[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 52 (Monday, April 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3750-S3756]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
  S. 660. A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education 
through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of Alaska 
to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources.


                    university of alaska land grant

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska the University of 
Alaska is the oldest post-secondary school. The university was 
chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in educating 
Alaskans as well as students from around the world. The expertise of 
the university has been in many areas, mining, agriculture, arctic and 
subarctic sciences.
  Additionally, the university has served as an important cornerstone 
in the history of our State. For example, the university housed the 
Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of our statehood act 
carved out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaskan citizens. 
Further, Mr. President, the university is proud of the fact that it 
began life as the Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. 
President, what makes the University of Alaska unique is the fact that 
it is the only land-grant college in the Nation that is virtually 
landless today.
  As some of my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected 
ways of financing America's educational system has been from the land-
grant system. This was established in 1785 and the practice gives land 
to schools and universities for their use in supporting their 
educational endeavors. in 1862, Congress passed what was then known as 
the Morrill Act, which created the land-grant colleges and universities 
as a way to underwrite the cost of higher education to more and more of 
America's young people. These colleges and universities received land 
from the Federal Government for facility location, and more importantly 
as a way to provide for sustaining revenues to those educational 
institutions.
  Mr. President, the University of Alaska received the smallest amount 
of land of any State, with the exception of Delaware that has a land-
grant college. Delaware received about 90,000 acres. Even the land-
grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the Federal 
Government than has the University of Alaska. Rhode Island received 
120,000 acres.
  In a State the size of Alaska, about 365 million acres, we should 
logically have one of the best and most fully

[[Page S3751]]

funded land-grant colleges in the country. Yet, to date, the University 
of Alaska only has about 111,000 acres. Unfortunately, without the land 
promised to Alaska under the land-grant allocation system in earlier 
legislation, the university is unable to share as one of the premier 
land-grant colleges in this country.
  Previous efforts were made in Congress to fix this problem. These 
efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the 
Morrill Act, when Alaska's delegate to Congress, Delegate James 
Wickersham shepherded a measure through Congress that set aside 
potentially more than a quarter of a million acres in the Tanana Valley 
outside Fairbanks for the support of an agriculture college and school 
of mines.
  Following the practice established in the lower 48 States for the 
other land-grant colleges, Wickersham's bill set aside every section 33 
of the unsurveyed Tanana Valley for the Alaska Agriculture College and 
Schools of Mines.
  Alaska's educational future at that time looked favorable. Many 
Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system similar to 
that set up by the University of Washington in the downtown center of 
Seattle, WA, where valuable university lands are leased providing 
funding for the university's maintenance and upkeep as well as some 
capital projects.
  However, in Alaska's case, before the land could be transferred to 
the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines, renamed the 
University of Alaska in 1935, the land had to be surveyed in order to 
establish the exact acreage included in the reserve lands.
  The section reserved for education could not be transferred to the 
college until they had been delineated. According to records at the 
time, it was unlikely given the incredibly slow speed of surveying that 
the land could be completely surveyed before the end of the current 
century. Surveying is still an extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's 
remote and unpopulated terrain.

  In all, only 19 section 33's, or approximately 11,211 acres, were 
ever transferred to the University of Alaska. Of this, 2,250 acres were 
used for the original campus, and the remainder was left to the 
discretion of the board of regents to support educational programs and 
facilities.
  Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent 
legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit 
of the university. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres, and 
to this day comprises the bulk of the university's total 111,211 acres 
of land--less than one-third of what was originally promised. In 1958, 
the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the unfulfilled 
land grants. The university was thus left with little land with which 
to support itself and is thus unable to completely fulfill its mission 
as a land-grant college.
  Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem 
the promises made to the university in 1915 and put the university on 
an even footing with other land-grant colleges in the United States. It 
provides the university with the land needed to support itself 
financially and it offers the chance to grow and continue to act as a 
responsible steward of the land and educator of young Alaskans. It also 
provides a concrete timetable under which the university must select 
its land and the Secretary of Interior must act upon those selections.
  This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land 
that the university can select. The university cannot select land 
located within a conservation system unit, land validly conveyed to the 
State or an ANCSA corporation or land used in connection with Federal 
or military institutions.
  Accordingly, Mr. President, under my bill, the university must 
relinquish extremely valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its 
second-tier State/Federal grant under section 6, of this bill. 
Therefore, the result of this legislation will mean, specifically, 
relinquishment of prime university inholdings in such magnificent areas 
as the Alaska Peninsula and Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the 
Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and 
Preserve and Denali Park and Preserve. Mr. President, not only does 
this bill uphold a decades-old promise to the University of Alaska, it 
further protects Alaska's unique parks and refuges.
  Recognize, Mr. President, my bill requires the State to participate 
in the process, as well, under an option. Specifically, the bill would 
grant the university 250,000 acres of Federal land. The university 
would be eligible to receive another 250,000 acres of Federal land on a 
matching basis with the State, for a total of 500,000 additional acres. 
This would be at the option of the legislature, the Governor, and the 
university's board of regents
  Mr. President, the State matching provision is an important component 
of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the university 
was shorted land. However, some believe it is the sole responsibility 
of the Federal Government to compensate the university with land, while 
others believe it is solely the responsibility of the State to grant 
the university land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a 
compromise, a compromise giving both the State and the Federal 
Government the opportunity to contribute, as well as provide the 
Government with valuable inholdings in Federal parks and preserves.
  With the passage of this bill, Mr. President, the University of 
Alaska will finally be able to act fully as a land grant college, and 
will be able to select lands that can provide the university with 
stable revenue sources, as well as provide responsible stewardship for 
the lands.
  This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promises 
that were made 82 years ago could be fulfilled with this legislation, 
and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright future for the 
university and the many Alaskans who receive an education there.
  I ask unanimous consent, at this time, to have printed in the Record 
the proposed inholdings that the University has which would be deeded 
over to the Federal Government under this legislation, a history of the 
university of Alaska's land grant from the time we were designated as a 
territory, land grant rankings of all the States, as well as a copy of 
the bill.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 S. 660

