The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Transportation was published in the Senate section on pages S3750-S3756 on April 28, 1997.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. MURKOWSKI:
S. 660. A bill to provide for the continuation of higher education through the conveyance of certain public lands in the State of Alaska to the University of Alaska, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
university of alaska land grant
Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in my State of Alaska the University of Alaska is the oldest post-secondary school. The university was chartered prior to statehood and has played a vital role in educating Alaskans as well as students from around the world. The expertise of the university has been in many areas, mining, agriculture, arctic and subarctic sciences.
Additionally, the university has served as an important cornerstone in the history of our State. For example, the university housed the Alaska Constitutional Convention where the fathers of our statehood act carved out the rights and privileges guaranteed to Alaskan citizens. Further, Mr. President, the university is proud of the fact that it began life as the Alaska Agricultural and Mining College. However, Mr. President, what makes the University of Alaska unique is the fact that it is the only land-grant college in the Nation that is virtually landless today.
As some of my colleagues know, one of the oldest and most respected ways of financing America's educational system has been from the land-
grant system. This was established in 1785 and the practice gives land to schools and universities for their use in supporting their educational endeavors. in 1862, Congress passed what was then known as the Morrill Act, which created the land-grant colleges and universities as a way to underwrite the cost of higher education to more and more of America's young people. These colleges and universities received land from the Federal Government for facility location, and more importantly as a way to provide for sustaining revenues to those educational institutions.
Mr. President, the University of Alaska received the smallest amount of land of any State, with the exception of Delaware that has a land-
grant college. Delaware received about 90,000 acres. Even the land-
grant college in Rhode Island received more land from the Federal Government than has the University of Alaska. Rhode Island received 120,000 acres.
In a State the size of Alaska, about 365 million acres, we should logically have one of the best and most fully funded land-grant colleges in the country. Yet, to date, the University of Alaska only has about 111,000 acres. Unfortunately, without the land promised to Alaska under the land-grant allocation system in earlier legislation, the university is unable to share as one of the premier land-grant colleges in this country.
Previous efforts were made in Congress to fix this problem. These efforts date back to 1915, less than 50 years after the passage of the Morrill Act, when Alaska's delegate to Congress, Delegate James Wickersham shepherded a measure through Congress that set aside potentially more than a quarter of a million acres in the Tanana Valley outside Fairbanks for the support of an agriculture college and school of mines.
Following the practice established in the lower 48 States for the other land-grant colleges, Wickersham's bill set aside every section 33 of the unsurveyed Tanana Valley for the Alaska Agriculture College and Schools of Mines.
Alaska's educational future at that time looked favorable. Many Alaskans saw the opportunity to set up an endowment system similar to that set up by the University of Washington in the downtown center of Seattle, WA, where valuable university lands are leased providing funding for the university's maintenance and upkeep as well as some capital projects.
However, in Alaska's case, before the land could be transferred to the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines, renamed the University of Alaska in 1935, the land had to be surveyed in order to establish the exact acreage included in the reserve lands.
The section reserved for education could not be transferred to the college until they had been delineated. According to records at the time, it was unlikely given the incredibly slow speed of surveying that the land could be completely surveyed before the end of the current century. Surveying is still an extraordinarily slow process in Alaska's remote and unpopulated terrain.
In all, only 19 section 33's, or approximately 11,211 acres, were ever transferred to the University of Alaska. Of this, 2,250 acres were used for the original campus, and the remainder was left to the discretion of the board of regents to support educational programs and facilities.
Recognizing the difficulties of surveying in Alaska, subsequent legislation was passed in 1929 that simply granted land for the benefit of the university. This grant totaled approximately 100,000 acres, and to this day comprises the bulk of the university's total 111,211 acres of land--less than one-third of what was originally promised. In 1958, the Alaska Statehood Act was passed which extinguished the unfulfilled land grants. The university was thus left with little land with which to support itself and is thus unable to completely fulfill its mission as a land-grant college.
Mr. President, the legislation I am introducing today would redeem the promises made to the university in 1915 and put the university on an even footing with other land-grant colleges in the United States. It provides the university with the land needed to support itself financially and it offers the chance to grow and continue to act as a responsible steward of the land and educator of young Alaskans. It also provides a concrete timetable under which the university must select its land and the Secretary of Interior must act upon those selections.
This legislation also contains significant restrictions on the land that the university can select. The university cannot select land located within a conservation system unit, land validly conveyed to the State or an ANCSA corporation or land used in connection with Federal or military institutions.
Accordingly, Mr. President, under my bill, the university must relinquish extremely valuable inholdings in Alaska once it receives its second-tier State/Federal grant under section 6, of this bill. Therefore, the result of this legislation will mean, specifically, relinquishment of prime university inholdings in such magnificent areas as the Alaska Peninsula and Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, the Kenai Fjords National Park, Wrangell St. Elias National Park and Preserve and Denali Park and Preserve. Mr. President, not only does this bill uphold a decades-old promise to the University of Alaska, it further protects Alaska's unique parks and refuges.
