Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help address one of the glaring issues our domestic nuclear industry faces-- what to do with the used nuclear fuel being stored at over 100 sites across the country. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Mary Landrieu in introducing this bill.

Typically, a nuclear power plant stores its used fuel in a spent fuel pool located within the reactor site's exclusion zone. When there is no more room in the pool, and the used fuel is sufficiently cooled, the fuel can be moved to dry cask storage nearby the plant in what are called independent spent fuel storage installations.

Although there are 104 nuclear reactors producing power across the United States, not all have been in operation long enough to fill their spent fuel pools and require dry cask storage. So at present, the are 63 independent spent fuel storage installations at 56 sites in 33 States. Of those, 7 sites are from decommissioned plants. Two decommissioned plant sites still have fuel in their spent fuel pool. That means there are 9 sites, from 10 decommissioned reactors, with 2,800 metric tons of used fuel that is being stored and guarded, whether in dry cask or fuel pools, but no operating power plant nearby. These are orphan sites, and but for the remaining spent fuel the land could be used for other purposes.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government is contractually obligated to take title to spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants starting in 1998. Our Government has not fulfilled that requirement and as a result we face continuous lawsuits from the utilities operating those commercial power plants to cover the costs of storing the spent fuel on-site.

According to the Department of Justice, as of June 24, 2011, $1.12 billion has been paid out in settlement of these lawsuits, with an additional $220 million paid in judgments. Another $157 million is authorized, but has not yet been paid in settlement. And $937 million in outstanding judgments remains on appeal or remand. So, the total authorized payment level, so far, is roughly $1.5 billion, with close to another $1 billion dollars in payment going through the legal process. These are not lawsuits that go away once they are settled. Every year that the Government is in breach of its contractual obligation, the same company can bring a similar lawsuit as had been previously settled. As more nuclear power plants fill up their spent fuel pools and turn to dry cask storage, more lawsuits for breach of contract will be filed. The Department of Energy estimates that even if the Government starts to accept the spent fuel by 2021, the total cost of the lawsuits will be $13.1 billion.

While the Government anticipates a liability of $13.1 billion, utilities estimate the final tally could exceed $50 billion. But both the DOE and private sector estimates were developed before the Administration took steps to withdraw the Yucca Mountain application. More recent estimates suggest a cost of $100 billion.

I take special note of what our future liability could be. The Department of Energy expects the Federal Government's liability to increase by $500 million annually if waste is not accepted by 2021--10 years from now. It took us 30 years to get this far on Yucca Mountain. If we are to begin the search for a permanent repository anew, as it appears the Administration would like us to do, it seems increasingly likely the Government's liability costs will greatly exceed the earlier $50 billion estimate. At a time when we are already racking up trillions of dollars in debt for future generations, the administration has freely chosen to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens of billions of dollars by withdrawing the Yucca Mountain repository license application.

Fortunately for the administration, I have a solution. The Nuclear Fuel Storage Improvement Act of 2011 that I am introducing seeks to establish up to two interim used nuclear fuel storage facilities to centralize the used fuel spread across this nation, end the lawsuits against the Federal Government, and help the domestic nuclear industry, and the communities that host nuclear power plants, partially resolve the long-standing problem of what to do with the used nuclear fuel stored on-site.

The bill would provide financial incentives to a local unit of government, as well as the state in which that unit of government is located, to serve as a host of an interim used nuclear fuel storage facility. The facility itself would be privately owned and operated, and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the host entity would be entitled to financial payments from the Federal Government for its willingness to locate the storage facility within its jurisdiction. Up to two locations would be eligible for the financial agreement, funds for which would come from the Nuclear Waste Fund set up by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Importantly for the Federal Government, under the legislation the Secretary of Energy can contract with the private entity operating an interim storage facility to store used fuel from civilian nuclear power plants. Priority of acceptance is given to the used fuel being stored at plants that have been permanently shut down and decommissioned--the orphan sites. The Secretary is then authorized to enter into an agreement with those which it has contractual obligations to under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, to settle all claims and liabilities for the Government's failure to take title of the used nuclear fuel, thus saving the Government, and future taxpayers, billions of dollars.

I want to be clear. In no way shape or form does this legislation diminish or replace the need for a permanent repository. I have been, and continue to be, supportive of using Yucca Mountain for that purpose. Until such a repository can be opened, however, we have a responsibility to put a plan into action

that will consolidate the used fuel sitting at all of these sites across the nation, as well as settle the Federal Government's liability for its failure to take title to that spent fuel, costing the American taxpayer millions of dollars each year. I believe this legislation moves us in that direction.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to help address one of the glaring issues our domestic nuclear industry faces-- what to do with the used nuclear fuel being stored at over 100 sites across the country. I am pleased to be joined by Senator Mary Landrieu in introducing this bill.

Typically, a nuclear power plant stores its used fuel in a spent fuel pool located within the reactor site's exclusion zone. When there is no more room in the pool, and the used fuel is sufficiently cooled, the fuel can be moved to dry cask storage nearby the plant in what are called independent spent fuel storage installations.

Although there are 104 nuclear reactors producing power across the United States, not all have been in operation long enough to fill their spent fuel pools and require dry cask storage. So at present, the are 63 independent spent fuel storage installations at 56 sites in 33 States. Of those, 7 sites are from decommissioned plants. Two decommissioned plant sites still have fuel in their spent fuel pool. That means there are 9 sites, from 10 decommissioned reactors, with 2,800 metric tons of used fuel that is being stored and guarded, whether in dry cask or fuel pools, but no operating power plant nearby. These are orphan sites, and but for the remaining spent fuel the land could be used for other purposes.

Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, the Federal Government is contractually obligated to take title to spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear power plants starting in 1998. Our Government has not fulfilled that requirement and as a result we face continuous lawsuits from the utilities operating those commercial power plants to cover the costs of storing the spent fuel on-site.

According to the Department of Justice, as of June 24, 2011, $1.12 billion has been paid out in settlement of these lawsuits, with an additional $220 million paid in judgments. Another $157 million is authorized, but has not yet been paid in settlement. And $937 million in outstanding judgments remains on appeal or remand. So, the total authorized payment level, so far, is roughly $1.5 billion, with close to another $1 billion dollars in payment going through the legal process. These are not lawsuits that go away once they are settled. Every year that the Government is in breach of its contractual obligation, the same company can bring a similar lawsuit as had been previously settled. As more nuclear power plants fill up their spent fuel pools and turn to dry cask storage, more lawsuits for breach of contract will be filed. The Department of Energy estimates that even if the Government starts to accept the spent fuel by 2021, the total cost of the lawsuits will be $13.1 billion.

While the Government anticipates a liability of $13.1 billion, utilities estimate the final tally could exceed $50 billion. But both the DOE and private sector estimates were developed before the Administration took steps to withdraw the Yucca Mountain application. More recent estimates suggest a cost of $100 billion.

I take special note of what our future liability could be. The Department of Energy expects the Federal Government's liability to increase by $500 million annually if waste is not accepted by 2021--10 years from now. It took us 30 years to get this far on Yucca Mountain. If we are to begin the search for a permanent repository anew, as it appears the Administration would like us to do, it seems increasingly likely the Government's liability costs will greatly exceed the earlier $50 billion estimate. At a time when we are already racking up trillions of dollars in debt for future generations, the administration has freely chosen to incur additional future taxpayer liability in terms of tens of billions of dollars by withdrawing the Yucca Mountain repository license application.

Fortunately for the administration, I have a solution. The Nuclear Fuel Storage Improvement Act of 2011 that I am introducing seeks to establish up to two interim used nuclear fuel storage facilities to centralize the used fuel spread across this nation, end the lawsuits against the Federal Government, and help the domestic nuclear industry, and the communities that host nuclear power plants, partially resolve the long-standing problem of what to do with the used nuclear fuel stored on-site.

The bill would provide financial incentives to a local unit of government, as well as the state in which that unit of government is located, to serve as a host of an interim used nuclear fuel storage facility. The facility itself would be privately owned and operated, and licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, but the host entity would be entitled to financial payments from the Federal Government for its willingness to locate the storage facility within its jurisdiction. Up to two locations would be eligible for the financial agreement, funds for which would come from the Nuclear Waste Fund set up by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

Importantly for the Federal Government, under the legislation the Secretary of Energy can contract with the private entity operating an interim storage facility to store used fuel from civilian nuclear power plants. Priority of acceptance is given to the used fuel being stored at plants that have been permanently shut down and decommissioned--the orphan sites. The Secretary is then authorized to enter into an agreement with those which it has contractual obligations to under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, to settle all claims and liabilities for the Government's failure to take title of the used nuclear fuel, thus saving the Government, and future taxpayers, billions of dollars.

I want to be clear. In no way shape or form does this legislation diminish or replace the need for a permanent repository. I have been, and continue to be, supportive of using Yucca Mountain for that purpose. Until such a repository can be opened, however, we have a responsibility to put a plan into action

that will consolidate the used fuel sitting at all of these sites across the nation, as well as settle the Federal Government's liability for its failure to take title to that spent fuel, costing the American taxpayer millions of dollars each year. I believe this legislation moves us in that direction.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act of 2011, cosponsored by my colleague Mark Begich from Alaska, which represents an important step forward in allowing the Huna Tlingit people access to enjoy their traditional subsistence activity of gull egg collection.

The collection and consumption of gull eggs is an integral part of the culture of the Tlingit people of Southeast Alaska, and eggs were gathered at rookeries long before Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve's establishment in 1925. A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2010 regarding this proposal to allow limited harvests of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and the preferred alternative authorized the implementation of a cooperative management program for gull egg collection and emphasized a traditional harvest strategy for the collections.

My bill will authorize this harvest of gull eggs at five nesting areas on two separate days each calendar year within the Park. This would allow a large number of tribal members to interact with their traditional homeland and provide an opportunity for as many as 12 young people to participate annually and spend time with elders learning about traditional egg harvest practices in addition to other aspects Tlingit culture

This bill is widely supported throughout the environmental and conservation communities, as well as the Alaska Native community. The harvesting of gull eggs would only have minor effects on the gulls, but the cultural benefits that would be realized by the Native community would be great.