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the University of Alaska is the successor to and the 
     beneficiary of all Federal grants and conveyances to or for 
     the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines;
       (2) under the Acts of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1214, and 
     January 21, 1929, 45 Stat. 1091, the United States granted to 
     the Territory of Alaska certain federal land for the 
     University of Alaska;
       (3) the Territory was unable to receive most of the land 
     intended to be conveyed by the Act of March 4, 1915, before 
     repeal of that Act by Sec. 6(k) of the Alaska Statehood Act 
     (P.L. 85-508, 72 Stat. 339);
       (4) only one other state land grant college in the United 
     States has obtained a smaller land grant from the federal 
     government than the University of Alaska has received, and 
     all land grand colleges in the western states of the United 
     States have obtained substantially larger land grants than 
     the University of Alaska;
       (5) an academically strong and financially secure state 
     university system is a cornerstone to the long-term 
     development of a stable population and to a healthy, diverse 
     economy and is in the national interest;
       (6) the national interest is served by transferring certain 
     federal lands to the University of Alaska which will be able 
     to use and develop the resources of such lands and by 
     returning certain lands held by the University of Alaska 
     located within certain federal conservation system units to 
     federal ownership;
       (7) the University of Alaska holds valid legal title to and 
     is responsible for management of lands transferred by the 
     United States to the Territory and State of Alaska for the 
     University and that an exchange of lands is consistent with 
     and in furtherance of the purposes and terms of, and thus not 
     in violation of, the Federal grant of such lands.
       (b) Purposes.--The purposes of this act are--
       (1) to fulfill the original commitment of Congress to 
     establish the University of Alaska as a land grant university 
     with holdings sufficient to facilitate operation and 
     maintenance of a university system for the inhabitants of the 
     State of Alaska; and
       (2) to acquire from the University of Alaska lands it holds 
     within federal Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness areas.

     SEC. 2. PRIMARY FEDERAL GRANT.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject 
     to valid existing rights and

[[Page S3752]]

     the procedures set forth herein, the University is granted 
     and entitled to take up to 250,000 acres of federal lands (or 
     reserved interests in lands) in or adjacent to Alaska as a 
     federal grant. The University may identify and select the 
     specific lands it intends to take pursuant to this grant, and 
     the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') shall promptly 
     convey to the University the lands selected, in accordance 
     with the provisions of this Act.
       (b)(1) Within 48 months of enactment of this Act, the 
     University of Alaska may submit to the Secretary a list of 
     properties the University has tentatively selected to receive 
     under the conditions of this grant. Such list may be 
     submitted in whole or in part during this period and the 
     University may make interim tentative selections that it may 
     relinquish or change within the 48 month period. The 
     University may submit tentative selections that exceed the 
     amount of the grant except that such selections shall not 
     exceed 275,000 acres at any one time.
       (2) All selections shall be in reasonably compact units: 
     Provided, That the University may select small tracts of 
     federal land within federal reservations consistent with the 
     limitations in subsection (c) below.
       (3) The University may submit tentative selections of 
     federal lands validly selected but not conveyed to the State 
     of Alaska or the corporations organized pursuant to the 
     Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Provided, That such 
     lands may not be approved or conveyed to the University 
     unless the State of Alaska and or the corporation has 
     relinquished its prior selection.
       (4) The University shall make no selections within 
     Conservation System Units as defined in the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101).
       (5) Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a University 
     tentative selection, the Secretary shall publish notice of 
     said selection in the Federal Register. Such notice shall 
     identify lands included in the tentative selection and 
     provide for a period for public comment on the tentative 
     selection not to exceed sixty (60) days.
       (6) Within six months of the receipt of a University 
     tentative selection, the Secretary shall notify the 
     University of his acceptance or objection to each tentative 
     selection, including the reasons for any objection. Failure 
     to object within six months shall constitute approval by the 
     Secretary. Any public comments submitted in response to a 
     public notice issued pursuant to paragraph (5) above may be 
     considered by the Secretary: Provided, That the Secretary may 
     object to tentative selections of the University if and only 
     if he demonstrates that a conveyance of such to the 
     University--
       (A) will have a significant adverse impact on the purposes 
     for which a Conservation System Unit was established; or
       (B) will have a significant adverse impact on fulfillment 
     of the Alaska Statehood Act or the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act. (43 U.S.C. 1601)
       (7) The Secretary's acceptance of, or objection to, any 
     tentative selections submitted by the University of Alaska 
     pursuant to Section 2 of this Act or the conveyance of any 
     such selections by tentative approval, patent or other 
     instrument are not major federal actions within the means of 
     section 102 (2)(c) of P.L. 91-190.
       (8) The Secretary shall publish notice of any decision to 
     accept or object to a tentative selection in the Federal 
     Register.
       (c) The Secretary shall not approve or convey, under this 
     grant,
       (1) any federal lands which, at the time of enactment of 
     this Act, are included in a Conservation System Unit;
       (2) any federal lands validly selected or top filed 
     pursuant to Sec. 906(e) of Public Law No. 96-487 but not 
     conveyed to the State of Alaska or the corporations pursuant 
     to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; or
       (3) any federal lands withdrawn and actually used in 
     connection with the administration of any federal 
     installations and military reservations unless the head of 
     the land holding or occupying agency or entity agrees.
       (d) If, following the Secretary's review of tentative 
     selections by the University, the amount of acreage approved 
     by the Secretary for conveyance is less than the full primary 
     grant, the University may select additional lands to satisfy 
     the primary grant.
       (e) Upon the University's tentative selection of land--
       (1) Such land shall be segregated and unavailable for 
     selection by and conveyance to the State of Alaska or any 
     corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act and shall not be otherwise encumbered or 
     disposed of by the United States pending completion of the 
     selection process.
       (2) The University shall possess the non-exclusive right to 
     enter onto such lands for the purpose of--
       (A) assessing the oil, gas, mineral and other resource 
     potential therein. The University, and its delegatees or 
     agents, shall be permitted to engage in assessment techniques 
     including but not limited to core drilling to assess the 
     metalliferous or other values, and surface geological 
     exploration and seismic exploration for oil and gas: 
     Provided That this paragraph shall not be construed as 
     including or allowing exploratory drilling of oil and gas 
     wells; and
       (B) exercising due diligence regarding the making of a 
     final selection.
       (f) Within one year of the Secretary's approval of a 
     tentative selection, the University may make therefrom a 
     final selection pursuant to this Act. Within six months of 
     such final selection by the University, the Secretary shall 
     issue a tentative approval of such final selection. Such 
     tentative approval shall be deemed to transfer to the 
     University all right, title, and interest of the United 
     States in and to the described selection. Any lakes, rivers 
     and streams contained within such selections shall be 
     meandered and lands submerged thereunder conveyed in 
     accordance with 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1631, as amended. Upon 
     completion of a survey of lands included within such 
     tentative approval, the Secretary shall promptly issue patent 
     to such lands. Pending issuance of a patent, the University 
     shall have rights and authorities over tentatively approved 
     lands consistent with those under the Alaska Statehood Act 
     and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, including the 
     right to transfer, assign, exchange, grant, deed, lease or 
     otherwise convey any or all present or future interest in the 
     lands granted pursuant to this Act.
       (g) The Secretary of Agriculture, as well as the heads of 
     other federal agencies, shall take such actions as may be 
     necessary to facilitate and expedite the implementation of 
     this Act by the Secretary of the Interior.

