HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE April 10, 1997 8:08 a.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Jeannette James, Chair Representative Ethan Berkowitz Representative Fred Dyson Representative Kim Elton Representative Ivan Ivan MEMBERS ABSENT Representative Mark Hodgins Representative Al Vezey OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Reggie Joule COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 188 "An Act relating to calculation of compensation for the public employees' retirement system." - HEARD AND HELD HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 21 Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. - HEARD AND HELD SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 14 Relating to support for federal legislation permitting state concealed handgun permittees to carry concealed handguns in other states. - SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD (* First public hearing) PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 188 SHORT TITLE: DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION IN PERS SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) COWDERY JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/12/97 640 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/12/97 640 (H) STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE 04/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 BILL: HJR 21 SHORT TITLE: REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MASEK, Ogan JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 02/12/97 314 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 02/12/97 314 (H) RESOURCES, STATE AFFAIRS 03/13/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/13/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/20/97 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124 03/20/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 03/27/97 (H) MINUTE(RES) 04/01/97 893 (H) RES RPT 2DP 2DNP 3NR 04/01/97 893 (H) DP: MASEK, OGAN 04/01/97 893 (H) DNP: NICHOLIA, JOULE 04/01/97 893 (H) NR: DYSON, GREEN, HUDSON 04/01/97 894 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (H.RES) 04/01/97 894 (H) REFERRED TO STATE AFFAIRS 04/08/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 04/08/97 (H) MINUTE(STA) 04/10/97 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102 WITNESS REGISTER JOHN CYR, President National Education Association-Alaska 114 Second Street Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 586-3090 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HB 188. REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK Alaska State Legislature State Capitol, Room 432 Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182 Telephone: (907) 465-2679 POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HJR 21. ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer The Alaska Boating Association P.O. Box 210430 Anchorage, Alaska 99521 Telephone: (907) 495-6337 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. JUNE BURKHART P.O. Box 204 Willow, Alaska 99688 Telephone: (907) 495-6337 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. CHESTER BALLOT P.O. Box 256 Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 Telephone: (907) 442-7657 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. PETE SCHAEFFER P.O. Box 6 Kotzebue, Alaska 99752 Telephone: (907) 442-3703 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc. 122 First Avenue, Suite 600 Fairbanks, Alaska 99701 Telephone: (907) 452-8251 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. NOEL PUTMAN, Representative Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club P.O. Box 5122 Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-0687 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. RUSSEL COCKRUM, Board of Director Member Southeast Alaska Steamboat Owners and Operators 4677 North Tongass Highway Ketchikan, Alaska 99901 Telephone: (907) 225-3419 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. DON SHERWOOD, President The Alaska Boating Association P.O. Box 210430 Anchorage, Alaska 99521 Telephone: Not provided POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. FRANCISCA SHERWOOD 1640 Brink Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Telephone: (907) 333-6268 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. HERMAN MORGAN, Chair Central Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee P.O. Box 78 Aniak, Alaska 99557 Telephone: (907) 675-4393 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 21. PATRICK OMIAK Address not provided Little Diomede, Alaska 99762 Telephone: (907) 686-3071 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. RICHARD SLATS Chevak Traditional Council P.O. Box 140 Chevak, Alaska 99563 Telephone: (907) 858-7428 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. ALFRED McKINLEY, Sr., Executive Committee Member Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp P.O. Box 21713 Juneau, Alaska 99802-1713 Telephone: (907) 586-2061 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in opposition to HJR 21. DICK BISHOP, Executive Director Alaska Outdoor Council 211 4th Street, Number 30-A Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 463-3830 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony in support of HJR 21. DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association P.O. Box 21951 Juneau, Alaska 99802 Telephone: (907) 463-4970 POSITION STATEMENT: Provided testimony on HJR 21. ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 97-39, SIDE A Number 0001 The House State Affairs Standing Committee was called to order by Chair Jeannette James at 8:08 a.m. Members present at the call to order were Representatives James, Dyson, Elton and Ivan. Members absent were Berkowitz, Hodgins and Vezey. Representative Berkowitz arrived at 8:10 a.m. HB 188 - DEFINITION OF COMPENSATION IN PERS The first order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HB 188, "An Act relating to calculation of compensation for the public employees' retirement system." CHAIR JEANNETTE JAMES announced the House State Affairs Standing Committee would only be taking testimony today on HB 188. Number 0146 JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association-Alaska (NEA- Alaska), was the first person to testify in Juneau. The NEA-Alaska currently opposed HB 188 as written. The NEA-Alaska represented a number of Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) employees including janitors, custodians, and maintenance men who at one point in their careers were 12-month employees. However, as school funding had been reduced over the years, their employment had dropped to eight or nine months