# data[].attributes.body
Curriculum, Advocacy and Resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Shop at smile.amazon.com,
and Amazon donates. To support
remote learning, we have set up a
Book Wish List to Support Native Students
During the Pandemic.

Remote Learning Book Wish Lists by Grade:
K thru 4; 5 thru 8; 9 and Up

Designate NIEA As Your Charity of Choice

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Shop at smile.amazon.com, and Amazon donates. To support remote learning, we have set up aBook Wish List to Support Native StudentsDuring the Pandemic. Remote Learning Book Wish Lists by Grade: K thru 4; 5 thru 8; 9 and Up Designate NIEA As Your Charity of Choice

# data[].attributes.headline
North Dakota Tribal Government Resources

# data[].attributes.subject
North Dakota Tribal Government Resources

# data[].attributes.body
Curriculum for 4th & 8th grade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1995 the State Historical Society of North Dakota completed the Missouri Trench National Historical Landmark Theme Study that summarized the archaeological investigation of the Missouri River area from southern South Dakota through North Dakota to Montana. Many of the sites were of Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara origins.

# data[].attributes.headline
1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

# data[].attributes.subject
1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975 - Wikipedia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An Act to provide maximum Indian participation in the government and education of the Indian people; to provide for the full participation of Indian tribes in programs and services conducted by the Federal Government for Indians and to encourage the development of human resources of the Indian people; to establish a program of assistance to upgrade Indian education; to support the right of Indian citizens to control their own educational activities; and for other purposes.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

# data[].attributes.subject
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jimmy Carter: Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act Remarks on Signing H.R. 39 Into Law.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The American Presidency Project contains the most comprehensive collection of resources pertaining to the study of the President of the United States. Compiled by John Woolley and Gerhard Peters

# data[].attributes.body
US Dept. of Interior

# data[].attributes.headline
Between Worlds - Alaska Subsistence Living

# data[].attributes.subject
Between Worlds - Alaska Subsistence Living

# data[].attributes.body
Alaska Humanities Forum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Between Worlds - Subsistence | Alaska History and Cultural Studies

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Subsistence menus differ based on where in Alaska people live, and include foods ranging from many kinds of berries to sea gull eggs to moose to bowhead whales. According to statistics from the state's subsistence division, rural Alaskans rely on self-caught foods for more than a pound per day per person - 375 pounds per year.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alaska Subsistence Frequently Asked Questions, Alaska Department of Fish and Game

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Frequently asked questions about subsistence for the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tanana Chiefs Council - Tribal Government

# data[].attributes.subject
Tanana Chiefs Council - Tribal Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Viewers totally new to the field of Indian law, as well as the most experienced in the field, will build on their knowledge of the history of federal law and policy regarding tribes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It was hardly a footnote in most national stories on the issue, but Congress' passage of the Republican tax bill will be a chapter in Alaska's history books. The law opens a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development, ending an epic, nearly four-decade battle.

For years, environmental groups, the oil industry, Alaska Native communities and the state's political leaders have debated the potential consequences of oil development in ANWR - on species like caribou and polar bears, on Alaska's oil-dependent economy, on nearby villages and on the climate.

But now, those hypotheticals are about to get real. The tax bill calls for the federal government to hold at least two oil and gas lease sales in the next decade. And Alaska might finally get an answer to one of its big questions: which oil companies - if any - will actually want to drill in ANWR?

For now, the top three oil companies in Alaska are keeping their cards hidden. ExxonMobil declined to comment for this story. ConocoPhillips said in a statement it will "consider it against other opportunities in our portfolio, just as we do with exploration opportunities worldwide." BP referred all questions to an industry lobbying group, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Kara Moriarty, the association's president, said she has no idea what oil companies might bid on leases to drill in the Arctic Refuge.

"They don't talk about whether they're participating in a lease sale or not because it's a highly competitive industry," Moriarty said.

That said, there are clues that oil companies are pretty curious about the 1002 area - the 1.5 million-acre section of the Refuge Congress just opened up for oil development. David Houseknecht, of the U.S. Geological Survey, is an expert on Alaska's oil resources. Lately, he's been getting a lot of calls.

"I've been contacted by companies as far away as Australia asking, 'well it looks like the legislation might pass that would allow exploration of the 1002 area. We are interested in evaluating whether or not we would like to participate in such a lease sale,'" Houseknecht said.

There are good reasons for oil companies to be asking questions, he continued. The data on how much oil is in the Arctic Refuge is extremely limited. Companies haven't been able to explore the area since the 1980s. But the data that does exist is intriguing. USGS estimates there's potentially somewhere between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels of oil in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 area. Those are huge numbers. For comparison, Alaska's second biggest oil field, Kuparuk, has produced about 2.5 billion barrels of oil.

Moreover, Houseknecht said the 1002 area has other advantages. The oil potential lies on shore - potentially an easier target than more technically complicated and expensive drilling in the Arctic Ocean. Alaska is also in a politically stable country. Those are big pluses for the oil industry. Houseknecht noted there aren't many other places on the planet like that.

The Arctic Refuge's 1002 area is "quite unique when you look around the world for areas where there may be billion-barrel opportunities for discovery," Houseknecht said.

But there are also uncertainties. Any oil production in the Refuge isn't likely to occur for at least a decade. But at today's low oil prices, developments in the Lower 48 are often cheaper for oil companies to pursue than projects in Arctic Alaska - especially with the rise of improved oil recovery techniques like hydraulic fracturing.

"It's clear Alaska needs more development," said Wood Mackenzie analyst Cody Rice. "It's not as clear to me that oil companies need big, complicated Arctic projects right now when you can see billions of barrels in resource being added on an annual basis in West Texas."

It's also a safe bet that environmental groups are going to continue fighting oil development in the refuge any way they can, including in court. Erik Grafe, an attorney with EarthJustice in Anchorage, said Congress may have changed the law to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge, but all other environmental laws haven't gone away.

"If the Trump administration tries to rubber stamp oil decisions or takes shortcuts, we won't hesitate to go to court to enforce these environmental laws," Grafe said.

But Moriarty of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association said for the industry she represents, dealing with environmental opposition is just part of the job.

