That is the resulting structure which the Legislature "flushed out" in adopting Title #29. Attorney 8 General Botelho reiterated that the State Legislature has continued to fulfill it's obligation to support local funding. Representative Barnes spoke to the State's obligation to uphold any challenges to the Constitution or legislation. She questioned if the rural areas were sovereign entities, would the State then be precluded by law from giving them additional State funds. Attorney General Botelho suggested that question needs time and care to explain, because it brings forth questions regarding the terms of tribal status. This concern needs more dialogue and education. He added, we unfortunately tend to look at tribes as a racial entity rather than a political entity. What is not clear, is the type of relationship that the State would wish to pursue with the sovereign entities. He suggested that a written response to Representative Barnes' query would be more appropriate. Representative Barnes requested additional attention regarding the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) recognition. Attorney General Botelho pointed out that Representative Barnes had raised issues that would be informative to everyone regarding the question of tribal status. He noted that there has been an evolution in the State regarding tribal status. The State Supreme Court has rejected the concept of tribes in Alaska, which formed a basis that the State had inappropriately responded in not pursuing the Babbitt appeal. Attorney General Botelho continued, many things have occurred which change the status of what existed in the past. Under our Constitutional system, we look to Congress to be the authority. In 1993, the Department of Interior issued the list of federally recognized tribes for all purposes. As a consequence of the failure to include the Central Council, the issue went to Congress. Congress endorsed the list the Department of Interior had created. They then added the Central Council to that list of recognized tribes. The second issue of the Venetie case revolves around whether there exists a land base which would allow those tribes to exercise powers and activities within the boundaries of that tribe. The courts have three criteria in recognizing Indian country in the United States: 1. A result of a reservation; 2. Allotment, which does exists in Alaska; 3. Whether the State has a dependent Indian 9 community. For there to be a dependent Indian community, there must be land which has been set aside for Indians under the superintendents of the federal government. He stated that the question at hand is whether ANCSA contributes to that land base and could it be used. Attorney General Botelho continued, the State of Alaska set aside twelve reserves for Alaska Natives. The land was not established as villages, but rather corporations ordered under State law, not federal law. That land was given in fee. The initial act provides for two square miles which was to be reserved for municipal governments and if there was not a municipal government, that land was to be taken by the State in trust for local state chartered government. He reiterated, it is important to recognize that this is a clear legal issue, where reasonable people can differ. The fundamental question is what Congress intended in the 1971 Act. If the decision is upheld, and there is Indian country, the State will be looking for a redefinition of that relationship. Co-Chair Hanley interjected that if the State wins the case, it is important to understand that federal money would continue to "flow" into Indian communities. At this time, Indian country is not recognized in Alaska. Attorney General Botelho pointed out that if Indian country is found to exist, there will be additional federal monies that the tribes can access. Co-Chair Hanley reiterated that the legislation was not an attempt to take away money that is currently flowing into the communities. He pointed out that Judge Holland ruled that there was not Indian country in Alaska. A 9th Circuit Court, three judge panel has ruled that there is Indian country, although, he advised that one of the judges did have a dissenting opinion. Because there have been different opinions regarding the case, he felt it was appropriate that a final hearing be made to determine which direction the State will go. Attorney General Botelho responded to comments regarding the possibility of the Supreme Court hearing the case. The Court does accept 80 to 90 cases per year. It takes those cases which have a significant impact on politics. The Court has taken a great interest in any Indian law cases, provides more of a possibility that the case will be heard. He commented that the issue is creating division within the State, and the public would like finality from the highest court in the land. Absent the intent, the Department would feel they had not done their duty to protect State sovereignty. He reiterated that it would be worth the 10 expenditure of public funds. Attorney General Botelho agreed that the legislation is on a "fast track". The deadline for filing the petition is in early April, 1997. Immediately following, those who oppose must file a document noting their concerns; it is appropriate that this is treated as a supplemental request and placed on a high priority. Representative J. Davies noted his concern that Alaska Natives are left with the feeling that the State has declared "war". He asked how can the State could increase dialogue for a more comfortable course of action. He inquired if public funds could be used to argue the other side of the brief. Attorney General Botelho advised that would be a legislative call to determine if it could satisfy a legislative purpose. Adding that conceptually, it could be done. Co-Chair Hanley commented that it would not be good business for the Legislature to appropriate money in order that the other party could sue the State. He acknowledged that there have been suits by municipalities against the State. Attorney General Botelho rebutted that the court is structured in a way so