TO PROVIDE FOR THE SETTLEMENT OF CERTAIN LAND CLAIMS OF ALASKA NATIVES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1971 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE Washington, D.C. The subcommittee convened, pursuant to recess, at 9:55 a.m. in room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. James A. Haley (chairman) presiding. Mr. HALEY. The committee will be in order. The first witness this morning before the subcommittee is Phil R. Holdsworth, Chairman of the Native Land Claims Task Force of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Holdsworth? Please give your name to the reporter, whom you represent, other than yourself. You have a written statement here. STATEMENT OF PHIL HOLDSWORTH, CHAIRMAN, NATIVE LAND CLAIMS TASK FORCE OF ALASKA STATE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mr. HOLDSWORTH. Mr. Chairman, for the record, my name is Phil R. Holdsworth, chairman of the Native Land Claims Task Force of the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce. I served for 7 years as Territorial Commissioner of Mines; 9 years as Alaska's first Commissioner of Natural Resources; and presently Mineral Exploration Manager for Inexco Mining Co. in Alaska and have been selected as spokesman for the business community. Mr. Chairman, we have previously submitted copies of this statement to the committee, along with a four-page letter, a policy statement letter addressed to the committee from the State chamber, Mr. Bob Anderson, with two maps attached, marked exhibits 1 and 2. I would request that this become a part of the record. My statement will not make a direct reference to those maps. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Holdsworth, of course, we have no facilities to include these maps in the record. We can put them in the files; is that satisfactory? Mr. HOLDSWORTH. Yes. Mr. HALEY. Without exception, it is so ordered. (The material referred to will be found in the files of the subcommittee.) Mr. HALEY. You may proceed. Mr. HOLDSWORTH. From the beginning of the Native land claims issue, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has supported an early, equitable settlement in the interest of all Alaskans. There has been a "softening" of the chamber's position, particularly in regard to the State's financial participation in a settlement, since S. 1830 was introduced in the last session of Congress. We still feel that the basic issue is a Federal responsibility, but after experiencing a long delay in any hopes of an early settlement, and the resultant economic depression which has hit business in the State, we are now recommending that the State participate financially in a settlement in a manner substantially the same as that proposed in S. 35 and the administration's bill, up to $500 million. We believe however that this participation should begin on the effective date of a settlement, and not be retroactive to an earlier date, thus involving moneys already paid into the State treasury. We are opposed to the open ended provisions on this point proposed in H.R. 7039 wherein the State's financial participation would be in perpetuity. We would urge a serious review of the land-grant provisions of the bills presently before you, both as to quantity grants and the conveyance of mineral rights. As you know it has always been the position of the Federal Government that all resources, and particularly the subsurface minerals, belong to all the people regardless of location. This concept has been perpetuated historically in all State land grants, and the Congress in its wisdom was particularly generous to the State of Alaska in this regard, realizing that to be a viable State, we must have management of these resources. In spite of the large land area of Alaska, much of it is either unavailable or unsuitable for selection to satisfy the land grant provisions of the Alaska Statehood Act. Excluding present Federal reserves, and those lands above the 3,000-foot elevation which are of little value, there remain only 90 million acres to satisfy the 103-million-acre statehood grant and the 40- to 60-million-acre proposed Native grants. It appears to us that the proposed legislation could create a competitive "Sovereign power" in the State of Alaska, representing less than onefifth of the population but controlling over half of the valuable land (including the subsurface minerals). When Alaska became a State, most of us felt that we really had an opportunity to set an example in handling the problems previously faced by other States in the treatment of Native groups. The Natives in Alaska were well integrated into the political, social, and economic life of the State. For half a century they had been extended all the rights and privileges of citizenship enjoyed by non-Natives. In fact, they have for years enjoyed special privileges and services not available to the non-Natives of Alaska. Throughout the early history of Alaska the Natives' livelihood did not appear to be dependent on ownership of the land, and the Federal agencies responsible in this area apparently felt the same way. Under the Indian Alloment Act of 1906 only 175 allotments covering 15.216 acres had been granted by May of 1968. Attempts by the State to encourage the exercise