Floor Statements

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I would like to take a few minutes to offer a tribute to Clifford R. Phillips. He passed away on December 3, 2010, at his home in Surprise, AZ. He was an Alaskan fishing legend and a true hero who fought bravely in the European Theater during World War II.

Cliff was born on December 7, 1919, on the west coast of Vancouver Island. His parents, who had originally been involved in the fishing industry in England, had immigrated to British Columbia where they managed a herring saltery. They later moved to Ketchikan where he would, as a very young man, begin his career in Alaskan fisheries. This was the age of ``mild cure'' salmon, and starting at the age of seven Cliff began learning the family business and the importance of producing a high quality product. He continued to work with his father in the family business through the 1930s.

After seeing the devastation and heartache of the beginning of World War II, Cliff joined the Alaska National Guard. He trained at Chilkoot Barracks in Haines, AK, and was assigned to duties in the Aleutian Islands. He was one of the first to fly into the new military airfield built in the Pribilof Islands, which is located nearly 500 miles off the Siberian coast. The rugged winter saw the Islands iced in. The base did not receive supplies by ship for some 9 months, but Cliff and his comrades held their ground.

In September 1944, he transferred to the European Theater and joined the Third Army. He participated in the landing at Normandy, and his unit later helped to repel the German offensive in ``The Battle of the Bulge.'' Cliff managed to make it through combat unscathed, and his distinguished service led to his being awarded the Silver Star.

Upon discharge after World War II, Cliff felt the urge to return to Alaska and to his family heritage in the fishing industry. He naturally gravitated back to Ketchikan in southeast Alaska so that he could work in the waters he knew best.

In 1950, the Phillips father-son duo built the E.C. Phillips cold storage plant on Tongass Narrows in Ketchikan. Cliff and his father excelled at increasing capacity, efficiency, and quality. As time went by, the E.C. Phillips product became known for its high quality around the world, and today it is still known as a premier quality product.

After the death of his father, Cliff took charge, but he was no desk bound executive, and standard working hours did not apply to him. During the fishing season he could always be found in the processing area of his plant inspecting the fish and supervising operations. Cliff sold his product by phone and fax from his Alaskan office to the entire United States and around the world. But nothing left the plant until he was satisfied that the fish met the E.C. Phillips quality standard.

Before there was an Alaska Seafood Marketing Institute, Cliff was Alaska's ambassador for seafood, and he traveled far and wide promoting Alaskan seafood products. Cliff remained active in the business well into his eighties, but even after he retired from daily operations and moved to Arizona he maintained frequent contact with the plant and his many friends and customers.

Everyone found Cliff to be a charming man, eloquent and persuasive, but first and foremost he saw it as his mission to insist on high quality for all products which carried the E.C. Phillips brand name. I extend my sincerest condolences to his wife Dixie and his family members. We have all lost a friend, and Alaska's seafood industry has lost a great champion. May he rest in peace.

Mr. President, today I honor the passing of the initial first lady of Alaska, Neva Egan. Desdia Neva McKittrick Egan was born in Wilson, KS, on October 3, 1914. The articulate, effervescent Alaskan served on hospital boards, school boards, worked diligently on community commitments, and continued to attend morning meetings of the Commonwealth

Club in Anchorage for years. Although she was quick to downplay her role in Alaskan history, she had a key position as first lady. Neva also accompanied her husband to Washington, DC, for 19 months during the period when Alaska was being considered for statehood.

In DC it was a time of adjustment, traffic, ``hot weather'' and big- city living for the girl from small-town Kansas. After her husband, William A. Egan, was elected as Alaska's first Governor, she took great pride in supporting him, as well as all the Alaskan legislators and their families. She was known to invite legislator's children to the Governor's Mansion while living in Juneau during session. Although, Neva rarely spoke publicly about politics, she was the firm shoulder on which many legislators leaned. She was a strong woman that worked hard to care for others behind the scenes when it mattered most.

Neva was the third in a family of four girls and one boy. She graduated from high school in the midst of the Great Depression in 1932 and then worked for a year in her father's grocery store. After a year, she decided to continue her education and attended Kansas State College, but soon transferred to be closer to her sister and aunt at the University of Wyoming. Quickly, she was recruited to teach in Glenrock, WY, for the ``fabulous'' salary of $1,000 a year, while her friends were making $25 a month. Her musical background and teaching career led her to Valdez, where she expected to only stay a year and was told the town was ``a little rough.'' Shortly after she arrived, one of the few local guys with a car, a quiet man, who read the Congressional Record for fun in junior high school, expressed interest in Neva. Apparently, the first date was disastrous, but friends recall ``love at first sight.''

William and Neva Egan were married on November 16, 1940, in Valdez. It was the same month that William was elected to the Alaska Territorial House of Representatives from the Third Judicial Division that started his drive into Alaskan political history. As a Representative, an advocate pushing for statehood in DC, a Governor, and as a family man, there was never any question as to whom William could look to for support. Neva was the rock that held up her family. While overseeing issues, her son, Dennis Egan who was born in 1947, once asked if since Neva is the first lady is he ``the first kid?'' Well, that ``first kid'' grew up to be a Juneau radio personality, the former mayor of Juneau, and now a State senator.

Neva was known to start the legislative session with buffet receptions for all the Senators and Representatives and their spouses. She was consistently the rock that others leaned upon; ironing shirts, making beds, and taking the initiative to perform any needed repairs on the Governor's Mansion.

Neva Egan worked hard every day and that resulted in a lifetime of contributions to Alaska. Neva is survived by her son Dennis and daughter-in-law Linda; her granddaughters and their husbands, Jill Egan and Sandy Vergano and Leslie Egan and Tyler Malstrom; and brother Richard McKittrick. Neva was preceded in death by her husband William Egan, daughter Elin Carol Egan, and sisters Helen Spiegelberg, Margaret McKittrick and Josephine Trowbridge. I extend my sympathies to the Egan family and feel blessed to come from the same state where she made such a difference. May she rest in peace.

Mr. President, I rise today to honor Howard Pollock, an Alaskan political pioneer. I am saddened to report that Representative Pollock, a true Alaskan spirit and a greatly respected public servant, passed away at the age of 90 in Coronado, CA, on January 9, 2011.

Twenty-eight members of Howard's family were by his side during his final moments. Like all who knew and loved Howard, they will remember him as both a family man and a fighter for Alaska's best interests. He is respected by the people of my home State for his dedicated service during territorial days, his leadership in Juneau in the early days of Alaska's statehood, and for his continued service in Washington, DC, and other parts of the world. Howard recognized and valued Alaska's untilled potential and true grit spirit, and it was that very spirit that drew him north to Alaska as a young man.

Howard Pollock was born in Chicago on April 11, 1920. As a boy he grew up in New Orleans, and he won a Mississippi State boxing title in junior college. When World War II broke out, he answered his country's call to duty, enlisted as a Navy seaman, and served overseas.

On Easter Sunday in 1944, a grenade exploded during a training exercise and Howard lost his right forearm. This tragedy would be a setback for most, but it didn't slow Howard down one bit. He continued to rise through the ranks and retired in 1946 as a lieutenant commander. This prestigious rank was quite fitting for his distinguished career.

After the war Howard and his first wife Maryanne Passmore Pollock began their trek north to the territory of Alaska on the recently built Alaska-Canadian highway. Howard and Maryanne built a cabin and made their home on 80 wild acres of land south of Anchorage, nothing like the Anchorage we know today.

Alaska quickly became Howard's pride and focus. He juggled school and politics and earned a law degree from the University of Houston and a master's degree from MIT. And it wasn't long before he again answered the call to service. His official entrance into politics began when a friend dared him to run for mayor of Anchorage. Although he lost that race, he would stay involved in the affairs of Alaska--from then on.

Howard's dedication and involvement quickly earned him a seat at the table with the other young movers and shakers of those infamous years leading up to statehood. Teaming up with a passionate group of Alaskans, including a young Ted Stevens, they worked tirelessly to gain statehood and built upon what little infrastructure Alaska had at that time.

Howard also held office--both elected and appointed--for a number of years. He was elected to the territorial legislature in 1955 and served as a State senator for 5 years. In 1966, he became Alaska's sole Congressman, ably serving the Nation's largest State. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives until 1970. He would go on to serve as deputy director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and, following that, served as part of the American delegation to the Law of the Sea Conference. Also, Howard proudly served as the National Rifle Association president.

