Anchorage Land Conveyance Act of 2012

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. 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.