[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 2445, TO RECOGNIZE ALEXANDER CREEK AS A NATIVE VILLAGE; H.R.
3350, ALASKA NATIVE VETERANS LAND ALLOTMENT EQUITY ACT; H.R. 3351,
NATIVE AMERICAN CHALLENGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2007; AND H.R.
3560, SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION ACT.
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-55
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-971 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan Jim Saxton, New Jersey
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Elton Gallegly, California
Samoa John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas Chris Cannon, Utah
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Jeff Flake, Arizona
Islands Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Grace F. Napolitano, California Henry E. Brown, Jr., South
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey Carolina
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Jim Costa, California Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Dan Boren, Oklahoma Louie Gohmert, Texas
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland Tom Cole, Oklahoma
George Miller, California Rob Bishop, Utah
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Dean Heller, Nevada
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York Bill Sali, Idaho
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Lois Capps, California Vacancy
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South
Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina
James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, November 14, 2007..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from
the State of West Virginia................................. 2
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Alaska.................................................. 2
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Statement of Witnesses:
Angapak, Nelson N., Sr., Vice President, Alaska Federation of
Natives.................................................... 29
Prepared statement on H.R. 3350.......................... 30
Erulkar, Ben, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, Economic Development Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce..................................... 12
Prepared statement on H.R. 3351.......................... 14
Kitka, Julie E., President, Alaska Federation of Natives..... 24
Prepared statement on H.R. 3351.......................... 27
Lindekugel, Buck, Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council....................................... 44
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560.......................... 45
Mallott, Byron, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation........... 39
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560.......................... 40
Nedd, Michael, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 3
Prepared statement on H.R. 2445, H.R. 3350, H.R. 3351,
and H.R. 3560.......................................... 5
Simpson, Melissa, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture............ 10
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560.......................... 11
Thompson, Stephanie S., President, Alexander Creek
Incorporated............................................... 20
Prepared statement on H.R. 2445.......................... 22
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents submitted for the record which have been
retained in the Committee's official files................. 59
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2445, TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT ACT TO RECOGNIZE ALEXANDER CREEK AS A NATIVE VILLAGE, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES; H.R. 3350, TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE FOR EQUITABLE ALLOTMENT OF LANDS TO ALASKA
NATIVE VETERANS. ``ALASKA NATIVE VETERANS LAND ALLOTMENT EQUITY ACT'';
H.R. 3351, TO ADAPT THE LESSONS OF FOREIGN
AID TO UNDERDEVELOPED ECONOMIES TO THE PROVISION OF FEDERAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SIMILARLY SITUATED REMOTE NATIVE AMERICAN
COMMUNITIES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``NATIVE AMERICAN CHALLENGE
DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACT OF 2007''; AND H.R. 3560, TO PROVIDE FOR THE
COMPLETION OF CERTAIN LAND SELECTIONS UNDER THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS
SETTLEMENT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. ``SOUTHEAST ALASKA NATIVE LAND
ENTITLEMENT FINALIZATION ACT.''
----------
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, D.C.
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m. in Room
1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Nick J. Rahall, II
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Rahall, Young and Faleomavaega.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE NICK J. RAHALL, II, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
The Chairman. The Committee on Natural Resources will come
to order.
Alaska Day is a legal holiday in the State of Alaska
observed on October 18. Today is no holiday the last time I
checked, but it is Alaska Bill Day here in the Committee on
Natural Resources.
We have before us four bills which have been sponsored by
the gentleman from Alaska, the Ranking Member, Don Young: H.R.
2445 to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to
recognize Alexander Creek as a Native village; H.R. 3350, the
Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act; H.R. 3351,
the Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act; and
H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Land Entitlement Finalization
Act.
At the outset I would like to thank all of the witnesses,
especially those who have traveled so far from Alaska to be
with us today.
I am sure these are all good bills, at least in the eyes of
the gentlemen to my right, and I will now recognize him for any
opening comments he wishes to make.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DON YOUNG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA
Mr. Young. I thank the Chairman, and I do thank you for
holding these hearings. I hope that when these hearings are
over that you will see that they are good bills too. That is
what witnesses are all about.
The Chairman. That is right.
Mr. Young. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for hearing
these four bills. You have covered H.R. 2445, the Alexander
Creek recognition bill; H.R. 3350, the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act for the veterans that fought in the Vietnam War
and were not allowed to have the chance to choose their
allotment before it was closed off; the Challenge bill, H.R.
3351--they want to develop that for the Alaska Natives and
other natives around the United States; and the Southeast
Regional Corporation and their section of lands. It is long
overdue. The Alaska Native Lands Claims Act passed in 1971, and
we are still trying to select and make sure they get their
lands. I think this is a fair and equitable solution to a
problem that should be solved.
I look forward to the witnesses who are before us today. I
will say, Mr. Chairman, I have had a chance to read some of the
testimony from some of the agencies, and I am not happy. I
could go back 30 years ago, and I could duplicate the exact
same testimony.
I don't care what Administration it is. It seems like
agencies have their heads stuck somewhere where I don't really
want to talk about it right now, but I would suggest
respectfully it does not make me happy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Young follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Don Young, Ranking Republican,
Committee on Natural Resources
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing today on
four of my Alaska Native bills.
H.R. 2445, a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
to recognize the village of Alexander Creek located in Alaska as an
eligible Native Village pursuant to that Act.
H.R. 3350, a bill that amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act to provide an equitable treatment of Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
in their application for land under the Native Allotment Act.
Approximately, 2,800 Alaska Natives served in the military during the
Vietnam conflict and therefore did not have an opportunity to apply for
their Native allotment. In 1998, P.L. 105-276 amended ANCSA to provide
Alaska Native Vietnam veterans an opportunity to obtain an allotment of
up to 160 acres of land under the Native Allotment Act.
H.R. 3351, a bill modeled after the Millennium Challenge Act of
2003, which developed a model for reducing poverty and promoting
sustainable economic growth and uses the same principles to enhance the
long-term job creation and revenue generation potential of Native
economies by creating investment-favorable climates and increasing
Native productivity. It will also administer Federal economic
development assistance in a new way to promote economic growth,
eliminate poverty, and strengthen good governance, entrepreneurship,
and investment in Native communities.
H.R. 3560, a bill which will address the inequitable treatment of
the Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska--Sealaska
Corporation--``by allowing it to select its remaining land entitlement
under Section 14 of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act from
designated federal land in Southeast Alaska. Southeast Alaska Native
Corporation has waited 36 years to receive conveyance of their full
land entitlement, and this bill will expedite the process.
Again, thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing and I look
forward to hearing from my Alaska Native witnesses on these important
bills.
______
The Chairman. I wish we could go back and duplicate you.
Mr. Young. If you would like to do that, you couldn't put
up with 30 years of me. I will tell you.
The Chairman. You are through? OK. Thank you, Mr. Young.
Our first witness today is Mr. Michael Nedd from the Bureau
of Land Management at the Department of Interior. As with all
witnesses today, we do have your prepared statements, and they
will be inserted in the record as if actually read. You are
encouraged to summarize or proceed in whatever manner you wish.
Mr. Nedd?
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL NEDD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR MINERALS,
REALTY AND RESOURCE PROTECTION, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Nedd. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. In consideration of the fact that your
testimony covers all four bills that we are considering today,
hopefully you will feel free to extend your oral remarks up to
10 minutes.
Mr. Nedd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for inviting me to provide the views of the
Department of the Interior on H.R. 2445, the Alexander Creek
Village Recognition Act; H.R. 3350, the Alaska Native Veterans
Land Allotment Equity Act; and H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska
Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act.
You have also asked the Department to provide its view on
H.R. 3351, the Native American Challenge Demonstration Project
Act of 2007. As this legislation would establish a new program
within the Department of Commerce, the Department defers to
Commerce as to its position on the legislation and
administration of the program. At your request, however, we are
providing a brief overview on economic development in Indian
Country.
With me today is Mr. Bob Middleton, Director of the Office
of Indian Energy and Economic Development, Office of the
Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs, who testified before the
Committee at its September 19, 2007, hearing on diversifying
Native economics. Dr. Middleton can answer questions on H.R.
3351.
My statement addresses the three bills that would be
administered by the Department of Interior.
H.R. 2445, the Alexander Creek Village Recognition Act. We
understand the continued desire of Alexander Creek, Inc. to be
recognized as a Native village. H.R. 2445 would legislatively
designate the Alexander Creek Native group as a Native village
under the provision of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
ANCSA.
The redesignation would entitle Alexander Creek to appraise
over 61,000 acres of land at the current market value, with the
amount of the appraised value to be deposited in a Treasury
account that Alexander Creek would use to acquire land in
Alaska offered at public sale.
H.R. 2445 would effectively overturn the stipulated
agreement that was signed by Alexander Creek in 1979 and
codified in ANILCA. In this agreement, Alexander Creek withdrew
its application to be recognized as a village, accepted
certification as a Native group and agreed that the lands
conveyed under the 1979 agreement constituted a full and final
settlement of its land entitlement under ANCSA.
That settlement allowed the land entitlement process
throughout south central Alaska's Cook Inlet region to proceed.
After 27 years, the process is in the late stage of
implementation. Changing the status of Alexander Creek from a
Native group to a Native village through H.R. 2445 would
undermine and disrupt this lengthy and complex land entitlement
process and would throw into question the finalization of the
land entitlement claim in south central Alaska. We therefore
oppose the legislation.
H.R. 3350, the Alaska Native Veteran Land Allotment Equity
Act. The Department testified on similar legislation in the
107th Congress that the bill raises a number of serious policy,
management and technical concerns and would give rise to new
issues of fairness with respect to Alaska Native veterans and
other Alaska Natives.
H.R. 3350 would allow any Alaska Native veteran or an heir
to a deceased veteran who served during the period from August
5, 1964, through May 7, 1975, to select up to two parcels of
land totaling no more than 160 acres.
Alaska Native veteran applicants could choose any vacant
Federal land in the State of Alaska located outside of the
TransAlaska Pipeline corridor. This includes private lands that
have already been patented to Native corporations or to the
State of Alaska.
H.R. 3350 goes far beyond the original missed opportunity
rationale and appears to create a bonus program that awards
land for military service only to certain veterans. By allowing
certain veterans to choose land that was not available to other
allotment applicants, H.R. 3350 creates unfairness between
Alaska Native veterans and Natives who did not serve in the
military.
The Department opposes H.R. 3350 because it authorizes new
allotment claims 36 years after repeal of the 1960 Native
Allotment Act. H.R. 3350 negates an important compromise
reached in the passage of the 1998 Act, throws out years of
adjudication under that Act and disrupts settled land use
arrangements under ANCSA and ANILCA. This disruption undermines
the goal of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act to
finalize land entitlements.
H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization Act. The Department supports the goals of
completing ANCSA entitlement as soon as possible so that Alaska
Native corporations may have the full economic benefit of their
intended land base. This includes the entitlement due to
Sealaska.
However, we do not support H.R. 3560. It creates new
categories of selection not available to other regional
corporations. It authorizes the selection of individual small
parcels, as opposed to larger blocks like the current
selections, that will likely take longer and be more costly to
process than Sealaska's current selections.
Its deadlines could result in compromised title due to
insufficient time to identify third party interests and
easements. More significantly, however, we note that ANCSA did
not allow for selection and conveyance of cultural sites in
national park system units in Alaska. H.R. 3560, by contrast,
would allow such selection and conveyance for Sealaska.
The legislation identifies sites for selection and
conveyance of Sealaska and includes 12 sites located in Glacier
Bay National Park and Preserve and one site in Klondike Gold
Rush National Historical Park.
As noted above, we support the goals of completing ANCSA
entitlements as soon as possible and are working hard to ensure
that process comes to successful conclusion. H.R. 3560 has the
potential to negatively impact our ability to complete ANCSA
entitlement not only in southeast Alaska, but across the entire
state.
Mr. Chairman, again thank you for the opportunity to
present this testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions
that you or other Members of the Committee may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Nedd follows:]
Statement of Michael Nedd, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and
Resource Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, on H.R. 2445, Alexander Creek Village Recognition Act; H.R.
3350, Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act; H.R. 3560,
Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act; and H.R.
3351, Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to provide the Department of the Interior's (Department's) views on
H.R. 2445, the Alexander Creek Village Recognition Act; H.R. 3350, the
Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act; and H.R. 3560, the
Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. You have
also asked the Department to provide its views on H.R. 3351, the Native
American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of 2007. As this
legislation would establish a new program within the Department of
Commerce, the Department defers to Commerce as to its position on the
legislation and administration of the program. At your request,
however, we are providing a brief overview on economic development in
Indian Country. My statement will begin with the three Alaska bills.
H.R.2445, Alexander Creek Village Recognition Act
As discussed in more detail below, we understand the continuing
desire of Alexander Creek, Inc., to be recognized as a Native village.
However, this legislation would effectively overturn the long-standing
settlement, codified in statute, which resolved the eligibility of
Alexander Creek, and would throw into question the finalization of land
entitlement claims in southcentral Alaska. For these reasons, the
Department opposes enactment of H.R. 2445.
Background
Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in
1971 to resolve aboriginal land claims in Alaska. Through ANCSA, Native
claims in Alaska were extinguished in exchange for 44 million acres of
land and $962.5 million in compensation. ANCSA established specific
entitlements for allocating this settlement among Native-owned regional
corporations, Native villages and Native groups. Native villages
(required to have a Native population of 25 or more, as determined by a
1970 census) received greater entitlements than Native groups. Native
villages were entitled to a minimum of 69,120 acres from the public
domain. In contrast, communities determined to have fewer than 25
Natives could be certified as Native groups and were entitled to a
maximum of 7,680 acres.
ANCSA listed nearly 200 Native villages and directed the Secretary
of the Interior to determine if additional Native communities qualified
as villages. Alexander Creek was not listed as a village in ANCSA. It
applied for eligibility as an unlisted village but its application was
contested by the State of Alaska, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough and
other parties.
Thus began a long period of litigation over Alexander Creek's
eligibility as a Native village that was ultimately resolved in a
Stipulated Agreement in 1979 and codified in Section 1432 of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). In signing this
Stipulated Agreement, Alexander Creek withdrew its application to be
recognized as a village, accepted certification as a Native group, and
agreed that the lands conveyed under the 1979 Agreement ``constitute a
full and final settlement'' of its land entitlement under ANCSA. The
Department has fulfilled its responsibilities to Alexander Creek under
the agreement.
H.R. 2445
H.R. 2445 would legislatively designate the Alexander Creek Native
group as a Native village under the provisions of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The bill would entitle Alexander Creek
to the appraised current fair market value of approximately 61,440
acres it had provisionally selected in the early 1970s, pending the
outcome of its original application to be recognized as a Native
village. The appraised value of these lands would determine the amount
of a Treasury account to be established for Alexander Creek, which
would use the account to acquire lands in Alaska offered at public
sale. The bill also directs the Secretary to seek a land exchange with
the State of Alaska or the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to acquire surface
estate lands for Alexander Creek near its home area. The bill provides
a mechanism for reducing the value of the Alexander Creek account for
lands acquired for Alexander Creek through an exchange.
H.R. 2445 would overturn the settlement agreement accepted by
Alexander Creek in 1979 and codified in ANILCA. The resolution of
Alexander Creek's status as a Native group in ANILCA allowed the land
entitlement process throughout southcentral Alaska's Cook Inlet region
to proceed. The process is now in a late stage of implementation.
Changing the status of Alexander Creek could undercut the basis on
which village and regional entitlements are addressed, fundamentally
disrupting this lengthy and complex land entitlement process. H.R. 2445
would establish a troubling precedent. We therefore oppose the
legislation.
H.R. 3350, Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act
H.R. 3350 raises a number of serious policy, management, and
technical concerns, and it would give rise to new issues of fairness
with respect to other Alaska Natives and other Vietnam veterans. For
these reasons, and because H.R. 3350 would authorize a disruptive
expansion of the Native Allotment program in Alaska, the Department
opposes this legislation.
Background
The Native Allotment Act of 1906, as amended, gave the Secretary of
the Interior authority to convey up to 160 acres of non-mineral land to
individual Alaska Natives. Altogether about 10,000 Alaska Natives filed
allotment applications for more than 16,000 parcels. Over 80 percent of
the applications were filed with the BLM following an extensive
outreach and assistance program carried out from 1969 through 1971.
The 1906 Allotment Act was repealed with the enactment of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, but with a savings
provision for individual allotment claims then pending before the
Department. Certain Alaska Native veterans of the Vietnam War may have
missed an opportunity to apply for an allotment because they were
serving in the armed forces immediately prior to the 1971 repeal of the
Allotment Act and enactment of ANCSA. In 1998, the Alaska Native
Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act was enacted to redress any unfairness
that may have resulted.
The Department supports the principle of equitable treatment of
Alaska Native Vietnam veterans, and the BLM has made every effort at
fairness in implementing the 1998 Act. The deadline for Alaska Native
Vietnam veterans to file an application for an allotment was January
31, 2002. The BLM received applications from 740 individuals claiming a
total of 1,010 parcels by that deadline, and has taken action on these
applications. Of the original 1,010 parcels claimed, 708 (about 70
percent) have been rejected either because the applicant was not
eligible for an allotment under the terms of the 1998 Act or the land
claimed was not available for conveyance under the terms of the Act.
Nine (9) certificates of allotment have been issued, and 90 parcels
have been approved for conveyance.
The processing of the remaining 203 parcels requires more
information from the applicant before BLM will know whether the
applicant has met the requirements of the 1998 Act. In many cases,
despite repeated requests from the BLM, supporting documentation is
still needed from the applicants. In cases where additional information
could result in approval of the allotment, BLM makes every effort to
obtain that information before taking adverse action on the claim.
H.R. 3350
H.R. 3350 would allow any Alaska Native Vietnam-era (August 5,
1964, through May 7, 1975) veteran who has not yet received a Native
allotment to select up to 2 parcels of land totaling no more than 160
acres. If the veteran is deceased or dies before filing an application,
an heir may apply for an allotment on the veteran's behalf.
The legislation would repeal the BLM's regulations that implemented
the 1998 Act and require the Secretary to publish new regulations
within one year. Native veterans would have three years after the
Secretary issues final regulations to file their applications. Native
veteran applicants could choose any vacant Federal land in the State of
Alaska located outside of the TransAlaska Pipeline corridor.
The Department testified in great detail on nearly identical
legislation (H.R. 3148) in the 107th Congress. As noted above, while
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-971 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866)512-1800
DC area (202)512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail Stop SSOP,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
H.R. 3350 aims for fairness, it raises a number of serious policy,
management, and technical concerns, and it would give rise to new
issues of fairness with respect to other Alaska Natives and other
Vietnam veterans. H.R. 3350 goes far beyond the original ``missed
opportunity'' rationale and has the appearance of creating a bonus
program that awards land for military service only to certain veterans.
Provisions of the legislation appear to create inequities between
Alaska Native Vietnam veterans and Natives who did not serve in the
military by allowing veterans to choose land that was not available to
other allotment applicants. The deadlines for approval and conveyances
give applicants under H.R. 3350 preferential treatment not afforded to
other Alaska Natives. The bill authorizes compensatory acreage for
Native corporations that voluntarily give up land for Native veteran
allotments but not for the State of Alaska.
We oppose H.R. 3350 because it authorizes new allotment claims 36
years after repeal of the 1906 Native Allotment Act. The legislation
negates important compromises reached in the passage of the 1998 Act,
throws out years of adjudication under that Act, and disrupts settled
land use arrangements under ANCSA and ANILCA. It undermines the goals
of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act to finalize land
entitlements under ANCSA, the Statehood Act, and existing 1906
allotment applications, and even unconveyed Native veteran claims.
