Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003

Mr. President, I appreciate being able to follow the comments of my esteemed colleague

and the chairman of the Energy Committee speaking about the importance of energy. He and I would agree that is a topic we just haven't heard enough of lately on this floor, the Energy bill and an energy policy that this country so desperately needs, whether it is Americans looking at the price they are paying for gasoline at the pump, whether it is Americans looking at our utility statements and realizing the price of natural gas is going beyond a level we feel comfortable with, just recognizing that we as a country do not have a notion, do not have a real solid policy for how our energy supply meets up with our energy demand. That is something we in Alaska have talked about for far too long. We have urged this body to move forward with an energy policy, one that makes sense.

I like to say that Alaska is prepared to be or in effect is the energy bank for the country. All we are waiting for is the opportunity to make a withdrawal from what we have in our incredible resources. But as we know, we have some issues we need to work through. Whether it is permitting issues for a natural gas pipeline, whether it is those financial incentives that make this megaproject, this $20 billion project possible so we can supply domestic reserves of natural gas to this country, we have the ability to make it happen in Alaska. We just need a little assistance from the Congress in moving forward.

We can't leave this conversation without talking about ANWR and the opportunities for us as a nation, recognizing the known reserves we have up there, recognizing that we are in a position in the State of Alaska to provide for enhanced domestic reserves of oil supplies at a time when we know the supplies are questionable from the sources we are currently receiving them, whether it is because of political instability or just declining reserves. We have an opportunity in the State of Alaska. Again, we just need the ability to move forward.

My purpose today in addressing the body is not to speak to the Energy bill or the importance of the Energy bill; it is to speak to an incident that happened this morning in the Energy Committee when we, as a committee, took up a series of land bills. It was a business meeting this morning that was designed to take up and pass, again, some land issues. It was kind of a cats and dogs type of a hearing. Most of the issues we took up were relatively noncontroversial.

We have a history in the Energy Committee of working in a very good, strong, solid bipartisan way. The committee works well together. The chairman and the ranking member work well together. We move forward on issues, it is fair to say, in a good and enviable manner. We accomplish things. So this morning was a bit of a surprise when, instead of doing the business that was before us, we had members of the Democratic Party leave, essentially stage a walkout on a business meeting of the Energy Committee.

As an individual Senator coming from my State, working on legislation that is important and, quite honestly, isolated to my State, as I am working through issues that affect Alaskans, I would ask for certain consideration from my colleagues on Alaska-related issues as we work through them. Today's episode or incident in the Energy Committee doesn't allow Alaska to move forward with a series of our issues.

So what exactly happened? We had 22 bills move through the markup without question or controversy. I had an agenda item that was a bill to resolve certain conveyances and provide for alternative land selection under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act related to Cape Fox Corporation and Sealaska Corporation and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. I read that from this morning's agenda.

I indicated to the chairman that I had an amendment in the nature of a substitute and moved to discuss those portions of the amended bill, and the minority members of the committee proceeded to leave the committee, which left us without a quorum and no ability to move forward on the business. The business remaining were two bills I had been working, this Cape Fox bill as well as another very specific Alaska lands-related issue.

As we discussed in the committee, after our Democratic colleagues had left, one of my Republican colleagues informed me that in his 24 years on the committee, it had been the first time members of the committee had walked out, which left me, as the Republican Senator for Alaska working on these very specific Alaska pieces, to wonder: Wait a minute, I am here to represent my State on very specific Alaska issues. If I can't have my colleagues debate back and forth on the merits of the amendment, if we don't have the opportunity in these sessions to do the business that needs to be done to allow my State to move forward on these land issues, how do I move forward with legislation?

So it causes me to look back and say: Well, was there a failing on my part, on my staff's part, or on the committee's part? As we had attempted to move this legislation forward, had we failed to work in a bipartisan manner, failed to reach out in an attempt to accommodate on issues that had caused concern?

Let me speak to the two different bills we had before us. The first one related to the Cape Fox Land Entitlement Adjustment Act. Essentially, what this act is destined to do is an equity issue for an Alaska Native corporation. It allows for an exchange to resolve an inequity to the Cape Fox shareholders through a land selection process. This is a land selection process authorized under our Native Claim Settlement Act. The shareholders were denied the ability to select certain lands within 6 miles of their area. It created an inequity.

