Floor Statements

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Murkowski, in introducing legislation that would give Alaska Native Corporation, ANC, parity for an important tax incentive encouraging the permanent protection of land through the charitable donation of a conservation easement. I would also like to commend our colleague Congressman Don Young, who today introduces a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

America's wildlife, waters, and land are an invaluable part of our Nation's heritage. It is imperative to preserve these natural treasures for future generations. Congress long ago concluded that it was good public policy to encourage the charitable contribution of conservation easements to organizations dedicated to maintaining natural habitats or open spaces help protect the nation's heritage. A conservation easement creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a willing landowner and another organization. The purpose of a conservation easement is to protect permanently land from certain forms of development or use. The property that is the subject to the easement remains the private property of the landowner. The organization holding the easement must monitor future uses of the land to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement and to enforce the terms if a violation occurs.

In 2006, Congress enhanced the charitable tax deduction for conservation easements in order to encourage such gifts. With the 2006 legislation, Congress temporarily increased the maximum deduction limit for individuals donating qualified conservation easements from 30 percent to 50 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Congress also created an exception for qualified farmers or ranchers, which are non-publicly traded corporations or individuals whose gross income from the trade or business of farming is greater than 50 percent of the taxpayer's gross income. In the case of a qualified farmer or rancher, the limitation increased from 30 percent to 100 percent. The 2008 Farm Bill extended the temporary rules for two additional years to charitable contributions made before December 31, 2009.

Unfortunately, the way the law was crafted has disadvantaged a number of important landowners in my home state. Alaska Native Corporations, ANCs, own nearly 90 percent of the private land in Alaska, including some of the most scenic and resource rich. However, although they are very similar to the small communal family farms that are eligible, subsistence-based Alaskan Native communities are ineligible for these important new tax incentives. For thousands of years, Alaska has been home to Native communities, whose rich heritages, languages, and traditions have thrived in the region's unique landscape. Members of Alaska Native communities continue to have a deeply symbiotic relationship with the land even today. Much like their ancestors, many Native Alaskan communities engage in

traditional subsistence activities, with nearly 70 percent of their food coming from the land or adjacent waters. For many communities, subsistence is an economic necessity considering both the lack of economic development and the cost and difficulty involved in purchasing food. For example, in Kotzebue, a community in Northwestern Alaska, milk costs nearly $10 per gallon. In Buckland, a village home to approximately 400 people, a pound of hamburger, when it is actually available, costs $14.00.

In Alaska, the Native Corporations have an important role to be stewards of the land. Their shareholders see themselves as the caretakers of the land and water as their ancestors have for thousands of years. Nonetheless, in Alaska today this means they have to balance the need for resource development and the need to cultivate the land for subsistence activities. The traditional lifestyles of Native Alaskans are under increasing stress from outside influences. Population growth and the pressure to pursue cash-generating activities have increased the desire for substantial development, significantly adding to the ecological stress on already fragile ecosystems. Without permanent protection, their lands could be developed in a manner that would destroy its ability to support the traditional ways and subsistence lifestyles crucial to Alaskan Native communities. Making use of tax incentives available to other Americans will make it easier for Native communities to make the right decisions for their shareholders.

Today, Alaska Native communities are not eligible for the 50 percent deduction available to individuals because they are federally chartered as C corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. This leaves Alaska Natives without the ability to convert to an eligible entity as other landowners can. In addition, most Alaska Native Corporations do not have sufficient gross income from the trade or business of what is considered traditional farming to be eligible for the 100 percent deduction available to qualified farmers or ranchers. This is in spite of the fact that as a group the Alaska Native shareholders of Alaska Native Corporations receive far more in subsistence benefits than they receive in income from the Alaska Native Corporation. As a result, Alaska Native Corporations do not have the same ability to offset the cost to permanently protect their properties, which contain important wildlife, fish, and other habitats, through donations of qualified conservation easements.