"Alaska has been the poster child for litigation cases for any type of development on [Alaska's] North Slope. And so I think companies sort of factor that in," Moriarty said.

Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who spearheaded the measure to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge's 1002 area, is also confident that the environmental opposition won't dissuade the oil industry from pursuing development there.

Speaking to reporters in Anchorage several days before the tax bill passed, Murkowski added she's not surprised oil companies aren't publicly expressing interest in ANWR.

"If the door is never even cracked open, they're not going to line up. They have other prospects to look to," Murkowski said. "And only after such time as we allow for it to even be considered would we anticipate that you're going to have the companies show any interest."

Now, that door is open, and the world is going to find out just how much the oil industry really wants to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Battle Ends, But Drilling Not A Given

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It was hardly a footnote in most national stories on the issue, but Congress' passage of the Republican tax bill will be a chapter in Alaska's history books. The law opens a part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil development, ending an epic, nearly four-decade battle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge - Political History

# data[].attributes.subject
Alaska National Wildlife Refuge - Political History

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) , finalized in December of 1980, designated the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain within ANWR a study area, to be evaluated for its oil and gas development potential. The resource evaluation, conducted by the Department of Interior, was released in 1987 and recommended that Congress open the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration and development. Since then, Alaska's Congressional delegation, our Governors and State Legislature's have been working toward that end. In 1995, the U.S. House and Senate approved Coastal Plain Development as part of a balanced budget act, but the entire measure was vetoed by President Clinton.

ANWR - IMPORTANT DATES

1903 President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Wildlife Refuge System.

1949 The National Park Service began a recreational
survey in Alaska to identify areas with special natural values.

1954 The National Park Service recommended that the
undisturbed lands in the northeastern corner of Alaska be preserved for their
wildlife, wilderness, recreation, scientific, and cultural values.

1957 The Department of the Interior announced plans
to ask Congress to establish an 8,000 square-mile wildlife reserve in the area
identified by the National Park Service study.

Jan. 3, 1959 Alaska Statehood

Dec. 6, 1960 Arctic National Wildlife Range
Created (8.9 million acres) Public Land Order (PLO) 2214

1964 President Lyndon Johnson signed the Wilderness
Act, establishing the National Wilderness Preservation System and policies for
wilderness management.

1969 The first manager was hired for ANWR.

Dec. 18, 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act. The Act gave the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC) surface rights to
69,000 acres along the arctic coast within the Range.

June 20, 1977 Trans Alaska Pipeline Start-up

Dec. 2, 1980 Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The Act expanded the Arctic
Range to approximately 18 million acres, renamed it the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, designated eight million acres as Wilderness, designated three
rivers as Wild, and called for wildlife studies and an oil and gas assessment
of 1.5 million acres of the ANWR Coastal Plain (the"10-02 Area").

1983 The Chandler Lake land exchange agreement
conveyed subsurface ownership of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation lands to the
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

Winter, 1983-84 Approx.
600 line miles of 2D geophysical data acquired in ANWR

Winter, 1984-85 Approx. 580 line miles of 2D
geophysical data acquired in ANWR

Dec. 2, 1985 ANWR closed to any further geophysical
surveys

Sept. 2, 1986 Secretary of Interior's Report to
Congress, as required by Sec. 1002 of ANILCA

Feb., 1987 Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for ANWR Exploration Published

Sept, 1987 Dept. Of Interior recommends
to Congress to open the coastal plain.

1988 House Merchant Marine & Fisheries Committee
approves an open ANWR Bill.

early 1989 House Merchant Marine &
Fisheries Committee again approves an ANWR Bill.

Mar. 24, 1989 Exxon Valdez aground in Prince
William Sound.

Aug 2, 1990 Saddam Hussein invades Kuwait.

Senate
Energy Committee approves Title 9.

Nov. 1991 Senate Roll-call vote on Sen.
Wellstone amendment to cut off debate on ANWR, 50 to 44. (60 votes needed to defeat filibuster) National Energy Policy Act shelved.

October 1992 New National Energy Policy Act,
without ANWR, passed.

Nov. 1992 Mr. Clinton elected President

March 1995 ANWR resurrected as part of the Balanced Budget bill.

May 24, 1995 Senator Roth amendment to table
ANWR from the Budget Resolution defeated 56 to 44 votes.

Sept. 1995 President Clinton tried to
create a National Monument of ANWR under the Antiquities Act - this was
prevented.

Sept. 19, 1995 Cong. Vento motion to strike ANWR
from the Budget Reconciliation Bill in the House Resources Committee, defeated
27 to 14.

Oct., 1995 House vote on Budget
Reconciliation plan including ANWR, passed 227 to 203 votes.

Oct. 25, 1995 Sen. Bumpers asset sale amendment
(which would drop ANWR from the Reconciliation bill), defeated.

Oct. 26, 1995 Sen. Baucus anti-ANWR amendment
defeated 51 to 48 votes.

Dec. 6, 1995 President Clinton vetoed the
Balanced Budget Act which included a provision to open ANWR.

May, 1996 A new Budget Resolution was initiated by Congress.

1997 President William Clinton signed the
"National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act." This Act provides
specific guidance to the Refuge System, and establishes the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System "to administer a national network of lands
and waters for the conservation, management, and where appropriate, restoration
of fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United
States for the benefit of present and future generations of Americans."

May 1998 U.S. Geological Survey
released the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area, Petroleum
Assessment, 1998 containing the
highest estimates ever for the region. The agency's mid-range estimate of oil in place rose from 13.8 billion
barrels to 20.7 billion barrels of oil.

Jan. 2000 Representative Vento's
Morris Udall ANWR Wilderness Bill has 165 co-sponsors; while Senator Roth's
Senate version has 25 co-sponsors.

January 10,
2001 Clinton announced that ANWR
would not be declared a national monument.

May 24, 2001 Vermont Senator James Jeffords
changes party affiliate from Republican to Independent. Democrats take over Senate majority.

July 27, 2001 Representative Billy Tauzin (D-SD)
introduces HR4 that included a provision to open ANWR.

Aug. 1, 2001 HR4 passed in the House of
Representatives.