The only way this inequity can be resolved is through Federal legislation. So what we have done is created logical boundaries that improve Forest Service management. Essentially, this is a land exchange that would allow the Cape Fox shareholders to receive certain lands. It consolidated private ownership and increased the role of State government in the environmental regulatory process. It created economic opportunities for Cape Fox and Sealaska through certain leasing agreements that would be made possible. It allowed for native hire and vocational education in an area where, as I recall, the unemployment rate in that very small community is 25.6 percent, almost 420 percent of the State's unemployment rate. This is an area that can definitely use some equitable economic assistance.

So the legislation itself is good. It is sound. So the question must be, OK, did we fail to reach out? Were we not working with the other side on this?

This is not legislation that is new to the process. This is legislation that was actually passed in the 107th Congress. This is legislation that was passed through the House committee with unanimous support earlier this year.

I introduced this legislation in June of last year. In August of 2003, the Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests held a hearing in Anchorage, AK. Subsequent to that time, we held a public hearing in Juneau, AK--a townhall meeting--in September to hear the comments and concerns of Alaskans who are located down in the area where this exchange is to take place.

After that, in March of 2004, we held another subcommittee hearing here in Washington, DC. We were then placed on the agenda in mid-March for markup--it was March 24. But there was no consensus so we began to attempt to work out a compromise to address the concerns that had been expressed by some of the environmental community, by Alaskans, and by some of our Democratic colleagues; and so what we did was we had prepared an amendment that was the amendment we were prepared to offer as a complete substitute today. That amendment would maintain the view shed in an area where we have recreational opportunities for kayakers and boaters, so we inserted an amendment to provide for view shed protection, an amendment to provide for public access; and we provided a provision that would ensure that all exchanged lands would be based on appraisal reports in accordance with the uniform appraisal standards of the Federal Land Acquisition Act.

We essentially had worked through the process. We had worked with the committee. After that markup that didn't happen in March of 2004, we had discussions with minority staff, which

had occurred prior to that intended markup date, as well as after. Those discussions continued through the third week in July of this year. We were making every effort to accommodate the concerns and considerations of the minority on this legislation yet still maintain the integrity and meet the needs of the Cape Fox Corporation and the Sealaska Corporation.

In looking at the bill and what we were intending to do, the entire intent of the Cape Fox legislation was to correct this inequity to this small southeast village, which has 431 residents, where the unemployment rate is 25.6 percent, as I indicated. So we were prepared to move forward with this legislation today. We had shared the amendment with the minority in July and, quite honestly, were stunned when the minority members walked out of that committee hearing.

I need to point out that not only did minority members walk out, which put us in a situation where we no longer had a quorum, but another minority member attempted to enter the committee room to join us in committee, when that individual was literally pushed back out of the committee room so a quorum would not be had. So not only was there a walkout but there was a lockout.

Again, it causes one to wonder. If the legislation that I am working on as a Senator from Alaska is so Alaska-specific, so Alaska-germane, and I cannot get the cooperation of colleagues to move it through even the committee process, it causes you to wonder what is going on.

Let's look at the second bill that was on the calendar this morning. Was this what was being objected to? The second piece of legislation that was before the committee was S. 1466, ``a bill to facilitate the transfer of land in the State of Alaska, and for other purposes.''

Again, what we are talking about here is entirely Alaska-specific. This legislation relates to no other State. What we are faced with in the State of Alaska, through multiple land acts, through statehood we were promised certain lands. We were promised certain lands under the Alaska Claims Settlement Act. We are a young State, only 45 years old, but we are still waiting for vast amounts of our land to be conveyed to us--the land promised at statehood.

We still have some 89 million acres of land yet to be conveyed to the State of Alaska, promised some 45 years ago. We had a hearing on this legislation--a subcommittee hearing--in Anchorage last year. I asked the agency people at the time: Given how long it has taken the Federal agencies to work through the conveyance process and kind of estimating forward, how long do you figure it will take for the State of Alaska to receive conveyance of all the land to which it is entitled? The response that I received was: Anywhere from 30 years to 300 years.