The bill I am introducing with Senator Murkowski will allow Alaska Native Corporations to protect these important wildlife habitats, many used for subsistence, by providing an enhanced deduction for qualified conservation easements. The legislation modifies Section 170(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code by creating a new subsection that provides Alaska Native Corporations with a deduction for donations of certain qualified conservation easements. In order to be eligible, a qualified charitable conservation contribution must: (1) otherwise qualify under Section 170(h)(1); (2) be made by a Native Corporation; and (3) be land that was conveyed by ANCSA. Under Section 170(b)(2)(iii)(I), ``Native Corporation'' is defined by ANCSA, section 3(m). Under Section 170(b)(2)(i), the maximum deduction limit would be set at 100 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. If the taxpayer has deductions in excess of the applicable percentage-of-income limitation, Section 170(b)(2)(ii) would allow the taxpayer to carry-forward the deduction for up to 15 years.

Congress must act to assist Alaska Native communities in permanently protecting their culturally, historically, and ecologically significant land, preserving the communities and their rich traditions in the process. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I am pleased today to join my colleague, Senator Murkowski, in introducing legislation that would give Alaska Native Corporation, ANC, parity for an important tax incentive encouraging the permanent protection of land through the charitable donation of a conservation easement. I would also like to commend our colleague Congressman Don Young, who today introduces a companion bill in the House of Representatives.

America's wildlife, waters, and land are an invaluable part of our Nation's heritage. It is imperative to preserve these natural treasures for future generations. Congress long ago concluded that it was good public policy to encourage the charitable contribution of conservation easements to organizations dedicated to maintaining natural habitats or open spaces help protect the nation's heritage. A conservation easement creates a legally enforceable land preservation agreement between a willing landowner and another organization. The purpose of a conservation easement is to protect permanently land from certain forms of development or use. The property that is the subject to the easement remains the private property of the landowner. The organization holding the easement must monitor future uses of the land to ensure compliance with the terms of the easement and to enforce the terms if a violation occurs.

In 2006, Congress enhanced the charitable tax deduction for conservation easements in order to encourage such gifts. With the 2006 legislation, Congress temporarily increased the maximum deduction limit for individuals donating qualified conservation easements from 30 percent to 50 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. Congress also created an exception for qualified farmers or ranchers, which are non-publicly traded corporations or individuals whose gross income from the trade or business of farming is greater than 50 percent of the taxpayer's gross income. In the case of a qualified farmer or rancher, the limitation increased from 30 percent to 100 percent. The 2008 Farm Bill extended the temporary rules for two additional years to charitable contributions made before December 31, 2009.

Unfortunately, the way the law was crafted has disadvantaged a number of important landowners in my home state. Alaska Native Corporations, ANCs, own nearly 90 percent of the private land in Alaska, including some of the most scenic and resource rich. However, although they are very similar to the small communal family farms that are eligible, subsistence-based Alaskan Native communities are ineligible for these important new tax incentives. For thousands of years, Alaska has been home to Native communities, whose rich heritages, languages, and traditions have thrived in the region's unique landscape. Members of Alaska Native communities continue to have a deeply symbiotic relationship with the land even today. Much like their ancestors, many Native Alaskan communities engage in

traditional subsistence activities, with nearly 70 percent of their food coming from the land or adjacent waters. For many communities, subsistence is an economic necessity considering both the lack of economic development and the cost and difficulty involved in purchasing food. For example, in Kotzebue, a community in Northwestern Alaska, milk costs nearly $10 per gallon. In Buckland, a village home to approximately 400 people, a pound of hamburger, when it is actually available, costs $14.00.

In Alaska, the Native Corporations have an important role to be stewards of the land. Their shareholders see themselves as the caretakers of the land and water as their ancestors have for thousands of years. Nonetheless, in Alaska today this means they have to balance the need for resource development and the need to cultivate the land for subsistence activities. The traditional lifestyles of Native Alaskans are under increasing stress from outside influences. Population growth and the pressure to pursue cash-generating activities have increased the desire for substantial development, significantly adding to the ecological stress on already fragile ecosystems. Without permanent protection, their lands could be developed in a manner that would destroy its ability to support the traditional ways and subsistence lifestyles crucial to Alaskan Native communities. Making use of tax incentives available to other Americans will make it easier for Native communities to make the right decisions for their shareholders.