     SEC. 3. RELINQUISHMENT OF CERTAIN UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA 
                   HOLDINGS.

       (a) As a condition to receiving the land grant provided by 
     Section 6 of this Act, the University of Alaska shall convey 
     to the Secretary those lands listed in ``The University of 
     Alaska's Inholding Reconveyance Document'' and dated April 
     24, 1997.
       (b) The University shall begin conveyance of the lands 
     listed in (a) above upon taking title to lands it has 
     selected pursuant to section 6 of this Act and shall convey 
     to the Secretary a percentage amount of land proportional to 
     that which it has received, but in no event shall it be 
     required to convey any lands other than those listed in (a) 
     above to the Secretary. The Secretary shall accept quitclaim 
     deeds from the University for these lands.

     SEC. 4. ALIENATION OF LANDS.

       Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, the University 
     of Alaska may transfer, assign, exchange, grant, deed, lease 
     or otherwise convey any or all present future interests in 
     the lands granted pursuant to this Act.

     SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       The University of Alaska has the right to bring action for, 
     including but not limited to, relief in the nature of 
     mandamus, against the Secretary for violation of this Act or 
     for review of an agency decision under this Act. Such an 
     action can only be brought in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Alaska and within two (2) years of 
     the alleged violation or the final decision-making. For all 
     other entities or persons, decisions of the Secretary shall 
     be final and conclusive.

     SEC. 6. STATE MATCHING GRANT.

       (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject 
     to valid existing rights and the procedures set forth in this 
     Act, the University is granted and shall be entitled to take, 
     in addition to the primary grant provided for in Section 2 
     herein, up to another 250,000 acres in federal lands (or 
     reserved interests in lands) in or adjacent to Alaska: 
     Provided That any additional acres are granted, as specified 
     below, on a matching acre-for-acre basis to the extent that 
     the State of Alaska shall first grant to the University 
     State-owned land in Alaska.
       (b) The university may select and the Secretary shall 
     convey lands which the University is entitled to receive 
     pursuant to this State Matching Grant Provisions in minimum 
     increments of 25,000 acres up to the maximum of 250,000 
     acres.
                                  ____


             History of the University of Alaska Land Grant

       1785--The Ordinance of 1785 established the rectangular 
     survey of New England as the basis of which all land west of 
     Ohio would be subdivided. Land was surveyed into townships 
     composed of 36 sections of 640 acres or one square mile each. 
     The law also established the principle of reserving section 
     16 of every township ``for the maintenance of public 
     schools.''
       1848--With the Admission of Oregon in 1848, the grant 
     doubled from one section to two sections (16 & 36). Three of 
     the last four states admitted into the union, UT, NM, and AZ 
     each got four sections (2, 16, 32, and 36).
       1842--The Morrill Act passed which dedicated lands to 
     states for ``agriculture and mechanic arts''. The grants were 
     based on population as measured by the size of the delegation 
     with each state receiving approximately 30,000 acres/member.
       1915--Alaska Delegate James Wickersham pushed through a 
     measure in Congress which reserved lands for a common school 
     system and an agricultural land grant college in the Tanana 
     Valley. The bill followed the pattern of reserving 2 sections 
     of every township for support of ``common schools.'' (About 
     20 million acres in AK). Wickersham's bill also set aside 
     every section 33 in the Tanana Valley for support of an 
     agricultural college and school of mines. (Approx. 250,000 
     acres).
       1916--Wickersham introduces first statehood bill 
     ``Granting'' 11.3 million acres for higher education and 20 
     million acres for public schools.
       1917--Alaska territorial legislature formally incorporates 
     the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines (Renamed 
     UA in 1935) as Alaska's land grant institution.
       Up to this point no land had every been transferred to 
     University due to fact that all bills required a survey to 
     occur before transfer and AK had never been surveyed.

