[House Report 104-73]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 104-73
_______________________________________________________________________
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT AMENDMENTS
_______
March 9, 1995.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______________________________________________________________________
Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 402]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 402) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill
do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
The purpose of H.R. 402 is to make a number of technical
changes to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971
(ANCSA, Public Law 92-203) and the Alaska National Interest
Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA, Public Law 96-487) to resolve
issues not envisioned at the time of passage of these acts and
to provide for the conveyance of certain lands within the State
of Alaska.
Background and Need for Legislation
The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA)
helped settle aboriginal land claims of Alaska Natives. The
goals of ANCSA were two-fold: (1) to establish property rights
of Alaska Natives to their aboriginal lands; and (2) to secure
an economic base for their long-term survival as a people.
ANCSA created 13 regional corporations and 200 village
corporations, and granted these entities 44 million acres of
land and $926.5 million to implement the goals of the Act. This
bill is the result of the cooperative efforts of the Alaska
Federation of Natives, the State of Alaska, the Ad-P
ministration and other interested parties to address some
technical problems which have arisen since the passage of ANCSA
and ANILCA.
Committee Action
H.R. 402 was introduced by Chairman Don Young of Alaska on
January 4, 1995, and referred to the Committee on Resources.
All the provisions contained in H.R. 402 (except for section 8)
were also included in H.R. 3612 introduced by Congressman Young
in the 103rd Congress. H.R. 3612 passed the House of
Representatives but was not acted on by the Senate.
On February 8, 1995, the full Committee on Resources met to
mark up H.R. 402. The bill was ordered reported (with no
amendments) on that day in the presence of a quorum by voice
vote.
Section-by-Section Analysis
section 1. ratification of certain caswell and montana creek native
association conveyances
Section 1 adopts and ratifies as a matter of Federal law an
agreement between Cook Inlet Region, Inc., Caswell Native
Association, Inc., and Montana Creek Native Association, Inc.
This agreement conveys 11,520 acres to each Native association
in fulfillment of their ANCSA land selections.
Under section 14(h)(2) of ANCSA, Native groups that did not
qualify as Native villages, such as Montana Creek and Caswell,
were entitled to receive ``not more than 23,040 acres [of land]
surrounding the Native group's locality''. In 1974, the Alaska
Native Claims Appeal Board, Office of Hearings and Appeals
certified Caswell and Montana Creek as Native groups, thus
settling their village eligibility disputes. In addition, the
Appeals Board held that Caswell and Montana Creek each were
entitled to receive 11,520 acres of land under section
14(h)(2). In February 1976, Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI)
entered into an agreement with the two Native associations to
convey 11,520 acres to each association.
Ratification of this agreement will make the lands eligible
for fire protection under section 22(e) of ANSCA and offer
additional protection to underdeveloped lands under section 907
of ANILCA. The ratification of this agreement will not
adversely impact the section 14(h) entitlements of other ANCSA
corporations, nor will it be the basis for any claim by the
Caswell or Montana Creek Native associations or any other ANCSA
corporation, including CIRI, against the State of Alaska, the
United States or CIRI.
section 2. mining claims after lands conveyed to alaska regional
corporation
This section amends ANCSA to clarify mining regulatory
authority and administration of mining claims on lands conveyed
to a regional corporation. This section directs the Secretary
of Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), to transfer the administration of certain mining claims
entirely within lands conveyed to a regional corporation to the
regional corporation.
When lands were transferred to regional corporations under
ANCSA sections 11(a)(1), 11(a)(2) and 16, they were conveyed
sub-P
ject to valid existing rights, including rights to mineral
entry. According to the Department of the Interior, miners who
failed to meet deadlines in ANCSA to patent their mining claims
also lost the right to obtain a patent from the Federal
Government under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act
(FLPMA). Following a 1981 court case, the BLM took the position
that it no longer had jurisdiction to administer Federal mining
claims on conveyed land under ANCSA. At the same the, ANCSA
does not clearly authorize a regional corporation to take over
the administration of mining claims on these lands. This
inefficiency in Federal law resulted in confusion for BLM, the
regional corporations as well as mining claimants.
This section would address this void in Federal law by
expressly transferring administration of mining claims from BLM
to a regional corporation on lands withdrawn under sections
11(a)(1), 11(a)(2) and 16 of ANCSA. The regional Native
corporation would administer the mining claims pursuant to
applicable Federal law, including the requirements of the
general mining laws and section 314 of FLPMA.