Recognize, Mr. President, my bill requires the State to participate in the process, as well, under an option. Specifically, the bill would grant the university 250,000 acres of Federal land. The university would be eligible to receive another 250,000 acres of Federal land on a matching basis with the State, for a total of 500,000 additional acres. This would be at the option of the legislature, the Governor, and the university's board of regents
Mr. President, the State matching provision is an important component of this legislation. Most agree with the premise that the university was shorted land. However, some believe it is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government to compensate the university with land, while others believe it is solely the responsibility of the State to grant the university land. The legislation I am introducing today offers a compromise, a compromise giving both the State and the Federal Government the opportunity to contribute, as well as provide the Government with valuable inholdings in Federal parks and preserves.
With the passage of this bill, Mr. President, the University of Alaska will finally be able to act fully as a land grant college, and will be able to select lands that can provide the university with stable revenue sources, as well as provide responsible stewardship for the lands.
This is an exciting time for the University of Alaska. The promises that were made 82 years ago could be fulfilled with this legislation, and Alaskans could look forward to a very bright future for the university and the many Alaskans who receive an education there.
I ask unanimous consent, at this time, to have printed in the Record the proposed inholdings that the University has which would be deeded over to the Federal Government under this legislation, a history of the university of Alaska's land grant from the time we were designated as a territory, land grant rankings of all the States, as well as a copy of the bill.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
S. 660
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES.
(a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
(1) the University of Alaska is the successor to and the beneficiary of all Federal grants and conveyances to or for the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines;
(2) under the Acts of March 4, 1915, 38 Stat. 1214, and January 21, 1929, 45 Stat. 1091, the United States granted to the Territory of Alaska certain federal land for the University of Alaska;
(3) the Territory was unable to receive most of the land intended to be conveyed by the Act of March 4, 1915, before repeal of that Act by Sec. 6(k) of the Alaska Statehood Act
(P.L. 85-508, 72 Stat. 339);
(4) only one other state land grant college in the United States has obtained a smaller land grant from the federal government than the University of Alaska has received, and all land grand colleges in the western states of the United States have obtained substantially larger land grants than the University of Alaska;
(5) an academically strong and financially secure state university system is a cornerstone to the long-term development of a stable population and to a healthy, diverse economy and is in the national interest;
(6) the national interest is served by transferring certain federal lands to the University of Alaska which will be able to use and develop the resources of such lands and by returning certain lands held by the University of Alaska located within certain federal conservation system units to federal ownership;
(7) the University of Alaska holds valid legal title to and is responsible for management of lands transferred by the United States to the Territory and State of Alaska for the University and that an exchange of lands is consistent with and in furtherance of the purposes and terms of, and thus not in violation of, the Federal grant of such lands.
(b) Purposes.--The purposes of this act are--
(1) to fulfill the original commitment of Congress to establish the University of Alaska as a land grant university with holdings sufficient to facilitate operation and maintenance of a university system for the inhabitants of the State of Alaska; and
(2) to acquire from the University of Alaska lands it holds within federal Parks, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness areas.
SEC. 2. PRIMARY FEDERAL GRANT.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to valid existing rights and the procedures set forth herein, the University is granted and entitled to take up to 250,000 acres of federal lands (or reserved interests in lands) in or adjacent to Alaska as a federal grant. The University may identify and select the specific lands it intends to take pursuant to this grant, and the Secretary of the Interior (``Secretary'') shall promptly convey to the University the lands selected, in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(b)(1) Within 48 months of enactment of this Act, the University of Alaska may submit to the Secretary a list of properties the University has tentatively selected to receive under the conditions of this grant. Such list may be submitted in whole or in part during this period and the University may make interim tentative selections that it may relinquish or change within the 48 month period. The University may submit tentative selections that exceed the amount of the grant except that such selections shall not exceed 275,000 acres at any one time.
(2) All selections shall be in reasonably compact units: Provided, That the University may select small tracts of federal land within federal reservations consistent with the limitations in subsection (c) below.
(3) The University may submit tentative selections of federal lands validly selected but not conveyed to the State of Alaska or the corporations organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Provided, That such lands may not be approved or conveyed to the University unless the State of Alaska and or the corporation has relinquished its prior selection.
(4) The University shall make no selections within Conservation System Units as defined in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3101).
(5) Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a University tentative selection, the Secretary shall publish notice of said selection in the Federal Register. Such notice shall identify lands included in the tentative selection and provide for a period for public comment on the tentative selection not to exceed sixty (60) days.
(6) Within six months of the receipt of a University tentative selection, the Secretary shall notify the University of his acceptance or objection to each tentative selection, including the reasons for any objection. Failure to object within six months shall constitute approval by the Secretary. Any public comments submitted in response to a public notice issued pursuant to paragraph (5) above may be considered by the Secretary: Provided, That the Secretary may object to tentative selections of the University if and only if he demonstrates that a conveyance of such to the University--
(A) will have a significant adverse impact on the purposes for which a Conservation System Unit was established; or
(B) will have a significant adverse impact on fulfillment of the Alaska Statehood Act or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. (43 U.S.C. 1601)
(7) The Secretary's acceptance of, or objection to, any tentative selections submitted by the University of Alaska pursuant to Section 2 of this Act or the conveyance of any such selections by tentative approval, patent or other instrument are not major federal actions within the means of section 102 (2)(c) of P.L. 91-190.
(8) The Secretary shall publish notice of any decision to accept or object to a tentative selection in the Federal Register.
(c) The Secretary shall not approve or convey, under this grant,
(1) any federal lands which, at the time of enactment of this Act, are included in a Conservation System Unit;
(2) any federal lands validly selected or top filed pursuant to Sec. 906(e) of Public Law No. 96-487 but not conveyed to the State of Alaska or the corporations pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act; or
(3) any federal lands withdrawn and actually used in connection with the administration of any federal installations and military reservations unless the head of the land holding or occupying agency or entity agrees.
(d) If, following the Secretary's review of tentative selections by the University, the amount of acreage approved by the Secretary for conveyance is less than the full primary grant, the University may select additional lands to satisfy the primary grant.
(e) Upon the University's tentative selection of land--
(1) Such land shall be segregated and unavailable for selection by and conveyance to the State of Alaska or any corporation organized pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and shall not be otherwise encumbered or disposed of by the United States pending completion of the selection process.
(2) The University shall possess the non-exclusive right to enter onto such lands for the purpose of--
(A) assessing the oil, gas, mineral and other resource potential therein. The University, and its delegatees or agents, shall be permitted to engage in assessment techniques including but not limited to core drilling to assess the metalliferous or other values, and surface geological exploration and seismic exploration for oil and gas: Provided That this paragraph shall not be construed as including or allowing exploratory drilling of oil and gas wells; and
(B) exercising due diligence regarding the making of a final selection.
(f) Within one year of the Secretary's approval of a tentative selection, the University may make therefrom a final selection pursuant to this Act. Within six months of such final selection by the University, the Secretary shall issue a tentative approval of such final selection. Such tentative approval shall be deemed to transfer to the University all right, title, and interest of the United States in and to the described selection. Any lakes, rivers and streams contained within such selections shall be meandered and lands submerged thereunder conveyed in accordance with 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1631, as amended. Upon completion of a survey of lands included within such tentative approval, the Secretary shall promptly issue patent to such lands. Pending issuance of a patent, the University shall have rights and authorities over tentatively approved lands consistent with those under the Alaska Statehood Act and the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, including the right to transfer, assign, exchange, grant, deed, lease or otherwise convey any or all present or future interest in the lands granted pursuant to this Act.
(g) The Secretary of Agriculture, as well as the heads of other federal agencies, shall take such actions as may be necessary to facilitate and expedite the implementation of this Act by the Secretary of the Interior.
SEC. 3. RELINQUISHMENT OF CERTAIN UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
HOLDINGS.
(a) As a condition to receiving the land grant provided by Section 6 of this Act, the University of Alaska shall convey to the Secretary those lands listed in ``The University of Alaska's Inholding Reconveyance Document'' and dated April 24, 1997.
(b) The University shall begin conveyance of the lands listed in (a) above upon taking title to lands it has selected pursuant to section 6 of this Act and shall convey to the Secretary a percentage amount of land proportional to that which it has received, but in no event shall it be required to convey any lands other than those listed in (a) above to the Secretary. The Secretary shall accept quitclaim deeds from the University for these lands.
SEC. 4. ALIENATION OF LANDS.
Nothwithstanding any other provision of law, the University of Alaska may transfer, assign, exchange, grant, deed, lease or otherwise convey any or all present future interests in the lands granted pursuant to this Act.
SEC. 5. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
The University of Alaska has the right to bring action for, including but not limited to, relief in the nature of mandamus, against the Secretary for violation of this Act or for review of an agency decision under this Act. Such an action can only be brought in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska and within two (2) years of the alleged violation or the final decision-making. For all other entities or persons, decisions of the Secretary shall be final and conclusive.
SEC. 6. STATE MATCHING GRANT.
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, but subject to valid existing rights and the procedures set forth in this Act, the University is granted and shall be entitled to take, in addition to the primary grant provided for in Section 2 herein, up to another 250,000 acres in federal lands (or reserved interests in lands) in or adjacent to Alaska: Provided That any additional acres are granted, as specified below, on a matching acre-for-acre basis to the extent that the State of Alaska shall first grant to the University State-owned land in Alaska.
(b) The university may select and the Secretary shall convey lands which the University is entitled to receive pursuant to this State Matching Grant Provisions in minimum increments of 25,000 acres up to the maximum of 250,000 acres.
____
History of the University of Alaska Land Grant
1785--The Ordinance of 1785 established the rectangular survey of New England as the basis of which all land west of Ohio would be subdivided. Land was surveyed into townships composed of 36 sections of 640 acres or one square mile each. The law also established the principle of reserving section 16 of every township ``for the maintenance of public schools.''
1848--With the Admission of Oregon in 1848, the grant doubled from one section to two sections (16 & 36). Three of the last four states admitted into the union, UT, NM, and AZ each got four sections (2, 16, 32, and 36).