Despite his demanding public commitments, Howard never forgot how to have fun. After losing his arm in the war, he taught himself how to shoot left handed and enjoyed hunting. He loved fishing for marlin and traveling the world. He earned a black belt in Tae Kwon Do at the age of 75--the epitome of a man who was ``young at heart.'' If Howard's love of the Last Frontier didn't emulate the pioneer spirit enough already, his hobbies certainly did.

Howard Pollock made a difference not only in Alaskan politics, but also in the lives of Alaskans. He helped set a foundation that has allowed Alaska to become the greatest State in our Union. Last month, the Pollock family lost a loving father and husband. Alaskans lost a pioneer and a leader--a man who always fought for them. And our Nation lost a dedicated servant who had served with great distinction, first in World War II and ultimately in a public career that spanned several decades.

On behalf of all Alaskans, I extend my prayers and deepest sympathies to Howard's five children, his nine grandchildren, his family and friends, most particularly his companion Marina Goodenough, and all who knew and loved him.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills, S. 351 and S. 352, to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my State's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.

It has been known for more than 3 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge present the best prospect in North America for a major oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over four times more oil than any other on-shore energy deposit in North America.

In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. Just last fall, however, the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23-million-acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision.

I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields west of Nusqiut must be allowed to occur, since I suspect its forecast is now too conservative. My office is working to hold this Administration to its word on NPRA by allowing leaseholders to access the CD5 development which the EPA and Corps of Engineers has now stalled. But the reduced forecast for northwest Alaska also means that opening a small area due east, along the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests.

America today receives over 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Arctic Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and for more than 30 years, we have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive.

Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and, with new development blocked at every turn, it is now forecast to decline to levels that are threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world.

Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce here, at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. Even the President's handpicked oil spill commission advocates that the U.S. take the lead on environmental and safety standards for oil development in areas like the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico, but we cannot honestly expect to take a leadership role if we are viewed as foolishly leaving our resources in the ground. We are still more than 50 percent dependent on foreign nations for our supply of oil, and no combination of alternative technologies and conservation can appreciably diminish that number in the near future.

The Energy Information Administration, in its recent preliminary 2011 Energy Forecast, predicts that U.S. crude production may increase by roughly 10 percent by 2019 because of enhanced oil recovery, increased shale oil production, and higher oil prices, which make marginal production more attractive. That will hardly be enough to break our import dependence, but even more alarming is the forecast that U.S. domestic production will decline less than a decade from now unless these new areas are opened for development. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world--and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of a supply disruption--we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online as soon as possible.

In fact, we already face a supply disruption--a shortage of our own making. Not one permit for deepwater exploration has been granted since the Deepwater Horizon disaster last April, even though the moratorium was officially ended in October. Depending on how long this de facto moratorium lasts, our Nation could ultimately be deprived of millions of barrels of oil each day. Make no mistake: we are facing a serious downturn in offshore oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf, and that has made production in ANWR even more important for consumers.

ANWR development will also provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let us examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at approximately $100 per barrel, means that there is a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska. That is a trillion taxable dollars and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payroll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there is hundreds of billions of dollars in pure federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows. This is because deficit reduction has to be a priority.

As our Nation grapples with a $1 trillion budget deficit, $14 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize renewable and alternative energy, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. Production in ANWR will lower our unsustainable debt; improve our national security; reduce our trade deficit; create well-paying American jobs; and provide a long- lasting source of funds that can help us

develop the next generation of energy technologies. The question is no longer, ``should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``can we afford not to?''

I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. There are Senators who wish to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--who wish to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness--but who also wish to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without significant environmental harm. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-D seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment.

Yes, this Nation needs to improve its inspection and regulation of the oil and gas industry to make sure that America's high environmental standards are followed on every well, every day. I offer a means to advance that. Because without domestic oil and gas production, America will import more oil and gas from troubled global regions. In exchange we will export our jobs and economic future, as well as simply exporting environmental risk and ultimately damage, since foreign oil and gas development regularly fails to meet the standards that American operators are held to and held accountable for.

For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to full development. At the same time, I am focusing and narrowing and limiting that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of one percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be physically disturbed. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is much smaller than our local Dulles Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the State of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.

Limiting development to such a small area is important, however. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards that will allow the designation of specific areas for full protection.

The full opening bill, named the American Energy Independence and Security Act, AEIS, also includes guaranteed funding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the federal government will receive half of all revenues generated, with nearly half going for the first time in the history of ANWR legislation to directly reduce the Federal deficit. The bill allots other money to fund renewable and alternative energy development, wildlife programs and fishery habitat programs, energy conservation efforts, and money to subsidize the rising cost of energy for lower-income residents through funding of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also called LIHEAP. Think about this--by producing more of our own oil, we can conserve more of our most spectacular lands, improve the standard of living for thousands of Americans, and, in one fell swoop, reduce our overall dependence on oil by creating new, cleaner alternatives.

Despite these remarkable benefits, I understand that many of my colleagues will forever oppose all development in ANWR., That is why, in 2009, I worked with my fellow Senator from Alaska to introduce a new approach that would allow the coastal plain's resources to be accessed in an even more sensitive manner. Our legislation precludes any possibility of any disturbance to any creature on the coastal plain by requiring that all oil and gas in the refuge's coastal plain be siphoned from underneath the land, with no surface roads, wells, or pipelines to assist. Not a single structure would be erected on the surface of the refuge under our bill. There would be literally no chance of marring the beauty of the coastal plain--it would look and feel and be just as it is today both during and after full production.

Today, and again in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, I am reintroducing, with Senator Begich, that legislation. The title is self-explanatory--we call it the No Surface Occupancy Western Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act--because it would allow oil and gas production only through extended reach directional drilling from outside of the refuge. The bill would also permit oil and gas to be tapped using subsurface technology that may someday allow for full development of the refuge with no sign of such activities visible to anyone or anything in the refuge.

While I was deeply disappointed that many in the environmental community did not embrace or even for a moment consider this proposal as a genuine attempt to end the quarter century fight over Alaskan energy development, I continue to believe that it is an acceptable, deeply sensitive way to pursue development in the Arctic. Given the new extended reach drilling technology being developed for use all over the world, including Alaska, it could be possible to start producing oil and gas from ANWR even faster under the subsurface bill than might be the case under the full leasing bill.

Admittedly, while current technology will only permit wells to reach 8 miles into refuge's boundary, that should still allow us to reach up to 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. As technology improves in the years ahead, so too will the volume of resources that we can safely recover.

My no-surface occupancy bill will require that 3- or 4-dimensional seismic and other tests be conducted by mobile units on ice pads when no wildlife will be in the area. But the bill prevents any disturbance that can even be seen by migrating caribou. There is precedent for this proposal. Congress in 2007 approved a Wyoming wilderness lands bill S. 2229, the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, which permits subsurface resource extraction, provided no surface occupancy occurs. There is also clear language in the original statute, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which calls for seismic studies of the coastal plain.

My ANWR subsurface legislation will guarantee that royalties from any oil and gas produced are split equally between the Federal and State treasuries, and provides for full environmental protections and project labor agreements for any development that results. The bill includes the same provisions for local adaptation aid as does my bill to fully open ANWR. Both guarantee that any Alaskan community impacted by development, especially residents of the North Slope Borough and the nearby Village of Kaktovik, will be fully protected.

My subsurface proposal offers a way for America to gain the oil and natural gas that will be crucial until a new era of renewable energy can power our lights and propel our vehicles. It also ensures that none of the Arctic Porcupine caribou herd that migrates across the coastal plain between June and August will ever see, hear, or feel oil development. Combined with the environmental safeguards the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to establish, there is no danger that any of the few species that overwinter on the coastal plain will ever be impacted by seismic or other activities. Out of an abundance of caution, my legislation further protects subsistence resources and activities for Alaska Natives.

I truly do not believe that limited surface coastal plain development will harm Alaska's environment or hurt its wildlife. But my subsurface bill offers us another way to develop ANWR--and even those who oppose surface development cannot honestly disagree with its approach. My subsurface bill would lower the odds of environmental harm from incredibly miniscule to zero. It would set a precedent for development that should be welcomed by the environmental community. And if it is not actively supported, it will be clear that some oppose ANWR solely on political and philosophical, rather than substantive, environmental grounds. Such

opposition would undermine the case against the full opening of the coastal plain for energy development, because it will show that the opposition to ANWR is based on the sands of old fears, ignoring new technology and ignoring reality.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. We must seriously consider this option. Without this level of seriousness about our energy policy, there will be no chance for us to stabilize global energy markets and avoid paying extremely high prices for fuel in the future. Our lack of domestic production endangers our energy security and our strategic security, especially given that ANWR development could supply more than enough oil to fully meet our military oil needs on a daily basis.

