```

[House Report 106-764]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

106th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                     106-764

======================================================================

 
         CONVEYANCE OF PUBLIC LANDS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA

                                _______
                                

  July 19, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

  Mr. Young of Alaska, from the Committee on Resources, submitted the 
                               following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2958]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Resources, to whom was referred the bill 
(H.R. 2958) to provide for the continuation of higher education 
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of 
Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without 
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

                          PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    The purposes of H.R. 2958 are to provide for the 
continuation of higher education through the conveyance of 
certain public lands in the State of Alaska to the University 
of Alaska, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    H.R. 2958 entitles the University of Alaska to select up to 
250,000 acres of federal land in Alaska, and up to an 
additional 250,000 acres of federal land to be matched on an 
acre-for-acre basis with land grants made by the State of 
Alaska. This means the University could acquire a total of 
750,000 acres of federal/state land (500,000 federal/250,000 
state).
    Alaska is larger than the next three largest states 
combined, yet it ranks near the bottom of all States in terms 
of land grants for higher education. In 1915 Congress reserved 
about 268,000 acres of public domain in the then-territory of 
Alaska for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines 
(the former name of the University of Alaska). Land was to be 
conveyed only after it was surveyed. At the time, the extremely 
slow pace of surveying prevented most of the reserved public 
land from being transferred to the college. Between 1915 and 
the 1950s, less than one percent of all Alaska's land was 
surveyed, precluding most of the 1915 land grant from being 
conveyed. The slow conveyance of the 1915 land grant prompted 
Congress in 1929 to provide an additional grant of 100,000 
acres of the territory's public domain outright to the college.
    When Alaska became a State in 1959, all claims to 
unsurveyed lands pursuant to the 1915 reservation were 
eliminated. As a result, the university at present has a total 
of approximately 112,000 acres of land. By contrast the land 
grant college of the smallest state, Rhode Island (488 times 
smaller than Alaska), received at least 120,000 acres of land.
    The original federal land grant was extinguished when 
Alaska became a State. Some suggest the State was supposed to 
complete the conveyance from its own land base. There is no 
evidence in the legislative history of the Alaska Statehood Act 
to support this view. It is true the Alaska Statehood Act 
voided the original land grant, but there is neither an 
explanation why nor a provision for fulfilling the original 
pledge. State university systems of several other Western 
states with significant amounts of federal land have obtained 
generous land grants, but not Alaska's.
    The unfulfilled land grant has had its consequences. In 
Alaska, resource development on public lands is the primary 
source of jobs, personal income, and government revenue. The 
University's small land base has deprived it of a critical 
source of funding to support a higher education mission. Over 
the years, thousands of Alaska's brightest have sought a 
college experience outside their State because the University 
sometimes could not compete with its larger cousins in the 
lower 48 states. The University has observed that many Alaskans 
do not return when they seek an education out of State, while 
those who seek a college education in Alaska stay home.
    The University Administration and Board of Regents believe 
the land grant authorized by H.R. 2958 will endow a stable and 
lasting source of revenues and a land base for expansion to 
meet the University's higher education mission serving 
residents in the entire State.
    H.R. 2958 provides a meaningful land grant for the 
university. Every acre of land conveyed to the University will 
be dedicated to higher education.
    The land grant under H.R. 2958 is conditional. None of the 
land transferred pursuant to this bill is taken from a 
conservation system unit. Additionally, to obtain its land 
grant the University must relinquish about 12,358 acres of 
inholdings within several major National Wildlife Refuges, 
National Forests, National Parks, and National Preserves.
    In a State with over 220 million acres of federally-owned 
land, most of which is not eligible to be transferred to the 
University, H.R. 2958 is a reasonable and sensible measure to 
ensure that Alaskans from Barrow and Kotzebue to Dutch Harbor 
and Ketchikan, have a State university endowed with the 
educational resources for their future.

