ment. But beyond those general similarities, there are significant differences among the bills. H.R. 7039 was prepared in consultation with the Alaska Federation of Natives. That bill, together with other pending proposals, has been reviewed by our board of directors, and we have unanimously endorsed H.R. 7039. In the view of the Alaska Natives that bill is the only one which represents a truly just and fair settlement of our land rights and at the same time proposes a realistic and viable structure to provide for the administration of the settlement. I have with me today several documents which explore in detail the various facets of H.R. 7039 and the other bills pending before this committee. I would ask that they be included in the record of this hearing. Mr. HALEY. These documents that you present here, are these the documents? Mr. WRIGHT. Yes, sir. Mr. HALEY. They will be received and made a part of the files, and I will ask the Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman Mr. HALEY (continuing). Professional staff to go through them and see if all of them pertain to the matter under consideration by us here today. Mr MEEDS. Mr Chairman Mr. HALEY. Yes? Mr. MEEDS. I would like to reserve the right at a later date to ask for the admission of these into the record of the hearings because, Mr. Chairman, I have been over most of them and I think they are all extremely pertinent, much more pertinent than some other information we have in the file and in the record on this matter. So I would like to have that privilege, Mr. Chairman. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman can reserve his right, of course. I was trying to proceed here in our normal procedure where we have a large volume of stuff Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman Mr. ASPINALL. I will just object at this time. We will come back to it. Mr. HALEY. Objection is heard and the gentleman Mr. MEEDS. I have looked through all of them. Mr. HALEY. You may proceed, Mr. Wright. Mr. WRIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time I would like to summarize some of the highlights of H.R. 7039 and explain why, in our view, they are the only satisfactory provisions. H.R. 7039 would confirm our title to 60 million acres of land, approximately 16 percent of our rightful ownership. H.R. 3100 does not specify an exact acreage, but rather would confirm title in up to a total of four times the size of village sites. Since the term "village site" is not specifically defined, it is difficult to estimate the exact land amount to which Natives would obtain fee title under that bill. We estimate the fee lands under H.R. 3100 to be perhaps as little as 40.000 to 80.000 acres and certainly not more than 1 million acres. This title would be supplemented with subsistence use permits for not less than 40 million acres of land. The administration bill would confirm our title in fee to 40 million acres. The AFN bill, H.R. 7039, is the only bill which confirms title to a sufficient acreage, insures that that title will be a full fee title as has been the case in every other Indian lands rights settlement, and allows sufficient flexibility in the selection of those lands to provide a sound base for subsistence and future economic growth and development. H.R. 7039 and 7432 both provide a Federal appropriation of $500 million as partial compensation for the taking of other Native lands. H.R. 3100 also provides for a face amount of $500 million, composed of $25 million in Federal appropriations each year for 10 years and a contribution of the Federal share of mineral royalties for 10 years but not exceeding $250 million. Again the AFN provisions are the only ones sufficient to insure that the $500 million figure is in fact reached. Under our bill the money would be paid over a 9-year period with interest on the outstanding balance at the rate of 4 percent. Thus the present value (using a 6 percent discount rate) is $467,500,000. In contrast, the administration bill with a payout over 20 years without interest has a present worth of only $304 million. The Federal appropriation under H.R. 3100 has a present worth of approximately $184 million. The present worth of the Federal royalty contribution is less certain, but is most likely less than $10 million. As shown by the attached table, for the past 10 years the Federal share of mineral revenues in Alaska has never exceeded $1 million a year. As the State of Alaska selects for its own use oil-bearing lands, this share would be expected to decline in future years. The Federal share of mineral leasing revenues is thus unlikely to exceed $10 million in total payout, with a corresponding present value of not more than $7,360,000. Thus H.R. 3100 would in fact fall short by over $240 million of the $500 million Federal payment it promises. All three bills provide for a partial contribution of the State share of mineral royalties on State and Federal lands in the future. AFN proposed a perpetual 2 percent royalty. H.R. 3100 proposed that the Natives share equally with the State up to the amount of $20 million per year for the next 25 years. The administration proposes a a percent royalty to continue until a total of $500 million is received. Only H.R. 7039 is an adequate assurance of a continuing interest in the mineral and natural wealth of our lands. If our land rights were fully confirmed, we would have perpetual ownership of all mineral interests. We are willing to give up 98 percent of those rights, but seek in return a perpetual ownership interest in the 2 percent remainder. The proposed bills also differ markedly in the structure for administering the settlement. H.R. 7039 would basically create 12 regional corporations, each corresponding to an existing Native association as shown on the map which I ask be included in the record at this point. Mr. HALEY. Same condition. Mr. WRIGHT. A single statewide corporation would be created to funnel funds from the Federal and State governments to the regional corporations and to provide general technical and oversight assistance to the regions. H.R. 3100 calls for the creation of an investment and distribution agency, the members of which would be certain State officials and other nominees of the State government. H.R. 7432 would create a single statewide corporation composed of 17 Native-elected members, one from each region and five at large. The basic problem with both the administration bill and H.R. 3100 is that they do not conform to the existing political structure of the Alaska Natives. Historically our people have recognized regional divisions based on living patterns and practices, religious and language differences, and ethnic and tribal identifications. Our people identify closely with their region and the existing regional organizations. Imposition of a single statewide corporation could easily result in an unworkable structure. In addition, Natives must have the opportunity to direct the corporations which control their assets. Anything less would be totally unacceptable. I have only lightly touched on the technical aspects of these particular bills. As this committee well understands, the subject matter involved is a highly complicated and intricate one. Rather than discussing further at this time the details of the legislation, I would like to address myself to certain important facts regarding the support among people throughout the State and the country for the AFN position. I have recently returned from a trip to Alaska and extensive consultation with members of the State legislature, the Governor and his key administration officials, and business and community leaders across the State. There is a growing recognition of the justice and fairness of our position and a keen awareness of the progress we have made in getting our message across in Washington, D.C. Perhaps the most tangible evidence of support for our position lies in a petition which was circulated to all members of the State legislature asking them to support H.R. 7039. I am pleased and proud to report that 16 out of 20 members of the senate including the president of the senate, and 26 out of 40 members of the house including the speaker of the house of representatives have endorsed our position and advocate the passage of H.R. 7039. This constitutes a substantial majority of the members of the State legislature who recognize the fairness and justice of our position and reflects an extroaordinary cross section of support for our position throughout the State of Alaska. I should point out that six out of the 42 legislators who signed our petition expressed minor qualifications in regard to specific provisions in H.R. 7039 and these qualifications are recorded on the petition along with their signatures. I would like at this point to enter the petitions in the record along with a brief biographical summary of each of the State legislators. Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, this is one of the reasons, of course, that I made the objection that I did. We need no place in the record, our permanent record, for what is printed here as a voluminous explanation with pictures. We do not take pictures as far as that is concerned and place them in our record. As far as the objection having to do with a list of legislators, I think that is fine. We do not need a biographical list of legislators. The petition is in order, most certainly, but there are in these documents pictures which we cannot put in the record. There is information from newspapers, newspaper articles which we cannot put in the record and this was the only reason objection was made to having certain documents placed in the record. With this understanding, the petition I take no exception to, it comes within the purview of our rules. The pictures, no, and Mr. HALEY. We have no facilities, Mr. Wright. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the petition, less the biographical information on members and the pictures, be entered at this point in the record. Mr. HALEY. Without objection, so ordered. (The petition referred to for inclusion in the record follows:) |