Finally, it would create additional trust assets and also raises the
possibility of Constitutional challenge as to whether it may be an
impermissible preference. Finally, the legislation undermines the
processing of pending Alaska Native Veteran applications that are
nearing issuance of certificate of allotments
H.R. 3560, Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act
The Department supports the goal of completing ANCSA entitlements
as soon as possible so that Alaska Native corporations may have the
full economic benefit of their intended land base. This includes the
entitlements due to Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska). However, we do not
support H.R. 3560 for the reasons detailed below,, including the
undesirable precedents it may establish as well as its potential impact
on our ability to complete ANCSA entitlements, not only in Southeast
Alaska but across the entire state.
Background
ANCSA established a framework under which Alaska Natives could form
private corporations to select and receive title to 44 million acres of
public land in Alaska and receive payment of $962.5 million in
settlement of their aboriginal claim to land in the State. Sealaska is
one of twelve regional corporations formed under ANCSA to receive land
benefits. Sealaska has not received title to all of the acres currently
allocated to it under Sec. 14(h)(8) of ANCSA and the final allocation
of acreage to Sealaska under Sec. 14(h)(8) of ANCSA has not yet been
determined.
H.R. 3560
As noted above, we support finalizing entitlements under ANCSA, but
H.R. 3560 does not provide a path to finalization of Sealaska's ANCSA
entitlement, and it creates new categories of selections not available
to other regional corporations. Moreover, because the bill would
authorize the selection of a number of individual small parcels, as
opposed to larger blocks like the current selections, they will likely
take longer and be more costly to process than Sealaska's current
selections.
We are also concerned about the deadlines for conveyance included
in H.R. 3560. While BLM-Alaska has worked hard to meet immediate
specific economic needs of Native corporations when those specific
needs are identified, we are concerned that the deadlines do not
provide sufficient time to identify third party interests and easements
and to complete the other necessary adjudicatory and survey tasks
needed to assure that the quality of title issued to Sealaska is not
compromised. We believe that any perceived advantage to Sealaska that
may come from such deadlines will be outweighed by the hard feelings
such preferential treatment could provoke in the Native community
outside of Southeast Alaska.
More significantly, however, we note that ANCSA did not allow for
selection and conveyance of cultural sites within National Park System
(NPS) units in Alaska. This legislation would allow such selections and
conveyances. Section 3(b)(2)(A)(i) of H.R. 3560, which identifies sites
for selection and conveyance to Sealaska, includes 12 sites located in
Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve and one site in Klondike Gold
Rush National Historical Park. The legislation also provides for later
identification of additional sites with broad cultural associations
that could be selected and conveyed from these units, as well as from
Sitka National Historical Park. Moreover, the bill provides for the
economic development of the conveyed lands and removes the usual
protections afforded cultural sites.
This legislation would significantly impact Glacier Bay National
Park and Preserve and Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park by
removing valuable cultural and natural sites from NPS ownership and
management, transferring them to private ownership, removing national
historic protection provisions, and opening them to economic
development. H.R. 3560 could also result in similar impacts to Sitka
National Historical Park. For these reasons, we strongly oppose these
provisions of H.R. 3560.
As noted above, we support the goal of completing ANCSA
entitlements as soon as possible and are working hard to ensure that
process comes to a successful conclusion.
H.R. 3351, The Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of
2007
As noted above, H.R. 3351 would establish a new program within the
Department of Commerce. For this reason, we defer to Commerce as to a
position on H.R. 3351 and administration of such a program. At your
request, however, we are including an overview on economic development
issues in tribal communities. This information updates and supplements
testimony provided to the Committee by Dr. Robert Middleton, Director
of the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development, at a September
19, 2007, hearing on Diversifying Native Economies.
The Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development (IEED) works
to promote economic development, increase business knowledge in tribal
communities, increase jobs and businesses, broaden access to capital
investment, and develop Indian energy and mineral resources. To reach
performance milestones in Fiscal Year 2008, IEED is guided by
recommendations from tribal leaders, who have asked that we
concentrate, among other things, on--
developing a better legal infrastructure in Indian
Country;
providing more funding for community and economic
planning;
continuing to provide training for business and
marketplace skills;
funding financial literacy training at the earliest
educational stages; and
offering strategic advice on setting up and operating
businesses.
As noted at the September 19th hearing, last May IEED partnered
with NCAI and other federal agencies and organizations to orchestrate
the National Native American Economic Policy Summit in Phoenix. Since
then, IEED has joined with the National Congress of American Indians
(NCAI) to publish the recommendations offered by the Summit's tribal
and federal representatives to improve Native American economies. We
take these recommendations seriously because we believe that no real
progress can be made in building strong Indian economies until tribes
themselves identify and undertake to surmount obstacles to economic
growth in their communities. Actions that we are taking to address
issues raised in these recommendations are discussed below.
Creating a Strong Legal Infrastructure
Summit participants made it clear that economic development in
Indian Country is not possible without the rule of law embodied in
commercial codes that secure collateral and allow the free flow of
credit between persons inside and outside the reservation. As a result,
IEED has funded preparation and adoption of tribal uniform commercial
code sections dealing with secured transactions and development of a
curriculum to train tribal uniform commercial code administrators.
Later this year, we will be co-sponsoring with the Tulalip Tribes of
Washington a conference on how tribes can adopt codes to protect the
economic value of their cultural patrimony, including intellectual
property such as flora, fauna, and oral traditions.
Planning for Progress
We are also working to advance thinking on comprehensive
reservation planning, which allows tribes to make a realistic inventory
of their energy, transportation, water, housing, telecommunications and
other core infrastructure needs and determine the means for satisfying
those needs while establishing economic autonomy and creating jobs. On
October 5-6, 2007 in Tempe, Arizona, we hosted with NCAI, the
University of New Mexico, and Arizona State University a tribal
community comprehensive planning conference. A white paper from the
conference will be available shortly.
IEED has also funded long-term, strategic economic development
planning, and has worked to link tribes with advice from some of the
most distinguished business schools in the United States. Last year,
the Native American Business Development Institute (NABDI) arranged
feasibility studies for tribes on potential economic development
opportunities ranging from a business park, a security business, a
medical supply enterprise, and an upland bird hunting operation, to new
uses for a dormant tribal wellness/recreation center, and a greenhouse
heated by woody biomass. We expect NABDI to undertake similar studies
this fiscal year.
We are also now collecting data for the Labor Force Report, which
was previously compiled by the BIA. The report, with an expected
release of November 2009, will provide valuable information on
employment rates, workforce participation, and economic development on
reservations.
Training for Success
We have sponsored the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth
University to train executives of Indian-owned firms in intensive, one-
day and three-day workshops which teach Native American business men
and women how to develop and improve business management skills;
establish and run a business; maintain accounting records; assess
performance; create a high-performing business enterprise; and expand
existing operations. Participants learn about implementing company
strategy, aligning operations to create customer value, operations
strategy, analyzing and refining key business processes, prioritizing
process improvements, and effective management techniques.
To penetrate the ``digital divide'' affecting remote reservations,
we have been working with the Native American Chamber of Commerce
(NACC), SeniorNet, and IBM to place IBM-donated computer equipment and
software and provide high-technology training at various reservation
locations, called Achievement Centers. The equipment is being used for
employment training, job searches, internet commerce, home-based
businesses and many other purposes. The first Achievement Center was
dedicated at Blackfeet Nation in September 2006, with others
established for the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe Indians at Cass Lake,
Minnesota and the Tigua Tribe at the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo in Socorro,
Texas. An Achievement Center for the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians
in Houlton, Maine, should open this spring.
IEED also sponsors workshops to train Native Americans how to form
SBA 8(a) businesses and take advantage of federal procurement
opportunities, including those made possible by the Buy-Indian Act.
Within the Department, IEED has encouraged government charge card
purchasers to ``buy Indian'' and we have set up a data base of
qualified Native American vendors to facilitate purchases from
Department procurement officers.
IEED has also planned and funded a one-year Entrepreneurial
Education Pilot Project in FY 2008 for students at seven reservation
high schools. We have partnered with the Bureau of Indian Education and
the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship, which last month
trained teachers at each of the pilot schools.
Providing Strategic Advice
In 2008, IEED will distribute a Tribal Business Structure Handbook
to all tribes. Developed in partnership with the Tulalip Tribes, this
handbook will serve as a primary reference for entrepreneurs
contemplating creation of a business enterprise. It will provide the
key factors to be considered when structuring a business or project,
and is intended to aid tribes in determining whether business formation
should occur under tribal, state, or federal law and which structure
will work best to protect tribal assets, preserve tribal sovereignty,
minimize tax liability, and maximize the use of incentives available
for tribal economic development.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the Department opposes H.R. 2445, The
Alexander Creek Village Recognition Act, and H.R. 3350, the Alaska
Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act, and does not support H.R.
3560, the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement Finalization Act. We
defer to the Department of Commerce for its position on H.R. 3351.
Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will be
glad to answer any questions that you or Members of the Committee may
have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Nedd.
Ms. Simpson?
STATEMENT OF MELISSA SIMPSON, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, NATURAL
RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Ms. Simpson. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to talk with you today about a
bill that addresses land claims in Alaska.
I am providing testimony on behalf of the Department of
Agriculture on H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization Act. We recognize and support the need
to finish existing statutory land transfer obligations to
Native corporations in Alaska, including Sealaska Corporation,
and are committed to that goal.
As part of the settlement enacted in the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act in 1971, Native corporations were
created, and they selected Federal lands for conveyance.
Sealaska is the regional Native corporation representing
southeast Alaska and has received some of its entitlements
under Section 14[h][1] of ANCSA.
However, there are additional acres that remain to be
conveyed from the National Forest System lands. We defer to the
Department of the Interior to determine the final allocation of
acreage to Sealaska, but for the reasons I will outline today
we do have some serious concerns with this bill.
Our testimony will focus on how the proposal relates to the
management of the public lands of the Tongass National Forest.
H.R. 3560 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey
over 300 separate acres of land within the Tongass to Sealaska.
The Forest Service has been in a process to revise the
original land and resource management plan on the Tongass for
over 20 years with the goal of establishing economic stability
to southeast Alaska. Our current forest planning effort is
drawing to a close in the near future and represents a balanced
plan that protects fish and wildlife while providing a stable
supply of economic timber to the local industry.
Management of some National Forest System lands is
currently encumbered by the ANCSA withdrawals, and finalizing
these withdrawals will simplify the future management of these
lands.
This information and attached maps provided in the bill are
not sufficient to accurately assess potential affects at this
time. We have concerns with some of the selections that are
proposed by this bill because the selections could remove key
areas of land from the Tongass that contribute toward the goals
of the land management plan and the scientific basis on which
it is premised.
We would be happy to work with the bill's sponsors to
address specific tracts of concern. More broadly, it is
essential that any legislation addressing Tongass land tenure
issues includes language clearly stating that under no
requirement of law would enactment precipitate another round of
land management planning on the Tongass National Forest.
If H.R. 3560 or similar legislation is to advance through
the legislative process, we would like to work with the bill's
sponsors to assure the legislation includes such language.
Through the court ordered Tongass land management plan
amendment process in which we are currently engaged, we have
learned how important the sense of stability and resource
access is to the 32 small communities embedded within the 17
million acres of the Tongass.
Until the planning process is finished, the communities who
depend on the forest for many aspects of their livelihood,
recreation and spiritual well being may experience additional
long-term uncertainty. They have lived through years of timber
industry's decline, once the backbone of economic stability in
this region.
From them we have heard growing concerns over the
distribution and viability of many wildlife species and
changing attitudes about how the forest and its abundant
resources should be managed. The completion of the Tongass land
management plan and its implementation is important for
community stability, is important to taxpayers interested in
assuring its implementation given its costs, and is important
to the Forest Service's ability to manage the public lands.
Again, we support the completion of the entitlement due to
Sealaska as legislated in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act. We are willing to work with the Committee to resolve the
issues I have discussed today.
This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to answer any
questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Simpson follows:]
Statement of Melissa Simpson, Deputy Under Secretary,
Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to talk with you today about a bill that addresses land
claims in Alaska. I am providing testimony on behalf of the Department
of Agriculture on H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization Act. We recognize and support the need to
finish existing statutory land transfer obligations to Native
Corporations in Alaska, including Sealaska Corporation (Sealaska), and
are committed to that goal. As part of the settlement enacted in the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971, Native
Corporations were created and selected federal lands for conveyance.
Sealaska is the regional Native Corporation representing Southeast
Alaska and has received some of its entitlement under Sec. 14(h)(1) of
ANCSA; however there are additional acres that remain to be conveyed
from National Forest System lands. We defer to the Department of the
Interior to determine the final allocation of acreage to Sealaska. For
the reasons we have outlined below, we have serious concerns with this
bill.
Background
Our testimony will focus on how this proposal relates to the
management of the public lands of the Tongass National Forest
(Tongass).
H.R. 3560
H.R. 3560 would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey over
300 separate tracts of land within the Tongass to Sealaska.
The Forest Service has been engaged in a process to revise the
original Land and Resource Management Plan on the Tongass for over 20
years with the goal of establishing economic stability to Southeast
Alaska. Our current forest planning effort is drawing to a close in the
near future and represents a balanced plan that protects wildlife and
fish, and will provide a stable supply of economic timber to the local
industry. Management of some National Forest System lands are currently
encumbered by the ANCSA withdrawals. Finalizing withdrawals will
simplify the future management of these lands.
The information and attached maps provided in the bill are not
sufficient to accurately assess potential affects at this time.
However, we have concerns with some of the selections that are proposed
by this bill because the selections could remove key areas of land from
the Tongass that contribute toward the goals of the land management
plan and the scientific basis on which it is premised. We would be
happy to work with the bill's sponsors to address specific tracts of
concern. More broadly, it is essential that any legislation addressing
Tongass land tenure issues includes language clearly stating that under
no requirement of law would enactment precipitate another round of land
management planning on the Tongass National Forest. If H.R. 3560 or
similar legislation is to advance through the legislative process, we
would like to work with the bill's sponsors to assure the legislation
includes such language.
Through the court ordered Tongass Land Management Plan amendment
process in which we are currently engaged, we have learned how
important the sense of stability and resource access is to the 32 small
communities embedded within the 17 million acres of the Tongass. Until
the planning process is finished, the communities who depend on the
forest for many aspects of their livelihood, recreation and spiritual
well-being may experience additional long-term uncertainty. They have
lived through years of timber industry's decline, once the backbone of
economic stability in this region. From them we have heard growing
concerns over the distribution and viability of many wildlife species
and changing attitudes about how the forest and its abundant resources
should be managed. The completion of the Tongass Land Management Plan
and its implementation is important for community stability, is
important to taxpayers interested in assuring its implementation given
its costs, and is important to the Forest Service's ability to manage
the public lands.
Again, we support completion of the entitlement due to Sealaska as
legislated in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. We are willing
to work with the Committee to resolve the issues I have discussed
today. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any
questions you might have.
______
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Simpson.
STATEMENT OF BEN ERULKAR, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Erulkar. Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and
Members of the Committee, I am honored to be here today
representing the Department of Commerce.
I also pleased to be testifying at the same hearing as
Julie Kitka, President of the Alaska Federation of Natives. The
Department of Commerce knows Ms. Kitka well, and we have come
to greatly appreciate her passion, commitment and new ideas
regarding improving economic opportunity in Native American
communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the Committee
the Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of
2007. Although the Administration has not taken a position on
the bill, in this tight fiscal environment it is clear that
spending constraint is one of the Administration's top
priorities.
However, the Department of Commerce is pleased to offer our
observations today based on our experience working with Native
American communities. Overall, the Department appreciates the
bill's emphasis on planning to promote successful economic
development and the effort to incorporate performance
benchmarks in order to better ensure that results are achieved
for areas where economic opportunity lags.
These emphases ring familiar with the Economic Development
Administration. EDA has three policy priorities that guide its
investment philosophy. We look for projects that promote
innovation and competitiveness, entrepreneurship and regional
collaboration. These three cornerstones of EDA's approach have
successfully created higher skilled, higher wage jobs,
attracted private investment and prepared America's regions for
competitive success in the 21st century.
In selecting projects for investment, both for distressed
Native American communities, as well as other distressed areas,
EDA relies on grassroots ideas. When local decision makers
develop and implement economic development strategies, greater
numbers of higher skill, higher wage jobs result.
The Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of
2007 correctly identifies the fundamental need to begin any
economic development with strategies designed to achieve
sustainable growth and reduce poverty over a defined period.
The bill intends to mirror the framework established by the
Millennium Challenge Act, which improves how the U.S. provides
foreign aid to underdeveloped countries.
The Millennium Challenge Act establishes criteria to ensure
that recipient countries are development ready to successfully
take advantage of economic development resources. In addition,
the bill recognizes the critical need to measure actual
results.
Equally significant, it recognizes that accountability in
the implementation of such projects is an important incentive
for success. Accordingly, it authorizes the Secretary to
suspend or terminate assistance for poor performance so
resources can be redirected to more promising initiatives.
I also appreciate the intent of the bill to simplify the
complex maze of often confusing regulatory requirements that
Native American communities face in accessing assistance from a
myriad of Federal programs.
In conclusion, this demonstration bill, H.R. 3351, proposes
to provide Native American communities with a multi-year
strategic economic development plan developed by the community
and pushes the major decision making to the local level. This
is the crucial first step to a successful outcome, as is the
provision of technical assistance to support capacity building,
which a number of communities are likely to need.
We appreciate the intent of this bill to adapt the
framework of the Millennium Challenge to Native American
communities. While there are no Department of Commerce funds
available for this program, we look forward to working with
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and the Committee to
bring our experience in economic development to bear in helping
Native American communities prosper.
In addition, I urge the Committee and those interested in
this bill to reach out to those implementing the Millennium
Challenge in order to utilize their expertise in crafting
criteria that address the development ready aspect of the
proposed legislation.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Young and Members of the
Committee, thank you for your time. We look forward to being
helpful as this bill moves through the Congress.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Erulkar follows:]
Statement of Ben Erulkar, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic
Development, Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Introduction
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the
Committee, I am honored to be here today representing the Department of
Commerce. I am also pleased to be at the same hearing as Julie Kitka,
President of the Alaska Federation of Natives. The Department of
Commerce knows Ms. Kitka well, and we have come to greatly appreciate
her passion, commitment, and new ideas regarding improving economic
opportunity in Native American communities.
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with the Committee the
``Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of 2007.''
Although the Administration has not taken a position on the bill, in
this tight fiscal environment, it is clear that spending constraint is
one of the Administration's top priorities. However, the Department is
pleased to offer our observations today, based on our experience
working with Native American communities. Overall, the Department
appreciates the bill's emphasis on planning to promote successful
economic development, and the effort to incorporate performance
benchmarks in order to better ensure results are achieved for areas
where economic opportunity lags.
Department of Commerce Experience with Native American Communities
The Department of Commerce has promoted economic growth in Native
American communities in the following ways:
Minority Business Development Agency Funds Business Centers
The Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) funds eight
Native American Business Enterprise Centers in Oklahoma, New
Mexico, North Dakota, California, Washington, Minnesota,
Arizona, and New Mexico, which provide technical assistance and
procurement services to Native American businesses. Through
this program, the MBDA focuses on helping with contracting and
finance opportunities for Native American businesses and Alaska
Native corporations.
International Trade Administration Promotes Exports and Tourism
The International Trade Administration's Commercial Service
plays a key role in promoting Native American exports abroad.
Since 2004, the Commercial Service has helped its growing base
of Native American businesses to achieve approximately $775,000
in export sales and international tourism in tribal lands. The
Commercial Service has provided research on target markets for
Native American artisan work, funded activities at
international industry trade shows, and presented training
seminars for Native American communities on marketing their
native crafts and their lands as travel destinations. Also, the
International Trade Administration's Office of Travel and
Tourism Industries has tracked tourist visits to Native
American communities since 1996. This information is helpful in
identifying traveler characteristics and targeting markets for
overseas travelers.
The Economic Development Administration Invests in Job Creation
The Department of Commerce's Economic Development
Administration (EDA) makes investments to promote economic
development in Native American communities. Native American
communities are eligible to compete for EDA investments, and
can by statute receive up to one hundred per cent federal
funding of their economic development initiatives.
