[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2131-S2140]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. VITTER (for himself, Mr. Paul, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Moran):
S. 723. A bill to amend section 301 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the
United States who are nationals and citizens of the United
[[Page S2132]]
States at birth; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, America's illegal immigration problem is
clearly way out of control. We can all agree that we desperately need
to better protect our borders, ensure that only citizens and legal
residents can be hired for jobs in this country, and reverse misguided
policies that serve as a magnet for further illegal immigration.
Today, I am introducing a bill that falls into that third category,
to get rid of these magnets that encourage further illegal activity.
The bill would amend the Immigration and Nationalization Act in order
to change our current practice of granting automatic citizenship to the
children of illegal aliens born on American soil. When it comes to U.S.
citizenship, it is not just where an individual is born that matters,
at least it should not be. The circumstances of the person's birth and
the nationality of his or her parents are of at least equal importance.
I simply do not believe our Constitution confers citizenship on
children who happen to be born on U.S. soil when both of their parents
are foreign tourists or illegal aliens. The Constitution does not
mandate or require that. Yet that is our policy.
Each year, 300,000 to 400,000 children are born in the United States
to at least one parent who is an illegal alien or a foreign tourist. A
significant subset of that number includes children born to two parents
who are not U.S. citizens--the category my bill attacks. Despite the
illegal status and foreign citizenship of the parent, the executive
branch of our government now automatically recognizes these children as
U.S. citizens upon birth. This practice is not mandated by Federal law
or the Constitution. It is based on what I believe is a fundamental
misunderstanding of the 14th amendment of the Constitution. As such,
this policy is incompatible with both the text and legislative history
of the citizenship clause. I don't think the 14th amendment grants this
birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens. In fact, all we
have to do is look at history and the actual text of the Constitution
as our guide.
The 14th amendment does not say all persons born in the United States
are citizens, period, end of story. It states that citizenship extends
to ``all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof.''
This latter phrase is important. It is conveniently ignored or
misconstrued by advocates of birthright citizenship. But, of course, a
fundamental rule in terms of constitutional interpretation is that
words are assumed to be there for a purpose. If those words had no
meaning, had no impact, then the Founders would not have written them
into that part of the Constitution.
Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an
individual and the jurisdiction a foreign government has over that
person. That is why American Indians and their children did not become
citizens until Congress actually passed the Indian Citizenship Act of
1924.
I am introducing today's legislation because it is apparent that
Congress must reassert its plenary authority over naturalization and
make clear that ``subject to the jurisdiction thereof'' does not
include children born in this country to illegal aliens or foreign
tourists. Those parents are clearly subject to the jurisdiction of
foreign governments.
My bill limits birthright citizenship to individuals born in the
United States to at least one parent who is a legal citizen, a green
card holder, or an active member of the U.S. Armed Forces. Congress
clearly has the power to determine that children born in the United
States to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction.
As Judge Richard Posner, of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals,
held in a 2003 case: ``Congress would not be flouting the Constitution
if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to this
nonsense.'' That is exactly what my bill would do, put an end to this
nonsense.
Closing this loophole will not prevent anyone from becoming a
naturalized citizen. Instead, it will ensure that he or she has to go
through the same process as anyone else born of foreign national
parents who wants to become a U.S. citizen.
Our practice of birthright citizenship is clearly an incentive to
illegal immigration. It does a disservice to every would-be citizen who
is actually following the rules, applying to be naturalized, standing
in line, often for a very long time.
This misguided policy of birthright citizenship not only undermines
the stability of our immigration system, but it has severe fiscal
consequences as well as serious national security implications. Recent
news reports have highlighted the growing popularity of what is known
as birth tourism.
Web sites actually advertise birth packages for foreign visitors so
pregnant women can give birth in the United States and ensure automatic
citizenship, under current practice, for their newborn children. Of
course, with that automatic citizenship comes the full benefits
thereof, including unlimited travel to the United States, educational
benefits, and the ability to settle here as an adult and eventually,
down the line, the ability to grab back the parents and get them into
U.S. citizenship.
One such agency that appeals to foreign mothers to be by describing
the benefits of American-born children, pointing out that a one-time
investment in a birth package will result in a lifetime of benefits for
their family was in the news recently. Specifically, it says: Your
children will be able to attend U.S. public elementary schools and they
may apply for scholarships designated for U.S. citizens and they are
entitled to welfare benefits--all of this explicitly spelled out in the
advertising for this agency.
Just last month, authorities in California shut down a makeshift
maternity clinic after discovering 10 newborns and one dozen Chinese
women who paid as much as $35,000 to travel to this country to give
birth to children who would automatically be recognized as U.S.
citizens.
Birth tourism, as amazing as this is, is not a new phenomenon, as
women from other countries have long traveled to the United States
legally, on tourist or student visas, and given birth while here.
However, recent reports indicate that the practice is escalating. A new
report by the Center for Immigration Studies finds that every year
200,000 children are born to women who were lawfully admitted to the
United States on a temporary basis.
Each of these children receive U.S. citizenship, despite their
mother's allegiance to a different country and even if the father is
not a U.S. citizen. Birth tourism is certainly a reprehensible
practice, but it is not an illegal one. It is astounding that the U.S.
Government allows individuals to exploit the loopholes of our
immigration system in this manner. It is obvious that Congress has the
authority and the obligation to put an end to it.
In addition to this birth tourism--and by that I refer to focusing on
tourists here legally under a tourist visa. Of course, there are tens
or hundreds of thousands of children born in this country to two
illegal immigrant parents, and those children, under the same practice,
automatically become U.S. citizens.
This, too, is a very dangerous practice, a magnet to attract more and
more illegal activity across the border, when we say we want to do
everything to stop that. Certainly, if we truly want to do everything
we can to stop that, we need to unplug those magnets, stop that policy
from attracting more and more illegal crossings across the border.
So I introduce this important legislation today, and I thank Senators
Paul and Lee and Moran for joining me in addressing this critical
issue. I invite all the Members of the Senate to join me in doing this.
______
By Mr. WYDEN (for himself, Mr. Coats, and Mr. Begich):
S. 727. A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make the
Federal income tax system simpler, fairer, and more fiscally
responsible, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Wyden, we
introduce bipartisan tax reform legislation, a piece of legislation
that we believe, and hopefully we can gather a consensus in this body
to believe, is necessary to be a component of addressing the current
fiscal situation.
[[Page S2133]]
The Senator from South Dakota just articulated very well the plight
we currently are facing with our current Federal deficit and
accumulating debt. I don't think I could have said it better than he
did. He laid out what I think most Americans are now realizing, and
that is we have to get a grip on our current fiscal situation in this
country if we are going to provide any kind of opportunity for the
future--for prosperity, for opportunity for our young people to get
good jobs, buy homes, raise a family, and send their kids to college.
And even in a more current sense, we need to get our economy moving
again to the point where we can get people back to work and become a
prosperous leading nation in the world. We are gradually, and
accelerating all the time, losing that position because of our fiscal
situation.
This morning, a number of us met--both Republicans and Democrats--in
one of a series of meetings we have been having with outside experts.
Dr. Carmen Reinhart and Ken Rogoff spoke to us this morning, both
distinguished and respected economists, and others who have studied the
situation, and they laid out the current status of our fiscal situation
and the economic plight it is putting our country into. One of the
things they said--and I think the reason I am on the floor this
evening--is that unless we address all the aspects in dealing with our
fiscal crisis, both in terms of excessive spending that is taking
place, and has taken place over the last several years, as well as
components for growth, we are not going to successfully address this.