                            COMMITTEE ACTION

    H.R. 2958 was introduced on September 27, 1999, by 
Congressman Don Young (R-AK). The bill was referred to the 
Committee on Resources. On October 27, 1999, the full Committee 
held a hearing on the bill. On March 15, 2000, the Full 
Resources Committee met to consider the bill. No amendments 
were offered and the previous question was moved on the bill by 
voice vote. On April 5, 2000, the Full Resources Committee met 
again to consider the bill. The bill was ordered favorably 
reported to the House of Representatives by voice vote.

            COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

    Regarding clause 2(b)(1) of rule X and clause 3(c)(1) of 
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the 
Committee on Resources' oversight findings and recommendations 
are reflected in the body of this report.

                   CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

    Article I, section 8 and Article IV, section 3 of the 
Constitution of the United States grant Congress the authority 
to enact this bill.

                    COMPLIANCE WITH HOUSE RULE XIII

    1. Cost of Legislation. Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the 
rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and 
a comparison by the Committee of the costs which would be 
incurred in carrying out this bill. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) 
of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when 
the Committee has included in its report a timely submitted 
cost estimate of the billprepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 
Budget Act of 1974.
    2. Congressional Budget Act. As required by clause 3(c)(2) 
of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and 
section 308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, this 
bill does not contain any new budget authority, credit 
authority, or an increase or decrease in tax expenditures. 
According to the Congressional Budget Office, enactment of this 
bill will reduce offsetting receipts and increase direct 
spending by about $5 million a year beginning in fiscal year 
2002.
    3. Government Reform Oversight Findings. Under clause 
3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee has received no report of 
oversight findings and recommendations from the Committee on 
Government Reform on this bill.
    4. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate. Under clause 
3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act 
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate 
for this bill from the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                                    Washington, DC.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2958, a bill to 
provide for the continuation of higher education through the 
conveyance of certain public lands in the state of Alaska to 
the University of Alaska, and for other purposes.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Deborah 
Reis (for federal costs), and Marjorie Miller (for the impact 
on state and local governments).
            Sincerely,
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).
    Enclosure.

H.R. 2958--A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education 
        through the conveyance of certain public lands in the state of 
        Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes

    Summary: H.R. 2958 would entitle the University of Alaska 
to select up to 500,000 acres of certain federal land in or 
adjacent to Alaska as a federal grant. In exchange for the 
first 250,000 acres, the university would convey to the 
Secretary of the Interior certain university land within the 
boundaries of national parks and wildlife refuges. The 
university's selection of the second 250,000 acres of federal 
land would be contingent on the state of Alaska granting an 
equal amount of state land to the university.
    CBO estimates that enacting this bill would reduce 
offsetting receipts and thus increase direct spending by about 
$5 million a year beginning in fiscal year 2002, or a total of 
about $45 million over the 2001-2010 period. H.R. 2958 contains 
no intergovernmental mandates as defined in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but it could lead to a 
redistribution of resources among various state, local, and 
tribal entities in Alaska. This bill would improve no new 
private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The impact of 
H.R. 2958 on the federal budget is uncertain because it depends 
on which federal lands are selected by the University of 
Alaska. Depending on the lands selected, enacting the bill 
could lead to net losses of offsetting receipts ranging from 
about $1 million a year to more than $10 million a year. Such 
losses would probably not begin before fiscal year 2002. CBO's 
estimate of the most likely budgetary impact of H.R. 2958 is 
shown in the following table. The costs of this legislation 
fall within budget functions 300 (natural resources and 
environment) and 800 (general government).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                                              2000     2001     2002     2003     2004     2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
                                         (including offsetting receipts)

Estimated Budget Authority................................        0        0        5        5        5        5
Estimated Outlays.........................................        0        0        5        5        5        5

                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level.............................        0        0    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)
Estimated Outlays.........................................        0        0    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)    (\1\)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Less than $500,000.

Basis of estimate

            Direct spending (including offsetting receipts)
    H.R. 2958 would entitle the University of Alaska to select 
up to 500,000 acres of certain federal land in or adjacent to 
Alaska. That action could lead to a loss of offsetting receipts 
that the federal government would otherwise collect under 
current law. The university's land grant holdings currently 
total 140,000 acres.