Since 2001, the Economic Development Administration (EDA) has
made 509 strategic investments to Native American communities
and organizations for economic development, totaling over $88
million; these investments are estimated to have created over
9,400 jobs for Native Americans, saved another 6,500 jobs, and
leveraged over $395 million in private sector investment.
Each year, EDA awards approximately 55 planning investments
totaling $2.6 million to Native American governments to help with the
creation of comprehensive economic development strategies, and EDA
expects to maintain this level of investment in 2008. By crafting
economic development strategies that reflect local priorities, Native
American governments position themselves to direct their resources to
optimal use.
EDA has three policy priorities that guide its investment philosophy;
we look for projects that promote:
innovation and competitiveness,
entrepreneurship, and
regional collaboration.
These three cornerstones of EDA's approach have been successful in
creating higher-skilled, higher-wage jobs, attracting private
investment and preparing America's regions for success in the 21st
century.
In selecting projects for investment, both for distressed Native
American communities as well as other distressed areas, EDA relies on
grassroots ideas. When economic development strategies are developed by
local decision makers, the whole process works better.
As examples of EDA's investments in Native American and Indian
communities, allow me to review two of EDA's more fruitful
partnerships.
Native Village of Kwinhagak
In 2004, EDA made an investment in the Native Village of
Kwinhagak near Bethel, Alaska. EDA invested $1.2 million to
extend the airport runway 800 feet to accommodate planes
handling bigger payloads. This successful investment generated
189 jobs. The runway is strategically located to ship cargo to
remote wilderness in southwest Alaska and to Anchorage,
therefore this runway extension benefits a whole region, not
just a locality.
The Umatilla Tribes of Oregon
Just this year, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation of Oregon prepared a master plan for the
development of a business park with other partners in the
region. The park is expected to generate $10 million in private
investment and its first tenant is a global management and
technology services firm. Approximately 200 higher-skill,
higher wage jobs will be created in the park, for which the
Tribes helped to establish workforce development programs at a
nearby university to train their members. This project has
proven to be so successful that EDA awarded the Tribes a
performance award, providing the Tribes with additional
financial resources.
H.R. 3351
The ``Native American Challenge Demonstration Project Act of 2007''
correctly identifies the fundamental need to begin any economic
development with strategies designed to achieve sustainable growth and
reduce poverty over a defined period.
The bill intends to mirror the framework established by the
Millennium Challenge Act, which improves how the U.S. provides foreign
aid to under-developed countries. The Millennium Challenge Act
establishes criteria to ensure that the countries are ``development
ready'' to successfully take advantage of economic development
resources.
If this demonstration project follows the Millennium Challenge Act
model, it is critically important that Native American communities be
able to show development readiness by the improvement of schools and
education levels; elimination of regulatory barriers to business
creation; and a reduction in violent crime. I also note that it is
equally critical that these communities take steps to promote
productivity, innovation and entrepreneurship, which underpin
successful economic development in the 21st century. One of the most
significant challenges facing Native American communities is creating
an environment that is attractive to private sector investment. While
government resources are important, without private sector investment
economic growth and job creation will simply not occur.
In addition, the bill recognizes the critical need to measure
actual results. Equally significant, it recognizes that accountability
in the implementation of such projects is an important incentive for
success; accordingly, it authorizes the Secretary to suspend or
terminate assistance for poor performance, so resources can be
redirected to more promising initiatives. I also appreciate the intent
of the bill to simplify the complex maze of often confusing regulatory
requirements that Native American areas face in accessing assistance
from a myriad of federal programs.
However, while the Native American Challenge Compacts are an
interesting concept, they also raise some important issues. The Compact
grants in this bill are based on a process of pre-identifying eligible
entities, which limits and segments the grantee population.
Furthermore, the eligibility criteria for these demonstration grants
are neither based on merit nor need, which hinders the overall
competitive process. As there may be opposition to these elements, more
thought should be placed on general eligibility criteria.
There is also concern over other agencies transferring development
funds to the Department of Commerce. We would, of course, need to
discuss such arrangements with our sister agencies.
We have been informed that the Justice Department has concerns
about the definition of ``eligible entity'' in section 3 of the bill.
As I understand the issue, to the extent that the bill could be viewed
as authorizing the award of government assistance on the basis of
racial or ethnic criteria, rather than tribal affiliation, grants would
be subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Since Congress has not
recognized any group of Native Hawaiians as an Indian tribe and there
is a substantial, unresolved question whether Congress may treat the
native Hawaiians as it does the Indian tribes, I understand that
Justice recommends that Native Hawaiian community organizations be
deleted from the list of eligible entities.
Conclusion
This demonstration bill, H.R. 3351, proposes to provide Native
American communities with a multi-year strategic economic development
plan developed by the community, and pushes the major decision-making
to the local level. This is the crucial first step to a successful
outcome, as is the provision of technical assistance to support
capacity building, which a number of communities are likely to need.
We appreciate the intent of this bill to adapt the framework of the
Millennium Challenge to Native American communities. While there are no
Department of Commerce funds available for this program, we look
forward to working with Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and the
Committee, to bring our experience in economic development to bear in
helping Native American communities prosper. In addition, I urge the
Committee and those interested in this bill to reach out to those
implementing the Millennium Challenge in order to utilize their
expertise in crafting criteria that address the development-ready
aspect of the proposed legislation.
While the emphasis on performance and planning is impressive, more
consideration should be given to broadening the eligibility of the
grant program.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Young, and Members of the Committee,
thank you for your time and we look forward to being helpful as this
bill moves through the Congress.
______
The Chairman. The Chair thanks the panel for their
testimony.
To Mr. Nedd, my first question is you state in your
testimony that the Department of Interior opposes the Alexander
Creek Recognition Act and the Native Veterans Land Allotment
Act and does not support the Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization Act.
I just would wonder what the process for selecting you to
deliver the news to Mr. Young this morning was. Did you draw
straws downtown?
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Anyway, with regard to Alexander Creek, H.R.
2445, do you have an estimate of the current fair market value
of 61,440 acres of land which Alexander Creek would be entitled
to in the form of a Treasury account under the bill?
Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, we do not have a current estimate
right now of the exact cost.
The Chairman. Could you supply that at a later time for the
record?
Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, yes, we will.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Concerning the Native veteran allotment bill, H.R. 3350,
your testimony notes that the bill ``also raises the
possibility of constitutional challenge as to whether it may be
an impermissible preference.''
Could you elaborate on why the Department has
constitutional concerns about this bill and specifically why is
this different than other legislation which Congress routinely
enacts to benefit Native Americans?
Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, the concern raised there was the
bill that opens up to Alaska Native veterans versus all
veterans and then looking at the time period for when the bill
was originally opened up for.
The Chairman. Why is this different than other legislation
that, as I say, Congress routinely enacts to benefit Native
Americans?
Mr. Nedd. Mr. Chairman, the way the bill is structured it
would be to a particular group of veterans, the Alaska Native
veterans, as compared to other Alaska Natives, and the way the
ANILCA or ANCSA was constructed, Mr. Chairman, raises some
concern.
The Chairman. Mr. Young may want to follow up on that, but
let me go to my final question.
Your testimony on the southeast Alaska land conveyance
bill, H.R. 3560, states that the final allocation of land
entitlement for the Native corporation has not yet been
determined.
Do you have a ballpark estimate of how much land remains to
be conveyed to the corporation, and what happens if H.R. 3560
is not enacted? Will the Native corporation still get the land
to which it is entitled under the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act?
Mr. Nedd. Right now BLM will not know with certainty how
much additional land, if any, will be available for the
allocation on the section, Mr. Chairman, until all work is
complete. Approximately there is about 16,000 pending
applications.
The Chairman. Are you talking about H.R. 3560?
Mr. Nedd. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me go to the time of the Ranking Member.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, we have some votes.
Mr. Nedd, I can't pick on you particularly. I would love
to, but I can't. I am unhappy with the Administration. I am
unhappy with the Secretary.
I think you guys have really dropped the ball; not only
this legislation, but all the way through this Administration
when it comes to the Department of Interior, especially when it
comes to American Natives and Alaska Natives.
You say you have to do more work. Thirty-six years, and you
have been sitting on your thumbs. Thirty-six years. You don't
know how many acres the State of Alaska has. They will tell me
how much. I know the number. You should know it. Still, that
hasn't been transferred.
If my bill doesn't pass, what they will do is to select old
growth timber. What they want to do is select new growth with
roads, not old growth, which solves a lot of our problems. But
the Interior Department apparently doesn't take that into
consideration.
By the way, the Forest Service may have some questions
about this, but they should be the lead agency and not you.
Mr. Chairman, like I say, I read this testimony. This is 35
years old, and you still don't have the answer. That is not
good. Everything is I oppose, I oppose. They opposed the
original claims. In fact, President Nixon was going to veto the
Native Land Claims Act itself because people opposed it. The
agency opposed it.
I go through the history of this, and every time I come to
one of these hearings the agency has opposed anything that is
beneficial and is helpful to the Native people where you should
have done the job. Not you personally but the agency. You
haven't done it.
Melissa, did I understand you correctly that if there was
disclaimer language in the bill as far as rewriting the key
limit that you might have better understanding or better
sympathy for the bill in the southeast?
Ms. Simpson. That is correct.
Mr. Young. OK.
Ms. Simpson. We need to go back and look at the specific
tracts though. As you know, there are several issues in the
legislation that have not been analyzed through the NEPA
process. That is our biggest concern.
Mr. Young. I am trying to solve a problem.
Ms. Simpson. Understood.
Mr. Young. We will work with you. You said you would work
with us. I am trying to solve this process. Further witnesses,
Mr. Chairman, will explain what we are talking about.
There are some questions about cultural areas. Now the
cultural areas should be managed by the southeast Alaska
Natives. It shouldn't be the Park Service. We can arrange that.
The other areas in question, I am sure that they will tell
you that they are not going to interfere with the Yukon park or
whatever you want to call it. They are not going to be involved
in that. They are trying to select land that will fulfill their
obligation under the Alaska Native Land Claims Act, lands that
have already been used. I think that is the best and wisest
decision.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to ask any further questions
right now. Like I say, I am disgusted with the Department of
Interior right now. I am not through with it yet. Promise me, I
am not, but I have no more questions at this time. I might say
something I regret.
The Chairman. I just have one quick follow-up question for
Mr. Simpson, and then I will recognize you, Eni, if I might
continue on my time.
Ms. Simpson, this follows from what the Minority Member was
just stating. Your testimony states that the Department has
serious concerns about H.R. 3560 and its impact on the Tongass
National Forest. Among other things, you state that the maps
referenced by the bill are not sufficient to address potential
effects.
Has the Forest Service conducted any public hearings in
southeast Alaska or analysis regarding the bill's impact on the
National Forest under NEPA?
Ms. Simpson. No.
The Chairman. Since no NEPA work has been done on this
legislation, could the Alaska Regional Office provide a report
to the Committee with greater detail and analysis than is
contained in your short and rather cryptic testimony today?
Ms. Simpson. Yes.
The Chairman. It needs a description, with all due respect.
Ms. Simpson. I believe the Forest Service can provide
additional information. They will have to speak with Sealaska
and get further detail, more detailed maps in particular.
The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Faleomavaega?
Mr. Faleomavaega. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I certainly want
to compliment the fantastic work of the gentleman from Alaska
not only for introducing these pieces of legislation, but some
30 years that he has been a Member of this committee.
He has my utmost respect and admiration for his initiatives
and his sensitivity and the needs of our Native American
community. I say that quite well not only for the Native
Alaskans, but for the American Indian community.
I just wish some of my colleagues here on the other side of
the aisle would have been here to understand that what we are
trying to do is to give assistance to the Native Hawaiians
using the race issue as if the Native Hawaiians are separate
from Native Americans and Native Alaskans.
I just wish the Administration would give that same
consideration. These are the only indigenous groups of people
that we have under the American flag that should be given
proper recognition, but somehow we keep coming up with this
race issue that seems to divide us.
I sincerely hope, Mr. Chairman, in the coming weeks and
months that maybe our colleagues on the other side will bear a
little understanding and appreciation of what we go through
here.
The question of the Native Alaskan Veterans Allotment Act.
I hear the gentleman saying that it precludes other Native
Alaskans. Am I correct in hearing your testimony just now, sir?
Mr. Nedd. Congressman, yes. The way we understood the bill,
it would preclude other Alaska Natives.
Mr. Faleomavaega. I don't think that was the intent of the
legislation. I think it is broad enough that any Native Alaskan
veteran should be a beneficiary to this. Am I correct?
Mr. Nedd. Yes, Congressman. Any Native Alaskan veteran,
yes.
Mr. Faleomavaega. And you are saying that the legislation
is too narrow; it only specifically addresses certain Native
Alaskan veterans?
Mr. Nedd. It separates. We felt that the way the bill is
written it separates. It would allow allotment to Alaskan
Native veterans, but not Alaskan Natives as proposed under the
previous bills.
Mr. Faleomavaega. Well, this is for veterans. If you have
served in the military, you are a beneficiary. Only if you are
a veteran.
I recall that we have a similar loan program for myself. My
tribe lives on communal lands. The Native Hawaiians live on
homestead lands and our Native American Indians live in their
own reservations or particular lands, so why should they be
precluded? I don't follow your reasoning saying Native Alaskan
veterans, not Alaskans per se.
Mr. Nedd. That is right, Congressman.
Mr. Faleomavaega. All right. We will proceed and see how
this might come out in the final Act.
I want to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, I absolutely
support all these pieces of legislation as it purports to
advance and to provide for the better needs of our Native
Alaskan peoples. I just wish and hope that the Members of this
committee will accept these proposed bills.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Eni.
That concludes all the questions we have for this panel`,
but before dismissing you I would like to extend special
recognition to Paul Kirton from the Solicitor's Office, who has
worked on Alaska issues for decades and has served as a
valuable resource to this committee. He is here with us this
morning sitting to my far left on the front row.
We certainly welcome you, Paul, and thank you so much for
your decades of service to this committee and to Administration
after Administration and to our country. Thank you.
The Chair thanks the panel for being with us this morning.
We will recess for four votes on the Floor of the House before
calling up Panel II.
The Committee stands in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The Committee will reconvene.
Our Panel II is composed of Stephanie Thompson, President,
Alexander Creek; Julie Kitka, President, Alaska Federation of
Natives, accompanied by Paul Applegarth, Chief Executive
Officer of Value Enhancement International, LLC; and Nelson
Angapak, Vice President, Alaska Federation of Tribes.
Ladies and gentlemen, we welcome you to the Committee. You
may proceed in the order I announced you, or if Mr. Young wants
to introduce you he is certainly welcome to.
Mr. Young. No. Everyone at this table has been here before
I believe numerous times. We are looking forward to your
testimony. Each one of you has a special interest.
Julie and Nelson especially were recognized before, so I
would like to proceed with the hearing.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE S. THOMPSON,
PRESIDENT, ALEXANDER CREEK
Ms. Thompson. Chairman Rahall, Congressman Young and
Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify on behalf of Alexander Creek. My name is Stephanie
Thompson. I am President of Alexander Creek and have been for
21 years.
The past two years I have also served on the Alaska
Federation of Natives Board for the Cook Inlet Region Villages.
In this capacity I serve on the legislative committee and the
convention committee.
Alexander Creek is located 27 miles northwest of Anchorage,
Alaska, across Cook Inlet right below Mt. Susitna. To this day,
Alexander Creek is assessable only by airplane, boat and snow
machine.
I was 12 years old when ANCSA was enacted. I am now 48
years old. It has been 36 years, and we are still fighting for
our village today. My Aunt Flora initially was the one to tell
our community about ANCSA, telling us that we qualified and
made sure that we registered for ANCSA. At that time, you
needed only 25 people to be a village. The BIA determined we
had 37 Natives properly enrolled to our village.
Our lands are rich in fish and wildlife and natural
resources. Because of this and our close proximity to
Anchorage, Alaska, there was much interest in our lands. Soon
after ANCAB happened, and a hearing was held to respond to the
protest of our land.
At that time, a number of our villagers were not called to
testify. In fact, my dad, who was vice president at that time,
who was a captain for WinAir Alaska, had just gotten off a
flight and returned home when he got the call to come in and
testify. He ran straight way in in his flight uniform. They put
him on the stand unprepared, as he testified.
Shortly thereafter ANCAB came back with its decision after
a secret proceeding was held and determined that there were
only 22 Natives enrolled to Alexander Creek. As soon as we
found this out we protested and put up a petition for them to
reopen so our people could testify.
Now, these people, many of them were my aunts, my uncles,
cousins and friends. They are a part of us, and they still are
a part of us today. That is why I am here: To make sure you
hear our story. ANCAB's reason for not allowing these people
that they took off our roles to be part of Alexander Creek was
that they did not testify. Well, they were never invited, and
they did not know about that hearing at that time.
When ANCAB refused to let our village testify in this way,
this is the way we lost our village status. Our people--that is
right; our people--are still with us today. We have received
support from everybody we have contacted: Congressman Young,
the Mat-Su Borough, the State of Alaska, Alaska Federation of
Natives, Cook Inlet Region Villages.
Cook Inlet Region themselves have given us two letters of
support, and yesterday we were informed, with some concern to
us, that they had some concerns on some of the new language we
had drafted, which is a work in progress and is not yet
available to this committee. We contacted them immediately and
were able to resolve these issues, and we look forward to
working with them and to their continuing support.
The information that I am leaving with you today, one of it
is the briefing of Alexander Creek--it has a little more
details of everything that happened--and a short, seven-minute
video. This video shows our elders, and they tell their own
stories of what happened to them. I am going to leave this with
the Committee so that they will be able to see and be able to
see our elders and hear their voice.
They have tasked me with the responsibility of making their
voices heard. For this purpose, I am here. I would like to
thank you very much. Quyana.
At this time I would also like to answer some of the
Department's questions they had asked earlier. They asked why
did we accept group status? At that time we were informed that
we either take group status or we get nothing at all. Our
villages met, and we were told this. We were given no choice.
This was all we knew at the time, so we accepted that.
When I became President, the elders came to me and said
Stephanie, how can this happen? We received things that said
that we were a village. Of course we were. I was a part of it.
How can this happen? I told them I don't know. That is when 21
years ago I started investigating and finding out.
I found our information in Paul Kirton's office. I was able
to get together with Jim Gottstein, who did a wonderful job of
going through those papers and letting us know what exactly
happened to us. That is why I am here in front of you today.
Another concern that they asked about, that you had asked,
was about the monetary value. At the time when we first did our
papers there was not much land available. We are hoping in the
substitute language that we have been working on to be able to
possibly select lands that are now starting to become available
because a lot of the villages and the regions are finishing up
on their selections, and we are hoping to work with the state,
the Federal government and the Mat-Su Borough on this.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
Statement of Stephanie S. Thompson, Alexander Creek Incorporated
Chairman Rahall, Ranking Member Young and distinguished members of
the committee, Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
on behalf of Alexander Creek. To talk about recognizing Alexander Creek
as a village, a great injustice that needs to be resolved.
My name is Stephanie Thompson I am testifying today in my capacity
as President of Alexander Creek, a position that I have held for 21
years. For the last two years I have served on the Alaska Federation of
Natives Board representing the Cook Inlet Region Villages. In this
capacity I serve on the legislative and convention committees.
LOCATION
Alexander Creek is located across Cook Inlet 27 miles northwest of
Anchorage Alaska. Lying right below Mt. Susitna, Alexander Creek
empties into the Susitna River just a few miles from its mouth in Cook
Inlet. To this day, Alexander Creek is only accessible by boat, plane,
snowmobile, or ATV.
HISTORY
Alexander Creek Village was first reported by George H. Eldridge in
1898.
Eldridge was tasked with conducting an extensive exploration of the
geological, topographical, and other features of Alaska, which was
authorized by Congress.
