HB 216-OFFICIAL LANGUAGES OF THE STATE  9:07:16 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the final order of business was HOUSE BILL NO. 216, "An Act adding the Inupiaq, Siberian Yupik, Central Alaskan Yup'ik, Alutiiq, Unangax, Dena'ina, Deg Xinag, Holikachuk, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Gwich'in, Tanana, Upper Tanana, Tanacross, Hän, Ahtna, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian languages as official languages of the state." 9:07:37 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS, as joint-prime sponsor, introduced HB 216. He noted the other joint-prime sponsors were Representatives Millett, Edgmon, Nageak, and Herron. He stated that HB 216 would acknowledge Alaska Native languages as Alaska's languages. The proposed legislation would amend a part of statute that was created with the 1998 U.S. English Voter Initiative, which did two things: Created English as the official language of Alaska in a ceremonial sense, and in a legal and binding sense stated in statute that English had to be used by the State of Alaska government. He said the latter has been litigated and "some of it's still in the books today." He clarified, "This bill does not touch that at all; it just relates to the first part of the statute that was created by that voter initiative, which created sort of a ceremonial official language of Alaska - that language being English." He said HB 216 would acknowledge the Alaska Native languages that have existed long before his own ancestors existed. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS characterized HB 216 as a grassroots bill, and he ventured there were hundreds of people listening to the meeting. He said the testimony heard on HB 216 in the House Community and Regional Affairs Standing Committee a couple weeks prior was some of the most inspirational he has experienced as a legislator. He said there are people dedicating their lives trying to prevent the extinction of these languages. In 2008, the last fluent speaker of the Eyak Language, Chief Marie Smith Jones, died. He said there are a number of other languages currently with only a handful of speakers alive. He noted that just before the current hearing, he learned from a woman present in the room that she had moved from the Yukon Territory to Juneau in order to take classes from the University of Southeast, Juneau, in the Tlingit language. He said that is representative of what hundreds of people in Alaska are doing to try to "turn the tide of language loss." He said the proposed legislation would acknowledge those efforts. 9:10:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS offered his understanding that there was an amendment available. 9:11:02 AM CHAIR LYNN asked if every current Alaska Native language would be included under HB 216. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS answered that the list was obtained from the linguists from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and is inclusive of all Alaska Native languages today. 9:11:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER moved to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 28- LS0905\U.1, Martin, 3/14/14, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Page 1, following line 5: Insert a new bill section to read: "* Section 1. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska is amended by adding a new section to read: LEGISLATIVE INTENT. It is the intent of the legislature that the amendment to AS 44.12.310 adding 20 languages as official languages of the state is symbolic and is not intended to require the government to provide additional services in those 20 additional languages." Page 1, line 6: Delete "Section 1" Insert "Sec. 2" REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS objected for the purpose of discussion. REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS explained that the proposed Amendment 1 would clarify that HB 216 would neither amend the part of statute that relates to day to day government functions nor force government [documents] to be printed in 20 languages. He indicated that Amendment 1 was in line with the legal perspective, which the committee would hear about later, and the zero fiscal note, included in the committee packet. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated an objection to Amendment 1. He indicated that he wanted to hear from someone at Legislative Legal and Research Services. 9:13:03 AM HILARY MARTIN, Attorney at Law, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, Alaska State Legislature, echoed Representative Kreiss-Tomkins' statement that Amendment 1 solidifies the intent of making the recognition of the state's Native languages a symbolic one that would not require the government to provide services in these languages. 9:14:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER questioned the concept of taking a law that has litigation attached to it and calling it symbolic. MS. MARTIN indicated that the language of Amendment 1 was intent language in uncodified law. She said she was not certain if calling a law symbolic had been done before. She said there has been a court case about the official language statutes, which she offered to discuss. She stated that intent language in uncodified law lessens the impact, because the language would not go into statute. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what the ramifications would be for naming the languages "official". MS. MARTIN answered, "The statute doesn't define official language aside from declaring what the official language is." She continued as follows: The [Alaska] Supreme Court has said that part of the ... official language statute is unconstitutional .... Right now, the statute says English language has to be used in the preparations of all official documents and records, but the [Alaska] Supreme Court has said that that means it has to be done in English. That does not prevent using another language, and that statute is not being amended in this bill. So, beyond that it is not entirely clear what the effect is of declaring something is an official language. There's ... nothing else, really, that forces the use of the other languages that I'm aware of. 9:17:45 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked what the effect of uncodified law is in a legal proceeding. MS. MARTIN answered that although uncodified law is not entered into statute, if a statute is ambiguous, a court can look to intent language to determine how the statute should be interpreted. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON referenced AS 44.12.320 and questioned whether, without a clear statement of intent, there may be an unintended consequence of that statute being mandated. MS. MARTIN reiterated that AS 44.12.320 would not be amended under HB 216, and she stated her belief that it would not "mandate the ... use of all of the official languages to prepare documents and records." She reiterated that currently the government could choose, but is not required, to prepare documents in the other languages. She clarified, "I don't think that ... this bill would change that circumstance." REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON expressed his desire to hear from the Department of Law. 9:20:06 AM The committee took a brief at-ease due to technical difficulties. 9:21:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT, participating on the committee via teleconference, said she is a joint-prime sponsor of HB 216. She relayed that the proposed legislation is personal, because she is one-quarter Inupiaq and grew up not knowing her language. She said her grandmother was born in White Mountain and at a young age taken to Oregon, where she was taught English and told not to speak in her Native language. When she returned to Alaska years later, she did not pass on her Native tongue to her daughter or granddaughter, and Representative Millett expressed feeling the loss of an opportunity to learn. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said HB 216 is symbolic and would not require any change to statute or have any legal standing. She indicated that her intent in testifying is to ensure that "we still have English as our first and only language in Alaska." REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT talked about Native youth in Alaska trying to cope, and she said, "We are number one for domestic violence; we are number one in suicide." She said the intent of the proposed legislation is to create an environment where Alaska Native youths can take pride in their ancestry and, through learning their languages and hearing their stories told, know that they are not the outsiders, but rather are "the people that we should be learning from." REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT asked that care be taken with the proposed legislation, such that any amendments to it would not result in future litigation. In response to Chair Lynn, she said she did not oppose the proposed Amendment 1. 9:25:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON stated that several years ago, a bill passed that allowed Alaska to preserve its Native languages. He stated his belief that HB 216 would open a door to an unintended consequence. He said, "This is something that has already been through the courts and has a huge history." He asked for DOL's feedback as to the effect of uncodified law on legal proceedings. 9:26:40 AM LIBBY BAKALAR, Assistant Attorney General, Labor and State Affairs Section, Civil Division (Juneau), Department of Law (DOL), said she essentially agreed with the answer provided by Ms. Martin that [uncodified law] is viewed as legislative intent. She said that in interpreting the statute, the court would first look to the constitution, then to statute, and finally to regulations or legislative intent language. She said she did not think [intent language] would have any legal impact, but would weigh in the court's determination in a disputed issue over the statute. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON reiterated his concern that HB 216 would create an unintended consequence, because people would not see the intent language, which may result in the legislature or DOL in the future thinking it should "align this section" with the aforementioned statute to mandate that all official documents include all the official languages. MS. BAKALAR responded, "I think that would be a separate bill entirely; this bill, standing alone, in my view, even without the intent language, does not impose any additional requirements on the government to produce documents in the listed languages." She said the phrase "official language" does not appear anywhere else in Alaska statute. Further, she said the bill would not change any of the other requirements in the Official Language initiative that expressly provide for government documents and publications in English. She said the case that Ms. Martin mentioned held that a statute that is reduced to a statement that English is the official language of the state could not be given legal affect, because it would only be a statement of policy. She continued: Based on that, the amendment to the statute that adds all these languages is really what ... the sponsors both mentioned - a policy statement without legal impact - so, even regardless of intent language, I think the statute standing alone doesn't impose any additional obligations on the state to produce government documents in these listed languages. 9:29:32 AM CHAIR LYNN asked Ms. Bakalar if the proposed Amendment 1 would be detrimental to HB 216 in any way. MS. BAKALAR answered that she did not think it would affect the bill itself, because the statutory language was clear. She offered her understanding that the purpose of Amendment 1 was to reiterate what was already true in statute and in the constitution, as interpreted by the [Alaska] Supreme Court, that "it is largely symbolic." 