[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 141 (Monday, October 18, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2124-E2125]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


INTRODUCTION OF A BILL TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Monday, October 18, 1999

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation 
that would address several matters of concern to Alaska Natives through 
amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971.
  As my colleagues know, ANCSA was enacted in 1971, stimulated by the 
need to address Native land claims as well as the desire to clear the 
way for the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and thereby 
provide our country with access to the petroleum resources of Alaska's 
North Slope. As the years pass, issues arise which require amending 
that act. The Resources Committee as a matter of course routinely 
considers such amendments and brings them before the House.
  The bill has three provisions. One of the provisions would restore 
50,000 acres back to the village of Elim. The Norton Bay Reservation 
(later referred to as Norton Bay Native Reserve) was formally 
established in 1917 by an Executive Order and comprised approximately 
350,000 acres of land for use of the U.S. Bureau of Education and the 
Natives of Indigenous Alaskan race. It is located approximately 110 
miles southeast of Nome, Alaska along the shoreline of Norton Bay 
Reservation. Some of the burial grounds were mass graves of Natives who 
succumbed to epidemics of disease brought into the Eskimo culture by 
non-Natives. Today, Elim is home to about 300 Alaska Natives and a 
small number of non-Natives who live and work in the village.
  In 1919, Congress enacted a law requiring that any future Indian 
Reservations be established only by an act of Congress. In 1927, 
Congress passed an act which prohibited boundary adjustments to 
Executive Order Reservations other than an act of Congress.
  In 1929, President Herbert Hoover, by an Executive Order, reduced the 
size of the Elim reservation by 50,000 acres. The land was deleted from 
the Reservation for the benefits of others and was not offered to be 
restored to the original Reservation when lands comprising the 
Reservation were made available to the Native inhabitants of Elim under 
section 19(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. The 
failure to replace these lands has been and continues to be a source of 
deep concern to the indigenous people of Elim and until this matter is 
dealt with equitably, it will continue to be a source of great 
frustration and sense of loss among the shareholders of Elim Native 
Corporation and their descendants.
  This bill will give the Elim Native Corporation 2 years in which to 
select no more than 60,000 acres depicted on the map dated August 1, 
1999, and entitled Land Withdrawal Elim Native Corporation Land 
Restoration. It also authorizes the Elim Native Corporation to select 
and receive title to 50,000 acres of lands within the boundary of the 
lands described on the map. The Secretary is further authorized and 
directed to receive and adjudicate a selection application by the Elim 
Native Corporation, and to convey the surface and subsurface estate in 
the selected lands to the Elim Native Corporation subject to rules, 
conditions and limitations outlined in this bill.
  I am attaching copies of two letters (with my statement) from two 
individuals who support the restoration of 50,000 acres to the people 
of Elim. The first letter is from Mr. Donald C. Mitchell, Attorney at 
Law. Mr. Mitchell, over the course of 20 years, has worked on 
amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and has 
written a book regarding the history of the ANCSA. The second letter is 
from Mr. Rick Steiner, Director of The Coastal Coalition, a highly 
respected conservation group in Alaska. Their letters simply state a 
brief outline of support for the restoration of 50,000 acres to the 
people of Elim.
  Another provision of this bill would allow shareholder stock to be 
transferred to adopted Alaska Native children and to their descendants.
  Another provision would amend the definition of a ``settlement 
trust'' under ANCSA.
  This bill is the result of the work of the Alaska Federation of 
Natives, Elim Native Corporation and myself to restore 50,000 acres 
back to the Native peoples of Elim. The legislative language changes 
within the bill were revised with the technical assistance of the 
Department of the Interior.