Alexander Creek had a thriving population until the whooping cough,
measles and the influenza epidemics of the early 1900's decimated the
Native population. By 1939 Alexander Creek was reoccupied by Native
families.
ANCSA
On December 18,1971 Congress enacted ANCSA to settle Alaska Native
Land Claims. Under ANCSA, Village Corporations were to receive from
69,120 acres to 161,200 acres depending on how many people lived there.
As part of it's original selections Alexander Creek was the first in
the Cook Inlet Region to select lands. These lands were rich in fish,
wildlife, and natural resources. Because of these things and of its
easy accessibility from Anchorage there was much interest in the lands
that were selected.
INITIAL ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
My Aunt, Flora Thiele was actively involved helping with
registration. Flora is a native from the Village of Seldovia. She
informed us that we met the qualifications for a village and that we
needed to register.
In order to be eligible a village needed to have 25 residents. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs, which was charged with establishing the
Village rolls, determined that there were 37 Natives properly enrolled
to the Alexander Creek Village and that it should be certified as a
Village for purposes of receiving ANCSA land and monetary benefits.
Certification as a Village would have entitled Alexander Creek to
69,120 acres. However, most of the land that would have normally been
available to Alexander Creek had already been conveyed to the State,
and much of this already promised to the Matanuska-Susitna Borough.
This created a conflict over land rights and the State of Alaska and
the Mat-Su Borough protested Alexander Creek's eligibility.
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT DECISION
A hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge to resolve
the protests starting on July 11, 1974. However, a number of villagers
were not called in to testify. My father who was Vice President at the
time had just gotten home from flying when they called him in to
testify. He went in his flight uniform and they put him on the stand
unprepared.
In a ``secret review procedure' The Interior Secretary's designee,
the Alaska Native Claims Appeals Board (ANCAB) issued its decision on
November 1, 1974 that there were only 22 natives properly enrolled to
the village--3 short of the required 25. ANCAB's decision was reversed
on appeal by the United States District Court on November 14, 1975 and
Alexander Creek's village eligibility was ordered reinstated. This was
appealed by the State of Alaska. One year later the Court of Appeals
affirmed the District Court's ruling on the unconstitutionality of the
secret proceedings.
ANCAB's stated reason for the refusal to recognize some of my
Aunts, Uncles, cousins and friends that had been removed form our
village rolls, was that they had not testified at the hearing.
Immediately after learning this Alexander Creek requested ANCAB to let
these villagers be heard, but ANCAB refused. In this way Alexander
Creek lost their Village.
These people didn't go anywhere we include them with us still to
this day, because of course they are part of Alexander Creek and they
always will be--they are family.
CONCLUSION
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 was the largest
Native land settlement in the history of the United States. The
complexity of the Act which ran many, many pages, and consumed the time
of hundred upon hundreds of dedicated people--from within the federal
government and state government--not to mention from within the Native
community--from Barrow to Ketchikan. But passage of this settlement was
just the start.
Next came the implementation of a very complex piece of
legislation.
This was an unprecedented implementation phase full of complexity
and difficult work. It would be unreasonable to assume that everything
went smoothly or was done correctly. There are many errors which
occurred and the Congress has systematically corrected them with
amending legislation as the Members became aware of the errors.
In fact the history of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, is
that the federal law has been amended in every Congress since 1971. A
package of technical amendments, and sometimes major policy changes
have occurred. We in the Alaska Native community consider the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act to be living legislation--that is intended
to remain responsive to the real needs of Alaska Native people over
time. The error that occurred to the people of Alexander Creek must be
corrected and we have remedial legislation which can do this.
Mr. Chairman for the reasons that I have stated, our village
corporation strongly supports H.R. 2445. Congressman Young has listened
to our concerns and is seeking to correct a wrong, a wrong which
Congress can correct. The federal courts have heard our concern, and
have stated that this wrong should be corrected. The most significant
aspect of the legislation is that it correctly recognizes Alexander
Creek as what it has been for hundreds of years: an Alaska Native
Village. The bill would recognize Alexander Creek as a village, not a
group corporation, and provide a means for the village to receive the
value it is due under ANCSA as a recognized village. These are our most
important goals. We have worked with Congressman Young and staff on a
potential substitute that would meet these two goals and provide more
for land conveyances than for just compensation. We would be happy to
work with the committee and the State of Alaska on either approach,
both of which would exclude any land conveyance in conservation units.
We have been recognized as a group corporation, but we are not we
are a Village.
We've received support from everyone we contacted, the Villages,
Cook Inlet Region, Alaska Federation of Natives, the Matanuska Susitna
Borough, and the State of Alaska.
The time to act is now.
I will be leaving a briefing document and a DVD entitled ``These
Voices Must Be Heard'', which tells the story of Alexander Creek in the
words of our elders.
I'd like to thank you in the language of our people--Quyana.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committee's official
files.]
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JULIE E. KITKA, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF
NATIVES, ACCOMPANIED BY PAUL APPLEGARTH, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, VALUE ENHANCEMENT INTERNATIONAL, LLC
Ms. Kitka. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name
is Julie Kitka, and I am testifying today in my position as
President of the Alaska Federation of Natives. I have a cold
today, so I apologize if my voice kind of sounds a little
rough.
Thank you for allowing me to testify on H.R. 3351, which
our congressman has introduced. We very much appreciate this
hearing, and we are supportive of this bill and urge its swift
passage and implementation. At our recent AFN annual convention
held in Fairbanks less than a couple weeks ago, our delegates
voted unanimously, and I ask that the resolution of support be
included in the record.
A little bit of background. In March of 2002, President
Bush proposed establishing the Millennium Challenge Account, a
foreign aid program designed to provide substantial new foreign
assistance to low income countries that are ruling justly,
investing in their people and encouraging economic freedom.
The MCA was envisioned as the most fundamental change to
U.S. foreign policy assistance since President John F. Kennedy
introduced the Peace Corps, the U.S. Agency for International
Development and the Alliance for Progress in the early 1960s.
The significance of the initiative lies partly in its
scale, with a greater focus on recipient country ownership of
programs, greater budget support in certain circumstances and a
great emphasis on results-based management and on providing a
larger share of aid to countries with a demonstrated commitment
to policy reform.
H.R. 3351 proposes essentially a demonstration project of a
domestic version of the Millennium Challenge Account targeted
to Native American populations with the highest levels of
poverty. AFN is supportive of this demonstration project and
has been working with our partners, Bristol Bay Native
Association and the Association of Village Council Presidents
and their 87 Native villages, for a number of years on elements
of this.
The relevance of this demonstration project recently was
brought home by a visit from the President of Mongolia to the
AFN annual convention in Fairbanks. President Nambaryn Enkbayar
was in the United States to sign a five year, $285 million
compact with President Bush and the United States to reduce
poverty and increase economic growth.
The five main areas of the agreement that he signed with
the United States dealt with a rail project, property rights
project, vocational education, health project and
administration. This was the fifteenth MCC compact signed by
the United States, totaling nearly $4.9 billion covering areas
in Africa, Central America, Eurasia and the Pacific.
When AFN talked with President Enkbayar about the recent
Millennium Challenge compact, we mentioned H.R. 3351, which was
pending to create a domestic version. We asked President
Enkbayar if he would share lessons his country learned from
their implementation and that we would share what lessons that
we learned, and he agreed.
The reason for globalization continues where in a remote,
isolated place like Alaska we could have exchanges with remote,
isolated places like Mongolia for the sole purpose of reducing
poverty with economic growth and fostering positive relations.
It is an amazing time that we live in.
This model deserves to be tested among our Native American
populations with high poverty rates. We don't need to invent or
reinvent the wheel. We need the Congress to pass H.R. 3351 and
provide the resources for our people to bring about the
benefits of this program to more people. It can be replicated
within the United States with predictable positive results, and
we will discover how to do it with your help. We can add to the
collective knowledge about strengthening Native communities
within the United States during periods of rapid change and
uncertainty.
We ask you to think of the following questions as you
deliberate on this important piece of legislation: Is this a
good idea? Is it a powerfully good idea for systemic change in
Native communities? Can you take a chance on us that we are
capable of implementing this? Is there a national impact here?
AFN believes there is. We are committed to staying the
course and willing to keep at it for as long as it takes to
succeed. That is an expression on how we believe this
demonstration project can make a difference in our people's
lives.
I know I am running close on the time. I wanted to ask for
a couple resource materials to be added to the record. One is
AFN commissioned the University of Alaska Institute of Social
and Economic Research and First Alaskans Institute to do a 30-
year trend analysis on key indicators with the Native
population, and we ask that this trend analysis, the executive
summary, be included in the record.
What we will see in the trend analysis, just very briefly,
is there has been tremendous progress made in the last 30
years. Many indicators--everything from health, housing and
well being--have improved for Alaska Natives, so the work that
this Congress and our leadership have done has made a
difference. You can just see it in the black and white
statistics in the trend analysis.
What we see is a continuing threat of disparity on all the
major indicators. The disparity is getting closer to closing,
but it is still there. It is this targeted area that we are
hoping to use, the demonstration project, to close the
disparity gap that continues and bring greater equity.
We use the example of the poverty rate because this is
primarily focused on reducing poverty in Alaska, Hawaii and in
some targeted reservations. While Alaska Native per capita
income in the year 2000 was four times higher than it was in
the 1960s, that income was still less than one-half of the
income earned by non Natives during the same period of time.
In remote Alaska, where the cost of living is the highest,
60 percent of the population is Alaska Native. In fact, one-
quarter of all Native families in remote Alaska live below the
poverty level, and one-fifth of the Native population lives
below the poverty level.
Overall, the poverty rate for Alaska Natives is still three
times that of non Natives, so I think that we have more than
adequate documentation of the critical need that we need this
program for. We have the statistical trend analysis that will
show you what is the disparity gap that we are hoping to close,
and so that is the target of what we are trying to do.
In addition to that, we have worked with you. In fact, the
Congress a couple years ago amended and put in a provision in
the Denali Commission to direct them to do an assessment of
these indicators on reducing poverty.
The contractor for the Denali Commission, the First
Alaskans Institute, just completed in September of 2007 a
lengthy report called Engaging Community Knowledge to Measure
Progress: World Development Performance Measures. We ask that
that be put into the record. I have given the clerk the volume
of the report, as well as the CD.
We have been working on this for a number of years, and we
have been doing all the groundwork on the reports and the
statistics so that when we come to you and ask you for
authorization of this bill and give us the resources to
implement it we will have all the statistical measurements that
you can and the targeted focus, so I think that we are doing a
lot of preparation right now.
The third thing I would like to add included in the record
is we have really been focused on this results-based
management. We are a great believer that the more that you
focus in on what you are trying to accomplish the greater
success that you have.
We are very aware of the limited and tight environment you
deal with as far as Federal resources, so we want to make sure
that whatever resources that we ask for are used as well and as
smart and as leveraged as much as possible.
And so we commissioned another analysis of results-based
management processes used by the OMB, used by the Asian
Development Bank, to see another perspective on this results-
based management and then another model which RuralCAP uses
called the ROMA model, and we ask that that analysis be put
into the record because I think it has some very relevant
findings on this results-based management and how, properly put
together with our bill on that, we could have great results.
The last thing I wanted to just mention that has been
raised with us is how do we get some kind of independent
verification of this demonstration project and make sure that
what we are trying to accomplish actually is accomplished. How
do we have somebody that is disinterested that can take a look
at that and the results to make sure again that the resources
are used in as most effective way as possible.
In this light, AFN has contacted the Center for Global
Development and the Brookings Institute, which are both leading
entities who have been following the MCC project since its
inception. AFN has asked them to convene a workshop of leading
experts on the Millennium Challenge and also on reducing
poverty through economic growth.
We anticipate when this bill is passed and it is in its
implementation stage we would work with the Commerce
Department, the Center for Global Development, the Brookings
Institute and a number of other universities in helping us map
out a process for sharing information and best practices and
also this implementation of a third party evaluation process.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to introduce real
quickly who is accompanying me is Mr. Paul Applegarth, who is
available to answer questions should there be questions.
Mr. Applegarth was the first president of the Millennium
Challenge Corporation when it was set up as an independent,
Federally chartered appropriation to handle the big,
international program for the United States, and he has been
assisting us. We have really appreciated his help in doing our
advance work on this legislation.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Julie. Without objection, all of
the requested materials will be made part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kitka follows:]
Statement of Julie E. Kitka, President,
Alaska Federation of Natives, on H.R. 3351
Good morning. My name is Julie E. Kitka, and I am testifying today
in my position as President of the Alaska Federation of Natives. Thank
you for holding this hearing and allowing us to testify on H.R. 3351.
The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) is fully supportive of H.R. 3351
and urges its swift passage and implementation. The delegates to the
2007 AFN Annual Convention held recently in Fairbanks, Alaska
considered H.R. 3351 and unanimously voted in support of the
legislation. We asked that the 2007 AFN Annual Convention resolution of
support be included in the hearing record.
Background:
In March 2002, President Bush proposed establishing the Millennium
Challenge Account (MCA), a foreign aid program designed to provide
substantial new foreign assistance to low-income countries that are
``ruling justly, investing in their people, and encouraging economic
freedom.'' The MCA was envisioned as the most fundamental change to
U.S. foreign assistance policy since President John D. Kennedy
introduced the Peace Corps, the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID), and the Alliance for Progress in the early 1960s.
The significance of the initiative lies partly in its scale, with a
greater focus on recipient country ownership of programs, greater
budget support in certain circumstances, and a greater emphasis on
``results-based management'' and on providing a larger share of aid to
countries with a demonstrated commitment to policy reform.
H.R. 3351 proposes essentially a demonstration project of a
domestic version of the Millennium Challenge Account (MCC) targeted to
Native American populations with the highest levels of poverty. AFN is
fully supportive of this demonstration project and has been working
with our partners, Bristol Bay Native Association and the Association
of Village Council Presidents, and their 87 Native villages, for a
number of years on elements of it. The relevance of this demonstration
project recently was brought home by a visit from the President of
Mongolia to the AFN Annual Convention in Fairbanks a couple of weeks
ago. President Nambaryn Enkbayar was in the United States to sign a MCC
agreement with the United States. The October 22, 2007 signed agreement
was a five year, $285m compact to reduce poverty and increase economic
growth. The five main areas of the agreement deal with a rail project,
property rights project, vocation education project, health project and
administration. This was the 15th MCC compact signed by the United
States totally nearly $4.9B covering areas in Africa, Central America,
Eurasia and the Pacific.
When AFN talked with President Enkbayar about the recent MCC
compact--we mentioned H.R. 3351 which was pending to create a domestic
version. We asked President Enkbayar if he would share lessons his
country learns from their implementation, and that we would share what
lessons we learned. He agreed. The reach of globalization continues--
where in a remote isolated place like Alaska, we could have exchanges
with a remote isolated place like Mongolia--for the sole purpose of
reducing poverty with economic growth and fostering positive relations.
It is amazing times we live in.
This model deserves to be tested among our Native American
populations with high poverty rates. We don't need to invent or
reinvent the wheel. We need the Congress to pass H.R. 3351 and provide
the resources for our people to bring about the benefits of this
program to more people. It can be replicated within the United States
with predictable positive results and we will discover how to do it
with your help. We can also add to the collective knowledge about
strengthening Native communities within the U.S. during periods of
rapid change and uncertainty.
We ask you to think of the following questions as you deliberate on
this important piece of legislation: Is this a good idea? Is it a
powerfully good idea for systemic change in Native communities? Can you
take a chance on us that we are capable of implementing this? Is there
a national impact here? AFN believes there is. We are committed to
staying the course and are willing to keep at it as long as it takes to
succeed. That is an expression on how much we believe this
demonstration project can make a difference in our peoples lives.
As a result of this program getting authorized and implemented we
will continue to build the capacity of Native Americans to engage in
economic activities and pull ourselves out of the poverty trap. We all
know that the U.S. economy has continued to grow and that there are
pockets within the U.S. where the increased prosperity has not reached.
This demonstration project, in many ways is intended to ensure that no
one gets left behind. AFN anticipates that the renewed focus and
attention on poverty within Native communities will allow the
development of new partnerships working together to expand life
opportunities for Native Americans.
Recently, AFN commissioned the University of Alaska, Institute of
Social and Economic Research, and First Alaskans Institute to do a
thirty-year trend analysis of key indicators within the Alaska Native
population. Although tremendous improvements in health, education,
housing and well-being has occurred over the last 30 years--poverty
among Alaska Natives remains twice that of Non-Alaska Natives--over
20%. We see a continuing thread of disparity on every major indicator
of well-being. It is this disparity we hope to attack with
implementation of H.R. 3351. That is our focus. That is what we ask you
to hold us accountable to accomplish. We need your help to do this. We
need H.R. 3351 passed and implemented quickly. AFN asks that the
Executive Summary of the 30 Year Trend Analysis be included in the
hearing record.
Another example of our advance preparations included a request we
made to the Congress several years ago to include a new provision
within the Denali Commission to do an assessment of indicators,
performance measures on reducing poverty in Alaska. The First Alaskans
Institute just completed the project on behalf of the Denali Commission
and has released a lengthy report entitled ``Engaging Community
Knowledge to Measure Progress: Rural Development Performance Measures
Project Report''--September, 2007. We ask this report be made a part of
the hearing record. We have a hard copy, and a CD of the report and 10
appendices. AFN anticipates that this report will become a part of the
demonstration project and used extensively in the development of work
plans and proposals to the Secretary of Commerce under this
legislation.
AFN has been very interested in how the results-based management
process works in different sectors and with what success. AFN
commissioned an analysis of the results-based management process of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Asian Development Bank's
process and RuralCAP's ROMA model. AFN asks that this analysis be
included in the hearing record.
AFN has also anticipated that the Congress will want to see
independent verification of activities and results of the demonstration
project. In this light, AFN has contacted the Center for Global
Development and the Brookings Institute, both leading entities who have
been following the MCA project since its inception. AFN has asked them
to convene a workshop of leading experts to share best practices
learned from the MCA and other global initiatives to reduce poverty
through economic growth. AFN anticipates, when H.R. 3351 is passed and
is in its implementation stage, the U.S. Commerce Department and the
Center for Global Development, and Brookings Institute will sit down
with us and map out 1) a process for exchange of information on best
practices and 2) an independent third party evaluation process. This
should ensure that the funds the Congress appropriates and the purposes
set out in H.R. 3351 are used well and leveraged with the best
information available from throughout the world.
Thank you for allowing AFN to testify today. We stand ready to work
with you to better life opportunities for Native Americans. Thank you
for your dedication and hard work on behalf of our people.
Attachments:
(1) 2007 AFN Convention resolution of support of the Native
American Challenge Demonstration Project of 2007
(2) AFN commissioned report on results-based management (OMB, ADB,
ROMA process)
(3) AFN commissioned report: Executive Summary of the 30-Yr Trend
Analysis
(4) Engaging Community Knowledge to Measure Progress: Rural
Development Performance Measures Project Report, September 2007 First
Alaskans Institute report to the Denali Commission
[NOTE: The attachments submitted for the record have been retained
in the Committee's official files.]
______
The Chairman. Nelson?
STATEMENT OF NELSON N. ANGAPAK, SR.,
VICE PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES
Mr. Angapak. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Congressman
Young. My name is Nelson Angapak, Vice President, Alaska
Federation of Natives.
I am a veteran. I served in the U.S. Army from 1969 to
1971, and I was honorably discharged. Mr. Chairman, I think it
is very appropriate that this hearing is taking place the
Wednesday after the Sunday in which this nation recognized and
honored its veterans.
Mr. Chairman, let me quote the President when he was
honoring fallen members of our troops. He said: In their sorrow
these families need to know and families all across our nation
of the fallen need to know that your loved ones served a cause
that is good and just and noble. As their Commander in Chief, I
make you this promise. Their sacrifice will not be in vain.
Mr. Chairman, I was very disappointed to hear an agent of
this nation seemingly speak out against what the President was
saying. Tributes to veterans, Mr Chairman, are timeless. They
transcend time.