The regional corporation would receive revenues from the
mining claims otherwise due the United States. For mining
claims not totally within the boundaries of lands conveyed to a
regional corporation, the regional corporation is entitled only
to that portion of revenues, other than administrative fees,
reasonably allocated to that portion of the mining claim.
section 3. settlement of claims arising from hazardous substance
contamination of transferred lands
This section adds a new section 40 to ANCSA. Under this new
section, the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with
the Secretary of Agriculture, the State of Alaska and
appropriate Alaska Native corporations and organizations, shall
submit a report to Congress addressing issues presented by the
presence of hazardous substances on lands conveyed or
prioritized for conveyance to ANCSA corporations. The report is
due 18 months after the date of enactment of H.R. 402.
The report shall: (1) provide existing information
concerning the nature and types of contaminants present on such
lands prior to conveyance to Alaska Native corporations; (2)
provide existing information identifying the existence and
availability of potentially responsible parties for the removal
or amelioration of the effects of such contaminants; (3)
identify existing remedies; and (4) make recommendations for
any additional legislation necessary to remedy the problem of
contaminants on such lands.
This report will provide Congress with additional
background information to consider further corrective measures,
if any, for Alaska Native corporations which contend they have
selected or received title to contaminants on such lands.
This report will provide Congress with additional
background information to consider further corrective measures,
if any, for Alaska Native corporations which contend they
selected or received title to contaminated lands in fulfillment
of their ANCSA land entitlement.
section 4. authorization of appropriations for the purposes of
implementing required reconveyances
Section 4 of the bill amends ANCSA to authorize
appropriations to provide technical assistance to village
corporations so they may implement required reconveyances under
section 14(c) of the Act. This section authorizes the Secretary
of Interior to provide funds for technical assistance through a
grant program to any ANCSA corporation or non-profit
corporations, provided they maintain in-house land planning and
management capabilities.
ANCSA mandated that village corporations who are eligible
to select lands under section 14(c) must reconvey various
surface estates to third parties who have prior existing rights
to those lands. There are 209 village who are eligible to
select ANCSA lands, but to date none of these villages have
received their full land entitlements. Of those village which
have received partial transfers of land, between seven and 15
have completed the required reconveyances. The cost of ANCSA
reconveyances will vary from village to village based on the
complexities of land ownership patterns. However, the
Evansville village corporation expended approximately $10,000
to fully implement its ANCSA section 14(c) obligations. While
Evansville is one of the smaller villages, other estimated
total costs range from $35,000 to $60,000 per village to
complete all necessary reconveyances. Based on its experiences
with land reconveyances in the past, the Alaska Federation of
Natives estimates the implementation cost of section 14(c) to
be approximately $400,000 to $450,000 per year.
section 5. native allotments
Section 5 amends ANILCA to allow the Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation (ASRC) to select the subsurface estate beneath
Native allotments that are completely surrounded by Kuukpik
Corporation selected lands within the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
Two Native allotments in the NPR-A are surrounded by lands
conveyed to the village corporation of Nuiqsut, the Kuukpik
Corporation. The subsurface estate under the Nuiqsut lands has
been conveyed to ASRC under ANILCA, while the subsurface estate
(including rights to oil and gas) in the two Native allotments
remains in control of the Untied States. Section 5 of H.R. 402
permits ASRC, at its option, to relinquish to the United States
a portion of its entitlement under section 12(a)(1) of ANCSA in
exchange for the reserved oil and gas interests of the United
States beneath the two Native allotments in the NPR-A.
Any selections which would include oil and gas rights and
all rights and privileges reserved to the U.S. would reduce
ASRC's ANCSA section 12(a)(1) entitlement on an acre-for-acre
basis. These two native allotments in the NPR-A total less than
240 acres and the exercise of this option by ASRC would
consolidate ownership of the subsurface estate and eliminate
isolated tracts of Federal oil and gas interests.
Section 6. Report Concerning Open Season for Certain Alaskan Veterans
for Allotments
This section directs the Secretary of Interior to submit to
Congress within six months of the date of enactment of H.R. 402
a report on the number of Vietnam-era veterans who were
eligible but did not receive an allotment of up to 160 acres of
land under the Native Allotment Act of 1906. In addition, the
report is to include recommendations for any additional
necessary legislation. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is to
cooperate fully with the Secretary of the Interior by releasing
any relevant information necessary to prepare the required
report.
Under the Native Allotment Act of 1906, only 200 allotment
applications were received by the Bureau of Indian Affairs
(BIA) in Alaska before 1970. Late in 1969, the Rural Alaska
Community Action Program and Alaska Legal Services along with
others made a conscious effort to educate Alaska Natives on the
program and assisted qualified Alaska Natives in filing
applications. Over 8,000 additional applications were filed
before the Act was repealed by ANCSA on December 18, 1971.
