[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9499-S9500]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                MEASURE READ FOR THE FIRST TIME--S. 2393

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I understand that earlier today, Senator 
Murkowski introduced S. 2393. I now ask for its first reading.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the bill for the first 
time.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2393) to protect the sovereign right of the 
     State of Alaska and prevent the Secretary of Agriculture and 
     the Secretary of the Interior from assuming management of 
     Alaska's fish and game resources.

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask for its second reading and object 
to my own request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The bill will remain at 
the desk.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. The bill will be read a second time on the next 
legislative day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this is legislation regarding the State 
of Alaska's sovereign right to manage its fish and game resources.
  The legislation will extend a current moratorium on the federal 
government from assuming control of Alaska's fisheries for two years 
until December 1, 2000.
  The language is similar to past moratoriums on this issue and is 
similar to language Congressman young added to the Interior 
Appropriations bill in the House, except that it is not conditioned 
upon action by the Alaska State Legislature.
  To every one of my colleagues their respective state's right to 
manage fish and game is absolute--every other state manages its own 
fish and game.
  In Alaska, this is not the case, and therefore, action must be taken 
to maintain the sovereign right of our state.
  Mr. President, Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA) requires the State of Alaska to provide a 
rural subsistence hunting and fishing preference on federal ``public 
lands'' or run the risk of losing its management authority over fish 
and game resources.
  If the State fails to provide the required preference by state 
statute, the federal government can step in to manage federal lands.
  The Alaska State Legislature passed such a subsistence preference law 
in 1978 which was upheld by referendum in 1982.
  The law was slightly revised in 1986, and remained on the books until 
it was struck down by the Alaska Supreme Court in 1989 as 
unconstitutional because of the Alaska Constitution's common use of 
fish and game clause.
  At that time, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture took over management of fish and game resources on federal 
public lands in Alaska.
  In 1995 a decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Katie 
John v. United States extended the law far beyond its original scope to 
apply not just to ``federal lands,'' but to navigable waters owned by 
the State of Alaska. Hence State and private lands were impacted too.
  The theory espoused by the Court was that the ``public lands'' 
includes navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water 
rights.
  If implemented, the court's decision would mean all fisheries in 
Alaska would effectively be managed by the federal government.
  Indeed in April of 1996, the Departments of the Interior and 
Agriculture published an ``advance notice of proposed rulemaking'' 
which identified about half of the state as subject to federal 
authority to regulate fishing activities.
  These regulations were so broad they could have affected not only 
fishing activities, but virtually all activities on state and federal 
lands that may have an impact on subsistence uses.
  There is no precedent in any other state in the union for this kind 
of overreaching into state management prerogatives.
  For that reason Congress acted in 1996 to place a moratorium on the 
federal government from assuming control of Alaska fisheries.
  That moratorium has twice been extended and is set to expire December 
1, 1998.
  The State's elected leaders have worked courageously to try and 
resolve this issue by placing an amendment to the state constitution 
that would allow them to come into compliance with the federal law and 
provide a subsistence priority.
  Unfortunately, the State of Alaska's constitution is not easily 
amended and these efforts have fallen short of the necessary votes 
needed to be placed before the Alaska voters.
  In fact, the legislature--the elected representatives of the people--
in the most recent special session indicated that they were not 
supportive of amending the State Constitution and putting the issue to 
a vote of the people.
  Therefore we once again are in a position where we have no other 
alternative than to extend the moratorium prohibiting a federal 
takeover of Alaska's fisheries.
  The bill I am introducing today will accomplish this. It extends the 
current moratorium through December 1, 2000.
  I believe this will provide the State's elected leaders the needed 
time to work through this dilemma as they cannot finally resolve the 
matter of amending the State Constitution until November 2000.
  Mr. President, I do not take this moratorium lightly.
  I, along with most Alaskans, believe that subsistence uses of fish 
and game should have a priority over other uses in the state.
  We have provided for such uses in the past, I hunted and fished under 
those regulations and I respected and supported them and continue to do 
so now. I believe the State can again provide for such uses without 
significant interruption to the sport or commercial fisherman.
  I also believe that Alaska's rural residents should play a greater 
role in the management and enforcement of fish and game laws in Alaska.
  They understand and live with the resources in rural Alaska. They see 
and experience the fish and game resources day in and day out. And, 
they are most directly impacted by the decisions made about use of 
those resources.
  They should bear their share of the responsibility for formulating 
fish and game laws as well enforcing fish and game laws.
  It is my hope that the State will soon provide for Alaska's rural 
residents to have this greater role while at the same time resolving 
the subsistence dilemma once and for all.
  But until that happens, I cannot stand by and watch the federal 
government move into the State and assume control of the Alaska fish 
and game resources.
  I have lived under territorial status and it does not work. In 1959 
Alaskan's

[[Page S9500]]

caught just 25.1 million salmon. Under State management we caught 218 
million salmon in 1995.
  Federal control would again be a disaster for the resources and those 
that depend on it.

                          ____________________