At the outset, Mr. Chairman, let me say that historically
it has been recorded that the American Indians and Alaska
Natives on a per capita basis have the greatest number of their
membership serving in U.S. armed forces. During the Vietnam
War, we had 42,000 American Indians and Alaska Natives serving
in the battlefields of southeast Asia. Ninety percent--90
percent--of the 42,000 were volunteers.
Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the existing statute,
approximately 1,110 Alaska Natives became eligible to apply for
allotments, of which 741 applied for allotments. Of that, 10
allotments have been certified. Since the passage of the
statute that authorized our veterans to apply for allotments in
1998, 10 allotments certified.
You know, Mr. Chairman, when you passed that statute I
believe Congress had good intentions in its passage, and in my
heart I still believe that Congress had good intentions in its
passage. That is why there is a need to amend our existing
statute. We need to expand the land base for veterans'
allotments under the existing law to include all vacant public
lands in Alaska.
Two, please consider amending the statute in such a manner
that the veterans living in southeast Alaska, south central
Alaska and north slope rural need an opportunity to apply for
allotments. We have the largest concentration of Alaska Native
veterans in southeast, in south central Alaska, and all of
their allotment applications were turned down because of the
existence of the national forest.
All we are seeking, Mr. Chairman, is an equitable treatment
of our veterans with an opportunity to apply for allotments. We
are also asking that because of so few allotments being
certified that Congress consider a legislative approval process
to Alaska Native veteran allotments. We also propose, Mr.
Chairman, that the heirs of a deceased veteran be able to apply
for allotments on behalf of the fallen.
Mr. Chairman, we are hopeful that your committee will be
passing this bill. The state Native Committee supports it. The
Alaska state legislature passed a joint resolution urging
Congress to pass this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving me an opportunity to
submit this statement, and I request that my oral and my
written statement be incorporated into the record.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Angapak follows:]
Statement of Nelson N. Angapak, Sr., Vice President,
Alaska Federation of Natives, on H.R. 3350
Introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman Rahall, Honorable Don Young of Alaska,
Honorable members of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, ladies
and gentlemen:
For the record, my name is Nelson N. Angapak, Sr., Vice President,
Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN). For your information, AFN is a
statewide Native organization formed in 1966 to represent Alaska's
100,000+ Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts on concerns and issues affecting
their rights and property interests. I am a veteran and I served in
active duty in the U.S. Army from 1969 to 1971; I was honorably
discharged.
On behalf of AFN, its Board of Directors and membership, thank you
very much for inviting AFN to submit its statement to the Committee on
H.R. 3350, ``Alaska Native Veterans Land Allotment Equity Act;'' a bill
that would authorize the honorably discharged Alaska Native veterans of
the ``Nam Conflict.'' It is a privilege and honor to testify before
your Committee. I ask that this written statement and my oral comments
be incorporated into the record of this public hearing. I also ask that
the record of this public hearing on H.R. 3350 be kept open for two
weeks following the hearing to give the Alaska Native veterans of the
``Nam Conflict'' and other interested parties an opportunity to submit
written statements.
I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the U.S. House
Natural Resources Committee for having worked with AFN and the Alaska
Native Community during the past millennium on issues of concern to AFN
and the Alaska Native Community. During the last millennium, U.S.
Congress passed a series of historic legislation that benefited the
Alaska Native Community. Some examples of such legislation include, but
are not limited to: P.L. 92-203, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act; Indian Child Welfare Act, the Indian Self-Determination Act, Title
VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act; just to
name a few.
I would like to bring the following points to your attention up
front:
1. As the 20th century closes, there are nearly 190,000 Native
American military veterans. It is well recognized that, historically,
Native Americans including Alaska Natives, have the highest record of
service per capita when compared to other ethnic groups. The reasons
behind this disproportionate contribution are complex and deeply rooted
in traditional American Indian culture. In many respects, Native
Americans are no different from others who volunteer for military
service. They do, however, have distinctive cultural values which drive
them to serve their country. One such value is their proud warrior
tradition. 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-1.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. The outbreak of World War II brought Native American warriors
back to the battlefield in defense of their homeland. Although now
eligible for the draft by virtue of the Snyder Act, which gave
citizenship to American Indians in 1924, conscription alone does not
account for the disproportionate number of Native Americans who joined
the armed services. More than 44,000 Native Americans, out of a total
Native American population of less than 350,000, served with
distinction between 1941 and 1945 in both the European and Pacific
theaters of war. Native American men and women on the home front also
showed an intense desire to serve their country, and were an integral
part of the war effort. More than 40,000 Indian people left their
reservations to work in ordnance depots, factories, and other war
industries. Native Americans also invested more than $50 million in war
bonds, and contributed generously to the Red Cross and the Army and
Navy Relief societies. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Native American's strong sense of patriotism and courage
emerged once again during the Vietnam era. More than 42,000 Native
Americans, more than 90 percent of them volunteers, fought in Vietnam.
Native American contributions in United States military combat
continued in the 1980s and 1990s as they served in Grenada, Panama,
Somalia, and the Persian Gulf. 3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please note that these three points were excerpted from a website
of the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY--NAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER; 805 KIDDER
BREESE SE--WASHINGTON NAVY YARD; WASHINGTON DC 20374-5060. This is
public information that is readily available for the people of the
United Stated of America.
I believe in my heart that the intentions of Congress were
honorable when it passed Section 41 of P. L. 105-276 in 1998, the
Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act. I believed it then, and I
still believe it now; Congress intended that Alaska Native veterans of
the ``Nam Conflict would have the opportunity to obtain allotments of
land under the 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act. Please note the
following:
1. Under the 1998 law, approximately, 1,110 Alaska Natives who
served in active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces and were honorably
discharged would have become eligible to apply for Native allotments.
2. Of this number, according to Bureau of Land Management in
Alaska, 741 Alaska Native veterans who met the terms and conditions of
this statute applied for Native Allotments in good faith.
3. To date, only ten veteran allotments have been certified. I
applied for a Native allotment under the Act as I was one of the 1,110
veterans who met the terms and conditions of this statute; to date, I
do not have a certified allotment. During the public hearing process
for the existing statute, I disclosed to this committee that I could be
a beneficiary of this law if it became a statute.
Many disillusioned Alaska Native veterans who served in active duty
in the U.S. Armed Forces from January 1, 1969 to December 18, 1971, who
applied for allotments were rejected because they did not meet the
strict criteria of existing law. I think they must still have faith in
Congress because they eagerly await the passage of H.R. 3350. However,
they do ask me ``what were the intentions of Congress when they passed
this law that gives us nothing but empty promises. I've told them that
I feel the intentions of Congress were honorable in 1998 and I still
feel that way; but how do I answer all those Alaska Native veterans of
the ``Nam Conflict who wonder why they were left out?
AFN Supports the Passage of H.R. 3350
AFN lobbied for the reopening of the Native Allotment Act of May
17, 1906 for the Alaska Native veterans who were unable to apply for
Native Allotments because they were serving in active duty in the U.S.
Armed Forces of this nation over seas. Congress corrected this
oversight by the inclusion of Section 41 of P.L. 105-276 and AFN thanks
you for having the courage to act affirmatively on this by authorizing
those of us who served in active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces to apply
for Native Allotments if we served for at least six months of active
duty during the period January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971.
Historically, Alaska Natives and American Indians have, on a per
capita basis, served in greater numbers than any other group in active
duty in the U.S. Armed Forces; and in particular, during the major
military conflicts of this nation. The Honorable George W. Bush,
President of the United States of America referenced this fact during
one of his stop overs in Anchorage, Alaska, on his way overseas; AFN
thanks President Bush for the public recognition of this fact.
Alaska Natives Support the Passage of H.R. 3350
Attached to my statement, please find a copy of a resolution that
was considered and passed unanimously by the 2,500 delegates to the
2007 Annual Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives. The
unanimous passage of AFN Convention Resolution 07-06 ``A RESOLUTION OF
CONTINUED SUPPORT OF AMENDING THE ALASKA NATIVE ALLOTMENT ACT AND THE
ALASKA NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS ALLOTMENT ACT'' demonstrates that there
is a very strong statewide support for the passage of this legislation.
Please note the following resolves of this resolution:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Delegates to the 2007 Annual
Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., that AFN
requests the Alaska Congressional Delegation to introduce
legislation to amend the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1998,
and the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act in order
to allow more Native allotments for Native Vietnam veterans and
to take actions that would move such legislation forward to a
vote in 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that AFN 2007 Delegates unanimously support the
passage of all Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran Allotment for
adjudication on Tongass/NPRA lands under the applicants of the
Alaska Native Vietnam who has applied under the provisional
Allotment Act of 1906. 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ AFN Convention Resolution 07-06, copy attached to this
statement
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Alaska State Legislature Supports the Passage of Legislation
Leading to Native Allotments for the Alaska Native Veterans of
the ``Nam Era''
In support of more Native allotments in Alaska, the Alaska State
Legislature, in 2006, unanimously passed House Joint Resolution 27 HJR
27 which urges the United States Congress to pass legislation amending
the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act to allow deserving
veterans to obtain allotments of vacant federal land within the State
of Alaska; and to reopen and legislatively approve allotments in the
Tongass National Forest that were previously rejected. A copy of HJR 27
is attached to my statement. Also attached is the statement of John
Coghill, Jr, sponsor of HJR 27, which demonstrates the strong support
of all Alaskans for providing more allotments for Alaska Natives.
The Need for the Enactment of H.R. 3350
AFN, working in conjunction with the Alaska Legal Services,
identified the major obstacles which made it difficult for the Alaska
Native Veterans of the ``Nam Era'' to apply for and receive their
Native Allotments. These are identified as follows in summary:
1. Alaska Native veterans can only apply for land that was vacant,
unappropriated, and unreserved when their use commenced.
2. Lands within national forests are not available for veteran
allotments nor are federal lands designated as Conservation System
Units (CSUs) available for veteran allotments unless the CSU managers
approve.
3. Alaska Native veterans can only apply if they served in active
military duty from January 1, 1969 to December 31, 1971 (even though
the Vietnam conflict began August 5, 1964 and ended May 7, 1975).
4. Alaska Native veterans must prove they used the land (applied
for in their native allotment application) in a substantially
continuous and independent manner, at least potentially exclusive of
others, for five or more years.
5. The heirs of deceased veterans are not eligible for veteran
allotments except in the limited situations where the veteran was
killed in action, died from a war related injury, or died while a
prisoner of war.
As a result of these obstacles, as I stated in my opening remarks,
of the approximately 741 veteran applications filed, only 10 veteran
allotments have been certified. AFN believes that Congress did not
intend such an outcome. AFN supports amending Section 41 of P.L. 105-
276 so that the original intent of this statute can be fulfilled.
AFN proposes the following:
1. Expand the land available for veteran allotments under existing
law (P.L. 105-276): P.L. 105-276 mandates that the Alaska Native
Veterans of the ``Nam Era'' can only apply for lands that are vacant,
unappropriated, and unreserved lands. As you know, almost all the lands
in Alaska are appropriated and reserved; and in particular, after the
enactment of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. AFN
proposes that the Alaska Native veterans be allowed to apply for Native
Allotments on unoccupied public lands in Alaska. Expanding the land
base in this manner will increase the land base from which veterans can
apply for as Native Allotments.
2. Allow veteran allotments in the national forests: All veterans
in southeast Alaska are excluded from obtaining allotments under the
national forest exclusion expressed in P.L. 105-276. Since the only
federal land in southeast Alaska is national forest land, and the
largest concentration of Alaska Native veterans reside in southeast
Alaska, the existing law unfairly excludes many deserving veterans. AFN
recommends that Congress remove the national forest exclusion. Doing so
will remove the most bizarre and unfair obstacle faced by Alaska Native
veterans in their quest for allotments.
3. Expand the dates for eligibility for a veteran allotment:
Current law unfairly excludes many deserving veterans even though they
honorably served their country during the ``Vietnam era.'' Eligibility
for a veteran allotment now requires that the veteran have served at
least six months between January 1, 1969 and June 2, 1971 or was
enlisted or drafted after June 2, 1971, but before December 3, 1971.
However, this nation recognizes by law and policy that the ``Vietnam
Era Conflict'' extended from August 5, 1964, to May 7, 1975.
Eligibility for a veteran allotment should apply the same dates.
Therefore, AFN recommends that the Alaska Native Veteran allotment
qualifying dates be expanded to the entire Vietnam era; from August 5,
1964 to May 7, 1975.
4. Apply legislative approval process to Alaska Native Veterans
allotments: To be qualified for an allotment a veteran must now meet
the extensive use and occupancy requirements of the Alaska Native
Allotment Act of 1906, as amended. This means that Veteran applicants
must now prove substantially continuous use and occupancy of the land
for a period of five years that is potentially exclusive of others.
This requirement has proven to be costly, often requiring a fact
finding hearing. Legislative approval, made available to applicants of
allotments under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906, saves time
and money because it eliminates administrative adjudication of use and
occupancy.
5. Allow the heir(s) of a deceased veteran to apply for a veteran
allotment: The heirs of veterans who died subsequent to their military
service but before the veteran allotment application period opened were
not able to apply for a veteran allotment even though the deceased
veteran would have otherwise been qualified. AFN recommends that heirs
of veterans who died subsequent to qualifying military service be
allowed to apply for an allotment on behalf of the estate of the
deceased veteran.
Best Kept Secret
In its May 19, 2002, issue, The Anchorage Daily News printed a
story on the Native Allotment Act of May 17, 1906 and I quote:
``On May 17, 1906, a law went into effect that has been
described by one legal specialist as ``the best-kept secret the
government has ever had.'' That was Alaska Legal Services
attorney Carol Yeatman's description of the Native Allotment
Act, which was originally enacted to provide up to 160 acres of
land to individual Alaska Natives.
``Although virtually all Alaska Natives were eligible to apply
for land that had been used by their families and other
relatives for subsistence purposes for generations, in the
first 64 years of the Act, only 245 allotments were approved,
according to Alaska Legal Services. Most Natives were unaware
of the law, and between language barriers and government red
tape, those who did apply for an allotment often faced
literally decades of waiting.'' 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ May 19, 2002 Edition of Anchorage Daily News
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFN urges Congress to amend the Alaska Native Allotment Act and the
Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans' Allotment Act to allow more Alaska
Native Vietnam veterans to apply for and receive their Native
Allotments.
Thank you for inviting me to submit this statement; if you have any
questions on my statement, I can field them at your call.
______
ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES
2007 ANNUAL CONVENTION
RESOLUTION 07-06
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF CONTINUED SUPPORT OF AMENDING THE ALASKA NATIVE
ALLOTMENT ACT AND THE ALASKA NATIVE VIETNAM VETERANS ALLOTMENT
ACT
WHEREAS: The Alaska Federation of Natives continues to support the
rights of Alaska Tribal citizens to receive title to land under
the 1906 Alaska Native Allotment Act and the 1998 Alaska Native
Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act; and
WHEREAS: The Tribal working group consisting of 150 federally
recognized Tribal governments and nonprofit organizations in
Alaska, including Sitka Tribe, Yakutat Tlingit Tribe, Chilkat
Indian Village, Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian
Tribes, Inupiat Community of the Arctic North Slope,
Association of Village Council Presidents, Tanana Chiefs
Conference, Alaska Realty Consortium, Maniilaq Association,
Bristol Bay Native Association, Kawerak, Inc., and Alaska
Federation of Natives, Alaska Inter-Tribal Council, and Alaska
Legal Services Corporation, have drafted technical amendments
to allow more Alaska Native Vietnam veterans to apply for and
receive native allotments and to reopen allotment cases
rejected and closed under the decision in Shields v. United
States, 698 F.2d 987 (9th Cir. 1983); and
WHEREAS: The amendments to the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment
Act of 1998, are necessary because this law contains too many
restrictions that very few veterans are eligible and under the
current Act very little land in Alaska is available to
veterans; and
WHEREAS: The amendments to reopen the allotments closed under the
decision in Shields is necessary to rectify the unfair
distribution of allotments in Southeast Alaska that resulted
because of the rule that applicants must personally use the
allotment land when most of the land in southeast Alaska was
withdrawn by 1909 for the Tongass National Forest which
encompasses almost 17 million acres; and
WHEREAS: Legislation amending the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans
Allotment Act was introduced in 2007 into the U.S. House of
Representatives as H.R. 3350 but this legislation does not
include reopening the allotments closed under Shields and no
similar legislation has been introduced into the U.S. Senate;
and
WHEREAS: The Alaska State Legislature unanimously voiced its support of
amending the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act and
reopening the Shields allotments with House Joint Resolution
number 27 which passed and was sent to Congress in 2006; and
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Delegates to the 2007 Annual
Convention of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., that AFN
requests the Alaska Congressional Delegation to introduce
legislation to amend the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1998,
and the Alaska Native Vietnam Veterans Allotment Act in order
to allow more Native allotments for Native Vietnam veterans and
to take actions that would move such legislation forward to a
vote in 2008.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that AFN 2007 Delegates unanimously support the
passage of all Alaska Native Vietnam Veteran Allotment for
adjudication on Tongass/NPRA lands under the applicants of the
Alaska Native Vietnam who has applied under the provisional
Allotment Act of 1906.
SUBMITTED BY: AFN BOARD OF DIRECTORS
CONVENTION ACTION: PASSED AS AMENDED.
______
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
I will recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Young, first.
Mr. Young. Thank you. I want to thank the panel for their
testimony.
I would not have introduced these bills if I did not
believe with all my heart they were justified, as each one of
you believe they are correct.
Stephanie, I am a little bit concerned because you heard
the agency's testimony. They oppose it because they have all
kinds of different reasons it upsets. You agreed to be a group
instead of being recognized as a village, yada, yada, yada.
Am I correct? Where were the hearings held for Alexander
Creek?
Ms. Thompson. In Anchorage.
Mr. Young. In Anchorage. How far away is Alexander Creek
from Anchorage?
Ms. Thompson. Twenty-seven miles northwest.
Mr. Young. Twenty-seven miles?
Ms. Thompson. Right below Mt. Susitna.
Mr. Young. And it is across water, is it not?
Ms. Thompson. Across Cook Inlet, and the people there were
never notified.
Mr. Young. They were never notified. You have that
documented?
Ms. Thompson. We have that documented and then we
petitioned them to reopen and they refused. That is how we----
Mr. Young. They being the BLM?
Ms. Thompson. The ANCAB. We petitioned them to reopen for--
--
Mr. Young. Repeat that. What does that stand for?
Ms. Thompson. Alaska Native Appeals Claims.
Mr. Young. OK. But that was under the BLM?
Ms. Thompson. Appeal Board.
Mr. Young. That was under the BLM?
Ms. Thompson. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I am trying to get across this is
a village. It was recognized as a village and then, because
they didn't quite get all 36 or 30, whatever they had to do--
they had 22 witnesses. They said it is not a village anymore.
You were offered a choice of being recognized as a group or
nothing? Is that correct?
Ms. Thompson. That is correct.
Mr. Young. All right. Now, you guys wonder why this is a
frustrating job. You fly all this way, and we have a bunch of
stupid votes coming up right now. All right. I think that is
it, I hope.
You have talked to Mat-Su Valley. They do not object. Is
that correct?
Ms. Thompson. Yes. We have resolutions from the Mat-Su
Valley, letters of support from the State of Alaska. We have
resolutions from the Cook Inlet Region Villages. We have
letters of support from Cook Inlet Region themselves.
It has taken us awhile--it has been a long path--to get
those and work with them. They all support us.
Mr. Young. OK. AFN?
Ms. Thompson. AFN also.
Mr. Young. OK. And what I am leading up to is that the only
people that object to this is in fact the BLM?
Ms. Thompson. Correct.
Mr. Young. Which is an agency which did not fulfill their
obligations to the village when it recognized the village in
the first enrollment and then disrecognized them, was given an
ultimatum. Very frankly, I don't think your people knew what
they were doing.
