[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 4]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 5832-5833]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



     INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS 
                             SETTLEMENT ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 13, 2000

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation 
that would address several matters of concern to Alaska Natives through 
an amendment to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA).
  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 the 
Act. The Resources Committee as a matter of course routinely considers 
such amendments and brings them before the House.
  Consequently, I am introducing this bill containing several such 
amendments to ANCSA in order to facilitate having its provisions 
circulated during the upcoming Congressional recess among Congress, the 
Administration and the State of Alaska for review and consideration.
  This bill has six provisions. One provision would clarify the 
liability for contaminated lands. The clarification of contaminated 
land would declare that no person acquiring interest in land under this 
Act shall be liable for the costs of removal or remedial action, any 
damages, or any third party liability arising out or as a result of any 
contamination on that land at the time the land was acquired under this 
Act.
  Section 3 of the bill amends the Act further to allow equal access to 
Alaska Native Veterans who served in the military or other armed 
services during the Viet Nam war. Alaska Natives have faithfully 
answered the call of duty when asked to serve in the armed services. In 
fact, American Indians and Alaska Natives generally have the highest 
record of answering the call to duty.
  Under the Native Allotment Act, Alaska Natives were allowed to apply 
for lands which they traditionally used as fish camps, berry picking 
camps or hunting camps. However, many of our Alaska Natives answered 
the call to duty and served in the services during the Viet Nam war and 
were unable to apply for their Native allotment. This provision allows 
them to apply for their Native allotments and would expand the dates to 
include the full years of the Viet Nam war. The original dates 
recommended by the Administration only allowed the dates January 1, 
1969 to December 31, 1971. Our Alaska Native veterans should not be 
penalized for serving during the entire dates of the Viet Nam conflict. 
This provision corrects that inequity by expanding the dates to reflect 
all the years of the Viet Nam war--August 5, 1964 to May 7, 1975.
  The settlement trust provision of ANCSA presently indicates that the 
assets placed in a settlement trust are not subject to any creditor 
action other than those by the creditors of the settlement trust 
itself. Federal law is unclear whether the beneficiary's interests in 
the trust can be subject to attachment, etc., by their creditors. The 
legislative history from the 1988 amendments specifically indicates 
that a ``spendthrift clause'' could be included in the trust agreement 
for a settlement trust, but does not specify what the scope of such a 
provision could be. Normally, under general trust law, a spendthrift 
clause operates to limit the circumstances in which creditors can reach 
a beneficiary's trust interest. Alaska law

[[Page 5833]]

(A.S. 34.40.110) expressly recognizes the validity of a spendthrift 
clause for trusts established on or after April 2, 1997, but does not 
expressly authorize a spendthrift clause for trusts established prior 
to this date.
  All this uncertainty places the Trustees in a difficult legal 
position under present law in deciding whether to honor creditor levies 
against beneficiary interests in a settlement issue. Trustees are 
required as fiduciaries to protect the beneficiaries' rights, but are 
also required to honor creditor actions if those are valid under 
applicable law. At least one court case is now pending before the 
United States District Court for Alaska to determine whether the 
trustees of a settlement trust must honor a levy by the State of Alaska 
with regard to various beneficiaries' unpaid child support obligations.
  By contrast, since 1971 section 7(h) of ANCSA has clearly restricted 
most creditor actions as to Native corporation stock. Creditors are 
prohibited from levies and other similar actions against Settlement 
Common Stock, except to the extent that a court has authorized creditor 
action with regard to unpaid child support. Thus, child support levies 
are valid against Settlement Common Stock as long as a court has 
previously authorized such actions.
  The proposed provision removes the uncertainty as to levies against 
the beneficial interests in a settlement trust by clarifying that such 
levies and other creditor actions may occur in the same circumstances 
that such levies and actions could occur with regard to the stock in a 
Native corporation. Not only does this confirm the trust procedure to a 
procedure already known to the personnel within Native corporations 
(who often provide the day to day administration of the trusts), but it 
also follows logically because the source of the settlement trust 
assets was the Native corporation.
  Mr. Speaker, in addition to the provisions which are currently 
included in the legislation I am introducing today which amends the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, it is my understanding that 
several other provisions are in the process of being drafted and/or 
negotiated with relevant parties. If those provisions are ready to be 
considered at the time of committee mark-up of this bill, then I 
anticipate that they would be offered for inclusion in the bill at that 
time.
  Again, I am introducing this bill today to facilitate its provisions 
circulated and reviewed during the April recess by the Department of 
the Interior, the State of Alaska and Alaska Natives.

                          ____________________