Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, for the information of Senators, tomorrow the Senate will resume debate on S.J. Res. 17, the FCC rule resolution. Under the previous order, there will be approximately one hour of debate and the Senate will vote on passage at 10:45 a.m. The vote on passage will be the first vote of the day. Following the disposition of S.J. Res. 17, the Senate will resume consideration of H.R. 2754, the energy and water appropriations bill. For the remainder of the day, the Senate will continue to work through amendments of the water and energy appropriations bill. It is the majority leader's expectation that we complete action on this bill prior to the end of the week. Therefore, Senators should expect votes throughout the day tomorrow in relation to amendments in the appropriations bill. In addition, during tomorrow's session, the Senate will return to the consideration of the motion relating to the appointment of conferees to S. 3, the partial-birth abortion ban.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, September 16. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin consideration of calendar 269, S.J. Res. 17, the FCC resolution, with the time until 10:45 equally divided between the two leaders or their designees; provided that at 10:45 a.m. the Senate proceed to the vote on passage of the joint resolution, and that upon its disposition the Senate resume consideration of H.R. 2754, the energy and water appropriations bill. I further ask consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of the House message on S. 3, the partial-birth abortion ban, there be 6 hours of debate equally divided remaining under the guidelines of the previous order. In addition, I ask consent that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. tomorrow for the weekly party lunches.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for morning business.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the information of the Senate and the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will be held on Thursday, September 18, at 2:30 p.m. in Room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 213, a bill to clear title to certain real property in New Mexico associated with the Middle Rio Grande Project, and for other purposes; S. 1236, a bill directing the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to control or eradicate Tamarisk in the Western United States, and for other purposes; S. 1516, a bill to further the purposes of the Reclamation Projects Authorization and Adjustment Act of 1992 by directing the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Commissioner of Reclamation, to carry out an assessment and demonstration program to assess potential increases in water availability for Bureau of Reclamation projects and other uses through control of salt cedar and Russian olive; H.R. 856, a bill authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to revise a repayment contract with the Tom Green County Water Control and Improvement District No. 1, San Angelo project, TX, and for other purposes; and H.R. 961, a bill to promote Department of the Interior efforts to provide a scientific basis for the management of sediment and nutrient loss in the Upper Mississippi River Basin, and for other purposes. Contact: Shelly Randel 202-224-7933, Erik Webb 202-224-4756 or Meghan Beal at 202-224-7556. Because of the limited time available for the hearings, witnesses may testify by invitation only. However, those wishing to submit written testimony for the hearing record should send two copies of their testimony to the Subcommittee on Water and Power, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, Washington, DC 20510-6150.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 339 I voted ``nay.'' It was my intention to vote ``yea.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not change the outcome of the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at nine minutes after the hour of nine in communities across Alaska and around the world, people are pausing today to observe International Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS) Awareness Day. International FAS Awareness Day was first observed on September 9, 1999. It began with a small group of parents of children afflicted with FAS and Fetal Alcohol Effect (FAE) who came together on the Internet to ask this compelling question, ``What if a world full of FAS and FAE parents all got together on the ninth hour of the ninth day of the ninth month of the year and asked the world to remember that during the nine months of pregnancy a woman should not consume alcohol?'' These pioneering activists, most of whom were adoptive and foster parents, led by Brian Philcox and Bonnie Buxton of Toronto, Canada, did not have the resources of large public relations firms or well connected lobbyists. They organized the first International FAS Awareness Day on a shoestring using the Internet. Rapidly their group grew to include more than 70 volunteer coordinators in eight countries. Through this grassroots awareness effort, many women of childbearing age learned for the first time that no amount of alcohol in pregnancy is good. Each year their simple message travels further. On this fifth International FAS Awareness Day, we know that the message is getting across. Numerous observances are planned in my home State of Alaska. In Nome, a birthday cake celebration will honor all babies who will be born in the region in the coming year. In Kenai the American Legion will sponsor a breakfast and the ringing of bells at 9:09 AM. The Mayors of Anchorage, Haines and Wasilla, to name a few, have issued local proclamations. The Commissioner of our Alaska Department of Health and Social Services, Joel Gilbertson, and the staff of his Division of Behavioral Health, are to be commended for their diligent efforts in bringing International FAS Awareness Day to Alaska. An excellent resource manual to help communities plan their observances, is accessible through the Internet page of the State of Alaska, Department of Health and Social Services. I would also like to thank the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the US Department of Health and Human Services, which is publicizing International FAS Awareness Day on their website. Yet, in spite of all of the hard work of dedicated volunteers over the last several years to publicize International FAS Awareness Day, I was surprised to learn that legislation has not been introduced in the Congress to ask that the President designate September 9 of each year as National FAS Awareness Day across the United States. The resolution that I am introducing today would do just that. The resolution, like the day itself, is intended to focus attention on the high cost of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders to our Nation and the ease of prevention. At the same time it asks that the American people treat those afflicted with these disorders with compassion and support. FAS is the largest cause of mental retardation in Alaska, the United States and all of western civilization and it is one hundred percent preventable. The simple fact is that no amount of alcohol during pregnancy has been established as safe for the fetus. If women do not drink alcohol--any alcohol--during the nine months of pregnancy; alcohol-related birth defects will be eliminated. It is high time that we recognize the efforts of the dedicated volunteers who conceived and developed International FAS Awareness Day with a national observance in the United States. On the first International FAS Awareness Day in 1999, Bonnie Buxton put forth this question to those who care for FAS and FAE children, ``What if we made a noise? Would the rest of the world listen?'' To Bonnie and all of the others who have made International FAS Awareness Day a reality, I want to say that the United States Senate is listening and proudly joins in your efforts to spread the word. Thanks to your good works, the world is listening.