losing their ability to get a years credit in the retirement system. And, because they were school employees they were not eligible for unemployment in the summer. In addition, the work that was done traditionally in the summer, such as, heavy cleaning and painting, was now being done during Christmas break, spring break and in the evenings picking up a few hours of overtime. Therefore, overtime was scheduled by their supervisors; it was not something that they asked for. It was mean spirited to deny them access to use overtime towards their retirement. "We're not talking about people who are at the top of the pay scale. We're talking about people who - generally speaking - don't make a lot of money. They are residents of the communities that they live in." The majority of our members in rural Alaska fell under this category. The NEA-Alaska would ask that you vote "no" on this bill. Number 0347 REPRESENTATIVE FRED DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if there was a way to modify the bill so that it did not affect the employees who worked part-time? Number 0374 MR. CYR replied school district employees could be removed from the bill somehow. It would take an amendment. Number 0406 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if he had any other problems with the bill? MR. CYR replied - obviously - the NEA-Alaska had a philosophical objection to the bill. The NEA-Alaska believed that all people who worked should get the benefits of their labor. This was a management issue; overtime was scheduled by management. "It seems to us that the working people are being hurt by management's problems." Number 0483 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. Cyr if he believed - philosophically - that the principle of retirement should be based on exceptional pay and not on salary? MR. CYR replied there was a difference between a salaried and an hourly employee. An hourly employee's wage was based on the number of hours he or she worked. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he misstated his question. He meant hourly only. MR. CYR replied hourly employees should - absolutely - get the benefit of all of their labor. Number 0540 CHAIR JAMES explained she did not call overtime time and a half. She called overtime the premium that had to be paid because a person worked longer than allowed. She saw some sense in disallowing the premium time. Therefore, it did not make a difference if a person was hired to work overtime because the straight time was the charge to get the job done. The premium time was an extra bonus for working over the scheduled hours and not really the amount of hours times the rate of work. Number 0610 MR. CYR replied employees were being asked to do the same amount of work that had been done in 12-months in 8-months or 9-months now. "It is impossible to do that work in that amount of time." Overtime was a matter of getting the job done. "I believe they should be compensated for that over and above their regular pay, and that compensation, because they are giving us that section of their life, should go towards their retirement." Number 0708 REPRESENTATIVE ETHAN BERKOWITZ asked Mr. Cyr if the extra work done was pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement? MR. CYR replied, "Correct." Number 0726 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ announced he had an amendment to exempt any work performed pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement from the overtime provision. He asked Mr. Cyr what would his position be on an amendment like that? Number 0750 MR. CYR replied he had not seen the amendment yet. It made sense to exempt those covered by a collective bargaining agreement. He did not have an official reaction, however. CHAIR JAMES stated the amendment included everybody. There would not be anybody left over. CHAIR JAMES announced the amendments would not be looked at today. The bill would be held over. HJR 21 - REQUESTING CONGRESS TO AMEND ANILCA The next order of business to come before the House State Affairs Standing Committee was HJR 21, Relating to amendment of Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. CHAIR JAMES called on Representative Beverly Masek, sponsor of HJR 21, to present the resolution. Number 0894 REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK, Alaska State Legislature, explained HJR 21 offered a new approach to solving the subsistence dilemma by asking Congress to allow the people of Alaska to try to solve the problem amongst all of us here in the State. The resolution also requested that Congress make several amendments to Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) to clarify issues such as the following: what are public lands, who had management authority on state and private lands and water, should navigable waters be considered state or federal waters, should subsistence resources be sold for cash, what does "rural" mean, what does "customary and traditional" mean, and where should federal oversight occur. In addition, HJR 21 kept rural preference in Title VIII of ANILCA; it would give back to the state the authority to give a definition to "rural" and "traditional and customary." "I think that's probably one of the biggest "opposement" against this resolution is that it thinks it's going to take away that, but in fact, Madame Chairman, it's going to give the state the deciding point on how we should define them." Right now, it was clear in the Constitution of the State of Alaska that resources could not be given to one specific group. They went to all Alaskans. It was also important to note that in a time of shortage, resources would not be shut off to users, especially to users in rural areas. This had been an on-going issue in the state and there had been several approaches to try to resolve it. The members of the special task force established by Governor Hickel came up with a resolution, of which, the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) did not accept or support. Lt. Governor, Fran Ulmer, became involved using quiet diplomacy with a resolution as well. The AFN also decided not to support her concept of subsistence. "I think it's pretty much a slap in the face to the state of Alaska for AFN who has pretty much taken charge of the issue and is not being able to work with the state or with other groups set up to work on the issue." We had waited long enough; it was time to come to the table and work on a solution. The resolution was a compromise to get everybody to the table to work on the issue. In October of 1997, the federal government would start imposing their regulations on hunting and fishing on Alaska. We were the only state in the union that had