I would like to thank Senator Begich, an original co-sponsor of this bill, for his and his staff's hard work in moving this bill forward. It is our hope that this bill will receive quick but careful consideration as the local tribe members have been eagerly awaiting passage of this measure for quite a long time.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, the Huna Tlingit Traditional Gull Egg Use Act of 2011, cosponsored by my colleague Mark Begich from Alaska, which represents an important step forward in allowing the Huna Tlingit people access to enjoy their traditional subsistence activity of gull egg collection.

The collection and consumption of gull eggs is an integral part of the culture of the Tlingit people of Southeast Alaska, and eggs were gathered at rookeries long before Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve's establishment in 1925. A Legislative Environmental Impact Statement was completed in 2010 regarding this proposal to allow limited harvests of gull eggs in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve, and the preferred alternative authorized the implementation of a cooperative management program for gull egg collection and emphasized a traditional harvest strategy for the collections.

My bill will authorize this harvest of gull eggs at five nesting areas on two separate days each calendar year within the Park. This would allow a large number of tribal members to interact with their traditional homeland and provide an opportunity for as many as 12 young people to participate annually and spend time with elders learning about traditional egg harvest practices in addition to other aspects Tlingit culture

This bill is widely supported throughout the environmental and conservation communities, as well as the Alaska Native community. The harvesting of gull eggs would only have minor effects on the gulls, but the cultural benefits that would be realized by the Native community would be great.

I would like to thank Senator Begich, an original co-sponsor of this bill, for his and his staff's hard work in moving this bill forward. It is our hope that this bill will receive quick but careful consideration as the local tribe members have been eagerly awaiting passage of this measure for quite a long time.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last week, I was honored to participate in a very historic trip to attend the seventh ministerial meeting of the Arctic Council in Nuuk, Greenland. I attended with Secretary of State Clinton, as well as Secretary of the Interior, Secretary Salazar.

The Arctic Council was founded in 1995. It is an intergovernmental association. There are eight member states within the territory that is contained within the Arctic Circle. The group includes Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, the Russian Federation, and the United States. There are also six permanent participants representing the indigenous people of the region.

The trip was historic for a couple reasons. It was the first time a Secretary of State had led the U.S. delegation to the Arctic Council meeting. The fact that not only Secretary Clinton led it as Secretary of State but she was joined by a second Secretary, the Secretary of the Interior, certainly made that historic. It was also the first time a Member of Congress had attended the Arctic Council meeting.

We met with Foreign Ministers of the eight Arctic Council nations and the representatives of indigenous groups to discuss issues that are related to Arctic governance, climate change, and environmental protection. We watched the Ministers sign a historic search-and-rescue agreement.

The Arctic Council also increased its organizational structure. They formed a standing Secretariat that will be established in Tromso, Norway. They also established criteria for the admission of new observers to the Council. The People's Republic of China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Italy, and the European Union are all seeking observer status to the Arctic Council, which might cause some to wonder why are all these non-Arctic nations interested in what is going on within the Arctic. I think that speaks to the evolving role of the Arctic in geopolitics in the world as we know it today.

The search-and-rescue agreement, the first ever legally binding agreement among Arctic states negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council, will strengthen the cooperation on search and rescue between Arctic states.

As the Arctic sea ice decreases, maritime activities are clearly on the rise in the Arctic. Aviation traffic is also on the rise as we see new polar aviation routes across the Arctic airspace in several directions. But limited rescue resources, challenging weather conditions, and the remoteness of the area render the operations difficult in the Arctic, making it very important that we have this coordination among the Arctic nations.

Under the agreement on the U.S. side, the Coast Guard will be the lead Federal agency for the search and rescue in the Arctic. While we applaud the role the Coast Guard plays historically--a very long, distinguished history of operating and conducting rescues in the Arctic--the current status of the Coast Guard's service and aviation fleets makes conducting search-and-rescue operations in the Arctic very challenging. With the scheduled decommissioning of the POLAR SEA, the Coast Guard will maintain only one--only one--heavy icebreaker in its fleet, and it is not expected to return to service until the year 2013. They are doing some work on that vessel. While the Coast Guard does have a medium-endurance icebreaker, the HEALY, the cutter is clearly not equipped to handle the thick, multiyear ice that is present within the Arctic.

On the aviation side of the Coast Guard operations, the Coast Guard C-130 aircraft stationed in Kodiak, AK, are the only aircraft in their inventory that are capable to make the direct flights to the Arctic.

To give some sense of the scope, here is a map of the Arctic. The United States is up here. Everything is upside down. I apologize for that, but that is the way the world is. Kodiak is an island off the southern part of the State. Barrow is down here. This is where the air assets are stationed in Kodiak. To get to any search-and-rescue operations in the Chukchi Sea, in the Beaufort off Barrow or Prudhoe, it is over 900 miles. It is the same distance as the distance between Washington, DC, and Miami. If there were an incident in Miami, the helicopters would have to fly from Washington to get there to provide for the rescue.

Given the often harsh weather conditions in the Arctic, combined with a lack of infrastructure to provide for any forward deploying basing of helicopters, the Coast Guard's C-130s possibly can provide the search part of the rescue, but it is very difficult to get to the rescue site. This lack of maritime resources and shore-based infrastructure to protect our aviation resources places the Coast Guard and the United States in a difficult situation in the Arctic. Without concerted efforts and a focused policy for the Arctic, the United States and our Coast Guard are going to continue to be ill-equipped to conduct the search-and-rescue operations that are going to become increasingly necessary as amounts of sea ice continue to diminish and the levels of maritime vessel traffic increase. As former Admiral Allen, former Commandant of the Coast Guard, would say: I cannot discuss too much about climate change, but I can tell you there is more open sea that I am responsible for in the Arctic. We are clearly seeing that.

It has been projected that a seasonal ice-free Arctic Ocean was decades away and that maritime shipping through the Northwest Passage, through the Northern Sea route above Russia and direct transit across the Arctic Ocean was going to be few and far between. But last year, Russia sent a large ice-breaking bulk tanker through the Northern Sea route and across the Arctic, carrying hydrocarbons bound for Asia. The Russian Federation has received 15 icebreaker escort requests to provide navigational support through the Northern Sea route for this year. Compare that to last year when they only had three requests. We can see the level of commerce stepping up.

Transit through the Northern Sea route or the Northeast passage, as it is

also called, cuts 5,000 miles and 8 days off the Suez route between Europe and Asia. We can see why other nations would have an interest in what is going on up there. If they can cut their transit time, it is money and an opportunity for them.

Interest in the Arctic by both the general public, the media, and the Arctic and the non-Arctic nations continues to grow for many reasons. The Arctic is a vast area. We can see from the map it is essentially one-sixth of the Earth's landmass. It has a population within the Arctic area--this red line, if we can see it, is essentially all of the Arctic nations. In the governments that are contained within, there are some 4 million people who live in this region, with over 30 different indigenous people and dozens of languages. While the land is clearly massive in size and relatively barren, it is not like Antarctica, where there are no indigenous people and no governance. The eight Arctic nations are sovereign governments with laws that govern their land and their people.

The Arctic holds, clearly, vast amounts of energy. We have known this for some time. But until recently, the resources of the Arctic were deemed to be too difficult to access. They are covered with ice. They are difficult to access, and they are expensive to develop. With increasing access and high energy and mineral prices, the Arctic's wealth, which is estimated to contain approximately 22 percent of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves--22 percent of the world's remaining oil and gas reserves within the Arctic area--is obviously of great interest. It is now being actively explored and developed. Six of the eight member nations of the Arctic Council are exploring or developing energy resources in their own waters.

This makes energy exploration perhaps among the more important and perhaps the most serious issues for Arctic policy as we move forward. This includes conventional oil and natural gas but also the methane hydrates and some of the less conventional forms. Offshore Alaska, we are estimating about 15 billion barrels of oil in a concentrated area of the Chukchi Sea, and over in the Beaufort Sea about 8 billion barrels.

We have suffered serious delays in exploration, but I am hopeful we will see exploratory wells prove up this next summer. While the U.S. Geological Survey tells us the region has the world's largest undiscovered oil and gas deposits, we also think it holds huge amounts of other minerals, such as coal, nickel, copper, tungsten, lead, zinc, gold, silver, diamonds, manganese, chromium, and titanium. The potential for the mineral resource is equally significant.

There is a natural and sometimes reflective tendency to question how in the world it can ever be safe or even economic to drill and produce in such harsh, misunderstood, and clearly distant environments. But it is happening. It is happening today, and the technology and the engineering behind some of the existing and proposed activities are advancing rather rapidly.

While we struggle in the United States with moving ahead with offshore development in Alaskan waters, our neighbors are rapidly moving forward on Arctic energy development. Russia, which is just 53 miles from Alaska's shoreline, is turning its eye to the Arctic's vast energy reserves as they are building the first offshore oil rig that can withstand temperatures as low as minus 50 degrees Celsius and then heavy packed ice around it as well. As their oil production is in decline, they are also reducing taxes and bureaucratic hurdles to encourage new oil development within the Arctic.

Norway has been exploring and producing energy in the Arctic the longest of the Arctic nations. They have found the way--led the way-- for energy development and other activities, such as fisheries, to coexist. They also lead the world in developing technology to clean up oil in Arctic waters.

Energy development, as well as protection of the environment, must go hand in hand. It is as simple as that. I was pleased the Arctic Council announced the formation of a new task force that will negotiate measures for oilspill preparedness and response throughout the region. The decision to launch these negotiations is evidence of the strong commitment to proactively address emerging issues within the region and to create international protocols to prevent and clean up offshore oilspills in areas of the region that are becoming increasingly accessible to exploration because of a changing climate.

One question I was asked seemingly everywhere I went when I was in Greenland was: What is the U.S. position on the Law of the Sea Treaty? When is the Senate going to move on this treaty? The U.S. delegation reiterated its support for the ratification of the Convention for the Law of the Sea. I happen to believe it is crucial that the United States be a party to this treaty rather than an outsider who hopes our interests are not going to be damaged. Accession to the Convention would give current and future administrations both enhanced credibility and leverage in calling upon other nations to meet Convention responsibilities. Given the support for the treaty by Arctic nations and the drive to develop national resources, the treaty will also provide the stability and the certainty that is vital for investment in our maritime commerce.