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 2002, Congress passed legislation providing more than $270 billion for farmers over a 6-year period. This included price support programs for commodities such as: wheat, cotton, rice, oilseeds, dairy products, peanuts, sugar, wool, and honey, just to name a few. This is not to mention other programs in existence today that buoy the price of products like lamb meat and apples. Our Nation's farmers receive subsidies for their product through the Commodity Credit Corporation, to ensure their economic livelihood when market prices are low. Overall, in 2000, corporate credit payments reached a record $32.3 billion for all farm-related programs and activities. Also in 2002, the President imposed safeguard tariffs of up to 30 percent on a broad range of steel products. There were anti-dumping and countervailing duties of 29 percent slapped on imports of softwood lumber from Canada. Taken together, 2002 was a banner year for industries seeking relief from foreign competition. Just recently, the U.S. International Trade Commission upheld a determination to impose import duties on Vietnamese catfish--actually, basa--of up to 64 percent, a victory for domestic catfish farmers. Unlike those other industries in the United States that face foreign competition, America's salmon fishermen are not on the receiving end of Federal largess. There are no safeguard tariffs put in place, nor are price supports implemented to aid this important industry. Suppliers of imported salmon do not face tariff rate quotas that benefit so many other domestic industries. In 2002, America's salmon fishermen faced imports of nearly $400 million worth of Chilean salmon, the vast majority of which is farm- raised, which we consider to be a distinctly inferior salmon to the wild-caught salmon that comes from Alaskan waters. By comparison, in 1997, Chile imported less than $200 million worth of salmon. The amount of imports from that country has sky-rocketed in the past few years. There is a direct correlation between the increasing amount of imported Chilean salmon and the decline in price that fishermen receive for their catch. Between 1998 and 2002, Chilean salmon exports to the United States more than doubled from just less than 51,000 metric tons to over 102,000 metric tons. During the same time period, the price of sockeye, or red salmon, fell from $1.23 a pound to $0.55 a pound. Now, while Alaskan fishermen are being put out of work by these increasing imports, Congress is set to provide preferential trade status to Chilean companies, to provide Chilean companies with greater access to the United States' marketplace. I fully support the concept of free and fair trade. I recognize the benefits that trade gives to developing nations: strengthening a market economy; growing a middle class; and promoting the seeds of democracy. Trade provides the American consumer with the ability to purchase a quality product at a reasonable price. I also appreciate that many American companies support this preferential trade agreement as a means to level the playing field with Canadian and European competition. I am concerned, however, that this trade agreement is not fair to the State of Alaska and Alaska's fishermen. This past April, I wrote to U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick outlining my concerns about the impact a Chile Free Trade Agreement would have on Alaska's fishermen. The response I received suggested that the provisions of this preferential trade agreement ``strike a reasonable balance between the very strong export interests of Chile, and the concerns of Alaskan salmon producers.'' I have to ask, at what point are the concerns of Alaska's salmon producers ever addressed in this trade agreement? How is eliminating all tariffs on imported salmon a reasonable balance to putting Alaskan fishermen out of work? I am told that Chile will eliminate all of its duties on fresh and prepared seafood products--that the United States is Chile's seventh largest supplier of fresh and frozen seafood--that this is a reasonable balance. For a reality check, let's look at the numbers. And these numbers come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agriculture Service. Again, in 2002, Chile exported nearly $400 million worth of salmon to the United States. Over 100,000 metric tons. On the other side of the equation, in 2002 the United States exported just $3,000--not millions--worth of canned salmon and zero dollars worth of salmon not in a can. So we have $3,000 versus $400 million. In whose book is this a reasonable balance for America's salmon fishermen and Alaska's fishing-dependent communities? It is not just the salmon we are talking about. In 2002, Chile imported a total of $809 worth of fishery products from the United States, the vast majority of which fell under the catchall category of ``other fishery products.'' And while we are busy putting Americans out of work, they have nowhere to turn to seek relief. Alaska fishermen are not generally eligible for traditional trade adjustment assistance programs. They are self-employed and not part of a firm or group of workers. Many fishermen independently own and operate their vessel with the help of their family, selling their catch to the local fish processor or cannery. They do not work for a company or firm, nor do they receive unemployment benefits when they are unable to fish. In essence, America's fishermen have been, for too long, treated like a second-class citizen when compared with America's farmers or steel workers. While these workers have their income supplemented by federal dollars, fishermen face foreign competition to the best of their ability. And trade agreements like this, only deepen their plight. As a result, I cannot support granting preferential trading rights to Chilean companies. Not when Alaskan fishermen are being put out of work because of increasing imports of farm-raised salmon. Alaskan fishermen will tell you receiving TAA benefits would be nice, but it is not the same as being able to do their jobs, to put food on their tables to feed their families, to ensure that their children are cared for and have a future filled with hope. Our fishermen face an uphill battle in keeping their jobs when faced with the onslaught of imported Chilean salmon. Maybe the rest of the nation benefits from this trade agreement. Alaska suffers. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I come to the floor at this late hour to express my strong support for Senate passage of a comprehensive energy bill. This bill is an important first step in increasing the energy security of the United States. It has been a long time in coming, but we welcome this action by the Senate tonight. From the jaws of defeat come some of the sweetest victories, and I want to commend our leadership for getting this done, really to the surprise of many pundits and experts around DC who said it could never get done this week, much less by the end of this year. We should also acknowledge the willingness of the other side to reach accommodation on this important bill. Every where I go people talk to me about natural gas--back home in Alaska, in Seattle, or here in Washington, DC. Everyone, from the President of the United States to Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan to the farmers of Iowa, know that we face serious problems in our natural gas supply. With passage of this bill the Senate is telling consumers, farmers and natural gas dependent industries that help is on the way. That is good for American jobs, good for our families and their pocket books and good for the economy. The provisions contained in this bill will truly help us get the all important Alaska natural gas pipeline moving forward. Experts predict that the U.S. will face a 20 billion cubic foot per day shortage of gas by the year 2020. In Alaska we have 35 trillion cubic feet of gas in Prudhoe Bay that has already been found, and we expect more than 100 trillion additional cubic feet to be found on the North Slope with relatively little effort. Alaska's natural gas can help close more than 25 percent of the expected 2020 gap, but we need to assure the markets that some of the risk associated with this project can be mitigated. If we can get it built it will be one of the largest privately financed projects in the history of the planet. It will employ over 400,000 people nationwide, with thousands of new jobs being created in my State of Alaska. Nationally the creation of 400,000 new jobs could reduce our unemployment rate by a whopping \1/2\ of a percentage point. That is a huge shift from just one project. And it will mean a stable supply of gas for America for years to come. No other project I know can have that kind of positive impact on America-- from either a gas supply, energy security or job creation perspective. It is imperative that we get this project moving now. I would note that the Senate bill reported by the Energy Committee this year, and the accompanying tax provisions reported out of the Finance Committee this year, called for a marginal well credit that would have capped tax credits for the production of Alaska gas at 52 cents per thousand cubic feet of gas, should the price fall below $1.35 at the wellhead. It also contained a loan guarantee for up to $18 billion of the project's cost and an accelerated depreciation provision. The bill we are passing tonight reverts to last year's proposal that provides a gas line tax incentive to producers if the price of natural gas falls below $3.25 per thousand cubic feet delivered to the AECO hub in Canada. Producers, however, will have to pay the credit back in full whenever the price of gas exceeds $4.85 per unit. The provision accepted by the Senate also includes a loan guarantee where the government helps to underwrite some $8 billion of the first $10 billion of the cost of the line, in the event that unexpected energy price drops occur. It includes all the other provisions that passed the Senate last year, including: a prohibition against a northern route, guaranteeing the gas line will follow the Alaska Highway south through the Railbelt and Yukon to reach the Lower 48 States; a streamlined permitting and expedited court review process to speed construction; Provisions that allow Alaska to control gas to facilitate use for heating or construction of petrochemical plants in State; a guarantee that the gas line will accommodate an LNG plant to be developed at tidewater in Alaska whenever exports markets for the gas appear; provisions to guarantee that new gas producers in Alaska will be able to get their gas to market; and a provision that authorizes $20 million for worker job training and promotes Alaska-hire provisions in State. The bill also includes a proposal that will provide up to $120 million in grant aid yearly for rural electric improvements in high- cost areas. These grants can go for power plants or to reduce power demands by other utilities. The bill also includes a $35 million grant ($5 million per year for seven years) to Alaska to help fund its Rural Power Cost Equalization (PCE) program that subsidizes the high cost of electricity in rural Alaska. The bill authorizes the Department of Energy to make a loan of up to $125 million to retrofit the Healy clean coal plant with new technology so it can produce power economically without causing air pollution problems. The loan should make the plant economic, provide vitally needed power to the Fairbanks area at reasonable cost and aid the Usibelli coal mine and its workers. The bill includes a tax incentive equal to $3 per barrel to produce heavy oil from northern Alaska or to produce low-pollutant synthetic fuels from coal. The same provision also provides a tax credit to fuels produced before 2007 from biomass, tar sands, or brine. For heavy oil, Alaska's West Sak field contains 15 billion barrels of known heavy oil. The incentive should help make an additional 200 million barrels of production economic over the next decade. This legislation reauthorizes the Arctic Science Research Act of 1984 and expands its power to make grants for scientific research. Thankfully the bill also makes it a federal crime to damage any intra-state energy pipeline. The amendment specifically provides extra legal protection to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline. This package contains language originally proposed by Senator Ted Stevens with Senator Byrd for the Barrow Arctic Research Center to support climate change research and scientific activities. The amendment includes $35 million for planning, design, support and construction of the Barrow facility. The goal is to develop technologies needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am pleased the bill also contains the following important provisions: Tax credits for hybrid and fuel-cell vehicles; tax credits for alternative and renewable fuels use and development; tax credits for marginal oil producers to protect oil production from stripper wells; extra funding for the Low Income Home Heating Program (LIHEAP) and for low-income weatherization grants; funding for an Advanced Clean Coal Technology program; funding for a hydrogen energy act; provisions to increase the use of ethanol in clean burning gasoline; reauthorization of hydroelectric dam licensing provisions; reauthorization of the Price Anderson Act to permit nuclear power to continue; provisions on electricity restructuring; and provisions to require a sensible increase in automobile fuel efficiency standards. Using last year's bill was the quickest way to get the bill off the Senate floor so that details of a final package could be worked out in a conference committee with the House. Without this action today it was unlikely we would have seen positive movement until the late fall. Now we can move forward quickly for America and Alaska. I want to assure Alaskans that I will work to include in the conference report on this bill the provisions I secured during this year's debate in the Energy Committee. With those changes this bill will help us to address our energy problems even more. I thank the fine Chairman of the Energy Committee for his effort and leadership and I applaud the work of both Leaders to get this bill done before the August recess.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment would make both agreements part of the United States law, rather than subject to continued renewal agreements. Further, the amendment also authorizes the President to export oil to, or secure oil for, Israel pursuant to these agreements, or to any country that is part of the International Emergency Oil Sharing Plan. This language also ensures that should legislation reinstating a ban on the exportation of domestic oil be implemented in the future, the United States would still be able to meet its obligations to Israel.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. That is correct. No areas where drilling is prohibited could be developed under this language.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, in introducing this very important legislation. The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claim issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Alaska Native Corporations. The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands subject only to the survey of the final boundaries. This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native corporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manager their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock. The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of Federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims. For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse yet, are the 2500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16000 parcels. Almost 14000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed. While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of the land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred. Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights or changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. In too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution. This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority to solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele. This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker. I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009. In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within three to six months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as three to five years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable. Additionally, more than twenty cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within three to six months of the close of briefing. Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized. The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claims issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Alaska Native Corporations. The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance, respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands, subject only to the survey of the final boundary. This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native coporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manage their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock. The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims. For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse, yet, are the 2,500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16,000 parcels. Almost 14,000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed. While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred. Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights of changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. It too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution. This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority for solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele. This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker. Mr. President, I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009. In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable. Additionally, more than 20 cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the Government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized. The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claims issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Alaska Native Corporations. The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance, respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands, subject only to the survey of the final boundary. This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native coporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manage their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock. The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims. For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse, yet, are the 2,500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16,000 parcels. Almost 14,000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed. While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred. Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights of changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. It too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution. This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority for solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele. This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker. Mr. President, I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009. In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable. Additionally, more than 20 cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the Government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized. The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President today I introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Calista Energy and Economic Revitalization Act. This legislation will create a profound and positive effect on one of the most impoverished parts of my State, the Upper Kuskokwim region by providing major boost to the economy of this area. It will also provide affordable energy to this region, which pays some of the highest energy costs in the country. My legislation will authorize a grant and loan guarantee program to permit the construction of a vitally important intertie from the Upper Kuskokwim region to Bethel, Alaska. This project will provide low cost energy to revitalize this region much as the Tennessee Valley and Bonneville Power projects revitalized the South and Northwest, respectively. Alaska was just a territory when these visionary projects were conceived and constructed. It is now time for the State of Alaska to join in the national commitment and partnership for economic vitality. The Upper Kuskokwim region has been inhabited by the Yupik Eskimo for thousands of years and they have developed a unique lifestyle which allows them to thrive in a harsh and formidable climate. On December 18, 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, in recognition and settlement of the aboriginal claims of the Yupik Eskimo people in the Upper Kuskokwim regions. Pursuant to ANCSA the Calista Corporation was formed by the Yupik Eskimo people to represent their needs and interests in implementation of ANCSA. The Calista Corporation has selected as port of its land entitlement under ANCSA the Donlin Creek area of the Upper Kuskokwim region. As owner of the Donlin Creek area, Calista has made a discovery of international significance of gold and other minerals which will aid the country and the Yupik Eskimo people if that area is developed. I can assure you, that there is wide spread support among the local Yupik population that their lands be developed. The Donlin Creek area is currently isolated and unconnected by road or utility services to the rest of the State of Alaska and the Nation. It is fair and equitable that the Congress enacts legislation to aid and assist the Yupik Eskimo people, through the Calista Corporation, in developing this energy project referenced in my bill. The goal of this project is to provide reasonable and adequate utility service to the local people and to serve to the development of the minerals in the Donlin Creek area. The Upper Kuskokwim region contains numerous Yupik Eskimo villages which are also isolated from the rest of the State and the Nation. According to government reports, the unemployment rate in the region is about 25 percent but the actual joblessness rate is much higher. The government reports stop counting people as unemployed after that have not had a job after several years. There is currently little or no opportunity for year round nongovernmental employment in this region. For example, one of the few opportunities to participate in the cash economy available in the region comes from fishing, but fishing income has plunged by about 50 percent from nearly $12,000 to about $5,000 annually. Because of this drastic decline in fishing income and a general lack of available private sector jobs, Federal and State transfer payments make up 33 percent of income in the Bethel U.S. Census District area and nearly 45 percent of the Wade Hampton U.S. Census District in the Upper Kuskokwim region near the Donlin Creek site. Passage of this legislation will provide a sound economic opportunity for the Yupik Eskimo and other residents of the region and give them an opportunity to enjoy a better quality of life. Calista is committed to turning this project into the private sector engine for this part of Alaska. If successful, Federal transfer payments will be reduced and local residents will have the ability to support themselves and their families with solid, well paying private sector jobs. Utility costs are now more than 10 times the national average. By providing a year round employment base and more equitable and affordable access to utility services, this project will improve the lives of all residents of the region. I am excited about this bill and will work hard to achieve its passage. It is my hope to have a hearing on this bill very soon and seek its passage in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate before the end of the year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President today I introduce a very important piece of legislation, the Calista Energy and Economic Revitalization Act. This legislation will create a profound and positive effect on one of the most impoverished parts of my State, the Upper Kuskokwim region by providing major boost to the economy of this area. It will also provide affordable energy to this region, which pays some of the highest energy costs in the country. My legislation will authorize a grant and loan guarantee program to permit the construction of a vitally important intertie from the Upper Kuskokwim region to Bethel, Alaska. This project will provide low cost energy to revitalize this region much as the Tennessee Valley and Bonneville Power projects revitalized the South and Northwest, respectively. Alaska was just a territory when these visionary projects were conceived and constructed. It is now time for the State of Alaska to join in the national commitment and partnership for economic vitality. The Upper Kuskokwim region has been inhabited by the Yupik Eskimo for thousands of years and they have developed a unique lifestyle which allows them to thrive in a harsh and formidable climate. On December 18, 1971, Congress enacted the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, in recognition and settlement of the aboriginal claims of the Yupik Eskimo people in the Upper Kuskokwim regions. Pursuant to ANCSA the Calista Corporation was formed by the Yupik Eskimo people to represent their needs and interests in implementation of ANCSA. The Calista Corporation has selected as port of its land entitlement under ANCSA the Donlin Creek area of the Upper Kuskokwim region. As owner of the Donlin Creek area, Calista has made a discovery of international significance of gold and other minerals which will aid the country and the Yupik Eskimo people if that area is developed. I can assure you, that there is wide spread support among the local Yupik population that their lands be developed. The Donlin Creek area is currently isolated and unconnected by road or utility services to the rest of the State of Alaska and the Nation. It is fair and equitable that the Congress enacts legislation to aid and assist the Yupik Eskimo people, through the Calista Corporation, in developing this energy project referenced in my bill. The goal of this project is to provide reasonable and adequate utility service to the local people and to serve to the development of the minerals in the Donlin Creek area. The Upper Kuskokwim region contains numerous Yupik Eskimo villages which are also isolated from the rest of the State and the Nation. According to government reports, the unemployment rate in the region is about 25 percent but the actual joblessness rate is much higher. The government reports stop counting people as unemployed after that have not had a job after several years. There is currently little or no opportunity for year round nongovernmental employment in this region. For example, one of the few opportunities to participate in the cash economy available in the region comes from fishing, but fishing income has plunged by about 50 percent from nearly $12,000 to about $5,000 annually. Because of this drastic decline in fishing income and a general lack of available private sector jobs, Federal and State transfer payments make up 33 percent of income in the Bethel U.S. Census District area and nearly 45 percent of the Wade Hampton U.S. Census District in the Upper Kuskokwim region near the Donlin Creek site. Passage of this legislation will provide a sound economic opportunity for the Yupik Eskimo and other residents of the region and give them an opportunity to enjoy a better quality of life. Calista is committed to turning this project into the private sector engine for this part of Alaska. If successful, Federal transfer payments will be reduced and local residents will have the ability to support themselves and their families with solid, well paying private sector jobs. Utility costs are now more than 10 times the national average. By providing a year round employment base and more equitable and affordable access to utility services, this project will improve the lives of all residents of the region. I am excited about this bill and will work hard to achieve its passage. It is my hope to have a hearing on this bill very soon and seek its passage in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the full Senate before the end of the year. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Erskine House in Kodiak, AK, which houses the Baranov Museum, is one of a very few Russian period structures remaining in the Western Hemisphere. It is of great historical significance not only for this reason, but also because it is the only surviving structure known to have been associated with both the Russian America Company and the Alaska Commercial Company, the pillars of Russian and early American administration of Alaska. The Erskine House/Baranov Museum is owned by the City of Kodiak and operated by the Kodiak Historical Society. It is a popular visitor attraction in Kodiak. Its collections include artifacts from the Russian American Company and the Alaska Commercial Company and also include Alaska Native, Russian and other cultural exhibits. I am told that the structure, although it has had many owners, maintains much of its original historic integrity. The Erskine House was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 2, 1962. Shortly thereafter the National Park Service initiated consideration of including this important property in the National Park System. On February 11, 2000, the Department of the Interior formally sought funds from Congress to study the possible inclusion of the Erskine House in the system. The Congress responded by earmarking $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 appropriations for he Erskine House, some of which could be used to conduct the study and the remainder for preservation and maintenance of the facility. I am sad to report that the National Park Service has not initiated this study. The National Park Service has indicated that it cannot initiate the study without the express direction of Congress and that congressional intent to do so cannot be inferred from the language of the appropriation. However, the good news is that a sufficient portion of the $250,000 appropriation remains unexpended and I understand that it is available to be expended on the study. The expenditure of funds on the study will not interfere with plans to spend other portions of the $250,000 appropriation to rehabilitate the structure. The City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society have expressed support for the study. What we need is for Congress to authorize the study. The legislation that I am introducing today would do just that. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Erskine House/Baranov Museum for the purpose of determining the suitability and feasibility of designating the museum as a unit of the National Park Service. I would like to see this study proceed with all deliberate speed. Accordingly, the legislation also requires that the Secretary report to appropriate committees of the Congress on the findings of the study and the Secretary's conclusions and recommendations within one year of the date upon which this legislation is enacted. I want to commend the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society for their loving care of this important structure. Perhaps this excerpt, from a July 7, 2003 letter that I received from Stacey Becklund, Director of the Kodiak Historical Society states it best, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Erskine House in Kodiak, AK, which houses the Baranov Museum, is one of a very few Russian period structures remaining in the Western Hemisphere. It is of great historical significance not only for this reason, but also because it is the only surviving structure known to have been associated with both the Russian America Company and the Alaska Commercial Company, the pillars of Russian and early American administration of Alaska. The Erskine House/Baranov Museum is owned by the City of Kodiak and operated by the Kodiak Historical Society. It is a popular visitor attraction in Kodiak. Its collections include artifacts from the Russian American Company and the Alaska Commercial Company and also include Alaska Native, Russian and other cultural exhibits. I am told that the structure, although it has had many owners, maintains much of its original historic integrity. The Erskine House was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 2, 1962. Shortly thereafter the National Park Service initiated consideration of including this important property in the National Park System. On February 11, 2000, the Department of the Interior formally sought funds from Congress to study the possible inclusion of the Erskine House in the system. The Congress responded by earmarking $250,000 in fiscal year 2002 appropriations for he Erskine House, some of which could be used to conduct the study and the remainder for preservation and maintenance of the facility. I am sad to report that the National Park Service has not initiated this study. The National Park Service has indicated that it cannot initiate the study without the express direction of Congress and that congressional intent to do so cannot be inferred from the language of the appropriation. However, the good news is that a sufficient portion of the $250,000 appropriation remains unexpended and I understand that it is available to be expended on the study. The expenditure of funds on the study will not interfere with plans to spend other portions of the $250,000 appropriation to rehabilitate the structure. The City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society have expressed support for the study. What we need is for Congress to authorize the study. The legislation that I am introducing today would do just that. It directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the Erskine House/Baranov Museum for the purpose of determining the suitability and feasibility of designating the museum as a unit of the National Park Service. I would like to see this study proceed with all deliberate speed. Accordingly, the legislation also requires that the Secretary report to appropriate committees of the Congress on the findings of the study and the Secretary's conclusions and recommendations within one year of the date upon which this legislation is enacted. I want to commend the City of Kodiak and the Kodiak Historical Society for their loving care of this important structure. Perhaps this excerpt, from a July 7, 2003 letter that I received from Stacey Becklund, Director of the