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

WASHINGTON

38-971 PDF

2008

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member
Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
Grace F. Napolitano, California
Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Raul M. Grijalva, Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam
Jim Costa, California
Dan Boren, Oklahoma
John P. Sarbanes, Maryland
George Miller, California
Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Maurice D. Hinchey, New York
Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Jay Inslee, Washington
Mark Udall, Colorado
Joe Baca, California
Hilda L. Solis, California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota
Heath Shuler, North Carolina

Jim Saxton, New Jersey

Elton Gallegly, California
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland
Chris Cannon, Utah
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Stevan Pearce, New Mexico
Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Luis G. Fortuno, Puerto Rico
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington
Bobby Jindal, Louisiana
Louie Gohmert, Texas
Tom Cole, Oklahoma
Rob Bishop, Utah
Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania
Dean Heller, Nevada
Bill Sali, Idaho
Doug Lamborn, Colorado
Mary Fallin, Oklahoma
Vacancy

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel
Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director
Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel

(II)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

CONTENTS
Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 ................................................

Statement of Members:
Rahall, Hon. Nick J., II, a Representative in Congress from the State
of West Virginia ............................................................................................
Young, Hon. Don, a Representative in Congress from the State of Alaska .
Prepared statement of ...............................................................................
Statement of Witnesses:
Angapak, Nelson N., Sr., Vice President, Alaska Federation of Natives .....
Prepared statement on H.R. 3350 ...........................................................
Erulkar, Ben, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development,
Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Prepared statement on H.R. 3351 ...........................................................
Kitka, Julie E., President, Alaska Federation of Natives .............................
Prepared statement on H.R. 3351 ...........................................................
Lindekugel, Buck, Conservation Director, Southeast Alaska Conservation
Council ...........................................................................................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560 ...........................................................
Mallott, Byron, Board Member, Sealaska Corporation .................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560 ...........................................................
Nedd, Michael, Assistant Director, Minerals, Realty and Resource
Protection, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior ...........................................................................................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 2445, H.R. 3350, H.R. 3351, and
H.R. 3560 ...............................................................................................
Simpson, Melissa, Deputy Under Secretary, Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture ..........................................
Prepared statement on H.R. 3560 ...........................................................
Thompson, Stephanie S., President, Alexander Creek Incorporated ...........
Prepared statement on H.R. 2445 ...........................................................
Additional materials supplied:
List of documents submitted for the record which have been retained
in the Committees official files ...................................................................

2
2
3
29
30
12
14
24
27
44
45
39
40
3
5
10
11
20
22

59

(III)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 5904

Sfmt 5904

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

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.
(1)

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

2
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. 3351they 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 dont care what Administration it is. It seems like agencies
have their heads stuck somewhere where I dont 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:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

3
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 AlaskaSealaska Corporationby 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 couldnt 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

4
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 Alaskas 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

5
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 Sealaskas 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 Interiors (Departments) 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

6
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 MatanuskaSusitna Borough and other parties.
Thus began a long period of litigation over Alexander Creeks 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 Creeks status as a
Native group in ANILCA allowed the land entitlement process throughout
southcentral Alaskas 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00010

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

7
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 veterans behalf.
The legislation would repeal the BLMs 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 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00011

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

8
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 Sealaskas 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 Sealaskas 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00012

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

9
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 Summits 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

10
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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

11
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 bills 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 bills 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 industrys 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 Services 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 Cor-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00015

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

12
porations 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 bills 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 bills 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 industrys 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 Services 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00016

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

13
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 Administrations 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
bills 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 EDAs approach have successfully created higher skilled, higher wage jobs, attracted private investment
and prepared Americas 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00017

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

14
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 Administrations 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 bills 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 Administrations 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 Administrations Office of
Travel and Tourism Industries has tracked tourist visits to Native Amer-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00018

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

15
ican 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 Commerces 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 EDAs approach have been successful in creating
higher-skilled, higher-wage jobs, attracting private investment and preparing Americas 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 EDAs investments in Native American and Indian communities,
allow me to review two of EDAs 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 regu-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00019

