Don Young

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce a bill to amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 at the request of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. [CIRI]. Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act [ANCSA] in 1971 to address claims to lands in Alaska by its Eskimo, Indian, and Aleut native people. Lands and other benefits transferred to Alaska Natives under the act were conveyed to corporations formed under the act. Alaska Natives enrolled to these corporations were issued shares in the corporation. CIRI is one of the corporations formed under ANCSA and has approximately 6,262 Alaska Natives enrolled, each of whom were issued 100 shares of stock in CIRI, as required under ANCSA. ANCSA stock, unlike most corporate stock, cannot be sold, transferred, or pledged by the owners of the shares. Rather, transfers can only happen through inheritance, or in limited case, by court decree. The ANCSA provisions restricting the sale of stock were put in place to protect Native shareholders from knowledgeable or unscrupulous transactions, and to allow the corporation to grow and mature in order to provide long-lasting benefits to its shareholder. The drafters of ANCSA initially believed that a period of 20 years would be a sufficient amount of time for the restrictions on sale to remain in place. Therefore, the restrictions were to expire 20 years after passage of ANCSA on December 31, 1991. As 1991 approached, bringing with it the impending change in the alienability of Native stock, the Alaska Native community grew concerned about the effect of the potential sale of Native stock. The Alaska Federation of Natives, a statewide organization representing the State's 90,000 natives, spearheaded a legislative initiative to address the 1991 stock sale issue. Many of the Native corporations, including CIRI, actively solicited their shareholders' view on this critical matter, through meetings, questionnaires, polling, and formal votes. In 1987, 3 years prior to the 1991 restriction-lifting date, Congress enacted legislation which reformed the mechanism governing stock sale restrictions in a fundamental way under the 1987 amendments, instead of expiring automatically in 1991, the restrictions on alienability continue automatically unless and until the shareholders of a Native corporation procedural mechanisms to bring such a vote, including action by the board of directors and petitions by shareholder. To date, no Native corporation has sought to life the alienability restrictions. Fundamentally, this is because Native shareholders continue to value Native ownership of the corporations and Native control of the lands and other assets held by them. CIRI has conducted a number of continuing surveys, focus groups, and special shareholder meetings to ascertain the views of its shareholders regarding the alienation restrictions on CIRI stock. Two results have consistently stood out in these assessments. First, the majority of CIRI shareholders favor maintaining Native ownership and control of CIRI. These shareholders, whose numbers consistently register at the 70 to 80 percent level, see economic benefits in the continuation of Native ownership, and also value the important cultural goals, values and activities of their ANCSA corporation. Second, a significant percentage, albeit a minority of shareholders, favor assessing some, or all, of the value of their CIRI stock through the sale of that stock. These shareholders include, but, are not limited to elderly shareholders who have real current needs, yet doubt that sale of stock will be available to them in their lifetime: holders of small, fractional shares received through one or more cycles of inheritance; non-Natives who have acquired stock through inheritance but without attendant voting privileges; and shareholders who have few ties to the corporation or to Alaska, 25 percent of CIRI shareholders live outside of Alaska. Under current law, these two legitimate but conflicting concerns cannot be addressed, because lifting restrictions on the sale of stock is an all or nothing proposition. In order to allow the minority of shareholders to exercise their desire to sell some or all of their stock, the majority of shareholders would have to sacrifice their important desire to maintain Native control and ownership to CIRI. CIRI believes this conflict will eventually leave the interests of the majority of its shareholders vulnerable to political instability. In addition, CIRI recognizes that responding to the desire of those shareholders who wish to sell CIRI stock is a legitimate corporate responsibility. More importantly, CIRI believes that there is a way to address the needs and desires of both groups of shareholders, those who wish to sell stock and those who desire to maintain Native ownership of CIRI, so that the sale of stock will not compromise the ``nativeness'' of the company, and will not jeopardize the economic future of the company for those who choose not to sell. The method embodied in this legislation is one that other companies routinely use: the buying back of its own stock. The newly acquired stock would then be canceled. Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this bill at length with CIRI and I am convinced this is the best and only option available for their shareholders to voluntarily sell their stock back to CIRI. It is identical to that which passed the House last session and I hope it will move as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Fishery Conservation and Management Amendments of 1995. In the last Congress the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee held 11 hearings in 5 different States and received testimony from over 100 witnesses. These witnesses represented all segments of the fisheries industries and other interested parties including fishermen, processors, environmentalists, State government officials, and administrative agencies. Near the end of the 103d Congress the Fisheries Management Subcommittee reported a bill which unfortunately was not considered by the full Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee. Today, I am introducing legislation to re-authorize and amend the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act. The bill contains nearly identical language to the bill reported by the subcommittee last year. The major differences involve the removal of certain controversial provisions, inclusion of stronger language addressing the bycatch issue and the unique needs of certain rural Alaskan fishermen, as well as some changes that would have been made had the bill been addressed by the full committee last year. This legislation addresses all of the major concerns discussed during our series of hearings in the last Congress. While some may not totally agree with the way we address some of these concerns, I think this legislation takes a major step in continuing the management of our Nation's fisheries while also addressing some of the problems we have encountered in specific areas of fisheries management. Mr. Speaker, there are two areas of concern that I feel must be addressed by this re-authorization legislation. We must allow the Regional Fishery Management Councils to address the issue of bycatch. The councils are in a unique position to create specific bycatch reduction measures, tailored for each fishery that they manage. I have also always believed that community development quotas [CDQs] are a legitimate tool of the councils for use in managing our fisheries resources. I have always believed that CDQ's did not have to be specifically authorized for the councils to include them in their first fisheries management plans and the courts have now finally agreed with me on this point. Community development quotas are just one of many tools which can be used by the councils to address the needs of fishery dependent communities. We will continue to look at this issue as we move those legislation. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to move quickly with the bill, so that we can get on with the sound management of our Nation's fisheries resources. Our fishermen and processors deserve no less.

