[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.

                          ____________________