    In exchange for the first 250,000 acres, the university 
would convey to the Secretary of the Interior about 14,000 
acres of land within the boundaries of national parks and 
wildlife refuges. The bill also provides that if the state of 
Alaska grants up to 250,000 acres of state-owned land to the 
university, the university could obtain up to 250,000 acres of 
additional federal land on an acre-for-acre basis to match the 
land granted by the state. Thus, H.R. 2958 would allow the 
university to obtain up to 750,000 acres of federal and state 
land.
    H.R. 2958 would allow the university to select up to 
500,000 acres from federal lands, including the National 
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A), certain areas in the 
National Forest System, the outer continental shelf (OCS), 
federal onshore oil and gas leases, and surplus federal 
property. The bill also would direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to attempt to conclude an agreement with the 
University of Alaska and the state to share receipts from NPR-A 
leases. The bill specifies that such an agreement should 
provide the university with up to 10 percent of NPR-A receipts 
or $9 million annually, whichever is less, in lieu of 
university land selections in the NPR-A north of latitude 69 
degrees north. CBO cannot predict specifically which federal 
lands the university would pick under H.R. 2958, or whether the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) would reach an agreement with 
the university to share NPR-A receipts. However, an agreement 
to share NPR-A receipts would not necessarily preclude the 
university from selecting 500,000 acres of land outside the 
NPR-A.
    If the university made all its selections from OCS lands, 
including areas expected to be leased over the next few years, 
we estimate that forgone receipts could average more than $10 
million a year over the next 10 years, net of any payments to 
the state of Alaska. If the university selected federal onshore 
oil and gas leases managed by the Bureau of Land Management, or 
if the university picked surplus government property that would 
otherwise have been sold, the loss of receipts to the federal 
government could range from $1 million to $10 million annually 
over the next decade, net of any payments to Alaska. If the 
university reached an agreement with DOI and the state to share 
NPR-A receipts in lieu of land selections in NPR-A, the loss of 
receipts to the federal government could be as much as $9 
million each year, in addition to the loss of receipts from 
land the university selected elsewhere, depending on the terms 
of the agreement. The university also might choose federal 
lands that could be used for future commercial development, 
here the federal government might not collect any receipts over 
the next 10 years. Assuming that the university would select a 
number of different types of federal land, CBO estimates that 
enacting H.R. 2958 would increase direct spending by about $5 
million a year, net of payments to the state.
            Spending subject to appropriation
    Enacting H.R. 2958 also would likely affect discretionary 
spending, but the amount would vary greatly depending on which 
lands the university selects. On the one hand, reducing the 
amount of land managed by the federal government could decrease 
administrative costs. On the other hand, the university's 
selections could increase costs to manage the remaining federal 
land depending on the new ownership patterns created, the type 
of land selected, and how the university uses the land it 
selects. Overall, CBO estimates that any such changes would 
likely net to an increase or decrease of less than $500,000 a 
year in appropriated spending.
    Pay-as-you-go considerations: the Balanced Budget and 
Emergency Deficit Control Act sets up pay-as-you-go procedures 
for legislation affecting direct spending or receipts. As shown 
in the following table, CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 2958 
would increase direct spending by about $5 million a year, 
beginning in 2002. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go 
procedures, however, only the effects in the current year, the 
budget year, and the subsequent four years are counted.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2000  2001  2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  2009  2010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays............................     0     0     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5     5
Changes in receipts...........................                            Not applicable
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimated impact on State, local,and tribal governments: 
H.R. 2958 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
UMRA. The exchange authorized by this bill would be voluntary 
on the part of the University of Alaska--an instrumentality of 
the state of Alaska.
    While this bill would confer a significant benefit on the 
state of Alaska, it could lead to a redistribution of resources 
among various state, local, and tribal entities in the state. 
Because CBO cannot predict what land would be chosen by the 
university, however, we cannot predict the magnitude of these 
changes.
    In order for the university to obtain the second 250,000 
acres of federal land, H.R. 2958 would require the state to 
provide an acre-for-acre match of state land. If the state 
should choose to provide land that generates income, the bill 
would result in the diversion of receipts from general state 
use to the exclusive use of the university. State income might 
be further diverted to the university if the state agrees to 
give up part of its share of NPR-A receipts under an agreement 
with the university and DOI, as provided for in the bill. CBO 
cannot, however, predict the terms of any such agreement.
    Some of the federal land in the state of Alaska produces 
receipts that, under current law, are shared with local 
governments. To the extent that the university selects such 
lands, the result would be a shift of resources from local 
governments in Alaska to the university. Local governments also 
would lose federal payments in lieu of taxes due to the 
transfer of land from the federal governments to the state. 
Further, while the bill would preclude the university from 
selecting land already selected by the state or by Alaska 
native corporations, these selections by the university would 
reduce the pool of land available for selection by those other 
entities.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: This bill would 
impose no new private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
    Previous CBO estimate: On June 9, 1999, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for S. 744, a bill to provide for the 
continuation of higher education through the conveyance of 
certain public lands in the state of Alaska to the University 
of Alaska. S. 744 was ordered reported by the Senate Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources on June 2, 1999. The two bills 
are identical, and the estimated costs are the same except that 
we now assume enactment in 2000 instead of 1999, delaying the 
first year of annual costs from 2001 to 2002.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Deborah Reis and 
Victoria Heid Hall. Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Marjorie Miller. Impact on the Private-Sector: 
Keith Mattrick.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                    Compliance with Public Law 104-4

    This bill contains no unfunded mandates.

                Preemption of State, Local or Tribal Law

    This bill is not intended to preempt any State, local or 
tribal law.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    If enacted, this bill would make no changes in existing 
law.

                            DISSENTING VIEWS

    We can certainly understand the frustration of the 
University of Alaska which has faced budget problems for over a 
decade notwithstanding the many billions in state revenues that 
have been generated from North Slope oil fields. But we can not 
support this bill which would authorize the University to 
cherry-pick up to 500,000 acres of the most valuable federal 
lands in Alaska.
    The State of Alaska received a land grant of 105 million 
acres which is about the size of the State of California and 
more than four times the amount of Federal land provided to any 
other state. The Statehood Act allowed for a general purpose 
land grant of 102.5 million acres, thus allowing Alaskans to 
determine for themselves how much land should be dedicated to 
support education. The University has received 185,000 acres of 
land, but two Governors--including current Governor Tony 
Knowles--have vetoed efforts by the state legislature to convey 
more land.
    The State of Alaska has used its generous land grant to 
obtain some of the most valuable real estate in North America. 
The North Slope oil fields on state-selected lands have 
produced over 12 billion barrels of oil. Between 1977 and 1998, 
the state legislature approriated $56 billion in oil revenues. 
A dedicated savings account known as the Permanent Fund is now 
over $28 billion and is projected to grow to more than $63 
billion in the next twenty years. Alaskans pay no state income 
on sales taxes, but each of the 575,000 residents gets an 
annual Permanent Fund dividend. Over $1 billion was distributed 
to Alaskans in 1999, with each resident receiving a $1,770 
check. This year, the dividend checks are projected to be 
$1,950 for each resident.
    The important point is that the budget problems faced by 
the University were not created by any failure of Congress to 
provide the State of Alaska with an adequate land base. The 
real problem is that Alaskans have been unwilling to commit 
adequate funding to the University. Congress has been more than 
generous to the State of Alaska and there is no justification 
for an outright give-away of important federal lands.
    The University of Alaska receives an equitable share of 
federal education funding and has further benefitted from 
earmarks in the congressional appropriations process. But this 
bill does not provide an acceptable means to the end of 
supporting higher education. It allows the University to pick 
and chose oil-rich federal lands in the NPR-A and the Outer 
Continental Shelf. It opens to selection the entire Chugach 
National Forest and portions of the Tongass National Forest. 
Land selections could also include the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 
Corridor. And it adds insult to injury to federal taxpayers by 
waiving application of the National Environmental Policy Act.
    It is not surprising that H.R. 2958 faces substantial 
public opposition. both the Secretaries of Agriculture and 
Interior have recommended that the President veto the bill, if 
enacted [see attached March 14, 2000 letter]. If brought before 
the House, it should be rejected.

                                   George Miller.