Ms. Thompson. They didn't.
Mr. Young. They did not know that.
Mr. Chairman, we have a state of 365 million acres in the
State of Alaska. There are only 44 million acres of Native
land. The villages were guaranteed that land, the 44 million
acres of land. Right now the people who object to it are those
that have Federal control of it, which frustrates me.
The question of the letter from Cook Inlet. I was a little
bit surprised also because the last time I heard that they did
support it--in fact, they were bugging me to get this thing
done, and then we got this letter. You have hashed that out
now?
Ms. Thompson. We have hashed it out. What we had is we had
new language that has not yet been circulated to this committee
that we were still working on. They had gotten a hold of that
language and had some concerns and hadn't been able to get a
hold of our people, so they put their concerns there.
We immediately got a hold of them. We were able to work
together and resolve those concerns and now look forward to
working together with them.
Mr. Young. All right.
Ms. Thompson. I also wanted to make a point. Up to this
day, Alexander Creek has only received 1,680 acres of land.
Mr. Young. But they did receive that for the village,
right?
Ms. Thompson. That is it. Yes.
Mr. Young. And that is why if they received that for the
village they should receive the full amount, which every
village got.
Ms. Thompson. Yes.
Mr. Young. That is what I don't understand is 1,000 acres.
Nelson, good presentation. You heard again the agency
opposing this. I couldn't understand what their objection was.
They said it would divide the Native groups, the veterans. It
is my understanding there is nobody who objects to what we are
asking to do.
Mr. Angapak. Mr. Chairman, from the standpoint of the
Native community, in our recent AFN convention there was a
resolution passed, unanimously passed by the delegates to the
AFN convention supporting the passage of this bill. There is no
opposition from the Alaska Native community insofar as this
bill is concerned.
Mr. Young. And you said there were only 10 of the 750
applicants have been accepted?
Mr. Angapak. Mr. Chairman, 741 veterans applied for Native
allotments. To date, only 10 have been certified. That is why
we are seeking legislative approval of those allotments.
Mr. Young. Of the ones that applied; just not the 10?
Mr. Angapak. You are right.
Mr. Young. Right. If all of them were to be agreed to,
there would be 160,000 acres of land given to individuals out
of 365 million.
I agree, Mr Chairman, with Nelson. These are veterans who
were in Vietnam and didn't have the opportunity to file for an
allotment prior to the closure of the Enactment Act, which
passed in 1906. They closed it down I believe in 1998.
Mr. Angapak. Mr. Chairman, Section 18 of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act and the ability of the Alaska Natives to
apply for allotments. As you stated, a great majority or many
of our veterans were overseas defending this nation and were
not given the opportunity to apply for those allotments.
Mr. Young. All right. Mr. Chairman, if I may, this is a
bill we passed once in 1998, and we thought we were doing the
right thing.
Again, as I said in my opening statement, the biggest
opponents to anything we do for the Alaska Natives is the
government itself, which is supposed to be part of the trust
responsibility. Every time we turn around, any type of
allotment, they object to it. I can go on through the line, but
that is the reason that this bill should be passed.
Julie and Paul both, on this Millennium you are just asking
for authorization in this bill? Because we don't have any
appropriation authority.
Ms. Kitka. Yes. No, we are just asking for authorization in
this bill.
Mr. Young. I have to say, the reason at point I handed this
to the Chairman, just in southeast Alaska we have an average
rate of unemployment in southeast Alaska of 62 percent. Around
the state I am not exactly sure how high it is, but it is quite
high.
Like you say, although progress has been made something
like this could probably--Paul, you have been around--expedite
the ability to increase the monetary goal, as well as the
standard of living in these villages primarily.
Paul, if you can just comment, and then I will shut up. I
didn't tell you to shut up. I said I will shut up.
Mr. Applegarth. You certainly don't need to shut up.
Mr. Young. Yes.
Mr. Applegarth. These programs are really built on lessons
of 50 years of foreign aid, what has worked and what hasn't
worked. One of the most important things that works is
ownership by the beneficiaries.
This is really to demonstrate how you translate that
domestically where the potential beneficiaries decide what the
priorities are. They set the goals, how they are going to be
measured, and then take ownership of the actual implementation,
so your building capacity.
You are really having a long-term, sustainable effect on
poverty reduction and sustainable growth, so you are going to
have the kind of impact you talked about in the target areas
here.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, unless someone wants to comment
from the panel, I don't have any further questions at this
time. Anybody? Julie?
Ms. Kitka. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young, I just wanted
to clarify.
Even though my testimony was just on H.R. 3351, the Alaska
Federation of Natives supports each one of the bills that is on
the agenda for the hearing.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Julie, because that is what I was
concerned. I kept hearing from the Administration that the
Natives disagree with that, da-da-da-da.
One of the premises we have had is this has been
communicated with all the different groups and it is supported
by AFN. You know, to have an agency come in and say well, it
will divide, it will separate out people, and I don't know if
you have a copy of the testimony. Read what they say.
I can take this back 30 years and just insert a different
date, and it will be the exact same testimony from the same
agency. That, you know, just frustrates the daylights out of me
because they are not looking at the issue and the justice of
the issues. They are just looking at what their pat answer is
from the agency. They have no imagination at all. They say no
to everything.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions.
The Chairman. Yes, sir?
Mr. Angapak. Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to
request that if it is possible to keep the record of the
hearing on H.R. 3350 open----
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Angapak.--to give our veterans and other concerned
citizens an opportunity to comment. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Yes. As is normal practice, Nelson, the
record will remain open for 10 days for any submission of
materials the panel would like to submit.
Any other comments from the panel?
[No response.]
The Chairman. Again, we thank you.
Mr. Young. We have to vote. We will come back. How many
votes do we have?
The Chairman. Three this series.
Mr. Young. So we will probably be back here maybe at 1:30?
The Chairman. Correct.
Mr. Young. And then we will have the Sealaska panel put
back on?
The Chairman. Correct.
Mr. Young. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
The Committee is in recess.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The hearing will reconvene.
Our final panel is composed of Byron Mallott, board member
of the Sealaska Corporation, accompanied by Chris McNeil, Jr.,
President and CEO of Sealaska Corporation; and Mr. Buck
Lindekugel, Conservation Director of the Southeast Alaska
Conservation Council, accompanied by Don Hernandez of Pt.
Baker, Alaska.
Gentlemen, we welcome you to the Committee. We appreciate
your traveling as you have to be here. You may proceed in the
order I announced.
Mr. Young, do you wish to make any comments?
Mr. Young. No.
The Chairman. OK.
STATEMENT OF BYRON MALLOTT, BOARD MEMBER, SEALASKA CORPORATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY CHRIS McNEIL, JR., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, SEALASKA CORPORATION
Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young,
Members of the Committee.
H.R. 3560 is all about finalizing the land claims
settlement in southeast Alaska. We received--that is Sealaska
Corporation received--just one percent of the lands that were
made available to settle land claims while having some 20
percent of the population of the Alaska Native community at the
time of settlement.
Thirty some years have passed, and we are seeking to
finalize our land selections within our region. We have made an
effort to be responsive to not just the land claims that drive
this process and that bring us to where we are today, but to
try to be responsive to more broad public policy needs within
the Tongass National Forest, and thus we seek to select lands
outside of the circumscribed withdrawal areas authorized by the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
We also have emphasized and seek to select some 270 plus
sacred sites within the region, some 276 sacred sites of more
than 1,000 that we have identified. We seek to do that as part
of this bill because some 30 years after our initial selections
we find that what we thought would happen--that is, there would
be protection of these sacred sites if they remained within
Federal jurisdiction; that that has not been the case.
We have seen where sacred sites have been used as objects
of tourism, certainly as objects of curiosity. Some have been
desecrated and so this added emphasis on acquiring those sites
in Native ownership as opposed to continuing Federal
jurisdiction.
We have also tried to be responsive to public policy needs
by having very small, restricted sites selected for
nonconsumptive economic enterprise within the region that
allows us to again select outside withdrawal areas in order to
hopefully attract very modest, nonconsumptive economic
enterprise to places near our villages.
Sealaska as a region and as a people encompass over a dozen
villages within our region. I want to emphasize also that
Sealaska as an institution, Sealaska Corporation, is an
economic development tool. Since passage of the Land Claims
Settlement Act and the selection of lands within our region,
Sealaska has shared over $300 million with other regions
throughout the state in order to assist them in meeting the
economic and social public policy purposes of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act.
This bill more than anything else is about who we are as
Native peoples, and what we find again 30 years after the
passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act is that we
have learned many lessons. The key lesson is that we
continually need to remind those who manage public lands within
the Tongass, those who create policy and regulatory regimes
within the Tongass National Forest, that this is a native
place.
It is the home of the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian peoples;
that we desire to be both productive citizens of the forest,
but at the same time we want our nativeness to be recognized
and respected and hopefully ultimately celebrated.
Mr. Chairman, I believe personally very strongly that if a
century from now we look back on the Tongass Forest and
although we may have protected critical lands, critical
resources, critical habitats within the forest, which we as
Native people support, as well as other citizens of the United
States, but if the people are not there, the first peoples of
the Tongass are not there, that public policy will be regarded
by history as a failure.
We do not want that to happen. We don't think that the
Congress of the United States or the people of the United
States want that to happen either and so we come before you
wanting to meet the obligations and the responsibilities we
have to our shareholders; not just the shareholders in the
corporation, but as Native peoples of the region with more
flexibility, with more forward thinking than otherwise might be
the case.
We could take our selections from within the existing ANCSA
withdrawal areas and it would put us hard upon intact
watersheds, roadless areas, old growth resources and a very
arbitrary sort of selection process. We have tried to avoid
that, having for many years engaged in conversations with the
environmental community, with the U.S. Forest Service, with our
own people obviously, but with other users and those with a
consuming interest in the Tongass.
We hope that this bill presents an opportunity to continue
that process, to be good citizens of the forest, but we also
want this bill, Mr. Chairman, to recognize who we are as Native
peoples, the first peoples of the forest who are trying to meet
a cherished and almost spiritual obligation to our own peoples.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]
Statement of Byron Mallott, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Byron Mallott, and I am a Board Member for Sealaska
Corporation, as well as a former President and CEO. I am from Yakutat,
Alaska, and I am Shaa-dei-ha-ni (Clan Leader) of the Kwaashk'i Kwaan.
My Tlingit name is K'oo deel taa.a. Accompanying me today at the
witness table, to help answer questions, is Chris McNeil, the President
and CEO of Sealaska. In the audience, we also have additional Sealaska
Board Members--Dr. Rosita Worl; and Clarence Jackson of Kake, Alaska.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Sealaska
Corporation regarding H.R. 3560, the ``Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization Act,'' or what we refer to as Haa Aani, which
in Tlingit means ``Our Land''. Sealaska is the Alaska Native Regional
Corporation for Southeast Alaska--one of 12 Regional Corporations
established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(``ANCSA''). Our shareholders are descendants of the original
inhabitants of Southeast Alaska--the Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian
people.
We provide significant economic opportunities for our shareholders
and for the Southeast Alaska region through the development of our
primary natural resource--timber. The profits from this development
have allowed us to diversify our economic portfolio and to invest in
cultural preservation, educational scholarships and internships for our
shareholders and shareholder descendants. Through these efforts we have
seen a resurgence of Native pride in our culture and language, most
noticeable in our youth who are constantly defining what it means to be
native today. Our scholarships, internships and mentoring efforts have
been successful beyond our wildest dreams, with our corporate
shareholder employment at 85 % and shareholders filling the most senior
positions in our corporation. None of this would have been possible
without the passage of ANCSA, which, in some ways, remains a promise
unfulfilled.
Congress enacted ANCSA in 1971 to recognize and settle the
aboriginal claims of Alaska Natives to the lands that we have used
since time immemorial for traditional, cultural, and spiritual
purposes. ANCSA allocated 44 million acres of land to Alaska's Native
people, to be allocated among and managed by the 12 Alaska Native
Regional Corporations and more than 200 Village Corporations. Although
ANCSA declared that the land settlement ``should be accomplished
rapidly, with certainty [and] conformity with the real economic and
social needs of [Alaska] Natives,'' it has now been more than 35 years
since the passage of ANCSA and Sealaska has not yet received conveyance
of its full land entitlement.
Sealaska asks your support for the enactment of H.R. 3560 because
it:
provides some finality regarding its ANCSA land
entitlement;
will redress inequitable limitations on Sealaska's land
selections by allowing it to select its remaining land entitlement from
designated federal land outside of designated withdrawal areas;
allows for Alaska Native ownership of sites with sacred,
cultural, and historical significance to the Alaska Natives of
Southeast Alaska;
creates the opportunity for Sealaska to maintain a
sustainable economy and to further economic and employment
opportunities for Sealaska shareholders;
provides a platform for Sealaska to contribute to the
Southeast Alaska economy, a region that is struggling overall, but
especially in our rural Native villages; and
provides real conservation benefits in the region.
In sum, the bill resolves the long outstanding Sealaska entitlement
issues in a manner consistent with the Congressional objectives of
ANCSA, and enables the federal government to complete its statutory
obligation to the Natives of Southeast Alaska under ANCSA.
There is a compelling basis for this legislation to pass. First,
the original ANCSA withdrawals demonstrated a lack of understanding of
the geography of the region, and a series of congressional actions
further undermined the quality of the lands that were available for
selection by Sealaska. For example, over 44% of the area within the
withdrawal areas is water. Second, there is no dispute that Sealaska
has a remaining land entitlement. This legislation does not give
Sealaska additional land beyond that already promised by Congress.
Third and finally, Sealaska has attempted to work closely with
industrial users, environmental organizations, Native institutions, and
local communities to craft legislation that provides the best result
for the people, communities and environment of Southeastern Alaska. One
thing has become extremely clear in this effort--that every acre of
Southeast Alaska is precious to someone. Moreover, what is important to
one group is not important to another. Simply put, with the vast array
of interests, there is no way to achieve a complete consensus on where
and how Sealaska should select its remaining entitlement. We believe
that this legislation offers a good solution, but we remain committed
to work with everyone to refine the selections.
Our ANCSA Land Entitlement and Selection Limitations
ANCSA provides a land allocation to Sealaska pursuant to Section
14(h)(8) of the Act. Our right to this land entitlement is undisputed.
The only question is ``where'' this land will come from. Our
understanding of Bureau of Land Management projections for completion
of 14(h)(8) is that there are between 65,000 and 85,000 acres of land
remaining to be conveyed to Sealaska. ANCSA limits Sealaska land
selections to withdrawal areas surrounding certain Native villages in
Southeast Alaska. The problem is that there are no lands remaining in
these withdrawal areas that meet Sealaska's traditional, cultural, or
historic needs, and certain of those lands should more appropriately
remain in public ownership. The remaining valuable timber areas within
the selection areas are predominantly old growth and roadless areas
with important public interest values. Large portions should remain
undeveloped because of proximity to local communities or to subsistence
resources; and much of the original withdrawal area would require
Sealaska to construct additional logging roads, further diminishing the
number of roadless acres in the region.
The current ANCSA selection limitations preclude Sealaska from
using any of its remaining ANCSA land settlement to select places of
sacred, cultural, traditional, and historic significance located
outside the withdrawal areas that are critical to facilitate the
perpetuation and preservation of Tlingit, Haida and Tsimshian culture
and history. Moreover, selection from the withdrawal areas would not
allow Sealaska to meet the purposes of ANCSA--to create continued
economic opportunities for the Native people of Southeast Alaska.
Legislative Solution Provided by H.R. 3560
While the lands within the original withdrawal areas are inadequate
to meet Sealaska's traditional, cultural, historic and socioeconomic
needs, these lands are not without significant and important public
interest value. For example, approximately 85 percent are classified by
the United States Forest Service as designated roadless areas. A
significant portion is Productive Old-Growth forest, with over half of
that being Old Growth Reserves as classified in the Tongass Land
Management Plan. This legislation would allow these lands to remain in
public ownership to be managed consistent with the Tongass Forest Plan.
The legislation would then allow Sealaska to select a portion of
its remaining entitlement from an alternative pool of land, 77 percent
of which is already roaded and mostly second-growth forest. Moreover,
this legislation would allow Sealaska to use a portion of its
entitlement to gain title to important cultural, historical, and
recreational sites that are important to the preservation of Native
history and culture, and to advance Native social and cultural
programs. These sacred, cultural and historic sites are relatively
small in size, but are invaluable to our people. Lastly, the
legislation would allow Sealaska to select certain lands for purposes
of Native enterprise, which is primarily for activities with limited
land use impacts and would include cultural programs and small-scale
tourism/eco-tourism, which would allow Sealaska to diversify its
economic portfolio and provide job opportunities for its shareholders
and other residents of Southeast Alaska.
This legislation does not address what Sealaska's final land
entitlement will be, leaving the final iterations of the final acreage
to the usual ANCSA section 14(h) processes. Sealaska at the urging of
some Administration officials is, however, engaging in discussions with
the appropriate parties to possibly develop a final acreage amount
prior to final enactment of this legislation.
Benefits of the Legislation to Others
The benefits of this legislation extend far beyond Sealaska and its
shareholders. Despite Sealaska's small land base in comparison to all
other Regional Corporations, Sealaska has historically provided
significant economic benefits to not only Sealaska Native shareholders,
but also to the other Native Corporations throughout Alaska. Pursuant
to a revenue sharing provision in ANCSA, Sealaska distributes
considerable revenues derived from development of its timber
resources--more than $300 million between 1971 and 2005--to the other
Native Corporations. By making selections outside of the designated
withdrawal areas, Sealaska will be able to sustain its resource
development operations by acquiring a mix of mature and advanced second
growth, enabling it to provide continued economic opportunities for the
Native people of Southeast Alaska and economic benefits to the broader
Alaska Native community through revenue sharing. For that reason,
Sealaska has the support of the Alaska Federation of Natives, and the
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes, among others.
The role of Sealaska in the Southeast Alaska economy is undisputed.
Sealaska's timber operations provide significant positive economic
impact to the region, including continued utilization of the timber
harvesting sector and creation of jobs in some of the poorest rural
Native communities in our region. For that reason, Sealaska has the
support of the Alaska Forest Association and several Native villages in
its efforts to complete its ANCSA land entitlement.
We also see a benefit to the conservation community through
enactment of this legislation. In lieu of old growth, roadless areas in
the original withdrawal areas, Sealaska would take a majority of its
remaining entitlement from areas that are already roaded, with largely
second-growth timber. Moreover, Sealaska would use nearly 9,000 acres
of its remaining entitlement to gain title to sacred, historic, and
cultural sites, and Native enterprise sites, on which there would be no
commercial timber harvest. Southeast Alaska tribes, and Native Village
and Urban Corporations have passed resolutions in support of this
legislation because they recognize the need to preserve our sacred
areas and culture, and to create local, sustainable, diversified
economies. This legislation gives them the opportunity to join with
Sealaska to do both.
Lastly, there will be a benefit to the federal government to
finally complete the ANCSA land entitlement conveyances for the Native
Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaska. This would give the Bureau
of Land Management some finality and closure in the region. It would
also allow give the Forest Service some finality in its land ownership
and management in the Tongass National Forest because there would no
longer be large portions of the forest encumbered by Native land
selection rights.
Haa Aani Sustainable Forest Management Program
At the core of Sealaska's land management is the perpetuation of a
sustainable, well-managed forest to produce timber and to maintain
forest ecological functions. Over 27% of Sealaska's classified forest
lands are maintained in a natural state to protect fish habitat and
water quality, to provide municipal drinking water and for protection
of bald eagle nesting habitat. Our sustainable harvesting program will
continue into the future by implementing good forest management
practices and by completion of our Haa Aani land selections that will
provide Sealaska with a mix of old growth and more mature second growth
timber. Our harvesting program and investing in good forest management
provides jobs for our shareholders and others in the region, and helps
maintain the ecological values in our forests.
