Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you. I think your point is well taken about the section 1007 of the report and we certainly ought to question the Department on it. Particularly the Secretary's being unresponsive to the statute. I take it you are saying this report is not a recommendation. Mr. SEIBERLING. Do they state a preferred alternative in the report? Mr. HICKOK. They do not suggest a preferred alternative. They do, perhaps by placement in the report, suggest some priorities, but not precisely. Mr. SEIBERLING. That is certainly not recommendations, though. Mr. HICKOK. None per se, Mr. Chairman, no. Mr. SEIBERLING. I might say we will look at S. 1562, of course, and also see what the administration's attitude is toward it. Let me go to page 6, you say generally speaking the progress of the Federal agencies involved with many studies and investigations either mandated by the act or other laws, are proceeding well or at least adequately, despite manpower constraints. Have you seen the GAO's report? Mr. HICKOK. Yes; parts of it. Mr. SEIBERLING. It doesn't seem to me that they are proceeding adequately after looking at that report. They are adequate where the most development would occur, but where it promotes conservation, they are woefully inadequate. Mr. HICKOK. I think generally true; yes. That is generally true, Mr. Chairman, yes. However, I think it is overemphasized a bit. While it is true, for example, that in southeastern, there is much more attention being paid to timber yields and Quartz Hill studies by the Forest Service and much to the detriment of vegetative mapping and so on in interagency activities, it is not necessarily true in other areas. I heard this morning several comments about exploration on the Arctic game range. There is no exploration now on the Arctic game range. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, there can't be by law. Mr. HICKOK. There is no physical exploration now taking place on the Arctic game range. The Fish and Wildlife Service has out a draft report on the impact of that draft EIS statement and the study which is being done by my Senator on the sociocultural impacts on the abilities of Kogtovick and Arctic Village due in about 2 weeks. It seems to me that the statements that there was physical exploration going on were a little bit overemphasized. There is, however, certainly a tremendous greater attention by this administration on those kinds of things that are economically imperative to them. One of the things that troubles us in Alaska and it should trouble this committee, even though the jurisdiction may not be so close, that is the tremendous cutbacks in the Auk Bay Laboratories, the National Marine Fisheries Service that will involve future analyses of hydrogen projects on the public lands, coal development on the public lands, oil and gas development in the Bristol Bay, oil and gas development on shore, because without this body of exper tise, some 80 percent of it being cut back by the Reagan budget, Alaska interagency activities will be hurt tremendously. Mr. SEIBERLING. That is true, and that is what concerns me. Of course, with respect to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the reason there is no oil and gas exploration is because the act explicitly prohibits even approval of a plan until 2 years after the date of enactment of the act. So until December 2, 1982, by law, even the approval of exploration plans is prohibited. Mr. HICKOK. That's correct. Mr. SEIBERLING. But I suspect what will happen if they have not done adequate baseline studies is that after that date, the administration will come around and say, well, now, we are going to approve a plan and they will not have carried out the clear mandate of the act, which means they must do baseline studies beforehand. So it is the same whether we are dealing with Arctic National Wildlife Range or whether it is the other matters that you have referred to. The adequate research is not being done. Mr. HICKOK. That's correct. I think there is another element if I may, Mr. Chairman; the Reagan administration seems to be saying that industry will do its own research and that it is, therefore, not necessary for the Federal Government, nor the State for that matter, to be engaged in research relevant to resource development. This is what S. 1562, is all about. It seems to many of us that we need partnerships between the Federal Government, the State, and industry in order to try and get the knowledge necessary to avoid these head-on conflicts all the time. There is a case of the so-called drilling window, the question of what dates can be-during which drilling can be allowed in the Arctic. There is a question where both sides have justifiable arguments. The environmental living resources, the bowhead whale and other situations, they definitely need protection and we have a good deal of knowledge about it. We lack a lot of knowledge, too. On the other side of the coin, cost-effectiveness of drilling is also in the national interest since we end up paying for it as taxpayers. Knowledge, research and knowledge by both parties, Federal and industry together, can narrow this perspective and protect both the environment and the living resources and make things a bit more cost-effective. I would like to see more partnerships rather than confrontation. Mr. SEIBERLING. I think you make a good point, but I come back to this, as I understand what you are saying, leaving aside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we have already discussed, adequate research is not being done to prepare plans for managment of other refuges or conservation units; is that correct? Your opinion? Mr. HICKOK. Yes; as far as I know. Mr. SEIBERLING. That is my impression. I appreciate your expert advice. Mr. HICKOK. The subsistence question is a good one in point. There is some activity going on in the Fish and Wildlife Service, some in the Park Service, some of it good, some in the State, but there is no cohesive analysis of the subsistence question, not just the resource side of the coin, but also the sociocultural aspect of that. Mr. SEIBERLING. I thought you made a good point about the lack of interagency cooperation. Let me ask you on subsistence studies, is this an area in which the Alaskan Land Use Council could play a useful role if it were funded? Mr. HICKOK. Presumably, Mr. Chairman. Mr. SEIBERLING. You recommend enactment of legislation as a logical solution of the requirements of section 1007. Do you feel S. 1562 is such legislation? Mr. HICKOK. Not as presently drafted. There will be a second committee sponsored substitute which many of us in the Alaska scientific community are much more in support of. Mr. SEIBERLING. If you could give us either now or in written form what you consider to be the essential elements of such legislation, that would be very helpful. Mr. HICKOK. I would be pleased to do that. Mr. SEIBERLING. If you can do that within a reasonable time, we will keep the record open and include it. [EDITOR'S NOTE.