Last year, shortly after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the President stated that ``part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean'' is ``because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.'' A better explanation, however, was offered by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, who said that ``We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We've been run off them . . .'' The truth is that we haven't run out of oil--onshore or offshore. We've simply tied our own hands by locking up our own lands.

At this time of high unemployment and unsustainable debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with our Nation still more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil--we would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development.

I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce two separate bills, S. 351 and S. 352, to open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing these bills because new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my State's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.

It has been known for more than 3 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge present the best prospect in North America for a major oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over four times more oil than any other on-shore energy deposit in North America.

In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. Just last fall, however, the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23-million-acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision.

I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields west of Nusqiut must be allowed to occur, since I suspect its forecast is now too conservative. My office is working to hold this Administration to its word on NPRA by allowing leaseholders to access the CD5 development which the EPA and Corps of Engineers has now stalled. But the reduced forecast for northwest Alaska also means that opening a small area due east, along the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests.

America today receives over 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Arctic Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and for more than 30 years, we have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive.

Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and, with new development blocked at every turn, it is now forecast to decline to levels that are threatening the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world.

Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce here, at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. Even the President's handpicked oil spill commission advocates that the U.S. take the lead on environmental and safety standards for oil development in areas like the Arctic and Gulf of Mexico, but we cannot honestly expect to take a leadership role if we are viewed as foolishly leaving our resources in the ground. We are still more than 50 percent dependent on foreign nations for our supply of oil, and no combination of alternative technologies and conservation can appreciably diminish that number in the near future.

The Energy Information Administration, in its recent preliminary 2011 Energy Forecast, predicts that U.S. crude production may increase by roughly 10 percent by 2019 because of enhanced oil recovery, increased shale oil production, and higher oil prices, which make marginal production more attractive. That will hardly be enough to break our import dependence, but even more alarming is the forecast that U.S. domestic production will decline less than a decade from now unless these new areas are opened for development. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world--and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of a supply disruption--we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online as soon as possible.

In fact, we already face a supply disruption--a shortage of our own making. Not one permit for deepwater exploration has been granted since the Deepwater Horizon disaster last April, even though the moratorium was officially ended in October. Depending on how long this de facto moratorium lasts, our Nation could ultimately be deprived of millions of barrels of oil each day. Make no mistake: we are facing a serious downturn in offshore oil production from the Outer Continental Shelf, and that has made production in ANWR even more important for consumers.

ANWR development will also provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let us examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at approximately $100 per barrel, means that there is a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska. That is a trillion taxable dollars and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payroll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there is hundreds of billions of dollars in pure federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows. This is because deficit reduction has to be a priority.

As our Nation grapples with a $1 trillion budget deficit, $14 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize renewable and alternative energy, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. Production in ANWR will lower our unsustainable debt; improve our national security; reduce our trade deficit; create well-paying American jobs; and provide a long- lasting source of funds that can help us

develop the next generation of energy technologies. The question is no longer, ``should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``can we afford not to?''

I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. There are Senators who wish to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--who wish to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness--but who also wish to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without significant environmental harm. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-D seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment.

Yes, this Nation needs to improve its inspection and regulation of the oil and gas industry to make sure that America's high environmental standards are followed on every well, every day. I offer a means to advance that. Because without domestic oil and gas production, America will import more oil and gas from troubled global regions. In exchange we will export our jobs and economic future, as well as simply exporting environmental risk and ultimately damage, since foreign oil and gas development regularly fails to meet the standards that American operators are held to and held accountable for.

For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to full development. At the same time, I am focusing and narrowing and limiting that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of one percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be physically disturbed. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is much smaller than our local Dulles Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the State of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.

Limiting development to such a small area is important, however. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards that will allow the designation of specific areas for full protection.

The full opening bill, named the American Energy Independence and Security Act, AEIS, also includes guaranteed funding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the federal government will receive half of all revenues generated, with nearly half going for the first time in the history of ANWR legislation to directly reduce the Federal deficit. The bill allots other money to fund renewable and alternative energy development, wildlife programs and fishery habitat programs, energy conservation efforts, and money to subsidize the rising cost of energy for lower-income residents through funding of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, also called LIHEAP. Think about this--by producing more of our own oil, we can conserve more of our most spectacular lands, improve the standard of living for thousands of Americans, and, in one fell swoop, reduce our overall dependence on oil by creating new, cleaner alternatives.

Despite these remarkable benefits, I understand that many of my colleagues will forever oppose all development in ANWR., That is why, in 2009, I worked with my fellow Senator from Alaska to introduce a new approach that would allow the coastal plain's resources to be accessed in an even more sensitive manner. Our legislation precludes any possibility of any disturbance to any creature on the coastal plain by requiring that all oil and gas in the refuge's coastal plain be siphoned from underneath the land, with no surface roads, wells, or pipelines to assist. Not a single structure would be erected on the surface of the refuge under our bill. There would be literally no chance of marring the beauty of the coastal plain--it would look and feel and be just as it is today both during and after full production.

Today, and again in the spirit of bipartisan compromise, I am reintroducing, with Senator Begich, that legislation. The title is self-explanatory--we call it the No Surface Occupancy Western Arctic Coastal Plain Domestic Energy Security Act--because it would allow oil and gas production only through extended reach directional drilling from outside of the refuge. The bill would also permit oil and gas to be tapped using subsurface technology that may someday allow for full development of the refuge with no sign of such activities visible to anyone or anything in the refuge.

While I was deeply disappointed that many in the environmental community did not embrace or even for a moment consider this proposal as a genuine attempt to end the quarter century fight over Alaskan energy development, I continue to believe that it is an acceptable, deeply sensitive way to pursue development in the Arctic. Given the new extended reach drilling technology being developed for use all over the world, including Alaska, it could be possible to start producing oil and gas from ANWR even faster under the subsurface bill than might be the case under the full leasing bill.

Admittedly, while current technology will only permit wells to reach 8 miles into refuge's boundary, that should still allow us to reach up to 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 7 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. As technology improves in the years ahead, so too will the volume of resources that we can safely recover.

My no-surface occupancy bill will require that 3- or 4-dimensional seismic and other tests be conducted by mobile units on ice pads when no wildlife will be in the area. But the bill prevents any disturbance that can even be seen by migrating caribou. There is precedent for this proposal. Congress in 2007 approved a Wyoming wilderness lands bill S. 2229, the Wyoming Range Legacy Act, which permits subsurface resource extraction, provided no surface occupancy occurs. There is also clear language in the original statute, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which calls for seismic studies of the coastal plain.

My ANWR subsurface legislation will guarantee that royalties from any oil and gas produced are split equally between the Federal and State treasuries, and provides for full environmental protections and project labor agreements for any development that results. The bill includes the same provisions for local adaptation aid as does my bill to fully open ANWR. Both guarantee that any Alaskan community impacted by development, especially residents of the North Slope Borough and the nearby Village of Kaktovik, will be fully protected.

My subsurface proposal offers a way for America to gain the oil and natural gas that will be crucial until a new era of renewable energy can power our lights and propel our vehicles. It also ensures that none of the Arctic Porcupine caribou herd that migrates across the coastal plain between June and August will ever see, hear, or feel oil development. Combined with the environmental safeguards the Secretary of the Interior is allowed to establish, there is no danger that any of the few species that overwinter on the coastal plain will ever be impacted by seismic or other activities. Out of an abundance of caution, my legislation further protects subsistence resources and activities for Alaska Natives.

I truly do not believe that limited surface coastal plain development will harm Alaska's environment or hurt its wildlife. But my subsurface bill offers us another way to develop ANWR--and even those who oppose surface development cannot honestly disagree with its approach. My subsurface bill would lower the odds of environmental harm from incredibly miniscule to zero. It would set a precedent for development that should be welcomed by the environmental community. And if it is not actively supported, it will be clear that some oppose ANWR solely on political and philosophical, rather than substantive, environmental grounds. Such

opposition would undermine the case against the full opening of the coastal plain for energy development, because it will show that the opposition to ANWR is based on the sands of old fears, ignoring new technology and ignoring reality.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the refuge with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife. We must seriously consider this option. Without this level of seriousness about our energy policy, there will be no chance for us to stabilize global energy markets and avoid paying extremely high prices for fuel in the future. Our lack of domestic production endangers our energy security and our strategic security, especially given that ANWR development could supply more than enough oil to fully meet our military oil needs on a daily basis.

Last year, shortly after the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the President stated that ``part of the reason oil companies are drilling a mile beneath the surface of the ocean'' is ``because we're running out of places to drill on land and in shallow water.'' A better explanation, however, was offered by the columnist Charles Krauthammer, who said that ``We haven't run out of safer and more easily accessible sources of oil. We've been run off them . . .'' The truth is that we haven't run out of oil--onshore or offshore. We've simply tied our own hands by locking up our own lands.

At this time of high unemployment and unsustainable debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bills offer us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way. With oil hovering near $100 a barrel, with so many of our fellow citizens out of work, and with our Nation still more than 50 percent dependent on foreign oil--we would be foolish to once again ignore our most promising prospect for new development.

I hope this Congress will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we so desperately need good economic news.

Mr. President, I wish to acknowledge the chairman and the ranking member on the Commerce Committee. I know they have been working diligently throughout this process not only with this particular reauthorization, but they have been great leaders on this issue over the years, and I appreciate that. We are working on some difficult issues, some contentious issues, including the issue of the slots which the chairman just discussed. It is one that is critically important to a person such as myself who represents the farthest of the West, along with Hawaii, so we look at how we are able to gain access through our airways and to travel. So the issues in front of us are incredibly important, but I don't want to speak to the issue of the perimeter slots today.

I wish to address an amendment that was raised exactly a week ago by my colleague from Arizona, and this is regarding the importance of the Essential Air Service to my State of Alaska. I think the Members of this body have heard very often not only from myself but from Senator Begich and, prior to the two of us, the Alaskan Senators who for years stood on this floor and said: Alaska is different.

When we are talking about the Essential Air Service and what it allows and what it provides, I repeat, Alaska is different. It is unique from anywhere in the lower 48, and the necessity to maintain the Essential Air Service is yet one more example.

It was last week that the Senator from Arizona referred to a figure from the FAA that stated ``99.95 percent of all Americans live within 120 miles of a public airport that has more than 10,000 takeoffs and landings annually.'' That statement clearly does not refer to Alaska.

When the Essential Air Service was created in 1978, after the airline industry was deregulated, Congress correctly determined that air carriers that supported our rural locations would need a financial subsidy to ensure their passengers could receive not only a price but quantity of flights and quality of service that was necessary to provide for effective transportation and movement of goods.

At the creation of the EAS Program, nearly every community in the State of Alaska was affected by the deregulation of the airlines industry. There were about 130 communities that were put on that list in 1978. Today we have 44 communities in Alaska that are receiving EAS.

Let me tell you some things about Alaska that do make it unique, and when we refer to Essential Air Service one can see that title is actually a very apt description of what is provided in my State.

I have a map of the State of Alaska. The red lines that look like little arteries represent our road system. We have just short of 11,000 miles of a road system in the State of Alaska. I said that seems like a lot of roads. To put it in context, California has 2.3 million miles of roads.

Our road system is one--if you look at it--that is up and down. We do not have much in southeastern Alaska. We do not have a thing along the Aleutian chain. We do not have anything in the southwestern and northern part of Alaska. We have just a few roads around the Seward Peninsula. Eighty percent of communities in the State of Alaska are not connected by a road. How do you get there? If you happen to be in the southeast, you get there by boat.

The bottom line is we fly. This is not a luxury; this is a necessity. We have to fly. We are the most flown State in the country. About 80 percent of our communities are nonaccessible by road while in the rest of the country, if you want to get in your car, if you have an emergency, you need to get to the hospital, you hop in and drive. If you want to go for a spring break, you get in your car and drive 4 or 5 hours and you are at the beach. If you want to get somewhere-- anywhere--you pretty much have an opportunity to do so.

We do not have that opportunity in Alaska. Given what we face with a limited road system--the weather and terrain issues--we in the State of Alaska treat airplanes or helicopters like most Americans would treat their minivan. Aircraft in Alaska are not just a nice thing to have. They are a lifeline for survival, for subsistence, for travel, for recreation. They are truly an essential part of our everyday lives.

The city administrator of Atka--Atka is all the way at the end of the Aleutian Islands--the city administrator of Atka, Julie Dirks, sent a letter to the Alaska delegation explaining how the loss of EAS subsidies would negatively impact the city of Atka and other rural communities in the State. In the letter, she writes:

Loss of this program would be devastating to remote rural

communities such as Atka and others in our region. Atka is

not on a road system connecting the communities to other

places nor is there any type of marine ferry service

connecting Atka to other islands or mainland Alaska.

Even though there is a lot of water out there, you cannot get there by boat.

Air transportation presently is the only method available

providing access in and out of Atka. Costs of service are

already high even with the subsidy. Without the subsidy

service would be too expensive or even non-existent.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed the letter from the city administrator of Atka.

Mr. President, we have 44 communities in the State of Alaska that receive an EAS subsidy. Thirty eight of those communities are not connected in any way to this road system so they are forced to use air travel as their primary means of travel. Then one has to say: OK, that means you have six that are on a road. Why can't they use the road? Why do we have to provide EAS for these six communities?

Let's look at some of these communities. McCarthy does not have any road maintenance during the winter months. Pretty much between October and April we are looking at a situation where this community is shut off. That means no mail. That means no emergency services. That means no ability to get food supplies. They basically have to wait it out until the road thaws in the spring. If we do not have air service in a community such as McCarthy, even though there is technically a road, for about 7 months they are without.

Another of the communities, Gulkana, is on a two-lane paved road, but it is over 210 miles to the nearest medium-hub airport. The other four communities, which are Circle, Central, Minto, and Manley Hot Springs, are all located on two-lane gravel roads. They require driving distances of at least 125 miles to the nearest hub airport.

Again, we need to remember what kind of roads they are driving on. This is not like jumping on to I-95 or I-10. These are, for the most part, single-lane roads during most of the year. They are snow covered, with limited visibility. They have tough temperatures they are dealing with in the interior. It is pretty dark during this time of year. It is not a road about which one says: Let's drive to town.

It has been noted by some of the opponents of the Essential Air Service Program that the spending in Alaska is just out of whack, that it is too much. Let's look at the facts as they relate to Alaska.

There are currently 153 communities that are receiving subsidies, according to the USDOT. The Department of Transportation says there are 44 communities in Alaska and 109 communities combined for the lower 48, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico. Critics say it looks as if Alaska has almost half as many EAS communities as the rest of the United States.

OK, that may be true. We will grant that. But what they ignore, what they forget is how we compare in Alaska in conjunction with the rest of the country. I know people get tired of looking at these maps about how big we are. The fact is, we do not make this up. We do not just superimpose Alaska on a map of the country and say: Isn't this a nice shape? We put it on the map of the lower 48 States to show the size. We are not that little State that is down in the water next to Hawaii or off California, despite some of the maps that are still out there on people's walls. We are this big.

We have over 47,000 miles of shoreline, going all the way out to the Aleutians and coming all the way up--47,000 miles, more than all of the other 49 States combined. We cover an area of over 586,000 miles. We go from California to Florida, beyond the Great Lakes and into Canada.

The comment was made that if I want to go from Adak, which is one of the EAS communities, to Anchorage, which is the largest city in our State, it is a $1,400 round-trip airfare--with EAS subsidies, I might add. But it is almost 1,200 miles. That just gets you from Adak into Anchorage. It does not get you down to the rest of the lower 48.

Put that in context and that is like going from Kansas City to Boston where, I might add, their round-trip airfare is $571. It helps to put things in context when people are saying that Alaska is getting too much of a share of this program. Monetarily, Alaska gets about $12.6 million in EAS subsidies. The rest of the Nation gets over $163 million in EAS subsidies. In Alaska, we have over 700 registered airports, 1,200 airstrips, and over 10,000 registered aircraft.

When we look at how our 44 communities that receive the subsidies receive less than 10 percent of the subsidies of the lower 48, to suggest somehow they are getting something that is not equitable, again, is important to put into context. There are no roads to most of these communities.

