MINUTES OF THE ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE AND MINING Sixty-eighth Session April 5, 1995 The Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining was called to order at 1:15 p.m., on Wednesday, April 5, 1995, Chairman John C. Carpenter presiding in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. John C. Carpenter, Chairman Mrs. Marcia de Braga, Chairman Mr. Max Bennett, Vice Chairman Mrs. Genie Ohrenschall, Vice Chairman Mr. Douglas A. Bache Mr. Thomas A. Fettic Mr. David E. Humke Mr. P.M. Roy Neighbors Mr. Brian Sandoval Mrs. Gene Wines Segerblom GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Senator Dean Rhoads STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: David S. Ziegler, Senior Research Analyst OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Busselman, Nevada Farm Bureau; Charles S. Watson, Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association.; Stephanie Licht, Elko County Commissioners; Ken Hopkins, Citizen for Const. Nevada; Brenda Trainer, Washoe County Lib't.Party; Janine Hansen, Nevada Eagle Forum; Sherri Lakin, Nevada Eagle Forum; Cynthia Kennedy, Nv. Freedom Coalition & Citizens for Const. NV; Linda Harrison, Citizen; Robert Larkin, United States Forest Service; Paula Berkley, Reno Sparks Indian Colony; Nick Zufelt, United States Forest Service; Francis Gillings, Citizen; Dan Hanson, Independent Party; Erin O'Connor, United States Forest Service; Kim Christensen, United States Forest Service; Mike (Ike) Yochum, I.F.I.P.; A. Brian Wallace, Washoe Tribe of NV/CA; David Horton, Committee to Restore the Const.; Jim Dennis; Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America; Tom Johnson, NV Sentinel & NV Freedom Coalition; Dennis Grover, NV Freedom Coalition; Jan Brown, Citizen; Stanleigh H. Lusdek, Citizen; Elsie Dupree, NV Wildlife Federation; Jim Mikkelsen, Citizen; Don Bowman, Citizen; Lucille Lusk, NV Concerned Citizens; Arlan Melendez, Reno-Sparks Indian Colony; Mark D. Williams, Citizen; Juanita Cox, People To Protect America; Scott Dickinson, NV Concerned Citizens; Tom & Judy Stown, NV Concerned Citizens; Steven Dempsey, NV Concerned Citizens; Keith Kindred, NV Concerned Citizens; Christine Hunsaker, NV Concerned Citizens; Pat McMillan, NV Concerned Citizens; Juanita Clark, Independent American Party; Edward R. Williams, Patriot; Jim Marion, 10th Amendment; Jan Horne; 10th Amendment; Joseph S. Davis, 10th Amendment; Dell W. Feller, Citizen; Carolyn Smith, Citizen; Hand Garrett; Chuck Howe, 10th Amendment Committee; Florence Payne, 10th Amendment Committee; Robert Rose, Citizen; Theodore E. Mendalski, Citizen; Jacqueline P. George, Citizen; Carol Truesdale, 10th Amendment; Rosa Benizik, 10th Amendment; Annette Juda, 10th Amendment; Paul Judd, 10th Amendment; Barbara Goodwin, Citizen; LaVonne Lawlor, Citizen; Rob Gibbons, Citizen; B.T. Sisson, U.W.S.A.; Bob Tonelli, U.W. S.A.; Wayne & Loretta Browning, Citizens; Barbara Werner, 10th Amendment; Phil Miranda, Citizen; Kathryn Kame, Citizen; Katreen Romanoff, U.W.S.A., 10th Amendment; Carol Kelts, 10th Amendment; Mike Pasek, Citizen; Sheldon C. Hunsaker, 10th Amendment; Gail Coons, 10th Amendment; Myron Hughes, Citizen; Dorothy Orr, 10th Amendment; Arthur Stokes, 10th Amendment. Chairman Carpenter called the meeting to order. The secretary called the roll. Mr. Carpenter said there were two Resolutions to hear today, S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. He welcomed the audience through the media of teleconferencing and said testimony would be taken from Las Vegas as well as Carson City. Senator Dean Rhoads the prime sponsor of S.J.R.1 will testify, and also speak on S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. "On S.J.R. 1, I think it was only fitting the battle over states rights should be the first S.J.R. considered and passed in the Senate. The resolution both in the Senate and now in the Assembly is all about mandates by the Federal government. I am sure every committee, as you members of the Assembly serve on, has discussed Federal mandates already several times during the hearing processes this session. This resolution serves notice and demand to the Federal government to cease and desist immediately the enactment of enforcement of mandates which are beyond the powers delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution of the United States. This is the first time in over 200 years that the states all over America are starting to make a major effort to control their own agendas, reversing decades of Federal mandates both funded and unfunded. The fact that originally we the state and the Federal government were to be an equal partnership has been forgotten by our Federal authorities. Today the issue of Federalism has risen and is getting national headlines. This debate concerning the proper relationship between the state and Federal government began with the writing of the Declaration of Independence about 220 years ago. This issue was more thoroughly addressed a few years later in 1791 as one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment which states; `The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' Not since the Sagebrush Rebellion of the 80's in President Reagan's Federalism Advisory Committee, which I served on in the 80's, has the Federal state imbalance been so obvious. The passage of S.J.R. 1 will also be a very timely signal to the nation and particularly to the President and members of Congress in Washington, D.C. Next year is an election year, and I believe the States Rights issue will be of, if not the major issue in next years' Presidential race. I realize S.J.R.1 is only a resolution but is one that has been gaining support throughout the Nation. Some 20 states have passed this resolution today and some 20 other states are addressing this issue at the present time." Mrs. de Braga asked Senator Rhoads if any of the other states have challenged these proposals in court. Senator Rhoads said no not to his knowledge. Senator Rhoads said the disclaimer clause, which was passed during the last session unanimously will go to the voters in 1996, if the Assembly passes it this session. "By allowing the voters of Nevada to vote on this issue it should send a loud and true message to Congress and the Executive Branch in Washington, D.C. There were 27 states whose enabling acts surrendered unappropriated public lands within the borders to the Federal government. Of these 27 only 15 including Nevada had to sign what we call a forever disclaimant on all the public lands in the state. We had to sign this foregoing sentence, "forever disclaimed all rights or title to the unappropriated public lands lying within." Only 15 states had to sign that binding Legislation. That leaves 35 states that either were granted all or part of the lands within their borders and still have the right today to acquire Federal lands within their border. Also, during the days of the original Sagebrush Rebellion in 1979-80, our legal council, Rex Lee, who is Dean of Law School at Brigham Young University, advised us that the disclaimer clause would be a detriment to any future legal action with the Federal government. That it would weaken our case and it should be repealed. Last