29–006 

112TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 112–736 

AMENDING THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE 

THAT ALEXANDER CREEK, ALASKA, IS AND SHALL BE RECOGNIZED AS 

AN ELIGIBLE NATIVE VILLAGE UNDER THAT ACT, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 

DECEMBER 31, 2012.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, from the Committee on Natural 

Resources, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 4194] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 4194) to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

to provide that Alexander Creek, Alaska, is and shall be recognized 

as an eligible Native village under that 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. 4194 is to amend the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act to provide that Alexander Creek, Alaska, is and 

shall be recognized as an eligible Native village under that Act. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) extinguished all claims based on aboriginal title to lands and waters 

in Alaska. In exchange, Congress conveyed fee title to 44 million 

acres of public lands in Alaska and nearly $1 billion to Alaska Natives. The Act divided the state into twelve geographic regions 

‘‘composed as far as practicable of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interests,’’ and listed approximately 200 

Villages with 25 or more Native residents where they formed a maVerDate Mar 15 2010 06:41 Jan 02, 2013 Jkt 029006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR736.XXX HR736

pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
2 

jority of the population. ANCSA directed the Regions and Native 

Villages to form for-profit business corporations organized under 

the laws of Alaska to manage the settlement lands and funds. Fee 

title to the surface estate to the lands was divided among both the 

Regional and Village Corporations, while the Regional Corporations 

obtained fee title to the subsurface estate of all these lands. 

Though Alaska Native Corporations are private entities, ANCSA 

prescribed a host of attributes and conditions under which they 

must operate. For example, settlement lands conveyed to the 

ANCSA Corporations are treated as private property subject to 

State regulation, but they are nontaxable until developed. While 

ANCSA Corporations may buy, sell, or trade their lands like any 

private landowner, shares issued by the Corporations are not publicly traded or sold. Importantly, section 7 of ANCSA requires that 

70% of revenues derived by a Regional Corporation from the development of timber and mineral resources on its settlement land be 

shared with the other Regional Corporations, which must in turn 

redistribute these benefits to Village Corporations in their regions 

and to at-large shareholders (at-large shareholders of a Regional 

Corporation do not own shares in a Village Corporation). 

Depending on its population, each Alaska Native Village of 25 or 

more residents is entitled to the surface estate to a minimum of 

69,120 acres and a maximum of 161,280 acres of public land for its 

Village Corporation. Relevant to Alexander Creek, ANCSA provides 

that a Village of fewer than 25 Native residents may form a ‘‘Group 

Corporation’’ entitled to a maximum of 7,680 acres. 

Alexander Creek is located 27 miles northwest of Alaska’s largest 

city of Anchorage. Though not listed in ANCSA as a Native Village, 

Alexander Creek used an administrative process to obtain Village 

status through which the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) initially 

determined it had more than the requisite 25 members. This precipitated administrative appeals and litigation filed by various parties, which protested Alexander Creek’s status as a Village largely 

over fears that its ANCSA land entitlement might create land selection and land use disputes with other parties, including the 

State, the Mat-Su Borough, and those seeking to preserve access to 

public lands and waters. 

On an appeal of Alexander Creek’s status in 1974, the Department of the Interior Alaska Native Claims Appeals Board (ANCAB) 

decided that there were only 22 Native people enrolled to Alexander Creek, three short of meeting the eligibility requirements for 

a Village. Alexander Creek residents claimed that not all of its enrollees were properly counted because the BIA failed to notify them 

of the administrative proceedings where they could have testified 

as to their status. 

Alexander Creek filed a lawsuit that resulted in protracted litigation. The case eventually went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed Interior’s determination but remanded the case to a lower court for further proceedings. This led to negotiations that resulted in Alexander Creek 

organizing as a Group Corporation rather than a Village Corporation. Subsequent leadership of Alexander Creek petitioned Congress for Village status. 

On March 20, 2012, the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held a hearing on H.R. 4194, and heard testimony from 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
3 

Stephanie Thompson, the President of Alexander Creek, and the 

Obama Administration. Ms. Thompson submitted materials in the 

record demonstrating that a number of Natives (who have since 

passed away) were not given a fair opportunity to testify before the 

BIA as to their membership in Alexander Creek. The Interior Department opposed the bill on the grounds that a final settlement 

over the Group’s status was struck and that it should not be reopened. It should be noted, however, that ANCSA has been amended numerous times by Congress. It is further important to note 

that Native Villages recognized pursuant to ANCSA are not Indian 

‘‘tribes’’. They possess a unique history of relations with the federal 

government that is not comparable to those of recognized Indian 

tribes in the contiguous United States. 

