[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 13 (Wednesday, January 30, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S401-S406]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




          STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS

      By Mr. CORNYN:
  S. 178. A bill to provide for alternative financing arrangements for 
the provision of certain services and the construction and maintenance 
of infrastructure at land border ports of entry, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  Mr. CORNYN. 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. 178

       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 ``Cross-Border Trade 
     Enhancement Act of 2013''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Administrator; administration.--The terms 
     ``Administrator'' and ``Administration'' mean the 
     Administrator of General Services and the General Services 
     Administration, respectively.
       (2) Person.--The term ``person'' means--
       (A) an individual; or
       (B) a corporation, partnership, trust, association, or any 
     other public or private entity, including a State or local 
     government.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Homeland Security.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROVISION 
                   OF CERTAIN SERVICES AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF 
                   ENTRY.

       (a) Authority To Enter Into Agreements.--
       (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 451 of the Tariff 
     Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1451), the Secretary may, during the 
     10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this 
     Act and upon the request of any person, enter into an 
     agreement with that person under which--
       (A) U.S. Customs and Border Protection will provide 
     services described in paragraph (2) at a land border port of 
     entry; and
       (B) that person will pay a fee imposed under subsection (b) 
     to reimburse U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the costs 
     incurred in providing such services.
       (2) Services described.--Services described in this 
     paragraph are any services related to customs and immigration 
     matters provided by an employee or contractor of U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection at land border ports of entry.
       (3) Limitation.--Nothing in this paragraph may be construed 
     to reduce the responsibilities or duties of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection to provide services at land border ports of 
     entry that have been authorized or mandated by law and are 
     funded in any appropriation Act or from any accounts in the 
     Treasury of the United States derived by the collection of 
     fees.
       (b) Fee.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall impose a fee on a 
     person requesting the provision of services by U.S. Customs 
     and Border Protection pursuant to an agreement entered into 
     under subsection (a) to reimburse U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection for the costs of providing such services, 
     including--
       (A) the salaries and expenses of the employees or 
     contractors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection that 
     provide such services and temporary placement or relocation 
     costs for those employees or contractors; and
       (B) any other costs incurred by U.S. Customs and Border 
     Protection in providing services pursuant to agreements 
     entered into under subsection (a).
       (2) Failure to pay fee.--U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
     shall terminate the provision of services pursuant to an 
     agreement entered into under subsection (a) with a person 
     that, after receiving notice from the Secretary that a fee 
     imposed under paragraph (1) is due, fails to pay the fee in a 
     timely manner.
       (3) Receipts credited as offsetting collections.--
     Notwithstanding section 3302 of title 31, United States Code, 
     a fee collected under paragraph (1) pursuant to an agreement 
     entered into under subsection (a) shall--
       (A) be credited as an offsetting collection to the account 
     that finances the salaries and expenses of U.S. Customs and 
     Border Protection;
       (B) be available for expenditure only to pay the costs of 
     providing services pursuant to that agreement; and
       (C) remain available until expended without fiscal year 
     limitation.

     SEC. 4. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE FINANCING ARRANGEMENTS FOR 
                   CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF INFRASTRUCTURE 
                   AT LAND BORDER PORTS OF ENTRY.

       (a) In General.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall establish 
     procedures for evaluating a proposal submitted by any person 
     to--
       (1) enter into a cost-sharing or reimbursement agreement 
     with the Administration to

[[Page S402]]