Kodiak Historical Society states it best, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Native Allotment Subdivision Act is the only answer to resolving the question of whether Native landowners have the authority to subdivide their own property. Individual Alaska Native landowners cannot subdivide their land to transfer it either by gift or by sale. There is no current authority that allows them to dedicate rights-of-way across their land for public access or for utility purposes. The lack of explicit statutory authorization calls into question the legal validity of lands that have been subdivided and lands that likely could be subdivided in the future. This legislation will provide the necessary authorization to the Department of the Interior and Native landowners to dedicate their land for public purposes as they see fit. No other legislation or policy exists that addresses such a unique problem. Essentially this bill allows Alaska Natives to own lands with the same obligations and privileges of other private landowners in Alaska. However, the bill creates no obligation of Alaska Natives to do anything with their allotments unless they elect to sell or dispose of their lands. Over the past twenty years, hundreds of allotments have been subdivided, either for the purpose of commercial sale or to facilitate transfers of land to the landowners' children or other relatives. Problems arose when the Borough placed a utility line across frontage property of one of the Native landowners. Frontage property the Borough thought it had legal access to; there was no reason to consider potential conflicts existed. The new owner questioned the validity and legality of the Borough placing any kind of feature across his land. In addition, grantees of existing easements, such as utility easements for local electric cooperatives, have felt threatened with trespass action for easements previously granted in good faith. The question clearly goes to whether a trespass had been committed by local government. In fact in this case, subdivision plats were filed, signed and approved as evidenced by the appropriate signatures of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the landowner and by the local governing authority. The official plats show streets laid out to provide frontage to the lots created by the subdivision, describing 10 foot utility rights-of-way on each lot. It is recognized that compliance with State law is required when landowners choose to subdivide their land. Given a choice, it would be advantageous to the Alaska Native landowners if the same opportunity was available to them. There is no applicable Federal law on the subject of subdivision of Native allotment lands. State law requires that access to subdivided lots be assured, typically by dedication of public rights-of-way, which will be shown on the subdivision plat. In an effort to overcome this problem, a collaborative process was undertaken by the affected Boroughs and the State of Alaska to validate such dedications by separately conveying either easements or title to roads and utility easements to State and local governments. This was so burdensome, time-consuming and complex, the process had to be abandoned. The platting authorities and the State were so disenchanted by this process, they had no choice but to turn to Congress for relief. The common sense approach to solving this dilemma, is to afford the same considerations to Native landowners that others have. Native landowners must have the same authority to subdivide and dedicate their land as anyone else has the right to do, according to existing State law By speeding up and simplifying the allotment subdivision process, the Native landowner, the Federal, State and local governments would all benefit. This legislation permits a Native landowner at his own option to abide by and receive the benefits of subdividing his land in accordance with State or local law. The uncertainty of whether officially filed allotment subdivision plats are valid would be removed. This legislation will also serve to authorize future allotment subdivisions, ratify and confirm the legal validity of those already created. The Native landowner will not be deprived of any of the protections of restricted land status. This legislation will confirm the restricted Native landowners' right to act in his own best interest. The issue they face is a choice between being able to subdivide their land, obtain a much greater total compensation for sales of subdivided lots or continue to be unable to subdivide their land. Their only option will be to sell one large tract that will almost always bring a substantially smaller total amount of compensation. The legislation I am introducing today is an issue that applies to Alaska only. The solution affects the Native Allotment Act of 1906, the same legislation which provides for Alaska Natives to receive title to up to 160 acres of public land. This legislation is non-controversial and is beneficial to all affected parties and to the general public. The State of Alaska and local governments have urged such legislation. The Department of the Interior is supportive. And, finally, passage of this legislation will be in the best interest of the Native allotment owners and the general public. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Native Allotment Subdivision Act is the only answer to resolving the question of whether Native landowners have the authority to subdivide their own property. Individual Alaska Native landowners cannot subdivide their land to transfer it either by gift or by sale. There is no current authority that allows them to dedicate rights-of-way across their land for public access or for utility purposes. The lack of explicit statutory authorization calls into question the legal validity of lands that have been subdivided and lands that likely could be subdivided in the future. This legislation will provide the necessary authorization to the Department of the Interior and Native landowners to dedicate their land for public purposes as they see fit. No other legislation or policy exists that addresses such a unique problem. Essentially this bill allows Alaska Natives to own lands with the same obligations and privileges of other private landowners in Alaska. However, the bill creates no obligation of Alaska Natives to do anything with their allotments unless they elect to sell or dispose of their lands. Over the past twenty years, hundreds of allotments have been subdivided, either for the purpose of commercial sale or to facilitate transfers of land to the landowners' children or other relatives. Problems arose when the Borough placed a utility line across frontage property of one of the Native landowners. Frontage property the Borough thought it had legal access to; there was no reason to consider potential conflicts existed. The new owner questioned the validity and legality of the Borough placing any kind of feature across his land. In addition, grantees of existing easements, such as utility easements for local electric cooperatives, have felt threatened with trespass action for easements previously granted in good faith. The question clearly goes to whether a trespass had been committed by local government. In fact in this case, subdivision plats were filed, signed and approved as evidenced by the appropriate signatures of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the landowner and by the local governing authority. The official plats show streets laid out to provide frontage to the lots created by the subdivision, describing 10 foot utility rights-of-way on each lot. It is recognized that compliance with State law is required when landowners choose to subdivide their land. Given a choice, it would be advantageous to the Alaska Native landowners if the same opportunity was available to them. There is no applicable Federal law on the subject of subdivision of Native allotment lands. State law requires that access to subdivided lots be assured, typically by dedication of public rights-of-way, which will be shown on the subdivision plat. In an effort to overcome this problem, a collaborative process was undertaken by the affected Boroughs and the State of Alaska to validate such dedications by separately conveying either easements or title to roads and utility easements to State and local governments. This was so burdensome, time-consuming and complex, the process had to be abandoned. The platting authorities and the State were so disenchanted by this process, they had no choice but to turn to Congress for relief. The common sense approach to solving this dilemma, is to afford