Dec. 5, 2001 Senator Tom Daschle introduces
S.1766. Bill does not move.

Mar. 12, 2002 Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
introduces S.517, The National Energy Policy Act.

Apr. 25 2002 S.517 passes Senate 88-11. It did not contain ANWR.

Nov 2002 Conference Committee fails
to pass Comprehensive Energy Bill

Dec 2002 Energy Bill is shelved.

July 2003 Senate passed the 2002
Senate Energy Bill excluding ANWR language.

Sept 2003 Conference Committee
convened and failed to reach agreement

2004 The House again passed a comprehensive energy
bill that included authorization to open the Coastal Plain to exploration and
development. No action occurred in the
Senate.

March 16, 2005 Senate vote - Cantwell Amendment to
strike ANWR from Senate Conference Resolution 18 (FY2006 Budget Bill). Defeated 51-49

March 17, 2005 Senate votes on Concurrent Budget
Resolution including ANWR. Passes 51-49

March 17, 2005 House vote on Budget Resolution. ANWR was included in the Resolution. Passed 218-214

April 20, 2005 House vote - Markey Motion to Srike
ANWR from HR-6. Defeated 231-200

April 2005 House includes ANWR in its
version of Energy Bill, votes and passes initial language. Senate does not include ANWR in its version.

April 21, 2005 House vote - HR-6 vote for passage
with ANWR included. Passes 249-183

April 28, 2005 House vote - Vote to agree to
Budget Conference Report. Passes
214-211.

April 28, 2005 Senate votes on House Conference
Report (H.Con. Res. 95) Including ANWR. Passes 52-47 (1 not voting). ANWR
thus locked into Budget Reconciliation Process to be debated in the Fall.

August 8, 2005 Energy Policy Act 2005 passes House
and Senate but does not include ANWR language.

Sept 2005 Hurricane Katrina wipes out
10% of nations refining capacity and 25% of crude production.

December 2005 Senator Stevens introduces ANWR
provision to Defense Appropriations Bill politically negating ANWR inclusion in
the Budget Reconciliation Bill which cannot be filibustered.

Dec 19, 2005 House passes Defense Appropriations
Bill conference report (HR 2863) including ANWR provision 308-106. Bill moves
on to Senate.

March 16, 2006 Senate passes 2007 Budget Resolution
including $3 billion from proposed 10-02 Area lease sale revenue 51-49.

May 17, 2006 House passes 2007 Budget
Resolution without ANWR. The Resolution
will move to Joint Conference Committee for debate and finalization.

May 19, 2006 HR5429 ANWR Standalone bill
introduced by Chairman Pombo (R-CA)

May 24, 2006 H.Res 835 Introduced allowing
consideration of HR5429 and DoI to conduct lease sales in 10-02 Area.

May 25, 2006 H.Res 835 passed 234-184. HR5429
passes House 225-201. Sent to Senate June 5 th.

July 26, 2006 HR 5890 by Rep. Nunes
American-made Energy Trust Fund. Shelved in Energy Subcommittee.

Sept.21, 2006 S.3917 Sen. Burr introduces American-Made Energy Freedom Act of 2006,
companion bill to HR5890. Shelved in Finance Committee.

January 5, 2007 RepresentativeHR-39 Udall-Eisenhower Arctic Wilderness
Markey (D-MA) introduces
Act legislation to declare 10-02 Area "wilderness" and thus permanently
off limits to exploration. Shelved in Committee.

Sept 25, 2007 ANWR amendment killed in House
Resources Cmte. Rep Bishop (R-UT) to amend HR 3058 to include pro-ANWR
language. Rejected 17-10 , 20nv

Feb 19, 2008 HR 5437 American Made Energy Act
introduced Reps. Ross (D-AR) and Nunes (R-CA) uses ANWR royalties/oil tax to
fund vast array of energy programs across nation. Referred to committees.

>May 2008 Oil reaches +$130 per barrel

>May 22,2008 Introduction of HR6071 American Energy Independence and Price
Reduction Act by Don Young (AK-R) Opening the 10-02 Area of ANWR and OCS. Co-sponsored by Rep Bartlett (D-MD)

June-July 2008 Throughout the summer ANWR bills stack up following the
skyrocketing price of oil. By August, 19
active ANWR bills lay in committee on Capitol Hill.

August 2008 August recess put off by some
members who stage an Energy Talk-In on the House floor. Members express their concern at leaderships
lack of action on the price of gasoline and dealing with the energy crisis.

November 2008 Senator Obama elected President.

January
6 2009 111 th Congress begins, Representative Don Young re- introduces the American
Energy Independence and Price
Reduction Act, now HR.49. In same week
Rep. Markey
/ Sen. Lieberman introduce traditional ANWR Wilderness
legislation (S.231, HR.39)

July 2009 In total 15 ANWR bills are
introduced between January and mid July 2009. 2 of those bills are Wilderness bills. No new bills for rest of year.

March 31, 2010 Obama announces OCS plans, cancels
Chuck-chi and Beaufort leases, closes Bristol Bay to leasing. Cook Inlet continues to be available.

April 22, 2010 Discovery rig in Gulf erupts in
flames and sinks next day. Realities of
risk in OCS work hits home.

June 2011 HR2021 allowing Arctic OCS
development passes House 253-166 with 23 D supporting.

November 2011 State holds joint lease sale for all
State and some federal arctic lands. Leases
off Staines River and near ANWR awarded. Only minor leasing on federal side accomplished.

January 2012 21 bills supporting oil and gas
exploration in Alaska's Arctic reside active on the books of Congress. 11
contain an ANWR provision and 10 contain and OCS provision.

April 2012 USFWS misses its deadline to
finalize the ANWR CCP states unknown estimated completion date and or finding.

October 2012 HR 2150 containing an NPR-A
provision passes out of House Nat. Res. Cmte awaits floor vote.

April 26 2013 HR 527 Helium Act allows $50m
Arctic legacy well clean up fund passes House 394-1 and 96-2 Senate passage on
Sept. 19 th.

May -July 2013 State of Alaska proposes 3D seismic
study of 10-02 Area of ANWR to update 1984 2D seismic for better decision
making. Sec. Jewell rejects proposal
stating ANILCA creates timeline and no more exploration allowed. State hold press conference with North Slope
Borough and submits extensive Environmental Impact Statement on 3D seismic
proposal. Again rejected by Jewell.