We not only have to look at the spending which has accelerated
dramatically in the last few years, and the amount of deficit we are
accumulating every year, and the amount of debt we are rolling up, but
we also have to look at ways of addressing that by cutting spending and
also spurring the economy to growth. The component for growth pretty
much falls along the lines of tax reform.
Senator Wyden had worked for 2 years with former Senator Gregg. They
spent a great deal of time putting together a very comprehensive plan.
Senator Gregg, as everyone here knows, retired after many years of
distinguished service. He was recognized as one of the, if not the,
leading proponent of budget stability, of economic growth, and of all
the aspects that go into dealing with economic situations. He is
greatly missed. I had the privilege of being his friend, serving with
him, and then having him encourage me to take his place in moving this
legislation forward.
I have spent the last 3 months working with Senator Wyden, who is
coauthor of that legislation, along with Senator Gregg. We have made
some refinements to this and we are introducing it today. We will be
doing a formal introduction of it together in the coming days, but the
agreement and the growing consensus we hear from everyone is that
comprehensive tax reform has to be a component of addressing our fiscal
plight and getting us back into a period of sustained growth.
S. 727 is the bill that will be available for people to look at--the
Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2011. It simplifies
our current tax system, it holds down rates for individuals and
families, it provides tax relief to the middle class, and creates
incentives for businesses to grow and invest in the United States.
As we know, with any structure that is built, the first thing you do
is build a solid foundation. What we are trying to do in our tax reform
package is to build that foundation based on several basic principles.
We believe that to bring forward legislation on a bipartisan basis we
have to have a tax package that is revenue neutral, that is not
stereotyped or characterized as a backdoor means of raising taxes or of
cutting spending. Revenue neutrality means we can go forward knowing it
is not used for that purpose but for the purpose of putting in place a
tax system that will stimulate growth, provide for better
competitiveness for our industries and businesses, and make us a more
prosperous nation.
Simplification is a key foundational principle, as well as protection
for the middle class and families--fairness across the board. And as I
said earlier, economic growth. I want to address each of those.
First of all, achieving a revenue-neutral bill. This has been
analyzed by the Joint Tax Committee, and basically we have information
back that it is revenue neutral. This analysis is based on a static
basis. As we all know, if you put in place policies that will encourage
growth and stimulate growth, it becomes a dynamic scoring. But CBO
doesn't do dynamic scoring, nor does the JTC--the Joint Tax Committee.
But nevertheless, even at the static analysis of this bill, it achieves
revenue neutrality. It is our goal to maintain that throughout, as
adjustments might be made.
Simplifying the Tax Code has to be one of the very first things we
do. Today, the U.S. Tax Code is 71,684 pages in length, and it includes
a tangled web of over 10,000 exemptions, deductions, credits, and other
preferences. I took three tax courses in law school, and I don't begin
to understand the 10,000-plus exemptions and deductions and preferences
that are in there. I turn it over to an accountant, who spends every
working hour of his week, every day of the year trying to stay up with
the complexity of this Tax Code.
It is no secret that Americans spend 6.1 billion hours each year
filling out tax forms, and roughly $163 billion a year is spent on tax
compliance. It is a great benefit for accountants and tax lawyers, but
the average person simply cannot begin to comprehend the complexity of
this code, and we pay a significant price for that.
Along that line, people feel a real sense of unfairness in this. They
are always wondering if their neighbor has a better accountant or a
better tax attorney or has figured out a way to take advantage of a
deduction or exclusion or a tax preference that they may not be aware
of. You know: You are having coffee on April 16 and talking about
filing your taxes yesterday and saying: Well, you did take the
deduction for X, Y or Z, didn't you? Or how about that extra room in
your house you use for business? Or did you know you can deduct the
cost of pencils, but also driving down to pick up a latte, or whatever,
if you are meeting somebody for business? This stuff goes on and on
forever. And you think: Gosh, I didn't know that. He got a better deal
than I did.
We lose our sense of confidence in terms of the fairness of the tax
system. So simplification is absolutely essential. And for a 71,000-
plus page Tax Code, I think it is an absolute necessity.
We reduced the number of tax brackets for individuals, first of all,
from six to three. We also eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which
means you have to calculate your taxes twice, in many instances, to see
which one is the higher and which one you pay. That doubles the amount
of time, or it adds a lot to the amount of time.
I want to point to this chart here on my right, the Wyden-Coats Tax
Reform Act of 2010. This is what a simplified U.S. individual tax
return form will look like if this bill is passed. It is one page. It
incorporates, obviously, the information about who you are and whether
you are married, your spouse's Social Security number and yours, et
cetera, et cetera; whether you are head of household, these very simple
provisions here that are on the tax form now. We can all figure out how
to work through to here.
Right here, you list your dependents and their relationship to you,
and you get their Social Security numbers and then to see whether you
qualify for a dependent's deduction, and then you check those off.
You list your capital gains and your dividends here. Your total
income is added together, and then you adjust that by some very simple
retained exemptions that we have not taken out, and deductions, and tax
credits, all still on one page. You come down to the payment, and you
either get a refund or you owe the government a little more money. And
that is it. Then you send it in.
We also have a provision in there if you don't want to do this
yourself or you have some confusion. It is basic enough. You can do it
electronically or by telephone or whatever, and ask the IRS to do it
for you. They will calculate it for you, send it to you, so you can
review it and then certify that it is correct or that you have
questions that can be answered.
Point No. 1: Simplification is absolutely necessary. It can be done,
and we have structured it so with three
[[Page S2134]]
brackets that allow us and allow individuals to fill out their taxes on
the basis of this simple form.
Thirdly, after revenue neutrality and simplification, we are talking
about how do we use this to grow the economy. Clearly, with the fiscal
situation we are in today, we are not going to solve our problem just
by cutting or by raising taxes. We need to have a growth component so
we can achieve more revenue through the prosperity and growth of
corporations and income levels of individuals and so forth. So we are
reforming our code in a way to help us get out of this fiscal situation
by improving the prosperity and growth of the country.
Our current tax system places the employers and businesses at a
disadvantage in the global marketplace. If you look at this chart on my
left, the United States, out of the 36 most competitive countries
competing for global business around the world, is 35th. We are 35th
out of 36 in the highest rate of taxes paid by our corporations, and
they are competing against countries such as Germany, France, Austria,
Turkey, Chile, and all these that are listed here--Asian nations and so
forth--that have much lower combined tax rates than the United States.
We want to lower this level of payment of taxes in the United States
by U.S. businesses to 24 percent from the current rate of 35 percent.
If we go by a combined rate, it ends up with numbers a little different
than that, but we want to move the United States down here into the
competitive area where we are competitive with all those countries that
we compete with to sell products overseas in this global economy. We do
that and pay for it by eliminating a lot of the credits, special
preferences, exemptions, and deductions that are available in those
71,000 pages, resulting in 10,000 or more special exemptions. We
eliminate a lot of those in return for a lower corporate rate.
I talked with a number of businesses--small, large, and medium--that
were saying if we can just get the rate down where we are competitive,
we do not need to dig into the Tax Code to try to find all these
special exemptions. It has been called corporate welfare. It doesn't
always fall into that category. Some of this is legitimate, but it is
not across the board. While it addresses problems of a specific
industry or a specific company, it does not address it across-the-board
in a way for their competitors to be treated in the same way.