the same considerations to Native landowners that others have. Native landowners must have the same authority to subdivide and dedicate their land as anyone else has the right to do, according to existing State law By speeding up and simplifying the allotment subdivision process, the Native landowner, the Federal, State and local governments would all benefit. This legislation permits a Native landowner at his own option to abide by and receive the benefits of subdividing his land in accordance with State or local law. The uncertainty of whether officially filed allotment subdivision plats are valid would be removed. This legislation will also serve to authorize future allotment subdivisions, ratify and confirm the legal validity of those already created. The Native landowner will not be deprived of any of the protections of restricted land status. This legislation will confirm the restricted Native landowners' right to act in his own best interest. The issue they face is a choice between being able to subdivide their land, obtain a much greater total compensation for sales of subdivided lots or continue to be unable to subdivide their land. Their only option will be to sell one large tract that will almost always bring a substantially smaller total amount of compensation. The legislation I am introducing today is an issue that applies to Alaska only. The solution affects the Native Allotment Act of 1906, the same legislation which provides for Alaska Natives to receive title to up to 160 acres of public land. This legislation is non-controversial and is beneficial to all affected parties and to the general public. The State of Alaska and local governments have urged such legislation. The Department of the Interior is supportive. And, finally, passage of this legislation will be in the best interest of the Native allotment owners and the general public. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, next week the people of Alaska will welcome Mr. Yossi Amrani, the Consul General of the State of Israel for the Pacific Northwest, back to our State. He will begin his trip in Fairbanks, meeting with students and members of the community at the University of Alaska, visiting with members of Congregation Or Hatzafon, which has the northernmost synagogue building in the world, and speaking to the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. He will also visit Anchorage on this trip and I look forward to meeting with him then. This is not Mr. Amrani's first visit to my State, but it is his first visit to Fairbanks, the ``Golden Heart City.'' Although the Fairbanks Jewish community is small in numbers, the fundamental Jewish values of tikkun olam, making the world a better place; tzedakah, charity; and chesed, kindness, are deeply ingrained in the Fairbanks culture, as they are in the culture of Alaska as a whole. Like the Fairbanks Jewish community, the Alaska Jewish community is small in numbers, but large in spirit. In the late 1990s, Professor Bernard Reisman from Brandeis University visited Alaska on several occasions to learn more about our Jewish community. He concluded that in virtually all areas, the Alaska Jewish community has a higher level of identity than do American Jews generally. He found this to be true not only in places like Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, which have functioning congregations, but also in the smaller communities, where ``conveners'' organize regular get togethers, especially on Jewish holidays. Members of the Jewish community occupy a prominent role in the social, economic, cultural and political life of Alaska. A few weeks ago, I welcomed the internationally known holocaust scholar, Dr. Michael Schuldiner of the University of Alaska Fairbanks, to my office in Washington. Dr. Schuldiner discussed his work with the United States Holocaust Memorial. Another UAF scholar, Dr. Michael Krauss, has worked closely with the Alaska congressional delegation for many years in efforts to preserve Alaska Native languages. And let us not forget the many contributions of the Gottstein family to virtually every aspect of Alaska's fabric. This is not a new phenomenon. The beautiful municipal library in Anchorage is named for Zachary J. Loussac, a Russian Jewish immigrant, who served as Mayor of Anchorage. The Girl Scout camp in Fairbanks is named for Jessie Bloom, who along with her husband Robert, are regarded as the founding leaders of the Fairbanks Jewish community. In 1926, Jessie started the first Girl Scout troop in Alaska, while Robert was a founder of what was later to become the University of Alaska. Our striking new courthouse in Fairbanks is named for Jay Rabinowitz who served for many years on the Alaska Supreme Court. The survival of the State of Israel is important to the people of Alaska as it is to the American Jewish community and the American people. In Washington, I stand shoulder to shoulder with my colleagues in praying for peace in the Middle East while standing firm on the principle that terrorism is morally and politically unacceptable. Terrorism will not undo Israel's future. When the Senate returns in July, it will consider comprehensive energy legislation and I am hopeful that my amendment to guarantee that Israel will have a secure source of petroleum in the event it cannot independently acquire it due to an embargo will be in the bill when it passes the Senate. During this visit to Alaska, as on previous visits, the Consul General will encounter the vast natural beauty of our state. But he will also discover, as in previous visits, that it is the people of Alaska that make this place truly special. Shalom, Mr. Consul General. I hope that you will visit with Alaskans often. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the message of Consul General Yossi Amrani be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on the morning following the annual candlelight vigil to honor fallen law enforcement officers, I came to the floor to speak about three brave Alaskans whose names were inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial at Judiciary Square this year. One of these brave Alaskans was a National Park Service ranger who lost his life when the aircraft he was piloting crashed in a remote part of Alaska. Today, I am introducing legislation which I hope will help the surviving family members of this ranger in their recovery from this tragic loss and provide authority for the Federal Government to help the surviving family members of other similarly situated Federal employees should a similar tragedy occur in the future. This ranger I am speaking about was assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska and lived in the community of Naknek. Naknek is not connected to the rest of North America by road. It is what we in Alaska call a ``bush'' community. But it was home to the ranger and became the adopted home of his widow who did not grow up in the area. The ranger about whom I am speaking was hired under a special hiring authority in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which authorizes the Federal land managers to extend a hiring preference to those with special knowledge about a Conservation System Unit. He was regarded as a ``local hire.'' Under the Federal Travel Regulation, when a federal employee dies outside of the Continental United States, the Federal Government will reimburse the members of his or her household for the cost of relocating to their permanent residence. Alaska is regarded as ``outside of the Continental United States'' under this regulation. Thus, if the National Park Service ranger who died in the line of duty came from the Lower 48 before being assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve then the Federal Government, as I read the regulation, could reimburse the surviving family members for the cost of relocating to Anchorage. This cost can be fairly substantial since one cannot hire a moving van to ship the personal effects from South Naknek to Anchorage. There are no roads which connect the bush village of South Naknek to Anchorage. The personal effects need to be transported by air. However, if the deceased employee is a local hire employee, the Federal Travel Regulation does not authorize the Federal Government to reimburse the surviving family members for their relocation cost because the deceased employee's hometown is deemed to be the local hire location. This works an inequity where, as in the present case, the deceased employee's surviving spouse does not have ties to the duty station community, but rather to another community in Alaska. In this instance, the surviving spouse desires to relocate to Anchorage, which is Alaska's largest city, and continue to raise her three children there. The legislation that I am introducing today is intended to cure this inequity. It would amend ANILCA, the same legislation which contains the local hire authority, to provide that if a local hire employee dies in the line of duty, the Federal Government will reimburse the surviving immediate family for the cost of transporting the remains to a location in Alaska of their choosing and will also relocate the immediate family members to a community in the State of Alaska which is selected by the surviving head of household. I think that this is the least we can do for the survivors of local hire employees who go to work everyday in the harsh climate and conditions of bush Alaska but sadly sometimes do not return home. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce a bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support in the 107th Congress. This legislation addresses an equity issue for one of Alaska's rural village corporations. Cape Fox Corporation is an Alaskan Village Corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, by the Native Village of Saxman, near Ketchikan, AK. As with other ANCSA village corporations in Southeast Alaska, Cape Fox was limited to selecting 23,040 acres under Section 16. However, unlike other village corporations, Cape Fox was further restricted from selecting lands within 6 miles of the boundary of the home rule city of Ketchikan. All other ANCSA corporations were restricted from selecting within 2 miles of such a home rule of city. The 6-mile restriction went beyond protecting Ketchikan's watershed and damaged Cape Fox by preventing the corporation from selecting valuable timber lands, industrial sites, and other commercial property, not only in its core township, but in surrounding lands far removed from Ketchikan and its watershed. AS a result of the 6-mile restriction, only the mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core township, which is nonproductive and of no economic value, was available for selection by the corporation. Cape Fox's land selections were further limited by the fact that the Annette Island Indian Reservation is within its selection area, and those lands were unavailable for ANCSA selection. Cape Fox is the only ANCSA village corporation affected by this restriction. Clearly, Cape Fox was placed on unequal economic footing relative to other village corporations in Southeast Alaska. Despite its best efforts during the years since ANCSA was signed into law, Cape Fox has been unable to overcome the disadvantage the law built into its land selection opportunities by this inequitable treatment. To address this inequity, I have introduced the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment Act of 2003. This bill will address the Cape Fox problem by providing three interrelated remedies: (1) The obligation of Cape Fox to select and seek conveyance of the approximately 160 acres of unusable land in the mountainous northeast corner of Cape Fox's core township will be annulled. (2) Cape Fox will be allowed to select and the Secretary of the Interior will be directed to convey 99 acres of timber land adjacent to Cape Fox's current holdings on Revilla Island. (3) Cape Fox and the Secretary of Agriculture will be authorized to enter into an equal value exchange of lands in Southeast Alaska that will be of mutual benefit to the Corporation and the U.S. Forest Service. Lands conveyed to Cape Fox in this exchange will not be timberlands, but will be associated with a mining property containing existing Federal mining claims, some of which are patented. Lands anticipated to be returned to Forest Service ownership will be of wildlife habitat, recreation and watershed values and will consolidate Forest Service holdings in the George Inlet area of Revilla Island. The land exchange provisions of this bill will help rectify the long- standing inequities associated with restrictions placed on Cape Fox in ANCSA. It will help allow this Native village corporation to make the transition from its major dependence on timber harvest to a more diversified portfolio of income-producing lands. The bill also provides for the resolution of a long-standing land ownership problem with the Tongass National Forest. The predominant private landowner in the region, Sealaska Corporation, holds the subsurface estate on several thousand acres of National Forest System lands. This split estate poses a management problem which the Forest Service has long sought to resolve. Efforts to address this issue go back more than a decade. Provisions in the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Act of 2003 will allow the agency to consolidate its surface and subsurface estate and greatly enhance its management effectiveness and efficiency in the Tongass National Forest. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on the morning following the annual candlelight vigil to honor fallen law enforcement officers, I came to the floor to speak about three brave Alaskans whose names were inscribed on the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial at Judiciary Square this year. One of these brave Alaskans was a National Park Service ranger who lost his life when the aircraft he was piloting crashed in a remote part of Alaska. Today, I am introducing legislation which I hope will help the surviving family members of this ranger in their recovery from this tragic loss and provide authority for the Federal Government to help the surviving family members of other similarly situated Federal employees should a similar tragedy occur in the future. This ranger I am speaking about was assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve in the Bristol Bay region of Alaska and lived in the community of Naknek. Naknek is not connected to the rest of North America by road. It is what we in Alaska call a ``bush'' community. But it was home to the ranger and became the adopted home of his widow who did not grow up in the area. The ranger about whom I am speaking was hired under a special hiring authority in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which authorizes the Federal land managers to extend a hiring preference to those with special knowledge about a Conservation System Unit. He was regarded as a ``local hire.'' Under the Federal Travel Regulation, when a federal employee dies outside of the Continental United States, the Federal Government will reimburse the members of his or her household for the cost of relocating to their permanent residence. Alaska is regarded as ``outside of the Continental United States'' under this regulation. Thus, if the National Park Service ranger who died in the line of duty came from the Lower 48 before being assigned to the Katmai National Park and Preserve then the Federal Government, as I read the regulation, could reimburse the surviving family members for the cost of relocating to Anchorage. This cost can be fairly substantial since one cannot hire a moving van to ship the personal effects from South Naknek to Anchorage. There are no roads which connect the bush village of South Naknek to Anchorage. The personal effects need to be transported by air. However, if the deceased employee is a local hire employee, the Federal Travel Regulation does not authorize the Federal Government to reimburse the surviving family members for their relocation cost because the deceased employee's hometown is deemed to be the local hire location. This works an inequity where, as in the present case, the deceased employee's surviving spouse does not have ties to the duty station community, but rather to another community in Alaska. In this instance, the surviving spouse desires to relocate to Anchorage, which is Alaska's largest city, and continue to raise her three children there. The legislation that I am introducing today is intended to cure this inequity. It would amend ANILCA, the same legislation which contains the local hire authority, to provide that if a local hire employee dies in the line of duty, the Federal Government will reimburse the surviving immediate family for the cost of transporting the remains to a location in Alaska of their choosing and will also relocate the immediate family members to a community in the State of Alaska which is selected by the surviving head of household. I think that this is the least we can do for the survivors of local hire employees who go to work everyday in the harsh climate and conditions of bush Alaska but sadly sometimes do not return home. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.