89–006 

115TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 115–1058 

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 

NOVEMBER 30, 2018.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 

State of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. BISHOP of Utah, from the Committee on Natural Resources, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1418] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Natural Resources, to whom was referred the 

bill (H.R. 1418) 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. 1418 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, 43 

U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), extinguished all claims of Native people based 

on aboriginal title to lands and waters in Alaska. Under the Act, 

fee title to 44 million acres of public lands in Alaska and nearly 

$1 billion were conveyed and paid to Alaska Natives. Section 7 divided the State into twelve geographic regions, approximated by 

twelve regional Native associations, ‘‘composed as far as practicable 

of Natives having a common heritage and sharing common interVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Dec 07, 2018 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR1058.XXX HR1058
2 

ests.’’ Section 11 listed approximately 200 villages with 25 or more 

Native residents where they formed a majority of the population. 

The Regional Associations and Native Villages were authorized 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 the Regional and 

Village Corporations, while the Regional Corporations obtained fee 

title to the subsurface estate of most Regional and Village Corporation lands. 

The Act prescribed a host of conditions under which Native Corporations 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 between 69,120 and 

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 

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

city of Anchorage. Though not specifically listed as a Native Village 

in ANCSA, Alexander Creek secured recognition as a Village under 

administrative procedures authorized under section 11 of that Act. 

Its recognition as a Village was challenged through administrative 

appeals and lawsuits, precipitated by (among other things) concerns that it would obtain the right to select public lands to which 

the State of Alaska and the Matanuska-Susitna Borough sought to 

select pursuant to other acts. 

In 1974 the Department of the Interior Alaska Native Claims 

Appeals Board (ANCAB) resolved appeals challenging Alexander 

Creek’s designation as a Village. The ANCAB decided there were 

only 22 Native people properly enrolled to Alexander Creek, three 

short of meeting the eligibility requirements for a Village. Alexander Creek contends that not all of its enrollees were properly 

counted because the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) failed to notify 

residents 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 the Department of the 

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 VilVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:43 Dec 07, 2018 Jkt 089006 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR1058.XXX HR1058
3 

lage 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 a predecessor bill to H.R. 1418 (H.R. 

4194), and heard testimony from Stephanie Thompson, the President of Alexander Creek, and the Obama Administration. Ms. 

Thompson submitted materials 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. At the time, 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. 

COMMITTEE ACTION

H.R. 1418 was introduced on March 7, 2017, by Congressman 

Don Young (R–AK). The bill was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and within the Committee to the Subcommittee on 

Indian, Insular and Alaska Native Affairs. On July 25, 2017, the 

Natural Resources Committee met to consider the bill. The Subcommittee was discharged by unanimous consent. No amendments 

were offered, and the bill was ordered favorably reported to the 

House of Representatives by unanimous consent on July 26, 2017. 

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 AND CONGRESSIONAL

BUDGET ACT

1. Cost of Legislation and the Congressional Budget Act. With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) and (3) of rule XIII of 

the rules of the House of Representatives and sections 308(a) and 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has 

received the following estimate for the bill from the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, September 22, 2107. 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1418, 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. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Robert Reese. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL, 

Director. 

4 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 1418—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: H.R. 1418 would amend the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) to recognize the Alexander Creek 

community in Alaska as an eligible Native village under the act, 

which would entitle the community to receive additional federal 

land in Alaska. Under the bill the Secretary of the Department of 

the Interior (DOI) would have 13 months following enactment to 

reach an agreement with the Alexander Creek Native village to 

settle land and other claims against the federal government. 

The cost of a settlement agreement is uncertain because the components of the proposed agreement are unknown. Whether or not 

such an agreement could become final under H.R. 1418, or if additional legislation would be needed to implement an agreement, is 

also unknown. CBO expects that DOI would probably propose a 

monetary settlement with the village with an estimated value of 

about $32 million. The settlement of such a monetary claim could 

be accomplished under the authority provided by H.R. 1418; alternatively, DOI might seek a specific appropriation in subsequent 

legislation to pay that claim and to enact any other settlement 

terms into law. 

To account for the uncertainty about how the proposed settlement would become final, CBO assumed that there is a 50 percent 

chance that the claim would be settled directly as a result of this 

bill, resulting in direct spending of $16 million over the 2018–2022 

period and a 50 percent chance that a settlement would require future appropriations totaling $16 million over that period. 

Because enacting H.R. 1418 would increase direct spending, payas-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the bill would not affect revenues. 

CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 

10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

H.R. 1418 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. 

