[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 146 (Thursday, November 15, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6856-S6858]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Ms. MURKOWSKI:
S. 3633. A bill to provide for the unencumbering of title to non-
Federal land owned by the city of Anchorage, Alaska, for purposes of
economic development by conveyance of the Federal reversion interest to
the City; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation
to clear the title to three small parcels of land owned by the
Municipality of Anchorage, in Alaska, my home State, so that the land
can be put to more productive uses in the future.
At different times between 1922 and 1982, these three parcels of
land, located in downtown Anchorage, comprising 2.65 acres in total,
were conveyed to either the former ``City of Anchorage'' or more
recently the ``Municipality of Anchorage.'' They were transferred by
the Federal government to the local government for a wide variety of
specific purposes, but all were transferred for the overarching purpose
of helping the then nascent City of Anchorage, which was, and largely
still is, surrounded by Federal lands, have sufficient land resources
to provide municipal services to the growing community. For reasons
that made sense decades ago, all of the deeds for these properties
contain reversionary clauses, that should the land not be used for
various general ``municipal purposes'' their ownership would revert to
the Federal Government. The problem is that in each case, the tracts
are no longer useful for the purposes originally intended, the lands
are not needed by the Federal Government, the public purpose for which
the reversion clause was put in price has long ago been fulfilled, and
in any case, if they
[[Page S6857]]
were to be returned to the federal estate, it would cost the Federal
Government substantial sums to maintain the properties or prepare them
for future sale.
These small tracts are not practical for the federal government to
repossess for several reasons: the Federal Government is barely able to
manage all the land it currently owns in Alaska, including in
Anchorage, let alone adding small tracts to burden its responsibility.
After more than 50 years since the Statehood Act, and more than 40
years since the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act's passage, the
State and our Native People still have not received final patent to all
their lands. The public purposes for which the Federal reversionary
clauses were put in place have been met. These clauses were added to
insure that during its earlier, developmental stages, Anchorage would
use the federal land conveyed to it to build the city and the municipal
and public infrastructure of the community. After decades of dedicated
public use of these properties, the ``public purpose'' basis for the
clauses has been fulfilled. For these properties, my legislation
addresses the question of how long is long enough for a reversionary
clause to have served its purpose, by recognizing that after decades of
living up to its obligations under what are now outdated restrictions
from the last century, it's time to let the city move forward with its
vision for the new one. The commercial use of the properties will add
to the public municipal treasury, and to the Federal treasury, hence
continuing the public benefit of the lands, albeit in a different way.
In 1922 the City of Anchorage received a number of properties around
Anchorage for municipal/school purposes. One of the properties was the
1.93-acre site in Block 42 downtown that since the early 1980s has been
the site of the William A. Egan Convention Center. With the completion
in 2010 of the larger Dena'ina Civic and Convention Center, the tract
is surplus to municipal needs, and could best be utilized for sale to
the private sector that would then be best able to afford the cost of
conversion of the property for future use, adding to the Federal income
tax base and local property tax base.
The second tract is a lot of .48 acres at Seventh and I Streets
downtown, currently being used as a municipal parking lot. The land,
obtained by the city as part of a 1982 land exchange that cleared the
site for a major office building across the street, is too small for
municipal or federal office space use, or for park construction, but
might be properly sized for a commercial enterprise. It is zoned for
business, but cannot be used for business that would contribute to the
local property tax based or federal income tax base, because of the
inability of the Municipality to sell the property due to the federal
reversion clause.
The third site at the corner of H Street and Christiansen Drive, .24
acres in size and obtained by the city in 1963, again is too small for
municipal or federal office space, and unneeded for park space, but
might be of use for a retail establishment given its location near a
municipal parking facility. Likewise, it is zoned for business/
commercial, but cannot be used and potentially contribute to the local
and federal tax bases due to the federal reversion requirement. It
currently sits vacant and idle.
In all cases, the best municipal use of the lands would be for sale
to provide revenues to the Municipality of Anchorage that could be used
for provision of municipal social services. In each case, reversion of
the lands to the federal government would result in federal ownership
of tracts unneeded for federal purposes, but lands that would produce
greater conveyance and management costs to the federal treasury than
are likely to be recovered through fair market sales.