[[Page S3753]]

       By the time federal grant would be revoked only 19 section 
     33's out of a possible 420 had been surveyed and transferred 
     to the University. Ultimately the University received 11,211 
     acres of section 33's of which 2,250 were he original campus.
       1929--Congress passes act ``Granting'' 100,000 acres for 
     the ``exclusive use an benefit'' of the Alaska Agriculture 
     College and School of Mines making up the bulk of the 
     University's approx. 111,000 acres.
       1936 to 1943--During the 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, and 78th 
     Congress Alaska Delegate Anthony J. Dimond Introduced five 
     identical bills to extend the 1915 land grant to all section 
     33's, not just those in the Tanana Valley, for a total land 
     grant of approx. 10 million acres.
       1943--Bartlett introduces statehood bill reserving two 
     sections of each township (20m acres) for support of schools 
     and 1 section of every township (10m acres) for higher 
     education. For the most part this formula existed in all 
     statehood bills through 1949. (Exception is a compromise bill 
     between Bartlett and then-Secretary Gardner during mid 40's 
     which never went anywhere).
       1950--Since Alaska could not receive title to a specific 
     section of land until it was surveyed in 1950 Congress 
     rejected ``in place grants'' of specific sections of 
     townships and endorsed the concept of ``quantity'' grants. 
     This concept was incorporated in all future statehood bills.
       All statehood bills during the 50's supported around 103.3 
     million acres for the state with a typical breakdown as 
     follows:
       100m acres--general grant;
       .8m--community development grants to be used for expansion 
     of communities; and
       3.25m--for ``internal improvements as follows
       500,000 acres--university;
       500,000 acres--teacher's college;
       500,000 acres--public buildings;
       200,000 acres--schools and asylums (deaf, dumb, and blind);
       200,000 acres--penitentiaries;
       200,000 acres--mental institutions;
       200,000 acres--charitable, penal, and reform institutions; 
     and
       250,000 acres--pioneer homes.
       1954--UA President Ernest Patty made several requests to 
     DOI for more land including lands in the NPR-A.
       1955--University Board Of Regents passes resolution asking 
     Congress to give University authority to select up to 500,000 
     acres with mineral rights.
       1958--With the passage of Statehood the ``internal 
     improvement grants''--including the University's 500,000 
     acres and the 500,000 acres for the University's teacher 
     training programs were consolidated into the 100 million-acre 
     general grant leaving disposition of all 102,550,500 acres at 
     the discretion of the legislature. Statehood also canceled 
     the 1915 education reserve (though it did confirm the 
     University's rights to the few thousand acres of section 33 
     land that were already reserved and surveyed).
       Passage of the Statehood bill virtually ended all 
     discussion of federal land grants.
       1959--University attorney, Ed Merdes, wrote Senator 
     Bartlett about impact of Statehood bill on Tanana selections. 
     After extensive research a legislative aide, Joe Josephson 
     wrote Merdes back and said unequivocally that Congressional 
     intent in the statehood bill was for the new state government 
     to address University land grant;
       ``The theory of the land-grant provisions in the statehood 
     act was they would replace inter alia (among other things) 
     the reservations authorized in 48 U.S.C. 353 and that the 
     state university would petition the sate government to 
     satisfy the needs of the University which previously to 
     statehood were met in part by 48 U.S.C. 353.'' (Josephson to 
     Merdes, 10 November 1959, Pres Papers)
       1959--House Bill No. 176. Of the New Legislature declared 
     the intent to reserve one million acres for the university 
     and declared the legislature's ultimate attempt to reserve 5 
     million acres ``for the purpose of replacing those grants 
     previously allowed under federal law . . . which has been 
     superseded . . . and for the further purpose of establishing 
     a means by which the University may be properly maintained 
     and operated and direct state support thereby reduced.''
       To much surprise Governor Egan vetoed the bill. His main 
     reason was that this could lead to further earmarking of 
     state land and dollars for other ``internal improvements'' 
     and that this was not sound administrative procedure. Egan 
     suggested it was much more prudent to appropriate and bond 
     for the University.
       1960's--With Governor Egan's opposition to the State grant 
     future bills never received much support in the legislature. 
     With the defeat of Egan in 1966 by Walter Hickel, Hickel 
     promised a new era of Alaska economic development and support 
     for the University. Yet one month later Secretary Udall 
     declared a land freeze in Alaska that virtually brought all 
     state land selections to a halt, and consequently froze the 
     University land grant as well.
       1970's--Legally and politically the Alaska land picture 
     grew more complex year-by-year. Within the next 15 years the 
     open public doman in AK would essentially vanish, as the 
     entire state was parceled off among development interests, 
     environmental interests, and native groups with the passage 
     of ANCSA in 1971, construction of TAPS in 74-77, and passage 
     of ANILCA in 1980.
       1995--After passing the legislature Governor Knowles vetoed 
     a SB 16 granting the University 350,000 acres of state lands. 
     The Governor declared his support for the concept but wanted 
     assurances that: (1) the University would not select any 
     lands needed by growing communities; (2) oil found on ``new'' 
     university lands were subject to permanent fund requirements 
     and royalties and bonus payments to the state; and (3) that 
     all environmental and mineral entry laws would apply.
       1996--FHM bill introduced in Senate setting up a matching 
     grant provision.
       1996--A new bill, SB 250, passed the legislature by a 46-12 
     vote and was again vetoed by Governor Knowles for many of the 
     same reasons stated in the first veto.
                                  ____