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

16
latory 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.]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00020

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

17
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 cant pick on you particularly. I would love to, but
I cant. 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 dont know

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00021

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

18
how many acres the State of Alaska has. They will tell me how
much. I know the number. You should know it. Still, that hasnt
been transferred.
If my bill doesnt 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 havent 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
shouldnt 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 Na-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00022

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

19
tional 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 bills 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 dont 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

20
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 dont
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 Solicitors 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00024

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

21
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. ANCABs 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 peoplethat is right; our
peopleare 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 Creekit has a little more details of everything that happenedand a short, seven-minute video. This
video shows our elders, and they tell their own stories of what hap-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00025

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

22
pened 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 Departments 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 dont know. That is when 21 years ago I
started investigating and finding out.
I found our information in Paul Kirtons 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 1900s 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00026

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

23
161,200 acres depending on how many people lived there. As part of its 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 Creeks
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 Secretarys 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 village3 short of the required
25. ANCABs decision was reversed on appeal by the United States District Court
on November 14, 1975 and Alexander Creeks village eligibility was ordered reinstated. This was appealed by the State of Alaska. One year later the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Courts ruling on the unconstitutionality of the secret
proceedings.
ANCABs 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 didnt go anywhere we include them with us still to this day, because of course they are part of Alexander Creek and they always will bethey 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
peoplefrom within the federal government and state governmentnot to mention
from within the Native communityfrom 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 legislationthat 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

24
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.
Weve 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.
Id like to thank you in the language of our peopleQuyana.
[NOTE: Attachments have been retained in the Committees 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

25
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 dont 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 peoples 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 indicatorseverything from health, housing and well beinghave
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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

26
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 resultsbased management and how, properly put together with our bill on
that, we could have great results.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

27
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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00031

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

28
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 compactwe
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 continueswhere in a remote isolated place like Alaska, we could
have exchanges with a remote isolated place like Mongoliafor 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 dont 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
yearspoverty 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 ReportSeptember, 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 Banks process and RuralCAPs 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00032

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

29
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
Committees 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 percent90 percentof 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00033

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

30
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 Alaskas 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 Set-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00034

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

31
tlement 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
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
3. The Native Americans 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
Please note that these three points were excerpted from a website of the DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL HISTORICAL CENTER; 805 KIDDER
BREESE SEWASHINGTON 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. Ive 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
1 http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq61-1.htm
2 Ibid
3 Ibid

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

32
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
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 cer4 AFN

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Convention Resolution 07-06, copy attached to this statement

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

33
tified. 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. 105276): 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 Yeatmans 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
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.
5 May

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

19, 2002 Edition of Anchorage Daily News

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

34
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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

35
Stephanie, I am a little bit concerned because you heard the
agencys 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 didnt
quite get all 36 or 30, whatever they had to dothey 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 awhileit has been a long pathto 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 enroll-

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

36
ment and then disrecognized them, was given an ultimatum. Very
frankly, I dont think your people knew what they were doing.
Ms. THOMPSON. They didnt.
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 hadnt 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 dont understand is 1,000 acres.
Nelson, good presentation. You heard again the agency opposing
this. I couldnt 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 didnt 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00040

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

37
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 dont 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 probablyPaul, you have been aroundexpedite 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 didnt
tell you to shut up. I said I will shut up.
Mr. APPLEGARTH. You certainly dont 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 hasnt 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 dont 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00041

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38
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 dont 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00042

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

39
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 receivedthat is Sealaska Corporation receivedjust 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 happenthat 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00043

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

40
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 dont 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 Shaadei-ha-ni (Clan Leader) of the Kwaashki Kwaan. My Tlingit name is Koo 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 MembersDr. 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 Aan, which in Tlingit means Our Land. Sealaska is
the Alaska Native Regional Corporation for Southeast Alaskaone of 12 Regional
Corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(ANCSA). Our shareholders are descendants of the original inhabitants of Southeast Alaskathe 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

41
to Alaskas 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 Sealaskas 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 effortthat 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 Sealaskas 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 ANCSAto 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
Sealaskas 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

