[Senate Report 106-124]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 235
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-124
======================================================================
``EXXON VALDEZ'' OIL SPILL
_______
July 28, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Murkowski, from the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 711]
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, to which was
referred the bill (S. 711) to allow for the investment of joint
Federal and State funds from the civil settlement of damages
from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to the
provisions of subsections (e) and (g), upon the joint motion of the
United States and the State of Alaska and the issuance of an
appropriate order by the United States District Court for the District
of Alaska, the joint trust funds, or any portion thereof, including any
interest accrued thereon, previously received or to be received by the
United States and the State of Alaska pursuant to the Agreement and
Consent Decree issued in United States v. Exxon Corporation, et al.
(No. A91-082 CIV) and State of Alaska v. Exxon Corporation, et al. (No.
A91-083 CIV) (hereafter referred to as the ``Consent Decree''), may be
deposited in --
(1) the Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
Fund (hereafter referred to as the ``Fund'' established in
title I of the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 1992 (Pub. L. 102-154, 43 U.S.C. 1474b);
(2) accounts outside the United States Treasury (hereafter
referred to as ``outside accounts''); or
(3) both.
Any funds deposited in an outside account may be invested only in
income-producing obligations and other instruments or securities that
have been determined unanimously by the Federal and State natural
resource trustees for the Exxon Valdez oil spill (`'trustees'') to have
a high degree of reliability and security.
(b) Joint trust funds deposited in the Fund or an outside account
that have been approved unanimously by the Trustees for expenditure by
or through a State or Federal agency shall be transferred promptly from
the Fund or the outside account to the State of Alaska or United States
upon the joint request of the governments.
(c) The transfer of joint trust funds outside the Court Registry
shall not affect the supervisory jurisdiction of the District Court
under the Consent Decree or the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent
Decree in United States v. State of Alaska (No. A91-081-CIV) over all
expenditures of the joint trust funds.
(d) Nothing herein shall affect the requirements of section 207 of
the Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations and Transfers for Relief
From the Effects of Natural Disasters, for Other Urgent Needs, and for
the Incremental Cost of ``Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm'' Act of
1992 (Pub. L. 102-229, 42 U.S.C. 1474b note) that amounts received by
the United States and designated by the trustees for the expenditure by
or through a Federal agency must be deposited into the Fund.
(e) All remaining settlement funds are eligible for the investment
authority granted under subsection (a) of this act so long as they are
managed and allocated consistent with the Resolution of the Trustees
adopted March 1, 1999 concerning the Restoration Reserve, as follows;
(1) $55 million of the funds remaining on October 1, 2002 and
the associated earnings thereafter shall be managed and
allocated for habitat protection programs including small
parcel habitat acquisitions. Such sums shall be reduced by:
(A) the amount of any payments made after the date of
enactment of this Act from the Joint Trust Funds
pursuant to an agreement between the Trustee Council
and Koniag, Inc. which includes those lands which are
presently subject to the Koniag Non-Development
Easement, including, but not limited to, the
continuation or modification of such Easement, and;
(B) payments in excess of $6.32 million for any
habitat acquisition or protection from the joint trust
funds after the date of enactment of this Act and prior
to October 1, 2002, other than payments for which the
Council is currently obligated through purchase
agreements with the Kodiak Island Borough, Afognak
Joint Venture and the Eyak Corporation.
(2) All other funds remaining on October 1, 2002, and the
associated earnings shall be used to fund a program, consisting
of--
(A) marine research, including applied fisheries
research;
(B) monitoring and;
(C) restoration, other than habitat acquisition,
which may include community and economic restoration
projects and facilities, (including projects proposed
by the communities of the EVOS Region or the fishing
industry) consistent with the Consent Decree.
(f) The federal trustees and the state trustees, to the extent
authorized by State law, are authorized to issue grants as needed to
implement this program.
(g) The authority provided in this Act shall expire on September
30, 2002, unless by September 30, 2001, the Trustees have submitted to
the Congress a report recommending a structure the Trustees believe
would be most effective and appropriate for the administration and
expenditure of remaining funds and interest received. Upon the
expiration of the authorities granted in this Act all monies in the
Fund or outside accounts shall be returned to the Court Registry or
other account permitted by law.
purpose of the measure
S. 711 provides for a higher rate of interest to be earned
on the settlement funds resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil
spill by granting authority for the funds to be invested in
accounts other than the Court Registry Investment System
(CRIS).
background and need
The March 24, 1989, Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's
Prince William Sound was the largest oil spill in U.S. history,
affecting nearly 1,500 miles of Alaska's coastline. Under a
civil settlement agreement approved in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Alaska in October 1991, Exxon agreed to pay
civil claims totaling $900 million to the Federal Government
and the State of Alaska by September 1, 2001. Under a criminal
settlement reached at the same time, Exxon agreed to pay a $25
million fine and to pay the Federal Government and the State of
Alaska each $50 million as remedial and compensatory payments
to be used exclusively for restoring natural resources damaged
by the spill or for research on the prevention or amelioration
of future oil spills.