of allotment rights prior to State selections failed miserably. Of the 178 village townsites recognized by the Bureau of Land Management only 61 had been surveyed, and deeds issued to only 28, by 1968. We would like to quote here from a little-known report by the first Indian Commission created by section 12 of the act of May 17, 1884. John H. Kinkead. Governor of Alaska, Munson C. Hillyer, and ndrew T. Lewis made up the Commission which was charged with e following: *** to examine into and report upon the condition of the Indians residing in id Territory, what lands, if any, should be reserved for their use, what prosion shall be made for their education, what rights by occupation of settlers ould be recognized, and all other facts that may be necessary to enable Coness to determine what limitations or conditions should be imposed when the nd laws of the United States shall be extended to said district; The resulting report to the Secretary of the Interior was made June , 1885, and the Commission adjourned, sine die, August 31, 1885. he report reads in part as follows: This report on the Condition of the Indians must necessarily be confined to ose residents within the Alexander Archipelage, no means of transportation ing available to reach any other portion of that District. Members of the Commission have, as often as opportunity offered visited e several tribes residing therein. These comprise a total population of about en thousand (7,000) divided into eleven (11) separate and distinct mmunities. ** The General Land Laws of the United States should be extended over the rritory as early as possible. The Natives claim only the land on which their uses are built and some garden patches near their villages; they ask and pect nothing more. A deed for their lots in severality would be a very highly ized document by them. . . . They ask only the same rights and protection en the White Man. The majority of the houses here (Sitka) and other places owned and occupied • many years by Russians, Creoles and others do not carry with them the to the land. The title in these cases we think should be perfected by the vernment without cost to the owners. The lots are of little persent value, and the occupants are generally very poor. We believe it the interest of the General Government to encourage by liberal actments the occupation of the country by bona fide settlers that will open I develop its resources. Timber lands should be open for sale in large tracts at a price no much above = cost of surveying. These lands are generally situate on high precipitous, untains, expensive to utilize and a considerable portion of them useless for aber. Coal Lands should also be sold at a low price. The difficulty and expense atding the development of this important industry needs every encouragent by the Government. n brief all limitations and conditions imposed by Congress, when the Land ws of the United States are extended to this District should be of the most eral character. Very respectfully, When Alaska was granted statehood in 1959, and its land grants aling over 103 million acres, the Congress had still not made a al determination as to the Natives' rights to land. The Interior partment accepted land selection applications by the State, and proved them if not in conflict with actual use and occupancy by tive or other peoples. It was evident that actual physical survey the exterior boundaries of State selections would not be accomphed for many years, so the State was given "tentative approval" anagement authority over the land), pending actual survey and le of patent. The chamber supports the definition of "public lands" in H.R. 3100 1 H.R. 7432 which acknowledge "tentative approval" of State selec tions as equivalent to transfer of title. To date, of the 26 million acres applied for, the State has received patent to slightly less than 6 million acres, and tentative approval of an additional 8 million acres. Once oil was discovered on the Kenai Peninsula, however, there was a sudden interest in land ownership which might include the mineral rights. A solicitor's opinion that the Tyoneks owned the minerals in the 26,000 acres withdrawn by Executive order in 1915 for the Bureau of Education, set off a rash of claims by other groups. As we all know, land business has been at a standstill since the first "freeze" in 1967. The several bills before you contain differing provisions on nearly all the major issues. The chamber suggests that land grants be closely tied to existing villages and areas of individual occupancy or use, with sufficient additional land for village expansion, as proposed in H.R. 3100. Although there has been a marked trend toward movement from the villages to the larger communities, there will always be those who wish to remain "in the bush" and continue the old way of life. We feel these people should not be disturbed in their continued use and occupancy of the land. We also feel that the concept of "subsistence" lands, as contained in most of the proposed legislation, is unnecessary. Under existing State laws and regulations special subsistence hunting and fishing licenses are available. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game has the authority to control the type of hunting and fishing allowed in various areas of the State. The needs of the subsistence licensee are thus protected. Under this type of management program no lands need be set aside specifically for this purpose. Should your committee agree with the chamber's recommendations on the type of land grants justified-for villages and individuals, but not for "subsistence"-it will become evident that there would be no need for the 5-year "land freeze" proposed in both H.R. 7039 and H.R. 7432. Land business could proceed "as usual" in those areas away from established villages. The chamber supports the concept of management by a statewide corporation with a majority of Native members, with early transfer of this management to the local area as proposed in H.R. 3100. It is our feeling that if the benefits to be derived from this settlement are to be enjoyed by individual Natives, the less complicated (and hence less costly) the management organization, the greater the benefits to all the Natives. The chamber is strongly opposed to the "all competitive" leasing provisions for public lands in Alaska as proposed in section 13 of H.R. 7432. We believe this is a subject for treatment under the general public land laws of the United States, and has no bearing on the Native Land Claims issue. Any such provision should apply equally to all the public domain lands throughout the public land States. There is one provision, common to all bills, to which the chamber takes exception. Section 8 of H.R. 3100, section 14 of H.R. 7039, and section 8 of H.R. 7432 all provide that should the State of Alaska contest the right of the United States to compel revenue sharing by the State, certain reprisals against the State would result. We question the constitutionality of this provision, as apparently did those who drafted it. This does not mean, however, that we are opposed to State participation. We believe this is more properly accomplished by State legislation, and the chamber has urged both the Alaska Legisla ture and the Governor of Alaska to take such action to the extent proposed in S. 35 and the administration's bill. The State's monetary contribution to a settlement, envisioned by section 7 of H.R. 3100, is considerably different than that in any other bills presently before the Congress. If our interpretation of this section is correct, the State would be obliged to contribute up to half the revenues it receives from lands patented to the State after the passage of a settlement bill, or up to half the revenues received as its share from disposition of minerals in the public lands in Alaska, in annual payments of $20 million for each of the 25 years following passage of a settlement bill. We believe this is an unreasonable price to pay for the settlement of a strictly Federal responsibility. I might explain, Mr. Chairman, speaking in generalities here, that at the present time, with no new oil and gas production anticipated for several years, the income from both sources to the State Department is approximately $60 million. If the State were required to pay $20 million of this as their share of the settlement, it would be a financial, quite a financial, burden on the State, when we consider that the State would still be responsible for the management or the treatment of all citizens of Alaska in the way of education and so forth. To summarize briefly, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce supports: 1. State participation in a monetary settlement to the extent of 2 percent of the proceeds from bonuses, rentals, and royalties derived from the disposition of leasable minerals brought into production after the passage of a settlement bill, but not exceeding a total of $500 million and excluding revenues from State tide and submerged lands. 2. The position that land grants should be closely tied to village areas or existing homesites or campsites, subject to all valid existing rights and the integrity of national forest reserves. 3. The establishment of a statewide agency with a majority of Native members to handle initial management of funds received under terms of the act, with early transfer of management responsibility to the local area. Mr. Chairman, sometimes it is advantageous to be one of the later witnesses, and I would like to make just two short comments, which might help answer some of the questions raised by the committee. The questions that have been raised and which we would also raise as not spelled out in the legislation, are under what laws, rules, or regulations, would the lands conveyed to the Natives be managed? We can see a problem here. We have had our own problems between the State and the Federal Government. We realize that the Federal Government certainly should retain Federal public lands in Alaska suitable to meet peoples' needs, and small tracts, homesteads, and so on. Certainly, the selection program should state that the Federal Government does retain Federal public domain lands, suitable for these purposes in Alaska. The State with its rather limited selection. program and under its laws and regulations, has not been able to satisfy the needs of the homesteads, small tracts and trade manufacturing sites, under which the Federal public domain is managed. I believe that is all I have, Mr. Chairman. |