                                   Bruce F. Vento.
                                ------                                

                             The Secretary of the Interior,
                                        Washington, March 14, 2000.
Hon. Don Young,
Chairman, Committee on Resources,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: This letter responds to your request for 
the views of the Department of the Interior on H.R. 2958, which 
would require the Secretary to convey to the University of 
Alaska up to 500,000 acres of federal lands in Alaska--up to 
250,000 acres as selected by the University, and up to 250,000 
additional acres on a matching basis if the State were to 
convey an equal amount to the University. These views were 
initially presented in oral and written testimony to the 
Committee on October 27.
    We, the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of 
Agriculture, strongly oppose this bill and will recommend that 
the President veto the bill if it were to pass the Congress.
    First, the underlying premise of this bill is faulty. It 
presumes that the Federal government failed to provide the 
University with an adequate land base, and as a result the 
University has failed to achieve its full potential. The fact 
is that over the years, starting in 1915, the Federal 
Government has, through several separate statutes, granted the 
State of Alaska about 105 million acres of Federal land. This 
is an area larger than the State of California. It is more than 
four times the amount of federal land provided to any other 
State. It is also a much higher percentage of land than any 
other State received. (A few Western States were granted about 
one-ninth, or 11% of the land within their borders through 
Federal land grants. The State of Alaska gained entitlement to 
about 27% of the land within its borders through Federal land 
grants.)
    While about 185,000 acres of Federal land was conveyed to 
Alaska specifically for its University, most of it was in the 
form of a generally unrestricted grant. Congress chose the 
``block grant'' approach deliberately, in order to provide 
Alaska with the independent discretion to chart its own course, 
to make its own decisions how to allocate these lands, and the 
proceeds therefrom, to specific purposes, including support of 
Alaska's state university system, and other state institutions 
purposes. (We are attaching an Appendix that discusses the 
historical record in some detail.) To the extent the State has 
not allocated a portion of its large Federal land grant to the 
University, that has been its own choice. State governments are 
generally responsible for funding state universities. It is not 
theresponsibility of the federal government to provide 
continuing funding to the University of Alaska--or any other state 
university--through an on-going series of land grants.
    These points were underscored by a senior University 
official early last year in testimony to the Senate Resources 
Committee in the Alaska legislature, essentially as follows: 
(1) State legislative proposals to give a land grant to the 
University have been very controversial for years, with a 
number of constituent groups within Alaska strongly opposed to 
such a grant; (2) a land grant would not make much difference 
to the school and would not solve its funding problem; (3) the 
Federal government's position that it doesn't owe the State any 
more land is ``probably correct''; and (4) the fact that the 
Federal land grant at Statehood was in the form of a general 
grant rather than in specific allotments for specific purposes 
enabled the State to get more land than in otherwise would.
    Second, the bill would allow the University to select 
federal lands of great financial and environmental value to the 
citizens of the United States, with potentially profound 
impacts. For example, the University could select lands in the 
National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the Trans-Alaska pipeline 
corridor, the Tongass and Chugach National Forests, or the 
outer continental shelf. Although the bill would prevent 
selecting federal land within a Conservation System Unit (as 
defined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act), there is no prohibition on University selection within 
other areas notable for conservation values such as the 
Colville River Special Area with nesting peregrine falcons, the 
Steese National Conservation Area of the White Mountains 
National Recreation Area. (The attached Appendix also includes 
a short discussion of some specific features of the bill in 
relation to these concerns.)
    Land selections under this bill would likely pit Alaska 
landowners and users against one another and spawn conflicts 
and litigation between the University, local governments, and 
Native interests. It would result in additional pressure for 
lands to be developed for timber, mining, and oil and gas uses 
in sensitive areas and at the expense of other uses such as 
hunting, fishing, subsistence, tourism, recreation, and other 
values of importance to Alaskans and other Americans. 