Under Wyden-Coats, we try to level the playing field and make
investing in the United States more attractive to businesses of all
sizes. We have a repatriation provision in there which at another time
we will explain in more detail. But a number of organizations,
including Heritage and the Manufacturers Alliance, have done studies
and produced information that shows that a lowering of this rate is a
job creator. It is a growth component. The Heritage Foundation found
that the legislation could create up to 2.3 million new jobs a year,
while cutting the Federal deficit by an average of $61 billion, just
through the changes we have made in the corporate structure of
taxation. The Manufacturers Alliance published a paper that concluded
such an approach would ``create nearly 2 million jobs on a net basis
and add an extra $500 billion to GDP by 2015.'' The alliance also
estimated that the increase of economic activity from this legislation
could reduce the debt by $1.2 trillion over the coming decade.
I wish to repeat that. While CBO or the Joint Tax might score this on
a static basis--meaning that from lowering tax rates they do not
calculate in what the potential growth from that might be in a fluid
way, a dynamic way--history shows us that every time taxes are lowered,
there is an uptick in economic activity and more important an uptick in
the hiring and a drop in the unemployment rate. Getting us more
competitive with our competitors around the world will clearly bring a
yet undetermined number of more revenue coming into the Government
based on higher profits by our companies and resulting in more
employment. That is a key component of this tax reform.
Protecting the middle class and families is also another key
component of our tax reform and of the Wyden-Coats plan. Today a family
of four in Indiana making $90,000 and filing jointly would owe nearly
$13,000 in personal income taxes. Under Wyden-Coats that family would
keep more of their hard-earned money and save approximately $5,000 in
personal income taxes.
We protect and extend important tax deductions for families. We do
not eliminate all deductions to reach our simplified Tax Code with only
three levels of taxation. Without increases, we retain the rates. We
don't raise any of the rates that are currently in place. We keep the
dependent tax credit, which is set to drop to $2,400 in 2 years. Under
the Wyden-Coats plan, we permanently set that credit at $3,000, a
benefit to families. The child tax credit is scheduled to revert to
$500 in 2013. Wyden-Coats eases the tax burden on families by
permanently setting the child tax credit at $1,000.
We promote personal saving and investment. We think it is important
that we encourage saving and investment. Today we have three separate
IRA or Individual Retirement Account plans for savings and investments
available to individuals in the United States. Wyden-Coats promotes
this by expanding tax-free saving opportunities and consolidating these
three new accounts into one account that would allow a married couple
to contribute up to $14,000 a year to tax-favored retirement and
savings accounts.
We take the three current plans in existence, we consolidate them
into one. We increase the amount per year that can be, tax-free,
donated to those savings and retirement accounts as another way of
looking out for families and their need to save for the future.
We are making the Tax Code fairer. Today our current tax system picks
winners and losers, with hundreds of specialized tax rates that benefit
some but not all. These credits, specialized earmarks within this Tax
Code that we are working with today, total $1.1 trillion. We want to
eliminate, under Wyden-Coats, a number of those exemptions and end a
number of specialized tax breaks that favor one sector of the economy
or special interest group over another. We want to level this out.
I recognize and Senator Wyden also recognizes that there will be
issues with this bill, especially from groups that benefit from these
special exemptions, but those special exemptions and tax earmarks often
put other companies at a disadvantage, and it is time, as I said, to
make our system fairer and more simple. Ronald Reagan once said: To put
it simply, our tax system is unfair, it is inequitable, it is
counterproductive and all but incomprehensible. Reagan went on to say
that were he living at this time, even Albert Einstein would have to
write to the IRS to help him fill out his 1040 form each year.
It is 25 years since we had any meaningful tax reform; 1986 was the
last time. During that time, our Government has vastly expanded Tax
Code reform into a complicated, tangled web of deductions and loopholes
for tax lawyers to decipher. But if we can reform this Tax Code and
encourage job investment here at home and, through doing this, create
more American jobs and make our country more competitive in a global
market, we will have taken a major step to moving forward in terms of
addressing the fiscal plight we are currently in.
Senator Wyden and I are open to suggestion. This is not set in
concrete. This is not a be-all, end-all plan. We don't have all the
answers to this complex problem. But we think this is an essential
start to a debate that is necessary to be accompanied by other
solutions that we have to bring to our current fiscal situation. We
want to put this in as a starter, as a way of saying 2 years-plus of
hard work by two people who are knowledgeable about this topic--and I
do not begin to bring myself up to the speed Senator Wyden and Senator
Gregg achieved in the 2-plus years of very hard effort, but I am trying
to learn as fast as I can. We want to bring forward a bipartisan,
Democratic-Republican plan which we think is based on principles that
are necessary to stimulate our growth and provide fairness and
simplification of our Tax Code. We want to provide it. We are asking
everybody to look at it, examine it, come to us with your questions.
There will be a lot of things to like. There will be some constituents
who will find some things they do not like because it takes away a
special exemption that they perhaps depended
[[Page S2135]]
on. But we want to explain the basis on which we have made these
decisions. We are open to suggestions, as long as those suggestions
allow us to retain those basic principles and maintain us at revenue
neutrality level and a fairness across-the-board to families and
businesses and individuals throughout this country.
I urge my colleagues to take a look, to work with us. The door is
open for us to sit down and talk, whether to colleagues in the Senate
or families or businesses across the country who want to bring their
special input to this particular effort. We look forward to working
with them and, over time, incorporating this in the plan to make us a
fiscally healthier country and a country that is growing and dynamic
and can retain its place as a place of prosperity and opportunity for
not only those of us today but for our future generations.
______
Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
S. 730. A bill to provide for the settlement of certain claims under
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the Tlingit and Haida people, the first
people of Southeast Alaska, were perhaps the first group of Alaska
Natives to organize for the purpose of asserting their aboriginal land
claims. The Native land claims movement in the rest of Alaska did not
gain momentum until the 1960s when aboriginal land titles were
threatened by the impending construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline.
In Southeast Alaska, the taking of Native lands for the Tongass
National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument spurred the Tlingit
and Haida people to fight to recover their lands in the early part of
the 20th century.
One of the first steps in this battle came with the formation of the
Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1912. In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act,
which allowed the Tlingit and Haida Indians to pursue their land claims
in the U.S. Court of Claims, was enacted by Congress. After decades of
litigation, the Native people of Southeast Alaska received a cash
settlement in 1968 from the Court of Claims for the land previously
taken to create the Tongass National Forest and the Glacier Bay
National Monument. Yes there was a cash settlement of $7.5 million, but
the Native people of Southeast Alaska have long believed that it did
not adequately compensate them for the loss of their lands and
resources.
When the Native people of Southeast Alaska chose to pursue their land
claims in court they could not have foreseen that Congress would
ultimately settle the land claims of all of Alaska's Native people
through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of 1971. Nor
could they have foreseen that they would be disadvantaged in obtaining
the return of their aboriginal lands because of their early, and
ultimately successful, effort to litigate their land claims.
The Claims Settlement Act imposed a series of highly prescriptive
limitations on the lands that Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska
Native Corporation formed for Southeast Alaska, could select in
satisfaction of the Tlingit and Haida land claims. None of the other 11
Alaska-based regional Native corporations were subject to these
limitations. Today, I join with my Alaska colleague, Sen. Mark Begich,
to reintroduce legislation to right this wrong.
For the most part, Sealaska Corporation has agreed to live within the
constraints imposed by the 1971 legislation. It has taken conveyance of
roughly 290,000 acres from the pool of lands it was allowed to select
under the 1971 act. As Sealaska moves to finalize its land selections,
it has asked the Congress for flexibility to receive title to slightly
different lands that it was not permitted to select under the 1971
legislation.