The Municipality of Anchorage and its Mayor Daniel Sullivan have
asked that the reversionary clauses be repealed on the three tracts,
the city absorbing all costs connected with surveying, recording and
other costs connected with the properties. In these cases, lifting of
the reversionary clauses on three of the literally thousands of acres
conveyed to Anchorage, partially as a result of the Alaska Statehood
Act, makes for good land use, and economic and public policy sense for
both the local government and the Federal Government. The Municipality
of Anchorage has already established 223 parks containing 82
playgrounds and 250 miles of trails, encompassing 10,946 acres inside
its boundaries. There is no shortage of park and open space in the
municipality. There is no public policy purpose in the 21st Century not
to permit these very limited Federal reversion extinguishments.
Passage of this act would cost the Federal Government nothing, but
would aid the citizens of Anchorage by allowing lands to be put on the
city's tax rolls. I am introducing this bill now to allow plenty of
time for everyone to review the merits of this bill prior to hopefully
serious consideration of this issue in the 113th Congress.
______
By Mr. COONS (for himself and Mr. Warner):
S. 3635. A bill to provide incentives for States to invest in
practices and technology that are designed to expedite voting at the
polls and to simplify voter registration; to the Committee on Rules and
Administration.
Mr. COONS. Mr. President, like so many Americans, I stayed up late
last Tuesday night to watch the election returns come in.
It was 11:38 pm on the East Coast when the Associated Press called
the election for President Obama, but at that late hour, Andre Murias,
an 18-year-old first-time voter in Miami-Dade County, Florida, was
still waiting in line to cast his ballot. Andre had been in line at the
South Kendall Community Church for nearly five hours by the time he
voted, just before midnight. Five hours--that is appalling. Yet, some
Florida voters waited even longer--as much as 7 or 8 hours--during the
State's condensed early-voting period.
Rashell Hobbs, another first-time voter, waited for five hours in
Chesapeake, Virginia. ``This is just horrible,'' Rashell said. ``There
is no reason it should take this long.''
Rashell, I agree.
Voting machine irregularities were experienced in States across the
country by voters of both political parties. In Colorado, voters said
they checked the box on the touchscreen panel to vote for Mitt Romney,
but that the machine kept switching their pick to President Obama,
while in Pennsylvania, voters reported the same problem in reverse,
that their selection of President Obama was registered as a vote for
Governor Romney.
It wasn't just new technology that caused issues. Poll-watchers in
Davidson County, Tennessee, could only stand by as would-be voters saw
the long line of people waiting to cast their ballots and drove away.
In Philadelphia, long-time registered voters who showed up to cast
their ballots discovered their names simply weren't on the rolls any
more.
More than a dozen states, including Ohio, Wisconsin, South Carolina,
New York and Montana, experienced some kind of breakdown in the
administration of their elections.
This is the United States of America. The right to vote is in our
DNA. We have to get this right.
That is why today, I am introducing the Fair, Accurate, Secure and
Timely Voting Act of 2012--the FAST Voting Act.
Making it harder for citizens to vote is a violation of voters' civil
rights. Long lines are a form of voter disenfranchisement. Running out
of ballots is a form of voter suppression. The fact is, access is
denied when registration is cut off months before the election and
where early vote and vote-by-mail options are not widely available.
This particularly matters for the men and women of our armed services,
who are currently stationed overseas and have no choice but to vote by
mail.
As widespread as the problem is, there are States that are getting it
right. These states continue to be laboratories of democracy, and we
need to learn from them.
The FAST Voting Act creates a competitive grant program in the model
of Race to the Top, which has encouraged states to aggressively pursue
education reform. The states that demonstrated the most comprehensive
and promising reform plans win a greater portion of the grant funding.
Instead of spurring education reform, the FAST Voting Act would
inspire election reform.
[[Page S6858]]
This bill authorizes a federal program that would award grants based
on how well states improve access to the ballot in at least nine ways:
flexible registration opportunities, including same-day registration;
early voting, at a minimum of 9 of the 10 calendar days preceding an
election; no-excuse absentee voting; assistance to voters who do not
speak English as a primary language or who have disabilities, including
visual impairment; effective access to voting for members of the armed
services; formal training of election officials, including State and
county administrators and volunteers; audited and reduced waiting times
at the poorest performing polling stations; contingency plans for
voting in the event of a natural or other disaster, such as Superstorm
Sandy, which impacted voting in New York and New Jersey, and would have
only needed to take a slight turn to dramatically impact my home State
of Delaware.