Administration of the civil settlement is carried out under
a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Federal Government
and State of Alaska. The MOA established a six-member Federal/
State trusteeship, which later became the Trustee Council, to
review and approve expenditures of civil settlement funds for
restoration projects. The three Federal trustees are the
Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, and
the Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Department of Commerce, or their
representatives. The three State trustees are the Commissioner
of the State Department of Fish and Game, the Commissioner of
the State Department of Environmental Conservation, and the
Attorney General of the State of Alaska or their
representative. A staff headed by an executive director
conducts day-to-day activities.
Under the agreement, Exxon's civil settlement payments flow
to three areas. The first two are to reimburse Federal and
State agencies for past spill related work and credit to Exxon
for the reimbursement of agreed-upon cleanup performed
following the spill. The remainder of Exxon's payments are
deposited into a joint State/Federal trust fund under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. district court system. This trust fund
is currently an interest-bearing account within the CRIS, a
system used for U.S. district court settlements. To release any
of these funds, the Federal and State trustees must petition
the court to make the funds available for the purposes and
activities specified in the settlement agreement and the MOA.
Federal agencies in Alaska and Alaska State agencies
responsible for the management of the land and species within
the spill area take the lead in carrying out restoration
activities. For restoration activities that are to be carried
out by Federal agencies, funds are transferred to an interest-
bearing account of the Department of the Interior, where they
are transferred to specific agency accounts as needed. For
restoration activities to be carried out by the State, funds
are deposited in a State trust fund from which they are drawn
directly by State agencies following an appropriation from the
legislature.
By the time all of the settlement money has been paid by
Exxon and excluding reimbursements to the governments and to
Exxon for additional cleanup, the Trustee Council estimates
that approximately 60% of the funds will have been spent on
habitat acquisition while approximately 40% will be spent on
research and monitoring. This imbalance has been a concern to
the Alaska Congressional delegation in particular. In November
of 1997, Senator Murkowski introduced S. 1523, which would have
given the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustees (``Trustees'') the
ability to invest outside of the CRIS account but would have
restricted all of the new interest from being used for habitat
acquisition. Similar language was added to the 1998
appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice,
State, the Judiciary, and related agencies for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1999. The language was eventually dropped
in conference.
In August of 1998, at the request of the Chairman of the
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, the General
Accounting Office did an audit of the Trust accounts and
expenditures. The audit made several findings. First, the GAO
auditors agreed with other auditors who found that the fees
charged by CRIS on the liquidity and reserve accounts are
excessive and greatly exceed the costs incurred in
administering the funds. Second, they found that the Trustees
could earn a higher rate of interest income if the settlement
funds were invested outside of CRIS. Third, they found that the
percentage of money spent on habitat acquisition was more than
two and one half times the percentage spent on research. It was
these factors that led Senator Murkowski to continue to push
the Trustees to dedicate the majority of the remaining funds to
be used for a scientific understanding of Prince William Sound,
and not for more habitat acquisition. That principle is
embodied in S. 711.
Legislative History
S. 711 was introduced by Senator Murkowski, on behalf of
himself and Senator Stevens, on March 24, 1999. A hearing was
held before the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on
May 14, 1999. At the business meeting on June 30, 1999, the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources ordered S. 711, as
amended, favorably reported.
committee recommendations and tabulation of votes
The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in open
business session on June 30, 1999, by a unanimous voice vote of
a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass S. 711, if
amended as described herein.
committee amendments
During the consideration of S. 711, the Committee adopted
an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Senator
Murkowski. The amendment makes technical, clarifying and
conforming changes. In addition, the amendment modifies
subsection (e) to direct the management and allocation of the
remaining settlement funds. The amendment is describe in
further detail in the section-by-section analysis.
section-by-section analysis
Section 1: Subsection (a) grants the Trustees the ability
to invest joint trust funds outside of the Court Registry
Investment System into income producing obligations in (1) the
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund (``the
Fund'') and/or accounts outside the U.S. Treasury system
pursuant to the limitations described in subsections (e) and
(g) of the legislation.