1842--The Morrill Act passed which dedicated lands to states for ``agriculture and mechanic arts''. The grants were based on population as measured by the size of the delegation with each state receiving approximately 30,000 acres/member.
1915--Alaska Delegate James Wickersham pushed through a measure in Congress which reserved lands for a common school system and an agricultural land grant college in the Tanana Valley. The bill followed the pattern of reserving 2 sections of every township for support of ``common schools.'' (About 20 million acres in AK). Wickersham's bill also set aside every section 33 in the Tanana Valley for support of an agricultural college and school of mines. (Approx. 250,000 acres).
1916--Wickersham introduces first statehood bill
``Granting'' 11.3 million acres for higher education and 20 million acres for public schools.
1917--Alaska territorial legislature formally incorporates the Alaska Agricultural College and School of Mines (Renamed UA in 1935) as Alaska's land grant institution.
Up to this point no land had every been transferred to University due to fact that all bills required a survey to occur before transfer and AK had never been surveyed.
By the time federal grant would be revoked only 19 section 33's out of a possible 420 had been surveyed and transferred to the University. Ultimately the University received 11,211 acres of section 33's of which 2,250 were he original campus.
1929--Congress passes act ``Granting'' 100,000 acres for the ``exclusive use an benefit'' of the Alaska Agriculture College and School of Mines making up the bulk of the University's approx. 111,000 acres.
1936 to 1943--During the 74th, 75th, 76th, 77th, and 78th Congress Alaska Delegate Anthony J. Dimond Introduced five identical bills to extend the 1915 land grant to all section 33's, not just those in the Tanana Valley, for a total land grant of approx. 10 million acres.
1943--Bartlett introduces statehood bill reserving two sections of each township (20m acres) for support of schools and 1 section of every township (10m acres) for higher education. For the most part this formula existed in all statehood bills through 1949. (Exception is a compromise bill between Bartlett and then-Secretary Gardner during mid 40's which never went anywhere).
1950--Since Alaska could not receive title to a specific section of land until it was surveyed in 1950 Congress rejected ``in place grants'' of specific sections of townships and endorsed the concept of ``quantity'' grants. This concept was incorporated in all future statehood bills.
All statehood bills during the 50's supported around 103.3 million acres for the state with a typical breakdown as follows:
100m acres--general grant;
.8m--community development grants to be used for expansion of communities; and
3.25m--for ``internal improvements as follows
500,000 acres--university;
500,000 acres--teacher's college;
500,000 acres--public buildings;
200,000 acres--schools and asylums (deaf, dumb, and blind);
200,000 acres--penitentiaries;
200,000 acres--mental institutions;
200,000 acres--charitable, penal, and reform institutions; and
250,000 acres--pioneer homes.
1954--UA President Ernest Patty made several requests to DOI for more land including lands in the NPR-A.
1955--University Board Of Regents passes resolution asking Congress to give University authority to select up to 500,000 acres with mineral rights.
1958--With the passage of Statehood the ``internal improvement grants''--including the University's 500,000 acres and the 500,000 acres for the University's teacher training programs were consolidated into the 100 million-acre general grant leaving disposition of all 102,550,500 acres at the discretion of the legislature. Statehood also canceled the 1915 education reserve (though it did confirm the University's rights to the few thousand acres of section 33 land that were already reserved and surveyed).
Passage of the Statehood bill virtually ended all discussion of federal land grants.
1959--University attorney, Ed Merdes, wrote Senator Bartlett about impact of Statehood bill on Tanana selections. After extensive research a legislative aide, Joe Josephson wrote Merdes back and said unequivocally that Congressional intent in the statehood bill was for the new state government to address University land grant;
``The theory of the land-grant provisions in the statehood act was they would replace inter alia (among other things) the reservations authorized in 48 U.S.C. 353 and that the state university would petition the sate government to satisfy the needs of the University which previously to statehood were met in part by 48 U.S.C. 353.'' (Josephson to Merdes, 10 November 1959, Pres Papers)
1959--House Bill No. 176. Of the New Legislature declared the intent to reserve one million acres for the university and declared the legislature's ultimate attempt to reserve 5 million acres ``for the purpose of replacing those grants previously allowed under federal law . . . which has been superseded . . . and for the further purpose of establishing a means by which the University may be properly maintained and operated and direct state support thereby reduced.''
To much surprise Governor Egan vetoed the bill. His main reason was that this could lead to further earmarking of state land and dollars for other ``internal improvements'' and that this was not sound administrative procedure. Egan suggested it was much more prudent to appropriate and bond for the University.
1960's--With Governor Egan's opposition to the State grant future bills never received much support in the legislature. With the defeat of Egan in 1966 by Walter Hickel, Hickel promised a new era of Alaska economic development and support for the University. Yet one month later Secretary Udall declared a land freeze in Alaska that virtually brought all state land selections to a halt, and consequently froze the University land grant as well.
1970's--Legally and politically the Alaska land picture grew more complex year-by-year. Within the next 15 years the open public doman in AK would essentially vanish, as the entire state was parceled off among development interests, environmental interests, and native groups with the passage of ANCSA in 1971, construction of TAPS in 74-77, and passage of ANILCA in 1980.