It should be pointed out that the United States is the only Arctic nation that is not a party to the Law of the Sea Convention. The treaty was first submitted to the United States for approval back in 1994. It has not been approved yet. Canada and Denmark joined the treaty in 2003 and 2004, respectively. But until the United States accedes to the treaty, it cannot submit its data regarding the extent of its extended continental shelf to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf established under the treaty. Without a Commission recommendation regarding such data, the legal foundation for ECS limits is much less certain than if the United States were a party to the treaty.

Russia submitted an extended continental shelf claim in 2002 that would grant them 460,000 square miles of the Arctic Ocean's bottom resources. We can see the green is Russia's extended Continental shelf, but this lighter green is the area Russia has submitted to the Commission. This is an area the size of the State of Texas, California, and Indiana combined. Denmark and Canada are also anxious to establish their own claims in the Arctic. Norway's claim is currently under review by the Commission on Limits of the Continental Shelf.

According to the U.S. Arctic Research Commission, if the United States were to become a party to the treaty, we could lay claim to an area the size of the State of California. So if you look again, Alaska--again, up on the top--this area here is the area that is within the United States EEZ, this 200-mile area. But this area here--an area again about the size of the State of California--is what our mapping indicates we would be able to submit a claim to the commission for if we were party to the treaty.

So this whole area, again, would be area the United States would be able to claim. If we fail to accede to the treaty, and we are sitting on the outside, we have no right to move forward with our claim. If we do not become a party to the treaty, our opportunity to make the claim and have the international community respect it diminishes considerably, as does our ability to challenge the claims of any other nation.

Some have described the scenario in the Arctic as a ``race for resources'' or even an ``arms race.'' But after seeing the international cooperation at the Arctic Council, I believe what we have is an opportunity. This should be a race for cooperation, a race for sustainable management within the Arctic. The Arctic offers a great opportunity to work collaboratively. It is one area where the Obama administration can highlight the international cooperation in the implementation of its U.S. foreign policy. Think about what the administration is poised to do with the ``reset'' with Russia. I think the Arctic is a perfect area to do just that.

What does the future hold for the Arctic? I believe the pace of change in the Arctic absolutely demands greater attention be focused to the Arctic. It was music to my ears to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge the United States is an Arctic nation. We are an Arctic nation because of Alaska and its people. That was incredibly significant to hear that not only as a U.S. citizen but for the other Arctic nations to hear

that statement from our Secretary of State.

The implications of the dynamic changing Arctic for U.S. security, economic, environmental, and political interests depend on greater attention, greater energy, and greater focus on the Arctic itself. But it will take robust diplomacy and very likely recognition, as Secretary Clinton has reminded us, that the interest in the Arctic is not just limited to the five Arctic coastal States or even the eight countries that make up the permanent members of the Arctic Council. It will take a level of cooperation, a level of collaboration to include the non- Arctic states as well. But I am pleased that ever so slowly the United States seems to be waking up to the fact that we are an Arctic nation and willing to take up the responsibilities as such.

I am confident with the leadership of the Members of Congress, the administration, and from the Arctic community at large, we can continue to highlight the strategic importance of the Arctic for the United States. I believe the Arctic Council meeting may be just the turning point for American leadership in the Arctic.

With that, Mr. President, I thank you for your attention, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, it was only a few short years ago, in October of 2008, that I stood before this body to honor one of Alaska's most cherished elders, the Reverend Doctor Walter A. Soboleff, in commemoration of his 100th birthday.

Today, I come before you with a heavy heart, to share with you news of the passing of that distinguished and revered Tlingit elder and leader. On this day I ask that we honor the life of an extraordinary man and remember his inspirational journey.

At 102, on Sunday May 22, 2011, during the breaking light of that morning's first dawn, the Reverend Doctor Walter A. Soboleff quietly stepped from a restful sleep into the Northern winds, into the budding spring of the Southeast forest, to begin his final flourishing journey from Earth to heaven.

Reverend Soboleff is often described as a man of God. His encouraging and often humorous words and outlook on life served as a beacon of light to so many who had the honor and privilege to know him. His consistently positive words were not only eloquent but also inspirational, and one could say they were truly words inspired by God.

Reverend Soboleff was active and present during most of Alaska's history. In 1957, he was in Juneau to open the Republican Convention Invocation. He was our State's eldest Republican and indeed more than just a witness, the living embodiment of the history of our great State. He recognized and believed that one of the qualities that made our Nation so great is that our Founding Fathers were God fearing and led with their hearts and minds open to the Creator.

The passing of Reverend Soboleff leaves a void that we can never hope to fill. The Native elders of Alaska are unique culture bearers of our history, land, and people. They are a vital link between the past and present; the connection between two worlds, the old and new. They also have a significant responsibility to ensure that future generations know who they are and from where they came, by telling the stories and passing on the oral traditions of Alaska Native cultures that have struggled to maintain survival.

Reverend Soboleff was born November 14, 1908, on Killisnoo, a small island village near Admiralty Island, north of Angoon in southeast Alaska. His mother was Tlingit Indian and his father was the son of a Russian Orthodox priest serving in southeast Alaska. In his home four languages were spoken: Russian, German, English, and Tlingit. Reverend Soboleff's life was one of sacrifice and public service. But he certainly would not have viewed his service as a sacrifice.

Reverend Soboleff was appointed to serve as minister of the Tlingit Presbyterian Memorial Church in Juneau. He ventured from his village on June 14, 1940, on a steamer and landed in Juneau well before the era of civil rights. To his dismay he was greeted with signs in restaurant windows that said ``No dogs or Indians'' and turned away when he tried to rent a room. But he was not the kind of man to let a bad situation get the better of him. Instead of feeling sorry for himself, he felt sorry for the innkeeper.

In response, and in his way, he decided to open the doors of his church to any and all who sought to worship God. In the midst of a time of racial bias, Reverend Soboleff created within his church, a wonderful diversity of people from all races. His greatest message was for people to love one another--he often said that the greatest gift of civilization is for people to know who they are and to love each other regardless, because when there is love, there is peace.

Reverend Soboleff received a bachelor's degree in education in 1937 from Dubuque University in Iowa, and a divinity degree in 1940. He was awarded an honorary doctor of divinity by Dubuque University in 1952 and an honorary doctor of humanities by the University of Alaska Fairbanks in 1968. He was also the first Alaska Native to serve on the Alaska State Board of Education, where he served as chairman.

He was truly a man of distinction and grace and a pillar of traditional and modern society. He served seven terms as president of the Alaska Native Brotherhood as well as grand president emeritus. In 1952, the Reverend accepted a commission in the Alaska Army National Guard, serving as Chaplain for 20 years, retiring with rank of lieutenant colonel. He then went on to found the Alaska Native Studies Department at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Over the course of his life he served God and his people well and was a leader of extraordinary courage, inspiring a hope for love and peace in all who knew him.

On Wednesday, May 25, Alaska's Governor Sean Parnell has ordered flags to be flown at half-staff in Reverend Soboleff's honor. Reverend Soboleff wanted to be remembered as one who tried to do his best in a time of changing culture and one who took positives from both the Native and Western worlds. I think I can speak for all of Alaska when I say he achieved that goal. I would like to offer Reverend Doctor Walter Soboleff's family and many friends my heartfelt condolences. Know that he served the Native people and our beloved State of Alaska over the course of his entire life, 102 years; and it is my hope that his life will continue to serve as an inspiration to all of us.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, last night the Senate defeated a misguided attempt to raise taxes on the five largest energy companies that are operating in our country. That bill, as we discussed, would have done nothing to reduce our gas prices, nothing to create jobs in America, and nothing to increase domestic energy production.

Furthermore, it would have hardly made a dent in our spiraling debt. Put another way, last night's effort would have done nothing to address the problems that most Americans care about, that most Americans are talking about, as they discuss things around the dinner table.

This morning we are here to debate a very different bill, called the Offshore Production and Safety Act. It was recently introduced by the minority leader, myself, and 16 other Senators. There is a very clear contrast, without a doubt, between this and what was brought up yesterday.

Instead of punishing a handful of companies within the oil and gas industry, we provide new opportunities to put Americans back to work. Instead of merely attempting to assign blame for our Nation's energy challenges, we develop a policy that we are proposing that will start to work right now and yield real benefits in the years ahead. And instead of raising taxes regardless of the consequences, we ensure that a far larger source of revenues, those that are derived from new offshore production, will be generated in the years ahead.

The bottom line is that our legislation is both common sense and long overdue. It will move our energy policy forward, not backward, and it would do so by addressing three pressing needs: We provide a boost to offshore energy production; we improve the safety of those operations; and we streamline our notoriously slow Federal bureaucracy.

Before I describe these sections in greater detail, I think it is important to explain why we focus on offshore production while at the same time we are focusing on offshore safety. The answer to the first part of that question is that our Outer Continental Shelf contains huge quantities, vast quantities of undiscovered oil and gas, some 86 billion barrels of oil, and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

The answer then to the second part is we all remember--we all remember and we should not forget--what happened last summer. We are committed to improving the safety of offshore production activities so it does not happen again.

As I mentioned, we call our bill the Offshore Production and Safety Act, because we understand that those terms--both production and safety--should be part and parcel of the same policy. We want our offshore industry to be working. But we need it to be working safely.

Those were words I used yesterday in the committee hearing on energy when we focused on the OCS reform bill. We want our offshore industry to be working, but we want to have that safety component. We know our Nation will need oil for decades to come, even under the most optimistic scenario we have out there.

We know offshore production will create thousands of badly needed jobs, not just on the offshore rigs themselves, but all across America, and that it will simultaneously generate tremendous revenue for our government at a time when we are looking for those revenues. We know that for every barrel of oil we produce here, that is one less barrel we have to purchase from someone else, typically from somebody else that could care less

about our situation here in this country.

It is not just me, not Lisa Murkowski from a producing State. It is not just Republicans who understand these benefits. Clearly President Obama and his team acknowledge these benefits as well. I do want to take an aside and recognize and commend the President for announcing that he will hold annual leases in Alaska's Natural Petroleum Reserve, the NPRA, establishing a permitting office in Alaska, and pursuing developmental opportunities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic.