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Region and area             UA ID number       Acres                   Federal land type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Central:
    Alaska Peninsula............  AP.UL.001.........          8  AK Peninsula & Maritime National Wildlife
                                                                  Refuge.
    ......do....................  AP.UL.001.........        360      Do.
    ......do....................  AP.UL.002.........          8      Do.
    ......do....................  AP.WB.001.........        622      Do.
    ......do....................  AP.WB.002.........         56      Do.
    Nuka Island.................  HM.NK.001.........         23  Kenai Fjords National Park.
    ......do....................  IIM.NK.002........         24      Do.
    Blackburn Subd..............  WR.BB.001.........          5  Wrangell St. Elias National Park & Preserve
    ......do....................  WR.BB.002.........         17      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.BB.003.........          2      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.BB.004.........         34      Do.
    McCarthy Creek Subd.........  WR.MC.001-071.....        867      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.003.........      1,304      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.004.........        320      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.005.........      2,240      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.006.........        640      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.007.........        400      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.008.........        372      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.MY.009.........        400      Do.
    Strelna.....................  WR.SN.001.........        400      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.SN.002.........      1,452      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.SN.004.........        424      Do.
    Wrangell Glaciers...........  WR.WG.001.........         20      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.WG.002.........        136      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.WG.003.........        103      Do.
    ......do....................  WR.WG.004.........         82      Do.
    Wrangell St. Elias..........  Orange Hill.......      1,600      Do.
    Denali......................  Stampede Mine.....         71  Denali National Park & Preserve.
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................  ..................     11,990  ...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Federal Conservation System Unit                  Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Peninsula & Maritime National Wildlife Refuge.............      1,054
Kenai Fjords National Park...................................         47
Wrangell St. Elias National Park & Preserve..................     10,818
Denail National Park & Preserve..............................         71
                                                              ----------
      Total acres............................................     11,990
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Ranked by the amount of federal land given to Higher Education

 1. New Mexico................................................1,346,546
 2. Oklahoma..................................................1,050,000
 3. New York....................................................990,000
 4. Arizona.....................................................849,197
 5. Pennsylvania................................................780,000
 6. Ohio........................................................699,120
 7. Utah........................................................556,141
 8. Illinois....................................................526,080
 9. Indiana.....................................................436,080
10. Montana.....................................................388,721
11. Idaho.......................................................386,686
12. Alabama.....................................................383,785
13. Missouri....................................................376,080
14. South Dakota................................................366,080
15. Massachusetts...............................................360,000
16. Mississippi.................................................348,240
17. Washington..................................................336,080
18. North Dakota................................................336,080

[[Page S3754]]

19. Wisconsin...................................................332,160
20. Kentucky....................................................330,000
21. Tennessee...................................................300,000
22. Virginia....................................................300,000
23. Iowa........................................................286,080
24. Michigan....................................................286,080
25. Georgia.....................................................270,000
26. North Carolina..............................................270,000
27. Louisiana...................................................256,292
28. Minnesota...................................................212,160
29. Maine.......................................................210,000
30. Maryland....................................................210,000
31. New Jersey..................................................210,000
32. California..................................................196,080
33. Arkansas....................................................196,080
34. Florida.....................................................182,160
35. Connecticut.................................................180,000
36. South Carolina..............................................180,000
37. Texas.......................................................180,000
38. Kansas......................................................151,270
39. New Hampshire...............................................150,000
40. Vermont.....................................................150,000
41. West Virginia...............................................150,000
42. Colorado....................................................138,040
43. Oregon......................................................136,165
44. Nevada......................................................136,080
45. Nebraska....................................................136,080
46. Wyoming.....................................................136,080
47. Rhode Island................................................120,000
48. Alaska......................................................112,064
49. Delaware.....................................................90,000
50. Hawaii..........................................................  0
                                                             __________
                                                             
  Total......................................................16,707,787
Average.........................................................334,156