Subsection (b) requires that joint trust funds deposited in
the Fund or an outside account shall be transferred promptly to
the State of Alaska or the United States Government upon the
joint request of the governments.
Subsection (c) states that the transfer of any joint trust
funds outside the court registry shall not affect the
supervisory jurisdiction of the District Court under the
Consent Decree or the Memorandum of Agreement and Consent
Decree in United States v. State of Alaska (No. A91-081-CIV).
Subsection (d) states that nothing in the legislation
affects the requirement of section 207 of the Dire Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations and Transfers for Relief From the
Effects of Natural Disasters, for Other Urgent Needs, and for
the Incremental Cost of ``Operation Desert Shield/Desert
Storm'' Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-229, 42 U.S.C. 1474b note)
that amounts received by the United States and designated by
the Trustees for the expenditure by or through a Federal agency
must be deposited into the Fund.
Subsection (e) states that all remaining settlement funds
are eligible for the investment authority granted under
subsection (a) of this Act so long as they are managed and
allocated consistent with the Resolution of the Trustees
adopted March 1, 1999 concerning the Restoration Reserve and
specifically as detailed in the following paragraphs. Paragraph
(1) provides that $55 million of the funds remaining on October
1, 2002 and the associated earnings thereafter shall be managed
and allocated for habitat protection programs including small
parcel habitat acquisitions. Such sums shall be reduced by the
amount of any payments made after the date of enactment of this
Act from the joint trust funds pursuant to an agreement between
the Trustee Council and Koniag, Inc., which includes those
lands which are presently subject to the Koniag Non-Development
Easement, including, but not limited to, the continuation or
modification of such Easement, and any payments in excess of
$6.32 million for any habitat acquisition or protection from
the joint trust funds after the date of enactment of this Act
and prior to October 1, 2002, other than payments for which the
Council is currently obligated through purchase agreements with
the Kodiak Island Borough, Afognak Joint Venture and the Eyak
Corporation. This language will allow for the continuation of
payments to be made on purchases the Trustees are already
committed to as well as those potential purchases that the
Council has made offers on as of June 30, 1999. Additionally,
any funds needed for the administration of the Trust will also
be deducted from these monies. With regard to the Koniag lands
mentioned above, representatives of the Trustee Council and
Koniag are negotiating the possible long-term extension of an
existing easement covering key lands within the Kodiak NWR.
Nothing in this legislation is intended to limit the authority
of the Council or the Department of the Interior to enter into
an agreement with Koniag, or to establish an account for the
benefit of Koniag prior to October 1, 2002, and the principal
or earnings thereon could be used to fund this easement or
future acquisition of these lands. Consistent with the
Council's March 1, 1999 resolution, any payments to Koniag
from, or accrued interest in, such account would count toward
the $55 million as habitat protection fund on October 1, 2002
that is provided for under section 1(e) of this legislation.
Paragraph (2) provides that all other funds remaining on
October 1, 2002, estimated to be at least $115 million, and the
associated earnings shall be used to fund a program, consisting
of marine research, including applied fisheries research;
monitoring; and restoration, other than habitat acquisition,
which may include community and economic restoration projects
and facilities, (including projects proposed by the communities
of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill region or the fishing industry)
consistent with the Consent Decree. This language provides for
a greater scientific understanding of the marine environment of
Prince William Sound as well as offer opportunities for the
EVOS communities to participate in development and economic
enhancement projects.
Subsection (f) authorizes the federal trustees and the
state trustees, to the extent authorized by State law, to issue
grants needed to implement the provisions of this Act.
Subsection (g) states the authority provided in this Act
shall expire on September 30, 2002, unless by September 30,
2001, the Trustees have submitted to the Congress a report
recommending a structure of remaining funds and interest
received. This subsection further states that upon the
expiration of the authorities granted in this Act all monies in
the Fund or outside accounts shall be returned to the Court
Registry or other account permitted by law.
cost and budgetary considerations
The following estimate of the cost of this measure has been
provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
S. 711--A bill to allow for the investment of joint federal and state
funds from the civil settlement of damages from the Exxon
Valdez oil spill
CBO estimates that enacting S. 711 would have no net impact
on the federal budget. The bill could increase both direct
spending and offsetting receipts (a credit against direct
spending); therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply. We
estimate, however, that any changes would offset each other--
mostly within the same year. S. 711 contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and would impose no costs on
state, local, or tribal governments. The state of Alaska and
local governments in the state could benefit should some of the
additional interest earned as a result of this bill be
allocated to state agencies.
