[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-322954-105":59,"doc-detail-322954-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","alaska-lands-oct121979-congressional-debate","ALASKA LANDS - Oct.12,1979 - Congressional Debate","","Senate debates on Alaska lands resumed as the Energy and Natural Resources Committee began markup of S.9, balancing conservation of large federal land areas with interests of the State and Natives for acreage selections. The Committee approved technical amendments clarifying Native rights, transportation and access, wilderness use, and subsistence hunting and trapping. Starting October 17, substantive amendments were scheduled for consideration, with Senate members including Henry M. Jackson and Ted Stevens urging prompt committee action and Mike Gravel not planning to delay.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/alaska-lands-oct121979-congressional-debate/322954/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/alaska-lands-oct121979-congressional-debate/322954.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Evangeline","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-27","2026-09-21",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",13,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What is S.9 about in the Alaska lands debate?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"S.9 is complex legislation designed to preserve large areas of federal lands as conservation system units while balancing the interests of the State and Natives for acreage selections.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"What changes did the committee approve during the initial markup of S.9?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The committee approved technical amendments and non-controversial changes clarifying Native rights, transportation and access, use of wilderness, and provisions for subsistence hunting and trapping within proposed conservation systems.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"How did the Senate respond to the Ribicoff-Muskie substitute on energy policy?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The Ribicoff-Muskie substitute was rejected by a 58-39 vote; it was strongly supported by environmentalists and opposed by the Administration and various special interests.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},322954,1790106114,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":24,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":105,"preview_page_count":4},13056703019662,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/be000253a8e92610077?_k=1778726343310543188","96th Congress  \nReport No.25  \nOct.12,1979  \nlst Session  \n## ALASKA LANDS\n\nDebate over Alaska lands resumed in the Senate this week as the Energy and NaturalResonurces Committee began mark-up of S.9 on _October 15.  Sponsored by Sen.Henry M.Jackson (Wash.),s.9 involves complex legislation to balance the national interest 1npreserving large areas of federal lands as units of conservation systems with theinteres of the State and Natives for acreage selections.The Committee consideredsimilar legislation last year during the course of 47 mark-up sessions,and the proposalsreported out at that time are the basis for this year's Committee consideration.  \nIn the course of the first two days of mark-up on s.9,the Committee approved aseries of technical amendments and a package of non-controversial changes to the bi11,clarifying language pertaining to Native rights,transportation and access to specificareas,use of wilderness,and provis1on for subs1stence_hunting and trapping withinProposed conservation systems。    Starting October 17,the Committee wi11 beginconsideration of the many substantive amendments offered by the members.Sen.Jackson andseveral Committee members,including Alaska Sen.Ted Stevens,have stressed the importanceof getting the bil1 out of Commfttee soon.While Alaska Sen.Mike Gravel,a non-votingguest on the Committee for the duration of the Alaska mark-up,does not support s.9,hedid say that he will not delay Committee action.  \n## ENERGY POLICY\n\nThree days of Senate floor consideration of the Energy Mob1lization Board(EMB)concluded October 4 wlth   60-25 vote for passage of a version slightly more acceptable toconservationists than the one reported by the Energy Committee.In an effort to stave offa strong challenge in the form of a_substitute_b111(S.1806)introduced by Sens.EdmundMuskie(Maine)and Abraham Ribicoff(Conn.),the Energy Committee modified its bi11 in thekey areas of water rights and grandfathering,and accepted a number of other amendmentsdesigned to more explicit1y define the powers which would be granted the EMB。  \nThe Ribicoff-Muskie substitute was rejected 58-39.It was strongly supported byenvironmentalists and the various national associations of state,county and cityofficials.It was opposed by the Admfnistration and various special interests.  \nSen.Muskie added a further 1imitation to EMB's authority to waive new laws passed orregulations promulgated after construction of a prfority energy project begins.Amongother requfrements,such a waiver cannot unduly endanger public health or safety and mustpass the scrutiny of the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary_of Interior.In anothersignificant action,an amendment offered by Sen.Charles Percy(I11.)placing the membersof the EYB under the jurisdiction of federal conflict of interest lawe was adopted.Thevers1on reported.by the committee had specifically exempted BMB members from meetingconflict of interest requirements.  \nThe Senate rejected on a 37-56 vote an amendment offered by Sen.Walter D.Huddleston (Ky.)which would have permltted a waiver of substantive federal law.  TheSenate also rejected by a 34-60 vote a Muskie amendment to delete the authority of the EHBto make decislons in lieu of state or local agencies when those agencies mfsed a decisiondeadline.  \nThe bi11 the Senate sent to the House would create a four-member energy mob1l1zationboard empowered to \"fast track\"energy projects which would reduce dependence on foreignoi1.Certain specific procedures in various laws could be waived by the EB,which wouldbe empowered to set deadlines for decisions by federa1,state and local agencies on  \nvarfous permits requlred by the fast tracked projects.Some other provisions,such asshlelding some actions from judiclal revlew and altering the norma1 NEPA process,werealso adopted by the Senate.  \nHouse consideration of the EMB is expected during the third week in October。  \nThe following is the vote on the Ribicoff-Muskie substitute.A yes vote is a vote totable,or k","cbCaif73CorTolJV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaif73CorTolJV","pdf",1326854,"English","# ALASKA LANDS\n# ENERGY POLICY\n## Senate floor vote on the Energy Mobilization Board\n## Vote breakdowns","[{\"question\":\"What is S.9 about in the Alaska lands debate?\",\"answer\":\"S.9 is complex legislation designed to preserve large areas of federal lands as conservation system units while balancing the interests of the State and Natives for acreage selections.\"},{\"question\":\"What changes did the committee approve during the initial markup of S.9?\",\"answer\":\"The committee approved technical amendments and non-controversial changes clarifying Native rights, transportation and access, use of wilderness, and provisions for subsistence hunting and trapping within proposed conservation systems.\"},{\"question\":\"How did the Senate respond to the Ribicoff-Muskie substitute on energy policy?\",\"answer\":\"The Ribicoff-Muskie substitute was rejected by a 58-39 vote; it was strongly supported by environmentalists and opposed by the Administration and various special interests.\"}]","ALASKA LANDS - Oct.12,1979 - Congressional Debate | PDF",1789963975]