The legislation we are introducing today will allow Sealaska to
select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas
permitted in the 1971 legislation. It
The legislation we are introducing today will allow Sealaska to
select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas
permitted in the 1971 legislation. It allows the Native Corporation to
select up to 3,600 acres of its remaining land entitlement from lands
with sacred, cultural, traditional or historical significance
throughout the Alaska Panhandle. Substantial restrictions will be
placed on the use of these lands.
Up to 5,000 acres of land could be selected for non-timber or mineral
related economic development. These lands are called ``Futures'' sites
in the bill. Other lands referred to as ``economic development lands''
in the bill could be used for timber related and non-timber related
economic development. These lands are on Prince of Wales Island, on
nearby Kosciusko Island.
Sealaska observes that if it were required to take title to lands
within the constraints prescribed by the 1971 legislation it would take
title to large swaths of roadless acres in pristine portions of the
Tongass National Forest, the original selection areas containing
112,000 acres of old-growth timber. The lands it proposes to take for
economic uses under this legislation are predominantly in roaded and
less sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest, meaning that under
this bill Sealaska likely will select roughly 39,000 fewer acres of
old-growth than otherwise might be the case. In the process it will at
most select 9 percent of the second-growth, leaving the U.S. Forest
Service hundreds of thousands of the 428,972 acres of second-growth in
the forest. It will be selecting about 28,570 acres of second-growth,
leaving the Forest Service more than 88 percent of the second-growth in
the forest for it to use to promote a ``young''-growth strategy in our
Nation's largest national forest.
The pools of lands that would be available to Sealaska under this
legislation are depicted on a series of maps referred to in the bill.
It must be emphasized that not all of the lands depicted on these maps
will necessarily end up in Sealaska's ownership. Sealaska by this
legislation will not receive title to lands in excess of its remaining
acreage entitlement under the 1971 legislation and this legislation
does not change that entitlement total, still to be finalized by the
Bureau of Land Management.
Now this legislation has traveled a long path, one that has seen it
change substantially to meet a variety of concerns. Early in the 110th
Congress, Alaska Congressman Don Young in 2007 introduced H.R. 3560 to
address these issues. Later in September 2008 I introduced legislation
similar to, but somewhat different from that bill to give all parties
time to thoroughly review the measure. In 2009, I reintroduced the bill
after Sealaska and the communities of Southeast Alaska worked
collaboratively in good faith to identify issues that may arise from
the transfer of lands on which those communities have relied on for
subsistence and recreation out of the Tongass National Forest and into
Native corporation ownership. Throughout 2009 and into 2010, I and my
staff held 12 town meetings in Alaska to collect comments on the bill,
and made modifications to it in response to the comments we received.
When the bill did not advance in 2010, my staff again held two town
meetings and other briefings this winter to gain additional comments
and suggested changes in the bill. It is after these comments, and
following email and letter suggestions from a variety of sources, that
I and Senator Begich now move to reintroduce a new version of this
bill. It will be somewhat different than a new bill also being
introduced today by Congressman Young in the House, a bill more similar
to his original bill from 2007.
The legislation we are introducing today in the 112th Congress is
different from the original bill in numerous respects. In some cases,
the lands open to Sealaska selection have changed from those that were
available in the first House bill to accommodate community concerns.
For example, this bill reduces the selection pool to about 79,000
acres. It allows for timber land selections in North Election Creek,
Polk Inlet-McKenzie Inlet, near Keete, at 12 Mile Arm, at Calder, all
on Prince of Wales Island, at several sites on Koscuisko Island and on
northern Kuiu Island. These sites are far different than in 2009 since
following comments, all of the areas on northern Prince of Wales
involving Red Bay, Buster Creek and Labouchere Bay have been deleted
[[Page S2136]]
from the bill to meet the concerns of Port Protection and Point Baker
residents. Also a large 12,462-acre parcel in the Keete area also was
removed to accommodate environmentalist concerns. This bill also makes
a series of map changes in these parcels, removing 745 acres at Karheen
Lakes on Tuxekan Island to protect fisheries, and removes timber lands
around Halibut Harbor and Cape Pole on Koscuisko Islands to also
protect fishermen and boaters.
Concerning Future sites, this bill keeps 30 sites, specifically
dropping the 30-acre Dog Cove site, near Naha, north of Ketchikan, as a
result of State and community concerns and imposing a restriction
against development for 15 years of a proposed geothermal site at
Pegmatite Mountain, 25 miles north of Tenakee on Chichagof Island. That
restriction allows the possibility of a renewable energy site to serve
Hoonah and Pelican and perhaps Tenakee, if other projects can't first
be completed to provide lower-cost power to those communities. The bill
already has removed several dozen Future sites that had been proposed
since 2007.
The bill in a change from the 2009 version includes a number of
conservation areas, totaling 151,650 acres, to help protect fisheries
and karst formations on Prince of Wales, Kupreanof, Kuiu and Sukkwan
and Goat Islands. The conservation areas, first proposed after public
comment in spring 2010, remove no timber lands from the current timber
base, but do provide added protections to key fishery habitats such as
those around Sarkar Lakes, Eek Lake, Bay of Pillars and Lovelace
Creeks. Further to protect fisheries, this bill, as sought by many
fishermen, imposes an 100-foot setback requirement for any timber lands
conveyed to Sealaska from timber operations around class 1-A fish
streams for 5 years--plenty of time for the State of Alaska to consider
whether it needs to make any changes in its current State Forest
Practices Act setback requirements.
The bill retains a series of changes made in the bill in the past to
solve concerns over any unintended consequences that the bill might
cause concerning the definition of Indian country in Alaska. It removes
all sites from possible conveyance in Glacier Bay National Park and
Preserve. It removes any presumption that any site qualifies as a
sacred, cultural, traditional or educational site in Southeast,
returning the nomination process for all such selections to the
regulations that covered such selections immediately following the 1971
act's passage. And the bill incorporates a host of changes sought by
governments, the state and a wide variety of groups and individuals to
clarify language and solve concerns over everything from public access
guarantees to access rights by bear guides. The bill maintains public
access rights to all 17(b) easements and guarantees public access to
all timber lands.
Sealaska also has offered a series of commitments to ensure that the
benefits of this legislation flow to the broader Southeast Alaska
economy and not just to the Corporation and its Native shareholders.
The biggest is that all revenues will need to be shared under Section
7(i) of ANCSA with all other Native shareholders statewide.
We all hope that after 40 years that this measure can advance to
passage this Congress and resolve the last land entitlement that
Southeast Alaska's more than 20,000 Native shareholders have long had a
right to receive. It is impossible to expect Alaska's Native
corporations to provide meaningful assistance to Alaska's Native
community if they continue to be denied the lands that Congress
intended them to receive to utilize to provide economic benefits for
the Native peoples of the State. I hope this measure can pass and
become law before the 40th anniversary of the claims settlement act in
December of this year. Justice delayed truly is justice denied.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 730
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Southeast Alaska Native Land
Entitlement Finalization and Jobs Protection Act''.
SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) Conservation system unit.--The term ``conservation
system unit'' has the meaning given the term in section 102
of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 3102).
(2) Land use designation ii.--The term ``Land Use
Designation II'' has the meaning described in title V of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.
539 et seq.), as further amended by section 201 of the
Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-626).
(3) Sealaska.--The term ``Sealaska'' means the Sealaska
Corporation, a Regional Native Corporation created under the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
(4) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of the Interior.
SEC. 3. SELECTIONS IN SOUTHEAST ALASKA.