In asking for your support of this legislation we are taking a huge
risk by foregoing assured revenue from the harvesting of old growth
timber from the originally withdrawn lands. We are also removing nearly
9,000 acres from timber base by selecting cultural and enterprise sites
subject to timber harvest restrictions. Our selections from which
timber harvest would be allowed are primarily from second-growth forest
stands with only emerging markets. We believe, however, that we are on
the cusp of a significant paradigm shift in our forest management. We
are committed to investing the time, money and hard work in progressive
management of second growth stands, to capture alternative economies
from forest management and to ensure that our place in the timber
industry remains a sustainable, although realigned, component of the
region's economy.
We are also creating alternative economies, revenues, and jobs from
forest management strategies that include providing free enterprise
markets for the purchase of ecological services. Moreover, we are
monitoring developments related to climate change and carbon dioxide
sequestration. In fact Sealaska testified just last week before the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Technology's Subcommittee on
Science, Technology and Innovation, on the role of forest owners and
opportunities for carbon sequestration in our forests.
Diversified Economies
This legislation would allow Sealaska to pursue more diversified
economies and jobs for the communities in Southeast Alaska by
preserving and sharing the richness of Southeast Alaska's natural and
cultural history. The Sacred sites and the Enterprise sites offer a new
opportunity for our region. It is not just the forest ecosystem, but
the people it nourishes that defines the place. The declaration that
this is a ``Native'' and ``Scenic'' place will ultimately protect it
and proclaim its value to the world.
We are offering new ideas by selecting sacred and enterprise
properties as part of an economic revitalization for our native and
rural communities. With these new ideas, there are palpable concerns
over the use and management of these sites. Sealaska would like to
offer our principles for the use and management of these sites:
Sacred sites. These sites will be selected and managed to
ensure an active Native role in the preservation and celebration of the
rich Native fabric and history of Southeast Alaska. The sites are
purely for historic, cultural and anthropologic preservation, research
and education.
Enterprise sites. These sites will be selected and
managed to promote recreational activities with little land use
impacts, and for ecologically sensitive, non-consumptive uses to
demonstrate the very best attributes of the Tongass Forest's beauty and
spirituality, which will ultimately strengthen public support to
protect this last great place and the people and their culture who make
it unique among forests of the world.
Our Future in the Region
Our people have lived in the area that is now the Tongass National
Forest since time immemorial. We will continue to live in this region
because it is the heart of our history and culture. The Tongass is rich
and diverse in cultural history, and there continue to be Native people
here trying to live and survive in a subsistence and cash economy. We
agree that areas of the region should be preserved, but also that our
people have a right to pursue economic opportunities to survive in the
world as it is today. This legislation is a sincere and open effort to
meet both the interests of Alaska Native shareholders and the public.
Sealaska believes that after full debate and close scrutiny, its
aspirations to meet both its rightful land selection rights under ANCSA
and the public interest in the Tongass will be recognized as both
forward thinking and positive.
Lastly, it is important for all of us who live in the Tongass, as
well as those who cherish the Tongass from afar, to recognize that the
First Peoples of the Tongass--Tlingits, Haidas and Tsimshians--are
committed to maintaining not just the flora, fauna and biological
ecology of the Tongass, but to preserving this place as the land of our
ancestors, with all that means in spirituality, values and beliefs. We
have nowhere else to go and wish for no other place. The Tongass is our
home. We, therefore, look forward to a reasoned, open, and respectful
process as we attempt to finalize our ANCSA land entitlement.
Gunalcheesh. Thank you.
______
The Chairman. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF BUCK LINDEKUGEL, CONSERVATION DIRECTOR, SOUTHEAST
ALASKA CONSERVATION COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DON HERNANDEZ, PT.
BAKER, ALASKA
Mr. Lindekugel. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Congressman
Young. My name is Buck Lindekugel, and I am the Conservation
Director for the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council. Thank
you for inviting SEACC to testify at today's hearing.
Accompanying me today is Don Hernandez from the community
of Pt. Baker on North Prince of Wales. Mr. Hernandez will be
available to assist me in answering any questions you may have.
Founded in 1970, SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 15
volunteer conservation groups made up of local citizens in 13
Alaska communities from Craig on Prince of Wales to Yakutat.
SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of southeast
Alaska while providing for balance and sustainable uses of the
region's resources.
We respect the efforts of Congressman Young to stand up for
the interests of Alaska Natives throughout his tenure in the
U.S. House of Representatives. Like Congressman Young and H.R.
3560's other distinguished co-sponsors, SEACC supports
completing the conveyance of Sealaska's land entitlement under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
Nonetheless, we do not believe Sealaska Corporation is
entitled to change the rules and cherry pick valuable public
lands across southeast Alaska without the full involvement of
affected interest.
The 22 pages of H.R. 3560 substantively change the way
existing Federal laws, regulations and policies apply to the
conveyance of Sealaska Corporation's remaining entitlement
under the Settlement Act. Consequently, we oppose H.R. 3560 as
introduced. We do remain committed, however, to maintaining an
open dialogue with Sealaska Corporation, Congressman Young and
the bill's co-sponsors to try and resolve our concerns.
Most importantly, we wish to emphasize that if Congress
chooses not to act on this proposed legislation, Sealaska
Corporation still gets all the land it is entitled to under the
Settlement Act.
Sealaska Corporation may not like any of the 327,000 acres
remaining available for selection from the Tongass that was
withdrawn by Congress. It may not be able to make as much money
from the remaining lands, and its shareholders still living in
the affected villages may not want any more intensive logging
on lands surrounding the villages. None of those factors,
however, obligate Congress to give Sealaska a better deal now,
36 years after passage of the Settlement Act.
This legislative hearing is the first public process
conducted relating to this proposal. Typically such a large
land exchange would involve full disclosure of the action's
effects on the environment, affected communities and
individuals through the NEPA process. That process provides an
opportunity for the affected public to inform themselves about
the proposed action and fully participate in evaluating the
action's effects.
I know Sealaska earlier tried to follow that path, and for
some reason that was stopped. Whether it was the Federal
government's lack of interest or a desire to speed the process
up, we think it messes with the way of resolving this. It puts
you guys in an unenviable position of making complicated
decisions on such a proposal without the information that could
be gathered to that public process.
With the Chair's permission, we request to submit a number
of statements from affected communities and individuals who
have learned about this bill that we have received over the
past 10 days into the hearing record at this time.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you, sir, and thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I myself and Don would be happy to answer any questions
that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lindekugel follows:]
Statement of Buck Lindekugel, Conservation Director,
Southeast Alaska Conservation Council
The Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (SEACC) submits the
following statement regarding H.R. 3560, the Southeast Alaska Native
Land Entitlement Finalization Act. SEACC respectfully requests that
this written statement and accompanying material be entered into the
official record of this Committee hearing.
Founded in 1970, SEACC is a grassroots coalition of 15 volunteer,
non-profit conservation groups made up of local citizens in 13
Southeast Alaska communities that stretch from Craig on Prince of Wales
Island north to Yakutat. Our individual members include commercial and
sport fishermen, Alaska Natives, tourism and recreation business
owners, small-scale high value-added wood product manufacturers,
hunters and guides, and Southeast Alaskans from all walks of life.
SEACC is dedicated to preserving the integrity of Southeast Alaska's
unsurpassed natural environment while providing for balanced,
sustainable uses of our region's resources.
Congressman Don Young, along with several distinguished colleagues,
introduced H.R. 3560 on September 18, 2007. We respect the efforts of
Congressman Young to stand up for the interests of Alaska Natives
throughout his tenure in the U.S. House of Representatives. Like
Congressman Young and H.R. 3560's other cosponsors, SEACC supports
completing the conveyance of Sealaska Corporation's land entitlement
under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Nonetheless, we
have serious reservations about the changes in federal law proposed in
H.R. 3560 and oppose the bill as introduced. We remain committed,
however, to maintaining open lines of communication with Sealaska
Corporation and the bill's sponsors to finalize the conveyance of
Sealaska Corporation's outstanding statutory land entitlement.
Consequently, we offer the Committee these preliminary comments for
your consideration as you begin your review of this legislative
proposal.
H.R. 3560's Proposed Findings and Purpose Tell Only Part of the Story.
The findings contained in section 2 of H.R. 3560 are drafted to
imply that Congress treated Sealaska Corporation unfairly, unjustly,
and inequitably from other regional Native corporations in Alaska. See
also 153 Congressional Record E1913 (Sept. 18, 2007)(Congressman
Young's introductory statement that ``[t]his legislation will redress
the inequitable treatment of the Native Regional Corporation for
Southeast Alaska--Sealaska Corporation....''). We respectfully disagree
and believe the bill's proposed findings and purpose tell only part of
the story.
We recognize that the Native shareholders of Sealaska Corporation
have long histories and traditions in Southeast Alaska. We further
recognize the important benefits to Natives from owning lands important
for customary and traditional (subsistence) uses and the significant
cultural, economic, and social effects from development of village and
regional Native corporation lands.
In ANCSA, Congress converted the communal, aboriginal claims of
Alaska Natives into individual private property represented by shares
of stock in over 200 Native regional, village, urban, and group
corporations. See Case and Voluck, Alaska Natives and American Laws, 2d
ed at 157 (2004). To accomplish this, Congress awarded approximately $1
billion dollars and 44,000,000 acres of federal land in Alaska to the
village and regional Native corporations.
Just like the other regional Native corporations, Sealaska
Corporation's per capita share of lands under section 14(h)(8), 43
U.S.C. Sec. 1613(h)(8), came from unselected lands withdrawn by
Congress for that purpose. In Southeast Alaska, those lands were
withdrawn from the Tongass National Forest around 10 qualifying
Southeast Alaska Native villages. Sealaska Corporation received the
right to more lands (a total of 354,389.33 acres) pursuant to section
14(h) than any of the other regional Native corporations, because
Sealaska Corporation had more shareholders than any other region. See
70 Fed. Reg. 77179-180 (Dec. 29, 2005)(notice of decision allocating
additional acreage to Native regional corporations in Alaska). In
addition, just like other regional corporations, Congress granted
Sealaska Corporation the subsurface (or mineral) estate in lands
selected by qualifying Southeast Alaska village corporations. 43
U.S.C.A. Sec. 1613(f).
Sealaska also benefited from a couple of significant advantages not
enjoyed by the other regional corporations. First, although Alaska is
rich in natural resources, those resources are not evenly distributed
across all regions of the state. Fortunately for Sealaska Corporation,
the southeast region has massive stands of old-growth forest in the
world's greatest remaining temperate rainforest. Sealaska Corporation
received over 220,000 acres of mature forest land, pursuant to section
14(h)(8) of ANCSA, from lands withdrawn from the Tongass National
Forest. Sealaska Corporation's 14(h)(8) land selections have made it
one of the largest private timber-owners in the State of Alaska.
1 Second, in addition to the wealth in land resources that
Sealaska Corporation conveyed under ANCSA, it received more money--$93
million dollars--than any other regional corporation because it had
more shareholders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See ANCSA 1985 Study at III-54.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since 1979, Sealaska Corporation has clearcut over 3.5 billion
board feet of timber from its land and exported the vast majority of it
out of state as raw, unprocessed logs. 2 Thus, although
Sealaska Corporation received less than one percent (1%) of all the
lands conveyed to village and regional corporations under ANCSA, it
shared more than $300,000,000 in revenues with the other Native
corporations in Alaska. See H.R. 3560, Sec. 2(a)(8). To help put
Sealaska Corporation's success in relative terms, the $300,000,000 is
42% of all the money contributed by all 13 regional native corporations
under an ANCSA revenue sharing agreement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See Sealaska Timber Corporation website at: http://
www.sealaskatimber.com/About_STC.htm# and Sealaska News and Information
website at: http://www.sealaska.com/aboutus_news_2003.htm (announcing
receipt of the Governor's Exporter of the Year award).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3560 Appears to Conflict with the Process Adopted in the Alaska
Land Transfer Acceleration Act, Pub. Law 108-452, for
Finalizing Regional Corporation Land Entitlements.
In 2004, Congress enacted a law to facilitate completion of the
transfer of lands in Alaska pursuant to ANCSA, the Alaska Statehood
Act, and other laws. See Alaska Lands Transfer Acceleration Act
(ALTAA), Pub. Law 108-452, 118 STAT. 3575 (Dec. 10, 2004). Two
provisions of this important law appear to conflict with the
conveyances proposed in H.R. 3560 to finalize Sealaska Corporation's
land entitlement under Section 14(h) of ANCSA.
Section 3(b)(2) of H.R. 3560 authorizes the conveyance of no more
than 2,400 acres of 54 sacred, cultural, traditional, or historic sites
from within existing withdrawal areas and another 198 sites outside the
existing withdrawal areas. Yet, Section 204 of ALTAA, 118 STAT. 2584,
froze the cemetery and historical place program under section 14(h)(1)
of ANCSA to pending applications for sites eligible for conveyance. No
information is provided in H.R. 3560 as to whether Sealaska Corporation
had previously filed timely applications with BLM for the nearly 200
sites identified in Attachment B to H.R. 3560. It is also unclear
whether BLM determined that the applications for the proposed sites
were valid and eligible for conveyance to Sealaska Corporation, or the
content of any comments from the Forest Service or National Park
Service to BLM on the applications.
Section 205 of ALTAA, 118 STAT. 3585, amended Section 14(h)(8) of
ANCSA to quantify the final acreage of lands to be distributed to the
Regional Corporations under Section 14(h). This provision directed the
Secretary of Interior to allocate to a Regional Corporation ``as soon
as practicable'' its share of 200,000 acres ``from land withdrawn under
[section 14(h)(8)].'' Now, three years later, Sealaska is asking
Congress to reopen ANCSA to authorize selection of lands that were not
withdrawn for that purpose. Why was the issue about whether it was
appropriate for Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement outside of
the existing ANCSA withdrawals on the Tongass National Forest addressed
during Congressional deliberations over ALTAA?
The Proposed Out-of-Withdrawal Selections for Economic Development
Lands Target a Disproportionate Amount of the Most Ecologically
Productive Lands in Southeast Alaska and Prince of Wales
Island.
Pursuant to section 14(h)(8) of ANCSA, the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has allocated about 310,000 acres for conveyance to
Sealaska Corporation from lands withdrawn by Congress in 1971 from the
Tongass National Forest. At this time, approximately 292,000 acres of
this land entitlement have been conveyed to Sealaska. 3
Sealaska Corporation remaining entitlement under Section 14(h)(8) of
ANCSA totals nearly 66,000 acres of land. 70 Fed. Reg. 77179-180 (Dec.
29, 2005). This figure includes the approximately 22,000 acres
remaining unconveyed from BLM's earlier allocation, as well as Sealaska
Corporation per capita share of an additional 200,000 acres from the 2
million acre pool of lands established by section 14(h) of ANCSA. BLM
determined this
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2007 USDA, Forest Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment, EIS Appendix C at C-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under federal regulations, the regulatory deadline for Sealaska
Corporation's applications for land selection under Section 14(h)
occurred prior to BLM final allocation of available lands. See 43
C.F.R. Sec. 2652.3 (BLM extended this deadline from December 18, 1975
to September 18, 1978). To protect itself against potential loss of
selection opportunities, Sealaska applied for more land than it would
probably receive: about 171,000 acres from the lands withdrawn by
Congress in ANCSA. See supra, note 2. By making excessive
overselections, Sealaska gained extra time to evaluate the relative
economic potential of various tracts and then reprioritize their
selections accordingly. 4 These 171,000 acres of
overselections are included within the 327,000 acres of unselected but
encumbered federal lands withdrawn from the Tongass National Forest by
Congress for selections by village and regional corporations in
Southeast Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See ANCSA 1985 Study at III-50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As noted above, notwithstanding the difficulties in applying the
formulas specified in ANCSA for determining withdrawal areas in
Southeast Alaska (primarily the steep geography of coastal Alaska), in
general the valuable commercial forest land available for selection by
Sealaska Corporation allowed this corporation to obtain substantial
income from these lands. Section 2(a)(9) of H.R. 3560 asserts that
``[a]s a result of its small land entitlement'' time is ``critical''
for Sealaska Corporation to complete its remaining land entitlement
``under the Act.'' Yet, despite making previous overselections of lands
with the areas withdrawn by Congress, it is not clear that Sealaska
Corporation actually informed BLM which selections it wished to
prioritize. Now, about 3 decades after overselecting available lands,
Sealaska Corporation wishes to change the formula enacted by Congress
and seeks different lands then previously approved by Congress.
A comparison of the lands Sealaska Corporation wishes to obtain
under Section 3(b)(1) of H.R. 3560, and the 327,000 acres remaining
available for the corporation to select the balance of its entitlement,
is instructive. Nearly one-third of the 327,000 acres are muskeg or
nonforested lands. While 85 percent of these lands are currently
unroaded, they do not represent intact forested watersheds. Instead
they are the generally those portions of selected watersheds above 800
feet in elevation, with the lower, more productive portions of the
watershed already heavily cut by Sealaska Corporation. Only 9 percent
of these lands are classified as big tree forests (stands of productive
old growth (POG) with more than 30,000 board feet per acre). On the
other hand, well over half of the lands within the pool of about 50,000
acres of out-of-withdrawal selections sought by Sealaska for intensive
timber development are inventoried as big tree forests. These lands
include some with the highest biological values represented by salmon,
deer, black bears, large-tree old growth, marbled murrelets, and
estuaries on the Tongass. 5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Schoen, John and Erin Dovichin, eds. 2007. The coastal forests
and mountain ecoregion of southeastern Alaska and the Tongass National
Forest. Audubon Alaska and The Nature Conservancy, 715 L Street,
Anchorage, Alaska. This complete report is available online at: http://
conserveonline.org/workspaces/akcfm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chart below, created using existing Forest Service data for
Prince of Wales Island, shows that H.R. 3560 would authorize conveyance
of over half of the remaining large tree POG on Prince of Wales Island
to Sealaska Corporation.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38971.001
.epsThe communities of Port Protection, Point Baker, and Edna Bay
have strenuously objected to conveyance of any of the proposed
``economic development'' parcels on North Prince of Wales and Kosciusko
Islands. These lands are important for subsistence and commercial uses
for these communities. The community of Hydaburg has long fought to
safeguard proposed ``economic development'' lands, which include Keete/
Nutkwa and Kassa Inlets and Mabel Bay. These lands were designated as
part of the Nutkwa Wilderness in the 1989 House-passed version of the
Tongass Timber Reform Act but left out of the final compromise
legislation in 1990. Hydaburg and SEACC have consistently advocated for
long-term protection for these lands ever since.
The out-of-withdrawal selections targeted by Sealaska contain an
extensive amount of extraordinary karst lands, including significant
cave resources protected under the Federal Cave Resources Protection
Act, on North Prince of Wales, Kosciusko, and Tuxekan Islands. Not only
are these lands extremely productive, they are also important from
paleontological, cultural, and geological/biological perspectives. For
example, eleven (11) years ago, the Forest Service discovered human
remains in On Your Knees cave on North Prince of Wales Island. DNA
testing determined that these human remains were 10,300 years old. See
Forest Service returns ancient human remains to Tlingit tribes, Juneau
Empire (Oct. 21, 2007). 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This story can be found on the web at http://
www.juneauempire.com/stories/102107/loc_20071021021.shtml.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, H.R. 3560 gives away far more than just acres of land. It
also gives away valuable expensive infrastructure in the form of Forest
Service roads funded by U.S. tax payers.
Proposed Conveyance of Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic
Sites in Conservation System Units.