The stakes are high, and the importance of achieving these electoral
reforms is paramount. When tens of thousands, or even hundreds of
thousands, of Americans have their right to vote denied or compromised,
we have to take action.
The implications of these voting irregularities are felt far beyond
our shores. I am the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee
on African Affairs, and I worked and studied in South Africa during its
apartheid regime. One of the most inspiring sights I have ever seen was
during the first ever free and fair election in that nation, when South
Africans stood in line for up to two days to cast their votes. Members
of our subcommittee meet regularly with African heads of State, and all
of us, Democrats and Republicans alike, stress with these leaders the
vital importance of free and fair elections. So when we still have
substantial voting issues in our own elections, that is a cause for
deep concern.
We have the opportunity to send a message to first time voters here
at home, as well as those fighting for democracy overseas, that every
vote counts and every voter will be counted.
When States prevent their citizens from exercising their fundamental
right of ballot access, whether deliberately through the law or
regulations, or accidentally because of incompetence or lack of
preparedness, it is a violation of voters' civil rights.
The FAST Voting Act is one way to try to fix our elections and make
sure what happened across our country last week does not happen again.
I look forward to working with my colleagues of both parties to move
this important solution forward.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague and
friend, the Senator from Delaware, Chris Coons, in introducing
legislation that would make voting faster and more accessible to all
voters. Here we are, barely a week after a historic election in 2012. I
can't speak about North Carolina, but in Virginia it is remarkable that
in 2012 people had to wait for hours in line to vote. In Prince William
County, folks waited for up to 3 hours. In Chesapeake, VA, folks waited
for up to 4 hours. It was remarkable that it was 5 days after the fact
before we even knew the results in Florida. In the 21st century, in the
greatest democracy in the world, voting should not be this much of a
burden.
In many ways, when you have those kinds of extraordinary lines,
particularly when you are working, what we have in effect created is a
21st-century poll tax. Those of us in the South have a history where
poll taxes were used to restrict voters. What you in effect have by
having these extensive lines is when, if you work on an hourly basis or
can only get off a bit of time, you cannot afford to wait 3, 4, or 5
hours in line to vote.
This legislation, the Fair, Accurate, Secure and Timely Voting Act of
2012--the so-called FAST Act--creates a competitive grant program to
encourage States to aggressively pursue election reforms. It would
provide incentives for States such as Virginia to invest in practices
and technology designed to expedite voting at the polls and simplify
voter registration.
The FAST Voting Act addresses this issue in a responsible way. It
doesn't add new mandates; it authorizes simply additional resources for
those States which step up with commonsense reforms to make voting
faster and more accessible to voters. This is a relatively very small
program, but a few dollars spent to both improve the access and
increase the number of voting machines at those polling places which
are so restricted would, I believe, remove some of the embarrassment
Virginia and so many other States saw last week when people had to wait
so long.
I encourage Virginia's elected leaders to embrace this opportunity to
improve access for Virginia voters, who should not have to wait in line
for hours to exercise their most basic constitutional right--the right
to vote.
As I mentioned, this bill authorizes a Federal program that would
award grants based on how well applicant States--again, States will be
the decisionmakers on whether they would want to apply for this
program--are able to improve access to the polls in at least nine
specific ways. Let me mention three of those.
No. 1, provide absentee voting, including no-excuse absentee voting.
We in Virginia still have restrictions on absentee voting.
No. 2, provide assistance to voters who do not speak English as a
primary language. Virginia and North Carolina and other States are
becoming more diverse, and we need to accommodate those voters.
No. 3, audit and reduce waiting time in polling stations. No one in
the 21st century should have to wait 4 or 5 or, as in some reported
cases in Florida, up to 7 or 8 hours to vote.
This voluntary grant program also requires the establishment of
performance measures and reporting requirements to ensure a State's
progress in eliminating statutory, regulatory, procedural, and other
barriers to expedited voting and accessible voter registration.
This is a relatively small bill. I commend my colleague from
Delaware, Senator Coons, for taking the lead. I join him as a
cosponsor. Regardless of which side of the aisle you stand on in 2012--
and surely before 2016--we ought not to have a repeat of this 21st-
century poll tax that is imposed on folks all across America by not
being able to exercise their vote, having to pay too high a price, or
having the kind of embarrassment where it takes us literally days and
days for the public to get the results.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation.
____________________