this type of problem with its fish and wildlife resources. In other states, the state had the authority over its fish and wildlife resources. She was ashamed that the state of Alaska was going through this process. It was an issue that should be worked out as Alaskans. It was also important to not think of this as a decisive issue because we all lived in Alaska and we were all Alaskans. "I don't think that we're trying to take away the subsistence from the rural areas." She had not heard of any new ideas or approaches on how to solve the subsistence issue which was why the resolution was put in. It was a compromise to bring people to the table. Number 1230 REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON stated it was not just AFN that could not move towards the middle; it was other groups as well. It seemed that Representative Masek was blaming AFN for being the only party that was not willing to move. Number 1251 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied, during her years in Juneau and as a member of the Alaska Natives Commission, it seemed that AFN was the driving force to get everybody together. There were a lot of Native people who were not involved with AFN that would like to see the issue resolved but they lived in villages. It was not easy to be in a political war in a village; it was not easy to give an opinion. All the groups had to get together and right now it was AFN and the tribal entities that were coming forth. The resolution tried to bring AFN and the people from the urban and rural areas together to work on the issue. Number 1335 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Masek if she had personally tried to negotiate with AFN? Had she asked for advise on language that AFN would like to see, for example? Number 1350 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied AFN testified in the House Resources Standing Committee. She had its no net loss statement. The AFN had also held several meetings with RURALCAP in Anchorage. Basically, AFN did not want to see the definition of the term "rural" taken away. The resolution did not do that. Number 1381 CHAIR JAMES stated there was an additional definition of the term "rural" designed by the courts. The resolution would question that definition which, in her opinion, needed to be questioned. She asked Representative Masek if she would be willing to participate in discussions in a one-on-one meeting with AFN? Number 1401 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied she would not have a problem with that. There were other individual Natives in the rural areas who wanted to see the issue resolved, but they did not have the same vision as AFN. Those were the people that she wanted to hear from. CHAIR JAMES agreed with Representative Masek. She had talked to a lot of them too. There was a group out there that would like to resolve this issue. Number 1423 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN IVAN apologized for arriving late this morning. He was not feeling well: bronchitis. The issue was too important not to come today, however. The Alaskan Native community had gone through the political process with the Venetie case a few weeks ago when the state appropriated $1 million. The issue was still festering in rural Alaska. He saw the resolution as "throwing salt to the wounds." "I don't believe we need this at all." He asked Representative Masek, in her opinion, what process would it take to amend ANILCA with 100 Senators and 427 Representatives in Congress? And, what would happen once the door was opened? Number 1514 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied the resolution sent a clear message to Congress. Right now, the state had senior representation in Congress. The process would begin by sending the resolution to Alaska's congressional delegation to give the message that Alaskans wanted to see the issue resolved. There were minor changes to ANILCA that would require additional legislation in Congress as well. At the state level, we would have to do what it spelled out in the resolution. Number 1565 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated in no way were his questions tied to Representative Masek personally. He only spoke to the resolution. The senior Senator she referred to recently spoke to the Alaska State Legislature indicating that he did not support the resolution. And he was one of the most senior senators in the nation in terms of appropriations. Therefore, he would go by his word and not go forward with a message like the resolution because he would turn it down. In addition, a lot of his constituents did not appreciate what was being done in forwarding the resolution. Number 1621 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied Senator Murkowski and Representative Young were willing to work on the resolution. They would not have a problem with a discussion or a debate on the issue. "We need to do something in the state," she declared. Alaska was large and diverse, but the issue was destroying the state and hurting people not only in the rural areas but throughout Alaska as well. "We can't continue to shut the door on one another." It was not appropriate for the future of Alaska or for the future generations of Alaskans. Where do we want to see our state go? she asked. If we continued to do nothing then the federal government would continue to come in and take over. The federal government was allowing the resources to go to a closed class group of people. It was not appropriate. The state had enough fish and game to satisfy the needs of most Alaskans. It was especially important to continue that in the rural areas. The resolution would not take that away. Number 1702 CHAIR JAMES said she agreed with the statements in the resolution and the general concept. However, the Native population felt comfortable and protected with the term "rural" and the court's definitions. The resolution asked the federal government to insert authority for the state to decide what was rural. Thus, the change was threatening to the current status with only a promise to fix it. She asked Representative Masek if it would be better to fix it first then ask for a change? CHAIR JAMES further stated there was the possibility that the issue could be addressed under the "Common Use" clause of the Constitution of the State of Alaska thereby not amending the constitution and putting rural in as a preference. She asked Representative Masek if it would be more prudent if there was a piece of legislation on the table that would in fact show how to address the subsistence needs via the "Common Use" section of the constitution before asking the federal government to change its language