June 28 2013 HR 2231 with OCS revenue sharing
receives successful vote in the House 235-186.

November 20
2013 HR 1965 Federal Lands Jobs and
Energy Security Act passes House 228-192. Allows $50m for 3D seismic work matched by state. Could be used in ANWR.

June 25, 2014 HR 4899 allowing OCS lease sales
and repeal of NPR-A "B-2" plan passes House 229-185.

Sept 18, 2014 Energy Solutions Act allowing OCS
Revenue sharing and NPR-A "B-2" revision passes House 226-191

October 2014 State of Alaska releases decision
on Staines River border clarification on ANWR. Allows OCS leases to be realized north of disputed land. USFWS claims Staines River as ANWR border yet
State claims 1960 Public Land Order 2214 is clear Canning River is border.

November 2014 National election Republicans take
Senate 54-46, increase majority in House by 58 votes. Alaska's Senator Murkowski obtains Chair of
Energy Cmte. and DoI Budget Cmte.

State of Alaska opens up law suit
against Sec. Jewell and Dept. of Interior over ANWR 3D seismic request. To be heard in Anchorage Federal Court.

December 2014 At close of 113 th Congress
23 bills introduced for Arctic Alaska. 10 contain pro ANWR provision with 2
against. OCS leasing and revenue sharing
and NPR-A repeal of "B-2" other bills. OCS
Revenue sharing and repeal of NPR-A "B-2" plan pass House twice each. All DOA in Senate due to opposition from
Majority Leader Harry Reid and President.

January 25 2015 Secretary Sally Jewell and President
release USFWS Comprehensive Conservation Plan on ANWR two years late. Calls for full wilderness designation of ANWR
in violation of NEPA and ANILCA. Alaska
Governor and delegation outraged and vow to fight the issue through budgetary
process and other avenues. Jewell states
possible arctic OCS and NPR-A Greater Mooses Tooth site also on table for
restrictions and closure.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Arctic Power is a grassroots, non-profit citizen's organization with 1,000s of members founded in April of 1992 to expedite congressional and presidential approval of oil and gas exploration and production within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
1991 Balancing Individual and Group Rights after ANCSA

by Bart K. Garber

published in

Alaska Native News/January 1985

"1991: Balancing Individual and Group Rights After ANCSA," Bart K. Garber, (January 1985), v. 2, p. 21. Used with permission of the publisher, for educational purposes only.

EDITORS NOTE: This paper served as the introductory discussion to the Alaska Native Review Commission ANCSA & 1991 Roundtable. Legal theorists, scholars and representatives from several Native communities and corporations met with Commissioner Thomas R. Berger. They assess the problems and deficiencies identified in ANCSA legislation — such as non-inclusion of Natives born after 1971, prospects of taxation, and stock transferability after 1991 — and considered possible remedies.

"For Alaska Natives, 1991 has come to represent the future of their traditional relationship to the land." 1991 also represents an accumulation of complaints and misgivings about the manner in which the land claims of Alaska Natives have been settled.

This paper reviews the notion of 1991, its historic origins and present components. The discussion focuses on more philosophical aspects of the notion of 1991. In particular, the paper highlights values in conflict: How do Alaska Natives, individually and through their tribal and corporate institutions, intend to balance individual and group rights, if at all? The paper adopts this approach on the premise that discussion and debate of conflicting Native values will lead to a way to preserve Native land and the values it represents.

Notion of 1991

Twenty Year Restrictive Period. "1991" started as a reference to the date after which ANCSA corporation stock may be sold by shareholders and when increasing quantities of undeveloped ANCSA corporation land will become subject to local and state property taxes. At the present, Native corporation stock can be alienated through inheritance, pursuant to a court decree (for separation, divorce, or the payment of child support), or to avoid professional conflicts. Non-Natives can become shareholders under one of the transfer exceptions but may not vote the stock until 1991.

Related 1991 Issues. The notion of 1991 has expanded to include other issues related to the ownership and control of ANCSA corporations and land. One issue involves the current enjoyment of Settlement Act benefits by "New Natives" and elders. Another concerns the allocation of control over adjacent surface and subsurface estates between village and regional corporations.

"New Natives" refers to young Native children born after December 18, 1971. These children were not eligible for enrollment under ANCSA and, consequently, do not participate in the direct benefits of the Settlement Act including the receipt of stock and money from the Alaska Native Fund. New Natives only obtain stock through inheritance.

A strong sentiment exists among Natives to provide special benefits for Elders who have not gained financially from the Settlement Act. Low earnings and state law restrictions against distributions to select groups of shareholders have prevented corporations from making such payments in the past.

Regional corporation and village corporation conflicts over the ownership and right to use adjacent surface and subsurface estate have sensitized the corporations to the impact of the split estate in development projects within the village area. Neither party has tested the full scope of ANCSA provision which give the village an apparent veto power over local subsurface development. The burden is reciprocal. Villages must pay for the use of gravel even when located within the village.

Native Aspirations And Congressional Purpose For A 20-Year Restriction. The System of village and regional corporations in ANCSA came out of the house bill, H.R. 10367. Actually, most of the House and Senate bills contained a period of restriction and the alienation of corporate and stock that fluctuated between 13 and 20 years before coming to rest at 20. Some bills explained the need for the restriction as the time it would take to pay out the money proceeds of the settlement.

The Task Force reported back to Governor Hickel in early 1968. The report recommended a settlement oriented toward economic development. Natives were to receive land and money through village and regional business corporations organized under state law. Village groups also could organize or continue to operate as Indian Reorganization Act corporations under federal law. Stock in the state corporations—

The drafters of the legislation explained that the 100-year period was necessary to allow the tribal entities time to gradually transform into "ordinary business corporation(s) with shares that are fairly alienable." The private business corporation format was expected to allow Natives to gradually enter the American society, to preserve Native and non-Native mobility (Natives did not have to remain in the village to participate in the settlement), to avoid a settlement based on a reservation system, and to allow Natives to escape the management oversite of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Interior. The State was expected to ease the transition by modifying its corporate laws to accommodate "the peculiar nature of these corporations, but anticipating gradual conversion into an ordinary business corporation." Natives did not want more unprofitable Federal management of their affairs.

