Politics

Alaska is now the first state to recognize Oct. 12, 2015, as Indigenous Peoples Day.

Gov. Bill Walker signed the proclamation today and First Alaskans President Liz Medicine Crow made the announcement at the Elders and Youth Conference.

The one-time declaration came on the heels of a similar announcement by Anchorage Mayor Ethan Berkowitz. The city now also recognizes the holiday. First Alaskans board member and former state lawmaker Willie Hensley reacted to the declaration.

The move is largely symbolic. The second Monday in October is annually Columbus Day, a federal holiday, and state and city employees are required to report to work. But First Alaskans board member and former state lawmaker Willie Hensley says the declaration is important.

“This is a historic moment considering all the trials and tribulations our people have experienced over time,” Hensley said. “A lot of not so good stuff, historically speaking. But finally, after all these years of work, by a lot of people and a lot of understanding by people who didn’t know a lot about our people, we’re being to understand each other a little bit better.”

At least nine other cities nationwide recognize the holiday. South Dakota and a few other states have replaced Columbus Day with Native American Day.

Editor’s note: This story has been expanded and clarified to note the declaration only applies to Oct. 12, 2015, and acknowledge South Dakota’s Native American Day. 

The U.S. House on Thursday passed the Native American Energy Act, sponsored by Alaska Congressman Don Young. Young said the bill would encourage resource development on Indian land by expediting permits and limiting legal challenges.

It would apply to Lower 48 Indian land held in trust, and to land owned by Alaska Native corporations.

“The judicial review provision is crucial for Alaska Natives, whose ability to develop their own settlement lands has been abused by special interest groups filing lawsuits,” Young said on the House floor before the vote.

The White House issued a veto threat this week, saying the bill would undermine public oversight and set unrealistic deadlines. Young likened arguments against his bill to government paternalism.

“And those that oppose this, it’s the same old story: Don’t get to smart. We’ll give you a side of beef and a blanket. Don’t let us help ourselves. Let the government tell you what to do,” Young said. “This is a good piece of legislation. This did not come from me. This came from the Native tribes themselves.”

Rep. Raul Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat, spoke against the bill. He said it would weaken a bedrock environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act. And, Grijalva said, it could apply on non-Indian lands, too.

“If an energy company is developing natural resources anywhere in the United States and they get a tribal partner they could fall under this provision,” Grijalva said. “This could incentivize energy companies to partner with tribes simply for the benefit of skirting NEPA and profiting from restricted judicial review.”

The bill passed with 254 votes, including those of 11 Democrats.

Editor’s note: Rep. Raul Grijalva’s home state has been corrected. The congressman is from Arizona, not New Mexico. 

This post was updated at 4:25 p.m.

In a shocking move Thursday afternoon, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-California, pulled out of the race for speaker of the House, throwing the GOP leadership race into chaos and confusion.

According to Republican congressmen coming out of the caucus meeting — where lawmakers were expected to pick a successor to retiring House Speaker John Boehner — McCarthy told Republicans he didn’t have a path to victory.

Rep. Tom Rooney, R-Florida, said the meeting opened, Republicans said the pledge and then McCarthy stood up and took himself out of the race. The prohibitive favorite said he didn’t want members to take arrows for voting for him and that he was taking himself out of contention.

Speaker Boehner then immediately moved to adjourn the meeting. Rooney said there was “total shock” and some members were audibly crying.

McCarthy said later after exiting the meeting that he was putting the GOP conference first in his decision, and that there was clamoring for new leadership.

“For us to unite, we probably need a fresh face. If we are going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that,” McCarthy said. “I feel good about the decision. I think we’re only going to be stronger.”

McCarthy, the number two to Boehner, was the heavy favorite going into Thursday’s vote. But with a significant bloc of conservatives, known as the House Freedom Caucus, throwing their support behind Florida Rep. Dan Webster, and with the last-minute candidacy of Utah Rep. Jason Chaffetz, McCarthy withdrew rather than face a possibly fractious vote.

McCarthy had been under fire recently after he gave an interview seeming to suggest that the controversial special congressional committee investigating the Benghazi terrorist attacks were meant to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid. McCarthy later apologized and clarified, but some feared the damage had been done. In his brief remarks after the meeting, McCarthy admitted that those ill-phrased remarks didn’t help him.