Today, Alaska Native communities are not eligible for the 50 percent deduction available to individuals because they are federally chartered as C corporations under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, ANCSA. This leaves Alaska Natives without the ability to convert to an eligible entity as other landowners can. In addition, most Alaska Native Corporations do not have sufficient gross income from the trade or business of what is considered traditional farming to be eligible for the 100 percent deduction available to qualified farmers or ranchers. This is in spite of the fact that as a group the Alaska Native shareholders of Alaska Native Corporations receive far more in subsistence benefits than they receive in income from the Alaska Native Corporation. As a result, Alaska Native Corporations do not have the same ability to offset the cost to permanently protect their properties, which contain important wildlife, fish, and other habitats, through donations of qualified conservation easements.

The bill I am introducing with Senator Murkowski will allow Alaska Native Corporations to protect these important wildlife habitats, many used for subsistence, by providing an enhanced deduction for qualified conservation easements. The legislation modifies Section 170(b)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code by creating a new subsection that provides Alaska Native Corporations with a deduction for donations of certain qualified conservation easements. In order to be eligible, a qualified charitable conservation contribution must: (1) otherwise qualify under Section 170(h)(1); (2) be made by a Native Corporation; and (3) be land that was conveyed by ANCSA. Under Section 170(b)(2)(iii)(I), ``Native Corporation'' is defined by ANCSA, section 3(m). Under Section 170(b)(2)(i), the maximum deduction limit would be set at 100 percent of the taxpayer's adjusted gross income. If the taxpayer has deductions in excess of the applicable percentage-of-income limitation, Section 170(b)(2)(ii) would allow the taxpayer to carry-forward the deduction for up to 15 years.

Congress must act to assist Alaska Native communities in permanently protecting their culturally, historically, and ecologically significant land, preserving the communities and their rich traditions in the process. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to commemorate the life of a very special friend from my home State of Alaska, Allan Tesche.

Former Anchorage Assemblyman Allan Tesche passed away July 14, 2009, after complications from heart surgery.

Allan Tesche was the embodiment of a true Alaskan and an incredible public servant. While I was mayor of Anchorage, Allan served on the Assembly. During this time, I got to know Allan and his family well. He was committed to the residents of Anchorage, and his dedication to making our city a better place was second to none. He and his wife Pam were active members of the community and raised their two children in Anchorage.

On behalf of his family, many friends, and colleagues, I ask today we honor Allan Tesche's memory. I ask his obituary, published July 26, 2009, in the Anchorage Daily News, be printed in the Record.

The information follows:

[From the Anchorage Daily News, July 26, 2009]

Allan Edward Tesche, 60, died in Houston, Texas on July 14,

2009, from complications from heart surgery. A memorial

service will be at 2 p.m. Monday at Central Lutheran Church.

Allan was born Aug. 3, 1948, to Marilyn and Frederick

Rutledge Tesche in Los Alamos, N.M. He graduated with honors

from the University of California at Davis in 1970. In the

Peace Corps, he spent two years in El Salvador supporting

Community Development projects. Upon his return, he enrolled

in law school at the University of California at Davis, where

he was an honorary member of The Chicano Law Students

Association. In his second year he was recruited by the

Greater Anchorage Area Borough to serve a six-month

internship in the Anchorage Borough Attorney's Office; thus

began his long association with Alaska government. Allan was

invited by Mayor Jack Roderick to return after graduation as

a staff attorney. Allan's work on borough-city unification in

1975-76 led Mayor George Sullivan to elevate him to deputy

municipal attorney, a position he held until his appointment

to lead the Mat-Su Borough Legal Department in 1980. In 1982,

Allan returned to Anchorage

to head the Department of Property & Facilities. In 1988, he

left city employment to join law firm Russell & Tesche, where

he practiced until retiring in 2006.

In 1978, Allan married Pamela Dunham. Together they raised

two children, operated the G Street B&B and went on family

adventures. After seeing the community work of friend Nick

Aguilar in San Diego, Pam supported Allan's plunge into local

politics. Allan served nine years on the Anchorage Assembly.

He championed many progressive policies and is credited with

the adoption of property tax relief, liquor and tobacco

control measures and urban beautification initiatives. Allan

was a member of Central Lutheran Church, where he mentored

neighborhood youths and served as Church Council president.