 Ranked by the percentage of the State grant given to Higher Education


                                                                Percent
 1. New York.....................................................100.00
 2. Pennsylvania.................................................100.00
 3. Massachusetts................................................100.00
 4. Tennessee....................................................100.00
 5. Virginia.....................................................100.00
 6. Georgia......................................................100.00
 7. North Carolina...............................................100.00
 8. Maine........................................................100.00
 9. Maryland.....................................................100.00
10. New Jersey...................................................100.00
11. Connecticut..................................................100.00
12. South Carolina...............................................100.00
13. Texas........................................................100.00
14. New Hampshire................................................100.00
15. Vermont......................................................100.00
16. West Virginia................................................100.00
17. Rhode Island.................................................100.00
18. Delaware.....................................................100.00
19. Kentucky......................................................93.06
20. Oklahoma......................................................33.92
21. Ohio..........................................................25.34
22. Washington....................................................11.04
23. Indiana.......................................................10.79
24. South Dakota..................................................10.66
25. North Dakota..................................................10.62
26. New Mexico....................................................10.52
27. Idaho..........................................................9.09
28. Illinois.......................................................8.44
29. Arizona........................................................8.05
30. Alabama........................................................7.67
31. Utah...........................................................7.41
32. Montana........................................................6.52
33. Mississippi....................................................5.71
34. Missouri.......................................................5.07
35. Nevada.........................................................4.99
36. Nebraska.......................................................3.93
37. Iowa...........................................................3.55
38. Wisconsin......................................................3.26
39. Wyoming........................................................3.13
40. Colorado.......................................................3.09
41. Michigan.......................................................2.36
42. Louisiana......................................................2.24
43. California.....................................................2.22
44. Kansas.........................................................1.94
45. Oregon.........................................................1.94
46. Arkansas.......................................................1.64
47. Minnesota......................................................1.29
48. Florida........................................................0.75
49. Alaska.........................................................0.11
50. Hawaii.........................................................0.00
                                                               ________
                                                               
  Total............................................................5.09
Average...........................................................42.01


        Ranked by the amount of federal land given to the State

 1. Alaska..................................................104,569,251
 2. Florida..................................................24,214,366
 3. Minnesota................................................16,422,051
 4. New Mexico...............................................12,794,718
 5. Michigan.................................................12,142,846
 6. Arkansas.................................................11,936,834
 7. Louisiana................................................11,441,343
 8. Arizona..................................................10,543,753
 9. Wisconsin................................................10,179,804
10. California................................................8,825,508
11. Iowa......................................................8,061,262
12. Kansas....................................................7,794,669
13. Utah......................................................7,501,737
14. Missouri..................................................7,417,022
15. Oregon....................................................7,032,847
16. Illinois..................................................6,234,655
17. Mississippi...............................................6,097,997
18. Montana...................................................5,963,338
19. Alabama...................................................5,006,883
20. Colorado..................................................4,471,604
21. Wyoming...................................................4,342,520
22. Idaho.....................................................4,254,448
23. Indiana...................................................4,040,518
24. Nebraska..................................................3,458,711
25. South Dakota..............................................3,435,373
26. North Dakota..............................................3,163,552
27. Oklahoma..................................................3,095,760
28. Washington................................................3,044,471
29. Ohio......................................................2,758,862
30. Nevada....................................................2,725,226
31. New York....................................................990,000
32. Pennsylvania................................................780,000
33. Massachusetts...............................................360,000
34. Kentucky....................................................354,607
35. Tennessee...................................................300,000
36. Virginia....................................................300,000
37. Georgia.....................................................270,000
38. North Carolina..............................................270,000
39. Maine.......................................................210,000
40. Maryland....................................................210,000
41. New Jersey..................................................210,000
42. Connecticut.................................................180,000
43. South Carolina..............................................180,000
44. Texas.......................................................180,000
45. New Hampshire...............................................150,000
46. Vermont.....................................................150,000
47. West Virginia...............................................150,000
48. Rhode Island................................................120,000
49. Delaware.....................................................90,000
50. Hawaii............................................................0
                                                       ________________
                                                       
   Total....................................................328,426,536
  Average.....................................................6,568,531
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN:
  S. 661. A bill to provide an administrative process for obtaining a 
waiver of the coastwise trade laws for certain vessels; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.


               coastwise trade vessel waivers legislation

 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would 
provide an administrative process for obtaining a waiver of the 
coastwise trade laws to allow certain vessels to commercially operate 
in the coastwise trade. This legislation will improve the 
responsiveness of the Federal Government in meeting the needs of many 
vessel-operating small businesses.
  The coastwise trade laws require that vessels operating between U.S. 
ports be built and documented in the United States and owned and 
operated by U.S. citizens. Today, if a U.S. citizen owner of a foreign-
built vessel wants to carry passengers for hire on that vessel in the 
coastwise trade of the United States, that person must obtain a 
legislative waiver of the coastwise laws.
  Many of my colleagues are familiar with these private relief bills. 
The legislative process for consolidating these numerous House and 
Senate bills usually involves including them in the Coast Guard 
authorization bill for final passage.
  While some Members may value the current process as a useful 
constituent service, it often delays resolution of a constituent's 
request by a year or more, causing financial hardship for the 
constituent's business. The potential influence of campaign 
contributions on such private relief bills is also a concern. The 
legislative process is slow, inefficient, and potentially unfair. Our 
constituents would be better served by delegating this waiver authority 
for noncontroversial requests to an appropriate administrative agency.
  My bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to 
administratively waive certain coastwise trade restrictions for vessels 
that meet the following criteria, which the Commerce Committee 
currently uses to determine if a waiver is warranted:
  First, this waiver authority would apply to foreign-built vessels of 
at least 3 years of age, and U.S.-built vessels that were rebuilt in 
foreign countries at least 3 years prior to the effective date of the 
waiver. The vast majority of the waiver requests considered by the 
Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the past 3 years 
were for vessels of at least this age that had originally been used for 
recreational or other noncoastwise purposes.
  Second, this bill would limit the coastwise trade use of vessels 
obtaining such privileges through this process to service carrying a 
maximum of 12 passengers for hire. Again, the vast majority of waiver 
requests considered by the Commerce Committee specified this type of 
intended use.
  Finally, the Secretary would be required to make a determination that 
the use of the applicant's vessel in the coastwise trade would not 
adversely affect U.S.-vessel builders or the coastwise trade business 
of any person who employs U.S.-built vessels in the same trade. An 
exemption granted under this authority could be revoked if the vessel 
use substantially changes so as to cause such problems.
  Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, 73 of the 119 bills 
considered by the Commerce Committee were requests for waiver of the 
coastwise trade laws for special vessels. If my bill is enacted, only a 
few waiver requests falling outside the above criteria would need to be 
considered by the Commerce Committee each year, allowing the