In summary, the restriction period on stock alienation probably was intended to allow time to complete transfer of all land and money required by the Settlement and thereby consolidate corporate assets and activities before opening the corporations to the full brunt of market competition. Such consolidation ensures that the market value of corporation stock more accurately reflects the fair value of the corporate assets if the shareholders or corporation desire to sell stock. The shareholders would receive all initial distributions from the Alaska Native Fund. Finally, the restrictive period allows Natives, individually and as corporate bodies, time to familiarize themselves with the cash economy and business operation and regulation of State corporations before putting the stocks of the corporation at risk.

1991: The Settlement Act and Self-Determination. Native leaders saw the claims settlement as a way to attain economic self-sufficiency. They soon saw that the federal government liked to call economic self-sufficiency—self-determination. But self-determination under ANCSA has a narrower meaning than what Federal Self-determination policy has come to be known.

"Self-determination" is a term that has been used to describe the most recent era of federal Indian policy. Instead of breaking up the land base and membership of Indian tribes and terminating the relationship between the tribes, its members, and the federal government, the United States now seeks to promote Native self-government and economic self-sufficiency while maintaining the ". . . Federal Government's unique and continuing relationship with a responsibility to the Indian people. . ." Among the laws passed during this time have been the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, the Indian Financing Act of 1974, the Indian Health Care Improvement Act of 1976, the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, and ANCSA in 1971.

Economic development and self-sufficiency also formed the core element in the Task Force Report and the AFN's comments on the need for a settlement act. Task Force Chairman Hensley commented further:

Emil Notti, president of the Alaska Federation of Natives, added:

President Nixon firmly established ANCSA as an example of the federal government's continuing commitment to Indian "Self-Determination Without Termination" in his Special Message to Congress of July 8, 1970:

In May, 1971, the Alaska Federation of Natives turned again to the concept of Native self-determination to ensure regional corporation involvement in the settlement:

Self-determination, however, has two aspects—one is tribal government development, the other is economic development. In Alaska both sides of the policy are at work. ANCSA represents a special kind of Native economic self-determination. ANCSA can be viewed as benign in its effect on the tribal self-government aspect of self-determination policy. It was a land settlement with no specific reference to tribal autonomy nor with any assigned role for tribes . . . At worst, ANCSA can be viewed as damaging to tribal self-determination in that it denuded Native governments of their traditional lands in the name of economic self-determination.

ANCSA provides the framework for self-determination by the individual Native and, derivatively, self-determination by the corporate body of Native individuals under state law—through their respective ANCSA corporations. Shareholders in ANCSA corporations freely alienate their stock after the initial twenty-year holding period. Before 1991, shareholders determine who inherits their interest in the corporate assets (stock). Finally, Native shareholders participate indirectly in the management of the corporation by voting their shares and directly if elected to the board of directors.

ANCSA corporations operate in the mainstream of the United States' economy relatively unaffected by limitations applied to other Indian enterprises under federal law. The corporate boards must answer to their individual Native and non-Native shareholders under state corporate law standards. However, since tradition and IRA tribal groups (as entities separate from their individual members) did not receive stock in ANCSA corporations, ANCSA corporate boards are not accountable to them for corporate activities that may affect the traditional lands of the tribe.

Despite the relative freedom afforded Native shareholders and corporations to pursue their economic goals, the following discussion suggests that ANCSA is not true self-determination. If Native determination of their own destiny endures as an ideal as it did during the claims struggle, then the limited parameters of ANCSA should not deter Natives from seeking variations on, or alternatives to, ANCSA.

ANCSA, the federal law, imposes limits on the options available to Natives in determining their own destiny as the following examples illustrate. The period of time corporations are protected from outside influence was reduced to 20 years from an initial expectation of 100 years. The choice of settlement vehicles failed to include IRA or federal corporations which were requested by villages and some regions until late in the drafting process. Finally, the overriding effect of ANCSA is to integrate Natives into the mainstream when some may not want to integrate.

Limitations also arise under the state laws. Individual rights attached to stock ownership under state law together with federal restrictions on stock transfer prevent ANCSA corporations from allowing New Natives to participate in the settlement except by inheritance. "Buy out" rights, protecting shareholders dissenting in referendums required to authorize extraordinary dispositions of corporate property, probably prevents an ANCSA corporation from conveying corporate assets to an alternative entity for safe keeping even if any shareholder dissents since ANCSA stock cannot be bought back by the corporation until 1991. Moreover, Native shareholders frequently find that many of their social and economic objectives fall outside those allowed a corporation by state law due to limits on expenditures for-profit corporations can safely make for charitable purposes.

Frequently the limitations put on Natives by ANCSA and [the] state must seem manifestly unfair to a Native observer. Why? The answer often lies in older notions of communal property rights.

Conflicts in Values

The Ideological Core of 1991 Tensions. Tensions created by 1991 may result from the conflicts in values the various solutions raise: How will Alaska Natives individually and through their tribal and corporate institutions balance individual and group rights, if at all?

Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law offers a brief explanation of tribal property—the traditional manner of land holding practiced by Alaska Natives—

The Settlement Act instilled the expectation of private property rights in Native individuals by providing for the issuance of stock in state business corporations which would operate under normal conditions by 1991. Corporation shareholders only own stock and the rights bound up in the stock. Shareholders control the use of corporate property and participate in distributions of corporate assets as a consequence of holding stock in the corporation. Shareholders are said to hold interests in corporate property derivatively.

In the limited case of derivative participation, tribal member interests in tribal property and shareholder interests in corporate property are similar. Critical differences exist between the two interests. As stated above, corporate shareholders possess interests proportionate to their shares in the corporation with respect to earnings, net assets, and control which are enforceable in court. In layman's language, this means that a shareholder can "(a) . . . throw out management; (b) . . . sue management for the misuse of power, gross mismanagement, fraud, or dishonesty; and (c) . . . sell his shares." Tribal members cannot sell or transfer their limited interest in the tribal property—theirs is a personal interest that lives and dies with them. Restraints on alienation of corporate stock, on the other hand, are allowed only if adopted for a lawful purpose and so long as they are not unreasonable. Restraints on alienation that last only a limited period of time have been upheld as reasonable but an absolute restraint has been declared void.