Many Alaska Natives were serving in the Armed Services
during the late 60's and early 70's when the BIA opened the
application process to Alaska Natives. Consequently, many of
those Alaska Native veterans on active duty in Vietnam were
unreachable, and missed their opportunity to apply for their
Native allotments. This section would start the process to
rectify this inequity.
section 7. transfer of wrangell institute
Section 7 authorizes Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI) to
transfer to the General Services Administration the Wrangell
Institute in Wrangell, Alaska, which CIRI originally received
in fulfillment of its ANCSA land entitlement in exchange for
property bidding credits.
In return, CIRI will receive $382,305 in bidding credits
that will be restored to the Cook Inlet Region, Inc. property
account in the Treasury Department established under section
12(b) of the Act of January 2, 1976 (Public Law 94-204). These
property bidding credits shall be used in the same fiscal year
as received by CIRI.
The United States shall defend and hold CIRI and its
subsidiaries harmless in all claims arising from ownership of
the land and structures prior to their return to the United
States. This provision is intended to prohibit the United
States from seeking to recover from CIRI the costs of cleaning
up or reclaiming the land and structures on the 10-acre
Wrangell Institute site which existed prior to the transfer to
CIRI.
section 8. shishmaref airport amendment
This section directs the Secretary of the Interior to
reacquire the interests originally conveyed pursuant to a
patent of airport land in Shishmaref, Alaska, from the State of
Alaska, and then transfer all right, title and interest in this
airport to the Shishmaref Native Corporation. This transfer
does not relieve the United States, the State of Alaska or any
other potentially responsible party from liability under
existing law for clean up of hazardous or solid wastes. In
addition, neither the United States nor the Shishmaref Native
Corporation is liable for any clean up of the site merely by
virtue of acquiring title from the State or the United States
under this section.
This conveyance of approximately 30 acres will allow for
expansion of the village. The Committee intends that this
transfer should not be charged to the entitlement of Shishmaref
Native Corporation under any provision of ANCSA.
The transfer of all right, title and interest of the United
States in the subject lands includes both the surface and
subsurface estate.
Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives and clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee's
oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the
body of this report.
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee estimates that the
enactment of H.R. 402 will have no significant inflationary
impact on prices and costs in the operation of the national
economy.
Cost of the Legislation
Clause 7(a) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 402. However, clause 7(d) of that Rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Act of 1974.
Compliance With House Rule XI
1. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, H.R.
402 does not contain any new budget authority, spending
authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in
revenues or tax expenditures.
2. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 402.
3. With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(C) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives and
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the
Committee has received the following cost estimate for H.R. 402
from the Director of the Congressional Budget Office.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 8, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 402, a bill to
amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other
purposes.
Enactment of H.R. 402 would affect direct spending.
Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply to the bill.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 402.
2. Bill title: A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act, and for other purposes.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on Resources on February 15, 1995.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 402 would amend several sections of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to allow the
reconveyance of land among Alaska Native corporations and to
require the transfer of mining claims from the federal
government to Native corporations. The bill would authorize
Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI), to transfer to the United
States certain lands in exchange for property bidding credits
and would relieve the corporation from any liability associated
with the property. The bill also would require the Department
of the Interior (DOI) to conduct a number of studies, and would
authorize the appropriation of such sums as may be necessary
for DOI to provide technical assistance to village
corporations.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Enactment of
H.R. 402 would increase discretionary spending, subject to
appropriations of the necessary funds, and would result in a
loss of offsetting receipts (thereby increasing direct
spending) as shown in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations:
Estimated
authorizatio
n level..... 1.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Estimated
outlays..... 0.9 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4
Direct spending:
Estimated
budget
authority... 0.4 0 0 0 0
Estimated
outlays..... 0.4 0 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
CBO assumes that H.R. 402 would be enacted by the end of
fiscal year 1995 and that funds would be appropriated as
estimated to carry out the required activities.
Section 2 of H.R. 402 would amend the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (ANCSA) to clarify that Native corporations have
the authority to regulate activities on mining claims located
on lands conveyed to them by the federal government. DOI
estimates that in the process of transferring authority to
regulate the claims to the corporations, the agency would incur
a cost of about $100,000 in 1996. Final conveyance of the
claims to the corporations would also mean that the federal
government would no longer collect any fees associated with
these claims. Because DOI is currently collecting little, if
anything, in fees from the claims affected by this section, we
do not expect such losses to be significant.