The opposition of the Obama Administration is inexplicable given 

its recent settlement of claims of Indians and tribes from other 

states for billions of dollars at the same time it opposes this bill, 

which does not specifically direct the expenditure of any funds to 

resolve Alexander Creek’s claims as an Alaska Native Village. 

H.R. 4194 recognizes Alexander Creek as a Native Village, making it eligible to form a Village Corporation under ANCSA. The bill 

directs the Secretary of the Interior, in his sole discretion, to negotiate and enter into an agreement by December 31, 2012, with the 

Native Village Corporation of Alexander Creek ‘‘to settle aboriginal 

land claims and any other claims of such Native Village Corporation against the United States fairly, reaching an agreement in approximate parity with those of other Alaska Native Village Corporations.’’ The bill does not prescribe any benefits and does not 

guarantee what they will be, if any. It is possible that any agreement struck by the government and Alexander Creek, pursuant to 

this bill, may be subject to authorization by Congress. 

H.R. 4194 requires Alexander Creek, upon being recognized as a 

Village, to notify its members that they shall cease receiving certain revenue-sharing benefits available to them under section 7(m) 

of ANCSA. Such members, however, will be eligible for revenue 

sharing payments established under section 7(j) of ANCSA. These 

revenue sharing measures in ANCSA provide for the redistribution 

of 70% of revenues derived by all Alaska Native Regional Corporations from the development of timber and subsurface resources on 

their settlement lands. 

Finally, the bill ensures the entitlement to lands that Alexander 

Creek obtained as a Group Corporation is not diminished by the 

change in its status. 

The Committee was perplexed to see that the score prepared by 

the Congressional Budget Office presumes that the likely settlement option open for Alexander Creek is the payment of funds 

from the Judgment Fund. However, the Committee notes that 

nothing in the legislation authorizes such a payment and that if a 

land settlement—the preferred and usual result under ANSCA—is 

not possible, it is very likely that further legislation would be necessary to provide any direct payments to Alexander Creek Native 

Village Corporation. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 4194 was introduced on March 8, 2012, by Congressman 

Don Young (R–AK). The bill was referred to the House Committee 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
4 

on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. On March 20, 

2012, the Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs held 

a hearing on the bill. On August 1, 2012, the Full Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee on Indian and 

Alaska Native Affairs was discharged by unanimous consent. No 

amendments were offered, and the bill was adopted and ordered favorably reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee on 

Natural Resources’ oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII 

1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(1) 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 this bill. However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) 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 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974. Under clause 

3(c)(3) of rule XIII 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 this bill from the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office: 

H.R. 4194—A bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act to provide that Alexander Creek, Alaska, is and shall be 

recognized as an eligible Native village under that Act, and for 

other purposes 

Summary: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4194 would cost 

$30 million over the 2013–2022 period. Because those costs would 

increase direct spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting 

the legislation would not affect revenues or spending subject to appropriation. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: H.R. 4194 would designate the Alexander Creek community in Alaska as a Native village under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 

(ANCSA). The community is currently recognized as a Native 

group under ANCSA. The legislation would require the Department of the Interior (DOI) to settle land and other claims with the 

newly designated Native village by December 31, 2012. 

ANCSA established a process to classify Native Alaskan communities for the purpose of conveying nearly 44 million acres of federal land to those communities. Under ANCSA, Native villages are 

entitled to about 69,000 acres, and Native groups can receive up to 

about 8,000 acres. The Alexander Creek community was classified 

as a Native group in 1974, and that classification was affirmed and 

codified in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 

1980 (ANILCA). In that agreement, the Alexander Creek community was entitled to receive almost 8,000 acres of federal land. H.R. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
5 

4194 would supersede the ANILCA agreement and would classify 

the Alexander Creek community as a Native village, allowing them 

to receive an additional 61,000 acres of land. 