Ultimately, McCarthy also sounded wary of inheriting the same rebel caucus that doomed Boehner multiple times and forced him into stalemates.

“We all worked to get the majority. And I had a lot of friends that were really supportive that said, ‘Why do you want to do it during this time? This time will be the worst time. They’re going to eat you and chew you up,'” he told Politico in an interview after his announcement.

The House GOP tweeted that leadership elections now would be held at a later date. Boehner announced last month he would resign at the end of October, but after Thursday’s dramatic turn of events Boehner said he would remain speaker until a new successor was chosen.

Boehner’s exit announcement last month left open the top spot in the House, along with the majority leader and whip positions. The official election for House speaker — which is voted on by the full House — had been originally scheduled for the end of the month.

In order to break the stalemate, there may need to be a consensus candidate who could appeal to both conservatives and mainstream Republicans — a difficult task given the fractious caucus. But one person who could bridge that gap, some members said, is Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who was the party’s 2012 vice presidential nominee.

Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pa., said Ryan was probably the only lawmaker who could get the necessary 218 votes in the caucus. Ryan, however, has already issued a statement that he won’t run.

But the Washington Post reported later Thursday that Boehner had personally pleaded with Ryan to run for speaker in two separate phone conversations.

Dent, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the House and a close ally of Boehner, said lawmakers might need to form a coalition with Democrats to find a consensus speaker. Republicans are divided and “anyone with eyes can see it,” Dent said.

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., said Republicans may need a “caretaker speaker” or someone who will be speaker until new elections can be held in January 2017. They’d have to be a senior member who would not run for a full term though.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday passed the annual defense authorization bill, with a provision by Alaska Sen. Dan Sullivan requiring an “Arctic Operation Plan.”

The O-PLAN is a key part of Sullivan’s effort to stave off the Army’s announced cut of thousands of troops from Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. Sullivan argues the Pentagon can’t make the JBER cuts before it has a plan to identify which assets it needs to defend the region.

Lt. Col. Joe Buccino, an Army spokesman, says the chief of staff of the Army will review the Arctic Operation Plan once it is complete, and it will “help inform how and if” the troop reduction will take place. In the meantime, Buccino says the plan to cut troops from JBER has not changed and is not “on hold.”

The cuts, announced this summer, are scheduled to take place over the next two years.

The White House has issued a veto threat for the defense bill, part of a larger budget dispute with Republicans in Congress.

Hillary Clinton unveiled her gun-control proposals on Monday in New Hampshire, calling for what she sees as “common-sense approaches” to minimize gun violence less than a week after the latest mass shooting.

After nine people were killed at an Oregon community college last Thursday, gun control has re-emerged as a top issue on the campaign trail. A visibly upset President Obama took to the White House podium after the shooting to bemoan perpetual congressional inaction after any incident, saying these incidents should, indeed, be politicized.

Democratic candidates are starting to do just that, but there are marked differences between them. Those differences will likely be highlighted at the candidates’ first debate Oct. 14.

Among Clinton’s proposals are:

• pledging to act through executive action to close the gun-show loophole
• tightening Internet gun sales, if Congress doesn’t act
• repealing a law that shields gun manufacturers from certain lawsuits
• closing the “Charleston loophole”
• prohibiting domestic abusers from being able to buy and possess firearms

In 2013, following the Sandy Hook shooting, the Senate tried and failed to pass stricter background screenings, closing the gun-show loophole and restricting Internet sales.

While introducing her plan at a New Hampshire community college Monday, Clinton brought up on stage Nicole Hockley, whose son Dylan was among the 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary in December 2012.

“It is time for us to say we’re better than this. Our country is better than this,” Clinton said, bemoaning that “this epidemic of gun violence knows no boundaries.”

Clinton’s support for repealing the law protecting gun manufacturers presents a contrast with her top opponent, Vermont Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders. Sanders, who leads Clinton in New Hampshire, voted in favor of that 2005 bill.

The “Charleston loophole” allows a gun sale to go forward even if a background check hasn’t been completed within three days. Such an oversight allowed the alleged shooter in the Charleston church massacre to kill nine African-Americans worshiping at a Wednesday night Bible study in June.

It’s the first major proposal from Clinton during this campaign on gun control.