year during the Legislative Committee on Public Lands, we took a strong support, supporting the repeal of disclaimer clause and wrote letters to the other 27 states. Many responses have been received from Governors, Attorney Generals and State Leaders who have responded expressing sympathy and support to Nevada's position. I have a handful of letters here from the Governor of Colorado, Roy Romer, Governor of Florida, Laughton Childs, the Senior Minority Leader in Utah, Senator Scott Howe, The House of Representatives from Arkansas, Attorney General from North Dakota, Attorney General from Michigan, State Senator in Oregon, Representative from South Dakota, another Representative from Florida. There is a lot of interest throughout the Nation, that Nevada was not treated on an equal basis. The bottom line is that the main reason to support this Resolution, as long as we are owned and controlled by the Federal government, we are going to be a candidate for everything that comes along that no other state wants, nuclear dumps, perhaps in the next 20 years they will need some place to store garbage, because the Federal government owns 87 percent of our state we might be a massive garbage dump someplace. As I have said many times in the last 15 years, if Nevada does not challenge the Federal government on this statewide issue, we will become the garbage dump of America in the next decade ahead. So I urge your support on both of these Resolutions and appreciate being able to testify today." Mr. Carpenter asked if anyone had any questions at this time. He noted we would take about three proponents of the Legislation from Carson City and then we will take about three from Las Vegas who desire to speak in favor. There are others in opposition to the resolutions and then we will hear from them. Mr. Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau, expressed strong support for both of the resolutions under consideration today by this committee. He said in the case of S.J.R. 1, recognizing there was a 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 10th Amendment meant something. Mr. Busselman besides sending a strong message to the Federal government, said hopefully it would send a message to some of the officials within the state of Nevada who we need to stand up to the Federal government and express the sovereignty Nevada has over our natural resources, including water resources. He said in reference to S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session, Nevada Farm Bureau has had a strong policy position over the last number of years in wanting to have the state of Nevada gain control over the public lands of the state of Nevada. Some might speak if S.J.R 27 were adopted and put toward the voters the question would be of turning public lands into private lands. Mr. Busselman said it was not a position they supported, they believed public lands are public lands and probably should remain so. In managing the public lands those who reside in the local areas were best able to manage responsibly the resources which would be in their backyard. A structure should be created to allow for those individuals to have control of their destiny by being able to manage the resources they have in their neighborhoods as opposed to Federal agencies managing by rule books created in Washington, D.C. He urged the committees' support of passage for both of the Resolutions. Mr. Ken Hopkins, a citizen of the Nevada Republic, gave a brief account of American history. Since March 9, 1933 the Constitution of the United States of America has been suspended. This occurred during the Roosevelt administration, it was the War and Emergency Powers Act. In 1933 the Act amended the previous trading with the enemy Act of 1917 that the country put into effect as we entered World War I. The 1917 Act made allowances for citizens of the state, that they were exempt from any restrictions. In 1933 the Trading With The Enemy Act was amended, the U.S. Citizens at that time were considered to be the enemy of the Federal government, said Mr. Hopkins. He left some exhibits (Exhibit C), which would support his testimony. The Federal government has expanded greatly, many agencies have come into existence, which have no description in the Constitution. There have been many more restrictions on the citizens of the United States. Mr. Hopkins wholeheartedly agreed with the 10th Amendment and embraced the original Constitution with the Bill of Rights. Ms. Stephanie Licht, represented the Elko County Commissioners, and Nevada Wool Growers, who gave unanimous support to both Resolutions, (Exhibit D). The Elko County Commissioners at their February 2nd meeting voted unanimously to go on record of supporting S.J.R. 1, because 78 percent of Elko County was managed by the Federal government. The state sovereignty issue was very important to the people of Elko County. The board urged the legislature to move quickly on this resolution. On S.J.R. 27 they met also and voted unanimously to go on record supporting it as well, and hoped quick action could be taken as well as other action addressing the issues of state sovereignty over public lands. The woolgrowers felt the same. Ms. Erin O'Connor-Henry, Public Affairs Specialist, Toiyabe National Forest, submitted written testimony in opposition of S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session (Exhibit E). Mr. Charles Horne, Assembly District 5, Las Vegas, was with the 10th Amendment Committee. He spoke in favor of S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. In addressing S.J.R. 1 he spoke regarding page 1, lines 5-8, lines 18-22 and lines 1-5. Mr. Horne referred to two of the original architects of the 10th Amendment. Hamilton said "The plan of the convention aims only at a partial union or consolidation, the states governments would clearly retain all the rights of sovereignty which they had before, which were not by that act exclusively delegated to the United States." We in the states seemed to have lost sight of the retention of sovereignty and it would be the hope and intent with greater understanding, knowledge and power our representatives take a firmer stand, said Mr. Horne. He continued on quoting Hamilton and identifying how it relates to the problems of today. Thomas Jefferson said "I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground, that all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states or to the people. To take a single step beyond the boundaries, thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." He said that was the intent of those framers and architects of our supreme law. Mr. Horne went on quoting the 10th Amendment and discussing the issues. He spoke in support of S.J.R. 1 and asked to have it voted on. S.J.R. 27 was another matter and would defer testimony to others who wished to speak. Mr. Carpenter said shortly a bill would come before the committee which would return the regulation of the landfills to the state of Nevada. This would be the first test to get rid of an unfunded Federal mandate. Mr. Paul Judd, Assembly District 5, Clark County, spoke on S.J.R.1. He quoted from Hamilton and Madison. The great need during the 1930's prompted the Federal government to initiate