that good advocacy takes place on both sides, and that the truth will prevail or at least the issues will be more sharply presented to the Court. He summarized that everyone has an interest that this concern be resolved. Representative Grussendorf inquired how the Department of Law would use the $500 thousand dollar request. Attorney General Botelho outlined how the funds would be used. The first stage would be the petition, the work product enlisting the petition outside support. The second phase would be the actual hearing on the merits. The appropriation would include funds for more extensive research and hiring of an Indian law expert. There will also be funding for a delegation to meet with the U.S. Alaskan Congressmen and the Justice of Interior. REPRESENTATIVE BILL WILLIAMS agreed that everyone in the State would appreciate a sense of finality on the issue. He asked how the case could affect selection of village lands in the out-skirt areas surrounding the villages. Attorney General Botelho acknowledged that until precedent is established, it is clear that the 9th Circuit Court would be dealing specifically with the Venetie case. He advised that Venetie is a specific case, opting out of ANCSA, accepting the land and then the corporation basically 11 dissolving itself in favor of a regional government. (Tape Change, HFC 97-24, Side 2). Attorney General Botelho continued, addressing the act distinguished between urban corporations and village corporations. It is difficult to state with precision how far reaching the opinion will be. Representative Williams questioned how people living on lands that belong to the State or federal government would be addressed. He understood that it was the intent of Congress that those lands would go to the villages in order that they have a land base. Co-Chair Hanley clarified, there are recognized tribes which have certain status throughout the State. An additional term would expand the ability and rights of those tribes and how they manage their lands. He added, there exists a difference between tribal status and Indian country; he stressed that through the court case all the monies currently being received by the Native Alaskans would continue. Attorney General Botelho noted that ANCSA was not a termination to tribes. Subsequent events have caused Congress to acknowledge the federal recognition of tribes. ANCSA was intended to be a bold experiment in developing a relationship between the federal government and tribes, doing away with a trusteeship. REPRESENTATIVE IRENE NICHOLIA referenced Section #1(a) of the proposed legislation, and asked how many firms would be hired under the appropriation. Attorney General Botelho responded that one law firm would be hired out of Washington, D.C., under the leadership of Mr. John Rogers. He stipulated that it was the intent of the Department to hire an Indian law expert who could write a brief, at the State's expense, on behalf of the other party. Representative Nicholia asked if Hogan & Hartson was the firm involved. Attorney General Botelho replied Hogan & Hartson was the law firm in which John Rogers was a partner. Representative Nicholia asked for copies of all the documents used in determining that selection. Attorney General Botelho spoke to the selection process, stating that Hogan & Hartson was a firm which had extensive Supreme Court experience. He continued, a list was prepared of seven individual firms which had the necessary credentials and was then narrowed to three. Each of those were asked if they had an interest in representing the State. Of the two firms which did, the State choose Hogan & Hartson. Representative Nicholia asked if any lobbyists would be 12 hired by the State for this purpose. Attorney General Botelho stated that it was not the intent of the Department of Law or the Executive Branch to hire any lobbyists. Representative Nicholia queried if such would be a violation of the State Constitutional separation of powers doctrine. Attorney General Botelho noted that the original statement made by Mr. Ketzler was in reference to the Babbitt case. He made the decision to drop the 9th Circuit Court, at which point the Legislature intervened and made the attempt to carry the appeal in the name of the State of Alaska. The 9th Circuit Court expounded that it would be inappropriate for the Legislature to do so. The Alaska Supreme Court has acknowledged that there may be cases in which the Legislature may sue the Executive Branch. Attorney General Botelho's judgement was that on balance, there is legal authority for the Legislature to expend monies on legal services and to participate, although, it is not a clear-cut question. Co-Chair Hanley explained that the State Constitution would not prohibit the State Legislature from spending money on the case. Attorney General Botelho added that the characterization of the Babbitt Case was an issue of standing and not of State law. In response to Representative J. Davies, Attorney General Botelho noted that one third of the Department's allocation would be spent in phase #1. Representative J. Davies noted that as of the end of January, 1997, there was about $500 thousand unencumbered dollars remaining in the Department of Law's fiscal appropriation. Attorney General Botelho responded that those funds were for legal services, allocated internally by the Legislature and not for funding the proposed case. He stressed it would be an inappropriate use of funds. Co-Chair Hanley asked if the Department would proceed in doing the research before the Supreme Court had made it's decision whether they would be willing to hear the case. Attorney General Botelho stated that there would be no hiatus of activity; there will be a slowing down until the Supreme Court decides, although, there research concerns regarding ANCSA would continued. Co-Chair Hanley agreed, referencing a prior discussion with Senator Murkowski regarding other existing cases affecting Native rights in the future. Representative Nicholia requested that the Legislature be briefed regularly regarding the case. Attorney General Botelho agreed to do so. 13 Representative J. Davies requested an overview of the tribal powers and rights at this time and how those that would be changed, if Indian country were to be granted status. Attorney General Botelho offered to provide a written overview with that information to Committee members. Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment #1. [Attachment #1]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Representative Grussendorf asked what the Leadership expected to achieve with the funds appropriated to the Legislature. TED POPELY, COUNSEL, SENATE & HOUSE MAJORITY, stated that the Leadership had consulted with various experts in the area of concern, concluding that there is a significant role which the Legislature could play in getting the case to the Supreme Court. Representative Martin pointed out that the Attorney General would represent the Governor and the Executive Branch. The Legislature does not have their own legal council. Representative J. Davies asked specifics regarding the intended use of the $500 thousand dollars. Mr. Popely replied that there was no breakdown of how those funds would be spent. He added that it would be an ongoing effort, although, a broad plan does exist. There will be a second stage and should the Supreme Court not hear the case next fall, a portion of the funds would not be needed to cover the expenditures. He added that there has been ongoing discussion regarding the educational effort drawn from those funds. Fund spending will be broken into three stages. Representative Nicholia asked if Mr. Popely would be the only lawyer hired to address the Leadership position. Mr. Popely stated that there would be other lawyers hired for drafting the briefs. He did not know if non-lawyers would be involved. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Mulder, G. Davis, Hanley, Therriault Representatives Foster and Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative Grussendorf MOVED to adopt Amendment #2. [Attachment #2]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. 14 Representative Grussendorf stated that the amendment would create a new Section #2, to address the lapse date if the Supreme Court denies the case. Representative Mulder argued that if the case was not heard by the Supreme Court, it could be handed down to a lower court and that adopting the proposed amendment would tie their hands. He suggested that current language would allow flexibility. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Kohring, Martin, Mulder, G. Davis, Kelly, Therriault, Hanley Representatives Foster and Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #3. [Attachment #3]. Representative Kelly OBJECTED. Representative Davies explained that Amendment #3 would tighten up the purpose for which the appropriation would be made, and then to require a report on how the monies were expended. (Tape Change, HFC 97-25, Side 1). Representative Mulder commented that he was not comfortable with the language of the amendment as it would eliminate necessary flexibility. He added, the Legislature always requests accounting statistics from the Department of Law. Representative J. Davies pointed out that the language includes both federal and State courts and he felt it provided flexibility. A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION. IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Martin, Mulder, G. Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Hanley, Therriault Representatives Foster and Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative J. Davies MOVED to adopt Amendment #4. [Attachment #4]. Representative Mulder OBJECTED. Representative J. Davies stated that Amendment #4 would apply to Section (c). The amendment would make a certain 15 portion of the appropriation contingent on the Supreme Court accepting the case. Co-Chair Hanley asked what would happen if they did not review the case, but instead sent it back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal's. Representative J. Davies agreed and MOVED a "friendly" amendment, $100 thousand dollars be appropriated in case it was remanded. There was NO OBJECTION to the conceptual amendment. Representative Mulder voiced support of the $500 thousand dollar appropriation from the General Fund to the Legislative Operating Budget, noting that it indicated bi- partisan support for the activity. A roll call vote was taken on the amended Amendment #4 MOTION. IN FAVOR: J. Davies, Grussendorf OPPOSED: Mulder, G. Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Therriault, Hanley Representatives Foster and Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION FAILED (2-7). Representative Mulder MOVED to report CSSB 74(FIN) out of Committee with individual recommendations. Representative J. Davies OBJECTED. Representative G. Davis noted for the record his concern with the lack of information provided on a detailed budget plan for the appropriation. He requested more information on those numbers. Co-Chair Hanley guaranteed an accounting of the funds appropriated. Representative J. Davies spoke to his objection regarding the legislation. He recommended that the legislation needs further discussion to address some essential concerns. He objected that there are no details or plans regarding the proposed expenses. Representative Davies believed that as a result from the poorly thought out concept, it created a divisive impact amongst Alaskan people, leaving the Native Alaskans in an angry and fearful position. Representative Grussendorf noted his support for the appropriation to the Department of Law, although, voiced dissent with the appropriation to the Legislative Operating Budget. He stressed that this "piggy-back" has caused a lot of concern throughout the State. 16 A roll call vote was taken on the MOTION to move the bill from Committee. IN FAVOR: Mulder, G. Davis, Kelly, Kohring, Martin, Hanley, Therriault OPPOSED: J. Davies, Grussendorf Representatives Foster and Moses were not present for the vote. The MOTION PASSED (7-2). CSSB 74 (FIN) was reported out of Committee with a "do pass" recommendation.