     facilitate the construction or maintenance of a facility or 
     other infrastructure at a land border port of entry; or
       (2) provide to the Administration an unconditional gift of 
     property pursuant to section 3175 of title 40, United States 
     Code, to be used in the construction or maintenance of a 
     facility or other infrastructure at a land border port of 
     entry.
       (b) Requirements.--The procedures established under 
     subsection (a) shall provide, at a minimum, for the 
     following:
       (1) Not later than 90 days after receiving a proposal 
     pursuant to subsection (a) with respect to the construction 
     or maintenance of a facility or other infrastructure at a 
     land border port of entry, the Administrator shall--
       (A) make a determination with respect to whether or not to 
     approve the proposal; and
       (B) notify the person that submitted the proposal of--
       (i) the determination; and
       (ii) if the Administrator did not approve the proposal, the 
     reasons for the determination.
       (2) In determining whether or not to approve such a 
     proposal, the Administrator shall consider--
       (A) the impact of the proposal on reducing wait times at 
     that port of entry and other ports of entry on the same 
     border;
       (B) the potential of the proposal to increase trade and 
     travel efficiency through added capacity; and
       (C) the potential of the proposal to enhance the security 
     of the port of entry.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mrs. GILLIBRAND (for herself and Mr. Kirk):
  S. 179. A bill to prevent gun trafficking; to the Committee on the 
Judiciary.
  Mrs. GILLIBRAND. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of the 
millions of Americans who are saying: Enough is enough. They have seen 
too much senseless deadly gun violence and are demanding commonsense 
solutions out of Congress.
  One solution I have been focused on for a long time is ending gun 
trafficking. This is a critically important public safety issue where I 
believe Members of both sides of the aisle can come together and agree. 
We can and should agree that it is time to crack down on the black 
market of illegal guns that criminals rely upon to obtain weapons that 
are later used in violent crimes.
  Almost 1 month ago, the NYPD suffered one of its bloodiest nights in 
history when three officers suffered gunshot wounds in two separate 
crimes an hour apart. According to news reports, one of the handguns 
recovered from the scene was imported by traffickers from Philadelphia, 
and one came from North Carolina. Thankfully, these heroes are on their 
way toward recovery.
  Just 1 year ago, New York police officer Peter Figoski, the father of 
four beautiful girls, was tragically killed on the beat with an illegal 
weapon purchased on the black market in Virginia.
  I will never forget the faces of slain 17-year-old honor student 
Nyasia Pryear-Yard's parents whom I met just weeks after being sworn 
into the Senate. Nyasia was also killed by an illegal gun one terrible 
night when she was doing nothing more than enjoying an evening with 
friends.
  According to the New York City's mayor's office, 85 percent of the 
guns used in crimes in New York City come from out of State, and 90 
percent of those guns are bought through the illegal black market run 
by traffickers. The sad fact is more than 30 people die every single 
day due to gun violence. These senseless killings must stop.
  We have an obligation to act and prevent tomorrow's senseless deaths 
by ensuring that guns stay out of the hands of criminals, and the 
dangerously mentally ill, and to strengthen our laws so that law 
enforcement has the ability to go after the gunrunners and take down 
these illegal markets.
  The truth is that supporting the second amendment and reducing gun 
violence are compatible and consistent. Responsible gun owners 
vehemently oppose the kind of gun violence that struck Newtown, Aurora, 
Oak Creek, and to thousands of families across America every single 
year who suffer. We should be able to find reasonable and commonsense 
reforms that can preserve our rights but also protect our families.
  Keeping our children safe from the scourge of gun violence is not a 
Democratic or Republican principle, it is not pro-gun or anti-gun. This 
is an issue that all Americans can support. There is no political 
ideology that finds this cruel loss of life acceptable. I was 
incredibly pleased to see President Obama include as part of his 
comprehensive plan to prevent gun violence a bill that I first 
introduced in 2009 with Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly, called 
the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act, which would be the first Federal 
law to define gun trafficking as a Federal crime and prevent scores of 
illegal guns from being moved into the hands of criminals.
  We have thousands of laws, but effectively none of them are directly 
focused on preventing someone from driving from one State to another 
State with a load of guns in the back of a truck that they can sell 
directly to criminals.
  It is shocking to me as a mother. It is shocking to me as a lawmaker. 
But this is something that we can actually fix.
  Over the past 3 fiscal years, more than 33,000 guns used in violent 
crimes showed telltale signs of black market trafficking, 420,000 
firearms were stolen, and thousands of guns with obliterated serial 
numbers were recovered by law enforcement. While law enforcement is 
working overtime to track down illegal guns and apprehend those who 
traffic these weapons, current law restricts their ability to 
investigate and prosecute these crimes. We may all agree this simply 
makes no sense and leaves all our communities vulnerable.
  I am very proud to have worked with my colleague and friend Senator 
Mark Kirk to introduce a bipartisan bill today, S. 179. This bill takes 
the problem of gun trafficking head on. Our bipartisan bill would 
empower local, State, and Federal law enforcement to investigate and 
prosecute gun traffickers, straw purchasers, and their entire criminal 
networks. Our bill does nothing to affect the constitutionally 
protected rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners.
  By cracking down on illegal trafficking and their vast criminal 
networks, we can stop the flow of these illegal guns that are coming 
into our city neighborhoods and reduce gun violence. Law enforcement 
officials across the country have said they need this legislation to be 
able to fight crime.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I urge passage of this 
commonsense, nonpartisan, bipartisan piece of legislation.
 Mr. KIRK. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gun 
Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which I am proud to have introduced 
with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) this morning. There are an estimated 
33,000 gangs with 1.4 million active members who live in our 
neighborhoods, towns and cities across the United States. With more 
than 100,000 gang members, the city of Chicago has more gang members 
who terrorize its residents than any other city in the United States. 
The Chicago Crime Commission also reported the existence of an 
additional 15,000 gang members operating in our suburbs.
  Gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are 
responsible for nearly 80 percent of the city's homicides, which just 
last summer amounted to 500 deaths in Chicago. These homicides are most 
often perpetrated with illegal weapons. Law enforcement officers in 
Chicago confiscate an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. It 
must end.
  That is why I have joined with Senator Gillibrand of New York to take 
serious action to prevent weapons trafficking and straw purchasing, 
where a third-party member legally purchases a firearm, then sells or 
trades it to a criminal who is legally barred from purchasing such a 
weapon. Our bill would be the first Federal law to criminalize the 
trafficking of illegal guns. This legislation also calls upon the 
sentencing commission to substantially increase the penalties for 
trafficking when committed by or in concert with gang members.
  The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act keeps Americans safe by giving law 
enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on straw purchases, 
organizers of trafficking rings, and those involved in the conspiracy 
of trafficking while protecting the constitutional rights of 
responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I hope my colleagues will join me 
in supporting and quickly passing this critical legislation.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):