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley has already put out a more sweeping plan. Among his proposals are:

• banning the sale of assault weapons
• requiring everyone who buys a gun to be fingerprinted and get a license
• pushing gun-makers to install updated safety technology
• making gun trafficking a federal crime
• establishing a national firearms registry
• requiring better home storage of guns
• setting a minimum age requirement of 21 to own a handgun

A superPAC backing O’Malley has already criticized Sanders for his mixed background on gun control. Sanders has voted to allow guns on Amtrak and opposed the Brady Bill. The NRA even helped Sanders win his first race for Congress, though he now has a dismal record with the group. He has a D-minus rating from the group, something he has touted on the campaign trail.

Sanders hasn’t put out a comprehensive gun control plan yet, and there’s no section devoted to exactly where he stands on the “Issues” page on his website. But Monday he did outline some more specifics of what he believes on gun control. While saying he was “appalled” by the shootings, he underscored he believes a consensus can be found for reforms.

Here is some of what he has said so far:

• strengthen and better enforce instant background checks
• close gun show loophole
• make “straw man” purchases — or someone buying a gun for someone who can’t buy one — a federal crime
• ban semiautomatic weapons
• improve mental health access and ways to treat mental illness
• reduce violent images in the media
• previously, his campaign manager has said he would still support 2005 legislation to protect gun companies from legislation

All of the Democrats, however, stand in contrast to GOP presidential contenders — most of whom have urged caution and restraint to act too quickly after such an incident. They are calling for renewed focus on mental illnesses instead of taking aim at restricting Second Amendment rights.

Copyright 2015 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

State budget pessimists warn that fewer barrels and a growing budget deficit could turn the state into an economic wasteland. But as some Juneau residents have learned, things could still turn around.

In a packed a ballroom at Centennial Hall Wednesday evening, a panel of two oil and gas consultants and two economists debated Alaska’s fiscal future.

Some of the more dire predictions inspire comparisons to Mad Max, a late 70s apocalyptic thriller in which oil reserves have been depleted, financial chaos and famine have set in, and roving biker gangs are the only law.

A warning from the movie’s trailer: “In the future, cities will become deserts, roads will become battlefields, and the hope of mankind will appear as a stranger.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4TdPxOXuYw

In Alaska, fewer barrels of oil are being produced and the price has dropped to under $50 a barrel — about half of what it used to be. The state is expecting a deficit of $3 billion next year.

And with deeper cuts comes a loss of jobs and school funding.

“It’s not going to take 10 or 15 years. I think two or three years, you’ll see a noticeable drop in Alaska’s population,” Larry Persily said. He, along with a panel of three, spoke at Juneau’s Forum on Alaska’s Fiscal Future.

Persily worked for the Obama Administration on Alaska’s natural gas pipeline and now works for the Kenai Peninsula Borough. He said the proposed LNG pipeline offered a glimmer of hope that could add $1.2 billion a year into the budget.

“But in and of itself, it is not going to solve our problem,” Persily said.

A big topic of conversation at the forum was the possibility of a state income or sales tax. But some of the panelists agreed a sales tax could be regressive and hurt struggling people.

Brad Keithley, a consultant firm that focuses on oil, gas and policy matters, said that’s what adding state taxes would do.

“Think about this for a second. If we’re going into a recession, the last thing you want to do is reduce personal incomes,” Keithley said. “The last thing you want to do is take money out of the private economy. Take money out of people’s hands. That’s what taxes do. ”

Persily sees it differently.

“You look at taxes as taking money out of individuals’ hands. I look at taxes as a way of paying for community services, “Persily said. “That’s how it works. That’s how communities work.”

Persily said some people could also afford a reduced PFD check or forgoing it altogether. I asked Josh Warren an attendant at the forum, what he thought of that.

“I love my PFD. I’ve gotten it every year since I was born here. But if that’s what the state needs to educate children, then I think that’s OK,” Warren said.

Juneau has a 5% city sales tax. Places like Anchorage and Fairbanks don’t.

To help with the fiscal crisis, panelists advised municipalities to come up with solutions on their own. Brad Keithley said that meant “thinking local.”

“Because the state’s not going to be riding over the hill to build the next school, to build the next AstroTurf football field, to build the next UAF athletic arena, to build the next crime lab. They’re not going to ride over the hill to do that,” Keithley said.

There’s nothing apocalyptic about that.