Section 3 would require DOI to submit a report to the
Congress on the presence of hazardous substances on lands
conveyed to Native corporations under ANCSA. Based on
information provided by DOI, we estimate that this report would
cost about $750,000 and would be completed over an 18-month
period beginning in 1996.
Section 4 would authorize the appropriation of such sums as
may be necessary for DOI to provide technical assistance to
village corporations as they reconvey land as required under
ANCSA. Based on information provided by DOI and the Alaska
Federation of Natives, we estimate that technical assistance
would cost about $400,000 annually.
Section 7 would allow Cook Inlet Region, Incorporated
(CIRI), a native corporation, to give back to the federal
government certain land and structures conveyed to CIRI in 1977
as part of its entitlement under ANCSA. In exchange, the
General Services Administration (GSA) would issue monetary
credits equal to $382,305--the property's estimated value at
the time of the original conveyance. CIRI would be authorized
to use the monetary credits to acquire any federal property.
Section 7 also would absolve CIRI from any liability for damage
claims that might result from hazardous substances found on
this property.
The value of these credits would count as direct spending
in the year they were issued. Correspondingly, their use by
CIRI to acquire federal properties would count as offsetting
receipts in the year they were used. However, because the use
of these credits would likely displace cash sales of federal
properties, their use by CIRI would result in a net loss of
offsetting receipts of $382,305.
By relieving CIRI from sharing liability for damage claims
that might arise from contamination on the returned property,
enactment of this provision could increase federal exposure to
liability suits. Because we have no way to predict whether such
suits will in fact arise, or whether claimants would prevail in
court, CBO cannot estimate either the likelihood or magnitude
of such potential costs.
We do not expect enactment of the other sections of H.R.
402 to result in significant additional costs to the federal
government.
6. Comparison with spending under current law: The
requirements set forth in this bill are new and would increase
DOI's costs by the amounts shown in the previous table.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. CBO estimates that enactment
of H.R. 402 would increase direct spending by $382,305 in
fiscal year 1996. Enactment of section 2 could result in a loss
of offsetting receipts from mining claim fees but such losses
would be negligible.
The following table shows the estimated pay-as-you-go
impact of this bill (The estimated outlay increase in 1996 is
less than $500,000; hence, it rounds to zero.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays................ 0 0 0
Change in receipts............... ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Not applicable.
8. Estimated cost to State and local governments: None.
9. Estimate comparison: None.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by: Theresa Gullo.
12. Estimate approved by: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Departmental Reports
The Committee has a departmental report on H.R. 402 from
the Department of the Interior dated February 8, 1995. The
Committee has received no other departmental reports.
Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC, February 8, 1995.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This is to provide views of this
Department concerning two bills which are expected to be marked
up in the near future by your Committee. They are H.R. 402,
``To amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for
other purposes,'' and H.R. 421, ``To amend the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act to provide for the purchase of common
stock of Cook Inlet Region, Inc., and for other purposes.''
These bills were considered in the 103rd Congress but were
not passed. The bills represent areas where a great deal has
already been accomplished through informal discussion and
cooperative efforts among the Congress, the affected Native
groups, the State, and the Department, and we appreciate the
efforts of the Committee and the progress that has been shown
in this legislation to date. While we do have some concerns
with the bills, a substantial amount of agreement has been
achieved on them through the cooperative efforts.
h.r. 402
We will consider first H.R. 402. The bill would amend
various provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(``ANCSA'') (42 U.S.C. Sec. 1601 et seq.) and would otherwise
provide for certain conveyances of land or interests therein.
We reported on the predecessor bill in the 103rd Congress, H.R.
3612. Several of the provisions of that bill have been removed
and are not included in H.R. 402 because agreement has been
reached and/or because the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN)
has withdrawn them. Most of the provisions in H.R. 402 reflect
suggestions this Department made to H.R. 3612.
Comments are as follows:
Section 1. Ratification of certain Caswell Creek and Montana Creek
conveyances
In 1974, Montana Creek Native Association, Inc. (MCNA) and
Caswell Native Association, Inc. (CNA) withdrew their
applications for village status then pending before the
Department. Instead of applying for a withdrawal and selecting
lands, the two groups and Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI)
entered into an agreement. CIRI conveyed 11,520 acres to each
group. Under the Department's regulations, each group would
have been eligible for a maximum of 7,680 acres. CIRI has
requested that the conveyances from it to the groups be
ratified by Congress and that the groups' lands be treated as
lands conveyed pursuant to ANCSA. This amendment would make the
lands eligible for fire protection under section 22(e) of
ANCSA, 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1621(e), and eligible for a land bank
status under section 907 of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA)(43 U.S.C. Sec. 1636, as amended). The
Department supports the ratification of CIRI's transfer. We
note that two changes were made to the bill last year based on
Interior's comments, and those changes have been retained in
H.R. 402. They are included at page 2, lines 8-17.