CBO estimates that 61,000 acres of land in this area of Alaska 

would have an appraised value of about $30 million. Because most 

eligible lands have already been conveyed to the state of Alaska, 

CBO expects that the settlement under H.R. 4194 would be in the 

form of a monetary settlement from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund 

(a permanent, indefinite appropriation for claims and judgments 

against the United States). However, the cost of the settlement 

under H.R. 4194 ultimately would depend on the terms agreed 

upon by DOI and the Alexander Creek Native Village. (The bill 

does not specify the terms of the settlement agreement.) If the settlement were in the form of a transfer of federal land to the Alexander Creek community, for example, the legislation would have a 

negligible federal cost. 

Pay-As-You-Go Considerations: The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act 

of 2010 establishes budget-reporting and enforcement procedures 

for legislation affecting direct spending or revenues. The net 

changes in outlays that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following table. 

CBO ESTIMATE OF PAY-AS-YOU-GO EFFECTS FOR H.R. 4194, A BILL TO AMEND THE ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT TO PROVIDE THAT ALEXANDER CREEK, ALASKA, IS AND SHALL 

BE RECOGNIZED AS AN ELIGIBLE NATIVE VILLAGE UNDER THAT ACT, AS ORDERED REPORTED 

ON AUGUST 1, 2012 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2013– 

2017 2013– 2022 

NET INCREASE OR DECREASE (¥) IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact ................................... 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 30 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 4194 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on 

state, local, or tribal governments. Enacting the bill would benefit 

Alexander Creek. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Martin von Gnechten; Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Melissa Merrell; Impact on the private-sector: Marin Randall. 

Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 

2. Section 308(a) of Congressional Budget Act. As required by 

clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, 

this bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax expenditures. 

CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 4194 would cost $30 million over 

the 2013–2022 period. Because those costs would increase direct 

spending, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the legislation 

would not affect revenues or spending subject to appropriation. 

3. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII, the general performance goal or objective 

of this bill is to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
6 

to provide that Alexander Creek, Alaska, is and shall be recognized 

as an eligible Native village under that Act. 

EARMARK STATEMENT

This bill does not contain any Congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined under clause 9(e), 

9(f), and 9(g) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives. 

COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 

This bill contains no unfunded mandates. 

PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or tribal law. 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

In compliance with clause 3(e) 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 (new matter is printed in italic 

and existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 

roman): 

ALASKA NATIVE CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 43. ALEXANDER CREEK VILLAGE RECOGNITION. 

(a) RECOGNITION OF THE VILLAGE OF ALEXANDER CREEK.—Subject to the limitations of this section and notwithstanding section 

1432(d) of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(Public Law 96–487) to the contrary, Alexander Creek, located within Township 15N, Range 7W, Seward Meridian, Alaska, is and 

shall be recognized as an eligible Native village under section 

11(b)(3) of this Act. 

(b) DEFINITIONS.—For the purposes of this section, the following 

terms apply: 

(1) The term ‘‘agency’’ includes— 

(A) any instrumentality of the United States; 

(B) any element of an agency; and 

(C) any wholly owned or mixed-owned corporation of the 

United States Government identified in chapter 91 of title 

31, United States Code. 

(2) The term ‘‘Alexander Creek’’ means Alexander Creek Incorporated, an Alaska Native Group corporation, organized pursuant to this Act. 

(3) The term ‘‘Region’’ means Cook Inlet Region Incorporated, 

an Alaska Native Regional Corporation, which is the appropriate Regional Corporation for Alexander Creek under section 

1613(h) of this Act. 

(c) ORGANIZATION OF ALEXANDER CREEK.—As soon as practicable 

after enactment of this section, Alexander Creek shall cause to be 

filed— 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
7 

(1) any amendments to its corporate charter in the State of 

Alaska necessary to convert from a Native group to a Native 

Village corporation; and 

(2) if necessary, any amendments to its corporate charter and 

governing business documents that fulfill the terms of the agreement authorized under this Act. 

(d) AUTHORITY AND DIRECTION TO NEGOTIATE.—Not later than 

30 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary 

shall open discussions and subsequently negotiate and, in the Secretary’s sole discretion on behalf of the United States, enter into an 

agreement by December 31, 2012, with the Native Village Corporation of Alexander Creek (hereinafter, ‘‘Alexander Creek’’) to settle aboriginal land claims and any other claims of such Native Village 

Corporation against the United States fairly, reaching an agreement 

in approximate parity with those of other Alaska Native Village 

Corporations, notwithstanding Alexander Creek’s prior status as a 

Group Corporation. 