I have routinely criticized this administration on certain aspects of their energy policy. But the President deserves credit for taking these steps and I acknowledge them. I will look forward to seeing those actually carried out, to see that followed through.

The Offshore Production and Safety Act offers us a chance to make even greater profits. To boost offshore production, the first part of the bill would require lease sales in the Gulf of Mexico, Alaska, and Virginia to be put back on the schedule. Those are areas that are projected to contain billions of barrels of oil. But if we refuse to even offer up the leases, then that energy is never going to be brought to market. We would also extend for 1 year all of the leases that were held back from production because of the administration's moratorium.

The second part of the bill relates to the safety, the safety of offshore production. Again it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty simple. We require that each leaseholder develop a spill response and containment plan to make sure if an accident does occur, immediate action can be taken to contain it and to protect the environment. This is critical. This is what we are all hoping for and waiting for after the Deepwater Horizon last year.

To further increase our Nation's response capacity, we would establish a public-private task force on spill response and mitigation measures. We would also require the Comptroller General to identify any gap in the legal authority or spill response capability that would need to be resolved.

This bill we have before us and that we will move to today, with the vote this afternoon, will actually mark the first time any safety legislation has been voted on in the Senate since the Deepwater Horizon incident. So this Republican proposal is the first time. We did not see that happen last Congress. I know Chairman Bingaman and I certainly hoped we would see it. But it was not moved through last year. It was not part of the proposal we took up yesterday.

The third and final part of our bill addresses our notoriously slow Federal bureaucracy. Oil and gas projects are routinely delayed, not because of the technological limits, or even the regulatory requirements, but because the Federal Government is simply too slow in making decisions. To remedy the situation, we would limit the amount of time that Interior can take to decide on drilling permits. We do allow for some flexibility here, but when delays do occur, we require an explanation as to why. What happened? What is holding it up? Because litigation is increasingly used to halt new development, we provide expedited consideration of those cases in a specific court.

We know this bill does not contain every pro-production piece every Member may wish. I wish to see an ANWR provision in here, but it is not in here. There are additional items I clearly wish to advance, most notably, revenue sharing, critically important for a coastal State such as Alaska, and for my friend and colleague from Louisiana.

I am going to be working to advance this bill and, if it advances, offer amendments. If the bill does not advance, I am going to be working within the committee to continue to push revenue sharing and other issues that speak to the pro-production piece. But for purposes of this bill before us, I realize that with the revenue-sharing issue, this does present a scoring issue which we need to resolve. So clearly more discussion needs to come for that to happen. But, regardless, I urge every Member who realizes the critical need for increased domestic production to join together to advance this modest and very responsible start.

The purpose of this bill, the reason why we are ready to take it up, move it today, is it really is so simple. We are not asking for that much: a handful of lease sales to be put back on the schedule, basic safety measures be implemented, and permitting decisions be made on time. Our goal--pretty simply--is to put offshore production back on track closer to where it should be and closer to where we need it to be.

If there is one word that should be used to describe this bill, it would be modest. Everything within it is straightforward. Nothing is outlandish. Nothing goes too far. There are no poison pills in it. Since its introduction, the President has very explicitly endorsed several of the provisions that are contained within it. Our proposal is fair, it is sensible, and I believe it is time for the Senate to send it on to the House of Representatives.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for up to 15 minutes, and that the following list of Republican speakers be recognized for up to 10 minutes each, not necessarily in this order. But the Senators to be recognized will be

McCain, Chambliss, Cornyn, Barrasso, Paul, Hatch, Hutchison, and Vitter.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I have also come to the floor today to speak about the proposal to raise taxes on the five largest domestic energy producers. I think it is important we remember we are speaking about five energy producers, five oil companies. We are not talking about a tax proposal that is broad and wide and encompassing. We are talking about a proposal to raise taxes on the five largest domestic energy producers.

I have to admit, I had some hesitation about even engaging in this floor debate at all because I think we recognize that the words and the statements we are delivering here are just that; they are just talk, they are just words. This proposal is designed to fail. But in failing, it is designed to score some political points, and it seems as if that is where we are today. But as a Senator who represents a State--Alaska; an oil and gas producing State, a State that would clearly be hurt by this proposal--I am obliged, obligated to outline why I feel this is so deeply flawed.

I want to start by stating the obvious here. This legislation will not reduce energy prices, but, if anything, it will increase our energy prices. It will not substantially reduce our deficit or our debt, but, if anything, it will add to those burdens by shutting off production and forcing the government to forgo production revenues.

I think it is important we put this in context because people around the country--as they look at the price at the pump go up day after day--are saying: What are you doing in Congress to lower the prices? What are you doing to deal with the higher price of gasoline in this country?

I think it is important we recognize this legislation we have in front of us does nothing to reduce our energy prices. It is not just me who says that. The chairman of the Finance Committee has indicated that. We have heard several Members on both the Republican side of the aisle and the Democratic side of the aisle say this is not going to reduce our prices. So what exactly is it we are seeking to do, other than send a message?

This proposal, I think it is important to recognize, will hurt poor and working families across our country. We all know what the price of gas is in our respective States. I will remind my colleagues that as much as Alaska benefits from high prices of oil, as we are a producer, it is a fact that it kills us in our local communities in our economies because we are the State with the highest gas prices across the country right now.

There was a news story last week back home. In Kotzebue, which is the northwest region up in the State, they are paying $7.55 in Noorvik, $8.25 in Kobuk, and $8.95 in Ambler. I was in Fort Yukon a couple weeks ago. There they are at a $5, $6, $7 gas figure. But the spring barge, which will be coming in in about 4, 5 weeks now, will be delivering fuel at prices that were set some weeks ago, and people have been alerted that on the day the barge delivers the fuel, the price will go up at the pump one additional dollar. We are not talking cents here; we are talking an additional dollar paid by the people in Fort Yukon.

So we know very well what high prices mean to us, and our constituents are asking us to do something about it: What can you do to lower those prices, to develop a coherent energy policy that starts to work now, and then yields progress over time? Our constituents are not asking us to make this problem worse. Yet that is precisely what these proposed tax increases will do.

I heard my colleague here say that, no, this is not designed to increase the prices that are out there. Well, it might not be designed to do that, but that is what we can expect if, in fact, these tax increases do go into play.

It has been a few years since I got my degree in economics, but even though it was more than a few years ago, I do remember some of these very early entry level classes I took. I remember learning that raising taxes on something is going to tend to make it more expensive. And I remember learning that when you tax something, you tend to wind up with less of it. That is just basic economics.

I think there is at least some understanding of these concepts around here because I do not see anyone who is proposing to raise taxes on solar panels or raise taxes on wind turbines to bring down their costs.

The reality is, this proposal--and I believe the point is conceded by its supporters--this proposal will not cause gasoline prices to drop. Instead, it could very well cause them to rise. I understand a memo from the Congressional Research Service suggests that no significant impact on prices will be seen in the short run. But that is the key phrase here: in the short run. Because what we need to be doing is looking longer term than next week or next month.

Whenever corporations face increased costs, they have a responsibility to their investors to recover those costs wherever possible, and usually what happens is, they pass them on to the consumers. To the extent the costs of this proposal cannot be passed on, and these companies will simply have less to invest in new projects.

That is talking about what does not happen with the price of gas. But this proposal is also not about reducing the debt either. I think it is important to put that in context. At best, it may be a drop in the bucket. According to the CBO, the President's budget for fiscal years 2012 through 2021 would result in nearly $9.5 trillion in new debt. This proposal, assuming it has no negative economic impact, would raise $21 billion, or about 0.2 percent of that debt. We would still need something like 450 times more revenue to break even, never mind the $14 trillion debt we have already incurred. We all know we hit the debt ceiling yesterday, so it does cause you to wonder: Is this the best we can do when we are talking about balancing the Federal budget?

I understand this proposal is not all it will take, and no one is proposing that it do so. But I think it is important we be honest with the American people when we talk about what this would mean in terms of a reduction in the deficit. If we are being honest with each other, we are going to see this proposal for what it is. Essentially a ``yes'' vote tonight to raise taxes on oil and gas companies is simply a vote to try to take a pound of flesh from these five major companies that, yes, in fact, are making money, yes, in fact, are making a profit. A ``no'' vote on this proposal tonight is a vote to try--try--to keep our prices under control, and it is a vote to help preserve America's competitiveness within the global economy.

I also want to take a moment to kind of set the record straight on subsidies. There are no payments from the Federal Government to the major energy producers as some have implied. Past Congresses have decided that those companies--and most other companies in America, I might add--deserve certain tax reductions. This is a critical distinction because we have not decided the Federal Government should actually give more to these companies. What we have decided is, the Federal Government should take less from them.

If that is the same as a subsidy, then new homeowners are direct recipients of subsidies because we deduct mortgage interest payments, and that means almost every company in our country--whether it is a Hollywood studio or the New York Times, whoever it is--almost every company then is somehow or other subsidized.

If we are talking about leveling the playing field by eliminating all the incentives within our Tax Code, especially in the context of broader reform that makes our Tax Code simpler and more fair, I welcome that discussion, and I think many in this Chamber do. It would be a much different conversation if we were considering a reduction in the corporate tax rate. But, instead, we are here debating whether to give different tax treatment to essentially punish a handful of companies in just one sector of our economy, and there is no policy justification for it other than they can afford it, they are making money, they can afford it.

I would ask my colleagues, is this the kind of business climate we want for the United States? I have to wonder, then, if the answer to that is yes, who

the next target will be, if making large profits signals to Congress you should be taxed at a higher rate.

In reality, domestic energy producers are already amongst the most heavily taxed companies in this country. While the effective tax rates for all corporations averaged 26.5 percent last year, the oil and gas industry's tax rate was at a much higher 41 percent. Instead of being subsidized by the Federal Government, the industry is actually a very large taxpayer.

The Federal Government taxes gasoline at a rate of 18.4 cents a gallon. It also receives billions of dollars each year in nontax revenues from the industry. Producers must pay the government for the rights of each of their leases. They have to pay the annual ``rents'' to hang on to those leases. They pay the royalties on any production that ultimately results from them.

So in terms of what is paid out, according to one estimate, the oil and gas industry's total payments to the government amounted to $86 million per day--per day--in 2010.

I would also remind my colleagues that the President has established a goal of cutting oil imports by 3 million barrels a day by 2025. If we intend to achieve that goal, which is a good goal, raising taxes on domestic oil production defies logic. To reduce imports, we will need to increase our domestic production. That will not happen if we impose a hostile tax environment for the companies that operate here-- companies that are already challenged to produce the oil and gas resources we know we have but we have not been allowed to explore.

Before I conclude, I want to mention an article that recently appeared in the Financial Times. It noted that in 2011--this year--OPEC nations stand to take in more than $1 trillion from exporting oil. Our Nation--the United States--will provide a pretty good share of that money, likely tens of billions of dollars. And what do we hear about it? Nothing from the people who are proposing these tax increases, nothing about the tremendous sums of money we send overseas each year for foreign oil--just the far smaller sums that could be collected from domestic companies through higher taxes. That is missing the forest here, to cut down the one tree that happens to be growing in our line of sight.

So here we are. Instead of doing everything we can to halt the hemorrhage of Americans dollars to foreign countries, the Senate is now focused on an effort to raise taxes on five companies that actually operate here. The day after we hit the debt ceiling, we are debating a measure that would hardly make a dent in our debt. We are on pace to spend trillions of dollars outside of our economy in the years ahead, and we are on pace to incur trillions in Federal debt, but so long as a few companies pay higher taxes, somehow or other it makes us all feel better. No wonder the American people have lost so much faith in the legislative process. No wonder so much blame for high energy prices is placed on the Federal Government.

The proposal before us today is not an answer for high gas prices or the Federal debt. It is more likely to raise our energy prices, reduce our Nation's oil production, and deepen our annual deficits. I had hoped we would have a good, substantive, reasoned debate and discussion about how we are going to solve all these problems. But instead we are left to debate a measure that is all but certain to fail.

I think the Senate can do better. We will have a debate tomorrow about the Republican alternative--a bill that while it is not perfect will increase production, generate revenues for the government, create new jobs, and improve the safety of our offshore operations. If we are looking for good policy, I think that is where we need to start.

We have a long way to go. But I think what we have before us today is unfortunate.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, as our Nation begins its observance of National Police Week, I speak today in memory of three Alaska law enforcement officers who gave their lives in the line of duty in 2010.

This is National Police Week, the week that we honor law enforcement heroes who have given their lives to protect our communities and those who place their lives on the line every day. During this week we also remember the families of law enforcement whose sacrifices are no less important than their loved ones who wear the uniform.

One of the most significant and moving of the commemorations that occur during National Police Week is the candlelight vigil at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial on Judiciary Square. More than 19,000 names of fallen law enforcement officers are etched on the Wall of Remembrance at the memorial. This year, 316 names have joined them--152 officers who paid the ultimate sacrifice in 2010 and 164 officers who gave their lives before the memorial was created. Each of these names was read at the candlelight vigil on the evening of May 13, 2011.

Among the 316 names are three Alaskans: Sergeant Anthony Wallace and Officer Matthew Tokuoka of the Hoonah Police Department and Charles Collins, a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer assigned to the Port of Anchorage. They are the first Alaska law enforcement officers since 2003 to die in the line of duty.

We are reminded time and again that fallen law enforcement officers are not heroes for the way they gave their lives but heroes for the way they lived their lives. I would like to say a few words about each.

Hoonah is a village of about 760 people on an island in southeast Alaska. Sixty percent of year-round residents are Tlingit Indians. The population of the town swells during the summer as fishermen and visitors descend. It is a peaceful and picturesque community.

That peace was broken on the evening of Sunday, August 29, 2010, when a gunman ambushed and shot Sergeant Wallace and then Officer Tokuoka who was off duty at the time, while the two were chatting. To add to the tragedy, Sergeant Wallace's mother, who was visiting Hoonah and riding along with her son in his police vehicle, observed the shooting. A special tribute was paid to Sergeant Wallace and his mother Debbie Greene at last Friday evening's candlelight vigil.

Sergeant Tony Wallace was unique among the men and women of law enforcement. He was one of a handful of law enforcement officers anywhere who is deaf.

But Tony Wallace would not let his disability stop him from living a life of adventure. His mother told a reporter: ``People would always tell him he couldn't do things but he tried even harder.''

He was a champion high school wrestler in his hometown of Franklin, OH, and went on to be a varsity All-American wrestler at the Rochester Institute of Technology in upstate New York. Upon graduation he joined the public safety department at RIT as a campus police officer. Tony Wallace was destined to be a cop, following in the footsteps of his father who served with the Franklin Police Department for 34 years. He was living his dream and excelling at his job.

In 2006, Tony Wallace learned of a police job in Hoonah. He had never visited Alaska before but he was an avid boater, hunter, and fisherman. He was hired after a telephone interview and a background check. Just like that off he went.

In no time, Tony was sending friends pictures of him holding large salmon and encountering bears. He said he found the place where he would spend the rest of his life, enjoying nature and helping others. He graduated first in his class of 21 at the police academy. In his spare time he coached wrestling at the Hoonah School and played scrabble with the Elders at the Senior Center.

Tony is also survived by his daughter Lexis and his grandmother.

Matt Tokuoka was killed while trying to save the life of his friend and comrade Tony Wallace. Born in Seattle, he spent his childhood in Hawaii and Idaho. He too was an accomplished hunter and fisherman and shared his passion with his children. Matt was a Golden Gloves boxer in High School and joined the U.S. Marine Corps after high school. Matt joined the Hoonah Police Department following his service in the Marines.

John Millan, the Hoonah Police chief at the time of the incident, described Matt as a larger than life figure, every bit the Marine.

In John's words: ``Matt ran directly into a hail of bullets, when any other person would walk away and did so without hesitation. He called in a situation report, precisely like a Marine would in combat. He began to move Tony to safety when he laid down his own life.''

Matt Tokuoka is survived by his wife Haley and four children-- Mitchell, Hotchan, George and Layla, as well as his father, second mother, sisters and grandmother.

Matt and Tony were dedicated family people, ``Dear Ones,'' in the Hoonah vernacular, who were beloved by their own families as their extended families in the Hoonah community. Their tragic loss last August rocked Hoonah to the core and the process of recovery has been difficult. Tony and Matt were not only exemplary officers with significant records of public service. They were pillars of the community.

Chuck Collins joined Customs and Border Protection in 2002 following a successful career in the Air Force. Upon completion of training, he was assigned to ``the port of his dreams'' in Anchorage. During the summer he was assigned to temporary duty in Eagle, a remote border checkpoint about 379 miles northeast of Fairbanks. He relished the assignment and I am told was active in the life of the Eagle community during his annual summer duty there.

Officer Collins was killed when his government-issued Ford Bronco went down a 200-foot embankment on the Taylor Highway and landed in a rain swollen creek. Officer Collins is survived by his wife Jody and two sons, both of whom are serving abroad in the military.

There is little that I can say in consolation except to note that Matt, Tony and Chuck touched a great many people's lives, they were role models, and they sacrificed all to make Alaska a safe and peaceful place. In valor there is hope.

Mr. President, today I honor the life and service of Richard ``Dick'' Eliason. Dick passed away on April 3, 2011. He will be remembered for his decades of service to Alaska and his steadfast commitment to sensible, long-term management of Alaska's fisheries. Dick was the first Alaskan nominated to the 2006 Wild Salmon Hall of Fame at the Pacific Northwest Salmon Center for his leadership primarily in banning fin fish farming in Alaska and his work on the ``Wild Stock Priority.''

Dick was born in Seattle, WA, on October 14, 1925. As an only child he spent his childhood fishing between Washington and Port Alexander with his parents, George and Elsie Eliason. The family decided to move to Sitka in 1939 where he attended Sitka High School. Following high school, during World War II Dick spent 3 years aboard a sub chaser in the Navy patrolling the Hawaiian Islands.

In 1950, Dick met Nurse Betty Gemmell from Montana and married her. Together they had five children; Greta, George, Ida, Richard, Jr. and

Stanley. Betty passed away in 1981 and later Dick married Patricia McConnell.

As a young man, Dick was very busy owning a succession of fishing boats, bartending at the American Legion, and working for many years as a pipefitter. While the early years were tough raising his growing family, he certainly succeeded in raising a loving family. He continued to work as a commercial fisherman for nearly 70 years.

Dick entered public service early, serving on the territorial public utilities board. He entered the political arena in the early 1960s in Sitka where he was elected to the assembly and went on to become mayor. At the State level, Dick served as a member of the Alaska House of Representatives from 1968 to 1970 and 1972 to 1980 and as a member of the Alaska Senate from 1980 to 1992. Dick also worked for his community as a member of the VFW, the Elks, the Moose and the Masons.

In his 22 years in the Alaska Legislature, he championed the interests of fishermen and fishing communities. He fought for sustainable yield management of our fisheries and the hatchery system, and against fin fish farming and illegal high seas fishing.

Over the course of time, the fin fish farming ban has changed in the mind of Alaskans. The universally popular idea in Alaska was once much more controversial. In 1988, salmon prices soared to levels not seen again until lately giving corporations and other businesses an opportunity to compete in the emerging farmed salmon market.

Dick wisely saw that to protect the wild stocks and the people who earned a living off of them was more than a temporary issue. Dick recognized the long lasting effects that his legislation could offer. His legacy of protecting wild salmon and promoting quality salmon is not bound to Alaska: his legacy is enjoyed by those even beyond the reaches of this Nation.

Dick would say that he merely worked to protect a way of life, but it was his own way of life that typically allowed him to shine brighter than others and to succeed. He was acutely aware of how to communicate and bargain among his colleagues. By all accounts, Dick was not likely to let his title or power go to his head, even though he had plenty of both. He was the consummate statesman. He was fair and knew how to roll with the punches in a way that only he could.

Dick leaves an esteemed legacy that Alaska will benefit from for years to come. I extend my sympathies to the Eliason family and feel blessed to have known this great Alaskan.

My home State of Alaska is a young State. Barely over 50 years old. I often marvel at the fact that so many of those who led Alaska during territorial days and were instrumental in the statehood movement also played important roles in poststatehood modern Alaska. Very few of our 50 states can boast that its founders are still around to guide the current generation of leaders. Alaska has been deeply fortunate in this respect. And we've never taken the wisdom of these individuals for granted.