We do have an additional amendment which we believe is
necessary in connection with the earlier changes. In the second
sentence, page 2, the reference to section 14(h)(2) of ANCSA
(43 U.S.C. Sec. 1613(h)(2)) should be deleted, and the
reference to Sec. 1613(h)(2) in line 4 should be changed to
simply Sec. 1601 et seq. The lands should be deemed as ANCSA
conveyances in order to have all the protection of Sec. 21 of
ANCSA (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1620) and Sec. 907 of ANLICA. Without the
deletion, it could be argued that 23,000 acres must be deleted
from lands available to other regions under Sec. 14(H)(8) of
ANCSA (43 U.S.C. Sec. 1613(h)(8)), which would be inconsistent
with the agreed goal of making these lands available to the
other regions.
Sec. 2. Mining claims after lands conveyed to Alaska Regional
Corporation
When lands were patented to the regional corporations under
the provisions of ANCSA sections 11(a)(1), 11(a)(2) and 16,
they were conveyed ``subject to valid existing rights.'' This
included valid mining claims. Under the holding in Alaska
Miners v. Andrus, 662 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1981), miners were not
compelled to file for patent on such claims, but by failing to
apply for a patent in the time permitted by ANCSA, mining
claimants lost the right to obtain a patent to their mining
claims for the federal government. Accordingly, BLM has taken
the position that after the transfer of title it cannot accept
FLPMA filings on such mining claims, nor has BLM been wiling to
accept annual rental payments. This has created confusion about
mining regulatory authority over these mining claims.
The purpose of this amendment is to clarify who has mining
regulatory authority over these claims. Under the amendment,
the regional corporations are explicitly given the authority to
regulate the mining claims under the mining laws of the United
States, as such laws are amended. Adoption of this legislation
would have the desired effect of bringing clarity to the
relationship between the miner/inholder and the Regional
Corporation.
The Department supports an amendment to ANILCA on this
subject. We proposed substitute language last year to that
which was proposed in H.R. 3612. That proposed substitute
language, which more clearly gives management authority to the
Regional Corporations, has not been adopted in H.R. 402. We
endorse this section with the new language.
Sec. 3. Settlement of claims arising from hazardous substance
contamination of transferred lands
Native corporations have selected and the United States has
conveyed lands which contain contaminants. The nature of the
contamination may come in various forms including residue from
abandoned upstream mining operations, and in many cases
substances now considered contaminants were not so considered
at the time of the transfer. AFN contends that it is unfair for
the regional corporations to shoulder the entire burden of
cleaning up contaminated sites where the contamination is not
the fault of the Native corporations. However, we have
insufficient information at this time to address this issue. We
support the provision for a study to develop recommendations on
how to deal with the problem. We appreciate that the current
provision represents a substantial change from settlement
provisions in earlier versions of the bill which we strongly
opposed.
While we support the basic terms of the section, we
recommend refinements which we believe are important to the
effectiveness of the provision. We believe the section should
be consistent with terms in the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 9601, et seq.). Two different terms are used in the
operable portion of the study, ``contaminants'', which is
defined in the proposed revision to ANCSA subsection 40(a)(1),
and ``hazardous substances'', which is not defined. Since both
terms are already defined and understood in environmental law,
it makes sense to adopt those definitions for both terms.
Subsection (a)(1) should read:
``(1) The term ``contaminant'' means hazardous
substance(s), pollutants, or contaminants as defined in
Public Law 96-510, Title I, Sec. 101, Dec. 11, 1980, 94
Stat. 2767, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(14) and
(33).''
Subsection (b) should be amended, for consistency and
because the required report must address contaminants and not
just hazardous substances, to replace the term ``hazardous
substances'' on pages 5, line 4, with the term
``contaminants.''
We recommend the definition of term ``lands'' be deleted in
section 40(a) on page 4. We believe it is unnecessary and
potentially confusing because the word ``lands'' is fully
described in subsection 40(b), and subsections 40(b)(1)-(4)
refer back to that description through the use of the term
``such lands''.
Section (b)(2) should be amended by adding the word ``on''
after ``existing information''. This small but important word
makes a big difference in terms of personnel time and money.
With the word, the report is required to state where the
information is located. Without the word, the statutory
directive will be to list all available information in the
report, wherever it may exist.
