I rise in support of H.R. 2538 as amended, and wish to clarify how the program authorized in this bill operates with respect to my Alaska Native constituents. H.R. 2538 as amended does not differ in substance from the bill as reported by the Committee on Small Business. Rather, the measure under consideration today simply recognizes the unique Native American policies that Congress has implemented in the State of Alaska, and clarifies how the grant program the bill authorizes will be implemented in that State. In the 48 contiguous States, Congress's policy on Native Americans has focused on recognizing groups of Native Americans as 'federally recognized tribes' that are distinct political entities and a majority of whose members reside on reservations and other land that is owned by the United States in trust. However, while Congress has routinely designated groups of Alaska Natives as 'tribes,' it has done so for the sole purpose of ensuring that Alaska Natives are eligible for programs and services that the United States provides to Native Americans because of their status as Native Americans. Congress has not recognized any group of Alaska Natives as a 'federally recognized tribe' that is a distinct political entity. Instead, since 1884 Congress has required Alaska Natives to be, at all locations in Alaska, subject to the same criminal and civil state laws that non-Native Alaskans are required to observe.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of H.R. 2538 for Alaska Native constituents.
Share
More from Don Young
What good are two members of the council--although their being native, what will it help you if you don't have the authority to make decisions on the council?
Although I have long supported the goal of fighting IUU fishing in foreign fisheries and leveling the playing field for U.S. seafood producers, SIMP is not up to the task. This program should be reformed, not expanded.
the Endangered Species Act, we should celebrate when these species get to the numbers that we need, so we can have Minnesota manage these wolves.
More broadly, this sequence of events starkly illustrates why we believe fishery management plans should be developed in-region through a transparent and robust review process rather than through an outside, centralized body.