To summarize, the Settlement Act preserves the notion of private property rights. With little faith in federally supervised property, Native leaders opted for parity with non-Natives in land tenure and saw in ANCSA an alternative through stock ownership in landed corporations. With thousands of years of experience in holding communal property and relatively little experience living with private property, it's no wonder that conflicts arise between the new land tenure under ANCSA and the older notions of communal property.

The Fear of 1991. In varying degrees, attachments to both private property and communal exist side by side in the Native community. This situation often results in polarization between purists—one firmly convinced of his individual right to private property; the other equally entrenched in communal values. This is only one manifestation of the tension created by 1991 and conflicting values. Many Natives, perhaps most, fall between the two extremes. Their conflict is internal. How can they accommodate their feelings for communal and individual rights? The complex structure of ANCSA compounds the tension—what can an individual shareholder do?

The increasing awareness of the limited choices available to Native individuals and groups under ANCSA-style self-determination added to the catalyst of 1991 results in enormous tension. Natives fear for the loss of their homelands. The loss of homeland relates directly to the perceived loss of traditional government power which may rely, in part, on the preservation of a Native controlled territory. There is the obvious concern for the loss of control over the ANCSA corporations and their assets if a majority of Natives sell their stock in 1991. Less obvious is the loss of Native political and economic power should the corporations fall into non-Native hands.

Indians in the south faced similar conflicts when their reservations were first broken up by allotment and then reconstructed under the Indian Reorganization Act. Sometimes the reactions to the IRA were peculiar but understandable. Individual allottees, traditional and acculturated, balked at the idea of converting their individually held allotments into interests in communal property. The traditionals did not want to give up old tribal grounds that they had faithfully protected only to share the allotments with members who had sold theirs (they equated the sale with selling out the tribe). The traditionalists had little faith that the federal government would protect the tribal property. It was the federal government which had allotted them in the first place. Ulterior motives also will be attributed to those who propose solutions to 1991.

The recent convention discussions on 1991 in Anchorage and in smaller groups around the State make the point that Natives will respond to the 1991 challenge. The ways to respond to the challenge of 1991 and the prospective alternatives to ANCSA, if alternatives are desired, will reflect an accommodation of conflicting values as occurred when the Settlement Act initially passed.

Bart K. Garber is an Athabaskan from Tyonek. He currently is an Assistant Professor of Alaska Native Studies Program and Political Science. He co-authored with Steve Conn, "Moment of Truth: The Special Relationship of the Federal Government to Alaska Natives and Their Tribes."

[ Alaskool Home]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1991 Balancing Individual and Group Rights after ANCSA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
1991 Balancing Individual and Group Rights after ANCSA by Bart K. Garber published in Alaska Native News/January 1985 "1991: Balancing Individual and Group Rights After ANCSA," Bart K. Garber, (January 1985), v. 2, p. 21. Used with permission of the publisher, for educational purposes only.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971)

# data[].attributes.subject
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (1971)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As Alaska territorial leaders looked forward to Alaska statehood, they wondered about the rights of Alaska Natives to their land. Leaders in both Native and non-Natives communities knew the sad history of Indian land rights in the Lower 48. Congress had included a "disclaimer clause" (Alaskans disclaim any right or title to land that may be subject to Native title) in the Alaska statehood act in order to prevent a repeat of what had happened to Indian lands. At the state constitutional convention territorial leaders had discussed setting aside some land in the proposed state as Native land, but in the end, referred that question back to the federal government.

BLM ANCSA Hearings
Alaska Native Brotherhood hall, Sitka, April 11, 1975

Meanwhile, in 1947, acting on a previous Congressional authorization the Tlingit and Haida Indians had sued in federal court for title to all of the land in their region - all of Southeast Alaska. The basis for this claim was that they had a tradition of ownership in their culture and they had used and occupied all of the land in the past. In the court's 1959 finding the judges agreed with the Tlingit and Haida tribes. The U.S. Congress had ended the Indian title, the court noted, when it created the Tongass National Forest in 1905, covering almost all of Southeast Alaska. The court said the U.S. government should pay the Indians for the taking of their land title. Eventually, in 1968, the U.S. did pay for the 1905 taking of Alaska Native (Tlingit and Haida) title, but not in the amount that the Indians and others thought they should have.

All of Alaska faced a similar situation in 1959 as the new state leaders began selecting the 104 million acres that had been granted in granted in the statehood act. Native groups protested many of the selections, based on the disclaimer in the statehood act (Alaska could not claim title to lands that may already be subject to Native title). What lands in Alaska might be subject to Native title? Congress had never made any treaties with Alaska Natives. Congress and the executive branch had taken about 54 million acres (of Alaska's 375 million acres) in specific withdrawals, creating the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, Katmai National Monument, Mt. McKinley National Park, Glacier Bay National Monument, Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (renamed National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska in 1980), and a number of small fish and wildlife refuges. These withdrawals had ended any Native title on those lands. But nearly all of the rest of Alaska could be subject to Native title.

In the years just before and after statehood the federal government made several proposals for projects in Alaska that threatened Natives and Native lands. The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) proposed detonating five low-yield nuclear devices at a site in the Arctic Ocean near Point Hope, to test whether such devices could be used in heavy construction In this case it was to build a ship harbor. The fallout from the explosions would have contaminated vegetation eaten by migrating caribou , which the Inupiaq of the region depended on for food. Criticism forced the AEC to eventually abandon the plan, but the disregard of Native interests and well-being alarmed Native leaders and sympathetic non Natives. At the same time the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed construction of a high dam on the Yukon River, in the Ramparts area below Yukon Flats. It is where the river had cut into a hard rock formation that was capable of holding a large dam. Seven Native villages would have been flooded, causing the relocation of people and homes. In addition, the resulting reservoir would have flooded the breeding habitat of tens of thousands of migratory waterfowl. The Corps eventually abandoned the project, but concern over the plan to force village relocations generated more Native resentment.