I speak today to honor the life of one of these individuals who passed away last week--Senior U.S. District Judge James Martin Fitzgerald, a member of Alaska's Territorial Bar, one of the first eight individuals selected to serve on the Alaska Superior Court, an associate justice of the Alaska Supreme Court and a Federal judge since 1974.

Judge Fitzgerald was born in Portland, OR, in 1920. He enrolled in the University of Oregon and played football for the Ducks. But shortly thereafter he left college, when he was called to active duty in the National Guard. Following discharge from the National Guard he resumed undergraduate study at Willamette University, once again playing on the football team.

But World War II interceded. On December 6, 1941, the Willamette team played an away game at the University of Hawaii. The next morning, the team was waiting outside the Moana Loa Hotel for a bus to take them on a sightseeing tour as bombs fell on Pearl Harbor.

The entire Willamette football team was conscripted to help defend the Island of Oahu. After brief training they were armed with World War I era rifles and put on guard duty at a Honolulu High School. The team went on sentry rotations to keep watch over nearby water towers and storage tanks that were potential Japanese targets. They strung barbed wire along the Waikiki beach.

The football team remained in Honolulu for several weeks until their coach convinced the captain of the SS President Coolidge to take the team home in exchange for aiding the hundreds of critically wounded servicemen that were on board.

On Christmas Day 1941, the team arrived in San Francisco. Judge Fitzgerald promptly enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps. He spent 5 years fighting for our country as a radio gunner for a torpedo squadron in the South Pacific.

Honorably discharged once again in 1946, Fitzgerald returned to Portland. He married his wife Karin in 1950. Fitzgerald worked as a firefighter and reenrolled at Willamette where he completed work toward his B.A. and subsequently earned a law degree in 1951. The newly married couple spent their first summer in Ketchikan, Alaska where he worked in a lumber mill and a salmon cannery.

Upon graduation from law school, Judge Fitzgerald returned to Ketchikan. He served as an assistant U.S. attorney in Ketchikan for 4 years then relocated to Anchorage where he served as the city attorney.

Judge Fitzgerald was subsequently named counsel to Alaska's first Governor, William Egan, and was appointed the first commissioner of the Alaska Department of Public Safety

In November 1959, Judge Fitzgerald was selected to be one of the first eight judges of the newly created Alaska Superior Court, which is our trial court. Prior to Alaska's admission to the statehood, the Federal Government maintained the judicial system for the territory. A new court system for our new State had to be created from scratch. The eight new judges were promptly dispatched to New Jersey to learn how a State trial court operates. Among his colleagues on that trip was Judge James von der Heydt, who like Fitzgerald, would also one day serve on the U.S. District Court.

Judge Fitzgerald was elevated to the Alaska Supreme Court in 1972 and served there until 1974 when he was confirmed to serve on the federal bench.

Judge Fitzgerald was sworn in as a U.S. district judge on December 20, 1974. He served as chief judge of the District of Alaska from 1984 until 1989 and became a senior district judge in 1989.

Judge James Fitzgerald passed away surrounded by his family on April 3, 2011. He is survived by his wife Karin Fitzgerald and their four children. On behalf of my Senate colleagues, I extend condolences to Karin, Judge Fitzgerald's family and his many friends in the Alaska Bar and the community as a whole.

James Fitzgerald's life was one of sacrifice and public service. He set aside his college education and an opportunity to play varsity football in order to serve his country in time of war. He was a dedicated attorney and jurist who brought peace to the territory of Alaska and then went on to help create Alaska's highly respected State court system before joining the Federal bench. He served my beloved State of Alaska for well over 50 years; and it is my hope that his life will continue to serve as an inspiration to us all.

Mr. President, I wish to speak about a resolution designating April 15 through 17, 2011, as Global Youth Service Days'' that recognizes and commends the significant community service efforts that youth are making in communities across the country and around the world on this weekend in April and every day. This resolution also encourages the citizens of the United States to acknowledge and support these volunteer efforts. Passage of this resolution sends a very strong message of support to the thousands of youth across our great nation who are contributing positively to their communities--your efforts are recognized and appreciated.

Beginning this Friday, April 15, youth from across the United States and around the world will carry out community service projects in areas ranging from hunger to literacy to the environment. Through this service, many will embark on a lifelong path of service and civic engagement in more than 100 countries around the world.

Mr. President, the participation of youth in service to their communities is more than just a way to spend a Saturday afternoon. All year long, young people across America--indeed across the globe-- identify and address the needs of their communities, make positive differences in the world around them, learn leadership and organizational skills, and gain insights into the problems of their fellow citizens.

The positive effects of this service are not limited to the projects our young people complete. Youth who are engaged in volunteer service and service-learning activities do better in school than their classmates who do not volunteer because they see a direct connection to what they are learning and the real world in which they live. Youth who engage in volunteering and other positive activities are also more likely to avoid risky behaviors, such as drug and alcohol use, crime, and promiscuity. Service within the community also contributes positively to young people's character development, civic participation, and philanthropic activity as adults.

Youth service also plays a role in encouraging our young people to stay in school. A survey by Civic Enterprises found that 47 percent of high school dropouts reported that boredom in school was a primary reason why they dropped out. High quality service-learning activities can, however, help young people see that school matters to them personally.

It is important, therefore, that the U.S. Senate encourage youth to engage in community service and to congratulate them for the service they provide. I thank Senators Begich, Feinstein, Akaka, Mikulski, Levin, Stabenow, Cochran, Murray, and Mark Udall for joining with me in cosponsoring this resolution and all other Senators for supporting passage of it.

In an effort to recognize and support youth volunteers in my State, I am proud to acknowledge some of the activities that will occur this year in Alaska in observance of National and Global Youth Service Days:

Anchorage's Promise, which works to mobilize all sectors of the community to build the character and competence of Anchorage's children and youth, will sponsor the annual Kids' Day three-day events in Anchorage again this year. Youth will provide significant service to their peers and to adults who will attend Kids' Day activities this weekend:

Over 100 youth and AmeriCorps members will spend their day

volunteering at Kids' Day in order to help make it a safe,

fun, and successful event.

Teens will serve as greeters, pass out bags, help vendors

set up their booths, and clean up during and after the event.

Kindness for Kids, Inc. will provide students with

materials to stuff and sew pillows which will later be

delivered to the children in the hospital.

Adults and youth will be able to make cards to express

support for our troops.

Youth who formed the Japan Relief Fund will sell bracelets

they have made the benefit the relief efforts of the Red

Cross in Japan.

Anchorage's Promise Youth Advisory Board will present Teen

City Center Stage, a positive, judgment-free space where

teens can create graffiti art, join youth-led organizations,

and enjoy entertainment.

Students from Chugiak High School's Family Career and

Community Leaders of America program will present a family

meal toolkit that will contain healthy family meal recipes

that incorporate simple, affordable, and healthy food

choices.

Volunteer students from the Anchorage School district will

read to their younger peers as part of ``Wild About

Reading''. The child will then get to take the book home.

Youth volunteers with Volunteers of America Alaska and

Communities Mobilizing for Change on Alcohol will provide an

art project and information on underage drinking.

The Anchorage Public Library Teen Advisory Board will help

kids decorate banners that will be put on display in the

library.

In addition to the Kids' Day events, young people from every region of Alaska will serve their many ways, including:

Students at Pacific Northern Academy have donated hand-made

fleece scarves, hats, blankets, greeting cards, meal, and

decorations to various local agencies in Anchorage.

Youth volunteers, coordinated by the Anchorage Public

Library, will help organize summer reading celebration

materials.

Members of the St. John's United Methodist Church youth

group spent their spring break volunteering at the Food Bank

of Alaska in Anchorage.

Last November, the Wrangell Community Youth Action Group

collected and donated over 10,000 pounds of food for needy

families and Thanksgiving dinners in their community.

Hundreds of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts participated in

``Scouting for Food'' last weekend by distributing flyers

about their food drive in neighborhoods, and then going door-

to-door collecting the donations.

The St. Francis Xavier Youth Group held a cake auction to

raise $2,590 to support a mission in Jamaica that helps the

poor with food, transportation, and education.

The Anchorage's Promise Youth Advisory Board volunteered at

Covenant House Alaska to assist them in preparing for First

Friday, a monthly art walk that takes place in downtown

Anchorage. YAB members put together sandwiches, made name

tags, and made labels for the art work that was displayed.

Members of the Chugiak Family Career and Community Leaders

of America held a Christmas party for the homeless teens at

Anchorage's Covenant House.

Youth from Two Rivers donated clothing items to Big

Brothers Big Sisters of America.

Youth in Dillingham have created a ``Chain of Kindness'' to

which people from the community contribute links when they

observe acts of kindness. The chain is hung in the entrance

of the local high school.

The Alaska Youth for Environmental Action has created a

resolution for the Anchorage assembly on beginning an annual

``Week without Bags,'' to encourage consumers to bring their

own bags to the grocery store and encourage retailers to

provide incentive for customers that do so.

Mr. President, I am so proud of all of these young people and many more across my State of Alaska. I value their idealism, energy, creativity, and unique perspectives as they volunteer to make their communities better and assist those in need.

Many similarly wonderful activities will be taking place all across the nation. I encourage all of my colleagues to visit the Youth Service America Web site www.ysa.org to find out about the selfless and creative youth who are contributing in their own States this year.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes this afternoon to perhaps switch the discussion from what my colleagues were referring to earlier in terms of the budget and speak a little bit about the issue of energy--obviously, a topic of great concern.

The President has addressed it as recently as last week in a major address at Georgetown. There have been a lot of discussions about what it is we need to do to respond to the higher prices families are paying at the pump and just how we deal with the issue of energy in general. There has been much discussion about this concept of ``use it or lose it.'' I want to speak to that proposal a little bit this afternoon.

It is a rather strange proposal that claims to address the rising cost of oil and gas for America's working families. The premise of this is, even with oil at more than $100 a barrel, and even though lease terms are already limited by law to 5 to 10 years, energy companies somehow are hording Federal lands and refusing to produce the resources that are beneath them.

``Use it or lose it'' has been presented by this administration and others as a way to increase our Nation's energy production. But even a cursory review will show this is fundamentally flawed in its premise. This proposal will not increase American production. It will not increase jobs or create jobs. It will not raise government revenues or bolster our security. Instead, I believe it is a diversion from our more critical need to produce more of our own resources and to streamline our burdensome regulatory processes.