many programs and policies which the states at that time were unable to formulate. The affection of the people turned to Washington because that was where the solutions were coming from. He said the people were looking to the states for the instrument of regress. President Bush initiated the no net loss policy which requires developers to replace every acre of disrupted wetlands with an acre of artificially created wetlands. Wetland mitigation costs public and private agencies millions of dollars every year. S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session was discussed and Mr. Judd said public lands were by far better managed by the states and owned by the states as they should be and the prohibitive process which was required to survey and claim lands owned or claimed to be owned by the Federal government and managed by the Bureau of Land Management would be a burden on the people. He spoke in favor of both bills. Mr. Charles S. Watson, Jr., Executive Director, Nevada Outdoor Recreation Association in Carson City, said they had members in 17 states including all of the western states and Alaska. "The Association was strenuously against S.J.R. 27 and to defend the property clause and supremacy clause of Article 4, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, and Article 4, clause 2 of the Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which mandated to the U.S. Congress the right to own and dispose of the public domain lands." Mr. Watson understood these clauses and the ordinances of 1787 and 1785 were written by Thomas Jefferson at the time of the Declaration of Independence. We have forgotten what the founding fathers wanted mandated to the Federal government, the original jurisdiction over our public lands. The Supremacy Clause and the ordinance in1785 and 1787 were what created the states to begin with. They mandated every 16 and 36 sections of every township to the states, known as school section rights, which was part of their states' selection rights as they were admitted to the Union. Certain states like Nevada when they were admitted in 1864 there was a famous telegram from Governor Nye to Abraham Lincoln in which the state said they did not know what was in the interior of Nevada besides a vast wasteland and they did not want to select dry lakes, alkali flats and sun backed hills and bleached bones in the process. In the famous telegram they asked the Congress, can Nevada select a million acres to pick and choose where we like. Congress said to take 2 million acres and take until 1880 to pick and choose what you like and they would finalize patenting of the Homestead Act applications. Mr. Watson gave many examples of the wrong created by the Sagebrush Rebellion. He felt those involved in the Sagebrush Rebellion wanted to take away from him his legal standing as a user of the public lands because he supported the wilderness and protecting the environment. Mr. Bache asked if Mr. Watson was opposed to both S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. Mr. Watson said mainly S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session, but his organization was sympathetic to some areas of mandates to the states where there were no funds provided and felt it should be changed. Where it was being used to support the Sagebrush Rebellion, most environmentalists in the state would be opposed to S.J.R. 1 on those grounds. Mr. Brendon Trainer, Chairman of the Washoe County Libertarian Party, supported both of the resolutions. He noted there had been good coverage on the constitutionality of the resolutions. The economic aspects of public land management had not been brought forward. The Libertarian Party believed when the government set prices and managed resources that distortions were the inevitable result. When everybody owns something virtually nobody owns it. In the West few issues have been more contentious than the management of Federal lands. Contrary to the last speaker Mr. Trainer suggested we take on environmental uses of the land and allow environmental uses to compete in the market place with other public land users and should recognize existing private rights to public land use and allow private rights to be secure and be traded like other private rights. Mr. Trainer talked of other issues concerning the economic aspects of public land. Mr. Brian Wallace, Chairman, Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and Arlan Melendez, Chairman, Reno/Sparks Indian Colony testified on the resolutions. Mr. Melendez thanked the committee for letting them speak. He said they realized the situation with the unappropriated lands on S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. Mr. Wallace and Mr. Melendez had testified on the Senate side and were reiterating what had been stated there. He said their concern was the trust relationship with the Federal government which had not been mentioned. The Senate members recognized the Native American Tribes were independent sovereigns and it was not their intent to nullify, dismiss or undermine the independent sovereignty of the Native American Tribes or any personal or tribal rights of Native Americans. Basically this was our concern, said Mr. Melendez. The support of the recognition of tribal sovereignty from this committee would alleviate some of the concerns as to the land situation in Nevada. Mrs. de Braga said the two previous speakers gave the impression that if the state did take over state lands they would no longer be public lands. She did not know if that was everyone's thinking under the bill. Mrs. de Braga asked if the bill was a threat to the trust obligation and if there was something in state law to enforce that obligation. Mr. Melendez and Mr. Wallace agreed they did not think there was anything in state law for protection. There would be an impact, with relation to Federal jurisdiction over lands here in the state of Nevada. Not only over the management of those resources but also there were certain Federal statutes that codify certain rights of Indian people as associated to access public lands. If those lands were removed from Federal jurisdiction then those laws wouldn't apply. Particularly in the area of religious liberty and water rights would be another one. Mrs. de Braga said if this bill were to pass it would need that protection written into it. Mr. Wallace said for the committees' benefit, attached to the letter Senator Rhoads sent to Mr. Melendez, (Exhibit F), I also included excerpts of the Territorial Act as well as the enabling language in the Constitution. In the Territorial language it expressly forecloses on any opportunities for the state to step on private rights or interest of Indians and Indian tribes. If that was somehow highlighted or something like that and the discussion were well known, certainly that would give us less cause and trouble. Mrs. de Braga said she knew last session there was legislation passed concerning the Truckee River and the beds and banks of the Truckee wherever it was on the reservation, they did affirm it was that part of the Tribal control. Maybe it was not broad enough to address this. Mr. Wallace said he certainly understands this wasn't written this year, that it is a regeneration or