S. 711 would increase the amounts available to the federal
government and the state of Alaska for the purposes of
assessing damage to natural resources by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill of 1989 and conducting restoration efforts. Specifically,
the bill would allow the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council, with the approval of the U.S. District Court (Alaska),
to choose where to deposit the amounts paid by the Exxon
Corporation each year under the consent decree issued as a
result of that spill. Under existing law, Exxon makes annual
payments (currently $70 million) into the federal government's
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS). The trustees allocate
those sums to federal agencies, through the Natural Resources
Damage Assessment and Restoration Fund (NRDA), and to the state
of Alaska. S. 711 would allow the trustees to instead deposit
the Exxon payments directly into the NRDA fund or some account
outside the U.S. Treasury.
Depositing payments from Exxon without going through the
CRIS would enable the trustees to reduce the fund's management
fees by up to $200,000 annually. Moreover, depositing all such
amounts into an outside account (most likely Alaska's
investment system) would have the additional benefit of
increasing interest earnings by an average of about $3 million
a year. Because there is no way to determine whether the
federal government would receive any of the additional interest
revenue earned by the joint trust funds, CBO cannot estimate
the additional offsetting receipts and direct spending that
might occur if S. 711 is enacted. If additional funds are
allocated to the government as a result of the legislation, the
additional receipts would be offset by an equal increase in
direct spending--mostly in the same year that any new receipts
occur.
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that interest
rates paid by U.S. securities and by the Alaska investment
systems will remain at or near current rates. (The Alaska
system would pay the trust fund about twice what CRIS does.)
This estimate is based on information provided by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee
Council.
The CBO staff contact is Deborah Reis. This estimate was
approved by Robert A. Sunshine, Deputy Assistant Director for
Budget Analysis.
regulatory impact evaluation
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in
carrying out S. 711. The bill is not a regulatory measure in
the sense of imposing Government-established standards or
significant economic responsibilities on private individuals
and businesses.
No personal information would be collected in administering
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal
privacy.
Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the
enactment of S. 711, as ordered reported.
executive communications
On June 30, 1999, the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources requested legislative reports from the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Justice and the Office of
Management and Budget setting forth Executive agency
recommendations on S. 711. These reports had not been received
at the time the report on S. 711 was filed. When the reports
become available, the Chairman will request that they be
printed in the Congressional Record for the advice of the
Senate. On May 13, 1999, the Administration offered written
testimony on S. 711. The testimony provided by the Department
of Justice and the Trustee Council follows:
Statement of Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Environment
Division, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am pleased to
submit this written testimony on behalf of the United States
Department of Justice concerning S. 711, a bill to allow for
the investment of Joint Federal and State funds from the civil
settlement of damages from the Exxon Valdez oil spill, and for
other purposes.
Following the Exxon Valdez oil spill (EVOS), in October
1991 the United States and the State of Alaska entered into a
civil Agreement and Consent Decree (Consent Decree) with Exxon
Corporation, in which Exxon agreed to pay $900 million over ten
years primarily for restoration of natural resources injured by
the spill. In addition, the United States and Alaska entered
into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) settling potential
disputes between them relating to the spill. The Consent Decree
and the MOA, which were both approved by the U.S. District
Court as judgments in pending litigation, govern decisions on
how the settlement funds are to be expended. Specifically, they
provide that decisions on the use of restoration funds must be
made by unanimous agreement of designated state and federal
natural resource trustees (the Trustees).
The Trustees responsible for the Exxon Valdez restoration
fund include, for the United States, the Secretaries of the
Interior and Agriculture and the Administrator of the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and, for the State of
Alaska, the Alaska Attorney General and the Commissioners of
the Departments of Fish and Game and Environmental
Conservation. The Trustees established a Trustee Council,
composed of federal trustee representatives in Alaska and the
State trustees, to administer the restoration fund.
The Trustee Council develops plans for the use of the EVOS
restoration fund through a public process. Public participation
(including hearings, meetings and written comment periods)
occurs at many phases of the restoration process, and a Public
Advisory Group was formed to advise the Trustee Council on all
matters relating to the planning, evaluation and allocation of
funds and restoration activities. Considering input from the
public, the Trustee Council makes expenditure determinations
based on a variety of factors, including: the linkage between
the resource to be restored and the spill; the cost-efficiency
of the project; its technical feasibility; the scientific basis
for it; and its predicted effectiveness. To date, funds have
been spent on research and monitoring of the extent of recovery
of injured resources, a variety of direct restoration projects,
and acquisition of habitat to protect and assist in the
recovery of injured species and other resources of value to the
public.