so that it compared with what the state already agreed to? Number 1803 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied the issue could not be resolved unless everybody came to the table to work on it. The resolution sent a message on how to begin. Some of the provisions would bring compromise between the urban and rural areas in regards to rural preference in ANILCA. The Constitution of the State of Alaska was in conflict with Title VIII of ANILCA and until it was addressed we could not start with other discussions. Number 1857 CHAIR JAMES asked Representative Masek what would be the effect, if the resolution was passed and sent to Washington D.C., while at the same time AFN put together a resolution and sent it to Washington D.C.? In her opinion it would send a message that the state was still mixed up with no solution. Number 1911 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK replied it was important to start the approach. The stepping stones begin with the passage of the resolution. There were other states that also saw our problems and they would be willing to listen to both sides of the issue. Number 1938 CHAIR JAMES explained to Representative Masek that she honestly and sincerely appreciated her for bringing the resolution forward. She was not being critical towards Representative Masek. She was being critical about whether or not this was what should be done and what should be said. She was not discrediting her; she admired her for bringing the issue forward. Number 1972 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK stated the resolution said plainly what should be done and said. It would start a trail on its own as it was doing here in the committee hearings in Alaska. CHAIR JAMES agreed the issue was the most serious before the state. Number 1996 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN said the state was not even together yet in regards to this issue. He did not agree with the resolution and his constituents did not agree with it either. He would submit for the record the correspondence that he had received from his constituents. He reiterated he did not agree with the concept or the route that Representative Masek was taking. Number 2040 REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked, in conclusion, that the House State Affairs Standing Committee pass the resolution out of the committee as soon as possible. CHAIR JAMES opened the meeting up to the legislative teleconference network. She asked that the testifiers keep their testimony to the following two aspects: should a message be sent to Washington D.C. requesting help to solve this dilemma; and, if a message should be sent, what should it say? Number 2166 ROY BURKHART, Legislative Affairs Officer, The Alaska Boating Association, was the first person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. The association supported the resolution for a number of reasons. Subsistence was not the primary reason, however. This was a case where the federal government had passed a law that was in contradiction to the Constitution of the State of Alaska. The state's constitution was in compliance with the federal constitution. Now the federal government was asking the state to change its constitution. This was wrong irregardless of the issue and we should take a stand. In addition, Representative Ivan had stated that the Natives in the bush were upset regarding the state's appropriation of $1 million for the Venetie case. He reminded Representative Ivan that many of the benefits and wins of the Native Americans had come from the court system. The same court system that the state was going into to address the issue. Therefore, the state did have a right to appropriate money to go to court. Moreover, he believed that Senator Stevens was not really against the resolution. The senator believed that he could not get the resolution through Congress which was okay. The resolution would send a message that the people of the state of Alaska would stand by its constitution. Whether Senator Stevens could get the resolution passed or not was not the point. In addition, Senator Stevens was against Indian country. The issue should not be based on whether or not Senator Stevens was for or against the resolution. It should be based on what the people of Alaska wanted and the state government. In conclusion, he thanked Representative Masek for submitting the resolution. She had been criticized from a lot of the Natives because of this. The criticisms were false and the reason that she took a stance such as this was because she believed that the Native people did not need a special handout. Number 2294 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained to Mr. Burkhart that Senator Stevens was specifically asked if he supported the resolution; and he replied: "I oppose this resolution." Representative Ivan was correct in his characterization of the senator's position. Number 2294 MR. BURKHART replied he was not there so he bowed to that. Number 2313 REPRESENTATIVE IVAN stated to Mr. Burkhart that he had constituents that believed the resolution would be the wrong message to Congress. Number 2336 JUNE BURKHART was the next person to testify via teleconference in Mat-Su. She was testifying today to ask that the House State Affairs Standing Committee support HJR 21 by Representative Masek and Ogan. It was long overdue and a brave act by two fine young legislators. "I truly hope it leads to paving the way for necessary amendments to Title VIII of ANILCA." The encroachment of federal agencies upon the ability of the state to manage its resources was unfair; it jeopardized the power and rights of the people. The Constitution of the State of Alaska conformed to the Constitution of the United States, therefore, it should not have to be amended. The just and clear way to accomplish this was to amend ANILCA. The state should not sit back and not try just because it believed that there would not be support in Washington D.C. when the resolution was an excellent tool to be heard at the national level. She encouraged a swift adoption; it was a must. Number 2414 CHESTER BALLOT was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue. He opposed the resolution. He turned over his remaining time to Mr. Pete Schaeffer. Number 2430 PETE SCHAEFFER was the next person to testify via teleconference in Kotzebue. He opposed the passage of HJR 21. The people needed to get together first before trying to modify the federal law. Experience had shown it was difficult to go to Washington D.C. with a split plate of support. He was against the resolution because it gutted ANILCA. The approach was backwards. TAPE 97-39, SIDE B Number 0016 GABE