some of it, I think 27, of past efforts. But that was what we were bringing before the committee in the Senate side anyway." Mr. Carpenter thanked them and said they would discuss the problems among the committee members. "Mr. Wallace said" he wanted to shed some light or illuminate some of the things that were kind of in the shade on this issue. Particularly regarding historical facts on states' admission. My comments are directed both to S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. I very much agree with the comments and support Mr. Melendez and his comments to the committee and certainly we are here more importantly to arouse interest in the constitutional and Federal relationship we established over the years. I don't have to get into any great length to describe that period the relationship between Indian Tribes in the United States hasn't been all that great. Loss of lands and certain things like that. Although very significantly in the Constitution those interests are fairly articulated throughout the body of the document. As he mentioned, yet there is much that needs to be protected, particularly what remnants exist of our strong heritage and rights which are tied to the land and the natural cycles of the state of Nevada. These are those public lands, I mean these lands that are being characterized as public lands and these initiatives. I think today I can strongly project or argue that we as Nevada Indians are probably the only Federal citizens on the planet, right now. Even as we speak our daily lives are regulated by the Federal government, probably more so than any other sector of the state population. Even with that I know, like Arlan and many of us, how the strong tradition of serving this country and many of the Washoes like the Shoshones have served and sacrificed greatly in accepting the burden of citizenship and even today we still don't enjoy all the benefits, particularly, I can highlight one, would be the protection of the first amendment, as we speak, do not apply to Indian people here in this country. Most of our time is spent stridently pressing the Federal fidelity with regards to this trust with the White House and the Congress and the courts. With my experience at the state level, Washoe's are from this area, the heart of the Washoe tribe is Lake Tahoe and our areas are now in what's considered California and Nevada. We have had the experience with statehood, primarily based on economics driven by the gold rush and the Comstock Lode, more recently. The lake is the heart of our people and someone mentioned how that is trying to be protected. I was looking at some historical photographs of Glenbrook and even Spooner Summit right up the road. It was totally cleared of all the timber and actually denuded of all life that existed in that area including Washoes. That is our experience with Nevada historically. In California pretty much the same heard, but even I think, I will have to check it back, but I am almost certain that even after the civil war, with regards to Indians, the state amended its constitution with Resolution 122, actually legalized slavery against Washoes and California Indians in general. So, I am not trying to compare California with Nevada, but our recent experience with state jurisdiction and Indians has not been that hot either. Yet these proceedings and like the letter Senator Rhoads gave us was very encouraging and what we are doing here in Carson City and also in Sacramento was very promising and hopeful. Again, I would point to the wise Senator's letter from Tuscarora regarding his feelings and that committees' feeling on the protection of Indian rights and this type of discussion. We submitted that for the record. Generally my overview point would be that we believe that in our experience and with the regards to state sovereignty that's being discussed here. Does not specifically imply are greater animation of protection of our rights, and a step from Federal jurisdiction does not necessarily mean a step toward greater travel sovereignty either. With regard to the constitution, I have heard a lot of comments about the founding fathers. I would like to add a historical note here, as I mentioned Indian language is throughout the United States Constitution and to animate and die for that constitution is also to embrace the Indian provisions as well. I know the founding fathers face major problems when this country, when they had the task of inventing the United States. Clearly the old world didn't offer America very many democratic models in history. There was an Indian guide in 1744 as documented, was probably the first guy to suggest the notion and propose the union of all the colonies and actually propose the model for it. There was this guy named Benjamin Franklin who took that seriously and seemed to be the first to take the system as a potential and important model that blended the sovereignty of several nations into one government that had endured for centuries prior to the creation of the United States. Now it is clearly transformed into the Federal system and the whole notion delegation of internal and external authorities under the Constitution, and this model was the great law of Iroquois. In closing, a couple of highlights I think need to be noticed for the record. This provided models for separation of civilian and military authority, it discussed and developed the art of educational and persuasive debate rather than confrontation. It even outlined the admission process of statehood. It embraced the notion of representative leadership, it also provided a model for removal of offices and elected officials when needed. Probably, most importantly, I would say anyway to my mind, recognize the major role of women in the political structure and actually from the very beginning, embraced and defended their right to vote. Paine, Franklin, Washington, Thompson and Jefferson had studied extensively under the league and this great law of peace. I can say the new world was amazed at that time of the Indians' personal liberty and particular by their freedom from rulers and social classes based on ownership of property. For the first time the French and British became aware of the possibility of living in social harmony and prosperity without the rule of a King when they came here. Although today the notion of the noble savage usually reaps only scorn in the historical footnotes as a quaint idea of a lesser informed era. The discovery of new forms of political life in America freed the imaginations of the old world thinkers and we would argue that scarcely any political theory or movement of the last three centuries has not shown the impact of the great political awakening that the Indians provoked among the Europeans. We would say Europe only imagined enlightenment and democracy, America enacted it. Democracy as we know it today is as much a legacy of American Indians as it is the founding fathers. So, in conclusion, I would say on this point of sovereignty, I would want to address it a little more on the concept of personal liberty, and someone talked about that here. I would say this, maybe much is wrong with this country or whatever, but I think what people are talking about, I agree with