42
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 Sealaskas 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 Sealaskas 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 resourcesmore than $300
million between 1971 and 2005to 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. Sealaskas
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 Aan Sustainable Forest Management Program
At the core of Sealaskas land management is the perpetuation of a sustainable,
well-managed forest to produce timber and to maintain forest ecological functions.
Over 27% of Sealaskas 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

43
continue into the future by implementing good forest management practices and by
completion of our Haa Aan 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 regions 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 Technologys 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 Alaskas 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
Forests 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 Tsimshiansare 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00047

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

44
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 todays 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 regions 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. 3560s other distinguished co-sponsors, SEACC supports completing the conveyance of Sealaskas 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 Corporations 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 bills cosponsors 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 actions 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 actions effects.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00048

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

45
I know Sealaska earlier tried to follow that path, and for some
reason that was stopped. Whether it was the Federal governments
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 Chairs 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 Alaskas unsurpassed natural environment while providing for balanced, sustainable uses of our regions 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. 3560s other cosponsors, SEACC supports completing the conveyance of Sealaska Corporations 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 bills
sponsors to finalize the conveyance of Sealaska Corporations 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. 3560s 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 Youngs introductory statement that [t]his legislation
will redress the inequitable treatment of the Native Regional Corporation for Southeast AlaskaSealaska Corporation....). We respectfully disagree and believe the
bills 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00049

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

46
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 Corporations per capita
share of lands under section 14(h)(8), 43 U.S.C. 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. 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 oldgrowth forest in the worlds 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 Corporations 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 dollarsthan any other regional corporation because it had
more shareholders.
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, 2(a)(8). To help put Sealaska Corporations 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.
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 Corporations 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
1 See

ANCSA 1985 Study at III-54.

Sealaska
Timber
Corporation
website
at:
http://www.sealaskatimber.com/
AboutlSTC.htm# and Sealaska News and Information website at: http://www.sealaska.com/
aboutuslnewsl2003.htm (announcing receipt of the Governors Exporter of the Year award).
2 See

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

47
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
BLMs 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
Under federal regulations, the regulatory deadline for Sealaska Corporations applications for land selection under Section 14(h) occurred prior to BLM final allocation of available lands. See 43 C.F.R. 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.
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
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.
3 2007 USDA, Forest Service. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Tongass Land Management Plan Amendment, EIS Appendix C at C-6.
4 See ANCSA 1985 Study at III-50.
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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00051

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

48

The 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
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 IIs 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00052

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38971.001.eps

6 This story can be found on the web at http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/102107/

locl20071021021.shtml.

49
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 Corporations 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. 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 dont understand why such reservations are inconsistent with
Sealaska Corporations 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 Corporations
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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00053

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

50
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 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 Corporations 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:]

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00054

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00055

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38971.002.eps

51

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00056

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38971.003.eps

52

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00057

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38971.004.eps

53

54

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00058

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

38971.005.eps

The 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.

55
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 dont
have time to ask everybody questions, but what I cant 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 dont understand that because I have also heard
people say from SEACC we have to protect the old growth timber.
You cant 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00059

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

56
Mr. MALLOTT. Yes, sir. I dont 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 percentthat is SEACCs 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 dont 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 shouldnt 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 peoples 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

57
[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 Sealaskas interest?
Mr. MCNEIL. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG. You dont invade any of those great, great trees that
are dying, and you dont invade the rain forest and all the other
good stuff that SEACC has protected all this time? You dont 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

58
Bucks 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 havent 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 dont 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. Hernandezhe is from one of the affected communitiesto 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.

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

59
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 dont understand the arithmetic. Can
you explain to me the arithmetic?
You said it is not good land? You say it is not valuable? It doesnt
have water value, et cetera? You are willing to take and give up
285,000 acres for 82,000? That doesnt add up to me. Maybe your
community, but it doesnt 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 Committees 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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY

60

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

VerDate 0ct 09 2002

14:11 Feb 26, 2008

Jkt 098700

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6011

L:\DOCS\38971.TXT

Hresour1

PsN: KATHY