1995--After passing the legislature Governor Knowles vetoed a SB 16 granting the University 350,000 acres of state lands. The Governor declared his support for the concept but wanted assurances that: (1) the University would not select any lands needed by growing communities; (2) oil found on ``new'' university lands were subject to permanent fund requirements and royalties and bonus payments to the state; and (3) that all environmental and mineral entry laws would apply.
1996--FHM bill introduced in Senate setting up a matching grant provision.
1996--A new bill, SB 250, passed the legislature by a 46-12 vote and was again vetoed by Governor Knowles for many of the same reasons stated in the first veto.
____
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region and area UA ID number Acres Federal land type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Central:
Alaska Peninsula............ AP.UL.001......... 8 AK Peninsula & Maritime National Wildlife
Refuge.
......do.................... AP.UL.001......... 360 Do.
......do.................... AP.UL.002......... 8 Do.
......do.................... AP.WB.001......... 622 Do.
......do.................... AP.WB.002......... 56 Do.
Nuka Island................. HM.NK.001......... 23 Kenai Fjords National Park.
......do.................... IIM.NK.002........ 24 Do.
Blackburn Subd.............. WR.BB.001......... 5 Wrangell St. Elias National Park & Preserve
......do.................... WR.BB.002......... 17 Do.
......do.................... WR.BB.003......... 2 Do.
......do.................... WR.BB.004......... 34 Do.
McCarthy Creek Subd......... WR.MC.001-071..... 867 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.003......... 1,304 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.004......... 320 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.005......... 2,240 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.006......... 640 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.007......... 400 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.008......... 372 Do.
......do.................... WR.MY.009......... 400 Do.
Strelna..................... WR.SN.001......... 400 Do.
......do.................... WR.SN.002......... 1,452 Do.
......do.................... WR.SN.004......... 424 Do.
Wrangell Glaciers........... WR.WG.001......... 20 Do.
......do.................... WR.WG.002......... 136 Do.
......do.................... WR.WG.003......... 103 Do.
......do.................... WR.WG.004......... 82 Do.
Wrangell St. Elias.......... Orange Hill....... 1,600 Do.
Denali...................... Stampede Mine..... 71 Denali National Park & Preserve.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... .................. 11,990 ...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Conservation System Unit Acres
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Peninsula & Maritime National Wildlife Refuge............. 1,054
Kenai Fjords National Park................................... 47
Wrangell St. Elias National Park & Preserve.................. 10,818
Denail National Park & Preserve.............................. 71
----------
Total acres............................................ 11,990
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranked by the amount of federal land given to Higher Education
1. New Mexico................................................1,346,546
2. Oklahoma..................................................1,050,000
3. New York....................................................990,000
4. Arizona.....................................................849,197
5. Pennsylvania................................................780,000
6. Ohio........................................................699,120
7. Utah........................................................556,141
8. Illinois....................................................526,080
9. Indiana.....................................................436,080
10. Montana.....................................................388,721
11. Idaho.......................................................386,686
12. Alabama.....................................................383,785
13. Missouri....................................................376,080
14. South Dakota................................................366,080
15. Massachusetts...............................................360,000
16. Mississippi.................................................348,240
17. Washington..................................................336,080
18. North Dakota................................................336,080 19. Wisconsin...................................................332,160
20. Kentucky....................................................330,000
21. Tennessee...................................................300,000
22. Virginia....................................................300,000
23. Iowa........................................................286,080
24. Michigan....................................................286,080
25. Georgia.....................................................270,000
26. North Carolina..............................................270,000
27. Louisiana...................................................256,292
28. Minnesota...................................................212,160
29. Maine.......................................................210,000
30. Maryland....................................................210,000
31. New Jersey..................................................210,000
32. California..................................................196,080
33. Arkansas....................................................196,080
34. Florida.....................................................182,160
35. Connecticut.................................................180,000
36. South Carolina..............................................180,000
37. Texas.......................................................180,000
38. Kansas......................................................151,270
39. New Hampshire...............................................150,000
40. Vermont.....................................................150,000
41. West Virginia...............................................150,000
42. Colorado....................................................138,040
43. Oregon......................................................136,165
44. Nevada......................................................136,080
45. Nebraska....................................................136,080
46. Wyoming.....................................................136,080
47. Rhode Island................................................120,000
48. Alaska......................................................112,064
49. Delaware.....................................................90,000
50. Hawaii.......................................................... 0
__________
Total......................................................16,707,787
Average.........................................................334,156
Ranked by the percentage of the State grant given to Higher Education
Percent
1. New York.....................................................100.00
2. Pennsylvania.................................................100.00
3. Massachusetts................................................100.00
4. Tennessee....................................................100.00
5. Virginia.....................................................100.00
6. Georgia......................................................100.00
7. North Carolina...............................................100.00
8. Maine........................................................100.00
9. Maryland.....................................................100.00
10. New Jersey...................................................100.00
11. Connecticut..................................................100.00
12. South Carolina...............................................100.00
13. Texas........................................................100.00
14. New Hampshire................................................100.00
15. Vermont......................................................100.00
16. West Virginia................................................100.00
17. Rhode Island.................................................100.00
18. Delaware.....................................................100.00
19. Kentucky......................................................93.06
20. Oklahoma......................................................33.92
21. Ohio..........................................................25.34
22. Washington....................................................11.04
23. Indiana.......................................................10.79
24. South Dakota..................................................10.66
25. North Dakota..................................................10.62
26. New Mexico....................................................10.52
27. Idaho..........................................................9.09
28. Illinois.......................................................8.44
29. Arizona........................................................8.05
30. Alabama........................................................7.67
31. Utah...........................................................7.41
32. Montana........................................................6.52
33. Mississippi....................................................5.71
34. Missouri.......................................................5.07
35. Nevada.........................................................4.99
36. Nebraska.......................................................3.93
37. Iowa...........................................................3.55
38. Wisconsin......................................................3.26
39. Wyoming........................................................3.13
40. Colorado.......................................................3.09
41. Michigan.......................................................2.36
42. Louisiana......................................................2.24
43. California.....................................................2.22
44. Kansas.........................................................1.94
45. Oregon.........................................................1.94
46. Arkansas.......................................................1.64
47. Minnesota......................................................1.29
48. Florida........................................................0.75
49. Alaska.........................................................0.11
50. Hawaii.........................................................0.00
________
Total............................................................5.09
Average...........................................................42.01
Ranked by the amount of federal land given to the State
1. Alaska..................................................104,569,251
2. Florida..................................................24,214,366
3. Minnesota................................................16,422,051
4. New Mexico...............................................12,794,718
5. Michigan.................................................12,142,846
6. Arkansas.................................................11,936,834
7. Louisiana................................................11,441,343
8. Arizona..................................................10,543,753
9. Wisconsin................................................10,179,804
10. California................................................8,825,508
11. Iowa......................................................8,061,262
12. Kansas....................................................7,794,669
13. Utah......................................................7,501,737
14. Missouri..................................................7,417,022
15. Oregon....................................................7,032,847
16. Illinois..................................................6,234,655
17. Mississippi...............................................6,097,997
18. Montana...................................................5,963,338
19. Alabama...................................................5,006,883
20. Colorado..................................................4,471,604
21. Wyoming...................................................4,342,520
22. Idaho.....................................................4,254,448
23. Indiana...................................................4,040,518
24. Nebraska..................................................3,458,711
25. South Dakota..............................................3,435,373
26. North Dakota..............................................3,163,552
27. Oklahoma..................................................3,095,760
28. Washington................................................3,044,471
29. Ohio......................................................2,758,862
30. Nevada....................................................2,725,226
31. New York....................................................990,000
32. Pennsylvania................................................780,000
33. Massachusetts...............................................360,000
34. Kentucky....................................................354,607
35. Tennessee...................................................300,000
36. Virginia....................................................300,000
37. Georgia.....................................................270,000
38. North Carolina..............................................270,000
39. Maine.......................................................210,000
40. Maryland....................................................210,000
41. New Jersey..................................................210,000
42. Connecticut.................................................180,000
43. South Carolina..............................................180,000
44. Texas.......................................................180,000
45. New Hampshire...............................................150,000
46. Vermont.....................................................150,000
47. West Virginia...............................................150,000
48. Rhode Island................................................120,000
49. Delaware.....................................................90,000
50. Hawaii............................................................0
________________
Total....................................................328,426,536
Average.....................................................6,568,531
______
By Mr. McCAIN:
S. 661. A bill to provide an administrative process for obtaining a waiver of the coastwise trade laws for certain vessels; to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
coastwise trade vessel waivers legislation
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I introduce legislation that would provide an administrative process for obtaining a waiver of the coastwise trade laws to allow certain vessels to commercially operate in the coastwise trade. This legislation will improve the responsiveness of the Federal Government in meeting the needs of many vessel-operating small businesses.
The coastwise trade laws require that vessels operating between U.S. ports be built and documented in the United States and owned and operated by U.S. citizens. Today, if a U.S. citizen owner of a foreign-
built vessel wants to carry passengers for hire on that vessel in the coastwise trade of the United States, that person must obtain a legislative waiver of the coastwise laws.
Many of my colleagues are familiar with these private relief bills. The legislative process for consolidating these numerous House and Senate bills usually involves including them in the Coast Guard authorization bill for final passage.
While some Members may value the current process as a useful constituent service, it often delays resolution of a constituent's request by a year or more, causing financial hardship for the constituent's business. The potential influence of campaign contributions on such private relief bills is also a concern. The legislative process is slow, inefficient, and potentially unfair. Our constituents would be better served by delegating this waiver authority for noncontroversial requests to an appropriate administrative agency.
