[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.

____________________