[[Page S403]]

  S. 181. A bill to authorize the establishment of the Niblack and 
Bokan Mountain mining area road corridors in the State of Alaska, and 
for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation 
that would potentially help in solving a significant unemployment 
problem in my home state of Alaska. Today, joined by my colleague, 
Senator Mark Begich, I reintroduce the Niblack-Bokan Mountain Mining 
Area Road Authorization Act to permit road access to two proposed 
multi-mineral mines on southeast Prince of Wales Island in Southeast 
Alaska.
  Prince of Wales Island, formerly the main area for timber activity in 
Southeast Alaska, has fallen on hard times during the past decade. In 
1990, when Alaska's timber industry in total harvested more than 1.1 
billion board feet of timber, Prince of Wales was the center of 
activity. In 1994, for example, timber jobs accounted for 32.8 percent 
of all wages on the island. Six years later, with total regional 
harvests having fallen to about 350 million board feet, timber 
accounted for less than 19.8 percent of wages on the island, according 
to the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Today, 
with total harvests of timber being just above 100 million board feet a 
year in the region, just 35 million board feet being harvested from 
federal lands in 2011 and just about 50 mmbf sold in 2012, and timber 
jobs statewide having fallen from about 4,000 to just over 400, Prince 
of Wales has been particularly hard hit. According to the State, timber 
jobs have fallen by more than 1,700 positions on the island.
  As of November of last year, the unemployment rate on the island was 
``down'' to 12.1 percent, compared to 13.8 percent in November 2011, 
partly because of the outmigration of some of the unemployed. Those 
rates are nearly 5 percent higher than the national average.
  While the Viking Lumber Co. of Klawock remains the largest private-
sector timber employer on the island, the island, the third largest in 
the United States, is badly in need of new employment opportunities. 
Fortunately today's high metal prices are encouraging a resurgence of 
mineral development on the 2,231 square-mile island.
  Currently, Heatherdale Minerals of Canada is considering reopening 
the Niblack Mine, a gold, copper, zinc and silver deposit. The company 
is in advanced exploration and development study of the estimated 9 
million-ton mine, forecast to cost $150 million to $200 million to 
reopen. The mine, likely to last at least 12 years, is forecast to 
produce 1,500 tons of ore per day and require 130 workers at the mine 
site, and another 60 to 70 at a processing mill, which could be located 
near the site, or perhaps in Ketchikan, AK, 40 vessel miles away.
  The Niblack property is also close to another mineral deposit that is 
in the advanced stages of economic feasibility review, the Bokan 
Mountain Rare Earth Elements, REE, mine. Bokan Mountain, being 
considered for opening by Ucore Inc. of Canada, likely will employ 170 
workers. It, too, will involve an investment of $221 million for the 
mine and processing plant to process the heavy rare earths, REEs, that 
the site contains. Both mines currently estimate they could be open 
within three to four years, depending on final economic reviews and 
current permit approval timeframes. Bokan Mountain is located about 28 
air miles south of Niblack and can be accessed by boat by traveling 
down the relatively protected Moira Sound to the end of South Arm, or 
by an about 50-mile road that would branch off of a road to the Niblack 
mine.
  The two mines could produce substantial numbers of high-paying jobs 
for the residents of southern Southeast Alaska. Niblack, for example, 
predicts the average salary for mine workers at its facility will be 
$80,000 a year, compared to the current median income in Craig of 
$48,594 a year, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The problem of 
getting those jobs to people who need them is one of logistics.
  There currently is no road access to reach either mine site, both 
likely to be supplied by boat from Ketchikan, AK. That means that 
potential workers on Prince of Wales Island will need to travel by boat 
or more likely by airplane to Ketchikan, in order to turn around and 
take a mine boat back to the island to report for work, a costly, time-