It was commented by my colleague from Arizona that there was a 2009 GAO report on the Essential Air Service Program. It was indicated that the GAO thought the Essential Air Service Program might have outlived its usefulness. But there is a section of that report that was left out. I think it is important to note that the writers of that report stated:

[The] review focuses on communities within the continental

United States that have received EAS subsidized service. We

focused our review on these communities because the

requirements for communities in Alaska are different than for

communities in other States, and airports outside the

contiguous States are not representative of the program in

the rest of the country.

It is critically important that we look to what that full GAO report said and how it recognized that the circumstances in Alaska are entirely different and are not representative of what we see in the lower 48.

When we look to that GAO report, we need to put that into context again. Another thing that must be kept in mind when we are talking about Essential Air Service is that--what we are all talking about on the Senate floor--is jobs, what is going on with jobs. The number of jobs that would be lost, the economic impact that would result from the repeal of this program in Alaska would be consequential.

Aviation in our State provides $3.5 billion to the economy. It represents 8 percent of the gross State product. It is the fifth largest employer in the State, employing about 10 percent of our total workforce. And it is not just the jobs that would be lost, these folks who handle and sort the mail, load the packages into the aircraft would likely lose their jobs. The commercial fishermen, the workers at the fish processing plants would be impacted. Emergency medical professionals, the tourist industry, recreational professionals--they would all feel the negative impact of the repeal of EAS in Alaska. All of these vital industries and services are connected to the everyday Alaskan by one common thread, and that is aviation.

Many of us look forward to the wild fresh salmon that comes out of the Copper River in May. That comes from a community in Prince William Sound, Cordova. Mr. President, 2,200 people live there. They receive Essential Air Service. The fact that they are able to fly into this community that does not have access to a road allows those fishermen to receive a price for their product that maintains and sustains them. The repeal of EAS means hundreds of my constituents would be forced to purchase expensive airline tickets just so they would have access to the most basic and yet very essential things.

Kodiak Island is the recipient of a lot of our EAS communities. Island Air is an airline that services these 12 communities. Eleven of these communities

are served by float planes because there is no runway. So we don't even have the basic runway. You are flying in on a seaplane. Two of the communities Island Air supports are Karluk and Alitak. Round-trip airfare from Karluk to Kodiak, which is sitting right in here, is $254 a person, to Alitak it is $346 a person. Flights to these locations occur only three times a week. So if you are going to fly into Kodiak, you have to assume you are going to have a couple nights of hotel costs--lodging expenses--so this brings the price of your trip to about over $500. But if the EAS Program is repealed, the cost per person to get to these locations jumps to over $1,800, and that is just to get from the little village to Kodiak. This is not getting you to Anchorage, where you can get medical services. It is not getting you to where you can get to the shopping you and your family might need. These expenses are also just for the airfare and not for the lodging. It doesn't allow for the purchase of supplies, mail, tourism or any of the other activities that members and visitors to these communities might engage in. So I think it is fair to say if we repeal EAS, Island Air will no longer be able to serve these communities. They would be forced to lay off their employees. But you don't have service to these areas.

I can't speak for every location in the United States that receives funding from EAS and tell you how each would be impacted by the McCain amendment, but I can say, without any reservation, that this amendment would create an economic and a transportation disaster for Alaska, including the loss of jobs, livelihoods, and would potentially impact health and medical situations. The complete elimination of the EAS Program could destabilize many of our rural communities, could negatively impact the integrity of Alaska's interconnected aviation system, and severely reduce air services to essential parts of the State. EAS has been and will continue to be a critical and instrumental component of Alaska's aviation transportation system network, while providing important jobs and allowing necessary and critical access to rural and isolated communities within our State and across the Nation.

I have consumed the time I was allotted this morning, but I cannot repeat enough, I cannot reiterate enough the importance of a program such as Essential Air Service to a remote and rural State such as Alaska. It truly is essential. When this amendment comes before the body, I would urge defeat of the McCain amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a Coast Guard fellow in my office, Charles Banks, be granted floor privileges for the duration of the consideration of the FAA reauthorization bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, cosponsored by my colleague Mark Begich from Alaska, that represents an important step in the conversion to renewable energy sources in rural Alaska.

Today I introduce the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act of 2011.

The Kantishna Roadhouse, owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc., is located 100 miles inside Denali National Park and Preserve. The settlement of Kantishna was founded in 1905 as a mining camp near the juncture of Eureka and Moose Creeks. Gold in the region brought a flurry of prospectors in the early days, but as the gold began to run out, so did interest in mining the Kantishna Hills. The original roadhouse at Kantishna was built in the early 1900s, serving as a private residence, a community center, post office, and informal hotel accommodations for those who visited Kantishna in Denali Park.

The Roadhouse, like many structures within Denali National Park, is entirely off the grid and generates all of its electricity needs with a diesel generator. As a result, all guests and supplies, including diesel, are trucked through the Park to the Roadhouse over National Park roads. The construction of the micro hydro project would allow the Roadhouse to cut down their diesel usage by approximately 50%, which would result in a decrease in diesel truck traffic on the Park Road, improved local air quality, and less sound pollution in this remote area, as well as reduce disturbance and vehicle impacts on park wildlife, allowing for an enhanced visitor experience for tourists within the National Park.

My bill will authorize the National Park Service to exchange roughly 10 acres of National Park land for an equivalent amount of land currently owned by Doyon Tourism, and would allow the National Park Service to obtain the highly desired Galena tract of land, located just off the Park Road in the Kantishna region. Doyon Tourism would obtain land over which the hydro project would be implemented. In the interim period, prior to completion of the land exchange, the National Park Service will issue a permit to allow Doyon Tourism, Inc., to construct the micro hydro unit.

I want to emphasize how important I believe that this bill is. The benefit to the citizens of Alaska, especially rural Alaska, of reducing their dependence on expensive diesel generation through access to renewable and clean sources of energy is enormous. This type of Micro- Hydro project within Denali provides an excellent blueprint for others around the State to follow suit.

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 very short construction season in Alaska lasts only from May through September.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, cosponsored by my colleague Mark Begich from Alaska, that represents an important step in the conversion to renewable energy sources in rural Alaska.

Today I introduce the Kantishna Hills Renewable Energy Act of 2011.

The Kantishna Roadhouse, owned by Doyon Tourism, Inc., is located 100 miles inside Denali National Park and Preserve. The settlement of Kantishna was founded in 1905 as a mining camp near the juncture of Eureka and Moose Creeks. Gold in the region brought a flurry of prospectors in the early days, but as the gold began to run out, so did interest in mining the Kantishna Hills. The original roadhouse at Kantishna was built in the early 1900s, serving as a private residence, a community center, post office, and informal hotel accommodations for those who visited Kantishna in Denali Park.

The Roadhouse, like many structures within Denali National Park, is entirely off the grid and generates all of its electricity needs with a diesel generator. As a result, all guests and supplies, including diesel, are trucked through the Park to the Roadhouse over National Park roads. The construction of the micro hydro project would allow the Roadhouse to cut down their diesel usage by approximately 50%, which would result in a decrease in diesel truck traffic on the Park Road, improved local air quality, and less sound pollution in this remote area, as well as reduce disturbance and vehicle impacts on park wildlife, allowing for an enhanced visitor experience for tourists within the National Park.

My bill will authorize the National Park Service to exchange roughly 10 acres of National Park land for an equivalent amount of land currently owned by Doyon Tourism, and would allow the National Park Service to obtain the highly desired Galena tract of land, located just off the Park Road in the Kantishna region. Doyon Tourism would obtain land over which the hydro project would be implemented. In the interim period, prior to completion of the land exchange, the National Park Service will issue a permit to allow Doyon Tourism, Inc., to construct the micro hydro unit.

I want to emphasize how important I believe that this bill is. The benefit to the citizens of Alaska, especially rural Alaska, of reducing their dependence on expensive diesel generation through access to renewable and clean sources of energy is enormous. This type of Micro- Hydro project within Denali provides an excellent blueprint for others around the State to follow suit.

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 very short construction season in Alaska lasts only from May through September.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is being co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich. The pipeline would run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, including 7 miles of highway through Denali National Park and Preserve.

While many in this body are familiar with plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48 States, there is concern that the large-diameter pipeline will not be finished in time to provide needed gas to Southcentral Alaska-- gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and Kenai Peninsula.