[[Page S3755]]

Committee to focus its attention on more weighty matters.
  This bill would not authorize exemption from existing U.S. citizen 
ownership and crewing requirements. Also, this bill would not apply to 
vessels used for any purpose other than the carriage of a maximum of 12 
passengers for hire. My approach to these waivers is supported by the 
Passenger Vessel Association, National Association of Charterboat 
Operators, the Offshore Marine Services Association, the Committee for 
Private Offshore Rescue and Towing, and the Shipbuilders Council of 
America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from 
these organizations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                 Passenger Vessel Association,

                                    Arlington, VA, March 10, 1997.
     Mr. Jim Sartucci,
     Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. 
         Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Sartucci, in response to your earlier 
     communication regarding Chairman McCain's interest in 
     developing a new process for evaluating proposed waivers from 
     the U.S.-build requirement of the Jones Act or the Passenger 
     Service Act, the Passenger Vessel Association will not object 
     to a proposal which:
       Clearly states the vessels in question are limited to those 
     certified to carry 12 or fewer passengers; shifts the burden 
     of proving ``no competitive impact'' to the waiver applicant; 
     provides that the Maritime Administration (MARAD) shall 
     review the waiver if the vessel for which it was granted is 
     relocated and, if MARAD determines that the vessel in its new 
     location poses a competitive disadvantage to an existing 
     operator, shall revoke the waiver; requires the Maritime 
     Administration to devise a means of widely informing the 
     passenger vessel industry about waiver requests that is 
     separate from a simple Federal Register notice; includes a 
     statement to the effect that the change does not reflect the 
     committee's view on the overall integrity of the Jones Act or 
     the Passenger Service Act.
       Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate and comment on 
     this proposed change to the law. If you have any questions, 
     please do not hesitate to let me know.
           Sincerely,
                                              John R. Groundwater,
     Executive Director.
                                  ____

                                           National Association of


                                        Charterboat Operators,

                                Washington, DC, February 20, 1997.
     Chairman John McCain,
     Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman McCain: I am writing you in support of the 
     proposed legislative language for documentation of small 
     passenger vessels on behalf of the National Association of 
     Charterboat Operators (NACO), a 4,100 member association 
     representing owners the charter industry. NACO appreciates 
     the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation.
       NACO applauds the Committee for understanding and 
     attempting to correct certain laws governing coastwise trade 
     for vessels. These laws often times produce consequences that 
     very significantly depending on the size and the nature of 
     business of the vessel. NACO is hopeful that this is the 
     first step by the Committee in recognizing that small vessels 
     are consistently and inappropriately grouped with large 
     vessels under the same rules and regulations. As you are 
     aware, this leads to increased regulatory costs and burdens 
     for these small businesses.
       This proposed change to title 46 of the U.S. Code will 
     alleviate undue and costly burdens currently placed on small 
     passenger vessels who do not have the manpower or the 
     resources to go through the long and difficult documentation 
     process. This will help to ease these burdens, saving each 
     company time and money.
       By creating specific qualifications for documentation, the 
     Committee creates standards for documentation for small 
     passenger vessels which will ease the burden of the Committee 
     from responding to each individual request for documentation 
     and appropriately moves this documentation responsibility to 
     the Department of Transportation while also giving them 
     flexibility in approving documentation.
       Although NACO is in full agreement with the language, we 
     are concerned about sections (b)(2) and (c)(B) pertaining to 
     whether employment of the vessel adversely affects U.S. 
     vessel builders or operators of ships. NACO is concerned that 
     the criteria used in determining the adverse affects to 
     shipbuilders and operators in the same trade would be 
     arbitrary.
       Again, NACO is in full support of this administrative 
     change to the Jones Act, however, at the same time, the 
     association believes that the Committee should move 
     cautiously when making any sort of revision to the Jones Act.
       Thank you for you time and your attention to the need to 
     ease unfair burdens placed on small business. If you need 
     additional comments or information please contact me at (202) 
     546-6993.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Amy J. Taylor,
     Director of Congressional Affairs.
                                  ____

                                                   Offshore Marine


                                          Service Association,

                                   Harahan, LA, February 20, 1997.
     Mr. James Sartucci,
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Sartucci: The Offshore Marine Service Association 
     (OMSA) has reviewed the draft language contained in your fax 
     transmission of February 10. We understand and respect 
     Chairman McCain's administrative objective and intention with 
     respect to this legislative initiative. Consequently, 
     speaking strictly for our constituency, OMSA has no absolute 
     objection to the proposal to grant restricted and conditional 
     coastwise trading privileges to certain small foreign built 
     vessels. In actual fact, however, our association's members 
     are not significantly affected, at least directly, by the 
     specific parameters included in this proposed legislation. 
     The PVA, and perhaps others, would appear to be the parties 
     to whom we would normally defer on the specifics of this 
     proposition.
       As discussed, our own support is contingent upon retention 
     of the protective covenants and limitations set forth in the 
     proposal presented to us for consideration, viz. in (b)(1), 
     that the vessel be strictly limited to service as a small 
     passenger vessel or an uninspected passenger vessel as those 
     terms are defined in Section 2101 of title 46, United States 
     Code, and in (b)(2) and (c).
       Finally, for the record, we ask that you please note that 
     OMSA does have some discomfort with the precedent that could 
     be set by this legislation. We harbor some concern it could 
     conceivably ``open the door'' to subsequent, additional 
     legislation that would, relatively speaking, more seriously 
     impact the coastwise trade protections afforded to U.S. flag 
     vessels under the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services 
     Act. However, we accept, in good faith, the Chairman's stated 
     objectives and the collateral safeguards that are promised.
       OMSA would agree that the U.S. Maritime Administration 
     (MARAD) could be the appropriate government agency within the 
     Department of Transportation to consider and approve 
     applications for the purposes of the proposal.
       We thank you for keeping us advised of such proposals and 
     for inviting our views. Please do not hesitate to contact the 
     undersigned, at (504) 734-7622, if you have any questions or 
     wish to discuss this matter in further detail.
           Very truly yours,
                                                 Robert J. Alario,
     President.
                                  ____