(a) Selection by Sealaska.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 14(h)(8) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)),
Sealaska is authorized to select and receive conveyance of
the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under that Act (43
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) from Federal land located in southeast
Alaska from each category described in subsections (b) and
(c).
(2) Treatment of land conveyed.--Land conveyed pursuant to
this Act is to be treated as land conveyed pursuant to the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.)
subject to, but not limited to--
(A) reservation of public easements across land pursuant to
section 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1616(b));
(B) valid existing rights pursuant to section 14(g) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g)); and
(C) the land bank protections of section 907(d) of the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (43 U.S.C.
1636(d)).
(b) Withdrawal of Land.--The following public land is
withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from all forms
of appropriation under public land laws, including the mining
and mineral leasing laws, and from selection under the Act of
July 7, 1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'')
(48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85-508), and shall be
available for selection by, and conveyance to, Sealaska to
complete the remaining land entitlement of Sealaska under
section 14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)):
(1) Land identified on the maps dated February 1, 2011, and
labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)''.
(2) Sites with traditional, recreational, and renewable
energy use value, as identified on the map entitled ``Sites
with Traditional, Recreational, and Renewable Energy Use
Value'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment
D'', subject to the condition that not more than 5,000 acres
shall be selected for those purposes.
(3) Sites identified on the map entitled ``Traditional and
Customary Trade and Migration Routes'', dated February 1,
2011, and labeled ``Attachment C'', which includes an
identification of--
(A) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
acre sites at each terminus and at 8 locations along the
route, with the route, location, and boundaries of the
conveyance described on the map inset entitled ``Yakutat to
Dry Bay Trade and Migration Route'' on the map entitled
``Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration Routes'',
dated February 1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment C'';
(B) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
acre sites at each terminus, with the route, location, and
boundaries of the conveyance described on the map inset
entitled ``Bay of Pillars to Port Camden Trade and Migration
Route'' on the map entitled ``Traditional and Customary Trade
and Migration Routes'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled
``Attachment C''; and
(C) a conveyance of land 25 feet in width, together with 1-
acre sites at each terminus, with the route, location, and
boundaries of the conveyance described on the map inset
entitled ``Portage Bay to Duncan Canal Trade and Migration
Route'' on the map entitled ``Traditional and Customary Trade
and Migration Routes'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled
``Attachment C''.
(c) Sites With Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, or Historic
Significance.--Subject to the criteria and procedures
applicable to land selected pursuant to section 14(h)(1) of
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1613(h)(1)) and set forth in the regulations promulgated at
section 2653.5 of title 43, Code of Federal Regulations (as
in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), except as
otherwise provided in this Act--
(1) Sealaska shall have a right to identify up to 3,600
acres of sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or
historic significance, including archeological sites,
cultural landscapes, and natural features having cultural
significance; and
(2) on identification of the land by Sealaska under
paragraph (1), the identified land shall be--
(A) withdrawn, subject to valid existing rights, from all
forms of appropriation under public land laws, including the
mining and mineral leasing laws, and from selection under the
Act of July 7, 1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood
Act'') (48 U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85-508); and
(B) available for selection by, and conveyance to, Sealaska
to complete the remaining
[[Page S2137]]
land entitlement of Sealaska under section 14(h)(8) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(8)),
subject to the conditions that--
(i) no sites with sacred, cultural, traditional, or
historic significance may be selected from within a unit of
the National Park System; and
(ii) beginning on the date that is 15 years after the date
of enactment of this Act, Sealaska shall be limited to
identifying not more than 360 acres of sites with sacred,
cultural, traditional, or historic significance under this
subsection.
(d) Forest Development Roads.--Sealaska shall receive from
the United States, subject to such reasonable terms and
conditions as the Forest Service may impose, nonexclusive
easements to Sealaska to allow--
(1) access on the forest development road and use of the
log transfer site identified in paragraphs (3)(b), (3)(c),
and (3)(d) of the patent numbered 50-85-0112 and dated
January 4, 1985;
(2) access on the forest development road identified in
paragraphs (2)(a) and (2)(b) of the patent numbered 50-92-
0203 and dated February 24, 1992;
(3) access on the forest development road identified in
paragraph (2)(a) of the patent numbered 50-94-0046 and dated
December 17, 1993;
(4) access on the forest development roads and use of the
log transfer facilities identified on the maps dated February
1, 2011, and labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)'';
(5) a reservation of a right to construct a new road to
connect to existing forest development roads, as generally
identified on the maps described in paragraph (4); and
(6) access to, and reservation of a right to, construct a
new log transfer facility and log storage area at the
location identified on the maps described in paragraph (4).
SEC. 4. CONVEYANCES TO SEALASKA.
(a) Timeline for Conveyance.--
(1) In general.--Subject to paragraphs (2), (3), and (4),
the Secretary shall work with Sealaska to develop a mutually
agreeable schedule to complete the conveyance of land to
Sealaska under this Act.
(2) Final priorities.--Consistent with the provisions of
section 403 of the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act (43
U.S.C. 1611 note; Public Law 108-452), not later than 18
months after the date of enactment of this Act, Sealaska
shall submit to the Secretary the final, irrevocable
priorities for selection of land withdrawn under section
3(b)(1).
(3) Substantial completion required.--Not later than 2
years after the date of selection by Sealaska of land
withdrawn under section 3(b)(1), the Secretary shall
substantially complete the conveyance of the land to Sealaska
under this Act.
(4) Effect.--Nothing in this Act shall interfere with, or
cause any delay in, the duty of the Secretary to convey land
to the State of Alaska under section 6 of the Act of July 7,
1958 (commonly known as the ``Alaska Statehood Act'') (48
U.S.C. note prec. 21; Public Law 85-508).
(b) Expiration of Withdrawals.--On completion of the
selection by Sealaska and the conveyances to Sealaska of land
under subsection (a) in a manner that is sufficient to
fulfill the land entitlement of Sealaska under section
14(h)(8) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1613(h)(8))--
(1) the right of Sealaska to receive any land under section
14(h)(8) of that Act from within a withdrawal area
established under subsections (a) and (d) of section 16 of
that Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a) and 1615(d)) shall be terminated;
(2) the withdrawal areas set aside for selection by Native
Corporations in southeast Alaska under subsections (a) and
(d) of section 16 of that Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a) and 1615(d))
shall be rescinded; and
(3) land located within a withdrawal area that is not
conveyed to Sealaska or to a southeast Alaska Village
Corporation or Urban Corporation shall be returned to the
unencumbered management of the Forest Service as part of the
Tongass National Forest.
(c) Limitation.--Sealaska shall not select or receive under
this Act any conveyance of land pursuant to paragraph (1) or
(2) of section 3(b) located within any conservation system
unit.
(d) Applicable Easements and Public Access.--
(1) In general.--The conveyance to Sealaska of land
withdrawn pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 3(b)
that is located outside a withdrawal area designated under
section 16(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to--
(A) a reservation for easements for public access on the
public roads depicted on the maps dated February 1, 2011, and
labeled ``Attachment A (Maps 1 through 8)'';
(B) a reservation for easements along the temporary roads
designated by the Forest Service as of the date of enactment
of this Act for the public access trails depicted on the maps
described in subparagraph (A);
(C) the right of noncommercial public access for
subsistence uses, consistent with title VIII of the Alaska
National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3111 et
seq.), and recreational access, without liability to
Sealaska, subject to--
(i) the right of Sealaska to regulate access granted under
this subparagraph to ensure public safety, to protect
cultural or scientific resources, and to provide
environmental protection; and
(ii) the condition that Sealaska shall post on any
applicable property, in accordance with State law, notices of
the conditions on use; and
(D) the requirement that, with respect to the land conveyed
to the corporation pursuant to section 3(b)(1), Sealaska
shall continue to manage the land in accordance with the
State of Alaska Forest Resources and Practices Act, Alaska
Stat. 41.17, except that, for a period of 5 years beginning
on the date of enactment of this Act, Alaska Stat.