consuming, often unpleasant and sometimes dangerous process given sea 
conditions in Southeast Alaska. Or they will need to pilot their own 
small boats to the mine site, a hazardous process given that reaching 
Niblack from the community of Thorne Bay to the north, a site that is 
located on the island's road system, will require a daily 60-mile one-
way boat trip down perilous Clarence Strait, a difficult water body 
during fall, winter and spring storms, when seas can easily top 17 feet 
waves.
  But the problem could be solved, if a road could be extended the 
roughly 29 miles to connect the Niblack mine, by means of existing 
logging roads, to the state highway system on the island. Such a road 
will involve at least 2.5 miles of logging road reconstruction and the 
construction of 26.3 miles of new road. Those roads, if built to 
existing logging road standards, are estimated to cost $7.075 million, 
the cost certainly rising if the roads are built to Federal Aid Urban 
Highway standards. The issue is that 18.3 miles of that new 
construction is across federal lands in the Tongass National Forest 
and, more importantly, across areas classified as inventoried roadless 
under the 2001 U.S. Forest Service roadless rule, as it was reimposed 
on the Tongass in 2009.
  Looking at the topography of the area, located inside the Eudora 
inventoried roadless area, the road would begin at the Haida, Hydaburg, 
Native village corporation's West, Cholmondeley, Arm sort yard and head 
Southeast through the Big Creek Valley and climb to a mountain pass at 
the roughly 1,400-foot elevation. From there it will drop onto land 
owned by the Kootznoowoo Native village corporation of Angoon and 
follow existing logging roads that lie on the western side of the South 
Arm. The route then runs south and parallels South Arm on the west side 
until the southern end of the bay is reached. Then the route follows 
the shoreline of the south end of the South Arm until the far southeast 
corner of the bay is reached, the location of existing cabins and a 
State of Alaska Department of Fish and Game fish weir. From this point, 
there are two potential route alternatives: the 1A route continues to 
run in a southerly direction through a mountain pass of slightly more 
than 500-feet elevation passing two unnamed lakes. Once it reaches the 
shoreline of Dickman Bay, the road turns in a more easterly direction 
and runs across the south end of Kugel Lake and Luelia Lake, and the 
north end of Kegan Lake. From the 900-foot elevation pass on the west 
side of Luelia Lake, the route continues to run in an easterly fashion 
and must cross 1,200- and 1,400-foot passes before the route turns 
north to reach the Niblack mine at tidewater. That total route is 26.3 
miles of new construction and a total distance of 28.8 miles. There is 
an alternative, Route 1B, early in the route corridor to reduce the 
elevation and add switchbacks required to reach the first pass, an 
alternative that would add 1.9 miles to the road.
  There is another alternative route, Route 2A, that leaves from the 
same location and runs on the same route until the south end of South 
Arm. The second route then turns in a northerly direction and continues 
to follow the eastern shoreline of South Arm, Cholmondeley, for roughly 
1.5 miles. The route then turns in an eastern direction and climbs 
through a mountain pass of about 900-feet elevation. From this pass, 
the route descends into the existing road system on Kootznoowoo lands 
near the south shores of Miller Lake. At the eastern terminus of these 
existing roads, the new route picks up again and continues in a 
southeast direction along the south end of Clarno Cove and Cannery Cove 
until Cannery Point is reached. From there the route turns into a 
southerly direction and climbs to another mountain pass of roughly 
1,000-feet elevation. The route then follows the hillside to the west 
of Niblack Lake and meets another mountain pass of the same elevation 
and then descends in a southerly direction along the west side of 
Myrtle Lake to reach the Niblack Mine and tidewater. That route 
involves 24.6 miles of new construction, 6.1 miles of road 
reconstruction and involves a total length of 30.7 miles, thus costing 
more. It involves, however, constructing only one