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am introducing legislation today to correct a significant inequity in Federal law with respect to land uses of property conveyed to the Kenai Natives Association, Inc. [KNA]. The legislation, which will mark the final outcome of a process begun nearly 14 years ago and which was the subject of a congressional hearing last Congress and the enactment of one interim law, would correct the land entitlement inequities of KNA by authorizing and directing the completion of a land exchange and acquisition package. The legislation will allow KNA for the first time to make economic use of the majority of lands conveyed to the corporation under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. We began the final stage in this process by directing, through enactment of Public Law 102-458, an expedited negotiation of a land acquisition package between the Fish and Wildlife Service and KNA. Over the past year, negotiations were completed, resulting in a package which is identical to the elements of the legislation I am introducing today. KNA has waited since 1982 to resolve its land selection problem with property which is within the boundaries of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge. KNA has reached a tentative agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with an exchange agreement on lands within the refuge. I believe that they have waited long enough for ratification of the agreement and believe they deserve to have this behind them. This legislation will authorize and direct the Secretary to make an offer to KNA to complete an exchange and acquisition of lands owned by KNA. This legislation represents an agreement reached during the 103d Congress. It is my intention to move this legislation quickly and get it behind us. I urge my colleagues support so that KNA can move forward with their agenda. I am pleased with the efforts by KNA, its former president, the late Katherine Boling, and board of directors as well as the Fish and Wildlife Service to finalize this acquisition. KNA and the Fish and Wildlife Service have set aside past differences and have resolved the land use disagreement which has prevented KNA from using most of its lands conveyed under ANCSA. At the same time, another purpose of Public Law 102-458 and, a Federal goal, was acquiring for public ownership land along the Kenai River. These missions would be accomplished by the legislation I am introducing today. The Service has completed all the necessary negotiations on land acquisitions and exchange components and completed the necessary public review and legal reviews required for exchanges in Alaska. I commend the Service for their efforts to acquire a key parcel of land along the Kenai River, inside the boundaries of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, for public use. This acquisition is the crucial component of this legislation. Just as crucial is the need to allow KNA to make economic use of lands conveyed to the corporation to settle native land claims. It is wrong under any sense of fairness or the law to convey lands to native corporations in settlement of recognized land claims yet at the same time prohibit the use of those lands. Mr. Speaker, we need innovative measures to resolve land use conflicts in Alaska. Secretary Babbitt has noted the need for innovative exchanges throughout the Nation to properly manage Federal lands. This legislation represents a fine example of an exchange which resolves a longstanding land dispute on a voluntary basis. I believe we can and should resolve this dispute on a voluntary basis. If we fail to do so, the result will only be ill-will, an extreme inequity to the Alaska Natives of KNA, litigation and the loss of an important opportunity to acquire public, riverfront lands, along the Kenai River. Further, there will remain a significant doubt that any land use conflict involving Federal lands in Alaska can be resolved in a cooperative fashion. Mr. Speaker, I have worked closely with the former chairman of the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Miller, on this matter for many years. I believe we have an opportunity to correct an inequity, acquire valuable habitat, and show that innovative answers to land use problems will work in Alaska. I am anxious to move forward on this legislation which resolves this matter on a voluntary, willing seller the last session between all interested parties.