41.17.116(1) shall apply to the harvest of timber within 100
feet of a water body defined in Alaska Stat. 41.17.950(31).
(2) Sacred, cultural, traditional and historic sites.--The
conveyance to Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to section
3(c) that is located outside of a withdrawal area designated
under section 16(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to--
(A) the right of public access across the conveyances where
no reasonable alternative access around the land is available
without liability to Sealaska; and
(B) the right of Sealaska to regulate access granted under
this paragraph across the conveyances to ensure public
safety, to protect cultural or scientific resources, to
provide environmental protection, or to prohibit activities
incompatible with the use and enjoyment of the land by
Sealaska, subject to the condition that Sealaska shall post
on any applicable property, in accordance with State law,
notices of the conditions on use.
(3) Traditional and customary trade and migration routes.--
The conveyance to Sealaska of land withdrawn pursuant to
section 3(b)(3) that is located outside of a withdrawal area
designated under section 16(a) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall be subject to a
requirement that Sealaska provide public access across the
conveyances if an adjacent landowner or the public has a
legal right to use the adjacent private or public land.
(4) Sites with traditional, recreational, and renewable
energy use value.--The conveyance to Sealaska of land
withdrawn pursuant to section 3(b)(2) that is located outside
of a withdrawal area designated under section 16(a) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1615(a)) shall
be subject to--
(A) the right of public access across the land without
liability to Sealaska; and
(B) the condition that public access across the land would
not be unreasonably restricted or impaired.
(5) Effect.--No right of access provided to any individual
or entity (other than Sealaska) by this subsection--
(A) creates any interest, other than an interest retained
by the United States, of such an individual or entity in the
land conveyed to Sealaska in excess of that right of access;
or
(B) provides standing in any review of, or challenge to,
any determination by Sealaska with respect to the management
or development of the applicable land.
(e) Conditions on Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, and
Historic Sites and Traditional and Customary Trade and
Migration Routes.--The conveyance to Sealaska of land
withdrawn pursuant to sections 3(b)(3) and 3(c)--
(1) shall be subject to a covenant prohibiting any
commercial timber harvest or mineral development on the land;
(2) shall be subject to a covenant allowing use of the land
only as described in subsection (f); and
(3) shall not be subject to any additional restrictive
covenant based on cultural or historic values, or any other
restriction, encumbrance, or easement, except as provided in
sections 14(g) and 17(b) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g), 1616(b)).
(f) Uses of Sacred, Cultural, Traditional, and Historic
Sites and Traditional and Customary Trade and Migration
Routes.--Any land conveyed to Sealaska from land withdrawn
pursuant to sections 3(b)(3) and 3(c) may be used for--
(1) preservation of cultural knowledge and traditions
associated with the site;
(2) historical, cultural, and scientific research and
education;
(3) public interpretation and education regarding the
cultural significance of the site to Alaska Natives;
(4) protection and management of the site to preserve the
natural and cultural features of the site, including cultural
traditions, values, songs, stories, names, crests, and clan
usage, for the benefit of future generations; and
(5) site improvement activities for any purpose described
in paragraphs (1) through (4), subject to the condition that
the activities--
(A) are consistent with the sacred, cultural, traditional,
or historic nature of the site; and
(B) are not inconsistent with the management plans for
adjacent public land.
(g) Termination of Restrictive Covenants.--
(1) In general.--Each restrictive covenant regarding
cultural or historical values with respect to any interim
conveyance or patent for a historic or cemetery site issued
to Sealaska pursuant to the Federal regulations contained in
sections 2653.5(a) and 2653.11 of title 43, Code of Federal
Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act), in accordance with section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)),
terminates as
[[Page S2138]]
a matter of law on the date of enactment of this Act.
(2) Remaining conditions.--Land subject to a covenant
described in paragraph (1) on the day before the date of
enactment of this Act shall be subject to the conditions
described in subsection (e).
(3) Records.--Sealaska shall be responsible for recording
with the land title recorders office of the State of Alaska
any modification to an existing conveyance of land under
section 14(h)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
(43 U.S.C. 1613(h)(1)) as a result of this Act.
(h) Conditions on Sites With Traditional, Recreational, and
Renewable Energy Use Value.--Each conveyance of land to
Sealaska from land withdrawn pursuant to section 3(b)(2)
shall be subject to--
(1) a covenant prohibiting any commercial timber harvest or
mineral development; and
(2) the conveyance of the site identified as Pegmatite
Mountain Geothermal #53 on the map labeled ``Attachment D''
and dated February 1, 2011, shall be subject to a covenant
prohibiting commercial development of the site for a period
of 15 years beginning on the date of enactment of this Act,
provided that Sealaska shall have a right to engage in site
evaluation and analysis during the period.
(i) Escrow Funds for Withdrawn Land.--On the withdrawal by
this Act of land identified for selection by Sealaska, the
escrow requirements of section 2 of Public Law 94-204 (43
U.S.C. 1613 note), shall thereafter apply to the withdrawn
land.
(j) Guiding and Outfitting Special Use Permits or
Authorizations.--
(1) In general.--Consistent with the provisions of section
14(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C.
1613(g)), on land conveyed to Sealaska from land withdrawn
pursuant to sections 3(b)(1) and 3(b)(2), an existing holder
of a guiding or outfitting special use permit or
authorization issued by the Forest Service shall be entitled
to its rights and privileges on the land for the remaining
term of the permit, as of the date of conveyance to Sealaska,
and for 1 subsequent 10-year renewal of the permit, subject
to the condition that the rights shall be considered a valid
existing right reserved pursuant to section 14(g) of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g)), and
shall be managed accordingly.
(2) Notice of commercial activities.--Sealaska, with
respect to the holder of a guiding or outfitting special use
permit or authorization under this subsection, and a permit
holder referenced in this subsection, with respect to
Sealaska, shall have an obligation to inform the other party
of their respective commercial activities before engaging in
the activities on land, which has been conveyed to Sealaska
under this Act, subject to the permit or authorization.
(3) Negotiation of new terms.--Nothing in this subsection
precludes Sealaska and a permit holder under this subsection
from negotiating new mutually agreeable permit terms that
supersede the requirements of--
(A) this subsection;
(B) section 14(g) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act (43 U.S.C. 1613(g)); or
(C) any deed covenant.
(4) Liability.--Sealaska shall bear no liability regarding
use and occupancy pursuant to special use permits or
authorizations on land selected or conveyed pursuant to this
Act.
SEC. 5. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) Status of Conveyed Land.--Each conveyance of Federal
land to Sealaska pursuant to this Act, and each Federal
action carried out to achieve the purpose of this Act, shall
be considered to be conveyed or acted on, as applicable,
pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43
U.S.C. 1601 et seq.).
(b) Environmental Mitigation and Incentives.--
Notwithstanding subsection (e) and (h) of section 4, all land
conveyed to Sealaska pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) and this Act shall be
considered to be qualified to receive or participate in, as
applicable--
(1) any federally authorized carbon sequestration program,
ecological services program, or environmental mitigation
credit; and
(2) any other federally authorized environmental incentive
credit or program.