here, in regards to going back to the fundamentals of what we are about. I really believe that we must rededicate ourselves to this cause of freedom and then probably understand with a new certainty and conviction, that it is also the cause of the human individual and that human individuality is probably the most fundamental basis of every human value in life right now, I would say. I would further say, freedom to me represents the right to ones' soul and the right to each person to approach God in his own way by his own means. Represents to me to the right to possess ones' own mind and conscious. Those that put their trust in freedom the state could never have sovereignty over their mind and conscience, but should be the servant of their reason not the master. I will read this letter and then I will be done Mr. Chairman. It was written in 1694 by a French Anthropologist named Baron de la Hauten of all people. He documented what a Huron Indian man told him about liberty, his concept of it. He wrote down what this guy said. ` He said we are and always will be born free and united brothers. Each as much as the great Lord has the other. While you are all slaves of one soul man, I think he was talking about the king then. I am the master of my body, I dispose of myself, I do what I wish, I am the first and last of my nation, subject only to the great spirit.' I was watching TV and I was reminded even before that Indians were very involved in this and someone showed me where in 1671 there were two Indian guys who graduated from Harvard University with B.A.'s. But in closing I would say to the committee, maybe it could be said that all of you have been Indians at one time in your life, somehow. I would argue from the Boston Harbor to today that America's democratic pedigree is symbolized by the American Indian. The individual resistance to authority and we are the warriors and the icons of individual sovereignty and liberty here today. I didn't mean my comments to seem like a filibuster, against this thing. But I just wanted to thank you for your patience and valuable time today. Truly we waited for over a 130 years to say this, since the admission of the state of Nevada to the Union. I am privileged enough here at this time to describe for those that were before us that aren't here anymore that actually still live in us what they wanted to say. Thank you very, very much for this opportunity." Mrs. de Braga said how much she appreciated his remarks. This bill, to my way of thinking at least, is a protest against tyranny, and in favor of individual freedom, and if that doesn't apply to everyone, the bill is worthless as far as I am concerned. I think its only confines should be the boundaries of the state of Nevada. With that said, I support your position on this bill. Mr. Wallace said, he wasn't sure, he was having a crisis, so he signed for and against when he signed in. Mr. Neighbors said, "for the benefit of some of the folks in Las Vegas and here who had not seen Senator Rhoads' letter, would you agree that Nevada through its legislative action over the years the state has exhibited a responsible position toward the native American residents." Mr. Wallace said over the years since his involvement in 1975 it has been improving. I noticed codified in certain sections of state statute they are very important and positive partnerships between the tribes and states. Even the letter Senator Rhoads signed gives us very much hope that things were coming closer together in terms of neighbors and people who share this lovely area. From time to time certainly and respectfully we will have our differences over water rights, jurisdictional questions, etc. I think just by having the opportunity to at least speak from where wen are coming from and to animate why we believe what we believe is the best and very helpful for us and shows a proper amount of respect for both ways. That is why I have been very deliberate in going to all these hearings and listening to everyone's arguments in the Senate hearing and am here today because I am very interested in this area. Mr. Neighbors said he would echo his colleagues' comments from Churchill County. Mr. Carpenter said at this time he would take two people from Las Vegas and two people for the bill from Carson and one opponent and then take a short break. Mr. Myron Hughes, Las Vegas, District 14, testified supporting S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. He said there were several things he would like to comment on. Historic issues and things we were not aware of like the Constitution being suspended by the Federal government and resolutions not being in effect during the times of war and not being put back into a proper legal situation. He did say he had never seen the Constitution of the state of Nevada being suspended. Mr. Hughes said the 10th Amendment was also mentioned in the Constitution of the state of Nevada. Taking these things into consideration, he pointed out the things we see all the time such as youth gangs, young people doing pranks, various things, and if you allow people to do these things and merely talk to them and turn them loose and do not hold them responsible for their actions, you allow them to get away with it. Just by not insisting they pay the price and obey the law you have empowered them to do something. This is the position we are in with the Federal government said Mr. Hughes. It is the position we the citizens have been in with the state and county governments. He continued to comment on the words "to the people." Ms. Dorothy Orr said she wanted to refer to one thing on S.J.R. 1. Mr. Horne in his testimony made the statement it was unconstitutional to implement, the state citizens may decline a Federal demand. She said there were things happening with the United Nations and they were promoting a regional government in America. Our 10th Amendment Resolution today was being threatened by the Conference of States. The key front man was the Utah Governor, Michael Levitt who happened to be a Clinton appointee to an agency called the ACIR, a Federal agency. What they had tried to do was call a Constitutional Convention, to make the taxpayers support the United Nations. Ms. Orr supported the 10th Amendment Resolution and the power lies with the people. She also supported S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. Mrs. Janine Hansen, State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, said she had the opportunity last September of presenting the original Colorado 10th Amendment Resolution at our National Eagle Forum Conference in Washington, D.C. and it was received with great enthusiasm. She spoke to Senator Duke in Colorado on the phone, who was the author of the original 10th Amendment Resolution and faxed some information on who had passed the Resolution. A total of 47 states have either passed it or were in the process or introduced in those states. It was a nationwide movement to reassert the 10th Amendment. She noted after the 10th Amendment was passed we would need to implement. She included statements from Colorado State Representative Charles Duke, (Exhibit G). Ms. Elsie Dupree, representing the Nevada Wildlife Federation, submitted written testimony in