In 1962, following a conference of Inuit people in Barrow discussing the AEC project, Eskimo artist Howard Rock urged the founding of a Native newspaper, to keep people informed on issues important to Native people and their communities. With funding from philanthropist Henry S. Forbes, Rock began the Tundra Times which was published weekly until 1997. Equal rights for minorities was a driving issue during the civil rights revolution of the 1960s, and Alaska Natives quickly learned to describe their common concerns. They developed sophisticated political strategies to encourage people to address concerns. . Many Alaska Natives had previously been sent by the BIA to schools outside Alaska. Though their adjustment was very difficult, it was these schools that brought together many young Natives who would go on to become important leaders. . They often used the perspectives they had learned from other Native Alaskans at the Indian schools. Awareness, energy, and new leadership helped Alaska Natives stay informed about the state's land selections, and to take action to protect Native rights. I In 1966 Native leaders from across the state formed the first statewide Native organization, the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN), to advocate for Alaska Native interests.

By 1966, title to Alaska land was in complete confusion. Between 1959 and 1966 the state had indicated the lands it would like, and Natives continued to protest. By 1966 more land was under protest than the total number of acres in the state because many Native claims overlapped. No planning for economic development could take place if potential investors did not have clear title to the land they were interested in.

When things seemed to be out of control, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior, Stewart Udall, stopped the state land selection process. At that time the federal government had given provisional title to about 12 million acres the state had selected. Remarkably, this included the lands at Prudhoe Bay, between the Arctic National Wildlife Range, established in 1960, and Petroleum Reserve No. 4.

In 1968 the federal government produced a big report on Alaska Native conditions and on historic Native land use patterns called Alaska Natives and the Land.
(U.S. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska, Alaska Natives and the Land [U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968]).

Based on this report and other information, federal, state and Native negotiators finally agreed on the general outlines of a settlement. Natives would gain clear title to lands they had historically used; and the U.S. government would pay them for surrendering potential claims to other lands. The challenge to all Alaskans was how to make the money work for Natives forever. This challenge was the hardest part of the settlement. The AFN brought forth a solution to this question with a revolutionary proposal. The money would be used to fund regional and village economic development corporations. All Alaska Natives who chose to would become shareholders in one or another of these corporations. The role of the corporations would be to invest the money for profit. Dividends would be paid to Native shareholders from the earnings of the corporation of which they were members.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
An act to provide for the settlement of certain land claims of Alaska Natives, and for other purposes.

This was the structure of the historic Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) that Congress passed in 1971 and President Nixon signed on December 17t.. Alaska Natives gained title to 44 million acres of historically used land in Alaska. The U.S. government paid $962.5 million in compensation so that Natives would not claim any title to the remaining land in the state. The 75,000 Natives in Alaska were encouraged to enroll in the corporation of their choice of the twelve regional corporations. Villagers could choose to form as many corporations as they wanted. Later, a 13th corporation was formed for Natives living outside Alaska. This settlement was unlike anything that had ever been established for any Native Americans y; it legitimized Alaska Natives as no other action had.

There were great celebrations in Alaska with the passage of ANCSA. Native leaders took pride in the fact that Alaska Natives would have official title to land they had always thought of as theirs. State leaders cleared a hurdle to economic development and the state land selection process. Alaskans and non-Alaskans alike applauded the measure of justice given to Alaska's Native people who had long been ignored, discriminated against and taken for granted.

Native leaders noted that the ANCSA settlement raised Alaska Natives in the eyes of many Alaskans, achieving for all Alaska Natives a dignity and legitimacy they did not have before the act. But there were - and are - critics of the act also. Many Natives have argued that not enough land was granted Native title, and that Natives received too little money for giving up potential title to so much more land. Some noted that while the leaders in regions and villages prospered under the act, many ordinary villagers have not. Others suggested that because the corporations have a responsibility to make a profit, and that most opportunities to do that are outside Alaska, corporate leaders are focused on circumstances far from village Alaska. Soon after the act was passed leaders worried that Natives born after 1971 had no way to participate directly, since they could not become shareholders except by inheritance. And there was concern that corporations might lose the land if their investments were unsuccessful and the corporation faced bankruptcy.

In 1989 Congress passed amendments to address some of these concerns. The amendments allowed corporations to create new stock by dividing the existing shares, if a majority of the shareholders agreed. For corporations that this option, the value of all shareholders' class A stock is devalued, so few corporations have taken advantage of this option. The amendments also allowed corporation land to be put into "land bank" status, so as not to be taxed until developed. In recent years shareholders have debated the role of the corporations. Some leaders called for greater attention to the social aspects of Native life; others pointed out that the legislation establishing the corporations did not mention any social obligations. . This question is likely to be heavily debated in the future.

While some of the corporations have been successful and have produced cash dividends for their shareholders, not all have. ANCSA provides that successful corporations must share some of their profits with all the other corporations. The corporations have also had a substantial impact on Alaska's economy. Native corporations are the largest single private landholders in Alaska. They are some of the most successful businesses. In 2004 Native corporation assets totaled $2.9 billion. Their combined total payroll was $408 million from the employment of 12,123 people. In 2002 the corporations distributed $45.6 million in dividends to shareholders. Corporations profits for that year were $124 million.

Links:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As Alaska territorial leaders looked forward to Alaska statehood, they wondered about the rights of Alaska Natives to their land. Leaders in both Native and non-Natives communities knew the sad history of Indian land rights in the Lower 48.

# data[].attributes.headline
Willie Hensley - Fifty Miles from Tomorrow

# data[].attributes.subject
Willie Hensley - Fifty Miles from Tomorrow

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fifty Miles Tomorrow, Feb 9 2009 | Video | C-SPAN.org

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Willie Hensley talked about his book [Fifty Miles from Tomorrow: A Memoir of Alaska and the Real People] (Farrar, Straus and Giroux; December 23, 2008). In the book he recounts his childhood as a...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
AFN Convention Video "When Our Community Gathers" (5 minutes, 41 seconds)

The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in October 1966, when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17 Native organizations gathered for a three-day conference to address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights. From 1966 to 1971, AFN worked primarily to achieve passage of a just and fair land settlement. On December 18, 1971 the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) was signed into law.

