[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 3 (Monday, January 8, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S236-S240]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. ALLARD (for himself and Mr. Salazar):
S. 194. A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal
Service located at 1300 North Frontage Road West in Vail, Colorado, as
the ``Gerald R. Ford, Jr. Post Office Building''; to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, as my good friend and colleague from
Colorado just mentioned, we are introducing S. 194 naming the post
office in Vail, CO, after former President Gerald R. Ford. As this vote
just showed, we are all aware that when Gerald Ford passed away last
month, our country lost a great man. Much has been said recently about
President Ford: How he selflessly came to the aid of this country in
one of its most trying times, how he governed through his beliefs about
what was the best decision for the Nation regardless of the personal
consequences, and his lifelong pursuit of bipartisanship and debate.
The defining characteristic of President Ford was his ability to
remain humble and a man of the people. As testimonies poured in across
the Nation, we were reminded about how he played selflessly as center
at the University of Michigan, worked as a busboy while attending law
school, and often hosted barbecues for his neighbors at his home in
Alexandria, VA, while serving as House minority leader.
President Ford's charm and likability were shown all over the
country, but away from his home State and the microscope of Washington,
DC, Gerald Ford and his family also touched Colorado. As a Congressman
from Michigan, the Ford family visited Colorado to ski in 1968 and
since then have remained a constant presence in that community. He
skied there, he built a house in nearby Beaver Creek, and he hosted a
golf tournament for 20 years.
Following President Ford's passing, more than 2,500 people gathered
at the base of Vail Mountain to witness a touching tribute to the
President that included 500 ski instructors and a torchlight parade on
Vail's Golden Peak. In Vail, like many other communities, President
Ford was regarded as a tremendous asset and a man who treated everyone
as an equal. Several residents remarked that one would never know he
was a former President.
As a lasting tribute to this tremendous man, I cannot think of a more
appropriate honor than to have Vail's post office bear the name of
Gerald R. Ford, Jr. A post office is the point in every community that
brings all people together, and there is no better way to symbolize the
virtues President Ford demonstrated through his public and private
life. I encourage the Senate to pass legislation entitled ``Senate Bill
194'' in recognition of President Ford and his contributions to Vail,
CO.
Mr. SALAZAR. Mr. President, I rise today to speak in favor of a bill
that will be introduced by Senator Allard and myself to name the post
office in Vail, CO, after President Gerald R. Ford.
I call myself fortunate because I worked with President Ford. In our
brief time together, it was obvious to me he was a man of honor,
integrity, and courage.
Gerald Ford was a man who loved the State of Colorado, who loved its
people and its culture. So it is a fitting tribute that the post office
in his adopted town of Vail should bear his name.
President Ford led a remarkable life--remarkable not only for his
great success but for the humility, dignity, and candor which were the
hallmarks of his career. And what a career it was: from the University
of Michigan to Yale Law School to service in the Navy to a leadership
position in the U.S. Congress, and eventually, of course, to the
Presidency of these United States, to say nothing of a long and
productive post-Presidential career.
Of course, it is his time in the White House which people will
remember most, and for good reason. It was President Ford who, through
his leadership, brought the country together during a time of crisis.
He was not only the right man at the right time for a very difficult
job, he was a perfect man to deal with circumstances, the likes of
which this country had never seen.
But I will remember President Ford not only for his good deeds in
public office but for his unending commitment to justice and equality
well after he left the White House behind. In 1999, when our shared
alma mater, the University of Michigan, had its diversity policies
challenged in court, President Ford wrote an op-ed piece in the New
York Times about diversity, and he talked about an inclusive America
which was essential to the future and the strength of the United
States. In his op-ed piece, which was widely circulated, about which he
and I spent time talking one day, he wrote the following:
Of all the triumphs that have marked this as America's
century--breathtaking advances in science and technology, the
democratization of wealth and dispersal of political powers
in ways hardly imaginable in 1899--none is more inspiring, if
incomplete, than our pursuit of racial justice.
President Ford bravely defended the University of Michigan's
diversity program with the same elegance and bravery with which he
confronted the tribulations of the Watergate era and, in the process,
left behind a legacy of tolerance and justice which will not soon be
forgotten.
Of course, no tribute to President Ford would be complete without
mention of his extraordinary family, particularly his wife, Betty, and
as President Ford famously said:
I am indebted to no man, and only to one woman--to my dear
wife.
Betty Ford's bravery and her candor has inspired millions upon
millions of Americans, and we are grateful for her service, and we wish
her and the Ford family the very best.
The people of Colorado thank Gerald Ford for his service, and we are
proud to move forward in helping the post office in Vail, CO, bear his
name.
______
By Mr. KERRY (for himself and Mr. Salazar):
S. 196. A bill to amend title 5, United States Code, to deny Federal
retirement benefits to individuals convicted of certain offenses, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Salazar and I are the
Congressional Pension Accountability Act legislation to deny Federal
pensions to Members of Congress who are convicted of white collar crime
such as bribery. A similar provision passed the House of
Representatives during the 109th Congress. I look forward to working
with my colleagues to include this legislation in the ethics reform
legislation to be considered by the Senate this week.
I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the
highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must
be held accountable for their actions. Last year, a series of scandals
exposed Washington lobbyists and Members of Congress who used undue and
improper influence to represent special interests in their dealings
with the Federal Government.
In 2005, the now infamous Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded
guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in a plea
agreement. The Justice Department is currently investigating his
attempts to influence Federal Government policy in both Congress and
the Executive Branch.
Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of
Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false
statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged
taking trips, tickets, meals and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff
in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients.
In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help
America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial
gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return,
Representative Ney received all-expense-paid and reduced-price trips to
Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans
[[Page S237]]
to gamble and a vacation in Lake George, NY, all courtesy of Mr.
Abramoff.
In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s,
Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham recently resigned from the
House of Representatives after pleading guilty in Federal court to
receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading
more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, former
Representative Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting
close to 5 years, with Federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a
Rolls-Royce, and antique furniture and paying for travel and hotel
expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his
daughter.
These stories are outrageous and they sicken me. As elected
representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who represent the
Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a
simple one: Public servants who abuse the public trust and are
convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer fmanced
pensions.
Under current law, former Representatives Cunningham, Ney and others
convicted of serious ethics abuses will receive a Congressional pension
of approximately $40,000 per year--paid for by American taxpayers. Only
a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or
espionage, will cost a Member of Congress their pension. This law must
be changed to ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior.
The Congressional Pension Accountability Act will bar Members of
Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they
have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy, perjury or other serious
ethics offenses.
It is my understanding that there is some concern about how this
legislation may affect innocent spouses and children of Members of
Congress who lose their pensions as a result of this legislation. Even
after this legislation is enacted, the Member will still receive a
refund of all contributions into either the Federal Employees
Retirement System (FERS) or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS)
and will retain all benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP).
The Congressional Pension Accountability Act is supported by the
National Taxpayers Union and a similar provision is supported by
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Family Research Council and Citizens
Against Government Waste.
Together we can significantly improve our government by changing the
way business is done in Washington. I believe this legislation will
help ensure that our government once again responds to the needs of our
people, not special interests. I ask all my colleagues to support this
legislation.
______
By Mr. LUGAR:
S. 198. A bill to improve authorities to address urgent
nonproliferation crises and United States nonproliferation operations;
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
Mr. LUGAR. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Nunn-Lugar
Cooperative Threat Reduction Act of 2007. This legislation is based on
a bill I first offered in 2005. It is focused on facilitating
implementation of the Nunn-Lugar program and removing some of the self-
imposed restrictions that complicate or delay the destruction of
weapons of mass destruction.
In 2005, the Senate approved this legislation in the form of an
amendment I offered to the National Defense Authorization Act by an
overwhelming vote of 78 to 19. Last year, the Senate adopted a similar
amendment by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, these provisions were
not included in either conference agreement.
While well-intentioned, the congressionally-imposed conditions on
Nunn-Lugar have inhibited the amount of work that can be done to
eliminate and safeguard weapons of mass destruction in the former
Soviet Union. Each year, a six month, thirteen step certification and
waiver process must be completed before appropriated funds can be
obligated to eliminate weapons of mass destruction. This annual process
wastes money and valuable time--time lost in the fight against
proliferation. In the field, it can prevent the availability of funds
already authorized and appropriated by Congress for the Nunn-Lugar
Program, thus delaying critical dismantlement work.
To date, the Nunn-Lugar program has deactivated for destroyed: 6, 934
nuclear warheads; 637 ICBMs; 485 ICBM silos; 81 ICBM mobile missile
lauchers; 155 bombers; 906 nuclear air-to-surface missiles; 436
submarine missile launchers; 601 submarine launched missiles; 30
nuclear submarines; and 194 nuclear test tunnels.
Perhaps most importantly, Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan emerged
from the Soviet Union as the 3rd, 4th, and 8th largest nuclear weapons
powers in the world. Today, all three are nuclear weapons free as a
result of cooperative efforts under the Nunn-Lugar program.
The Nunn-Lugar Program currently has a permanent waiver authority, to
be used on an annual basis, for the congressionally-imposed
certifications on the Nunn-Lugar program. While the waiver permits the
program to continue its important work, the waiver does not solve the
underlying problem.
In 1991, concerns surrounding Russian commitments to nonproliferation
led the original Nunn-Lugar legislation to require President to certify
annually that each recipient is ``committed to'' meeting six
conditions: 1. Making a substantial investment in dismantling or
destroying such weapons; 2. forgoing any military modernization program
that exceeds legitimate defense requirements and forgoing the
replacement of destroyed weapons of mass destruction; 3. forgoing any
use of fissionable and other components of destroyed nuclear weapons in
new nuclear weapons; 4. facilitating United States verification of
weapons destruction carried out under the program; 5. complying with
all relevant arms control agreements; and 6. observing internationally
recognized human rights, including the protection of minorities.
At the time, these conditions were important to defining the U.S.
strategic relationship with each Nunn-Lugar recipient. The question we
must answer today is, what national security benefit do the
certification requirements provide the American people? Do the
conditions make it easier or harder to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction in Russia or elsewhere? Do the conditions make it more
likely or less likely that weapons are eliminated?
Congress imposed an additional six conditions on construction of the
chemical weapons destruction program at Shchuchye. These conditions
include: 1. Full and accurate Russian declaration on the size of its
chemical weapons stockpile; 2. allocation by Russia of at least
$25,000,000 to chemical weapons elimination; 3. development by Russia
of a practical plan for destroying its stockpile of nerve agents; 4.
enactment of a law by Russia that provides for the elimination of all
nerve agents at a single site; 5. an agreement by Russia to destroy or
convert its chemical weapons production facilities at Volgograd and
Novocheboksark; and 6. a demonstrated commitment from the international
community to fund and build infrastructure needed to support and
operate the facility.
Some will suggest that the certification process is, at most, an
annoyance, but not a serious programmatic threat. I disagree. While
well intentioned, these conditions delay and complicate efforts to
destroy weapons of mass destruction. If the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction is the number one national security threat facing our
country, we cannot permit any delays in our response.
The Bush Administration withheld Russia's certification in 2002
because of concerns in the chemical and biological weapon arenas.
President Bush recognized the predicament and requested waiver
authority for the Congressionally-imposed conditions. While awaiting
temporary waiver to be authorized in law, new Nunn-Lugar projects were
stalled and no new contracts were finalized between April 16 to August
9, 2002. This delay caused numerous disarmament projects in Russia to
be put on hold, including: 1. Installation of security enhancements at
ten nuclear weapons storage sites; 2. initiation of the dismantlement
of two strategic missile submarines and thirty submarine-launched
ballistic missiles; and 3. initiation of the dismantlement of SS-24
rail-mobile and SS-25 road-mobile ICBMs and launchers. Clearly,
[[Page S238]]
these projects were in the national security interest of the United
States, but they were delayed because of self-imposed conditions and
bureaucratic red tape. A second period of delay began on October 1,
2002, with the expiration of a temporary waiver. Again, U.S. national
security suffered with the postponement of critical dismantlement and
security activities for some six weeks until Congress acted.
The events of 2002 are not the exceptions: They are the rule. In some
years, Nunn-Lugar funds are not available for expenditure until more
than half of the fiscal year has passed, and weapons of mass
destruction slated for dismantlement await the U.S. bureaucratic
process. This means that the program is denied access to these funds
for large portions of the fiscal year in which they were intended to be
spent while critical nonproliferation projects are put on hold. The
bureaucracy generates reams of paper and yet ultimately produces an
outcome that was never in doubt; namely, that it is in the national
security interests of the United States to eliminate weapons of mass
destruction in Russia and elsewhere.
The certification and waiver processes consume hundreds of man-hours
of work by the State Department, the Intelligence Community, the
Pentagon, as well as other departments and agencies. This time could be
better spent tackling the proliferation threats facing our country.
Instead of interdicting WMD shipments, identifying the next AQ Khan, or
locating hidden stocks of chemical and biological weapons, our
nonproliferation experts spend their time compiling reports and
assembling certification or waiver determinations. Even more
frustrating is the fact that the majority of these reports are
repetitive, in that the Department of State already reports on most of
these issues in other formats.
Some will argue that the certification process provides the
Administration with leverage on Russian behavior. I disagree. I do not
believe any of the certification subjects are a good reason to stop the
destruction and safeguarding of weapons of mass destruction. I would
argue just the opposite; these are reasons for us to accelerate our
efforts and become more vigilant in our approach.
These programmatic delays have given Russia, and others, cover to
hide behind, pointing the finger of blame on the United States for slow
program implementation and taking the spotlight off their failure to
provide access and transparency. While we call on President Putin to
speed up dismantlement and open more sites for security upgrades,
congressionally-imposed conditions and funding delays are used as
arguments against accelerating Nunn-Lugar projects.
I have concluded that despite the best intentions of Congress, the
certification requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program have outlasted
their utility. While the goals of the conditions are pure, they simply
do not belong on nonproliferation programs. I would point out that the
equally important nonproliferation programs at the Departments of
Energy and State do not have these conditions. They do not suffer from
the annual certification and waiver process. Why should the Nunn-Lugar
program, focused on the dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and
biological weapons, be singled out for this treatment or need for
leverage.
I am pleased that a number of administration officials and groups
have endorsed the elimination of the certification and waiver process.
The 9/11 Commission Report weighed in with an important endorsement of
the Nunn-Lugar program, saying that ``Preventing the proliferation of
[weapons of mass destruction] warrants a maximum effort--by
strengthening counter-proliferation efforts, expanding the
Proliferation Security Initiative, and supporting the Cooperative
Threat Reduction Program.'' The Report went on to say that ``Nunn-Lugar
. . . is now in need of expansion, improvement and resources.'' More
recently, the follow-on 9/11 Public Discourse Project wrote that the
elimination of the certification requirements ``is an important step
forward in protecting the United States against catastrophic attack.''
Secretary Rice has testified that the Administration strongly
supports my efforts pointing out that ``flexibility in being able to
administer the program would be most welcome.'' Bob Joseph, the Under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, also
expressed his support saying pointedly to me that ``the fact that there
are 13 steps that can take . . . six months or longer to get through
certainly . . . underlines the rationale for [this legislation] . . .
Whatever we can do, Senator, to improve the efficiency of the process,
to reduce the time lines involved, and to provide greater flexibility
for action, I would be in favor of.''
Charles Boyd, USAF (Ret.) and Stanley Weiss, the Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman, respectively, of the Business Executives for
National Security, wrote to the Armed Services Committees of the House
and Senate expressing support for the elimination of the certification
requirements on the Nunn-Lugar program. They wrote in part: ``Even
though conditions can be waived, doing so diverts time and effort that
could otherwise be used to meet proliferation challenges. Relying on
waivers also preserves the risk that funding delays could threaten
existing projects and investments.''
In sum, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is the
number one national security threat facing the United States today. The
Nunn-Lugar program is making tremendous contributions to the
elimination of potentially vulnerable stockpiles. While the Congress'
intentions in imposing annual certification requirements were pure, the
process has evolved into a bureaucratic quagmire in to which months of
work by numerous departments, agencies and bureaus are sunk. The
Administration toils to produce a forgone conclusion; namely, that it
is in U.S. interests to eliminate and secure weapons and materials of
mass destruction. The funds for these operations are delayed while
threats remain unaddressed. This is red-tape that we can do without.
The only practical effect is unnecessary delays to our response to the
number one national security threat facing the United States.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 199
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. GRANTS TO ALASKA TO IMPROVE SANITATION IN RURAL
AND NATIVE VILLAGES.
Section 303 of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996 (33 U.S.C. 1263a) is amended--
(1) by redesignating subsection (e) as subsection (h);
(2) by inserting after subsection (d) the following:
``(e) Requirements.--As a condition of receiving a grant
under this section, the State of Alaska shall--
``(1) require each applicant to clearly identify the scope
and the goal of the project for which funding is sought and
how the funds will be used to meet the specific, stated goal
of the project;
``(2) establish long-term goals for the program, including
providing water and sewer systems to Alaska Native villages;
and
``(3) carry out regular reviews of grantees to determine if
the stated scope and goals of each grant are being met.
``(f) Reporting.--Not later than December 31 of the
calendar year following the fiscal year in which this
subsection is enacted, and annually thereafter, the State of
Alaska shall submit to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency a report describing the information
obtained under subsection (e) during the fiscal year ending
the preceding September 30, including--
``(1) the specific goals of each project;
``(2) how funds were used to meet the goal; and
``(3) whether the goals were met.
``(g) Review.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall require the State of Alaska to
correct any deficiencies identified in a report under
subsection (f).
``(2) Failure to correct or reach agreement.--
``(A) In general.--If a deficiency in a project included in
a report under subsection (f) is not corrected within a
period of time agreed to by the Administrator and the State
of Alaska, the Administrator shall not permit additional
expenditures for that project.
``(B) Time agreement.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of submission to the Administrator of a report under
subsection (f), the Administrator and the State of Alaska
shall reach an agreement on a period of time referred to in
subparagraph (A).
``(ii) Failure to reach agreement.--If the State of Alaska
and the Administrator fail to reach an agreement on the
period of time to correct a deficiency in a project included
[[Page S239]]
in a report under subsection (f) by the deadline specified in
clause (i), the Administrator shall not permit additional
expenditures for that project.''; and
(3) in subsection (h) (as redesignated by paragraph (1))--
(A) by striking ``$40,000,000'' and inserting
``$42,000,000''; and
(B) by striking ``2005'' and inserting ``2010''.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 199. A bill to amend the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996 to
modify the grant program to improve sanitation in rural and Native
villages in the State of Alaska; to the Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce a bill that will
allow the Environmental Protection Agency to continue to provide grant
funding and technical assistance to remote communities in Alaska for
critical water and sewer projects. These remote communities are only
accessible by either aircraft or boat.
This important funding was originally authorized as part of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and was reauthorized in 2000.
Every fiscal year, the EPA transfers funding authorized by this program
to the State of Alaska's Village Safe Water Program, which is managed
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
The water and sewer conditions in the villages in Alaska that still
need this critical funding rival the conditions in rural communities in
third world countries. For example, residents in some villages in
Alaska have to go to a central source in the community to get fresh
water. Instead of flushing toilets, residents of some villages have to
use a device called a ``honeybucket.'' This device is a large bucket
with a toilet seat on top. When the honeybucket is full, it is usually
dumped in a lagoon or on land. Sometimes, these dump locations are near
sources of drinking water.
The Village Safe Water program has been a success over the years.
Many homes in Alaska's remote communities now have plumbing due to
funds authorized by this program. However, 34 percent of homes in these
communities still do not have indoor plumbing. It is unacceptable that
these Americans still do not have access to conventional plumbing in
their homes in 2007.
Previously, the Office of Management and Budget published a Program
Assessment Rating Tool report concerning this program. This report
found several deficiencies concerning the administration of this
program. In response to that report, the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation has put in place several changes to correct
these deficiencies, including hiring additional accounting staff and
initiating a memorandum of understanding with EPA Region 10 regarding
program procedures and requirements.