Currently, electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas produced from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. Cook Inlet production has been falling for years and businesses have been forced to close as a result.

Serious concerns exist regarding the region's ability to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15.

Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2020 or later--6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Thus, to provide a reliable natural gas supply, Alaska is considering investing in a smaller pipeline to meet medium term demand.

There are two proposals for small-diameter, 24-inch, in-state pipelines. One would run along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska.

The other ``bullet'' line, is the pipeline of concern in this legislation. It would run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks, along the Parks Highway to the Mat-Su Valley near Anchorage, bringing about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets.

The shortest and most logical route for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve follows the existing highway, 7 miles of which pass through the Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance.

This route would be the least expensive to construct and operate. Moreover, it would offer several environmental advantages. Building the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right- of-way, would allow for electricity generation from natural gas in the park facilities at Denali. For the first time, reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles. Currently, National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park.

Another benefit is that in order for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, a new bridge will need to be built. The bridge would provide a pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors who otherwise must walk along the heavily traveled highway.

For these reasons, 8 environmental groups have expressed support for pipeline construction along the existing highway right-of-way through Denali Park. These groups are the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.

Last year, the State of Alaska finished a preliminary study of the project. It continues to consider whether to permit and facilitate a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, in order to meet future Southcentral power needs. Alaska state regulators and financial markets will ultimately decide which pipeline projects will go forward. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear legal impediments to planning for the Parks Highway route.

Approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and provide greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project. Eliminating the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will enable the Parks Highway route to compete on a level playing field with other pipeline projects.

In 2009, this bill was modified to meet concerns voiced by the environmental community, congressional staff, and the National Park Service. The version reintroduced today was approved unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17, 2009. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal fiscal impacts when scored as part of the larger bill--S. 1462.

With the pressing need of Southcentral Alaskans in mind for natural gas, I implore this body to quickly approve this legislation in the 112th Session.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still are subject to voidance.

The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the deadline, but no other evidence

of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.

This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175 in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.

Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a minor technical change to a provision that this Congress approved in 2004 to further construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline system to move Alaska's conventional gas to market.

In 2004 Congress approved two pieces of legislation to help facilitate construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. In Public Law 108-324 Congress approved a Federal loan guarantee program, streamlined regulatory processes and approved a worker training program to guarantee a domestic labor supply for construction of the largest private-sector capital infrastructure project in the world's history. In a separate bill, Public Law 108-357, Congress also approved tax changes to provide accelerated depreciation for the pipe and a related gas conditioning plant needed for the project. A pipeline to move Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves, and its likely 315 trillion cubic feet of additional Arctic gas reserves from lands and Arctic waters would have a host of benefits to the Nation.

Being able to market only the known gas reserves at the Prudhoe Bay field will involve construction of a pipeline system estimated to cost between $26 and $40 billion. It is expected to produce 38,000 direct job-years of labor in Alaska and up to 31,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. According to the National Defense Foundation it will produce direct employment of 172,369 jobs nationwide when related steel, pipe, valve and equipment jobs are included, not counting many more indirect jobs. At current prices it will generate about $100 billion in Federal tax revenues, not counting $40 billion in Alaska State revenues and $30 billion in Canadian tax revenues over its first 20 years of operation. Recent estimates, however, indicate that development of gas from the offshore Arctic that a gas line will permit to occur, would add an average of an additional 54,700 new jobs in the U.S.--91,500 at peak employment. That would provide $145 billion in total payroll--$82 billion to workers in the Lower 48--and provide $167 billion in tax and royalty revenues to the Federal Government, $15 billion to the State of Alaska and total revenues of $193 billion at forecast gas prices.

In the intervening 7 years since the gas line loan-permitting package became law, it has become clear that changes are needed. While those changes include revisions in the loan guarantee program, they also involve changes in the construction worker training provisions.

In the 2004 act, Sect. 113, the bill authorized $20 million for worker training programs, with at least 15 percent of those funds going to pay for ``design and construction of a training facility to be located in Fairbanks, Alaska.'' But language in the bill has prevented that training center from moving forward. This proposed bill would authorize Federal funding to be released immediately upon the request of the Governor of Alaska, to fund construction of the training center, and to broaden the center to permit it also to train oil, besides gas field workers, and environmental response employees.

According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the demand for skilled workers for gas and oil line projects on Alaska's North Slope grew by 50 percent from 2005 to 2009 to nearly 12,000 workers. At the same time, the average age of Alaska's skilled workforce is now 53, meaning that Alaska needs to train 1,000 new construction and pipeline workers annually simply to maintain the State's existing skilled workforce. Since it takes roughly 5 years to train a skilled construction/ pipefitter, it is imperative that such training begin far in advance of estimated pipeline construction. According to State data, there are only about 2,130 plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters working in Alaska and another 1,004 welders, solderers, brazers, and machine setters. Past estimates by one of the two consortia proposing to build an Alaska gas pipeline are that the gas line alone will require 1,650 welders/helpers, 2,000 equipment operators, 418 inspectors and 90 UT technicians, just to build the Alaska sections of the pipeline. That means there is an urgent need for the pipeline training center now.

The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center's core mission is to provide a highly trained workforce that will meet the needs of the entire oil/ gas/pipeline/refining industry; which is a significant component of Alaska's economy, providing 80 percent of the State's industrial tax base, 74 percent of all resources produced in the State, and 85 percent of State revenues) and a crucial component of the Nation's domestic energy supply, currently 13 percent of all domestically produced oil, while the proposed overland gas line will produce 7 percent of the Nation's total estimated gas demand in 2020. The necessity for this workforce is further emphasized because it is clear that an aging infrastructure will require an accelerated repair, replacement, and maintenance regime if production requirements and safety standard are to be met.

The training center is an innovative statewide collaboration between labor, industry, and local, State, and Federal Governments. Additionally, it is understood that as alternative fuel technologies emerge and are commercialize, a highly skilled, highly trained, highly motivated workforce will be required. Again, through collaboration with others: the University of Alaska, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric, and Alaskan commercial interests, requisite evolving workforce needs are understood and can be met.

The facility needs to be located in Interior Alaska, because the climate will permit workers to be fully trained in the real-world conditions they will face on the job. In order to complete the training center and thereby meet anticipated labor demand in a timely manner, funds must be secured in the upcoming budget cycle. Federal funding needed includes: $5.5 million for Central Facility classrooms and shops, $1.5 million for a Construction Camp Facility, $1.0 million for a Pipeline Coating Training Facility and for corrosion control training, $0.5 million for civil work improvements to the Field Training Site, and $1.5 million for pipeline and transportation/ logistical equipment.

The bill's changes will permit the creation of a domestic energy workforce that is stable, productive, and encourages safe working practices that will help to protect Alaska's environment and wildlife, while producing the energy that America needs. The proposal does not expand the size of the funding authorization approved in 2004. It simply makes it more likely that American workers will benefit from a gas line project when it proceeds--an important fact when the national unemployment rate remains at 9.4 percent. I hope that this Congress will consider this bill for quick consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation that I first offered in 2009 to authorize a right-of-way for construction of an Alaska in-state natural gas pipeline. The bill is being co-sponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Sen. Mark Begich. The pipeline would run along the State's main highway from Fairbanks to Anchorage, including 7 miles of highway through Denali National Park and Preserve.

While many in this body are familiar with plans for a large-volume natural gas pipeline to run from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields to the Lower 48 States, there is concern that the large-diameter pipeline will not be finished in time to provide needed gas to Southcentral Alaska-- gas that is vital for electric generation in Anchorage, the Mat-Su Borough, and Kenai Peninsula.

Currently, electricity in Alaska's southern Railbelt, as it is called, is largely generated by burning natural gas produced from the gas fields in Cook Inlet, south of Anchorage. Cook Inlet production has been falling for years and businesses have been forced to close as a result.

Serious concerns exist regarding the region's ability to produce sufficient gas for electric generation and home heating for Alaska's most populated area as early as the winter of 2014-15.

Given the pace of planning for construction of the main line, it is unlikely that a larger Alaska natural gas pipeline will be able to deliver gas until 2020 or later--6 or more years too late to aid Southcentral Alaska's growing need for natural gas. Thus, to provide a reliable natural gas supply, Alaska is considering investing in a smaller pipeline to meet medium term demand.

There are two proposals for small-diameter, 24-inch, in-state pipelines. One would run along the Richardson and Glenn Highways to the east, tying into existing transmission systems near Palmer, Alaska.