opposition to the resolutions (Exhibit H). Mr. Francis Gilling, Sparks, Nevada spoke in support of the Resolutions. The history of liberty was the limitations of governmental power not the increase of power. He read a passage from President Woodrow Wilson. Mr. Gilling said it was very important we take back our liberties. Many representatives did not know about our God given states' rights. Mr. Joe Johnson, representing the Toiyabe Chapter of the Sierra Club spoke on S.J.R. 1. He signed as opposed to the bills but was not particularly in opposition to any of the summary or the condensed version of the bill. They recognized the 10th Amendment as a legitimate far reaching action in the Constitution. Listening to the testimony and recent actions and some of the language he would like to make the following points: l. The interpretation of the Constitution, legally, was held by one body, the Supreme Court, any other interpretations were purely that, interpretations by individuals; 2. He would like to refer to the property clause mentioned earlier. The law and Federal authority over public lands, and he understood the 10th Amendment issues were much broader than public lands, but have been mentioned several times in this committee as if these public lands were not Federal and would like to establish the legal precedence and comments on this issue. The law and Federal authority over public lands was well established, the basis for it would be constitutional not just statutory. The property clause, Article 4 provides, Congress shall have the power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. The Property Clause operates in tandem with the Supremacy Clause the U.S. Constitution Article. The Supremacy Clause makes Federal Law paramount in those areas where the Constitution gives the Federal government authority to operate. This coincides with the property clause to give Federal Land Management Agencies acting pursuant to statute a firm control on the management of Public Lands. There has been and you have heard often some suggestions the property clause was inapplicable to pubic lands in Nevada. This was simply inaccurate. Mr. Johnson said he would encourage the people to reread the District Court's opinion of the state of Nevada vs. United States (512 F Supplement 164 D Nevada, 1982). The court there did not conclude the property clause was inapplicable to public lands in Nevada and concluded quite the opposite. It also concluded the Supreme Court's position in Pollards leases vs Hagen, this was the equal footings ruling of 1845 which had been severely limited by the Supreme Court decision of the 1856 Dred Scott decision, in which a war was fought regarding the issue. Mr. Johnson said the particular concerns was the action of so called demanding of states' rights where Federal facilities undergo bombings, Federal employees threatened for doing what was their legal right under the statutes and the Constitution applicable now. Violent acts were outside of acceptable behavior in Nevada. In speaking of S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session, he was not in favor or objective to the change in the Constitution. There were other public land states which did not have the disclaimer clause in the Constitution. All of the enabling acts from Congress have a disclaimer clause of some sort or another. This resolution expressed sovereignty not ownership. Mr. Neighbors said he had several times heard mention of bombings. Until we find out who has been guilty of the crime he personally wished to refrain from commenting. Mr. Johnson was asked if the Sierra Club took the position the state of Nevada would not be responsible for environmental concerns. Mr. Johnson said, certainly not, the state has proven to be environmental. The issues he brought forward were constitutional issues. He had not heard an argument he could accept which indicated there has been a Supreme Court ruling which overturns the 4th or 6th amendments of the Constitution. Mr. Carpenter commented on Mr. Johnson's reference to threats on various BLM or Forest Service employees. He said he would like to find out the specifics as he did not approve of people making threats, if in fact they were. Honesty with each other was important and we need to find out specifics, if possible. Commissioner Carver told some Forest Service officials to get out of the way, other than that Mr. Carpenter had not heard of any direct threats. Mr. Johnson would respond at another time, but had heard in personal conversations with people, they feel ill at ease. He did not have personal knowledge of someone actually, as an example saying, "I will shoot you if you do this." Mr. Johnson hoped he had not laid blame on any group or individual other than the perpetrator of the act of the bombing. Mr. Bennett and Mr. Johnson discussed the Supremacy of the Supreme Court. Mr. Johnson was asked by Mr. Carpenter to take the message back, if they in fact had proof of accusations, they needed to bring them forward. There were means in this country to deal with offenses. The rumors only add fuel to the fire and possibly would push someone over the edge. The 1st. Amendment was alive and well and we can all say what we believe. Mr. Carpenter called for a five minute break. The meeting was called back to order. Senator Adler testified on S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. He said Nevada was one of the few states required to have a disclaimer clause in our Constitution, and had a Federal statute essentially removing the lands from the state of Nevada on condition of entering the Union. It was envisioned some of the lands would be returned to the state and some of the sovereignty over those lands would be returned to the state at some point in time. The Organic Act was passed by Congress and they went back on their word. The important part of the disclaimer clause was not the idea of landownership but also had to do with the issue of sovereignty, whether we could enforce our health and safety regulations on Federal land, our ability to make claim to water rights on Federal land, for grazing and other uses and come up in a mirror of context. The Yucca Mountain controversy had a great deal to do with the disclaimer clause and the legislature's ability to protect the health and safety of the people of the state of Nevada. To regulate what came into our state and was stored here, whether it would be highly nuclear waste, or whether it is toxic waste or other materials. There were people who would speak to the lands issue. He noted there was more to the disclaimer than just the land issue, what powers did Nevada have as a sovereign state, and it was another reason for removing the disclaimer clause from the constitution. Mr. Fettic asked Senator Adler why we were one of the few who had this clause put in. Senator Adler said there was more than one state who had the disclaimer clause in their constitution, but there were states who had Congress pass a law when they entered into the Union essentially disclaiming their rights to Federal lands. Nevada was one of the few states who received a double treatment as a condition of entering the Union. He did not know exactly why this was done, even to this day we have