[[Page S404]]

pass higher than 1,200 feet, compared to 3 on the first route, but may 
have more environmental impacts given its route along Cannery Cove and 
Niblack Lake.
  An additional road, running to the Bokan Mountain mine, would branch 
from the Niblack road and then run south to the Bokan mine site.
  I mention the two detailed routes, and the third branch route, only 
to indicate that substantial work has been done to select a potential 
road corridor to the Niblack/Bokan Mountain mines and to make clear 
that I am not prejudging the route with the fewest environmental 
impacts. I am leaving that to the Forest Service to decide after an 
environmental assessment or impact statement is undertaken. The 
legislation I am introducing simply says that the Forest Service should 
permit development of a road along one of the two routes and the third 
branch route, picking the route that both minimizes the costs, while 
also minimizing the effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary 
surface disturbances and that complies with all environmental laws and 
regulations.
  These roads, I need to point out, will not set a precedent in any way 
weakening the inventoried roadless rule's implementation in Alaska, 
regardless of how I feel about that rule. Under the original 
regulations governing roadless areas in Alaska issued by the Clinton 
administration in January 2001, Section 294.12(b)(7) permits roads to 
be built across inventoried roadless areas if needed ``in conjunction 
with the continuation, extension or renewal of a mineral lease on lands 
that are under lease by the Secretary of the Interior. . . . Such road 
construction or reconstruction must be conducted in a manner that 
minimizes effects on surface resources, prevents unnecessary or 
unreasonable surface disturbance, and compiles with all applicable 
lease requirements.''
  The patents on the Niblack property and on the Bokan Mountain deposit 
certainly predate the creation of the roadless rule. The mines were 
discovered in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, according to the 
U.S. Forest Service. Modest copper production occurred between 1902 and 
1908 at Niblack and modern exploration on the 2,000-acre site began in 
1974, some 150 patented claims being in place at the mine. Development/
production on the uranium/REE deposits at Bokan Mountain began in the 
1940s and continued through the 1950s.
  The point is that Niblack and Bokan Mountain are certainly real 
prospects that offer the likelihood of real employment for many who are 
unemployed on Prince of Wales Island, if they simply can access the 
sites from their homes in Craig, Klawock, Hydaburg, Thorne Bay, Kasaan, 
Whale Pass and even Coffman Cove, located on the northeast end of the 
island. The need for these jobs has prompted the City Council of Craig 
to formally request Congress to accelerate the approval of a road 
corridor to the mines. Such a road could be built by the mines, but 
more likely funded and built by the Alaska Department of Transportation 
and Public Facilities at state expense, not federal expense. A road 
could also allow a power line to be built to either or both mines, 
allowing non-carbon producing hydropower to power the mines, rather 
than them relying on expensive diesel generation for energy. That would 
reduce greenhouse gas production and benefit the environment.
  It makes no sense in a state that already contains 58 million acres 
of formal wilderness, and in the Tongass National Forest contains 
nearly 6.4 million acres of parks and wilderness areas, to bar 
construction of a road that does not cross any wilderness areas but 
could provide a good income to more than half of all of the people, 281 
people, unemployed on the island as of November 2012, according to the 
Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
  I would hope that this Congress would look favorably on allowing 
these roads to this mining area, so that residents on the island can 
get the jobs they so desperately need in the years ahead.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Ms. MURKOWSKI (for herself and Mr. Begich):
  S. 182. 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, AK, my home State, so that the land can be 
put to more productive uses in the future.
  At different times between 1922 and 1991, Anchorage, AK, received a 
number of parcels of land from the Federal Government, including these 
three parcels of land, located in downtown Anchorage, comprising 2.65 
acres in total. They 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 place has long 
ago been fulfilled, and in case they 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 42 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 is 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