After leaving the Assembly, Allan helped launch municipal

consulting firm RMA Consulting Group and served as acting

city administrator for the City of Akutan. He worked for

Akutan until his death, and his efforts supporting new

developments in Akutan are an ongoing testimony.

Allan is survived by his wife, Pamela; son, Frederick;

daughter, Mary; brothers, Frederick and wife Sharon of

Saluda, N.C., Thomas and wife Kim of Covington, Ky., and

Daniel of Clovis, Calif.; sister, Caroline of Tampa, Fla.;

father and mother-in-law, Richard and Carrie Dunham of

Whidbey Island, Wash.; brothers- and sisters-in-law, Paul and

Kathleen Dunham of Fresno, Calif., Larry and Susan Goodman of

Seattle, Cynthia and Eric Olsen of Spokane, Wash., and Linda

Wesson of Clovis, Calif.; and by his nieces and

nephews.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Motion To Commit

I thank the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. Begich pertaining to the introduction of S. 1560, S. 1561, S. 1562, S. 1563, S. 1564, and S. 1565 are printed in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. President, before yielding the floor, I wish to mark the passing of a great Alaskan--Lu Young, the wife of Alaska's long- time Congressman Don Young.

Lu passed away suddenly over the weekend. Lu was an Alaskan of true distinction. I am proud to have shared a friendship with her for several decades.

Our State is better because of her service and many contributions. The thoughts and prayers of Alaskans and me are with Representative Young and his family.

I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise today for the first time on this floor to mark the 50th anniversary of Alaska's statehood and to draw the attention of my colleagues to an urgent issue that affects not only my State but all of our States--the issue of global climate change.

This year, thanks to actions taken in this very Chamber, Alaska is celebrating its golden anniversary of statehood. Acquiring the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship was the culmination of a dream for citizens of the 49th State. Statehood granted us the ability to exercise control over our vast natural resources and gave us a full voice in our national government. In the half century since, Alaska has grown from the Nation's largest supplier of salmon to become the Nation's storehouse of both seafood and energy.

Because of its strategic location near the top of the globe, Alaska plays a critical role in our Nation's defense. During the Cold War, the superpowers stared down each other across the frozen polar ice cap. Thanks to a thaw in the geopolitical climate, the ``ice curtain'' separating Alaska and Russia melted some 20 years ago. Today, it is a change in the climate itself that present serious new challenges--and great opportunities--to my State and our Nation.

Alaska is now at Ground Zero for the effects of global climate change. I take this opportunity today to detail how that is affecting the lives of Alaskans. I will describe a package of legislation I am introducing to prepare my State and the Nation for the next 50 years. During that time, the Arctic will play an even larger role in the Nation's commerce, foreign policy, and energy independence.

Mr. President, to me there is no more dramatic illustration of global warming in Alaska than these two pictures taken at Portage Glacier, just about 50 miles south of Anchorage. The top photo, taken by my dad in 1970, shows me and two of my brothers and a sister. The glacier is clearly in view. The bottom photo was taken 35 years later, in 2005. It is of my son, Jacob, standing in the exact same spot at the same time of year. The glacier is nowhere to be seen because it has dramatically receded due to global warming.

Today in the Arctic, the sea is melting so fast that most of it could be gone in 30 years. You can clearly see it in this polar projection of the Arctic. The implications of the loss are enormous. Devastating for species such as the polar bear, walrus, and seals, which depend on ice for their very survival; life-altering for Arctic residents who have depended on marine mammals for their nutritional and cultural needs for thousands of years; literally earth-shattering for entire Alaskan Arctic communities, which are being wiped away by erosion and thawing permafrost.

When this global air-conditioner is knocked off kilter, it accelerates climatic changes we are already witnessing around the globe that neither science nor our political systems can stop.

Consider these examples.

Storms raging over waters that once were frozen solid but which are now ice-free for much of the year are eroding sections of the Alaska shoreline at rates of 45 feet per year or more. This undermines entire coastal villages like Shishmaref and Kivalina.

Thawing permafrost is causing roads and the foundations of homes to buckle.

A recent study by the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research estimated that the impacts of climate change will increase the cost of maintaining or replacing just today's public infrastructure in my State by $6 billion.

