PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Received in the Senate.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Apr 13, 2000
Alaska Native Claims Technical Amendments Act of 2000 - Amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to include any corporation, partnership, joint venture, sole proprietorship, trust, or affiliate with which a Native Corporation or its affiliate engages in one or more commercial transactions that exceed $20,000 in a calendar year within the entities excluded from the definition of "employer" for purposes of application of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.Includes within lands authorized to be allotted to Alaska Native veterans lands: (1) in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska which the eligible person used and occupied; (2) that were not vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when the eligible person first used and occupied such land, but which prior to December 18, 1971, became vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved during the time the eligible person used and occupied the land; or (3) that were not vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved when the eligible person first used and occupied such land, but which became vacant, unappropriated, and unreserved after the above date, and remain so.Makes eligible for such allotments Alaska Native veterans who served during the period between August 5, 1964, and May 7, 1975 (currently, the period between January 1, 1969, and December 31, 1971) and served on active duty for at least six months. Outlines allotment approval procedures, including the right to protest a proposed allotment.States that no person acquiring a land interest under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act shall be liable for contamination cleanup costs at the time the land was acquired unless such person was directly responsible for such contamination.Subjects a beneficiary's interest in a settlement trust and the distributions thereon to creditor action only to the extent that Settlement Common Stock and related distributions are subject to such action under the Act.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR 10/10/2000 H9614-9615)
Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.(text: CR 10/10/2000 H9614-9615)
Considered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H9841)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Faleomavaega objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed until Oct. 11. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 4345.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H9614-9616)
Mr. Hansen moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Executive Comment Requested from Interior.
Referred to the House Committee on Resources.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E561)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 20, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.4345 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.4345 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.4345 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.4345 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.