My bill would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to administratively waive certain coastwise trade restrictions for vessels that meet the following criteria, which the Commerce Committee currently uses to determine if a waiver is warranted:
First, this waiver authority would apply to foreign-built vessels of at least 3 years of age, and U.S.-built vessels that were rebuilt in foreign countries at least 3 years prior to the effective date of the waiver. The vast majority of the waiver requests considered by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee in the past 3 years were for vessels of at least this age that had originally been used for recreational or other noncoastwise purposes.
Second, this bill would limit the coastwise trade use of vessels obtaining such privileges through this process to service carrying a maximum of 12 passengers for hire. Again, the vast majority of waiver requests considered by the Commerce Committee specified this type of intended use.
Finally, the Secretary would be required to make a determination that the use of the applicant's vessel in the coastwise trade would not adversely affect U.S.-vessel builders or the coastwise trade business of any person who employs U.S.-built vessels in the same trade. An exemption granted under this authority could be revoked if the vessel use substantially changes so as to cause such problems.
Mr. President, during the 104th Congress, 73 of the 119 bills considered by the Commerce Committee were requests for waiver of the coastwise trade laws for special vessels. If my bill is enacted, only a few waiver requests falling outside the above criteria would need to be considered by the Commerce Committee each year, allowing the Committee to focus its attention on more weighty matters.
This bill would not authorize exemption from existing U.S. citizen ownership and crewing requirements. Also, this bill would not apply to vessels used for any purpose other than the carriage of a maximum of 12 passengers for hire. My approach to these waivers is supported by the Passenger Vessel Association, National Association of Charterboat Operators, the Offshore Marine Services Association, the Committee for Private Offshore Rescue and Towing, and the Shipbuilders Council of America.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that letters of support from these organizations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Passenger Vessel Association,
Arlington, VA, March 10, 1997.Mr. Jim Sartucci,Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Sartucci, in response to your earlier communication regarding Chairman McCain's interest in developing a new process for evaluating proposed waivers from the U.S.-build requirement of the Jones Act or the Passenger Service Act, the Passenger Vessel Association will not object to a proposal which:
Clearly states the vessels in question are limited to those certified to carry 12 or fewer passengers; shifts the burden of proving ``no competitive impact'' to the waiver applicant; provides that the Maritime Administration (MARAD) shall review the waiver if the vessel for which it was granted is relocated and, if MARAD determines that the vessel in its new location poses a competitive disadvantage to an existing operator, shall revoke the waiver; requires the Maritime Administration to devise a means of widely informing the passenger vessel industry about waiver requests that is separate from a simple Federal Register notice; includes a statement to the effect that the change does not reflect the committee's view on the overall integrity of the Jones Act or the Passenger Service Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to evaluate and comment on this proposed change to the law. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
John R. Groundwater,Executive Director.
____
National Association of
Charterboat Operators,
Washington, DC, February 20, 1997.Chairman John McCain,Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman McCain: I am writing you in support of the proposed legislative language for documentation of small passenger vessels on behalf of the National Association of Charterboat Operators (NACO), a 4,100 member association representing owners the charter industry. NACO appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation.
NACO applauds the Committee for understanding and attempting to correct certain laws governing coastwise trade for vessels. These laws often times produce consequences that very significantly depending on the size and the nature of business of the vessel. NACO is hopeful that this is the first step by the Committee in recognizing that small vessels are consistently and inappropriately grouped with large vessels under the same rules and regulations. As you are aware, this leads to increased regulatory costs and burdens for these small businesses.
This proposed change to title 46 of the U.S. Code will alleviate undue and costly burdens currently placed on small passenger vessels who do not have the manpower or the resources to go through the long and difficult documentation process. This will help to ease these burdens, saving each company time and money.
By creating specific qualifications for documentation, the Committee creates standards for documentation for small passenger vessels which will ease the burden of the Committee from responding to each individual request for documentation and appropriately moves this documentation responsibility to the Department of Transportation while also giving them flexibility in approving documentation.
Although NACO is in full agreement with the language, we are concerned about sections (b)(2) and (c)(B) pertaining to whether employment of the vessel adversely affects U.S. vessel builders or operators of ships. NACO is concerned that the criteria used in determining the adverse affects to shipbuilders and operators in the same trade would be arbitrary.
Again, NACO is in full support of this administrative change to the Jones Act, however, at the same time, the association believes that the Committee should move cautiously when making any sort of revision to the Jones Act.
Thank you for you time and your attention to the need to ease unfair burdens placed on small business. If you need additional comments or information please contact me at (202) 546-6993.
Sincerely,
Amy J. Taylor,Director of Congressional Affairs.
____
Offshore Marine
Service Association,
Harahan, LA, February 20, 1997.Mr. James Sartucci,Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Sartucci: The Offshore Marine Service Association
(OMSA) has reviewed the draft language contained in your fax transmission of February 10. We understand and respect Chairman McCain's administrative objective and intention with respect to this legislative initiative. Consequently, speaking strictly for our constituency, OMSA has no absolute objection to the proposal to grant restricted and conditional coastwise trading privileges to certain small foreign built vessels. In actual fact, however, our association's members are not significantly affected, at least directly, by the specific parameters included in this proposed legislation. The PVA, and perhaps others, would appear to be the parties to whom we would normally defer on the specifics of this proposition.