(e) SHAREHOLDER PARTICIPATION.—Alexander Creek shall notify 

each member of the Native village recognized under this section 

that, upon the effective date of this section, such members shall 

cease to receive benefits from the Region as at-large shareholders 

pursuant to section 7(m), and that all future resource payments 

from the Region shall be made to the Village Corporation pursuant 

to section 7(j). The Region shall not be liable under any State, Federal, or local law, or under State or Federal common law, for damages arising out of or related to the cessation of payments to such 

individuals under section 7(m) pursuant to this section. 

(f) STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be 

construed to— 

(1) limit, alter, violate, breach, or otherwise affect the rights 

of any party under a contract, settlement agreement, or land exchange entered into prior to enactment of this section between 

Alexander Creek and any party, or one or more parties to any 

contract, settlement, agreement, or land exchange predicated 

upon Alexander Creek’s Native village status under this Act; or 

(2) diminish or reduce the acreage entitlement to which Alexander Creek became entitled to as a Group Corporation. 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
(8) 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

H.R. 4194 will amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

(ANCSA) to recognize Alexander Creek Inc., currently recognized 

as an Alaska Native Group, as an Alaska Native Village. As a Native Village, Alexander Creek will be eligible for similar treatment 

as other Native Villages under ANCSA, including eligibility to receive between 69,120 acres to 161,200 acres of land from the public 

domain in Alaska. While we recognize the unfortunate history behind Alexander Creek’s designation as a Native Group, and sympathize with those circumstances, we cannot recommend that H.R. 

4194 advance in the House. H.R. 4194 would upset settled law with 

respect to Alaska Native Village and Group land conveyances established by ANCSA and create unwise precedent on the finality of 

tribal legislative settlements. 

Alexander Creek’s eligibility as a Native Village was ultimately 

resolved in a Stipulated Agreement in 1979 and codified in the 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. In signing the 

settlement agreement, in which Alexander Creek, Cook Inlet Region Incorporated (CIRI), and the United States were parties, Alexander Creek dropped its claim to be a village in exchange for group 

status and up to 7,680 acres of land. The agreement released the 

United States from liability for any land claims the group had 

against it. To turn back the clock, as H.R. 4194 will, to nullify this 

agreement would reopen Alexander Creek’s land claims against the 

United States and expose the federal government to monetary liability it settled over 30 years ago. It goes without saying that reopening land claims because a party to the settlement has buyer’s 

remorse, as Alexander Creek clearly does here, will establish dangerous precedent for reopening all Indian land settlements with the 

United States. The House should not approve bills that expose the 

federal government to land claims of unquantified liability, especially if those claims have been resolved and discharged with finality through codification at law. 

Moreover, H.R. 4194 will, as the Department of the Interior testified, have ‘‘serious consequences’’ respecting land conveyances in 

south-central Alaska, which is in a late stage of implementation of 

those conveyances. Even Alexander Creek’s President Thompson 

admitted at the Subcommittee hearing on the bill that all the land 

selections in Alaska have been made by others, including the State 

and boroughs, so the only eligible lands that remain are 

‘‘unselected’’ or part of the national park system. It is therefore 

troubling that H.R. 4194 does not address the process for selection 

of entitlement lands, or even approximate how much land the 

group could receive or where, instead leaving it to the discretion of 

the Secretary of the Interior to sort out with the group. H.R. 4194 

simply directs the Secretary to negotiate and enter into an agreement with Alexander Creek to ‘‘settle aboriginal claims and other 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with 
9 

claims . . . against the United States fairly, reaching an agreement in approximate parity with those of other Alaska Native Village Corporations. . . .’’ (emphasis added) ‘‘Approximate parity’’ is 

not defined in the bill. This lack of certainty is problematic, especially in light of the fact that H.R. 4194 amends existing law. 

H.R. 4194 will re-expose the United States to liability that was 

settled by stipulated agreement and codified more than 30 years 

ago. It lacks fundamental and necessary details on land selection 

and conveyance to Alexander Creek of lands the group argues it is 

owed as a Native village under ANCSA, and further fails to approximate how much land the group could receive or where it could 

select such land from. This bill will have serious repercussions on 

the framework for land conveyances established by ANCSA and 

create precedent by which other dissatisfied groups may seek redress. H.R. 4194 should be rejected by the House. 

EDWARD J. MARKEY. 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with