Section 3(b)(2) of H.R. 3560 authorizes Sealaska Corporation to
select as much as 3,600 acres of lands that qualify as sacred,
cultural, traditional, or historic sites across the Tongass. Based on
our review of the map accompanying the bill, multiple sites are located
within Glacier Bay National Park and Klondike Gold Rush National
Historical Park near Skagway. Other sites are located in areas
designated as Wilderness and Legislated LUD II's on the Tongass,
including the Admiralty Island National Monument Kootznoowoo
Wilderness, South Baranof Wilderness, Tebenkof Bay Wilderness, Kuiu
Wilderness, and South Prince of Wales Wilderness. Other sites are
located in lands designated as Legislated LUD II areas by Congress in
the 1990 Tongass Timber Reform Law to protect their wildland character,
including the Berners Bay, Upper Hoonah Sound, and Nutkwa. No
explanation is provided regarding why the conservation protections
afforded by these designations are insufficient to safeguard the
secrecy, solitude, and integrity of these sites. In addition, while
Section 14(h) of ANCSA permitted selection of cultural and historical
sites outside of the ANCSA withdrawal areas, such selections were
limited to those public lands ``unreserved and unappropriated.''
Clearly, lands designated by Congress as Wilderness, National Park and
Legislated LUD II qualify as reserved and appropriated public lands. We
therefore see no need to amend ANCSA to allow for selection, and
potential development of, these sites.
We are also concerned with the lack of direction in the proposed
bill regarding Sealaska Corporation's consultation with affected clans/
tribes concerning management/ development of these sites. In addition,
development activities on sacred, cultural, and historic sites are
subject to consultation with the State of Alaska Historic Preservation
Office. The technical amendment to the National Historic Preservation
Act in section 5(c) of H.R. 3560 would classify these sites as
``tribal'' and therefore remove any requirement to consult with the
State Historic Preservation Office.
Another significant concern we have with H.R. 3560 is the proposed
termination of existing restrictive covenants on cultural or historic
sites already conveyed to Sealaska Corporation in section 4(g). Section
4(h) would impose a covenant prohibiting any commercial timber harvest,
but prohibit imposition of any other restrictive covenant. Current
federal regulations, 43 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 2653.5(a) & 2653.11, require
sites that qualify and are conveyed for cemetery sites or historical
places contain a covenant prohibiting mining or mineral activities of
any type and ``use which is incompatible with or in derogation of the
values of the area as a cemetery site or historical place.'' We don't
understand why such reservations are inconsistent with Sealaska
Corporation's objectives for these sites.
Finally, section 3(b)(A)(ii) would also convey lands 25 feet in
width, together with one-acre sites at each terminus, for three (3)
identified ``Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes.''
Initially, we have some concerns about how these routes will affect
management of adjacent national forest lands, such as the Yakutat
Forelands Legislated LUD II area, and public access and use of these
and adjacent public lands.
Proposed Conveyance of Identified Native Enterprise Sites Could Cause
Dramatic Changes in Land Use Patterns and Spark Controversy.
Section 3(b)(3) authorizes the conveyance of as much as 5,000 acres
of land for ``Native enterprise sites'' across the Tongass National
Forest for economic development purposes other than commercial timber
harvest. The definition in H.R. 3560 of these ``enterprise sites'' is
unclear. We are concerned about what activities will or will not be
allowed on them, as well as how conveyance of these sites, and
accompanying nonexclusive access and use right, will affect public use
and access to popular use areas. For example, will this allow for large
lodges, upscale marinas, or other industries in areas that are
currently wild and remote? Furthermore, these ``enterprise sites'' have
not been fully vetted with Southeast Alaskan communities. Based on our
knowledge and experience, they will likely create conflicts with
charters, commercial and sport fishing groups, hunting guides, existing
tour operators, and residents who use these popular areas for camping,
hunting, and fishing. Tourism and tourism related jobs employed nearly
6,000 people in the region in 2005. Many of these businesses are family
owned and operated. Sealaska Corporation's ``enterprise sites'' could
have a substantial negative impact on existing locally owned and
operated businesses.
While as a general concept enterprise zones are worth discussing
further, we believe it is more appropriate to locate such zones within
or adjacent to existing Native corporation land. With very few
exceptions, the proposed enterprise zones are well known and well-loved
by people throughout Southeast Alaska. The proposed enterprise zones
are located adjacent to highly popular areas used by local community
members for recreational, commercial and subsistence purposes.
Conveyance of these lands to Sealaska Corporation could cause dramatic
changes in land use patterns and spark controversy. For example, Sitka
residents are concerned about proposed sites are already generating
controversy including Poison Cove in Peril Straits, Big Bay near
Goddard Hot Springs, Kalinin Bay at the north end of Kruzof Island, and
Crab Bay in Tenakee Inlet. The community of Edna Bay has expressed
opposition to conveyance of any lands at Cape Pole, on Kosciusko
Island. The proposed site at Dog Cove near the Naha Legislated LUD II
Area is a highly popular area near Ketchikan. The proposed site at
Madan Bay is also in a highly used area by residents of Wrangell.
H.R. 3560 Lacks a Meaningful Conservation Component.
When it enacted ANCSA in 1971, Congress included a provision
requiring the Secretary of Interior to withdraw from all forms of
appropriations up to 80 million acres of unreserved federal lands in
Alaska and make recommendations for designating suitable lands as
conservation system units. See 43 U.S.C.A Sec. 1616(d)(2). Given the
significant amendments proposed to ANCSA by H.R. 3560, we believe it
appropriate to amend the bill to incorporate a meaningful conservation
component. For example, Congress could:
Expand the Calder/Holbrook Legislated LUD II by including
portions of Kosciusko (Trout Creek along South Shipley Bay/VCUs 541,
547, and partial VCU 543) and 4 small pieces along El Capitan Passage
on the eastern end of the Calder/Holbrook Legislated LUD II area**
(VCUs 5372, 5420, 5490, and partial VCU 5360);
Expand the Nutkwa Legislated LUD II south of Hydaburg by
including Hetta Lake (partial VCU 673.2, 673.1), Hetta Peninsula/Nutkwa
Falls (partial VCU 673.2 & 685), Keete, Kassa, & Mabel Bays (VCUs 685,
688, 689);
Permanently protect a karst island, such as Heceta
Island, to safeguard significant karst and cave resources;
End commercial logging and road building on North Prince
of Wales Island except for activities associated with restoring
previously logged lands or rehabilitating lost wildlife habitat.
In conclusion, we respectfully request the Natural Resource
Committee to carry out a deliberate and careful scrutiny of this
complex piece of legislation and resolve our unanswered questions, as
well as those posed by others. We further urge the Committee to assure
that efforts to finalize Sealaska Corporation's land entitlement under
ANCSA does not come at the expense of legitimate concerns of local
communities and residents about the effect of such land conveyances on
traditional community uses of affected public lands or threaten the
integrity of the Tongass National Forest by privatizing public lands
across the forest.
Thank you the opportunity to make preliminary comments on this
proposed legislation.
______
]Attachments follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38971.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38971.003
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38971.004
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 38971.005
.epsThe Chairman. I will yield my time to the Ranking
Member, Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I do apologize to all the panels for the
interruptions we have had today. We are going to have some
votes here in a few minutes, so we will try to go through this.
Byron, some groups and individuals in the southeast have
expressed concern about this bill. Has Sealaska met with these
groups?
Mr. Mallott. Yes, and we intend to continue that process.
I know that I am stating the obvious when I say that
particularly in the Tongass National Forest, but also in all
public lands in Alaska, but especially in the Tongass National
Forest, every acre is precious to someone, and that is a
fundamental reality that we have to deal with.
We recognize that significant dialogue, continuing
conversation, hopefully working together will get us where we
need to get.
Mr. Young. What about the benefits to Sealaska and its
shareholders as a result of this timber development?
Mr. Mallott. Well, certainly timber development thus far
has been significant over essentially two generations of our
peoples in bringing about economic opportunity.
Sealaska itself, for example, as through its Sealaska
Heritage Institute, expended millions in scholarships. We have
funded a full range of cultural and tribal and other kinds of
development, as I mentioned earlier.
Seventy percent of the profits from the timber resource
development within our region have gone to other regions. We
expect to continue to harvest timber, but in this bill, Mr.
Chairman and Congressman Young, we seek to select out of
withdrawals.
As I said, no one has spent much time looking at what
Sealaska leaves essentially on the table in our existing
withdrawal areas. Intact watersheds, roadless areas,
significant stands of old growth forests where some 55 percent,
if I recall correctly, of the lands that we seek out of our
withdrawal areas are already roaded, have already been
harvested, and Sealaska is willing to postpone for decades
harvesting that timber in order to hopefully over time develop
a transition to a different kind of timber industry that is
more responsive to a broad range of public policy interests.
Mr. Young. That is why you are giving up the opportunity of
the old growth to select the precut areas that are eroded and
covered, if they even have been put to bed, because in the long
term that will be more beneficial than going into the old
growth timber?
Mr. Mallott. Well, in terms of the public interest, yes,
and in terms of our own sensitivities and aspirations as a
people already our forested lands have placed almost a third in
protected categories on our own lands.
Mr. Young. But what I am getting across is again, and I
don't have time to ask everybody questions, but what I can't
understand, for instance, is Buck objects to this, but it is
land that has already been cut. Is that correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Mr. Young. I don't understand that because I have also
heard people say from SEACC we have to protect the old growth
timber. You can't invade the old growth timber. We have to
protect our watersheds.
And yet you are doing that with this bill. You are
selecting those lands that have already been violated, if you
want to call it, for future investment for Sealaska.
Mr. Mallott. Yes, sir. I don't understand Buck either, and
I look forward to the opportunity to educate him.
Mr. Young. Good. Well, you know, I have fought this battle
for a long time.
Just to give you some examples, because of the activity of
SEACC, we have Angoon with an unemployment rate of 87 percent
and Hoonah with 75 percent--that is SEACC's responsibility--
Hydaburg, 90 percent; Kake, 75 percent; Kasaan, 49 percent;
Klawock, 59 percent; Klukwan, 88 percent; Saxman, 71 percent;
Yakutat, 49 percent; and even Ketchikan now a 23 percent
unemployment rate. I remember when everybody was employed in
Ketchikan.
I was told by SEACC at that time don't worry. We are going
to work with the timber industry. We will make it work. That
was many, many years ago, and still I see they are opposed to
even the new timber.
The last question I have for you, Byron, is about these
cultural sites. The Administration came out against you picking
cultural sites. Now, it is your culture, correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Young. Why would they think that they could protect it
better? You have already recited that there has been defamation
of it and some of it has been used for probably capital gains
for the Service. Why shouldn't you have that?
Mr. Mallott. Well, we believe that we should. As I
emphasized earlier, we had for a long time no particular
opposition to Federal management of sacred sites. As a matter
of fact, we tried to keep knowledge of sacred sites as much a
secret as possible, which has led to some concerns and even
questioning our management practices.
What has happened is that more and more those sites are
becoming public knowledge, and we are concerned about their
future safety, their future maintenance as such sites, and we
believe that we have the ability to manage those sites as
Native sites with much more knowledge and obviously tradition
history than any Federal agency.
Mr. Young. Do you have any plans to develop economic
endeavors on these cultural sites, sacred sites?
Mr. Mallott. No, sir.
Mr. Young. All right. Did any of the national park units
exist prior to your people's historic, traditional and cultural
connections with sites within the unit? There were no national
parks, were there?
Mr. Mallott. These sites have been in existence for many,
many generations in the past, some for thousands of years.
I know of no specific site that would have been identified
and utilized after any Federal classification was made in the
Tongass National Forest.
Mr. Young. Chris, you are the President of Sealaska
Corporation?
Mr. McNeil. Yes, I am.
Mr. Young. You said you guess, or yes, I am?
Mr. McNeil. No. I said yes, I am.
Mr. Young. OK.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Young. Economically how many acres are we talking
about?
Mr. McNeil. We are talking about as much as 85,000 acres.
Mr. Young. And that is land that you have a right to
select?
Mr. McNeil. That is right. What we would be relinquishing
and releasing is 277,000 acres.
Mr. Young. I want to state that for the record. You would
select 85,000 and relinquish how much?
Mr. McNeil. Two hundred seventy-seven thousand.
Mr. Young. And that is in old growth timber?
Mr. McNeil. That is old growth timber.
Mr. Young. And that is the valuable timber, according to
SEACC?
Mr. McNeil. Yes.
Mr. Young. So you are giving up 85,000. Are you giving up
about twice as much land for what you are getting?
Mr. McNeil. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Young. And that is a good deal?
Mr. McNeil. We believe that it is in the national interest
to be able to do that, yes.
Mr. Young. That is in Sealaska's interest?
Mr. McNeil. Yes.
Mr. Young. You don't invade any of those great, great trees
that are dying, and you don't invade the rain forest and all
the other good stuff that SEACC has protected all this time?
You don't do that? You give up 285,000 acres?
Mr. McNeil. Yes.
Mr. Young. In old growth?
Mr. McNeil. We believe on a net basis that is so. Yes, that
is correct.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a better deal than
we had for the Izembek Road.
I mean, I think it is a bad deal for Sealaska. If I was
Sealaska, I would go into the old growth. Not for you, Buck,
and for you, Don. I would go into the old growth. You have been
trying to protect everything. There is no timber industry left
in the southeast. The new timber is going to be gone that they
are trying to pick.
We will probably develop another source of economy in the
southeast because of the different timbers. Not a pulp timber.
It will be soft timber. It could be managed. I am trying to
talk the Forest Service into doing this right now and leasing
those other areas or granting long-term leases on the rest of
it. They have a right as the original inhabitants of that area
to pick those lands and fulfill that obligation.
It is a good thing I am not one of you down there because I
think I would go in the old forest with a chainsaw in a
heartbeat because what you are doing is wrong. What they are
doing is right. It is good for the area. It is good for the
community. It will give you some credibility.
I suggest respectfully continue to meet with them, and we
can find a solution to this problem.
Mr. Chairman, do you have any questions?
The Chairman. I have no questions, Don.
Buck's name has been batted around here a bit, and he has
not responded. I just want to give him a chance to respond.
Mr. Young. I haven't asked him any questions.
The Chairman. Oh.
Mr. Young. Do you want to ask him a question?
The Chairman. Buck, do you wish to respond?
Mr. Lindekugel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Young.
From the look-see that we have had, and I may ask Mr.
Hernandez to share a little bit too, but from our analysis of
the lands that are going to be relinquished by Sealaska and the
lands that they are seeking to receive, they are correct.
Some of the areas, some of the pool of lands that they are
looking at selecting from, include areas that have already been
cut under the former Ketchikan Pulp Company 50 year contract
under national forest management under their standards and
guidelines.
That is a lot different than logging on private lands under
the State Forest Practices Act in terms of fish habitat
protection and wildlife protection.
Mr. Young. Let us not go there because I don't want to get
into a big argument. Let us not go there.
Mr. Lindekugel. Fair enough, sir.
Our analysis shows of the lands that Sealaska is
considering, this pool of lands for economic development, 57
percent of those lands are what would be called large tree old
growth forest, the biggest trees left, and that is
disproportionate to how much is actually remaining left on
Prince of Wales due to national forest cutting and cutting on
corporate lands, so one of our concerns is the disproportionate
effect of logging the lands that Sealaska is seeking to log.
If I could ask Mr. Hernandez--he is from one of the
affected communities--to share some of his concerns on this
bill?
Mr. Hernandez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Young. I really
appreciate the chance to weigh in in this discussion.
It is totally wrong to characterize these lands that
Sealaska proposes for selection as being primarily second
growth timber. That is a total mischaracterization.
Forest Service management mandates multiple use. These
lands have been logged. There is a significant amount of old
growth forest still available. It is some of the most highest
value old growth forest left on Prince of Wales Island.
The reason that forest still exists in its old growth state
is because of, you know, citizens like myself working with the
Forest Service to ensure that the multiple use management works
to keep a healthy forest for wildlife habitat, essential fish
habitat, and that is why it exists because people from my
community have tried to ensure that it remains for the benefit
of everybody that uses the forest.
The acreage is significant. Buck has all the figures here.
It is a significant portion of the remaining high value
wildlife habitat which remains on Prince of Wales Island. All
of the infrastructure is in place from previous logging.
Sealaska Corporation gets the benefits of all the road building
built by taxpayers' money.
The Forest Service has over the years spent probably
millions of dollars doing tree thinning, silviculture projects
to enhance the timber value of the logging that would occur in
the second growth state.
My community has worked closely with the Forest Service in
recent years to work on some rehabilitation projects because
logging practices in the past have done damage to habitat, both
fish habitat and wildlife habitat. The Forest Service
recognizes that this is going to cost a lot of money for
rehabilitation to bring some of this wildlife habitat into a
better state. Sealaska Corporation will be under no obligation
to do that type of wildlife and fisheries rehabilitation as
private lands.
These are just some of the issues that our community has
with this proposal from Sealaska, and I think you need to hear
that. Thank you.
Mr. Young. Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes?
Mr. Young. I know for a fact that the Native people in
southeast Alaska, although they have been accused of being bad
stewards, are better stewards than the Federal government is.
We are going to continue to work with these numbers. We may get
a little more land. We may get a little more of the previously
cut land.
It is strange to me, Mr. Hernandez, that you would complain
about taxpayers building roads, et cetera, et cetera, and now
we want to do it and use them for the benefit of the Alaska
Natives, and you object to that. You object to that, and yet
you are for roadless areas and the old growth timber.
Now, if they pick that old growth timber I believe they
probably can build roads in that area and do more damage. They
are willing to give up 285,000 acres. I don't understand the
arithmetic. Can you explain to me the arithmetic?
You said it is not good land? You say it is not valuable?
It doesn't have water value, et cetera? You are willing to take
and give up 285,000 acres for 82,000? That doesn't add up to
me. Maybe your community, but it doesn't add up to me.
Mr. Lindekugel. Mr. Chairman, was that a question?
Mr. Young. No, that is not a question. We are out of here.
The Chairman. We do have votes on the Floor, and the
Committee is going to have to adjourn at this time.
We thank you for your testimony. The Committee stands
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[NOTE: Information submitted for the record by the
individuals listed below has been retained in the Committee's
official files.]
H.R. 2445
Brown, Margaret, President and CEO, Cook Inlet Region,
Inc.
Kookesh, Hon. Albert, Alaska State Senator
H.R. 3350
Brower, Margaret
Burnell, George
Davis, Herman, Sr.
Dewey, Valerie
Edwards, Lawrence
Estabrook, John
Gemmill, Margorie
Gould, James
Hess, Felix
Johnson, Walter A.
Lang, Gary
Leighton, Robert
Lindekugel, Buck
Littlefield, Michael
Logusak, Frank
Martin, William E.
Mathieson, Nelson Eddy
Matsuno, Wesley I.
Merculief, Terenty, Jr.
Monroe, Nicholas
Morry, Mark
Native Village of Barrow-Inupiat Traditional Government
Noratuk, Chunni
Pilot Point Traditional Council
Roehl, Henry
Sifsof, Lawrence
Sitka Tribe
Suckling, Theodore
Sutton, Elias
Tanana Tribal Council
Warner, Anthony
Waskey, Mathew, Sr.
Young, Lawrence
H.R. 3351
Alqaaciq Tribal Government
Atmautluak Traditional Council
Chevak Native Village
Eek Tradition Council
Kasiguluk Traditional Council
Kongiganak Traditional Council
Native Village of Alakanuk
Native Village of Kwigillingok
Orutsararmiut Native Council
Platinum Traditional Village
Tuntutuliak Traditional Council
Village of Kotlik
H.R. 3560
Alaska Federation of Natives
Alaska Forest Association
Alaska Native Brotherhood and Sisterhood
Alaska Wilderness League
Cape Fox Corporation
Craig Community Association
Culp, Wanda J., Hoonah, Alaska
Edna Bay Community
Haida Corporation
Hernandez, Don, Point Baker, Alaska
Klawock Heenya Corporation
LeCornu, Adrian and Vicki
Mason, Jack M.
National Parks Conservation Association
Organized Village of Kasaan
Organized Village of Saxman
Point Baker Community Council
Point Protection Community Association
Sitka Tribe of Alaska
Stein, Alan, Former Director of the Salmon Bay Protective
Association
Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska