[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.

                          ____________________