Now, the idea behind ``use it or lose it'' is to simply punish companies for not drilling on lands they have leased, so they either drill or they give back the acreage to the government which can then resell it to someone else. But, interestingly, this proposal has drawn some support from a number of Senators and from the President himself who, until recently, have claimed: Well, we can't drill our way out of this. We can't drill our way to lower gas prices. America's oil--and we have been repeatedly told this--has minimal impact on global prices and takes too long to bring online.

So I do not know, maybe this is a change of heart. If that is so, I am glad to see it. I do hope--I do hope--their proposal is a signal that, indeed, they would like to see drilling on every leased Federal acre onshore, offshore. That is certainly the premise of the proposal, even though it is perhaps a pretty major departure from the previous positions.

Now, the advocates of ``use it or lose it'' have pointed out correctly that there are millions of acres leased in this country that are not currently producing oil and gas, but they have misidentified the reason why. Chances are maybe there is just no oil present on that land. Perhaps exploration is ongoing or, in many cases, the Federal Government has simply blocked the drilling. To add a new penalty to this process and to add a new layer to existing bureaucracy will only backfire.

From the outset, I think it is important to understand what is involved in oil and gas production. This is an incredibly capital- intensive, labor-intensive business, and from a technological perspective, the process is extraordinarily complex. I think we saw, after the Deepwater Horizon, cameras trained a mile below the surface of the ocean, and it was described by many as, this is akin to how we deal with putting a man on the Moon. This is complicated stuff, and there is no ``X marks the spot'' as to where that oil is actually going to be found.

It can take years, not to mention tremendous amounts of money, to finally locate these commercial deposits. When there is resource present, it takes some teams of some pretty highly skilled and trained engineers to figure out how we are going to bring it to market. There are the entire legal departments that have to wade through the multitude of permits, the analysis, the plans that are required by our Federal Government. This process takes a considerable amount of patience and for lots of good reasons, but the government is certainly not in a hurry to provide leaseholders the approval they need to move forward.

Last week, the Interior Department had an opportunity to explain what goes on within the exploration process and show why not all Federal leases immediately produce oil and gas. Instead, the Interior Department issued a report that attempts to portray many Federal leases as idle or unused. What could have been a very helpful and instructive process was instead hopelessly politicized, and that is unfortunate.

The findings of the Interior Department's report I believe defy common sense, general business principles, and what we know to be true about the Federal regulatory process. The definition of ``inactive'' purposely excludes many important development activities, and there is no acknowledgment that oftentimes it is the government itself that is causing the delays in drilling.

I guess one of the more telling examples of what is wrong with the Interior Department's new report is its depiction of what is happening in Alaska right now. Companies have been trying for years--trying for years--to bring their Federal leases in this State of Alaska into production. These efforts have been blocked. They have been delayed by the Federal Government, especially this administration, and they have been blocked at every turn. Despite this, the Interior Department's report claims that just 1 percent--1 percent--of Alaska's leases are producing and puts the blame on industry. But when I talk to folks back home, when I talk to those who are trying every single day, getting up and trying their hardest to advance so we can get to levels of production, they only find that there is yet one more hurdle, one more roadblock that is thrown up and thrown up by the government. It causes incredible frustration. It is hard to pick what would be described as the best example of companies trying to produce from their leases-- which, I might add, they purchased at the invitation of the Federal Government--yet they are being forbidden by the administration from pursuing their exploratory operations. It is happening in the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. Think about the name. This is the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska. That is pretty ironic. We can't get started there, and one of the biggest reasons we can't is we are being blocked--the producers are being blocked--from getting a permit to build a bridge over a river to get started.

As regrettable and as ironic as that example is, there is an even higher profile example that we see up North, and that is what Shell is attempting to do. They have set a record--and a record that is certainly not enviable but a record nonetheless--for both dollars invested and frustration experienced in return. This is a situation where a company has spent a little over $4 billion--this is billion with a B--they spent $4 billion to buy Federal acreage in Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf nearly 7 years ago. Since that time, Shell has done nothing but slog through an incredibly long and incredibly arduous permitting process. Air permits that take 6 weeks to acquire in the Gulf of Mexico have now been delayed for over 5 years.

I ask my colleagues to put that in context. A company, at the invitation of the Federal Government, purchased leases over 7 years ago, has put more than $4 billion into trying to get to exploration, has spent 5 years waiting on permits, where in other parts of the country permits can be turned around in 6 weeks, and they have yet the opportunity to even start. So can anyone honestly suggest we ought to punish Shell or any company that is going through this for the Federal Government's failure to allow even exploratory drilling to proceed? Is it fair that we demand Shell pay the price because the government has failed to issue a permit that even the EPA and even the Administrator of the EPA has acknowledged poses no human health risk? This is where we are sitting right now.

I was incredulous. I had an opportunity to ask the Secretary of the Interior, who is a friend of mine--most certainly a friend who I acknowledge has a very difficult job, a very challenging job--but he could not assure me that the so-called ``use it or lose it'' fee would not apply to the millions of acres of leased land in Alaska, both onshore and offshore, where the Federal Government has sold the leases but is not allowing drilling activity. It is similar to a commercial real estate company offering to rent some office space to you. We go ahead. You pay the rent. I never give you the key, so you can't access your commercial office space. Then I am going to go ahead and assess a fine. We are going to penalize you when you failed to open your doors for business. That is kind of what is happening up North. It is not a ``use it or lose it'' policy, it is ``heads we win, tails you lose.'' My colleagues have to imagine: What would such a policy say about the way our government conducts its businesses and manages its resources?

``Use it or lose it'' is drawn from a desire to do the right thing, which is to increase our domestic production, but I also believe it reveals a fundamental lack of understanding about how energy resources are developed and how they are brought to market. It risks very real consequences for our energy production here in America. Because instead of encouraging producers to find energy faster, it would actually discourage them from discovering it in the first place. Instead of creating jobs, it would likely end jobs. Instead of raising new revenues for the Federal Government, it would likely diminish taxpayers' returns from leasing and production.

It seems as though every time oil prices are on the rise, we come together and we debate how we are going to respond to them and every time someone points out we should be producing far more of our own-- frankly, very tremendous resource base--someone steps forward with the potential scapegoat, perhaps to distract attention from our need to be leasing more new lands. It is like clockwork around here. Instead of making the hard choices about what we can do to better insulate ourselves from higher crude prices and geopolitical instability, we see proposals to impose windfall profit taxes, to pour unprecedented sums of money in unproven alternative technologies, to rein in speculators, to sue OPEC, to raise taxes and fees on production, and now to force companies to act faster or to face greater penalties.

Until we see some evidence that companies are refusing to develop their leases, I have to call it like I see it. ``Use it or lose it'' is a ploy to claim

that we support increased domestic production, without doing anything to ensure that domestic production is the actual result of our Federal energy policies.

There has been a lot of discussion, when we are talking about energy, about Brazil and their potential--how that nation is set to significantly ramp up its oil production, and we commend the Brazilians. They have been able to make a number of very important discoveries, estimated at about 50 billion barrels of oil equivalent. According to the Wall Street Journal, Brazil's oil production rose by 876 percent over the past 20 years--876 percent over the past 20 years. They are now planning to double their current production in less than 10 years. So there are pretty remarkable things going on there. Even while Brazil is developing their current resource base, they are actively looking for more. They are working aggressively. They are pursuing that objective while expanding their production and their use of alternative energy sources. They are kind of pursuing the ``all of the above'' we talk about so often.

In the United States, we have technically recoverable oil resources estimated at 157 billion barrels, more than three times--more than three times--what Brazil has recently found. I don't understand. I don't understand why we refuse to set the same ambitious goals for increasing our production that Brazil has, even as we continue to pursue alternative energies that will diversify our supplies equally. When it comes to energy, we should strive to be our own best customer, not Brazil's.

As Federal policymakers, we need to think carefully about what we demand of any industry, including oil and gas. When we tax something, the fact is, we get less of it. I don't think we want to make ourselves even more dependent on foreign oil right now. We don't want to discourage domestic production, especially under the guise of promoting it, and we have no reason to add yet another layer to an already daunting regulatory system.

I strongly urge us in the Senate, in the Congress, to recognize ``use it or lose it'' for what it is. It is an attempt to extract more money from the companies, not to extract more energy from the ground. It is not the right approach for America, and it will not move our energy policy in the right direction.

I do take comfort in one fact, and that is this: At least the debate is now about how to produce more oil and not whether to produce more oil. My work on the Energy Committee and certainly what goes on in the State of Alaska has taught me much about how and how not to achieve greater oil production if we want more domestic production--and I think we all recognize the President's verbal commitment to this and the change of heart amongst some of my colleagues--it is time to eliminate the needless redtape and allow access to America's huge resources that are still off-limits.

I thank the Presiding Officer for the time and the opportunity to speak this afternoon on yet another aspect of our country's much needed energy policy and how we can continue to find ways that will move us toward a future where we do engage in energy sources that are clean and renewable while also harvesting our bountiful supply in this country as we find ways to produce more domestically.

Yes.

Mr. President, I appreciate the question of my colleague from Florida, as we recognize that coming from different parts of the country, where we have access in close proximity to the oil and gas resource, but we recognize that there are differences between where we are in our geography and perhaps the approach.

In the Gulf of Mexico, I think your climate allows for exploration and production probably 365 days out of the year, which is a little bit different than in our arctic environment. We respect that. To the Senator's question, which is a very legitimate and fair question--this is why we had hoped so much that with this report from the Department of the Interior, it would have allowed for a breakdown so we could understand what is happening with these many thousands of leases that are out there and existing. What is the true status? To put it in idle or unuse is not very clear, quite honestly. What does that mean? Are we in the exploratory phase and so we are not in production? And what category is that? Is this an older lease about which perhaps they have determined there simply is not the--for instance, if you are drilling in some deep waters, it is extraordinarily costly. As I mentioned, these are complex, and the technologies are quite considerable. If you have done some exploration but you find very limited or perhaps nothing--as I mentioned, we don't have that magic X that leads us right down to what we call in the north the ``elephant find.''