                   [From the C-Port News, Mar. 1997]

             Senate Committee Proposes Change to Jones Act

       Congress will soon be proposing a major change to the Jones 
     Act that will allow marine assistance operators to use 
     foreign built vessels and vessels rebuilt outside the United 
     States in their businesses.
       The bill, introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), 
     Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation 
     Committee, allows for the use of a foreign built or rebuilt 
     vessel in commercial coastwise trade when the vessel is over 
     3 years old and is used as a small or uninspected passenger 
     vessel. Marine assistance towing vessels are classified by 
     the Coast Guard as uninspected passenger vessels, not 
     uninspected towing vessels.
       Although the bill will help the marine assistance industry, 
     it also contains two stipulations about which C-PORT is 
     concerned. The bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to 
     revoke the new documentation policy for foreign vessels if it 
     is found to adversely affect U.S. vessel builders or other 
     similar businesses using U.S. built vessels. According to the 
     bill, ``the Secretary of Transportation may issue a 
     certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for 
     employment in the coastwise trade as a small passenger vessel 
     or an uninspected passenger vessel for an eligible vessel if 
     the Secretary determines that the employment of the vessel . 
     . . will not adversely affect (1) United States vessel 
     builders; or (2) the coastwise trade business of any person 
     who employs vessels built in the United States in the 
     business.''
       C-PORT sent the following letter to Chairman McCain to 
     express support for the bill, but also to voice concern over 
     these two stipulations:
       ``Dear Chairman McCain: C-PORT applauds the Committee for 
     understanding and attempting to correct certain laws 
     governing coastwise trade for vessels. These laws often times 
     produce consequences that vary significantly depending on the 
     size and the nature of business of the vessel. C-PORT is 
     hopeful that this is the first step by the Committee in 
     recognizing that small vessels are consistently and 
     inappropriately grouped with large vessels under the same 
     rules and regulations. As you are aware, this leads to 
     increased regulatory costs and burdens for these small 
     businesses.
       ``This proposed change to title 46 of the U.S. Code will 
     alleviate undue and costly burdens currently placed on small 
     vessels who do not have the manpower or the resources to go 
     through the long and difficult documentation process. This 
     will help to

[[Page S3756]]

     ease these burdens, saving each company time and money.
       ``By creating specific qualifications for documentation, 
     the Committee creates standards for documentation for small 
     vessels which will ease the burden of the Committee from 
     responding to each individual request for documentation 
     and appropriately moves this documentation responsibility 
     to the Department of Transportation while also giving them 
     flexibility in approving documentation.
       ``Although C-PORT is in full agreement with the language, 
     we are concerned about sections (b)(2) and (c)(B) pertaining 
     to whether employment of the vessel adversely affects U.S. 
     vessel builders or operators of ships. C-PORT is concerned 
     that the criteria used in determining the adverse affects to 
     shipbuilders and operators in the same trade would be 
     arbitrary.
       ``Again, C-PORT is in full support of this administrative 
     change to the Jones Act, however, at the same time, the 
     association believes that the Committee should move 
     cautiously when making any sort of revision to the Jones Act.
       ``Thank you for your time and your attention to the need to 
     ease unfair burdens placed on small business.''
       C-PORT expects this legislation to easily pass the Senate 
     and the House. We will keep you informed as this measure 
     moves through Congress. If you have any questions contact Amy 
     Taylor (800) 745-6094.
                                  ____



                              Shipbuilders Council of America,

                                Alexandria, VA, February 27, 1997.
     Mr. James Sartucci,
     Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Jim: Thank you for sending the most recent draft of 
     Senator McCain's Jones Act waiver bill. SCA shares your basic 
     objective of reducing the paperwork burden on Committee 
     members and staff while in no way eroding or changing the 
     U.S.-build requirement or any other provisions of the Jones 
     Act.
       SCA supports all of the suggested additions to Senator 
     McCain's bill included in a letter of February 25 sent to you 
     and Carl Bentzel by Rolf Marshall of the Maritime Cabotage 
     Task Force (MCTF). Most importantly, these recommended 
     changes will make it undeniably clear that by enacting this 
     bill Congress in no way lessens or modifies the protections 
     granted by cabotage statutes.
       Therefore, SCA supports the February 19 draft of the Jones 
     Act waiver bill along with the recommended changes described 
     in the February 25 letter from the MCTF.
       On behalf of the members of SCA I want to commend you for 
     your diligence in crafting a new Jones Act waiver process 
     that makes sense administratively while safeguarding the 
     Jones Act.
           Cordially,
                                                 Penny L. Eastman,
     President.

                          ____________________