ment that if the provision in section 6(h) is not included in the rightsof-way legislation, that there will be a delay in the granting of the permit because the Department has taken the position that there is an ambiguity in the law. That sort of ambiguity in the law is what has led to the present impasse because of the right-of-way legislation now on the books. Frankly, we are here to help speed things through by removing yet another legal ambiguity or obstacle to the granting of the necessary permits. Obviously, we are seeking a particular type of clarification that is in the interest of the Natives, but we believe it to be humane, equitable, and as fair as any business proposition could be. If the pipeline is not going to have risk, what we are seeking is not costly; if it does have risk, who should bear the risk? We believe the fastest way to settle that is through legislation. Senator HANSEN. A witness this morning made the observation that this unlimited liability went beyond what seems to be commonplace in the law. Would you agree? Mr. Bass. No, sir. Mr. Patton this morning was talking about section 5(g) only; not about section 6(h). He said he knew of no situation. where there was liability without causation or fault. We don't read section 6(h) as saying there will be liability without causation. We have always, consistently before the Department and here, recognized that the only liability that should properly attach to a pipeline operator is for that damage that is caused as a matter of fact by his activity. The fact that there is an earthquake and the caribou move to a different area shouldn't be the fault of the pipeline operator. Senator HANSEN. I insist on having the last word. You made the point I was trying to make. You illustrate that lawyers can have different opinions. Mr. BASS. The second point was that there are plenty of situations in the present law. Mr. Weinberg can cite them for you. These are where there is in the Federal law at the present time congressional enactments providing for liability without fault. One situation deals with carrying of oil by tankers in navigable waters. Another one deals with the oil platforms on the offshore-it is not at all an unprecedented situation. It is happening now in the States in terms of no fault automobile insurance. Mr. WEINBERG. If I might add one thing in the interest of clarity, Mr. Patton's remarks did not go to section 6 (h). He had no word of criticism for section 6(h). He was speaking of another provision in the bill, section 5 (g), which imposes an unlimited liability in the third parties. We think there is merit to that and that is a subject to which Congress should address itself. However, the provision with which we are most immediately concerned is section 6(h) which would clear away any legal impediment, if there be any, to the Department to include the stipulation with respect particularly to the Native peoples dependent upon biotic and fish and wildlife resources for subsistence purposes. I read Mr. Patton's statement and heard it. I heard neither criticism nor discussion of section 6(h). Senator HASKELL. Senator Metcalf. Senator METCALF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am always delighted when the Senator from Wyoming disclaims being a lawyer. I am delighted he is not a lawyer and I don't have to practice against him. He has all the skills and abilities that would make him a formidable antagonist. I do just want to say-there are 72 violations or something of that sort-I didn't attribute to the Nixon administration. It may go back to the administration of Secretary McKay or something. Senator HANSEN. I didn't mean to imply you said that at all. Senator METCALF. I was just astounded this morning that there had been that many permits granted in this issue. I certainly am familiar with not only the provisions of the Claims Act, but I participated in the conference and know how concerned we were about limiting perhaps the actual ownership. At the same time, we wanted to be sure that all this area over which the caribou and other food animals roamed would be open for hunting and subsistence of the Natives. I appreciate the fact that you have brought that subject matter before us again today and reminded us of our concern at that time. Thank you. Senator HASKELL. Thank you very much. We appreciate your being here. [The prepared statement of Mr. Hensley and material submitted follow:] STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HENSLEY, PRESIDENT, ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC. ON LEGISLATION AUTHORIZING RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS FEDERAL LANDS MARCH 9, 1973 Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: My name is William Hensley, I am President of the Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc. I am also a member of the Alaska State Senate from Kotzebue. in my capacity as President of AFN. I am appearing here today The I welcome the opportunity to appear before you, on behalf of the Native people of Alaska, in connection with your consideration of right-of-way legislation over federal lands. Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc., is a statewide organization made up of most of the regional Native organizations in Alaska. On March 6, Chairman Jackson stated on the Senate floor that these hearings would deal only with the substantive legislative proposals concerning rights-of-way and would not cover the routing, location and merits of the proposed trans-Alaska pipeline. I have prepared my testimony in the light of the Chairman's statement. While I do not intend to go into the specifics of the various trans-Alaska pipeline proposals that are the subject of the litigation now pending and of the specific trans-Alaska pipeline bills, it will be necessary for me to refer to the pipeline in order to bring into focus the need as we see it for provisions in general right-of-way legislation that protect our people because of their very great dependency upon the fish, wildlife and biotic resources of the public lands of Alaska. The Alaska Native people, Mr. Chairman, know that some means of bringing Alaskan oil to market must be found. Indeed, over half of the payment that is to be made to the Alaska Native peoples under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act as partial compensation for the extinguishment of our aboriginal title to virtually all of Alaska can come only from royalties on mineral production and realistically, that means the marketing of North Slope oil and gas. We, therefore, have a considerable stake in an early solution to the problem of delivering Alaskan oil to markets. We believe, Mr. Chairman, that with proper provision in this legislation, rights-of-way can be granted for North Slope oil, as well as for the other right-of-way requirements that will from time to time arise in Alaska, without throwing an unwarranted and improper burden upon some Alaska Native people. Therefore, I will refer to the possible effects of the pipeline particularly upon subsistence needs of Alaska Natives, I do so solely to illustrate the absolute need for provisions along the lines of §6 of S.1081; not for purposes of any specific issues of routing, location and merits which are raised by the pending litigation and the Alaska pipeline bills themselves. The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Department of the Interior in connection with the trans-Alaska pipeline states very succinctly the dependency of the Alaska Native people upon subsistence resources and points up the necessity for the inclusion in right-of-way legislation of provisions which will provide them with the protection which they require. Let me quote briefly from that statement: A majority of the Alaska Native population still The construction and operation of the trans-Alaska |