Subsection (b)(2), page 5, line 12, should be amended by
changing the term ``amelioration'' to ``remediation'', since
``remediation'', like ``removal'', is a term used in CERCLA,
while ``amelioration'' is not.
Sec. 4. Authorization of appropriations for the purpose of implementing
required reconveyances
ANCSA section 14(c) requires village corporations to
reconvey certain land within their patented selections. The
problems associated with the reconveyance of lands to
individuals and municipalities within the village patents are
complex and technically difficult.
This proposed amendment would constitute an authorization
for appropriations to provide technical assistance to villages
14(c) reconveyances.
The Department notes that the provision has been amended
substantially as suggested by the Department in its report of
last year. It is our understanding that AFN concurs with these
changes.
Sec. 5. Native allotments
Two native allotments in the National Petroleum Reserve--
Alaska (NPR-A), totalling less than 240 acres, are surrounded
by lands conveyed to the village corporation of Nuiqsut. The
subsurface estate under Nuiqsut village lands have been
conveyed to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) pursuant
to Section 1431(o) of Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act. In the absence of this amendment, the United
States is expected to own the oil and gas estate under the two
allotments.
This amendment would permit conveyance to ASRC of the
federally owned oil and gas estate under the Native allotments
for the purpose of consolidating subsurface interests in the
area and eliminating isolated tracts of public land. Any oil
and gas recoverable from the Native allotment subsurface would,
in all likelihood, have only a limited market in Nuiqsut. The
lands have not been deemed valuable for coal. The State of
Alaska has consented to the transfer of the reserved minerals
to the Corporation. Furthermore, this amendment would not
result in a net loss of subsurface estate to the United States.
We support this technical amendment. As we suggested in our
report of last year, the bill has been amended to delete the
words ``a Village'' and substitute the world ``Kuukpik'' (the
name of the ANCSA corporation at Nuiqsut) in the first sentence
of proposed Section 1431(o)(5).
Sec. 6. Report concerning open season for certain Native Alaskan
veterans for allotments
The Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906 was repealed by
ANCSA on December 18, 1971. During 1970 and 1971, a concerted
effort was made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Ruralcap and
Alaska Legal Services to notify as many Alaskan Natives as
possible of the upcoming repeal and the need to apply for an
allotment. Individuals who were otherwise entitled to apply for
an allotment but who were on active military duty during 1970
and 1971 may have been deprived of an opportunity to apply for
such allotments.
We note that the bill has been amended from last year's
bill to reduce the eligible parties and to provide for a report
on the problem and suggested solutions. We believe this is far
preferable to the original provision in earlier bills, and we
support the provision. However we strongly recommend that the
time for the report be extended to 12 months. We do not think
it can be done in 6 months.
Sec. 7. Transfer of Wrangell Institute
The Wrangell Institute was originally withdrawn in 1956 for
the administration of Native Affairs. That use terminated with
the passage of ANCSA. The property was excessed by BIA to GSA
in 1975 and subsequently 31 acres were transferred to the city
of Wrangell. In 1977 CIRI requested that the remaining 140
acres be made available for selection. CIRI was issued a
revocable license on May 11, 1977. In August 1978, this land
and the buildings thereon were the subject of an interim
conveyance to CIRI.
This amendment would cause ten acres of that conveyance
together with the structures to be returned to the United
States. The section would also hold CIRI harmless for any and
all claims arising from either federal or CIRI ownership of the
land prior to its return to the United States. CIRI is seeking
a credit to its property account in the amount of $382,305, the
estimated worth of the property. In addition to the costs of
supplementing the CIRI property account, the U.S. would have to
assume the liability for the clean up of the property which
could include the destruction and removal of all buildings on
the property which have deteriorated since the cessation of
maintenance by CIRI.
Asbestos products were properly used in construction of the
buildings and were properly maintained at the time of
conveyance; and this fact is not unique to CIRI. It is
specifically the Department's position that the asbestos was
not considered a pollutant at the time of transfer, and it was
not friable. CIRI had the option of containing the asbestos as
opposed to abandoning the building, but did not do so. It is
our understanding that the asbestos became friable after the
building was abandoned.
Furthermore, CIRI had specifically requested that the
property be made available for selection and had the fullest
opportunity to evaluate the Wrangell property prior to
selecting it, having held a revocable license to the property
for over one year prior to conveyance, for this purpose.
The Department cannot support the relief sought for CIRI.