9:30:27 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER asked what the proposed legislation, with or without Amendment 1, would change, within the context of the law, in terms of Alaska's official language. MS. BAKALAR answered, "I don't believe we have changed anything in terms of what that phrase means, because that phrase is not actually defined anywhere in the statutes." REPRESENTATIVE KELLER sought clarification that the term is not used in other statutes. He then asked, "Will it not be ... looked at in law or in court cases, maybe, in the future ..., here ... along with the other places it might be used?" MS. BAKALAR answered, "I don't believe it is used anywhere else in the statute." 9:32:12 AM REPRESENTATIVE BENJAMIN NAGEAK, Alaska State Legislature, as joint-prime sponsor, asked permission to make a statement in his Native language of Inupiaq. In response to Chair Lynn, he said he would follow that statement with a translation. He then gave his testimony in Inupiaq. 9:34:42 AM REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK said he initially came in anger to testify on HB 216, but then he realized the emotion was not anger, but passion to keep "our language" alive. He emphasized the importance of this issue. He stated that as recent as 1969, "we were second-class people." Representative Nageak told of a time when he and his cousin were walking along a street at night, in Fairbanks, Alaska, when two large men attacked them. He said police were around but "nothing happened." REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK stated disagreement with the labeling of the proposed bill as symbolic. He opined that it is a recognition that the people who have lived in Alaska since time immemorial spoke other languages. He relayed that Barter Island got its name, because it was the place where the Gwich'in and Inupiat people met to trade. He said people did not always get along, but recognized they needed each other to trade. Representative Nageak said today people need each other. He talked about the unintended consequences of diseases that were brought to Alaska by non-Natives and killed many Native people who had no immunity to them. He said there are unintended consequences for everything. He said he does not think the bill would change anything, but is a recognition of those who are speaking the languages of their ancestors and trying to keep those languages alive. He added, "Just like you. You want English to be alive. And so, we have the same passion you do in protecting what you ... know." He said that is human nature. He reiterated that the bill is not symbolic, but is a recognition that there were people here before the Russians came. 9:38:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER said he had spent time on the North Slope, and he wished he knew more than some words in Inupiaq. He concurred with Representative Nageak that the issue is not symbolic; it is about the desire to preserve languages that are in danger of becoming extinct, which in turn would protect the cultures that use those languages. He commented on how many words for different types of snow there are in Inupiaq. He questioned why the issue is being addressed in "this format," when there are so many other things that could be done. For example, he said there could be a designated day to honor all the languages of Alaska. He said he would co-sponsor such legislation. CHAIR LYNN interjected that he also would co-sponsor such legislation. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER suggested that the state could provide funds to ensure that Native languages do not get lost. He stated, "I'm passionately with you, and I appreciate your language ... but I'm really struggling with this format." CHAIR LYNN asked Representative Keller to clarify if he was struggling with the format of Amendment 1 or the format of HB 216. REPRESENTATIVE KELLER answered the format of the proposed bill. He mentioned a "voter bill" that was passed, in which he indicated the word "official" was used, which "politicized it to a point that it seems like it might work against us; it actually might ... deepen the wedge that we don't need." 9:42:24 AM REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK indicated that the format used for HB 216 was the same as was used to make English the official language, and both are recognitions. He stated, "It's a recognition that language is used officially in a lot of things." He spoke of the period of time when he was growing up and was told not to speak his language, but people did speak it to keep it alive. He said his generation was the last to speak, read, and write his language. He said his children are struggling. He talked about language being emotional. 9:46:08 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated that he shares [Representative Nageak's] passion, and would support the efforts to honor and preserve Native languages, but he struggles with the vehicle being used. He shared a word that he said meant "white guy," and he indicated that he was described as such when he was [on the North Slope]. 9:46:24 AM CHAIR LYNN reminded the committee that Amendment 1 was before it. 9:46:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS said her parents came from Russia, but she does not speak Russian, because her parents learned English to assimilate, since the English language is "what the United States speaks and reads." She observed that the proposed legislation would do nothing to keep the Native languages alive, but it also would not hinder [efforts to do so]. She concurred with Representative Keller that a different vehicle could be used to keep the languages alive and utilize them in an educational setting. She indicated that even though she appreciated the comments from Representative Nageak, the proposed legislation is of a symbolic nature; therefore, "there's a little bit of separation there." CHAIR LYNN remarked, "It's almost like two separate bills." REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS concurred. CHAIR LYNN recognized Representative Isaacson to speak and asked him if he would be speaking to the proposed amendment or bill. 9:48:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON noted that the committee had been speaking to both, and offered to remove his objection to the motion to move Amendment 1, but noted that he had some questions about Amendment 1. He stated that he and Representative Nageak were "brothers - heart and soul," but said that on this issue, he had "heartburn." He indicated that he had supported a bill to preserve Alaska's languages that passed through the legislature. He related that he was a linguist who held a Bachelor of Arts and Linguistics, and he said he was published with a Ph.D. candidate in a peer-reviewed article in a Salish Indian dialect. He said he grew up in a family where his grandfather on his father's side did not allow his children to speak Norwegian, because they were in America. He said although he could not speak Norwegian, he had studied, formally and informally, about 10-12 languages, was in Alaska as a Russian linguist, and was in a Spanish singing group; therefore, he understood language as emotional and from the heart. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said preserving languages takes more than declaring it is official. He said, "We have never declared any language in America official - not Cherokee, not English, not German, not Spanish - and yet we've accepted English as the language of trade, and now Spanish is coming on board." He noted that when Teddy Roosevelt was President, he warned that the country could become "a boarding house of polyglot residents," where people would be unable to communicate at all. Representative Isaacson indicated there may be an unintended burden of making something official when trying to establish culture and pride and trying to be "one people recognizing the multifaceted diversity of our culture." He noted that Amendment 1 used the word "symbolic," and he offered his understanding that Representative Nageak was saying "it is a recognition - a symbolic recognition." He questioned whether "this vehicle" would "really accomplish what you and the sponsor are trying to do." 9:51:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON asked if [the people who traded on] Barter Island really had one language of trade. REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK said he thought they did, but the language was not perpetuated. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON said many cultures throughout history have adopted a trade language. He asked Representative Nageak if he would speak against Amendment 1, because of the use of the word "symbolic." REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK reiterated that "it's a recognition; it's not symbolic." He emphasized that those who spoke Native languages were in what is now Alaska much longer than those who came along after. He asked Representative Isaacson not to "parse words" with him. REPRESENTATIVE ISAACSON responded that when the legislature is speaking about law, it must parse words. He indicated that [Amendment 1] is an attempt to establish intent, and he emphasized the importance of ensuring that intent follows the law, so that future legislatures are not encumbered with, for example, "having to provide everything in 20 different languages." He said, "The next step is progression. Somebody will do something more, and someone will try to infer an intent that is not in this intent, because intent doesn't follow the codified law; it won't be in the books." He asked Representative Nageak to help him understand. 9:55:29 AM REPRESENTATIVE NAGEAK answered, "Let me remind you: We're using the same format that was used to place English as a recognized language." 9:55:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT stated that she does not understand the pushback from recognizing the first people that were in Alaska before it became part of the U.S. She indicated that the legislature passed other symbolic bills, such as making the malamute Alaska's official dog, without nearly as much discussion. She emphasized that HB 216 would be a beginning step towards restoring pride in Alaska Natives by righting a wrong that was done years ago. She continued as follows: I'm very passionate about this bill. I'm so upset that I don't know Inupiaq, that I don't know the language. I wish that my grandma wasn't beaten and told not to speak the Native language. I wish my mother wasn't ashamed of being Native and not wanting to learn her indigenous language. I want to right that wrong. REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said she has heard many stories from elders about Natives being beaten for speaking their language. She ventured that others may not understand without having walked "in some of those shoes." She asked people to "look in their hearts" and consider that "we're not doing anything with force of law": no statutes would be changed under HB 216; "English is our language"; and learning a Native language would not be mandatory. She emphasized that the proposed legislation is "a symbolic gesture to just pass on to the youth of our ... state" to encourage pride, the learning of Native languages, and a knowledge of personal history. 9:59:06 AM CHAIR LYNN indicated that what he saw happening was not a push- back, but a committee process. He opined that the proposed bill and amendment are important and worthy of committee discussion. He suggested that if the proposed legislation was not that important, perhaps the committee would not be spending so much time vetting it. 10:00:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE KREISS-TOMKINS reviewed that Alaska already has a symbolic official language, which is English. That was passed in the aforementioned 1998 voter initiative. That initiative excluded the 20 Native languages of Alaska. He said the intent of HB 216 is to recognize the people who are dedicating their lives to learning the languages, by recognizing that the languages - in the official and ceremonial sense - are to the State of Alaska equally important and just as much Alaska's languages [as English]. He concluded, "That's the significance of this bill." CHAIR LYNN asked the committee to focus again on the proposed Amendment 1. 10:01:32 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTIS [maintained] her objection to the motion to adopt Amendment 1. 10:01:51 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that HB 216 was held over. [The motion to adopt Amendment 1 was left pending, with an objection.]