The other ``bullet'' line, is the pipeline of concern in this legislation. It would run from Alaska's North Slope region, past Fairbanks, along the Parks Highway to the Mat-Su Valley near Anchorage, bringing about 500 million cubic feet of gas a day to Southcentral Alaska. This project would be completed well in advance of when a larger-diameter pipeline might be in service to deliver 4 to 4.5 billion cubic feet a day to Lower 48 markets.

The shortest and most logical route for a pipeline through or around the roughly 10-mile bottleneck of the Nenana River Canyon and Denali National Park and Preserve follows the existing highway, 7 miles of which pass through the Park. This route causes the least environmental and visual impact due to its location in an existing corridor, and provides a route that is easily accessible for routine pipeline maintenance.

This route would be the least expensive to construct and operate. Moreover, it would offer several environmental advantages. Building the pipeline along the existing, previously disturbed Parks Highway right- of-way, would allow for electricity generation from natural gas in the park facilities at Denali. For the first time, reasonably priced compressed natural gas, CNG, would be available to power park vehicles. Currently, National Park Service permitted diesel tour buses travel 1 million road miles annually. Converting the buses to CNG would significantly reduce air emissions in the park.

Another benefit is that in order for the pipe to cross the Nenana River, a new bridge will need to be built. The bridge would provide a pedestrian access/bicycle path for visitors who otherwise must walk along the heavily traveled highway.

For these reasons, 8 environmental groups have expressed support for pipeline construction along the existing highway right-of-way through Denali Park. These groups are the National Parks and Conservation Association, the Alaska Conservation Alliance, the Denali Citizens Council, The Wilderness Society, Cook Inlet Keeper, the Alaska Center for the Environment, the Wrangell Mountain Center, and the Alaska Wildlife Alliance.

Last year, the State of Alaska finished a preliminary study of the project. It continues to consider whether to permit and facilitate a ``bullet'' line project, compared to other options, in order to meet future Southcentral power needs. Alaska state regulators and financial markets will ultimately decide which pipeline projects will go forward. It is my desire, however, to introduce legislation that would clear legal impediments to planning for the Parks Highway route.

Approval of the right-of-way would remove a key unknown and provide greater certainty in the cost estimates and the timing for a project. Eliminating the uncertainty of permitting and regulatory delays will enable the Parks Highway route to compete on a level playing field with other pipeline projects.

In 2009, this bill was modified to meet concerns voiced by the environmental community, congressional staff, and the National Park Service. The version reintroduced today was approved unanimously by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and added to the American Clean Energy Leadership Act that passed from the Committee on June 17, 2009. The provision, according to the Congressional Budget Office, had nominal fiscal impacts when scored as part of the larger bill--S. 1462.

With the pressing need of Southcentral Alaskans in mind for natural gas, I implore this body to quickly approve this legislation in the 112th Session.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation, being cosponsored by my colleague Senator Mark Begich from Alaska, to clarify Federal mining law and remedy a problem that has arisen from the extension process for ``small'' miner land claims.

Under revisions to the Federal Mining Law of 1872, 30 U.S.C. 28(f), holders of unpatented mineral claims must pay a claim maintenance fee originally set at $100 per claim by a deadline, set by regulation, of September 1st each year. Since 2004 that fee has risen to $125 per claim. But Congress also has provided a claim maintenance fee waiver for ``small'' miners, those who hold 10 or fewer claims, that they do not have to submit the fee, but that they must file to renew their claims and submit an affidavit of annual labor, work conducted on the claim, Dec. 31st each year, certifying that they had performed more than $100 of work on the claim in the preceding year, 30 U.S.C. 28f(d)(1). The waiver provision further states: ``If a small miner waiver application is determined to be defective for any reason, the claimant shall have a period of 60 days after receipt of written notification of the defect or defects by the Bureau of Land Management to: cure such defect or defects or pay the $100 claim maintenance fee due for such a period.''

Since the last revision to the law last decade, there have been a series of incidents where miners have argued that they submitted their applications and affidavits of annual labor in a timely manner, but due to clerical error by BLM staff, mailing delays or for unexplained reasons, the applications or documents were not recorded as having been received in a timely fashion--and that BLM has then moved to terminate the claims, deeming them null and void. While mining claim holders have argued that the law provides them time to cure claim defects, BLM has argued that the cure only applies when applications or fees have been received in a timely manner. Thus, there is no administrative remedy for miners who believe that clerical errors by BLM or mail issues resulted in loss or the late recording of claim extension applications.

There have been a number of cases where Congress has been asked to override BLM determinations and reinstate mining claims simply because of the disputes over whether the claims had been filed in a timely manner. Congress in 2003 reinstated such claims in a previous Alaska case, and claims in another incident were reinstated following a U.S. District Court case in the 10th Circuit in 2009 in the case of Miller v. United States. Legislation similar to this provision actually cleared the Senate in 2007, but did not ultimately become law.

This bill is intended to short circuit continued litigation and pleas for claim reinstatement by clarifying the intent of Congress that miners do have to be informed that their claims are in jeopardy of being voided and given 60 days notice to cure defects, including giving them time to submit their applications and to submit affidavits of annual labor, should their submittals not be received and processed by BLM officials on time. If all defects are not cured within 60 days--the obvious intent of Congress in passing the original act--then claims still are subject to voidance.

The transition rule included in this measure will solve two pending cases in Alaska, one where a holder of nine claims on the Kenai Peninsula, near Hope, Alaska, has lost title to claims that he had held from 1982 to 2004. In this case, John Trautner had a consistent record of having paid the annual labor assessment fee for the previous 22 years and the local BLM office did have a time-date-stamped record that the maintenance fee waiver certification form had been filed weeks before the deadline, but just not a record that the affidavit of annual labor had arrived. In the second case Don and Judy Mullikin of Homer, Alaska, lost title to nine claims on the Seward Peninsula outside of Nome in Alaska because the Anchorage BLM office has no record of them receiving the paperwork, even though the owners have computer time stamps of them having completed the paperwork 5 months before the deadline, but no other evidence

of filing to meet BLM regulations. They lost their appeal in late 2009. These are claims that have been worked in Alaska yearly since 1937 and are the main livelihood for the Mullikins.

This legislation, supported by the Alaska Miners Association--S. 3175 in the 111th Congress--clearly is intended to remedy a simple drafting error in congressional crafting of the small miner claim defect process. While only a few cases of potential clerical errors have occurred over the past decade, it still makes sense for Congress to clarify that claim holders have a right to know that their applications have not been processed, in time for them to cure application-claim defects prior to being informed of the loss of the claim rights forever. Simple equity and due process requires no less.

Given the minute cost of this administrative change to the Department of the Interior, but its big impact on affected small mineral claim holders, I hope this bill can be considered and approved promptly this year.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that would make a minor technical change to a provision that this Congress approved in 2004 to further construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline system to move Alaska's conventional gas to market.

In 2004 Congress approved two pieces of legislation to help facilitate construction of an Alaska natural gas pipeline. In Public Law 108-324 Congress approved a Federal loan guarantee program, streamlined regulatory processes and approved a worker training program to guarantee a domestic labor supply for construction of the largest private-sector capital infrastructure project in the world's history. In a separate bill, Public Law 108-357, Congress also approved tax changes to provide accelerated depreciation for the pipe and a related gas conditioning plant needed for the project. A pipeline to move Alaska's 35 trillion cubic feet of known gas reserves, and its likely 315 trillion cubic feet of additional Arctic gas reserves from lands and Arctic waters would have a host of benefits to the Nation.

Being able to market only the known gas reserves at the Prudhoe Bay field will involve construction of a pipeline system estimated to cost between $26 and $40 billion. It is expected to produce 38,000 direct job-years of labor in Alaska and up to 31,000 direct jobs at the peak of construction. According to the National Defense Foundation it will produce direct employment of 172,369 jobs nationwide when related steel, pipe, valve and equipment jobs are included, not counting many more indirect jobs. At current prices it will generate about $100 billion in Federal tax revenues, not counting $40 billion in Alaska State revenues and $30 billion in Canadian tax revenues over its first 20 years of operation. Recent estimates, however, indicate that development of gas from the offshore Arctic that a gas line will permit to occur, would add an average of an additional 54,700 new jobs in the U.S.--91,500 at peak employment. That would provide $145 billion in total payroll--$82 billion to workers in the Lower 48--and provide $167 billion in tax and royalty revenues to the Federal Government, $15 billion to the State of Alaska and total revenues of $193 billion at forecast gas prices.