Under the facts we do not believe CIRI is entitled to the
relief sought, and to do so would require relief for others
similarly situated. We are not in a position to assume that
very extensive liability at this time. It is the Department's
understanding, for example, that there are over 200 other
conveyed buildings which contained non-friable asbestos. We do
not believe that as a matter of law the United States must
reimburse CIRI for its investment or hold them harmless for the
time of their ownership. Moreover, it is not feasible to
reimburse all entities to whom the United States has conveyed
buildings that contained non-friable asbestos or who may not be
satisfied with their land. We do not support this amendment. It
is our understanding that GSA also opposes this amendment for
similar reasons.
We have serious concerns with this section, both on the
facts of the particular case, and because of the precedent it
would set.
Although we do not support section 7, the Department does
support reviewing the Wrangell Institute situation in the
context of the section 3 contamination study discussed earlier
in these comments. The section 3 study will provide a
comprehensive review of the problem of the presence of
contaminants on conveyed lands. We believe that this is the
more appropriate course of action under the circumstances, and
it would place CIRI in the same position as other Alaska Native
corporations with respect to consideration of the circumstances
involving the presence of any contaminants, and identification
of possible remedies.
Sec. 8. Shishmaref airport amendment
This section of the bill would allow the Department to
reacquire Shishmaref Airport, originally conveyed to the State
of Alaska, and to immediately transfer it to the Shishmaref
Native Corporation. The bill attempts to apportion fairly and
potential liability for cleanup of hazardous or solid wastes on
the property.
We recommend the following amendment to section 8,
beginning at line 13: delete all after ``airport.'' on line 13,
through ``and,'' on line 15, and revise to read as follows:
[new matter in italic] ``* * * airport. The Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Administration is hereby directed to
exercise said reverter in Patent No. 1240529 in favor of the
United States within 12 months of the date of enactment of this
section. Upon revesting of title, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Secretary shall.* * *''
This is a preferable means of executing the transfer, and
the Secretary is not called upon to reacquire the land.
With this amendment, the Department supports the section.
With the amendments proposed above, including the deletion
of section 7 as written, the Department supports the enactment
of H.R. 402
H.R. 421
H.R. 421 would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act to provide for the purchase of common stock of the Cook
Inlet Corporation.
In 1971, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA)
was enacted to settle and resolve the claims of Alaska Natives
to most of the State of Alaska. The settlement recognized title
to 44 million acres of land to be held for Native Corporations
and approximately $1 billion in monetary compensation for the
loss of the remaining lands. Under ANCSA, 12 geographic regions
were created with five incorporators authorized under each
region. Each regional corporation was formed under the laws of
Alaska to conduct business for profit and was managed by a
board of directors. Alaska Natives, living on the date of
enactment, were issued stock in the corporations and the right
to vote in elections for the board of director and on other
issues of importance to the stockholders.
ANCSA provided that for a period of 20 years Native
corporation stock could not be sold, transferred, pledged,
subjected to a lien or judgement execution, assigned in present
or future or otherwise alienated; and could only be transferred
through inheritance or in limited cases of court decree. In
1987, Congress amended the restrictions on stock sale, instead
of expiring at the end of 20 years (1991), the stock
restrictions on alienability would continue automatically until
the shareholders of a Native corporations voted to remove them.
H.R. 421 amends ANSCA, authorizing the Cook Inlet Regional
Corporation, with approval of the shareholders, to offer
shareholders a repurchase of corporation stock from those who
want to sell their stock to the corporation.
Our understanding is that the Cook Inlet Regional
Corporation has conducted a poll of its shareholders and found
them to be in favor of this action. Once legislation is passed,
the bill provides that the issue will be put to a formal vote
of the shareholders for their approval. In light of this, we
have no objection to the passage of H.R. 421. We do have two
recommendations, however.
Paragraph (J)(ii) on page 6 would hold harmless any
director of Cook Inlet Regional Corporation and any firm or
member of a firm of investment bankers or valuation experts who
assist in the determination of the terms of an offer to
purchase, from damages for terms made in an offer. We are
opposed to this provision. As to directors we do not believe
that we should change through a federal act the terms of state
law as to the standards of responsibility for directors of
corporations, particularly as to Native corporations in which
shareholders cannot as easily shed their interests as
shareholders in most corporations can do. We should not weaken
the protections afforded shareholders. Moreover, we fail to see
the rationale for absolving bankers and valuation experts from
responsibility for doing precisely what they are hired and well
paid to do, and we believe this holds unnecessary risks to the
shareholders.