[[Page S405]]

would contribute to the local property tax base 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, joined by my Alaska 
colleague and former Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich as cosponsor, to 
foster action, hopefully, early in this 113th Congress.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. BLUNT (for himself, Mr. Cruz, Mr. Lee, Mr. Scott, Mr. 
        Inhofe, Mr. Roberts, and Mr. Cornyn):
  S. 188. A bill to prevent certain individuals purportedly appointed 
to the National Labor Relations Board from receiving salaries, and to 
prevent an unconstitutional quorum of the Board from taking agency 
actions, until there is a final decision in pending lawsuits regarding 
the constitutionality of certain alleged recess appointments; to the 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. President, I rise to talk about a piece of legislation 
I intend to introduce on behalf of Senator Cruz and myself, The Advice 
and Consent Restoration Act, which responds to last week's decision 
announced on Friday by a three-judge panel on the DC Circuit Court of 
Appeals, where they unanimously ruled that President Obama violated the 
Constitution when he made so-called recess appointments to the National 
Labor Relations Board. They are so-called recess appointments because 
the Senate was still in session.
  The fundamental question is does the President get to decide whether 
the Senate is in session or does the Senate get to decide whether the 
Senate is in session. If that question had been debated when the 
Constitution was being debated, I am sure they would have said: That 
will never come up; there is no way we are going to develop a system 
with this separation of powers and the President will decide whether 
the Senate is in session.
  This President did decide that, and the court agreed with the 
argument that a number of Senators, Senator McConnell and I, along with 
40 of our colleagues, filed in an amicus brief that clearly made the 
point the Senate gets to decide when the Senate is in session. We 
argued that the Constitution does not empower the President to make 
this decision. The court agreed with that argument, stating that any 
other interpretation of the Constitution would give the President free 
rein to appoint his desired nominees anytime he pleases. In a direct 
quote, the court said it would give ``the President free rein to 
appoint his desired nominees anytime he pleases, whether that time be a 
weekend, lunch or even when the Senate is in session and he is merely 
displeased with its inaction.'' That is the end of the quote from the 
three-judge panel's decision.
  The right of the Senate to provide advice and consent is an important 
check on the risk of this type of Presidential overreach and one the 
Senate should actively exercise. In fact, the Senate actively and 
consciously made the decision in January to stay in session to do some 
of the work that needed to be done during the session and, frankly, to 
be sure that the President couldn't avoid the constitutional 
requirement of advice and consent.
  Allowing the President to determine the Senate's schedule would 
seriously damage the balance of powers; it would seriously damage the 
Senate's autonomy. It eliminates an important check on the executive 
branch.
  The court invalidated the one ruling that was being appealed. Of 
course, the Presiding Officer understands this exactly, that the court 
case would only have appealed one ruling that impacted one company or 
one employer, and the court said that ruling can't stand. There are 
more than 200 other actions this same group, which the court said is 
not legally functioning, had taken, and all 200 or more of those 
actions are now in question.
  I believe the answer will be clear. Perhaps all those will have to be 
appealed in some way so that a court can say, No, just as in the first 
ruling we made, the people who made these decisions were not 
constitutionally in place; consequently the ruling they made isn't in 
place. The work of this agency will not pass constitutional muster and, 
of course, the President needs to now appoint people who would be 
confirmed by the Senate.
  In spite of the three-judge panel's unanimous decision, the National 
Labor Relations Board recently announced that it intends to ignore the 
ruling and carry on with business as usual. This is not a very 
acceptable response. The President first decides he is going to decide 
whether the Senate is in session. Then the people he appoints in an 
unconstitutional way decide they are going to ignore the court ruling 
and continue to do what they have been doing.
  The President needs to reappoint, and until the President does 
reappoint, Congress has a responsibility to block this unconstitutional 
act by terminating the salaries of those who were illegally appointed 
and by preventing them from conducting any official business until the 
Senate acts to approve their appointments.
  Senator Cruz and I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this 
effort. The National Labor Relations Board should take down the ``open 
for business'' sign they put up on Monday after the court ruling on 
Friday. Frankly, they need to put up a ``help wanted'' sign.
  The Constitution matters. What the Constitution says matters. The 
Senate, I hope, will be vigorous in enforcing its constitutional 
responsibility.
                                 ______
                                 
      By Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself, Mr. Flake, Mrs. 
        Gillibrand, and Mr. Warner):
  S. 189. A bill to establish an employment-based immigrant visa for 
alien entrepreneurs who have received significant capital from 
investors to establish a business in the United States; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that 
I, along with Mr. Flake of Arizona, reintroduce the Startup Visa Act. 
The Startup Visa Act of 2013 allows immigrant entrepreneurs and foreign 
graduates of U.S. universities to appeal for a two-year visa on the 
condition that they secure financing from a qualified U.S. investor and 
can demonstrate the ability to create jobs in America.
  If they are successful in developing their company and hiring 
American workers, they would be eligible for legal permanent residency 
and would be free to continue building their companies, creating more 
home-grown jobs

[[Page S406]]

and continuing our legacy of unmatched innovation and entrepreneurship.
  The United States has a proud history of providing entrepreneurs from 
around the world the freedom and resources to turn an idea into a 
successful venture. Well-known U.S. companies such as Google, Yahoo, 
Intel, Pfizer and eBay all began as startups that were founded by 
immigrants. These businesses have grown into multibillion-dollar 
industry leaders that provide thousands of Americans with high-paying 
jobs in cutting-edge fields.
  The number of jobs offered by startups is dropping off. While this is 
partly due to the economic downturn it is also because of our Nation's 
broken immigration system. Many of the world's best and brightest minds 
are finding that our current visa restrictions discourage them from 
launching new companies here. This is a major competitive disadvantage, 
and one that runs counter to our Nation's history of fostering foreign-
born innovators, such as Albert Einstein or Andrew Carnegie.
  More worrisome is that while we try to work out a solution to our 
broken immigration laws, our foreign competitors are catching up and, 
in some cases, passing us by in many of the fields we once dominated. 
In 2009, for the first time in recent memory, foreign innovators were 
awarded more patents than Americans pioneers. Only a decade earlier, 
U.S.-based entrepreneurs were awarded almost 57 percent of all patents 
worldwide. We must work quickly and in a bipartisan manner to reverse 
this trend. The Startup Visa Act of 2013 is a strong and simple step 
that will reward foreign innovators, pioneers and entrepreneurs for 
creating jobs in America. Put simply, this legislation will help 
protect America's position as the global leader in innovation.
  We do not have to look far for evidence that our broken immigration 
system is hurting our economy. We only need to look at our Canadian 
neighbors. The Canadian founders of Vanilla Forums, an innovative and 
fast-growing company, whose products are used by websites around the 
world to host online forum discussions, spent a summer in my home State 
of Colorado participating in a mentorship program with U.S.-based 
entrepreneurs and investors. Despite the numerous investors who were 
interested in funding Vanilla Forums and developing the company in 
Colorado, concerns about the founders' ability to obtain visas won out. 
As a result, Vanilla Forums is a successful company that is hiring 
employees at its headquarters in Montreal, Quebec.
  America has tremendous untapped potential for innovation and it is 
our responsibility to give our Nation every opportunity to remain 
globally competitive. By passing the Startup Visa Act of 2013 we can 
create high paying jobs here in the United States, and help ensure that 
the next globally transformative company is based in America. This 
legislation is bipartisan and fiscally responsible; it will spur 
private investment and it will help put our economy back on track. I 
ask my colleagues to join me in support of this important legislation.

                          ____________________