University management of its lands has historically been 
subject to pressure for short-term revenues without the more 
stringent environmental standards that apply to Federal and 
other States lands. On the Kenai Peninsula, for example, 
approximately 5,000 acres of University lands have been logged 
with little reforestation, apparently because the University is 
exempt from State reforestation requirements if the harvest 
does not provide enough revenues to support reforestation. The 
University is also exempt from the requirements for streamside 
buffers and fish and wildlife protection measures that apply on 
National Forest System or other State lands. In addition, the 
University does not have to prepare an environmental analysis 
under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas, 
mining, timber harvest or other major development projects. For 
these reasons among others, Native interests, 
environmentalists, fishing interests, some local governments 
and others have expressed concerns over proposals like that 
found in H.R. 2958.
    The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
no objection to the presentation of this report from the 
standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
                                   Bruce Babbitt,
                                         Secretary of the Interior.
                                   Dan Glickman,
                                          Secretary of Agriculture.
    Enclosure.

                                Appendix

Federal land grant legislation in Alaska

    The Act of March 4, 1915, (38 Stat. 1214), set aside each 
surveyed section 33 in the Tanana Valley for the support of a 
Territorial agricultural college. Twenty-six of these sections 
were surveyed and 11,850.60 acres were transferred to the 
Territory of Alaska for the benefit of an agricultural college 
and school of mines.
    The 1915 Act was repealed by the Alaska Statehood Act in 
1959, although the sections that had already been surveyed 
continued to be reserved for future conveyance to the State. 
There was a lingering dispute in 1980 between Alaska and the 
Federal government concerning which land grant sections vested 
in the State at the time of statehood and which sections were 
revoked in the Alaska Statehood Act.
    To resolve this, in 1980, Congress passed section 906(b) of 
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, granting 
the State 75,000 additional acres of land and clearly stating 
that any and all Federal obligations under the Act of March 4, 
1915, had been extinguished. Section 906(b) states that:

          In full and final settlement of any and all claims by 
        the State of Alaska arising under the Act of March 4, 
        1915 * * * as confirmed and transferred in section 6(k) 
        of the Alaska Statehood Act, the State is hereby 
        granted seventy-five thousand acres which it shall be 
        entitled to select until January 4, 1994, from vacant, 
        unappropriated, and unreserved public lands. In 
        exercising the selection rights granted herein, the 
        State shall be deemed to have relinquished all claims 
        to any right, title, or interest to any school lands 
        which failed to vest under the above statutes at the 
        time Alaska became a State (January 3, 1959), including 
        lands unsurveyed on that date or surveyed lands which 
        were within Federal reservations or withdrawals on that 
        date.

    The Act of January 21, 1929, (45 Stat. 1091), provided an 
additional 100,000-acre grant to the Territory on behalf of the 
University. The 1929 Act did not restrict the land grants to 
sections in-place, but instead allowed Alaska to select vacant, 
unappropriated, and unreserved land anywhere within the 
Territory's boundaries. This gave the Territory the opportunity 
to choose the highest value land from all lands meeting the 
selection criteria. To date, 99,417 acres of this grant have 
been transferred to the State.
    The Alaska Statehood Act of 1958, (72 Stat. 339), provided 
a general grant of 102.5 million acres of Federal land for 
higher education and other public purposes. Congress made it 
clear that in giving the State this land entitlement, it was 
extinguishing and fully satisfying previous university land 
entitlements. In other words, Alaska was given a block land 
grant with a proviso that the grant was ``in lieu'' of future 
grants for internal improvements.
    Congress's original approach to provide support for higher 
education in the States came in the landmark Morrill Act of 
1862. This Act awarded each State an amount of land based on 
the State's population, not its size. Had Alaska been a state 
in 1862 when the original Morrill Act passed, it would have 
received a total of 90,000 acres (30,000 acres each for one 
Representative and two Senators). When Alaska was still in 
territorial status, it received more land (through the Acts of 
March 4, 1915, and January 21, 1929, described above), than it 
would have under the Morrill Act. Although some other states 
also received lands in excess of Morrill Act entitlements, in a 
few cases considerably more, no other state has received 
anything remotely approaching the 102.5 million acre general 
grant provided to Alaska at statehood.