Thirty years to 300 years to get the lands that were promised to us at statehood.

Mr. President, it is absolutely unacceptable. Any other State would have said, no, this is wrong and you have to deliver on your promises.

So what are we doing? I have introduced this legislation to say: Hey, Federal Government, hey, agencies, you have a promise, you made the promise. Do the job you are required to do by law. Move through the conveyance process. I know it is complicated. I know we have overlapping land issues. It is a complicated process, but do what you need to do, and if you need additional assistance, let us know how. This is essentially legislation that helps speed up, if you will, helps expedite the process.

Let's look at a few of the provisions we are talking about here. We are clarifying and streamlining the conveyance process. We have technical amendments that move forward filing deadlines. We have a situation right now where if there is any survey that is not exactly accurate, even by a tiny amount if you are exceeded, then you basically have to start all over in terms of completing your surveys.

What we have done is get the survey down to the last hundredths of an acre and if, in fact, it is not exactly entirely precise, you do not have to start all over again.

We set final acreage for the 10 regional Native corporations.

We allow the Secretary to make certain withdrawals for two of the regional corporations which right now do not have sufficient land selection.

We are attempting to solve the problems of old ACSA-related withdrawals that closed public lands in Alaska to full operation of public land laws.

We provide that the Natives in Kaktovik are allowed to receive their full entitlement under the agreement made in 1983.

There are some people who have said: Oh, my gosh, you are opening up ANWR for oil and gas development. The authorization does not change or lift the prohibitions on oil and gas development in the refuge. This is not what this is about. This is all about the Natives in this community being able to complete their selections as all Alaska Natives should be allowed to do.

There are other technical amendments streamlining the process, the deadline for Native corporations in the State of Alaska to identify their final land priorities. There is a title that directs the Secretary of Interior to speed up the hearings appeals and probates. It establishes an Alaska-based branch office and requires the Secretary to report on the progress in implementing these land exchanges within 3 years of enactment.

It is very clear how Alaska-specific this legislation is.

Again, the question must be asked: Was there a failure, was there a problem in how we worked the committee process? Was this being rushed through the committee? Did we fail to reach out to the minority and the staff on this?

Again, I refer to the timeline. The bill was introduced last year. We held a subcommittee hearing on public lands and forest in Anchorage. We had a further subcommittee hearing in Washington, DC, in February of this year, and within a few days of that hearing, my staff met with both minority and majority committee staff members, and everyone agreed they were going to meet 1 day a week for as long as it took to work out a joint staff substitute.

We were told at that time by the minority that they were working on another Member's bill, and once they completed that, they would turn their full attention to 1466.

We made repeated requests in May, June, and the first part of July to the minority staff, and it did not result in any meetings. Meetings were later held in the latter part of July, and we made substantial progress with the assignments agreed to by the committee staff.

The minority had a number of requests for changes and concessions, looking for additional information and analysis. They offered to provide assistance with technical edits and even to draft at least one provision.

We continued to work on the bill throughout the August recess. We were incorporating all this that we were working through the committee process. We had taken massive comments from Alaskan organizations and individuals and Native organizations, working the process as the process should be worked.

We truly did make substantial headway. We were prepared this morning to move forward with a committee substitute and put forward the substance of that substitute to the minority staff on September 2. It was a good-faith effort to accommodate all the requested changes without sacrificing the goal of completing these land transfers by our 50th anniversary of statehood, or the year 2009.

As of last Friday, less than a week ago, we were hearing very positive reports about the progress we were making on both sides and truly believed we were going to be in a position to offer a joint staff substitute at today's meeting.

It was not until yesterday that we were abruptly informed no such substitute would be possible. So I proceeded with an amendment on my own, an amendment that really does reflect the very bipartisan effort that was going on in this very important bill.

Again, I need to stress the importance of this legislation: land conveyances owed to the State of Alaska since statehood, land conveyances owed to Alaska Natives since passage of the Native Claims Settlement Act, promises made by the Federal Government to Alaska that need to be promises kept.

I am very committed to my work in the Senate. I am very committed to doing my utmost best for the people of the State of Alaska. These two pieces of legislation we were prepared to take up this morning and that we were thwarted in our efforts to move forward are very important to Alaskans. They do make a difference in how we move forward with our lands.

Put your State in this position. If you do not have the ability to move forward with your lands, if you do not even know what the status of your land title is, how complicated the future is for your State. We need to get these issues resolved.

All I ask for is the ability to do my job, and my job, as we all know, requires a cooperative process. We cannot move legislation through this body if we do not have cooperation, and cooperation begins at that very beginning level, working through the committees, as we have with both of these legislations. It then moves forward to that next step--to move the legislation through the committee--so we can move it to the floor.

I am happy to engage in debate on the merits. If you do not like the amendments, if you think they can be made better, wonderful, let's make it happen, but let's at least allow the process to work. When we fail, when we as Senators abdicate the duty and say, Alaska, or whatever State, you are on your own, nothing is going to move forward, we are not doing our job.

I know this is a contentious time. We are in the middle of all the hot political debates. I am a Senator who is standing for election now. We know that causes interesting things to happen within the process. But I would certainly like to think that what we do here in the course of our work should not harm our constituents. We ought to be able to do the business that needs to be done in a cooperative manner.

I am very hopeful we will be able to move forward with not only these bills and hopefully see them on the floor of this body, but other legislation that pertains to all of us. We all come to this body with our very unique issues. They are very particular to our home States. I ask that we all respect one another in our efforts to accomplish those things that are truly very local to our States.

So I look forward to next week and an opportunity to again bring forward very important issues for my State.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I rise today to introduce the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2003. This legislation will provide much needed protections for the thousands of foreign women who meet their American husbands through for-profit Internet sites and catalogs.

While mail order bride catalogs may seem like a relic from the past, the use of marriage broker services has exploded in recent years with the growth of the Internet. While many of these matches result in happy, long unions, there is a growing epidemic of domestic abuse among couples who meet via international marriage brokers. Immigrant and women's advocacy groups across the country report seeing an increase in the number of these wives seeking to escape a physically abusive husband they met through an IMB. In several cases, the abuse has progressed to murder.

A 1999 study found there were over 200 Internet sites marketing foreign women primarily from Eastern Europe and Asia seeking American husbands. Recent studies suggest that there are now as many as 400 currently operating in this country. These sites feature pictures of hundreds of women who, according to the Web sites, are looking to meet and marry an American man. The international marriage brokers operating these sites promise a wife with ``traditional values,'' who will honor her husband.

Unfortunately, women meeting their husbands in this manner frequently have little opportunity to get to know their prospective spouses or assess their potential for violence. They also have little knowledge of their rights as victims of domestic violence in our country even if they are not yet citizens or permanent residents.

In my State of Washington alone there have been three cases of serious domestic violence including two murders of women who met their husbands through an Internet-based international marriage broker. Susanna Blackwell met her husband through an IMB and, in 1994, left her native Philippines to move to Washington to marry him. During their short marriage, Timothy Blackwell physically abused his wife regularly. Within a few months, she had left him and begun divorce proceedings. The Blackwells had been separated for more than a year when Timothy Blackwell learned Susanna was eight months pregnant with another man's child. On the last day of the divorce proceedings, Timothy Blackwell shot and killed Susanna, her unborn child, and two friends who were waiting outside of the Seattle courtroom.

In 1999, 18-year-old Anastasia Solovyova married Indle King, a man she met through an IMB. Entries from Anastasia's diary detail the abuse she suffered and the fear she had of her husband who threatened her with death if she were to leave him. In December 2000, Anastasia was found strangled to death and buried in a shallow grave in Washington. King's accomplice later told police that he strangled Anastasia with a necktie while King lay on her chest to keep her from moving. At trial, it was discovered that Indle King had previously married another woman he met through an internet IMB, who later got a domestic violence protection order against him before divorcing him in 1997. It was also discovered that he was seeking his third wife through an IMB when he and his accomplice developed the plot to kill Anastasia.

Unfortunately, there are similar examples across the country of women who have met their American spouses through an Internet IMB only to be seriously injured or killed by an American spouse with a preexisting history of violence against women.

My legislation is modeled on a groundbreaking Washington State law, the first State effort to regulate the international matchmaking industry. The Washington Legislature took action on this important issue after the Blackwell and King cases, and multiple States are currently looking at enacting similar legislation.

The primary goal of my legislation is to better inform women entering this country as fiancees and prospective spouses about the past history of their prospective spouse and to better inform them of their rights as residents of the United States if they become victims of domestic violence.

The bill would first of all halt the current practice of allowing Americans to simultaneously seek visas for multiple fiancees, by requiring that only one fiancee visa may be sought per applicant each year. Currently, multiple request for fiancee visas can be simultaneously filed with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration, and the American requesting the visa will simply choose to marry the first woman who is approved.

Second, my bill would require that, before an IMB may release the contact information of a foreign national client, it must first obtain her consent to the release of that information and second, provide her with information on the rights of victims of domestic violence in this country in her own language.

Third, the IMB would be required to ask American clients to provide information on any previous arrest, conviction or court-ordered restriction relating to crimes of violence along with their previous marital history. This information would also be made available to the foreign national.

Finally, it would require a U.S. citizen seeking a foreign fiancee visa to undergo a criminal background check, a check that is already performed for the fiancees entering the country

themselves. Information on convictions and civil orders would be relayed to the visa applicant by the consular official along with information on their legal rights should they find themselves in an abusive relationship.

Currently, an American seeking to marry someone through an IMB holds all of the cards. The American client has the benefit of a complete background check on his future wife, a requirement of the immigration process. In addition, the IMBs provide clients extensive information about the women they offer, everything from their favorite movies and hobbies to whether they are sexually promiscuous.

Conversely, the foreign fiancee' only gets whatever information her future spouse wants to share. These women have no way of confirming what they are told about previous marriages or relationships or the American client's criminal history.

Researchers describe the typical American client as Caucasian, educated, professional, and financially secure. More than half have been married once already and express a desire to find a bride with more ``traditional values,'' attitudes they feel are not held by many American women today.

Most of the foreign brides advertised by the IMBs come from countries where women are oppressed, have a few educational or professional opportunities, and where violence against women is condoned, if not encouraged. Because of the cultural differences, researchers say there is an inherent imbalance of power in these relationships between American men and foreign women.

The men who seek these more traditional wives typically control the household finances and make basic decisons like whether the wife will have a driver's license, get a job or spend time with friends. Because these women often immigrate alone, they have no family or other support network and rely on their husbands for everything. Such dependency can make it difficult for a wife to report abuse without worrying that doing so is a surefire ticket to deportation. Researchers agree that isolation and dependency put these women at greater risk of domestic abuse.

Documenting the extent of this problem has been quite difficult. Marriages arranged by IMBs are not tracked separately from other immigrant marriages. However, experts agree that abuse is more likely in such an arranged marriages and that abuse in these relationships is likely underreported since the women are likely to be more afraid of deportation than the abuse they suffer at home.

Attempting to get a handle on the problem, the Immigration and Naturalization Service commissioned a study of the industry in 1999. The INS study estimated that there are more than 200 IMBs operating around the globe, arranging between 4,000 and 6,000 marriages between American men and foreign women every year. Experts today put the number of IMBs at nearly 500 worldwide. And based on the 1999 statistics, there are between 20,000 and 30,000 women who have entered the U.S. using an IMB in the past 5 years. While there are a few IMBs aimed at female clients, the overwhelming majority of people who seek IMB services are men.

IMBs also are being used as a cover for those seeking servants. That is what happened to Helen Clemente, a Filipina brought to the U.S. by retired Seattle-area police officer Eldon Doty and his wife, Sally. Eldon and Sally Doty had divorced to allow Eldon to marry Helen Clemente. However, Eldon and Sally Doty continued to live as man and wife, forcing Helene Clemente to work as their servant. After 3 years, Helen ran way. The Dotys have worked with INS in exchange for de facto immunity, while Helen Clemente continues to fight deportation.