The Miscellaneous Receipts Act requires that all funds
received by the United States be deposited in the federal
Treasury, unless specific legal authority exists for a deposit
into some other account. As the relevant statutes and rules
have been interpreted, the only non-Treasury fund into which
EVOS funds may be deposited is the registry of a federal court.
Thus, without further Congressional authorization, the EVOS
funds must stay in a court registry account or in a fund within
the Treasury.
Consistent with these requirements, funds received from
Exxon are placed into the Court Registry Investment System
(CRI), which was established to hold and manage relatively
large funds under judicial supervision and is overseen by the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. All requests for
withdrawals from that fund must be made jointly by the Alaska
Department of Law, on behalf of state trustees, and the
Department of Justice, on behalf of the federal trustees.
Disbursements from the fund must be authorized by the District
Court in Alaska and they are subject to review by the Court for
consistency with the Clean Water Act, the Consent Decree and
the MOA. To date, the Court has approved all such expenditures
requested by the state and federal governments.
The Trustees would like to have authorization to invest the
EVOS restoration fund outside the Treasury or the Court
registry, in order to obtain a lower management fee than is
currently charged by the CRIS and a higher rate of return than
is available in such federal accounts, which by regulation must
be invested in U.S. Treasury securities. The provision of S.
711 that would allow such alternative investments (section
1(a)-(d) of the bill) offers a way to make more money available
for restoration or replacement of injured natural resources,
through increased earning of interest.
If the bill were limited to this authorization, we would
welcome it. However, subsection 1(e) of the proposed bill would
restrict expenditure of any interest accrued under the
provision's authority to:
a peer reviewed grant program consisting of--
(1) marine research, including applied
research;
(2) monitoring; and
(3) restoration, other than habitat
acquisition, and additionally for community
economic restoration projects and facilities
(including projects proposed by communities of
the EVOS Region and of the fishing industry).
This provision could be interpreted in a manner that is
inconsistent with the Consent Decree and the MOA governing the
Trustees' use of the restoration funds in this case. The MOA
requires that these funds be used ``for the purposes of
restoring, replacing, enhancing, rehabilitating, or acquiring
the equivalent of the natural resources injured as a result of
the Oil Spill and the reduced or lost services provided by such
resources. * * *'' Plainly, expenditures for ``economic
restoration projects and facilities'' unrelated to the
restoration or protection of natural resources would be
inconsistent with this mandate, and thus contrary to the court
orders approving the Consent Decree and MOA and to the Clean
Water Act, which provides the statutory authority for the EVOS
settlement.
The provision also would prohibit the use of the interest
for habitat acquisition, which is an authorized use of the
restoration funds under the Consent Decree and MOA and has
received strong, consistent support both from the scientific
community and from members of the Alaskan public who have
submitted comments in the restoration planning process. Thus,
the provision restricts the discretion of the Trustee Council
to select the most effective means to restore or replace
resources injured by the oil spill.
The Department opposes legislation that would interfere
with the Trustees' ability to spend the Exxon funds in a manner
that is consistent with the Consent Decree, the MOA and the
public process that has been established. Our concerns may be
addressed, however, if subsection 1(e) were deleted or modified
to ensure that all funds are used in a manner consistent with
the applicable court decrees and the Trustees' decisions based
on the public planning process. In any event, we would be
pleased to work with you to develop legislation that we can all
support.
Thank you.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATOR FRANK H. MURKOWSKI
In the years since 11.3 million gallons of crude oil
bubbled into the sea, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)
Trustees Council has had nearly $800 million of the eventual
$900 million that Exxon will pay at their disposal to fund
scientific studies. Those studies should have determined the
health of marine life, wildlife and the ecosystem of Prince
William Sound. But according to the latest summary of
scientific studies, while it is possible to say that some
species have or are recovering, it is not possible to give a
full accounting.
According to a report from the council earlier this year
very little is known about the health of cutthroat trout, Dolly
Varden, rockfish or Kittlitz's murrelets. And there is only
slightly more information on the health of killer whales,
pigeon guillemots, cormorants, the common loon, harbor seals
and harlequin ducks.