As discussed, our own support is contingent upon retention of the protective covenants and limitations set forth in the proposal presented to us for consideration, viz. in (b)(1), that the vessel be strictly limited to service as a small passenger vessel or an uninspected passenger vessel as those terms are defined in Section 2101 of title 46, United States Code, and in (b)(2) and (c).
Finally, for the record, we ask that you please note that OMSA does have some discomfort with the precedent that could be set by this legislation. We harbor some concern it could conceivably ``open the door'' to subsequent, additional legislation that would, relatively speaking, more seriously impact the coastwise trade protections afforded to U.S. flag vessels under the Jones Act and the Passenger Vessel Services Act. However, we accept, in good faith, the Chairman's stated objectives and the collateral safeguards that are promised.
OMSA would agree that the U.S. Maritime Administration
(MARAD) could be the appropriate government agency within the Department of Transportation to consider and approve applications for the purposes of the proposal.
We thank you for keeping us advised of such proposals and for inviting our views. Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned, at (504) 734-7622, if you have any questions or wish to discuss this matter in further detail.
Very truly yours,
Robert J. Alario,President.
____
Senate Committee Proposes Change to Jones Act
Congress will soon be proposing a major change to the Jones Act that will allow marine assistance operators to use foreign built vessels and vessels rebuilt outside the United States in their businesses.
The bill, introduced by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Chairman of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, allows for the use of a foreign built or rebuilt vessel in commercial coastwise trade when the vessel is over 3 years old and is used as a small or uninspected passenger vessel. Marine assistance towing vessels are classified by the Coast Guard as uninspected passenger vessels, not uninspected towing vessels.
Although the bill will help the marine assistance industry, it also contains two stipulations about which C-PORT is concerned. The bill allows the Secretary of Transportation to revoke the new documentation policy for foreign vessels if it is found to adversely affect U.S. vessel builders or other similar businesses using U.S. built vessels. According to the bill, ``the Secretary of Transportation may issue a certificate of documentation with appropriate endorsement for employment in the coastwise trade as a small passenger vessel or an uninspected passenger vessel for an eligible vessel if the Secretary determines that the employment of the vessel .
. . will not adversely affect (1) United States vessel builders; or (2) the coastwise trade business of any person who employs vessels built in the United States in the business.''
C-PORT sent the following letter to Chairman McCain to express support for the bill, but also to voice concern over these two stipulations:
``Dear Chairman McCain: C-PORT applauds the Committee for understanding and attempting to correct certain laws governing coastwise trade for vessels. These laws often times produce consequences that vary significantly depending on the size and the nature of business of the vessel. C-PORT is hopeful that this is the first step by the Committee in recognizing that small vessels are consistently and inappropriately grouped with large vessels under the same rules and regulations. As you are aware, this leads to increased regulatory costs and burdens for these small businesses.
``This proposed change to title 46 of the U.S. Code will alleviate undue and costly burdens currently placed on small vessels who do not have the manpower or the resources to go through the long and difficult documentation process. This will help to ease these burdens, saving each company time and money.
``By creating specific qualifications for documentation, the Committee creates standards for documentation for small vessels which will ease the burden of the Committee from responding to each individual request for documentation and appropriately moves this documentation responsibility to the Department of Transportation while also giving them flexibility in approving documentation.
``Although C-PORT is in full agreement with the language, we are concerned about sections (b)(2) and (c)(B) pertaining to whether employment of the vessel adversely affects U.S. vessel builders or operators of ships. C-PORT is concerned that the criteria used in determining the adverse affects to shipbuilders and operators in the same trade would be arbitrary.
``Again, C-PORT is in full support of this administrative change to the Jones Act, however, at the same time, the association believes that the Committee should move cautiously when making any sort of revision to the Jones Act.
``Thank you for your time and your attention to the need to ease unfair burdens placed on small business.''
C-PORT expects this legislation to easily pass the Senate and the House. We will keep you informed as this measure moves through Congress. If you have any questions contact Amy Taylor (800) 745-6094.
____
Shipbuilders Council of America,
Alexandria, VA, February 27, 1997.Mr. James Sartucci,Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
Dear Jim: Thank you for sending the most recent draft of Senator McCain's Jones Act waiver bill. SCA shares your basic objective of reducing the paperwork burden on Committee members and staff while in no way eroding or changing the U.S.-build requirement or any other provisions of the Jones Act.
SCA supports all of the suggested additions to Senator McCain's bill included in a letter of February 25 sent to you and Carl Bentzel by Rolf Marshall of the Maritime Cabotage Task Force (MCTF). Most importantly, these recommended changes will make it undeniably clear that by enacting this bill Congress in no way lessens or modifies the protections granted by cabotage statutes.
Therefore, SCA supports the February 19 draft of the Jones Act waiver bill along with the recommended changes described in the February 25 letter from the MCTF.
On behalf of the members of SCA I want to commend you for your diligence in crafting a new Jones Act waiver process that makes sense administratively while safeguarding the Jones Act.
Cordially,
Penny L. Eastman,President.
____________________