It is critical for legal immigrants to know that they don't have to suffer abuse or work without pay to remain in this country. The Violence Against Women Act provided some safeguards for these female immigrants, ensuring that in cases of abuse a woman's immigration petition may proceed without the sponsorship of her abuser. That important legislation provided protections for women who come here and find themselves in abusive relationships; however, more can and should be done.

My legislation would give foreign financees critical information they need to make an informed decision about the person they are going to marry. It puts these foreign brides on more equal footing with their American grooms.

My legislation enjoys support from more than 80 organizations and advocacy groups across the country, including religious coalitions, laws firms, women's rights and social justice groups. I hope my colleagues in the Senate will support it as well.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Ted Stevens, in introducing this very important legislation.

The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claim issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Alaska Native Corporations.

The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State

and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands subject only to the survey of the final boundaries.

This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native corporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manager their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock.

The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of Federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims.

For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse yet, are the 2500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16000 parcels. Almost 14000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed.

While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of the land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred.

Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights or changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. In too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution.

This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority to solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele.

This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker.

I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009.

In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claim Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within three to six months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as three to five years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable.

Additionally, more than twenty cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within three to six months of the close of briefing.

Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized.

The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claims issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Alaska Native Corporations.

The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance, respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands, subject only to the survey of the final boundary.

This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native coporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manage their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock.

The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims.

For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse, yet, are the 2,500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16,000 parcels. Almost 14,000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed.

While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present

the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred.

Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights of changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. It too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution.

This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority for solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele.

This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker.

Mr. President, I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009.

In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable.

Additionally, more than 20 cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing.

Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the Government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized.

The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.

Mr. President, the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 will transfer millions of acres of land to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Native Corporations by 2009. The Federal agencies in Alaska have management jurisdiction of over 63 percent of the State. It is time to transfer these public lands from Federal Government control to private ownership. This legislation creates a strategic plan for the Bureau of Land Management to finally resolve long-standing land survey, land entitlement issues and land claims issues, some of which date back to 1906. Since 1906 Congress has enacted other legislation that requires the BLM to transfer public lands to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to Alaska Native Corporations.

The land conveyance program is the largest and most complex of any in United States history. For many years, BLM's primary goal was to convey title to unsurveyed lands to the State and Native Corporations by tentative approval and interim conveyance, respectively. This management practice allowed the State and Native Corporations to manage their lands, subject only to the survey of the final boundary.

This legislation will accelerate release of lands for conveyance to Native coporations and the State of Alaska. It will complete land patterns to allow land owners to more efficiently manage their land. It will clarify that certain minerals can be transferred to Native landowners. And frankly, split estates can be minimized. The University will be given the opportunity to select the remaining Federal interests in lands the University already owns, that will likely produce economic opportunities not presently available under this land lock.

The complexity of land patterns and uses in Alaska is evident in the presence of federal mining claims that are within lands owned or selected by the State of Alaska. Our legislation would clarify miners' right to convert from Federal to State claims without jeopardizing ongoing mining operations. At the same time, BLM would be allowed to expedite conveyances to the State. Properly maintained Federal claims will continue to be excluded from conveyance. Entitlements to the State will remain secure. The miner will decide when or whether to convert his claims to State claims.

For too many years, individuals, Native corporations and the State have been patiently waiting to receive title to their land. In 1958 the State of Alaska was promised 104 million acres of land, and has to date received final title to only 42 million acres; less than half of what is due. Of the 44 million acres of land that the Native Corporations are entitled to, only about a third has been conveyed or about 15 million acres. Worse, yet, are the 2,500 parcels pending title to Native individuals out of 16,000 parcels. Almost 14,000 parcels are still awaiting basic adjudication to even make a determination of land transfer. Too much land is hanging in the balance that must be surveyed and patented to rightful owners. Between now and the sunset of this bill in 2009, more than 89 million acres must be surveyed on State and Native Corporation lands. The lands that are awaiting survey do not include lands that will eventually be titled to Native individuals; these lands too must first be surveyed.