    Section 6(l) of the Alaska Statehood Act explicitly states 
that Alaska will not be entitled to receive any additional 
lands under the Morrill Act. This made clear that Congress's 
omission of a separate grant for the University was not an 
omission, but reflected a clear congressional understanding 
that it was adequately providing for the needs of the 
University and all state institutions through the general 
purpose grant of 102.5 million acres in section 6(b).
    Both the House and Senate Alaska Statehood bills (H.R. 7999 
and S. 49) addressed the ``in lieu'' issue in identical terms:

          The grants provided for in this Act shall be in lieu 
        of the grant of land (emphasis added) for purposes of 
        internal improvements made to new States by section 8 
        of the Act of September 4, 1841, (5 Stat. 455), and 
        sections 2378 and 2379 of the Revised Statutes (43 
        U.S.C. sec. 857), and in lieu of the swampland grant 
        made by the Act of September 28, 1850, (9 Stat. 520), 
        and section 2479 of the Revised Statutes (43 U.S.C. 
        sec. 982), and in lieu of the grant of thirty thousand 
        acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress 
        made by the Act of July 2, 1862, as amended (12 Stat. 
        503; 7 U.S.C. secs. 301-308 (The Morrill Act)), which 
        grants are hereby declared not to extend to the State 
        of Alaska.

    Due to other differences in the two bills, conferees met 
and agreed upon H.R. 7999 with certain concessions to S. 49, 
including a quantity grant of 102,500,000 acres. Both houses 
passed the bill as amended by the conferees. The final version, 
as reflected by section 6(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act, 
provided a quantity land grant of 102,550,000 acres with only a 
very few internal improvement grants, namely: 6(a) (800,000 
acres) for community expansion; 6(c) and 6(d) for government 
buildings in Juneau; 6(e) for improvements used in fish and 
wildlife conservation and protection, and another 1.5 million 
in section 6(k), confirming and transferring to the State lands 
previously granted to the territory of Alaska.

Comments on some specific provisions of the land selection features of 
        H.R. 2958

    Section 2(b)(4) establishes a framework for land selection 
within the NPRA, and a possible royalty-sharing agreement 
between the University of Alaska and the Department of the 
Interior for NPRA lease revenues. The University could select 
up to 92,000 acres within the NPRA above 69 degrees North 
latitude, or unlimited amounts below it, and in lieu of any 
selections above the line, could elect to receive up to 10 
percent of annual leasing revenues from the NPRA. The Federal 
government has no discretion in that election. It is unclear 
how that 10 percent lease share affects the current 50-50 
sharing of lease revenues between the Federal government and 
the State. The University could apparently take the 10 percent 
revenues for waiving selections above the 69 degree line and 
still make unlimited land selections in the NPRA below the 
line.
    Any of the various scenarios for this NPRA agreement 
process would reduce future federal royalties and most likely 
also the State's share of NPRA production. Private development 
would exclude the United States and the State of Alaska from 
any share of royalties.
    Depending upon the tracts selected, the costs of the 
proposed legislation in terms of naturally important lands and 
future lost revenue to the federal treasury could be 
significant. Onshore and offshore leasable minerals, including 
the outer continental shelf, could be selected.
    In addition to lost lands and revenue, planning costs, 
survey, adjudication and management costs of the proposal could 
be significant. Procedures in the bill are unworkable. 
Litigation risks are high.
    With respect to the Tongass National Forest, while the 
language in section 2(b)(3) is not clear, it appears to limit 
Tongass selection to cut-over second growth within areas 
classified as LUD [land use designation] III and IV by the 
Forest Service. It should be noted that LUD III [moderate 
development] or LUD IV [intensive development] are terms from 
the 1979 forest management plan. That plan was revised, 
changing Land Use Designations for 18 areas of the Tongass 
National Forest. The changes are contained in the 1999 Record 
of Decision signed by Jim Lyons, Under Secretary of Agriculture 
for Natural Resources and Environment. It is likely that the 
University would pursue multiple tracts of high-value timber 
producing lands from the Tongass National Forest, the United 
States' premier temperate rain forest located in southeastern 
Alaska. The effect could be to undermine the Tongass National 
Forest Land Management Plan by harvesting areas that had been 
designed in the 1999 plan for protection.

                                

```