Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions

Floor Speech

STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS -- (Senate - September 29, 2008)

By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka, and Mr. Inouye):

S. 3651. A bill to provide for the settlement df certain claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Tlingit and Haida people, the first people of Southeast Alaska, were perhaps the first group of Alaska Natives to organize for the purpose of asserting their aboriginal land claims. The Native land claims movement in the rest of Alaska did not gain momentum until the 1960s when aboriginal land titles were threatened by the impending construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. In southeast Alaska, the taking of Native lands for the Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument spurred the Tlingit and Haida people to fight to recover their lands in the early part of the 20th Century.

One of the first steps in this battle came with the formation of the Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1912. In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act, which allowed the Tlingit and Haida Indians to pursue their land claims in the U.S. Court of Claims, was enacted by Congress.

After decades of litigation, the Native people of southeast Alaska received a cash settlement in 1968 from the Court of Claims for the land previously taken to create the Tongass National Forest and the Glacier Bay National Monument. Yes there was a cash settlement of $7.5 million but the Native people of southeast Alaska have long believed that it did not adequately compensate them for the loss of their lands and resources.

Beware the law of unintended consequences. When the Native people of southeast Alaska chose to pursue their land claims in court they could not have foreseen that Congress would ultimately settle the land claims of all of Alaska's Native people through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. Nor could they have foreseen that they would be disadvantaged in obtaining the return of their aboriginal lands because of their early, and ultimately successful, effort to litigate their land claims. Sadly this was the case.

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 imposed a series of highly prescriptive limitations on the lands that Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska

Native Corporation formed for southeast Alaska, could select in satisfaction of the Tlingit and Haida land claim. None of the other 11 Alaska based regional Native corporations were subject to these limitations. Today, I join with Mr. Stevens, Mr. Akaka and Mr. Inouye to introduce legislation to right this wrong.

For the most part, Sealaska Corporation has agreed to live within the constraints imposed by the 1971 legislation. It has taken conveyance to 290,000 acres from the pool of lands it was allowed to select under the 1971 act. As Sealaska moves to finalize its land selections it has asked the Congress for flexibility to receive title to certain lands which it was not permitted to select under the prescriptive, and as Sealaska believes, discriminatory, limitations contained in the 1971 legislation.

The legislation we are introducing today would allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas permitted in the 1971 legislation. It allows the Native corporation to select up to 3,600 acres of its remaining land entitlement from lands with sacred, cultural, traditional or historical significance. Substantial restrictions will be placed on the use of these lands.

Up to 5,000 acres of land could be selected for non-timber related economic development. These lands are called ``Native Futures'' lands in the bill. Other lands referred to as ``economic development lands'' in the bill could be used for timber related and nontimber related economic development. These lands are on Prince of Wales Island.

Sealaska observes that if it were required to take title to lands within the constraints prescribed by the 1971 legislation it would take title to large swaths of roadless acres in pristine portions of the Tongass National Forest. The lands it proposes to take for economic uses under this legislation are predominantly in roaded and less sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest.

The pools of lands which would be available to Sealaska under this legislation are depicted on a series of maps referred to in the bill. It must be emphasized that not all of the lands depicted on these maps will end up in Sealaska's ownership. Sealaska cannot receive title to lands in excess of its remaining acreage entitlement under the 1971 legislation and this legislation does not change that entitlement.

Earlier in the 110th Congress, several of our friends in the other body introduced H.R. 3560 to address these issues. Over the past year, Sealaska and the communities of southeast Alaska have worked collaboratively in good faith to identify issues that may arise from the transfer of lands on which those communities have relied for subsistence and recreation out of the Tongass National Forest and into Native corporation ownership. My colleagues in the Alaska congressional delegation and I have devoted a great deal of time in reaching out and encouraging comment from southeast Alaska on H.R. 3560. Sealaska has itself conducted numerous public meetings on the bill in southeast Alaska. I believe that these efforts have helped us to formulate a bill that addresses the concerns we most frequently heard.

The legislation we are introducing today is different from H.R. 3560 in numerous respects. In some cases, the lands open to Sealaska selection have changed from those which were referred to in H.R. 3560 to accommodate community concerns. Our conversations have led to precedent setting commitments by the Sealaska Corporation to maintain public access to the economic development lands it receives on Prince of Wales Island for subsistence uses and recreational access. These commitments are laid out in Section 4(d) of our bill.

Sealaska has also offered a series of commitments to ensure that the benefits of this legislation flow to the broader southeast Alaska economy and not just to the corporation and its Native shareholders. These commitments are memorialized in a letter from Sealaska's chairman, Alaska State Senator Albert Kookesh, and its president and chief executive officer, Chris E. McNeil, Jr.

It comes as no secret to anyone that this legislation is introduced as we enter what may be the final hours of the 110th Congress. There will not be sufficient opportunity in the remaining hours of this Congress to consider the legislation. It will need to be reintroduced in January 2009. We hope that we can move on it in the early part of the 111th Congress.

In the meantime, we encourage and welcome comments from the people and communities of southeast Alaska on the revised legislation and hope that we will be able to productively use the next few months to identify and resolve any issues or concerns that remain before the 111th Congress begins.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a letter of support be printed in the Record.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source