While some Native allotments have been conveyed, issues have arisen to challenge final conveyance to the land. Such challenges have included whether actual use of land occurred; the location of the parcel; or even who should receive title to the land. Sadly, some of the original Native allotment applicants have died waiting to receive title or have disputes resolved. Oftentimes, the death of an applicant can present

the agency with chain of title questions to determine who the rightful heir is, causing further delays to getting the lands transferred.

Some disputes have been easier to handle than others, resulting in settlement through an administrative appeals process. The Federal agencies have been hampered by many administrative and legal obstacles. There have been court decisions and lawsuit settlements, new legislation creating new rights of changing rules midstream. Old cases have been reopened that have created new land patterns for adjudication and survey. The administrative appeals process was designed to be efficient, and immediately accessible to individuals who believe they have been adversely impacted by actions taken by the BLM. It too many instances this process has resulted in long delays that hinder the BLM from finalizing its work. In the meantime, the applicant suffers at the hands of a process that generally takes years just for a case to be reviewed for resolution.

This legislation will provide the BLM with broader authority for solving many of the problems associated with land claims affecting all disputes that occur in Alaska. When disputes arise over the adjudication of land claims, BLM needs to have full authority to work in a more collaborative environment with its clientele.

This legislation will provide the BLM the opportunity to caucus with its clients. It will allow for a process of negotiation to gain consensus on final resolution of land applications. What has been missing all these years is the flexibility for the Federal agencies to work in such a cooperative fashion. This new process is intended to be free of complicated rules that have plagued the agency to finding solutions. Resolution and closure must come quicker.

Mr. President, I give great credit to the management and the employees of the BLM Alaska for their efforts over the years to transfer the land. They have proven to be dedicated and committed public servants. I believe they have tried to do the right thing; they just need the tools and the resources. They want to close the books on the Alaska conveyance program once and for all, and this bill will help them achieve that goal by 2009.

In 1973 the Alaska Native Claims Appeal Board was established. The Board had jurisdiction over decisions made under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The Board consisted of four judges, and was able to decide a case within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing. It usually had a small backlog. While the Board was able to act in a fairly responsive manner, there was criticism the Board did not correctly apply general Federal land law precedent and that some of their rulings were inconsistent with policy of the Department of the Interior. The Board was dissolved in 1981. The backlog of cases was not necessarily attributed to Native Corporation cases; most of the backlog related to all other matters. This legislation will create a hearings and appeals process located in Alaska. Presently, there are almost 100 appeals of Alaska decisions pending before the Interior Board of Land Appeals. It usually takes this Board several years to rule on a case, sometimes as long as 3 to 5 years. The present process is broken. There should never be a process that controls the fate of someone's livelihood. Matters requiring resolution must not sit and languish for years without resolution. This practice is unacceptable and unreasonable.

Additionally, more than 20 cases are pending before Administrative Law judges at various Office of Hearings Appeals offices--Virginia, Minnesota and Utah. The cases currently in their hands are Native allotments and mining claims. Substantial delays have resulted from the slow pace of scheduling hearings in Alaska. Establishing an Alaska hearings unit to handle all Alaska appeals would significantly speed up the current process. Such a new process would be able to routinely issue decisions within 3 to 6 months of the close of briefing.

Challenges likely to emerge on land actions requiring judicial review will be handled by judges located in Alaska. Moreover, having judges located in Alaska, conducting Alaska business, would ensure an understanding of the special laws that are applicable to Alaska. In addition, this process would include all land transfer matters, not just claims under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.

To achieve the acceleration of land conveyances, we must be able to count on a consistent level of funding. We do not want any aspect of the acceleration plan to be hampered. As I pointed out earlier, almost 90 million acres must be surveyed between now and 2009. The BLM is the single agency of the Federal Government that is charged with the authority and responsibility for surveys and land title record keeping. Official survey plats are the Government's record of the boundaries of an area and the description of such surveyed land is known as the legal land description. Land title or patents are based on such plats of survey. And, until the land is surveyed, the Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and the Native Corporations will still be waiting way off into the future for this work to be finalized.

The Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act of 2003 imposes very strict provisions on the agency to complete land conveyances by 2009 to Alaska Natives, the State of Alaska and to the Native Corporations. Some might view this plan as ambitious. I view it as being long overdue.