(c) No Material Effect on Forest Plan.--
(1) In general.--Except as required by paragraph (2) and
the amendment made by section 6, implementation of this Act,
including the conveyance of land to Sealaska, alone or in
combination with any other factor, shall not require an
amendment of, or revision to, the Tongass National Forest
Land and Resources Management Plan before the first revision
of that Plan scheduled to occur after the date of enactment
of this Act.
(2) Boundary adjustments.--The Secretary of Agriculture
shall implement any land ownership boundary adjustments to
the Tongass National Forest Land and Resources Management
Plan resulting from the implementation of this Act through a
technical amendment to that Plan.
(d) Effect on Entitlement.--Nothing in this Act shall have
any effect upon the entitlement due to any Native
Corporation, other than Sealaska, under--
(1) the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq.); or
(2) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16
U.S.C. 3101 et seq.).
SEC. 6. CONSERVATION AREAS.
(a) In General.--Section 508 of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (Public Law 96-487; 94 Stat.
2381, 104 Stat. 4428) is amended--
(1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by striking
``The following lands are hereby'' and inserting the
following:
``(a) In General.--The following land is''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(13) Conservation areas.--Subject to valid existing
rights, certain land for conservation purposes, comprising
approximately 151,565 acres, as depicted on the map entitled
``Conservation Areas'', dated February 1, 2011, and labeled
``Attachment E'', which is more particularly described as
follows:
``(A) Bay of pillars.--Certain land, comprising
approximately 21,146.5 acres, located on the southern shore
of the Bay in Forest Service Value Comparison Unit 4030.
``(B) Kushneahin creek.--Certain land, comprising
approximately 36,703 acres, located on southwestern Kupreanof
Island in the Forest Service Value Comparison Units 4300 and
4310.
``(C) Sarkar lakes.--Certain land, comprising approximately
25,403.7 acres, located on Prince of Wales Island in Forest
Service Value Comparison Unit 5541.
``(D) Western koscuisko.--Certain land, comprising
approximately 7,416.5 acres, located on Koscuisko Island in
Forest Service Value Comparison Units 5410, 5430, and 5440.
``(E) Honker divide.--Certain land, comprising
approximately 15,586.2 acres, located on Prince of Wales
Island in Forest Service Value Comparison Units 5740, 5750,
5760, 5780, and 5971.
``(F) Eek lake and sukkwan island.--Certain land,
comprising approximately 34,644.1 acres, located in Forest
Service Value Comparison Units 6320, 6700, 6710 and 6720.
``(G) Eastern koscuisko.--Certain karst land, comprising
approximately 1,663 acres, located on Koscuisko Island in
Forest Service Value Comparison Units 5430 and 5460.
``(H) Northern prince of wales.--Certain karst land,
comprising approximately 10,888 acres, located in Forest
Service Value Comparison Units 5280, 5290, 5311, 5313, 5330,
5360, and 5371.
``(b) Management of Conservation Areas.--
``(1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the
conservation areas designated by subsection (a)(13) shall be
allocated to Land Use Designation II status (as defined in
section 2 of the Southeast Alaska Native Land Entitlement
Finalization and Jobs Protection Act) and shall be managed by
the Secretary of Agriculture to protect subsistence
activities and unique biological and geological resources and
to prohibit commercial timber harvests or new road
construction, in accordance with management guidelines
developed under the Tongass National Forest Land and Resource
Management Plan.
``(2) Requirements.--In managing the areas designated by
subsection (a)(13)--
``(A) the Forest Service shall protect the traditional and
cultural use, biological and geological value, and, where
applicable, the roadless character of the areas;
``(B) industrial logging and associated road building shall
be prohibited;
``(C) timber micro-sales in accessible areas shall be
allowed;
``(D) restoration projects in young-growth stands and
salmon streams shall be encouraged for meeting integrated
resource objectives;
``(E) subsistence enhancement and low impact recreation and
tourism development projects shall be encouraged;
``(F) sustainable, community-scaled economic development of
forest and marine resources shall be allowed, including
issuance of special use permits for non-timber forest
products gathering, mariculture development, and
transportation and energy development; and
``(G) existing and future Transportation and Utility
Systems shall be permitted in designated Transportation and
Utility System Corridors under the Tongass National Forest
Land and Resource Management Plan.
``(c) Limitation.--The establishment of the conservation
areas by subsection (a)(13) shall not be used by the
Secretary of Agriculture or a designee of the Secretary of
Agriculture as a basis for any administrative management
decisions to establish by administrative action any buffers,
withdrawals, land-use designations, road closures, or other
similar actions on any land, value comparison units, or
adjacent land-use designations.''.
SEC. 7. MAPS.
(a) Availability.--Each map referred to in this Act shall
be maintained on file in--
(1) the office of the Chief of the Forest Service; and
(2) the office of the Secretary.
(b) Corrections.--The Secretary or the Chief of the Forest
Service may make any necessary correction to a clerical or
typographical error in a map referred to in this Act.
(c) Treatment.--No map referred to in this Act shall be
considered to be an attempt by the Federal Government to
convey any State or private land.
SEC. 8. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as are
necessary to carry out this Act and the amendments made by
this Act.
[[Page S2139]]
______
By Mr. UDALL of New Mexico:
S. 732. A bill to improve billing disclosures to cellular telephone
consumers; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. President, cell phones today are
becoming ubiquitous and more essential to our everyday lives. Americans
today have over 300 million wireless phones.
We use these phones in new and innovative ways. Consumers today
increasingly use their cell phones for much more than just talking.
Mobile broadband services now allow us to surf the Internet, search for
nearby shops or restaurants, and watch videos right on our wireless
handsets.
Since we now use these devices in new ways, it can be more difficult
for consumers to realize they have exceeded their monthly subscriptions
for cell phone service. This can have dramatic consequences for
consumers.
Consider the case of a Navy ROTC midshipman who mistakenly left his
smartphone's roaming function turned on while he was abroad. His phone
downloaded e-mail messages, and he was sent a bill for almost $1,300.
News outlets have highlighted other cases from across the country,
including cases where children on family subscription plans racked up
thousands of dollars in extra charges. A 13-year-old's cell phone data
usage led to a bill for almost $22,000.
Bob St. Germain of Massachusetts was billed $18,000 for a 6-week
period when his son used a cell phone to connect a computer to the
Internet. I am proud to have Mr. St. Germain's support for the
legislation I am introducing today. Unfortunately, these stories we
hear about in the media are certainly not isolated cases, just the most
egregious.
In fact, a recent Federal Communications Commission, FCC, survey
found that 30 million Americans, or 1 in 6 adult cell phone users, have
experienced cases of ``bill shock.'' Cell phone bill shock occurs when
a consumer's monthly bill increases when they have not changed their
plan. In about one in four cases, the consumer's bill increased by more
than $100. According to a survey by Consumers Union, the publishers of
Consumer Reports magazine, the median bill shock amount was $83.
With new, advanced developments in technology, bill shock is a
growing problem. The introduction of faster ``4G'' networks will make
it easier than ever for customers to burn through data limits.
Americans who have cell phone ``family plans'' with multiple phone
lines may face even greater difficulty monitoring their usage. More and
more cell phone companies are dropping their unlimited data plans, and
the risk of bill shock only stands to get worse.
Although consumers can already access their phone usage by requesting
this information from their cell phone provider, the FCC survey found
that almost 85 percent of American consumers who suffered bill shock
were not alerted that they were about to exceed their allowed voice
minutes, text messages, or data downloads.