Paragraph (L) on page 7 provides that proceeds from sale of
stock shall not be excluded from eligibility determinations for
needs-based government programs. We approve of the provision,
but would defer to the views of other agencies more directly
affected. We recommend, however, the inclusion in line 13,
after the word ``Proceeds'', the following, ``* * * in excess
of $2,000 received by any individual stockholder * * *'' This
would exclude from eligibility determinations the first $2,000
received by a shareholder. The purpose of this provision is
simply to clarify that the bill is consistent with the
provision and policy enacted by the Congress in section 15 of
the 1991 Amendments to section 29 of ANCSA (43 U.S.C. 1607(c)).
This concludes our comments.
The Office of Management and Budget advises that it has no
objection to the presentation of this report from the
standpoint of the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary,
Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT
* * * * * * *
conveyance of lands
Sec. 14. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Each patent issued pursuant to subsections (a) and (b)
shall be subject to the requirements of this subsection. Upon
receipt of a patent or patents:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
There is authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary for the purpose of providing technical assistance to
Village Corporations established pursuant to this Act in order
that they may fulfill the reconveyance requirements of section
14(c) of this Act. The Secretary may make funds available as
grants to ANCSA or nonprofit corporations that maintain in-
house land planning and management capabilities.
* * * * * * *
miscellaneous
Sec. 22. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) This section shall apply to lands conveyed by interim
conveyance or patent to a regional corporation pursuant to this
Act which are made subject to a mining claim or claims located
under the general mining laws, including lands conveyed prior
to enactment of this paragraph. Effective upon the date of the
enactment of this paragraph, the Secretary, acting through the
Bureau of Land Management and in a manner consistent with
section 14(g) of this Act, shall transfer to the regional
corporation administration of all mining claims determined to
be entirely within lands conveyed to that corporation. Any
person holding such mining claim or claims shall meet such
requirements of the general mining laws and section 314 of the
Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C.
1744), except that any filings which would have been made with
the Bureau of Land Management if the lands were within Federal
ownership shall be timely made to the appropriate regional
corporation. The validity of any such mining claim or claims
may be contested by the regional corporation, in the place of
the United States. All contest proceedings and appeals by the
mining claimants of adverse decisions made by the regional
corporation shall be brought in Federal District Court for the
District of Alaska. Neither the United States nor any Federal
agency or official shall be named or joined as a party in such
proceedings or appeals. All revenues from such mining claims
received after passage of this paragraph shall be remitted to
the regional corporation subject to distribution pursuant to
section 7(i) of this Act, except that in the event that the
mining claim or claims are not totally within the lands
conveyed to the regional corporation, the regional corporation
shall be entitled only to that proportion of revenues, other
than administrative fees, reasonably allocated to the portion
of the mining claim or claims so conveyed.
* * * * * * *
claims arising from contamination of transferred lands
Sec. 40. (a) As used in this section:
(1) The term ``contaminant'' means hazardous
substances harmful to public health or the environment,
including asbestos.
(2) The term ``lands'' means real property
transferred to an Alaska Native Corporation pursuant to
this Act.
(b) Within 18 months of enactment of this section, and after
consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, State of
Alaska, and appropriate Alaska Native corporations and
organizations, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on
Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate, a report addressing
issues presented by the presence of hazardous substances on
lands conveyed or prioritized for conveyance to such
corporations pursuant to this Act. Such report shall consist
of--
(1) existing information concerning the nature and
types of contaminants present on such lands prior to
conveyance to Alaska Native corporations;
(2) existing information identifying the existence
and availability of potentially responsible parties for
the removal or amelioration of the effects of such
contaminants;
(3) identification of existing remedies; and
(4) recommendations for any additional legislation
that the Secretary concludes is necessary to remedy the
problem of contaminants on such lands.
----------
SECTION 1431 OF THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT
arctic slope regional corporation lands
Sec. 1431. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(o) Future Option To Exchange, Etc.--(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Following the exercise by Arctic Slope Regional
Corporation of its option under paragraph (1) to acquire the
subsurface estate beneath lands within the National Petroleum
Reserve--Alaska selected by Kuukpik Corporation, where such
subsurface estate entirely surrounds lands subject to a Native
allotment application approved under section 905 of this Act,
and the oil and gas in such lands have been reserved to the
United States, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, at its
further option, shall be entitled to receive a conveyance of
the reserved oil and gas, including all rights and privileges
therein reserved to the United States, in such lands. Upon the
receipt of a conveyance of such oil and gas interests, the
entitlement of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to in-lieu
subsurface lands under section 12(a)(1) of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611(a)(1)) shall be reduced
by the amount of acreage determined by the Secretary to be
conveyed to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation pursuant to this
paragraph.
* * * * * * *