the highest percentage of Federal landownership of any state. One hears of the swap of land from Clark County to the Tahoe Basin and so forth and the increase in the amount of state land, which is not true, Nevada has had a net decrease in landownership since the 60's. It was going in the reverse direction and we need for some of it to go in the opposite direction, even a seven percent increase in our ownership would be a 50 percent increase overall. What was really annoying about the disclaimer clause, lawsuits which have been used against us by the Federal government have to do with health and safety. We have made a policy statement of what Nevada wanted to have stored in our state and what we do not. The briefs show they had used the disclaimer clause and said Nevada had already given up the right to these lands and the ability to regulate these lands in the Constitution of Nevada. Mr. Fettic said if the disclaimer clause was not there Nevada would not have the Federal government trying to force Yucca Mountain down our throats, Nevada would own the property. Senator Adler said if you own the property, that would be true. Even if you did not own the property and the disclaimer clause was off, the argument to regulate would be much stronger. Mrs. Ohrenschall asked about the impact of water rights or water usage within the state. Senator Adler said the Department of Interior had a number of hearings on grazing water rights throughout the state. They had a provision to put all grazing water rights under Federal ownership in the West. Senator Adler testified against as did other members. They backed off if Nevada passed a law allowing our state water engineer to allocate those rights the Federal government would go along. If something in the state constitution said you disclaimed the lands then it would not be impossible for them to say you had disclaimed all water underneath the land. Mr. Bennett said all the public lands we have under Federal control, would the Sections 16 and 36 lands take sovereignty over, would it help to relieve the crisis in funding our education. If the property was in a high assessment area, yes it would provide a positive financial impact on the school districts. Mr. Carpenter asked if Steven Dempsey wished to testify from Las Vegas. Mr. Steven Dempsey thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak and for conducting the hearings on this issue. He objected to the introduction of a military flag and would encourage the committee to conduct the meetings with an American flag present. He called attention to the testimony of Ken Hopkins and the 1933 bankruptcy and the declaration of war against the American citizens. We have failed to question and hope the members of the committee would begin to question. The first question Mr. Dempsey would question would be the difference between statesmen and politicians. He felt individuals had become politicians instead of statesmen. People have accepted public service and try to get through it instead of asking questions, learning and doing what conforms to their constitutional oath of office. The oath entails a provision which he felt was most important like defending the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He encouraged passage of the two resolutions. He closed with a quote from Samuel Adams. Mr. Keith Kindred also took exception to the flag displayed in the Las Vegas tele-conferencing room. He noted it was an American flag with yellow fringe on it. This flag would be normally flown over a U.S. Navy ship or a conquered enemy under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It has no place after war time was over. He continued to expound on the flag. Each state was preserved as a nation within itself to keep a level head on the enormous power now intruding into Nevada. The Federal government seemed both "willy-nilly" to give and take what we need to keep and what we hold dear, our minds, grazing rights and our enormous tax base. Mr. Kindred said, "the states were our major spokesmen to redress our grievances, descending against the Federal government as it runs amuck over our property rights." Wetlands was another excuse to have power over private and state property rights. Mr. Kindred continued talking about the wetlands and Federal control. Mr. Dan Hanson, Independent American Party, a native Nevadan born in Washoe County as a sovereign citizen in the sovereign state of Nevada, testified. He was not born a U.S. subject in the territory of Nevada. He emphasized sovereignty was an essential part of our liberty. He said he was the State Chairman of the Independent American Party, and in 1994 the party had a 100 fold increase largely due to the support of the Constitution of the United States and the 10th Amendment. He talked about the Liberty Amendment which was approved by the Legislature during Grant Sawyer's administration. He was pleased to sign the amendment as it would return 87 percent of the state to Nevada and he wanted to be a Governor of a complete state and not just part of a state. Mr. Hanson said his party strongly supports S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. He continued testifying on why they support the two resolutions. Liberty demands that we as a people must be self governing. Mr. Hanson discussed where the tax dollars were spent by our government. Mr. David Horton commended the committee for holding hearings on the two resolutions. S.J.R. 1 talks about mandates, not just unfunded mandates. They have no constitutional authority to do it themselves. S.J.R. 1 resembled what our constitutional position should be. The property clause in the constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 17 was trying to be enforced and was in a pamphlet called "Nevada's Public Lands." The pamphlet points out in order to have lawful authority over public lands in the state, the feds have to buy it, get the consent of the Legislature and build a fort on it. When two provisions were compared, one specific to public lands the other generally talking about property, he said if we do have a conflict in the constitution the specific prevails over the general. Mr. Horton clarified the language by stating the specific language of article 1, section 8, clause 17 would prevail over the general language of article 4. He suggested to the committee there was not a conflict. The supporters of the Public Land Movement and Nevada Plan for Public Land do not quarrel with article 4. Just as Congress prior to the creation of Nevada into a state sovereignty had not only the right but the duty to administer what was then territory or property of the United States. They lack authority once the state of Nevada was created under the treaty and was a sovereign nation. We have had since statehood the actual ownership of all of our public lands. It would be good housekeeping to get rid of the disclaimer clause under S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. The way a constitutional limitation was restored would be with legislative action by the state. Mrs. Elsie Dupree presented testimony to be written into the minutes (Exhibit H). Mr. Tom Stolen, testified on the resolutions. He said he would like to discuss article 4, section 3, paragraph 