In many cases, a simple alert message would help consumers avoid bill
shock. That is why today I am pleased to introduce the Cell Phone Bill
Shock Act of 2011.
This legislation is similar to what I proposed in the last Congress.
It would require that cell phone companies do two things: first, that
they notify cell phone customers when they have used 80 percent of
their limit of voice minutes, text messages, or data usage. This
notification could be in the form of a text message or email, and
should be free of charge. Second, this legislation would require cell
phone companies to obtain a customer's consent before charging for
services in excess of their limit of voice, text, or data usage.
Customers could give such consent by calling or sending a free text
message or email to their phone company.
In the European Union, wireless phone companies already provide
similar notifications when wireless consumers are roaming and when they
reach 80 percent of their monthly data roaming services.
Congress already approved legislation to help consumers avoid bank
overdraft fees from debit card and ATM transactions. Banks must now
obtain their customer's permission before allowing debit card
transactions which would incur overdraft fees. My legislation extends
that same concept to cell phone customers, who should benefit from
similar protections against ``bill shock.''
The texting and Internet capabilities that make today's cell phones
more useful than ever should be applied to help consumers avoid bill
shock. Sending an automatic text notification to one's phone or an
email alert should not place a burden on cell phone companies. Passing
my commonsense legislation will help prevent consumers from facing
``bill shock'' problems in the future.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important
legislation.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 732
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Cell Phone Bill Shock Act of
2011''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) A recent survey conducted by the Federal Communications
Commission found that 1 out of 6 consumers who subscribe to
commercial mobile service has experienced ``bill shock'',
which is the sudden increase in the monthly bill of a
subscriber even though the subscriber has not made changes to
their monthly service plan.
(2) Most consumers who experience bill shock do not receive
notification from their provider of commercial mobile service
when the consumer is about to exceed the monthly limit of
voice minutes, text message, or data megabytes.
(3) Most consumers who experience bill shock do not receive
notification from their provider of commercial mobile service
that their bill has suddenly increased.
(4) Prior to the enactment of this Act, a provider of
commercial mobile service was under no obligation to notify a
consumer of such services of a pending or sudden increase in
their bill for the use of such service.
(5) Section 332 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47
U.S.C. 332) requires that all commercial mobile service
provider charges, practices, classifications, and regulations
``for or in connection with'' interstate communications
service be just and reasonable, and authorizes the Federal
Communications Commission to promulgate rules to implement
this requirement.
SEC. 3. NOTIFICATION OF CELL PHONE USAGE LIMITS; SUBSCRIBER
CONSENT.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term ``commercial
mobile service'' has the same meaning as in section 332(d)(1)
of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 332(d)(1)).
(b) Notification of Cell Phone Usage Limits.--The Federal
Communications Commission shall promulgate regulations to
require that a provider of commercial mobile service shall--
(1) notify a subscriber when the subscriber has used 80
percent of the monthly limit of voice minutes, text messages,
or data megabytes agreed to in the commercial mobile service
contract of the subscriber;
(2) send, at no charge to the subscriber, the notification
described in paragraph (1) in the form of a voice message,
text message, or email; and
(3) ensure that such text message or email is not counted
against the monthly limit for voice minutes, text messages,
or data megabytes of the commercial mobile service contract
of the subscriber.
(c) Subscriber Consent.--The Federal Communications
Commission shall promulgate regulations to require a provider
of commercial mobile service shall--
(1) obtain the consent of a subscriber who received a
notification under subsection (b) to use voice, text, or data
services in excess of the monthly limit of the commercial
mobile service contract of the subscriber before the provider
may allow the subscriber to use such excess services; and
(2) allow a subscriber to, at no cost, provide the consent
required under paragraph (1) in the form of a voice message,
text message, or email that is not counted against the
monthly limit for voice minutes, text messages, or data
megabytes of the commercial mobile service contract of the
subscriber.
______
By Mr. ROBERTS (for himself and Ms. Stabenow):
S. 733. A bill to amend part B of title XVIII of the Social Security
Act to exclude customary prompt pay discounts from manufacturers to
wholesalers from the average sales price for drugs and biologicals
under Medicare; to the Committee on Finance.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise today to address a health care
concern that impacts all of us--access to health care.
When you or your loved one is sick--the most important thing on earth
is
[[Page S2140]]
to fight for the very best medical care possible. And when the
diagnosis is cancer--a disease far too many of our friends and family
have faced--it becomes all the more important and all the more time
sensitive.
Unfortunately, in some cases, access to care--as well as the life-
saving drugs needed to treat a variety of forms of this disease--are
being negatively impacted by the current reimbursement structure for
Medicare Part B drugs and biologicals. In layman's terms, it's one more
hurdle that doctors have to fight for their patients.
That is why I am introducing today legislation that would end the
hurdle. My bill would exclude customary prompt pay discounts from the
manufacturer's average sales price for purposes of Medicare Part B
drugs and biologicals.
In Hillsboro, Kansas we have already seen cancer clinics begin to
close as a direct result of the current reimbursement structure which
limits patient access to care that they desperately need. Currently the
prompt pay discounts artificially reduce Medicare Part B drug
reimbursement rates for community oncology clinics, jeopardizing the
viability of these providers. The closing of the clinic in Hillsboro
can be directly attributed to this reimbursement structure.
Additionally, prompt pay discounts also reduce the payment rates of
private payers that use Average Sales Price. My legislation is a step
forward in addressing problems with Medicare reimbursement for cancer
drugs.
Primary Healthcare Distributors, PHDs, act as a middle man between
providers and drug and product manufacturers. Most healthcare providers
must receive daily deliveries of products from many different
manufacturers. PHDs streamline the system and provide efficiencies by
aggregating the ordering and shipping logistics. Some 80 percent of
prescription medicines in the U.S. are stored, managed and delivered by
PHDs. These PHDs receive prompt pay discounts from drug manufacturers
in recognition of the efficiencies they provide.
However, these efficiencies are threatened by the Medicare
Modernization Act's, MMA's, inappropriate inclusion of these prompt pay
discounts in the calculation of the Average Sales Price for Medicare
Part B drugs, those administered in a doctor's office. The inclusion of
these discounts ultimately reduces reimbursements to providers, who are
not the actual beneficiaries of the discounts. It provides a perverse
incentive for manufacturers to go around the PHD to offer prompt pay
discounts directly to the providers, thereby eliminating the
efficiencies of the current system and potentially creating another
burden for providers.
Congress has recognized the importance of excluding prompt pay
discounts from providers' payment formulas in the Medicaid program.
This bill would extend that exclusion to Medicare Part B.
I believe that the policy is right; that is why today I, along with
Senator Stabenow, am introducing legislation to amend Part B of Title
XVII of the Social Security Act to exclude customary prompt pay
discounts from manufacturers to wholesalers from the average sales
price for drugs and biologicals under Medicare.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be
printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be
printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 733
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXCLUDING CUSTOMARY PROMPT PAY DISCOUNTS FROM
MANUFACTURERS TO WHOLESALERS FROM THE AVERAGE
SALES PRICE FOR MEDICARE PAYMENTS FOR DRUGS AND
BIOLOGICALS.
(a) In General.--Section 1847A(c)(3) of the Social Security
Act (42 U.S.C. 1395w-3a(c)(3)) is amended--
(1) in the first sentence, by inserting ``(other than
customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)''
after ``prompt pay discounts''; and
(2) in the second sentence, by inserting ``(other than
customary prompt pay discounts extended to wholesalers)''
after ``other price concessions''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to drugs and biologicals that are furnished on or
after January 1, 2012.
____________________