SAM, Director of Wildlife and Parks, Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., was the next person to testify via teleconference in Fairbanks. The chiefs were opposed to HJR 21 on the grounds of the definition of "public lands" excluding state and private land. The chiefs also opposed the authorization of the state of Alaska to define the terms "rural" and "customary and tradition" for the purposes of the definition of subsistence uses. The term "rural" had already been defined in Title VIII of ANILCA. The chiefs also opposed amending the subsistence preference established in ANILCA under 16 U.S.C. 3114 to provide a preference for a reasonable opportunity to take fish and wildlife for subsistence uses. Reasonable opportunity was too vague inviting more litigation. The chiefs also opposed clarifying that ANILCA neither affirmed or denied the existence of tribal sovereignty and Indian country in Alaska. It was a separate issue. The chiefs also opposed allowing the state of Alaska to choose whether it would establish a regional subsistence advisory council system. There already was a federal advisory council so why duplicate the efforts. The chiefs also opposed providing that regional subsistence advisory councils were only advisory to regulatory boards. It was a bit confusing. The chiefs also opposed eliminating commercial use and sale of fish and wildlife taken for subsistence uses. Number 0151 NOEL PUTMAN, Representative, Ketchikan Sports and Wildlife Club, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. The club supported the passage of HJR 21. The membership wanted to know where it stood in regards to its right to hunt and fish on public land. The gray area - Title VIII of ANILCA - had been prevalent for too many years; it needed to be addressed now. The resolution was the best start currently being proposed to hopefully see an end to the federal take over of Alaska's resources. The club adamantly would refuse changing the Constitution of the State of Alaska in regards to ANILCA. The club suggested, if Title VIII of ANILCA was not changed, that it should apply to all federal lands within the lower forty-eight states. "I think that you would hear an uproar so loud the walls of Congress would collapse." Number 0191 RUSSEL COCKRUM, Board of Director Member, Southeast Alaska Steamboat Owners and Operators, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Ketchikan. There were some real problems on the horizon for the great state of Alaska. The cold, hard facts were that if the legislature did not do something this session, there was a real possibility that the federal government would take over the management of all aspects of fish and game resources by October. The ANILCA had to be amended and the points addressed in HJR 21 needed to be resolved - now. Any lack of action by the lawmakers would be a tremendous injustice to the commercial fishing fleet and other users. "I believe the fox is in the hen house, and he's our federal government." Number 0244 DON SHERWOOD, President, The Alaska Boating Association, was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. He was an avid hunter and fisherman. He thanked Representatives Masek and Ogan for introducing the resolution. The Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture said that the state had to amend its constitution to confirm to Title VIII of ANILCA as a precondition to "partial" relinquishment of federal management of fish and wildlife on public lands and waters. The Constitution of the State of Alaska conformed to the Constitution of the United States and the state should not have to change it in any way. The only clear way to resolve this issue was to convince the Congressional legislators that ANILCA was where the changes should be made. The resolution needed grass-roots support to be successful. The association thanked the committee members for listening to its comments and for doing a great job towards its future. Number 0306 FRANCISCA SHERWOOD was the next person to testify via teleconference in Anchorage. She had been a proud Alaskan citizen for over 31 years. She had raised two sons who had given her five grandchildren in Alaska. She thanked Representatives Ogan and Masek for introducing HJR 21 to the people of Alaska. She supported HJR 21 and asked that the committee members act swiftly to approve the resolution. It was necessary if the agencies of Alaska were to gain control of the management and use of the state's fish and wildlife on public lands and waterways. Only ANILCA could stop the intervention. Amending the Constitution of the State of Alaska was not necessary and it was unfair to ask the people to do so. She pleaded with the committee members to approve the resolution to let the federal government know that the state wanted ANILCA to be amended so that the state could control its resources. Number 0372 HERMAN MORGAN, Chair, Central Kuskokwim Fish and Game Advisory Committee, was the next person to testify via off-net in Aniak. He was also on the federal advisory committee recently formed. He was a half-breed so he was not prejudiced towards anybody. If the resolution passed, it would not prevent the federal takeover of Alaska's fish and game management. By this time next year when Alaska did not have control of its fishing and resources, who would be remembered as the person who could have done something to stop this? In addition, a lot of the different management areas did not know if they were on state or federal land creating a death mill for Alaska's resources. He cited the wolf issue as an example. The state could not do anything to stop it. If the federal government took over fishing there would be a lot more restrictions. "We Alaskans should stop fighting amongst ourselves." Let's do it for ourselves and the resources and the only way to do this was to amend the state's constitution. Number 0450 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Morgan if the only other agreement was to amend the constitution and put the rural preference in? MR. MORGAN replied the people should be allowed to vote on whether we wanted that or not. We owe it to the resources. At the rate right now, we were not going to have any kind of control. Just look at the salmon condition in the lower forty-eight states. Decisions were made by extremists wanting to protect the resources. We did not want to see that up here in Alaska. This was almost the last place on earth that was not destroyed. Number 0480 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Morgan if he would agree that there was another way to define what the real subsistence need was in Alaska without amending the constitution? Number 0489 MR. MORGAN replied there