The potential release of massive amounts of methane now sealed in the permafrost threaten to accelerate the pace of climate change. That is known to scientists as ``Arctic Feedback.''

Warming water temperatures are pushing cold water species north and attracting warm water species from the south. Fishermen in Sitka are encountering the giant Humboldt squid from Mexico.

Tuna--whose usual habitat favors the tropics--have been caught near Homer. And invasive species such as green crab are moving steadily northward.

Ocean acidification--the result of absorption of carbon into our marine waters--weakens shellfish, coral, and even plankton, the very first link of the marine food chain.

At the G-8 Summit last month in Italy, developing nations agreed to the principle of limiting the average increase in the Earth's temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

In the American Arctic, we exceeded that long ago. The diminishing ice creates opportunities in the Arctic, but even these pose new challenges. For example, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas are believed to contain almost twice as much oil as already has been produced from the North Slope.

Arctic oil and gas development has been conducted safely on-shore in Alaska. Alaskans also have the technology to safely produce it off- shore.

But subsistence users who rely on marine mammals for their way of life are legitimately concerned about the special challenges of how to prevent and respond to an oil spill in broken sea ice.

The diminishing Arctic ice pack could open new grounds to commercial fishing, which can create new jobs. This also presents challenges to manage fish stocks in this region as we learn more about the impact of fishing in these previously inaccessible waters.

Opening the Northwest Passage, the Northern Sea Route and eventually the polar sea, will bring an increase in shipping and even tourism to the Arctic. This means new economic development and additional jobs to the northern part of our state.

Our neighbors have taken notice of the warming Arctic, too. This picture of a Russian submersible planting that country's flag on the North Pole's ocean floor was shocking to Americans and other Arctic nations.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, whose nation is president of the European Union this year, demonstrates that Europe understands these changes when he recently said the melting polar sea ice is creating revolutionary new transportation possibilities between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Although Alaskans are well aware of the impacts of climate change in our State, national decisionmakers are just starting to come to grips with its challenges and opportunities.

A proposed American Arctic policy was adopted in the final days of the Bush administration. While not perfect, it highlights many areas that need further focus.

Here in the Congress, climate change has risen to a high priority in these Halls and in the Obama administration.

I commend these many initiatives and pledge my cooperation with other Members of this body and the national administration.

To advance that effort, today I am introducing a package of seven bills to address these challenges, almost all of which have been caused by, or made worse by, climate change.

I call this package--Inuvikput. It is a word from the Inupiaq Eskimos of the Alaska North Slope which means ``the place where we live.''

I can think of no more appropriate term coming from the very people who are being affected every day by climatic changes in America's Arctic, the place they have called home for thousands of years.

Mr. President, my package starts with improving our fundamental understanding of the region. We need to invest in basic science to better understand Arctic oceanography, meteorology, biology of its fish and marine mammals, as well as natural resources and oil and gas potential.

We need a coordinated research plan. It should start with baseline observations and include better science supporting Arctic-specific oil spill prevention and response.

This plan also must include local and traditional knowledge. After all, some of the first and most accurate predictions of Arctic climate change were from Native elders.

My bill calls on the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a comprehensive strategy to coordinate Arctic research, to make recommendations to Congress on a long-term Arctic Ocean research plan and to provide the resources for this vital mission.

We also need to promote Pan-Arctic research, especially with our Russian and Canadian neighbors, to address scientific issues that span international borders.

My second bill would provide the United States equal standing with other Arctic nations when it comes to our participation in the international Arctic Council and other forums.

Other leading Arctic nations--Russia, Canada, Norway--are represented by ambassador-level diplomats on the Council.

I appreciate the dedication of those who have represented us before the Arctic Council and other forums. I also thank Secretary Clinton and other high level diplomats for their interest in the Arctic. But the United States needs a permanent representative on an equal footing with the representatives of other nations in these important forums. Our Ambassador should advocate American interests in science, sustainable development, transportation and our defense posture.

The third piece of legislation deals with preparedness for the coming expanded use of the Arctic. We must increase our investment in basic infrastructure to maintain a permanent presence in the Arctic, for scientific, economic development and national security missions.