While it is heartening that the Sound appears to be
recovering sooner than many thought likely, and that herring
and salmon stocks are recovering as are bald eagles and river
otters, it is frustrating that more hard scientific data has
not been gathered.
That is why I felt it necessary to introduce this
legislation providing for increased earnings of the remaining
settlement funds and directing the expenditure of those funds.
I, for one, believe the Council's priorities have been
misplaced which has necessitated that legislation. They have
been unwilling to admit that science does not yet provide many
mitigation answers; instead, the spill trustees have decided to
go on a land buying spree as an alternative.
This is a mistake.
In a state where 68 percent of all land is federally owned
and where individuals own less than 1 percent of all property,
the trustees have allotted $416 million of the initial $900
million court settlement just for land acquisitions. They
nearly have completed the purchase of 647,000 acres in and
around Prince William Sound and just recently voted to set
aside an additional $55 million to fund acquisitions, literally
forever, even though most of the land being bought was not
directly affected by the spill.
Alaska Natives worked for decades to win the 1971 land
settlement that gave them control of 44 million acres of
Alaska. Now, in less than a quarter of a century Natives have
lost much of the land they had fought to gain--a good part of
the Native lands in the region have been reacquired through the
actions of the trustees. It is ironic, indeed, that the United
States purchased Alaska for $7.2 million in 1867 and that 60
times more money already has been committed to buy back parts
of it.
Back in 1994 when $600 million of the settlement was still
uncommitted, I urged the trustees to commit the bulk of the
settlement to a ``permanent fund'' that would provide a
perpetual source of significant funding for research or
mitigation projects. I also urged the trustees to utilize the
expertise of the University of Alaska in undertaking those
studies. I warned that if too much funding was allocated to
land acquisition, or spent on marginal science, less money
would be available to fund sound studies to shed light on the
mysteries affecting commercial and sport fisheries and marine
life and wildlife in the Sound.
In the intervening years we have seen General Accounting
Office audits documenting that the trustees have paid on
average 56 percent above government-appraised value for the
lands it has acquired. We've seen a situation this year where
the trustees paid nearly $80 million for lands on Kodiak
Island, while the Department of the Interior set the value of
those same lands at about one-third that amount when it came to
funding revenue sharing payments to the Kodiak Island Borough.
Long after the Sound has healed its wounds, those lands
bought by the trustees will be lost forever to economic
activity and to the Native heritage. Nowhere could this be
clearer than the example of one Native corporation that agreed
to sell its lands with the intent to invest in a perpetual
trust to help children go to school and provide solutions to
other problems. Instead it was pressured to make a one time
payment to each shareholder.
The longest-lasting legacy of the tragedy may be that some
of the Alaska Natives find themselves like the Biblical Esau
who sold his birthright to Jacob for a mess of pottage and
bread. When the meal was gone so was his heritage. When that
one-time payment has been spent, what will have been gained and
what will pass on to their children?
Today, another tragedy is clear, we still do not have the
answers to the effects of the spill, even though we had the
where-with-all to have obtained them.
Immediately following the spill I sponsored a provision in
the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, which was passed by Congress, to
create Regional Citizens Advisory Councils, giving local
residents the authority and the resources to improve all
aspects of oil transport planning and cleanup. Patterned after
a concept then in place at the Port of Sullom Voe in the North
Sea's Shetland Islands, there is no question that the oversight
and creativity that the councils engendered have done the most
to make Alaska's oil transportation system the best in the
world.
Today, it is time for Congress to act again to ensure that
we have the resources to obtain the best science available in
understanding Prince William Sound. I believe this bill will
allow us to do just that. I also believe that this bill will
help the Trustee Council refocus their efforts away from land
acquisition and toward a better scientific understanding of
Prince William Sound and the human element that calls that area
home.
Speaking of the human element, I also hope this bill will
lead to the Trustee Council placing a greater emphasis on
economic development projects for the impacted communities as
provided for in the legislation. It is for this reason that
language specifically authorizes ``community and economic
restoration projects and facilities (including projects
proposed by the Communities of the EVOS region * * *)'' It is
my intent that this provision include economic development
projects such as the Cordova Center which is proposed by the
people of the economic and emotional ground zero of the spill.
I am pleased that the Committee has agreed to pass S. 711
as I believe it will greatly assist in achieving a better
understanding of Prince William Sound through sound science.
Frank H. Murkowski.
changes in existing law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee notes that no
changes in existing law are made by the bill S. 711, as ordered
reported.