were a lot of people out there that were poor. They only made $10,000 a year, for example, relying on wildlife to eat, and they were in competition with a doctor who made $300,000 a year hunting for fun. He reiterated it was not fair that the people could not vote on the issue. Number 0519 PATRICK OMIAK was the next person to testify via off-net in Little Diomede. The Native village of Diomede Island was opposed to HJR 21. If ANILCA needed to be amended he wanted to see that the Natives were involved. In addition, the state and federal government needed to learn how to work together. Number 0558 RICHARD SLATS, Chevak Traditional Council, was the next person to testify via off-net in Chevak. The council opposed HJR 21. He read the following statement into the record: "The Kashunamiut are a federally recognized tribe who is represented by their tribal government, the Chevak Traditional Council whose primary goal is to protect the health, safety and welfare and the inherent traditional and cultural rights of the Kashunamiut and for their best interests. Let this affidavit acknowledge that we are in Opposition to the House Joint Resolution No. 21 as it infringes upon our inherent rights and will exploit our ancestral lands which are located on the Yukon Kuskokwim Delta National Wildlife Refuge and has been protected by Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act - Title VIII (ANILCA, Title VIII, hereinafter). Subsistence Use and Management as it is written. "ANILCA Title VIII, should not be amended because the Resolution HJR 21 contradicts the whole purpose of the Policy and Purpose of the Title VIII. These amendments are directly contradicting the RURALCAP Subsistence Round Table, held in Anchorage February 1997. The State of Alaska may be of compliance of ANILCA TITLE VIII, concerning Subsistence. The State of Alaska tends to lean towards "sports, commercial and other special interest group" that are not aware of the importance of subsistence issues and use for the rural communities. "The following are section responses to `FURTHER RESOLVED' of the proposed resolution: "(1) `Public Land' is already defined in the Federal Register. Volume 57 No. 20 and ANILCA, Title VIII. "(2) Congress is already authorized to take over management if the State is not in compliance. "(4) `Section 807' provides for protection of subsistence users and repeal would undermine authority of the Federal Judicial System. "(5) The terms Customary and Traditional Use, Subsistence Use, and rural are defined and established in the Federal Registrar of the Department of Agriculture, and Interior, under Sec. 4 Definition of Subpart A-General Provision. They listed as such in the Final, Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska which attests to the Webster's definition of. The definition of the aforementioned terms are already defined and what this resolution proposes to do is authorize the State of Alaska to rewrite the Webster's Dictionary to soothe Masek's an Ogan's HJR 21. "(6) Under ANILCA Title VIII, Sec. 804, the subsistence preference is addressed. HJR 21 contradicts the purpose and policy of Title VIII. "(7) Tribal Sovereignty and Indian Country issues have been awarded to the Tribes across Alaska but is presently in the Appeal process, no amendments should even be considered as Court cases are and may be pending. "(8) The State of Alaska should not have an option. If subsistence management is handed to the State of Alaska, than it would be their obligation to establish regional advisory councils, meaning they should be mandated to establish such councils rather than choose to. "(9) The Sections (8) and (9) proposed amendments are addressed in Sec. 805 (a)(2) and (3) (D) (IV). "(10) The sale of Fish and Wildlife taken for subsistence uses, supplements incomes for expenses incurred for hunting necessities, i.e. ammunition, gasoline and oil, and other gears to do more subsistence hunting and fishing. "There are provisions in the ANILCA Title VIII, Section 16 USC 3110 that the State can enter into an Cooperative Agreement rather than rewriting the whole purpose and policy of the Act. "ANILCA, Title VIII should not be Amended the resolution would undermine the purpose of ANILCA and the groundwork that has been established for Subsistence Management. "The items that are addressed in HJR 21 are already defined and addressed by the Dept. of Agriculture and Department of Interior published in Federal Register Vol. 57, No. 21 January 1992, Proposed Rules. "THE KASHUNAMIUT, THE CHEVAK TRADITIONAL COUNCIL, THE CHEVAK TRIBAL COURTS AND THEIR DEPARTMENTS URGES DO NOT PASS THIS RESOLUTION!!!" Number 0885 ALFRED McKINLEY, Sr., Executive Committee Member, Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp, was the first person to testify in Juneau. He read the following statement into the record: "Madame chairman, State Affairs. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify before your. My name is Alfred McKinley, Sr. I am executive committee members of the Alaska Native Brotherhood Grand Camp, I am also a elected delegate to a recognized tribe of central council Tlingit-Haida Indian tribes of Alaska. I am here to testify in opposition to HJR 21 because it annuls or alters ANILCA. "ANILCA Title VIII, Sec. 801 (4) states `in order to fulfill the policies and purposes of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and as a matter of equity, it is necessary for the Congress to invoke the constitutional authority over Native affairs and its constitutional authority under the property clause and the commerce clause to protect and provide the opportunity for continued subsistence uses on the public lands by Natives and non-Natives rural residents.' "The Alaska Native community maintains that the current level of federal subsistence protections granted under Title VIII of ANILCA must be guaranteed in any solution to resolve the ongoing subsistence impasse. The Alaska Natives will not support any compromise that diminishes the subsistence preference, Title VIII's geographical jurisdiction. The powers and the responsibilities of the federal agencies and federal court oversight on that mandates federal judicial deference to state courts or state regulatory decisions. The Alaska Native community will not support any amendment to ANILCA other than that which guarantees a Native subsistence preference. "The Alaska Native community endorses an amendment to the state constitution that brings the state into compliance with ANILCA. "Madame chairman this is our concrete position on HJR 21 which we strongly oppose. If the bill is passed by the state legislatures, we will strongly oppose any amendment to ANILCA at the Congressional