This legislation reauthorizes the program through fiscal year 2010
and increases the authorized funding level from $40 million to $42
million, a modest five percent increase. Also, the legislation requires
the State of Alaska to mandate that grant recipients clearly identify
the scope and the goal of the project for which funding is sought and
how the funds will be used to meet the specific, stated goal of the
project; establish long-term goals for the program and carry out
regular reviews of grantees to determine if the stated scope and goal
of each grant are being met. This bill also requires the State of
Alaska to submit an annual report to the EPA that addresses these
issues. If a project-specific problem included in the report is not
rectified within an amount of time agreed to by the State of Alaska and
the EPA or if both entities are not able to agree on a timetable to fix
the problem, the EPA will not disburse any additional funding for the
project in question.
It is imperative that we reauthorize this critically important
program soon. The health and well-being of rural Alaskans is at stake.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of this bill be printed in the
Record.
______
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 200. A bill to require the Secretary of the Interior, acting
through the Bureau of Reclamation and the United States Geological
Survey, to conduct a study on groundwater resources in the State of
Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in 2005 I first introduced a measure of
benefit to my home State of Alaska, the Alaska Water Resources Act, for
a number of reasons. While the bill easily passed the U.S. Senate in
2005, it did not complete its journey to final passage, which is why I
am reintroducing the bill today. The importance of water resource data
collection to a State that has a resource-based economy cannot be
overstated. Economic development is predicated on access to an adequate
water supply, and in my State there is inadequate hydrologic data upon
which to secure both economic development and the health and welfare of
Alaskan citizens.
Alaska is an amazing State from a hydrological viewpoint. It is home
to more than 3 million lakes--only about 100 being larger than 10
square miles--more than 12,000 rivers and uncounted thousands of
streams, creeks and ponds. Together these water bodies hold about one-
third of all the fresh water found in the United States.
Alaska is home to a number of large rivers. The Yukon, which
originates in western Canada, runs 1,400 miles--discharging from 25,000
cubic feet of water per second in early spring to more than 600,000
cubic feet per second in May during the spring thaw. The Yukon drains
roughly 330,000 square miles of Alaska and Canada, about one-third of
the State. Besides the Yukon, Alaska is home to nine other major rivers
and creeks all running more than 300 miles in length: the Porcupine,
Koyukuk, Kuskokwim, Tanana, Innoko, Colville, Noatak, Kobuk and Birch
Creek.
Alaska residents from early spring to fall face substantial flood
threats, from spring flooding caused by breakup and ice damming to
fall's heavy rains, but the State has fewer than 100 stream gaging
stations operated by the U.S. Geological Survey--Alaska having less
than 10 percent of the stream flow information that is taken for
granted by all other States in the Nation. Alaska averages one working
gage for each 10,000 square miles, while, as an example, Pacific
Northwest States average one gage for each 365 square miles. To
emphasize the lack of data now available for Alaska, I would point out
that to equal the stream gage density of the Pacific Northwest States
my State would need to have over 1,600 total gage sites.
Alaska also supports the Nation's least modern and undeveloped
potable water distribution system. Water for Alaska towns outside of
the more densely populated ``Railbelt'' comes predominately from
groundwater sources. Surface water sources often result in supply/
storage problems since these surface sources freeze and are not readily
available for up to half of the year. The chances for water-borne
contaminants to affect potable water supplies, including fecal matter
from Alaska's plentiful wildlife populations, human waste from inquate
or nonexistent sewage treatment facilities, and natural mineral
deposits, natural arsenic levels in mineralized zone creeks frequently
exceeding EPA standards) are present and increasing. In areas that
predominately depend on groundwater sources, such as the ``Railbelt''
there is only very limited knowledge of the nature and extent of
aquifers that support those critical groundwater supplies. Extensive
permafrost further complicates the potential for adverse impacts to
Alaska. In portions of Southcentral Alaska where there is a dependence
on groundwater as the source for an adequate healthy water supply, the
availability of that supply is starting to be in jeopardy. Allocations
of water need to be based on scientific data, and the data needed upon
which the allocations are made is unavailable. Users of water are only
beginning to realize the potential conflicts that may arise, and the
limits on future economic development that may result from inadequate
knowledge of the water resource, particularly in the Matanuska-Susitna
Borough, on the Kenai Peninsula, and to a lesser extent in portions of
the municipality of Anchorage and in the Fairbanks area, where
groundwater provided by wells is a crucial part of the State's water
distribution system, and where there is little known about the size,
capacity, extent and recharge capability of the aquifers that these
wells tap.