In the intervening 7 years since the gas line loan-permitting package became law, it has become clear that changes are needed. While those changes include revisions in the loan guarantee program, they also involve changes in the construction worker training provisions.

In the 2004 act, Sect. 113, the bill authorized $20 million for worker training programs, with at least 15 percent of those funds going to pay for ``design and construction of a training facility to be located in Fairbanks, Alaska.'' But language in the bill has prevented that training center from moving forward. This proposed bill would authorize Federal funding to be released immediately upon the request of the Governor of Alaska, to fund construction of the training center, and to broaden the center to permit it also to train oil, besides gas field workers, and environmental response employees.

According to the Alaska Department of Labor, the demand for skilled workers for gas and oil line projects on Alaska's North Slope grew by 50 percent from 2005 to 2009 to nearly 12,000 workers. At the same time, the average age of Alaska's skilled workforce is now 53, meaning that Alaska needs to train 1,000 new construction and pipeline workers annually simply to maintain the State's existing skilled workforce. Since it takes roughly 5 years to train a skilled construction/ pipefitter, it is imperative that such training begin far in advance of estimated pipeline construction. According to State data, there are only about 2,130 plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters working in Alaska and another 1,004 welders, solderers, brazers, and machine setters. Past estimates by one of the two consortia proposing to build an Alaska gas pipeline are that the gas line alone will require 1,650 welders/helpers, 2,000 equipment operators, 418 inspectors and 90 UT technicians, just to build the Alaska sections of the pipeline. That means there is an urgent need for the pipeline training center now.

The Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center's core mission is to provide a highly trained workforce that will meet the needs of the entire oil/ gas/pipeline/refining industry; which is a significant component of Alaska's economy, providing 80 percent of the State's industrial tax base, 74 percent of all resources produced in the State, and 85 percent of State revenues) and a crucial component of the Nation's domestic energy supply, currently 13 percent of all domestically produced oil, while the proposed overland gas line will produce 7 percent of the Nation's total estimated gas demand in 2020. The necessity for this workforce is further emphasized because it is clear that an aging infrastructure will require an accelerated repair, replacement, and maintenance regime if production requirements and safety standard are to be met.

The training center is an innovative statewide collaboration between labor, industry, and local, State, and Federal Governments. Additionally, it is understood that as alternative fuel technologies emerge and are commercialize, a highly skilled, highly trained, highly motivated workforce will be required. Again, through collaboration with others: the University of Alaska, the Cold Climate Housing Research Center, United Technologies Corporation, General Electric, and Alaskan commercial interests, requisite evolving workforce needs are understood and can be met.

The facility needs to be located in Interior Alaska, because the climate will permit workers to be fully trained in the real-world conditions they will face on the job. In order to complete the training center and thereby meet anticipated labor demand in a timely manner, funds must be secured in the upcoming budget cycle. Federal funding needed includes: $5.5 million for Central Facility classrooms and shops, $1.5 million for a Construction Camp Facility, $1.0 million for a Pipeline Coating Training Facility and for corrosion control training, $0.5 million for civil work improvements to the Field Training Site, and $1.5 million for pipeline and transportation/ logistical equipment.

The bill's changes will permit the creation of a domestic energy workforce that is stable, productive, and encourages safe working practices that will help to protect Alaska's environment and wildlife, while producing the energy that America needs. The proposal does not expand the size of the funding authorization approved in 2004. It simply makes it more likely that American workers will benefit from a gas line project when it proceeds--an important fact when the national unemployment rate remains at 9.4 percent. I hope that this Congress will consider this bill for quick consideration and passage.

Mr. President, I rise to speak to a bill that I am reintroducing, being cosponsored by my colleague Mark Begich from Alaska, to resolve a land conveyance dispute in Northwest Alaska, the Salmon Lake Land Selection Resolution Act.

Shortly after Alaska became a State in 1959, Alaska selected lands near Salmon Lake, a major fishery resource in the Bering Straits Region of Northwest Alaska. In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to resolve aboriginal land claims throughout the 49th State. In that act Congress created 12 regional native corporations in Alaska, providing the corporations with $966 million and the right to select 44 million acres of land in return for giving up claims to their traditional lands. The land and money was to go to make the corporations profitable to provide benefits to their shareholders, the native inhabitants of Alaska. The Bering Straits Native Corporation, one of those 12 regional corporations, promptly selected lands in the Salmon Lake region overlapping State selections promised the State at the time that Alaska joined the Union in 1959. The corporation selected the area around the lake because the waters upstream and downstream from the lake are a prime fishery spawning area and contains fisheries resources of significance to Alaska Natives, in addition to offering land suitable for a variety of recreational activities.

For the past 40 years there have been conflicts over the conveyances, delaying land from going to the corporation, harming the economic and cultural benefits of the corporation model for all Native shareholders, and complicating land and wildlife management issues between Federal agencies and the State of Alaska. Starting in 1994, but accelerating in 1997, talks began among the State, Federal agencies and native corporations and towns in the region, located north of Nome--Salmon Lake itself is located 38 miles north of Nome--to reach a consensus on land uses in the region. Those talks reached agreement on June 1, 2007, with a resolution that satisfied all parties. This seemingly non- controversial legislation will implement the land management regime in the area and finally complete the conveyance of ANCSA lands to the Bering Straits Native Corporation--giving the corporation title after surveys to the last of the 145,728 acres it was promised by Section 14(h)(8) of ANCSA nearly 4 decades ago.

By this bill the Corporation will gain conveyance to 1,009 acres in the Salmon Lake area, 6,132 acres at Windy Cove, northwest of Salmon Lake, and 7,504 acres at Imuruk Basin, on the north shore of Imuruk Basin, a water body north of Windy Cove. In return the Corporation relinquishes rights to another 3,084 acres at Salmon Lake to the Federal Government, the government then giving part of the land to the State of Alaska for it to maintain a key airstrip near the lake. The Federal Bureau of Land Management also retains ownership and administration of a 9-acre campground at the outlet of Salmon Lake, which provides road accessible public camping opportunities from the Nome-Teller Highway. The agreement also retains public access to BLM managed lands in the Kigluaik Mountain Range. In return for the trade, the Federal Government gains other lands from the State.

The bill fully protects recreation and subsistence uses in the area, while providing the Corporation with access to recreational-tourism sites of importance to its shareholders and which might some day produce revenues for the Corporation. The agreement has prompted no known environmental group concerns and seems to be the classic ``win- win-win'' solution that all sides should be congratulated for crafting.

After this bill was introduced in late winter 2009, only support for its provisions was voiced by the public and the Administration and Federal agencies during a Senate hearing held by the Senate Public Lands and Forests Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Oct. 8, 2009. After that hearing, the bill was unanimously approved by the full Energy and Natural Resources Committee on December 16, 2009; and it was awaiting passage at the end of the 111th Congress. A nearly identical bill was approved by the full House of Representatives on July 1, 2010 by a unanimous vote of 410-0. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates last year, it would have ``negligible'' costs to the Federal Government during a 10-year scoring window, and it actually will likely reduce Federal outlays since the land's transfer will reduce Federal Bureau of Land Management administrative costs.

Passage of this act is certainly in keeping with the spirit of the Alaska Lands Conveyance Acceleration Act that this body passed 7 years ago that was intended to help settle all outstanding land conveyance issues in Alaska by 2009--the 50th anniversary of Alaska Statehood. While the original agreement/extension covering the land exchange among the Federal Government, the State of Alaska and Bering Straits Native Corporation expired in late 2010, it has been extended once again by all parties to give Congress additional time to ratify the land exchange's terms. Ratification will largely complete the land conveyance process in Northwest Alaska.

I hope that Congress this year, before the latest deadline passes, will quickly pass this legislation. I particularly hope that the land swap is ratified quickly since December 18, 2011 will mark the 40th anniversary of ANCSA's passage. The shareholders of the Bering Straits region have waited 40 years to finally receive the land and economic benefits promised to them when they relinquished their aboriginal land claims. It is only just that they not be made to wait any longer to enjoy the full benefits of the claims settlement act. This bill is also very important for residents of Nome who utilize the area for recreation and subsistence purposes and for all Alaska Natives who live in the Bering Straits Region.