                                               Donald C. Mitchell,


                                              Attorney at Law,

                                   Anchorage, AK, October 8, 1999.
     Re: Section 7 of H.R. 3013 (Elim Native Corporation 
         Amendment).
     Hon. Don Young,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth Building, House 
         of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon.  George Miller,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth Building, 
         House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Young and Miller: On October 5, 1999 
     Mr. Young introduced, and the Committee on Resources was 
     referred, H.R. 3013, the Alaska Native Claims Technical 
     Amendments of 1999.
       In 1971 when it settled Alaska Native land claims by 
     enacting the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) the 
     92d Congress determined that social and economic justice 
     required that Alaska Natives who resided in a village located 
     within the boundaries of a reservation that had been 
     established for their benefit should be afforded an 
     opportunity to select, and to be conveyed legal title to, all 
     public land located within the reservation's boundaries.
       The Inupiat residents of the village of Elim took advantage 
     of that opportunity, and the Secretary of the Interior 
     conveyed the Elim Native Corporation legal title to the 
     public land located within the boundaries of the former 
     Norton Bay Reservation, as those boundaries existed in 1971.
       ANCSA was a milestone in the history of Congress's 
     relations with Native Americans. But because it was by no 
     means perfect, since 1971 subsequent Congresses have amended 
     ANCSA on numerous occasions to provide Alaska Natives 
     additional land selection opportunities when necessary to 
     ensure that the Act achieves its objectives.
       The most important of those objectives is to afford Alaska 
     Natives social and economic justice regarding their ownership 
     of public land they historically used and occupied.
       As you know, from 1977 to 1994 I served as counsel to the 
     Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), which Alaska Natives 
     organized in 1967 to lead the fight for a fair and just land 
     claims settlement. In that capacity I over the years 
     participated in developing a number of amendments to ANCSA 
     that Congress enacted to ensure that the objective of 
     affording Alaska Natives social and economic justice is 
     achieved.
       One of the most grievous cases of social and economic 
     injustice of which I became aware during my tenure as AFN's 
     counsel was the caprice with which representatives of the 
     federal executive in 1929 diminished the land rights of the 
     Inupiat residents of the village of Elim by adjusting the 
     boundary of the Norton Bay Reservation without their 
     knowledge or consent.
       The facts regarding that situation are well-known and 
     uncontroverted. During my tenure at AFN I and others on 
     several occasions attempted to bring the Elim situation to 
     Congress's attention, but we were no successful. As a 
     consequence, I am delighted to find that section 7 of H.R. 
     3013 attempts to remedy the injustice that was inflicted on 
     the Inupiat residents of Elim in 1929 when the boundary of 
     the Norton Reservation was unfairly, and in my view 
     unlawfully, modified. For that reason, I would respectfully, 
     but strongly, urge you and other members of the Committee on 
     Resources to favorably report section 7 of H.R. 3013 to the 
     U.S. House of Representatives, either as part of H.R. 3013, 
     or as a stand-alone bill.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Don Mitchell.


[[Page E2125]]

     
                                  ____


                                        The Coastal Coalition,

                                   Anchorage, AK, October 8, 1999.
     Re: Elim Native Corporation Land Restoration proposal
     Hon. Don Young, Chairman,
     Hon. George Miller,
     House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Gentlemen, I just wanted to offer a few words in 
     support of the proposal before your committee to return to 
     the Elim Corporation 50,000 acres of land that had been 
     deleted in 1929 by Executive Order.
       It is my understanding from the history of this issue that 
     the deletion by Executive Order from the Norton Bay 
     Reservation was the result of a concerted effort by non-
     Natives to gain access to the area for commercial purposes 
     such as fur farming, prospecting and mining. The deletion 
     from the Reservation seemed to be yet another profound 
     injustice perpetrated on Alaska Natives. Apparently, Elim 
     people weren't even consulted regarding this deletion.
       In my many years living in and working in northwest Alaska, 
     I visited Elim several times, and they were always some of 
     the kindest, most accommodating people I had the opportunity 
     to work with. They certainly seem to care a great deal about 
     their land and cultural heritage.
       Before your committee is a remarkable opportunity to right 
     this wrong, and I urge you to act upon this opportunity. The 
     return of 50,000 acres of land to the Elim shareholders seems 
     justified not just on moral and ethical grounds, but also on 
     the grounds of conservation and protection of valuable fish 
     and wildlife habitat. Particularly important is the habitat 
     along the Tubuktoolik River and its wastershed.
       I would hope that a protective conservation easement or 
     other protective covenant could be included with the transfer 
     in order to secure sustainable protection of the area well 
     into the future. This would not only protect the lands from 
     potentially damaging commercial activities, but would also 
     allow Elim to develop a truly sustainable economy in the 
     region. As the lands are held at present, there are no such 
     protections and the area could easily fall victim to short-
     term activities against the desires and sentiments of the 
     Elim people.
       Returning this land to the Elim people with protective 
     covenants is a win-win scenario, as it provides ethical 
     redress of some rather outrageous federal activity earlier 
     this century, conservation of the region, and opportunity for 
     the Elim people to rebuild a sustainable economy on their 
     land.
       Thanks for your attention to this very important issue.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Rick Steiner,
     Director, The Coastal Coalition.

                          ____________________