[[Page S240]]
Alaska, according to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation, still has some 16,000 homes in 71 generally Native
villages not being served by piped water or enclosed water haul
systems. There are still 55 villages in Alaska where up to 29 percent
of the residents are not served by sanitary water systems, with more
than 60 percent of residents not being served in 16 villages. Even
though, since statehood in 1959, the State and Federal governments have
spent $1.3 billion on rural water-sanitation system improvements, the
State still has an estimated need for nearly $650 million in additional
funding to complete installation of a modern water-sanitation system.
Planning and engineering for those locations cannot be easily
completed without better information as to the availability and extent
of supply of water and better analysis of new technologies that could
be used for water system installations, including possible desalination
for some island and coastal communities.
For all these reasons today I have reintroduced legislation
authorizing the Department of the Interior's Commissioner of
Reclamation and the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct a
series of water resource studies in Alaska. The studies will include a
survey of water treatment needs and technologies, including
desalination treatment, which may be applicable to water resources
developments in Alaska. The study will review the need for enhancement
of the National Streamflow Information Program administered by the U.S.
Geological Survey. The Streamflow review will determine whether more
stream gaging stations are necessary for flood forecasting, aiding
resource extraction, determining the risk to the state's transportation
system, and for wildfire management. Groundwater resources will also be
further evaluated and documented to determine the availability of
water, the quality of that groundwater, and the extent of the aquifers
in some urban areas.
This type of study, already conducted for most all other States in
the Nation, should help Alaska better plan and design water systems and
transportation infrastructure and also better prepare for floods and
summer wildfires.
There is literally ``water, water everywhere'' in Alaska, but too
often, especially in communities such as Ketchikan that take water from
surface sources, or the rapidly growing Mat-Su Valley where there may
be less water to drink during unusually dry summers, there is a real
and growing problem of maintaining an adequate healthy supply of pure
water. This problem is only going to grow more severe with a growing
population and economy. This bill is designed to provide more
information to help communities plan for future water needs and to help
State officials plan for flood and fire safety concerns and further
economic development.
______
By Mr. STEVENS (for himself and Ms. Murkowski):
S. 205. A bill to grant rights-of-way for electric transmission lines
over certain Native allotments in the State of Alaska; to the Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President. Today I reintroduce legislation which
will resolve an ongoing dispute in my State concerning rights of way in
the Copper River Valley region.
In the 109th Congress, both the Senate and House of Representatives
held hearings on this bill. It is my hope that we can move this
important legislation quickly through the Senate.
When Congress attempted to settle outstanding land claims in Alaska,
it unintentionally created a land dispute between Native allotees and
utility companies. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Federal Government and
the State of Alaska granted rights of way to the Copper Valley Electric
Association to run power lines across areas in our state that were
later claimed by Alaska Natives. These rights were conveyed before
Alaska Native allotment claims had been filed and processed.
In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act in 1980, which legislatively ratified native allotment
land claims subject to the valid existing rights of other land holders.
However, several Native allottees challenged the existing rights of
other land holders and claimed that the Copper Valley Electric
Association was trespassing on their lands. In 1987, the Department of
Interior's Interior Board of Land Appeals affirmed this position,
finding native allotees have priority over other competing uses of
land--in this case, those of the utility company--regardless of the
fact that the rights of way were granted prior to the conveyance of the
property in question to the allotees. This situation is still
unresolved and has resulted in years of litigation.
We have been unable to settle these disputes through existing
remedies. These conflicts now jeopardize existing transportation and
utility corridors and threaten future infrastructure development in the
region.
At my request, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reviewed
this situation. The GAO issued its report and recommended solutions.
This bill incorporates the GAO's recommendation. It compensates the
owners of the Native allotments, while ensuring that the utility
companies are able to provide residents with the infrastructure and
services they need. I believe this is the most equitable solution
available, and I urge the Senate to pass this bill.
____________________