level." MR. McKINLEY, Sr. read the following reply into the record to the anticipated issue of extinguished aboriginal fishing rights by Congress in 43 U.S.C. S 1603(b): "Congress expected that the state and federal agencies would protect subsistence hunting and fishing, 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2247, 2250. In 1980, frustrated with their failure to do so, Congress enacted ANILCA. Title VIII of ANILCA required that rural Alaska residence be accorded a priority for subsistence hunting and fishing on public lands - 16 U.S.C. 3113, 3114. "If the state legislature were to amend the state constitution or otherwise comply with ANILCA's rural subsistence priority, the state could resume management of subsistence uses on public lands including navigable waters. "Its up to the Alaska State Legislatures to act." MR. McKINLEY, Sr. further stated that according to the statistics the debate was over less than 1 percent of the fish and wildlife that Native people took to their communities. "It's kind of ridiculous to be debating over 1 percent." Number 1114 CHAIR JAMES stated there was not anybody out there who would disagree with Mr. McKinley, Sr. nor who would want to take the right away. However, the court definition of the term "rural" was not the same as how Alaskans understood the term. In particular, the Kenai Peninsula, and along the Parks and Glen Highways, for example, were classified as rural. Therefore, the definition of rural brought in other people than what was intended by ANILCA in the first place. "I believe the `rural' definition in ANILCA was put in there to protect that very lifestyle that you're talking to me about." Number 1202 MR. McKINLEY, Sr. replied he had been involved in the subsistence issue since 1977. At that time, his people fought against subsistence because of the simple reason that Native women were marrying or had married non-Native men and the off-spring was family. In 1978, his people could not fight the issue anymore because they were out numbered. The alternative was legislation including both non-Natives and Natives. As-long-as there was good management in the system everybody would be treated equally. In other words, as-long-as there were resources available. However, if the resources were scarce then the rural communities would have priority over urban communities. Consequently, the terms "rural" and "urban" had to be defined. The urban areas were defined as: Anchorage, Ketchikan, Juneau, and Fairbanks. He understood why the areas mentions were chosen because everybody wore a tie to go to work. Therefore, divide the offices and scatter them over the rural communities so that everybody would have a job and there would be equality. Number 1370 CHAIR JAMES commented on the subsistence versus hunting issue of deer in Ketchikan. The decision to allow subsistence hunting only was not based on science. Number 1459 MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied according to ANILCA Ketchikan was considered an urban area. The state managed the fish and game as of today, however. If the management was left up to the Natives as they were taught through the generations they would not have a problem managing the resources because they knew more than the superior court judge who adjudicated the problem. "If you see one fish up stream, for example, we were taught to leave it alone." MR. McKINLEY, Sr., further stated if the resources were scarce the decision was left up to the Secretary of Interior and the state of Alaska to enact the priority. However, the politicians went with the popular contest and decided not to put the gavel down for fear of criticism. As a result, it was snuck into ANILCA. "If you had left it to us, this topic would not be here today." Number 1712 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON said he was confused by the testimony of Mr. McKinley, Sr. He read clearly in his statement that the distribution of subsistence game should be based on ethnicity or race -Natives only. Later on, in seemed that subsistence priority should be based on rural peoples including Natives and non-Natives. Number 1786 MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied in the event that the resources were depleted then Natives and non-Natives in the rural communities would have priority. Number 1820 REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr., on what basis did he want state resources - fish and game - to be distributed on the basis of race? MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied as an urban Juneau resident it should be based on necessity for survival. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr. regardless of race? MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied he did not know how to answer the question. REPRESENTATIVE DYSON asked Mr. McKinley, Sr. to explain his testimony regarding the marriage of Native women to non-Native men. MR. McKINLEY, Sr., replied his people did not want this type of law at all because of Native women marrying non-Native men and vice versa. The off-spring would become our blood, therefore, we should just leave it alone. It was not our people who brought this subsistence issue out and he did not know where it came from either. The only alternative was to provide input resulting in the issue of today. Number 2215 DICK BISHOP, Executive Director, Alaska Outdoor Council (AOC), was the next person to testify in Juneau. The AOC was a statewide organization of outdoor conservation user groups that supported sound management of fish, game and habitats consistent with the state constitution. It promoted the safe and ethical use of firearms as well. The council strongly supported at its meeting recently to support HJR 21 because of the potential threat of a federal take over in fisheries management to the extent that it had taken over game management. The council also supported HJR 21 because it identified Title VIII's elements of infringement on the state's traditional rights and responsibilities to provide to its citizens the benefits of fish and wildlife use. It also supported the resolution because it did not reject the recognition of subsistence embodied in the federal law. It did not throw the concept out; it modified it so that it would work and be fair. The AOC strongly supported the values associated with subsistence use of wildlife and other renewable resources. He became involved in the issue in 1975. TAPE 97-40, SIDE A Number 0001 MR. BISHOP further stated that he became personally involved because there were no provisions that overlapped the areas of use by Alaskans. Unfortunately, he had not been able to let go since. Subsistence was an issue that he got sick of over