2, of the U.S. Constitution. "The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needed rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States and nothing in the constitution shall be construed as to prejudice any claims in the United States or any particular state." The territories of the United States in this case would be Guam, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, etc. At one time Nevada was a territory of the United States and they had the right to sell or dispose of it as they desired. The Federal government may purchase from states such as Nevada parcels of land, but was very limited on what it can purchase and it describes the extent of the purchase. The Federal government today can not show any clear title to any of the land they have in Nevada. Mr. Stolen did not believe the Federal government could prove clear title on 87 percent of the land in Nevada. He continued to discuss whether the government or Nevada had clear title to the lands in Nevada. Mr. Richard Bryan was asked to give his opinion as Attorney General and said Nevada's claim to the public lands was based on three theories, one the equal footing doctrine, two the trust doctrine and three the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He agrees with S.J.R.1 and strongly supported the resolution and emphasized for the Federal government to back off and follow the constitution. He called attention to an article in the Las Vegas paper regarding the county building a gravel road on Federal land. The Bureau of Land Management was controlling the land and not allowing the city to run responsibly. Mr. Bob Tonelli, Executive Director, United We Stand America In Nevada, gave strong support for both of the resolutions. He supported many of those who testified before him. Mr. Tonelli said what state sovereignty meant was the freedom of the people of the state of Nevada. "For too long the Federal government who works for us have been acting like we work for them and we need to change that". "If the people will lead the leaders will follow." "If the Legislature will act the state will act." Mrs. Juanita Cox representing herself, her family and The People to Protect America and The People Organized For The Next Generation, spoke from prepared testimony (Exhibit I). Mr. Dan Joseph, Gun Owners of America, supported the resolutions. He asked the committee to consider a bill he presented to them. The bill called for the establishment of a citizens protection commission and would act as an enforcement measure in relation to S.J.R. 1. He explained the way in which the commission would work. We do not need the Federal government to protect our land, Nevadans were perfectly able to do so themselves. Mr. Pat McMillan said he wished to put a different focus on his testimony. He had taped a program from the expose' and also a cover up of the CIA on the program "Dateline." Mr. McMillan asked the research staff to find out where the constitution gave the executive manager for the states the power to do anything by executive order. He explained the government corruption affecting the people. He supported both of the amendments, not because they were required, as we already have the law, but needed to bring something to the people and legislatures' attention to focus on. Mr. McMillan gave material to include with his testimony (Exhibit J). Mr. Edward Williams, talked about the 10th Amendment and thanked the committee for bringing it forward. He had a six year old daughter to protect. He talked of a letter he sent the committee members and Mr. Carpenter asked him to have the staff in Las Vegas copy it and send to the committee. Mr. Tom Collins gave a brief statement of supporting the 10th Amendment and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session, and said he knows the committee would do the right thing. Mr. Tom Johnson, Editor, Nevada Centennial, explained on page 2, there were 35 groups in support of the resolutions, and would urge the committee to support the bills. Ms. Jan Brown supported both bills and had nothing to add that had not already been discussed. Mr. Stanley Lujdek supported both bills and had nothing to add that had not already been discussed. Mr. Jim Mikkelsen was representing himself and was not here to uphold the Federal government but to uphold the Constitution. He was in support of S.J.R. 1 and S.J.R. 27 of the 67th Session. Mr. Mikkelsen said it was up to the legislature to keep the Federal government honest, keep them on line with the Constitution and caution against the Conference of States A.B. 99. He felt the biggest enemy was the Federal power in Washington, D.C. Mr. Don Bowman has written articles on the struggle for power between the states and the Federal government. He fully supported the 10th Amendment effort and the disclaimer clause from the constitution. He added some research on what Resource Concepts here in Carson City did for Eureka County. Mr. Bowman said Arizona charged $1.30 per AUM, 20 percent less than the Federal government charged and still make a profit. Arizona did a good job of management. Arizona makes $50 thousand a year in revenue from their state lands. We have many resources in the state of Nevada. The budget for Nevada from the BLM was $42.5 million and they spent another $15.5 million for fire control in Nevada, $10 million was spent directly on fires the other $5 million was spent on fire related areas. If funds returned to the state were added it would amount to another $18 million. It totaled up to $75 million and if the state took over the management and could make $50 million profit and give them back their $18 million, it would be a $50 million turnaround for the American taxpayer. He had never heard anyone when traveling the back roads of Nevada talk about privatism. Economics was the issue he wished to discuss and thanked the committee for listening. Mr. Don Johnson returned to the podium and wanted the committee to consider the actions of Bruce Babbitt, Interior Secretary. The Federal law mandates he issue and process applications for mining claim patents. Mr. Babbitt on his own volition had suspended taking any applications for patented mining claims in this state. This gives an example of the Federal arrogance over our land. Mr. Joe Davis said, "on the 26th of March 1995, we no longer have a nation present due to executive orders and secret treaties, conveyed by the President in which he gave away our police, military and revenue collecting agencies to the United Nations." The only way to protect Nevada was to initiate what the committee was doing today. Mr. Ike Yochum also representing the Independent American Party said we were under attack. He said our lives were being attacked from all directions from the well organized and financed groups of people and they have been winning by default. The two measures address the issues. Chairman Carpenter thanked those in the audience and the committee for listening to everyone. The meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Pat Menath, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Assemblyman John C. Carpenter, Chairman Assemblyman Marcia de Braga, Chairman Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining April 5, 1995 Page