[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 97 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7189-S7190]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 1920. A bill to amend the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act, and for other purposes: to the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources.


 THE ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT AMENDMENT ACT OF 
                                  1996

 Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I introduce legislation to 
amend the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act [ANILCA]. I 
introduce this so that we can return to the original intentions of the 
act and clarify the blurring of lines that have occurred over the 
years.
  Fifteen years ago, Congress enacted the ANILCA. Over the opposition 
of many Alaskans, over 100 million acres of land was set aside in a 
series of vast Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness units. Much of 
the concern about the act was the impact of these Federal units, and 
related management restrictions, on traditional activities and 
lifestyles.
  To allay these concerns, ANILCA included a series of unique 
provisions designed to ensure that traditional activities and 
lifestyles would continue, that Alaskans would not be subjected to a 
permit lifestyle, and that the agencies would be required to recognize 
the crucial distinction between managing small units surrounded by 
millions of people in the lower 48 and vast multi-million acre units 
encompassing a relative handful of individuals and communities in 
Alaska. The sponsors of ANILCA issued repeated assurances that the 
establishment of these units would in fact protect traditional 
activities and lifestyles and not place them in jeopardy.
  Early implementation of the act closely reflected these promises. 
However, as the years have passed, many of the Federal managers seem to 
have lost sight of these important representations to the people of 
Alaska. Agency personnel, trained primarily in lower 48 circumstances, 
have brought the mentality of restriction and regulation to Alaska. The 
critical distinctions between management of Parks, Refuges and 
Wilderness areas in the 49th State and the lower 48 have blurred. The 
result is the spread of restriction and regulation and the creation of 
the exact permit lifestyle which we were promised would never happen.
  I have become increasingly aware of this disturbing trend. In my 
conversations with Alaskans, I hear many complaints about every 
increasing restraints on traditional activities and requirements for 
more and more paperwork and permits. A whole new industry has sprung up 
to help Alaskans navigate the bureaucratic shoals that have built up 
during the past few years.
  Let me cite a few of the incidents that have come to our attention 
and were discussed last year during oversight hearings held by the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service decides it wants to establish a wilderness management regime 
and eliminate motorboat use on a river. It proceeds with the plan until 
protests cause the Regional Solicitor to advise the Service that its 
plan violates section 1110(a) of ANILCA. Owners of cabins built, 
occupied, and used long before ANILCA are told they must give up their 
interests in the cabins although section 1303 expressly enables cabin 
owners to retain

[[Page S7190]]

their possessory interests in their cabins. Visitor services contracts 
are awarded and then revoked because the agencies failed to adhere to 
the requirements of section 1307. Small landowners of inholdings seek 
to secure access to their property and are informed that they must file 
for a right-of-way as a transportation and utility system and pay the 
U.S. hundreds of thousands of dollars to prepare a totally unnecessary 
environmental impact statement. An outfitter spends substantial time 
and money responding to a request for proposals, submits an apparently 
winning proposal, and has the agency arbitrarily change its mind and 
decide to withdraw its request--it does not offer to compensate the 
outfitter for his efforts.
  State fish and game regulations are circumvented by agency review 
boards that give benefits to guide applicants willing to limit their 
take of animals consistent with the Federal agencies' desires rather 
than management rules of the Alaska Game Board.
  Mr. President, the legislation I introduce today will ensure that 
agencies are fairly implementing ANILCA consistent with its written 
provisions and promises. These technical corrections to ANILCA will 
ensure that its implementation is consistent with the intent of 
Congress.
  Mr. President, conditions have changed in the 15 years since the 
passage of ANILCA and we have all had a great deal of experience with 
the act's implementation. It is time to make the law clearer and to 
make the Federal manager's job easier. We want to turn to the original 
intent of Congress in some cases to make sure that intent is being 
carried out.
  Next month I plan on holding a hearing on this bill and look forward 
to gaining the support of my colleagues for passage of this 
legislation.

                          ____________________