the years, but never go tired of it. The AOC strongly supported the values associated with subsistence uses. He discussed a bill (HB 552) that was introduced five years ago on behalf of Governor Hickel to try to come up with a new version of the state subsistence law that would work and fairly accommodate both subsistence uses and other uses. The difficulty was in conveying the idea and importance of the value of subsistence to the legislature and to the public. He read the following findings from the bill: "The legislature finds that there are Alaskans both Native and non- Native who have a traditional, social, or cultural relationship to and dependence upon the wild renewable resources produced by Alaskans land and water. The harvest and use of fish and game for personal and group consumption is an intricate part of those relationships. Although, customs, traditions and beliefs vary, these Alaskans share ideals of respect for nature, the importance of using resources wisely and the value and dignity of a way of life in which they use Alaska's fish and game for a substantial portion of their sustenance. This way of life is recognized as subsistence. Customary and traditional uses of Alaska's fish and game originated with Alaskan Natives and had been adopted and supplemented by many non-Native Alaskans as well. These uses, among others, are culturally, socially, spiritually, and nutritionally important and provide a sense of identity for many subsistence users." MR. BISHOP read the statement to reemphasize that the members of the AOC appreciated and consider important the values associated with subsistence uses. It was not opposed to subsistence use or a subsistence lifestyle. He explained that only portions of HB 552 were incorporated into state law due to the opposition of AFN. Other groups also opposed the bill, but the AFN was the principle group that opposed it in the legislature even though it did not affect federal law. The AOC was a group that agreed with the bill. However, the council had consistently been unwilling to negotiate away sound conservation or fairness and allocation uniquely protected by Alaska's law. Number 0480 CHAIR JAMES asked Mr. Bishop if anyone who objected to amending the constitution to include the term "rural" or supported the resolution by sending it to Washington D.C. could not be construed to oppose subsistence in the bush areas? In other words, was the issue of whether or not the bush communities even had subsistence argued by the public? This was a dispute trenched into position and neither side appeared to want to get off of their position and assume the other position - amend ANILCA or amend the constitution. The individuals who wanted to amend the constitution felt it was the only way to protect their subsistence lifestyle. She wondered, therefore, if the individuals who wanted to amend ANILCA wanted to do away with a subsistence lifestyle. Number 0589 MR. BISHOP replied there were people who believed that there should not be any priority whatsoever in state law for the use of fish and game. They took the terms "common use" and "equal protection" literally. Most people would say that if a family, for example, was in need of those resources for its livelihood there ought to be a way to accommodate it for its needs, especially if there were few alternatives. The idea, however, was muddled in ANILCA. The AOC believed that subsistence use was appropriate. It did not need to be institutionalized in law to accommodate and prioritize it, however. There was no "rural priority" prior to 1978; it was simply a "priority". The operation of fish and game boards and departments attempted to accommodate the uses where needed. Personally, he felt that the majority of the people would support the idea of a preference where there was a need for it. Rural preference was over inclusive because it included people in rural Alaska who did not need a priority, and it was under inclusive because it excluded people in urban Alaska who should be able to exercise it. Number 0775 DEAN PADDOCK, Executive Director, Bristol Bay Driftnetters Association, was the next person to testify in Juneau. He was deeply concerned about the issue addressed in HJR 21. He had been involved in either the management or utilization of wildlife resources since residency 42 years ago. He was concerned financially as a representative of a commercial fishing group. He was also concerned emotionally as a long-term resident. He admitted to being confused by the widely varying responses to the resolution. He saw Alaskans becoming more and more polarized which troubled him. Some said ANILCA was not broken while other said the short comings were creating problems that would change the way society functioned. "I guess that you must number me in this group because I feel that the preeminent concern here is that Alaskans remain united as Alaskans." He came to Alaska with scant knowledge of her past, but with great hopes for her future. He had lived for 20 years in rural Alaska before moving to Juneau. His major concern was not financial but emotional and psychological. He had repeatedly looked at HJR 21 and he did not see it as anti-Native. If it were anti-Native, he could not support it. He supported a subsistence priority where needed, but as a prior resource manager he recognized that wildlife and fishery resources were finite. He also supported the direction of HJR 21 because the alternative should not be acceptable to society and to all Alaskans. The inter-racial marriage issue raised earlier was a fact. "It is us. For what it's worth in my veins you have the blood of Scottish kings, German peasants, and French nobility. I'll sell all of that to you for 25 cents, the price of a cup of coffee upstairs." He did not know of any other way to get from where we were to where we needed to go except by re-examining ANILCA. He cited, the failure to address the ambiguities of ANILCA would result in a federal takeover of the management of Alaska's commercial fishery this year. Those who had knowledge of federal management prior to statehood, especially of the commercial fisheries, really would want to go back. Federal management was control from a far by those academically concerned. In other words, those who did not really care. The failure to address the shortcoming of ANILCA as a major step towards the recolonization and Balkanization of Alaska and an end to the prospects of going forward into a shinning future with a strong and united Alaskan society. CHAIR JAMES announced the bill would be held over until Tuesday, April 15, 1997. ADJOURNMENT Number 1161 CHAIR JAMES adjourned the House State Affairs Standing Committee meeting at 10:00 a.m.