PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S6536)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Sep 9, 2015
This bill amends the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to recognize Alexander Creek as a Native village. Currently, Alexander Creek is recognized as a Native group. (Under the Act, a Native village is entitled to more land than a Native group.)
Alexander Creek must file any amendments to its corporate charter that are necessary to convert from a Native group to a Native village.
The Department of the Interior must negotiate with Alexander Creek to fairly and equitably settle aboriginal land claims and any other claims against the United States.
Alexander Creek must notify its members that the Cook Inlet regional corporation will make future payments to the village instead of to individual members. The regional corporation is not liable for damages related to cessation of payments to individual members of Alexander Creek.
People & committees
Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. (Sponsor introductory remarks on measure: CR S6536)
Introduced in Senate
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: Sep 8, 2026. 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 S.2017 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 S.2017 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 S.2017 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 S.2017 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.