In the early and mid 1970's, AFN provided technical assistance to help Alaska Natives implement ANCSA and set up the corporations mandated by the Act. Since then, AFN has evolved to meet the changing needs of Alaska Natives and respond to new challenges as they emerge, working to address and protect Native interests at the state and federal levels.

AFN was instrumental in the development and passage of federal laws including the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980, and the 1987 Amendments to ANCSA (the "1991 legislation"). At the state level, AFN plays an active role in the legislative process, promoting laws, policies and programs in areas such as health, education, resource development, labor and government. In the late 1980's, AFN turned its attention to social, tribal and economic issues.

Pre-AFN

Prior to the formation of AFN, various Native groups lobbied for rights to their aboriginal lands. Immediately following the sale of Alaska to the United States, the Tlingit Indians of Southeast Alaska protested the sale, arguing that they were the owners of the land they occupied. In 1912, the Tanana chiefs asserted title to their lands in interior Alaska after white settlers began to infringe on their territory. The Tlingit and Haidas began efforts to regain their land during a meeting in 1929. The Tlingit and Haidas sued the United States in 1935 (when Congress passed a law allowing them to sue the United States for lands lost), and won the case in 1959 receiving monetary compensation in 1968.

The 1960's

In the 1960's, Alaska Natives addressed the urgency to organize and fight for their lands. What began in 1961 as an effort by Natives to preserve their land rights concluded with the Alaska Native Land Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA). The Statehood Act did not recognize aboriginal title to Native lands, and the new state was about to select more than 103 million acres from the public domain. In response to the imminent threat of lost lands, Alaska Natives began forming rural, urban, and regional organizations. Collaboration between these organizations was hindered, due to the long distances between rural villages and urban Alaska, major cultural differences, and mistrust among Native groups. Howard Rock, an Inupiaq from Point Hope, formed a newspaper, the Tundra Times, in 1962 as a means of reporting policies and goals of Native organizations, and as a source of information about Native issues. Soon, the paper became the medium through which Alaska Natives were able to communicate and rally together concerning common concerns.

AFN Founded in 1966

The Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) was organized largely in response to the Alaska land claims issue that re-emerged after Alaska Statehood in 1958. After statehood, the state of Alaska was poised to select 100 million acres of land. Much of Alaska's over 365 million acres of land had been occupied by Alaska Natives for thousands of years. AFN was the first statewide group organized to advocate for Native land claims. Early AFN leaders knew if they did not strive to retain aboriginal lands, they would be in danger of losing their homelands forever.

First Meeting

The Athabaskan president of the Cook Inlet Native Association, Emil Notti, called for the first statewide meeting of Alaska Natives and their organizations. A major turning point that aided the formation of AFN was the assistance of the Chief of Tyonek village, Albert Kaloa Jr. Tyonek had recently been awarded $13 million dollars from oil leases on its reserve, and the village provided most of the financing for the first AFN meeting. On October 18, 1966, 17 Native organizations and over 250 people attended the first AFN meeting. Many of AFN's early leaders were young and inexperienced, yet they successfully worked towards the passage of ANCSA.

Organizational Structure

AFN organized as a non-profit to solicit government program funds, and eventually came to operate education, manpower training, housing and health programs. At the same time, AFN worked tirelessly to press their claims for lands. AFN was structured in a way that represented, and continues to represent, the diverse Native groups within Alaska at the state and federal levels. In 1966, the president and the board were created to represent the different Native groups within Alaska including tribal organizations, regional non-profits, individual village tribes, urban Native groups, and tribes that had federal reservations.

First Resolutions

At AFN's first convention, recommendations of the land claims committee, chaired by Willie Hensley, were unanimously approved by the conference. The land claims committee recommended that the Department of the Interior freeze all disposals of federal land pending a land claims settlement, that Congress should pass a law to settle claims, and that Alaska Natives should be consulted before the passage of any such law. The conference also made specific recommendations for legislation pertaining to land already taken by the state at current market value. In addition to achieving a united stand regarding land claims, the meeting was important in identifying Natives as a significant political force.

The Second Meeting

To continue the work of the Alaska Federation of Native Associations, the name temporarily adopted for the statewide group, an Aleut from St. George, Flore Lekanoff, was elected chairman. When the group met for a second time (early in 1967) it emerged with a new name, the Alaska Federation of Natives, and a full-time president, Emil Notti.

AFN and Land Claims

The first major task of early AFN was to settle the land claims. Early leaders traveled tirelessly around the country speaking about their cause. Soon, the land claims issue was brought to the United States Congress. Arthur Goldberg, a former supreme court justice, and Ramsey Clarke, the Attorney General under President Kennedy, counseled AFN leaders in how to proceed with their land claims. They helped bring legitimacy to AFN's cause and gain the attention of key leaders in the Congress and White House. In a speech given in July 2001, Willie Hensley stated, "What gave AFN the ability to move the Nation was the strong spirits of its membership and the ability to focus on the key issues of the day. . . We faced pressures from state politicians as well as members of Congress and our own internal warfare. We persevered, knowing that if we gave up due to our egos being hurt or our issues being ignored, that our people would be the ones to suffer." As a fledgling organization, it was able to convince the White House and Congress of the fairness and justice in conveying 40 million acres and $1 billion to Alaska Native peoples.

Sources:

Arnold, Robert. Alaska Native Land Claims. Anchorage: The Alaska Native Foundation, 1976.

Willie Hensley's Speech to the First Annual Native Hawaiian-Alaska Native Summit, July 6, 2001

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
AFN Convention Video "When Our Community Gathers" (5 minutes, 41 seconds) The Alaska Federation of Natives was formed in October 1966, when more than 400 Alaska Natives representing 17 Native organizations gathered for a three-day conference to address Alaska Native aboriginal land rights.

# data[].attributes.headline
Tribal NationsThe Story of Federal Indian Law

# data[].attributes.subject
Tribal NationsThe Story of Federal Indian Law

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Viewers totally new to the field of Indian law, as well as the most experienced in the field, will build on their knowledge of the history of federal law and policy regarding tribes.