So I think it is important to understand what it is that we have and the status of these leases. This information is critical to us, because if they are in the exploratory phase, and it is taking longer because, quite honestly, we have higher standards with the environmental permits, which are taking more time, and I think we realize after the Deepwater Horizon situation and a great deal of scrutiny on MMS, quite honestly, we didn't have sufficient numbers issuing permits within that agency to keep up. So we need to understand where the issue is, where the problem is. There may, in fact--and I will concede on the floor that there may be some leases that are in existence where the producers have said: You know what, we only have so much ability to move forward with the financing of all of this, so we are going to explore and produce in wells 1, 2, and 3, but on 4 and 5 we are not prepared to advance on them as quickly. We think they may have potential, but we don't know that. How can we help to facilitate that? Do we need more people within MMS to help expedite the permits? What does it mean to be an idle lease?

I will digress for a moment, if I may, because I think it is important for people to recognize that when we are talking about exploration in the Arctic, a 5-year or 10-year time period is simply not sufficient, because we cannot explore 365 days a year. Most times, the season is limited to about 60 days during the coldest, darkest, most difficult time of the year. But that is when the ground is frozen, when the permits are issued for exploration. So it takes multiple seasons to even get through the exploration phase.

I think it is important to recognize that not all leases are equal. Not every lease that a producer purchases from the government actually has anything worth developing. We need to know and understand a little bit more. We hoped to have learned that from the Department of the Interior report. Unfortunately, it didn't give the detail we had hoped for. I appreciate my colleague's question.

Mr. President, the Tlingit and Haida people, the first people of Southeast Alaska, were perhaps the first group of Alaska Natives to organize for the purpose of asserting their aboriginal land claims. The Native land claims movement in the rest of Alaska did not gain momentum until the 1960s when aboriginal land titles were threatened by the impending construction of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. In Southeast Alaska, the taking of Native lands for the Tongass National Forest and Glacier Bay National Monument spurred the Tlingit and Haida people to fight to recover their lands in the early part of the 20th century.

One of the first steps in this battle came with the formation of the Alaska Native Brotherhood in 1912. In 1935, the Jurisdictional Act, which allowed the Tlingit and Haida Indians to pursue their land claims in the U.S. Court of Claims, was enacted by Congress. After decades of litigation, the Native people of Southeast Alaska received a cash settlement in 1968 from the Court of Claims for the land previously taken to create the Tongass National Forest and the Glacier Bay National Monument. Yes there was a cash settlement of $7.5 million, but the Native people of Southeast Alaska have long believed that it did not adequately compensate them for the loss of their lands and resources.

When the Native people of Southeast Alaska chose to pursue their land claims in court they could not have foreseen that Congress would ultimately settle the land claims of all of Alaska's Native people through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, of 1971. Nor could they have foreseen that they would be disadvantaged in obtaining the return of their aboriginal lands because of their early, and ultimately successful, effort to litigate their land claims.

The Claims Settlement Act imposed a series of highly prescriptive limitations on the lands that Sealaska Corporation, the regional Alaska Native Corporation formed for Southeast Alaska, could select in satisfaction of the Tlingit and Haida land claims. None of the other 11 Alaska-based regional Native corporations were subject to these limitations. Today, I join with my Alaska colleague, Sen. Mark Begich, to reintroduce legislation to right this wrong.

For the most part, Sealaska Corporation has agreed to live within the constraints imposed by the 1971 legislation. It has taken conveyance of roughly 290,000 acres from the pool of lands it was allowed to select under the 1971 act. As Sealaska moves to finalize its land selections, it has asked the Congress for flexibility to receive title to slightly different lands that it was not permitted to select under the 1971 legislation.

The legislation we are introducing today will allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas permitted in the 1971 legislation. It

The legislation we are introducing today will allow Sealaska to select its remaining entitlement from outside of the withdrawal areas permitted in the 1971 legislation. It allows the Native Corporation to select up to 3,600 acres of its remaining land entitlement from lands with sacred, cultural, traditional or historical significance throughout the Alaska Panhandle. Substantial restrictions will be placed on the use of these lands.

Up to 5,000 acres of land could be selected for non-timber or mineral related economic development. These lands are called ``Futures'' sites in the bill. Other lands referred to as ``economic development lands'' in the bill could be used for timber related and non-timber related economic development. These lands are on Prince of Wales Island, on nearby Kosciusko Island.

Sealaska observes that if it were required to take title to lands within the constraints prescribed by the 1971 legislation it would take title to large swaths of roadless acres in pristine portions of the Tongass National Forest, the original selection areas containing 112,000 acres of old-growth timber. The lands it proposes to take for economic uses under this legislation are predominantly in roaded and less sensitive areas of the Tongass National Forest, meaning that under this bill Sealaska likely will select roughly 39,000 fewer acres of old-growth than otherwise might be the case. In the process it will at most select 9 percent of the second-growth, leaving the U.S. Forest Service hundreds of thousands of the 428,972 acres of second-growth in the forest. It will be selecting about 28,570 acres of second-growth, leaving the Forest Service more than 88 percent of the second-growth in the forest for it to use to promote a ``young''-growth strategy in our Nation's largest national forest.

The pools of lands that would be available to Sealaska under this legislation are depicted on a series of maps referred to in the bill. It must be emphasized that not all of the lands depicted on these maps will necessarily end up in Sealaska's ownership. Sealaska by this legislation will not receive title to lands in excess of its remaining acreage entitlement under the 1971 legislation and this legislation does not change that entitlement total, still to be finalized by the Bureau of Land Management.

Now this legislation has traveled a long path, one that has seen it change substantially to meet a variety of concerns. Early in the 110th Congress, Alaska Congressman Don Young in 2007 introduced H.R. 3560 to address these issues. Later in September 2008 I introduced legislation similar to, but somewhat different from that bill to give all parties time to thoroughly review the measure. In 2009, I reintroduced the bill after Sealaska and the communities of Southeast Alaska worked collaboratively in good faith to identify issues that may arise from the transfer of lands on which those communities have relied on for subsistence and recreation out of the Tongass National Forest and into Native corporation ownership. Throughout 2009 and into 2010, I and my staff held 12 town meetings in Alaska to collect comments on the bill, and made modifications to it in response to the comments we received. When the bill did not advance in 2010, my staff again held two town meetings and other briefings this winter to gain additional comments and suggested changes in the bill. It is after these comments, and following email and letter suggestions from a variety of sources, that I and Senator Begich now move to reintroduce a new version of this bill. It will be somewhat different than a new bill also being introduced today by Congressman Young in the House, a bill more similar to his original bill from 2007.

The legislation we are introducing today in the 112th Congress is different from the original bill in numerous respects. In some cases, the lands open to Sealaska selection have changed from those that were available in the first House bill to accommodate community concerns. For example, this bill reduces the selection pool to about 79,000 acres. It allows for timber land selections in North Election Creek, Polk Inlet-McKenzie Inlet, near Keete, at 12 Mile Arm, at Calder, all on Prince of Wales Island, at several sites on Koscuisko Island and on northern Kuiu Island. These sites are far different than in 2009 since following comments, all of the areas on northern Prince of Wales involving Red Bay, Buster Creek and Labouchere Bay have been deleted

from the bill to meet the concerns of Port Protection and Point Baker residents. Also a large 12,462-acre parcel in the Keete area also was removed to accommodate environmentalist concerns. This bill also makes a series of map changes in these parcels, removing 745 acres at Karheen Lakes on Tuxekan Island to protect fisheries, and removes timber lands around Halibut Harbor and Cape Pole on Koscuisko Islands to also protect fishermen and boaters.

Concerning Future sites, this bill keeps 30 sites, specifically dropping the 30-acre Dog Cove site, near Naha, north of Ketchikan, as a result of State and community concerns and imposing a restriction against development for 15 years of a proposed geothermal site at Pegmatite Mountain, 25 miles north of Tenakee on Chichagof Island. That restriction allows the possibility of a renewable energy site to serve Hoonah and Pelican and perhaps Tenakee, if other projects can't first be completed to provide lower-cost power to those communities. The bill already has removed several dozen Future sites that had been proposed since 2007.

The bill in a change from the 2009 version includes a number of conservation areas, totaling 151,650 acres, to help protect fisheries and karst formations on Prince of Wales, Kupreanof, Kuiu and Sukkwan and Goat Islands. The conservation areas, first proposed after public comment in spring 2010, remove no timber lands from the current timber base, but do provide added protections to key fishery habitats such as those around Sarkar Lakes, Eek Lake, Bay of Pillars and Lovelace Creeks. Further to protect fisheries, this bill, as sought by many fishermen, imposes an 100-foot setback requirement for any timber lands conveyed to Sealaska from timber operations around class 1-A fish streams for 5 years--plenty of time for the State of Alaska to consider whether it needs to make any changes in its current State Forest Practices Act setback requirements.

The bill retains a series of changes made in the bill in the past to solve concerns over any unintended consequences that the bill might cause concerning the definition of Indian country in Alaska. It removes all sites from possible conveyance in Glacier Bay National Park and Preserve. It removes any presumption that any site qualifies as a sacred, cultural, traditional or educational site in Southeast, returning the nomination process for all such selections to the regulations that covered such selections immediately following the 1971 act's passage. And the bill incorporates a host of changes sought by governments, the state and a wide variety of groups and individuals to clarify language and solve concerns over everything from public access guarantees to access rights by bear guides. The bill maintains public access rights to all 17(b) easements and guarantees public access to all timber lands.

Sealaska also has offered a series of commitments to ensure that the benefits of this legislation flow to the broader Southeast Alaska economy and not just to the Corporation and its Native shareholders. The biggest is that all revenues will need to be shared under Section 7(i) of ANCSA with all other Native shareholders statewide.

We all hope that after 40 years that this measure can advance to passage this Congress and resolve the last land entitlement that Southeast Alaska's more than 20,000 Native shareholders have long had a right to receive. It is impossible to expect Alaska's Native corporations to provide meaningful assistance to Alaska's Native community if they continue to be denied the lands that Congress intended them to receive to utilize to provide economic benefits for the Native peoples of the State. I hope this measure can pass and become law before the 40th anniversary of the claims settlement act in December of this year. Justice delayed truly is justice denied.

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