Enacting the bill would benefit the community of Alexander Creek 

by designating land as a native village and potentially entitle members of Alexander Creek to increased land holdings or other federal 

benefits. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary effect of H.R. 1418 is shown in the table below. The costs of 

this legislation fall within budget functions 450 (community and regional development) and 800 (general government). 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017– 

2022 

2017– 

2027 

INCREASE IN DIRECT SPENDING 

Estimated Budget Authority ............ 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 

Estimated Outlays ........................... 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 

5 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017– 

2022 

2017– 

2027 

INCREASE IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level ........ 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 

Estimated Outlays ........................... 0 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that H.R. 

1418 will be enacted near the end of 2017, that DOI will reach a 

monetary settlement with the Alexander Creek village within a 

year and that any amounts necessary to finalize the settlement will 

be provided in fiscal year 2019. 

Background 

ANCSA established a process to classify Native Alaskan communities as Native corporations and withdrew nearly 44 million acres 

of federal land in Alaska for the purpose of conveying land to those 

communities. Under ANCSA, Native villages are entitled to receive 

about 69,000 acres from that withdrawn land, 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 the 44 million acres of federal land withdrawn under 

ANCSA. 

Alexander Creek reclassification 

H.R. 1418 would designate the Alexander Creek community as a 

Native village under ANCSA, which would require DOI, in conjunction with the General Services Administration (GSA), to settle land 

and other claims with the newly designated Native village. Under 

the bill, part of the settlement could involve transferring some of 

the government’s excess personal property, such as office equipment and furniture, to Alexander Creek. (The disposition of excess 

personal property is administered by the GSA.) 

Because H.R. 1418 would supersede the ANILCA agreement and 

classify the Alexander Creek community as a Native village, they 

would be entitled to receive an additional 61,000 acres of the federal land withdrawn under ANCSA. According to DOI, nearly all 

of that land has been or is in the process of being conveyed to other 

Alaska Native corporations. Under the bill, DOI would be required 

to enter into negotiations with Alexander Creek to settle the community’s land claims by providing the community with some combination of other land in the public domain, personal property held 

by GSA, or other compensation. H.R. 1418 would require the settlement to be reached within 13 months of the bill’s enactment. 

Based on the value of undeveloped acreage in the vicinity of the 

Alexander Creek community, CBO estimates that 61,000 acres of 

land in this area of Alaska would have an appraised value of about 

$32 million. Because there is little land available to settle the claim 

CBO expects that the settlement under H.R. 1418 would be in the 

form of a monetary settlement to the community. That settlement 

could come from amounts appropriated to DOI for that purpose; 

however, if the amounts required to settle the community’s claim 

6 

are not appropriated to DOI, CBO expects the settlement could also 

be made from the Treasury’s Judgment Fund (a permanent, indefinite appropriation available to pay judicially and administratively 

ordered monetary awards against the United States). A federal 

agency may request that payment of an award be made on its behalf from the Judgment Fund when no other funds are available 

to pay an obligation of the government. 

The timing and the amount of a settlement are uncertain and 

would ultimately depend on the terms agreed upon by DOI and the 

Alexander Creek Native Village. DOI indicates that there are insufficient amounts of land in the region to compensate the village, 

and GSA notes that there is not enough surplus federal personal 

property to compensate the village in a reasonable amount of time. 

CBO expects that under H.R. 1418 there is a 50 percent chance 

that a settlement agreement could be reached that would need to 

be funded and finalized through subsequent legislation (at a discretionary cost of $16 million) and a 50 percent chance that a settlement could be agreed to directly under H.R. 1418, which would result in direct spending totaling $16 million that would be paid by 

the Judgment Fund. 

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. 1418, 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, AS ORDERED REPORTED ON JULY 26, 2017 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2017– 

2022 

2017– 

2027 

NET INCREASE IN THE DEFICIT 

Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Impact .... 0 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 16 

Increase in long-term direct spending and deficits: CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 1418 would not increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 1418 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments. Enacting the bill would benefit the community of Alexander 

Creek by designating land as a native village and potentially entitle members of Alexander Creek to increased land holdings and 

other federal benefits. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Robert Reese and Matthew 

Pickford; Impact on State, local, and tribal governments: Rachel 

Austin; Impact on the private-sector: Amy Petz. 

Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 

2. General Performance Goals and Objectives. As required by 

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

7 

of this bill 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. 

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. 

COMPLIANCE WITH H. RES. 5 

Directed Rule Making. This bill does not contain any directed 

rule makings. 