-When received, the information requested by Chairman Seiberling will be placed in the committee files of today's hearing.] Mr. SEIBERLING. Thank you very much, Mr. Hickok. There being no further questions, we will go on to the next witness. Our next witness is a panel, really, Mr. Sam Kito, Alaska Federation of Natives, and Mr. Bartz Englishoe of the Gwitchyaa Zhee Corp., in Fort Yukon. You are a long ways from Fort Yukon. [Prepared statement of Sam Kito, Jr., with attachments may be found in appendix I.] PANEL CONSISTING OF SAM KITO, JR., ON BEHALF OF ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, ACCOMPANIED BY DON MITCHELL, COUNSEL; PATRICK POURCHOT, STAFF MEMBER; AND BARTZ ENGLISHOE, ON BEHALF OF GWITCHYAA ZHEE CORP., FORT YUKON, ALAKSA Mr. KITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am Sam Kito and I am testifying on behalf of the Alaska Federation of Natives. We represent the 12 regional corporations established by ANCSA and 11 of the 12 nonprofit regional corporations. Together, these organizations represent a near total of the Native population in Alaska. Accompanying me are Mr. Don Mitchell, counsel for AFN and Patrick Pourchot, AFN's representative on the staff of the Alaska Land Use Council. Mr. Chairman, many of the regional corporations and other Native corporations have submitted, or will soon submit, written testimony outlining their comments and their concerns with re spect to implementation of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. I would respectfully request that the record of these proceedings be left open for a reasonable period of time so their testimony may be included. Mr. SEIBERLING. We will be glad to do that. I would hope that you could summarize your statement which is rather voluminous and we will put your entire statement in the record. Mr. KITO. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, that was my next request, I would request that my statement be included in the record and that I would summarize and try to highlight some of the major areas of concern that we would like to address today. On behalf of AFN, I would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to testify. As you know, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act is the culmination of 9 years of effort, the beginnings of which can be traced to enactment of 17(d)(2) of ANCSA. Throughout the Congress frequent turbulent consideration of the (d)(2) issue, AFN was committed to passage of legislation sensitive to the concerns of the Alaska Native people. In large measure, that effort was a success. The boundaries of conservation system units established by ANILCA were drawn by the Congress in close cooperation with the regional corporations. The rules for the management of the public lands and the use of renewable and nonrenewable resources on those lands also reflect the Congress sensitivity to the needs of the Alaska Native people. Finally, the act contains a number of technical amendments to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and a number of land exchanges between our corporations and other landowners intended to facilitate the successful implementation of ANCSA. The inclusion of these provisions in ANILCA was not inadvertent. Further, Mr. Chairman, it reflects thousands of hours of work by members of the Interior Committee and its staff to gather information about Alaska and about the lifestyles and the aspirations of its Native people. Congressional inquiry, which precedes legislative action, usually is conducted through hearings held in Washington, D.C. During the summer of 1977, a special subcommittee chaired by the chairman of this subcommittee conducted extensive field hearings and informal town meetings throughout Alaska. Without question, the subsistence title and other important provisions too numerous to mention here, may well have not been included in ANILCA if the Subcommittee on General Oversight and Alaska Lands had not traveled so extensively throughout our State and listened so long and patiently to our concerns. On behalf of the Native community, I would like to express our appreciation to the chairman of this subcommittee, the chairman of the full committee, and Congressman Don Young for making that effort. Since ANILCA was signed into law, AFN and its member organizations have worked closely with the Federal and State governments and the public to make the implementation of the act a suc cess. Although the implementation of ANILCA has really just begun, there are several issues relevant to implementation which are of particular concern to the Native community about which I would like to comment in some detail. Our first concern, of course, is the implementation of title VIII. As you know, throughout the Congress consideration of H.R. 39, the continuation and protection of subsistence uses by the Native and non-Native residents of rural Alaska was our highest priority. Title VIII of ANILCA reflects two policy decisions by the Congress, the first was a recognition of the important national interest in the protection of subsistence uses and resources on the public lands and in the territorial waters of Alaska. The second was the equally important recognition that the State of Alaska and not the Departments of the Interior or Agriculture, is best suited to manage subsistence uses and resources to insure that the national interest is adequately protected. For the past 16 months, we have worked closely with the State to help develop a subsistence management program which conforms to the requirements of title VIII. I am pleased to announce that the State has made considerable progress in this regard. However, a remaining issue of concern is the adequacy of the State's implementation of the local advisory committee and regional advisory council system. Hopefully both the Governor and the Secretary will closely review the State's progress in implementing and staffing these important organizations during the Secretary's final review of the State's program. Another of our priorities was the inclusion of the legislative solution to the submerged lands problem, which has done considerable damage to the Department of the Interior's effort to accelerate the conveyance of Native lands. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Kito, there is a vote going on on the floor now so I am going to have to recess this and interrupt your testimony while I go over and vote. I will be back as soon as possible, probably about 15 minutes. AFTER RECESS Mr. SEIBERLING. When we recessed, you had just finished your comments on the subsistence provisions and were about to go to the other questions. Mr. KITO. Another legislative priority was inclusion of a legislative solution to the submerged lands problem which has done considerable damage to the Department of the Interior's effort to accelerate the conveyance of Native lands. An amendment based upon the BLM's normal methodology for conveyance of public lands was developed by the Interior Committee and included as section 918 of H.R. 39, passed by the House during the 96th Congress. However, the Senate replaced the House amendment with an amendment which establishes a statute of limitations within which the State of Alaska must initiate a challenge to Native title to sub |