Duplication of Existing Programs. This bill does not establish or 

reauthorize a program of the federal government known to be duplicative of another program. Such program was not included in 

any report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 

pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111–139 or identified in the 

most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance published pursuant to the Federal Program Information Act (Public Law 95–220, 

as amended by Public Law 98–169) as relating to other programs. 

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) and any conveyance or agreement in furtherance thereof or thereto, 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 

8 

(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 prior to the enactment of this section, but subsequent to enactment of this section means Alexander Creek, Incorporated, an Alaska Native Village corporation recognized 

and organized pursuant to section (a). 

(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— 

(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) NEGOTIATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the 

enactment of this section, the Secretary shall open negotiations with 

Alexander Creek and, not later than 13 months after the date of the 

enactment of this section, reach an agreement with Alexander Creek 

to fairly and equitably settle Alexander Creek’s aboriginal land 

claims and any other claims of Alexander Creek against the United 

States. An agreement under this section shall be in approximate 

value parity with those of other Alaska Native Village Corporations, 

notwithstanding Alexander Creek’s prior status as a Group Corporation. The Secretary shall effectuate such agreement under the 

authority in this section, other existing authorities, and in coordination with the Administrator pursuant to 40 U.S.C. 549 with respect 

to property to be transferred to Alexander Creek pursuant to such 

agreement. Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 

549(a) of title 40, United States Code, Alexander Creek is hereby 

considered both a ‘‘State’’ and a ‘‘State agency’’ under that section 

for the sole purpose of the Secretary effectuating an agreement 

under this section. 

(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) CONSTRUCTION.—Except as provided in this section with respect to Alexander Creek, nothing in this section shall be construed 

to modify or amend land conveyance entitlements or conveyance 

agreements between the Region and village corporations other than 

Alexander Creek in such region, nor between the Region and the 

9 

Federal Government, nor between any such parties and the State of 

Alaska. 

(g) CONSTRUCTION REGARDING CURRENT ALEXANDER CREEK

LAND.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to reduce the land 

entitlement to which Alexander Creek became entitled as a Group 

Corporation, including the land selected by and conveyed to Alexander Creek at the time of enactment of this section. 

(10) 

ADDITIONAL VIEWS 

I am deeply disappointed in the Congressional Budget Office’s 

(CBO) unprofessionalism and lack of consistency during their efforts throughout the last three Congresses to analyze this legislation. CBO’s failure to provide accurate, timely feedback to my office 

and produce a report that reflects the realities of the impact of this 

bill has been a significant roadblock to the bill’s advancement. Ultimately, this has perpetuated historic injustices faced by the people 

of Alexander Creek, Alaska. 

My office has sought advice from CBO with the goal of producing 

language for the legislation that does not score. During the 113th 

Congress, CBO made recommendations to this end (after long 

delays) regarding including provisions specifying that the bill does 

not authorize funds for a settlement or create a federal liability 

through the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act 

(25 U.S.C. 1401). After my office made CBO’s recommended 

changes, CBO reversed their position and issued a report that 

found the bill scored. In addition, further legal analysis determined 

that CBO’s recommended language regarding the Tribal Judgement Fund was based on a flawed understanding of Indian policy 

and did not make sense. 

During the 114th Congress, my office sought to develop further 

changes to the legislation to ensure it did not score. Understanding 

the significant amount of time required to move a bill to final passage, my staff requested CBO analyze the proposed changes as the 

first step in the process. After more than three months of delay, a 

CBO staffer informed my staff that the revised bill language would 

not score. At this point, based on input from the committee, my 

staff brought the revised language to Leadership staff for review to 

ensure the language did not violate the earmark ban. 

This review was a long process but resulted in a finding that the 

revised language did not violate the earmark ban. Because of the 

elapsed time, it was not possible to move the bill in the 114th Congress, and I introduced the revised version at the beginning of the 

115th Congress. After the bill was ordered reported by the committee this Congress, I was surprised when CBO issued its official 

report and reversed its position on the language, assigning it a significant score. 

When my staff met with CBO staff to discuss the report, CBO 

staff was evasive and refused to reveal their methodology and documentation behind their determination. CBO staff also refused reveal the name or names of staff at the Department of Interior that 

they had consulted prior to making the determination. This is particularly troublesome given that some career staff at the Department had a history of opposing the bill, and I suspect their input 

to CBO regarding costs was politically motivated. 

11 

CBO’s delays, lack of transparency and accountability, and fluctuating positions have undermined the prospects for passing this 

legislation over the last six years. Beyond H.R. 1418, these problems at CBO are harmful to the legislative process as a whole. It 

is my hope that they can be addressed in the 116th Congress. 

DON YOUNG, 

Congressman for all Alaska. 

Æ