Critical to that is the need to replace our fleet of icebreakers. The Polar Sea and the currently idled Polar Star have both served beyond their 30-year life. The Healy is newer, but designed primarily for scientific research.

That scientific mission is important. But we need an icebreaking fleet to assert our national interests by patrolling our Arctic waters, monitor increased traffic, and respond to search and rescues, oil spills and other incidents.

In addition to their life-saving mission, the Coast Guard is a vital partner with Alaska's commercial fishing industry. This $4 billlion industry is one of our Nation's truly American industries, providing 58,000 jobs. Our Coast Guard needs facilities to serve as a base for aerial surveillance, spill prevention and emergency response capabilities in the Arctic.

Currently, our closest Coast Guard air base is located in Kodiak, a 900-mile commute just to reach the Arctic Coast. That's like patrolling the Gulf of Mexico from air bases in New York.

I applaud the stamina of our Coast Guard crews who have kept our C- 130s in the Arctic skies by performing maintenance work on the ramp in subfreezing conditions. The least we could do is provide them with a heated hangar. My legislation would address that need and other critical infrastructure needs.

Fourth, we must achieve a balance in environmentally responsible resource development in the Arctic. A diminished ice cap may clear the way for more affordable development of the enormous energy reserves the U.S. Geological Service says lie beneath Arctic waters. This region contains an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

These resources can create thousands of American jobs and help assure our national energy security.

We must get the science right and provide the infrastructure necessary to protect human and animal life and the environment.

To help achieve that, my measure calls on the Coast Guard to assess Arctic development and develop the necessary infrastructure.

It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to direct research to prevent and improve oil spill recovery in Arctic waters.

My fifth bill deals with the benefits of energy development in the Arctic. Most Alaskans support oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf. We can do development there in the right way, as shown here.

Another example is BP's Liberty field, located off Alaska's northern

coast. To minimize impacts, directional drilling from this island pad can tap oil reserves 8 miles away in the water.

As a part of this package, my bill extends to Alaskans the same share of Federal revenues that residents of the gulf coast States currently receive. It would direct a portion of those revenues to those most affected--the residents of Alaska's North Slope--where communities have depended on marine mammals from these same waters for thousands of years. I believe the Arctic's resources belong to the people of the Arctic and should be shared among them.

My sixth bill deals with a critical omission from the new Presidential directive on the Arctic--addressing the health problems of Arctic people.

Alaskans and others who live in Northern latitudes experience numerous health problems, including higher rates of alcohol abuse, diabetes, high blood pressure and, tragically death from injury and suicide.

In many cases, it is unclear what causes these problems. More research is necessary into prevention and treatment.

This bill proposes a study of mental and behavioral health issues in the Arctic. It would create an ``Arctic desk'' at the National Institutes of Health that was called for in Federal legislation in 1984 but has never been established.

Finally, it would institute a health assessment program at the Centers for Disease Control focused on the Arctic. This vital research will not only benefit residents of my State but citizens across the country.

The seventh bill in this package addresses the huge losses of coastal Alaskan territory, as a result of dramatic climate change. A June 2009 Government Accountability Study on this issue says: ``most of Alaska's more than 200 Native villages are affected to some degree by flooding and erosion.'' In some cases, entire Arctic villages in my State are at risk of serious erosion or of being washed into the sea.

To make matters worse, some of the most severe flooding in recent history occurred this spring. Millions of dollars in damage was done to Alaska communities, prompting State and Federal disaster declarations.

To address these issues, I propose creation of an Arctic adaptation fund. This fund would help the State of Alaska, Alaska Native organizations, affected Arctic communities, and the private sector deal with the impacts of climate change. This includes flooding, erosion, permafrost melting, and damage to public transportation systems and buildings. The fund also would assist in dealing with habitat restoration, clean energy development, and other economic development activities.

Mr. President, I am considering introducing an additional piece of legislation in this package. It focuses on providing the people of Alaska's Arctic with a greater voice in development decisions affecting their lives.

This bill would establish on Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council. It would be modeled after similar councils operating successfully in the Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet regions of Alaska.

At the request of North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta and our constituents there, I agreed to hold off on this bill for now so we can continue the conversation with the people of the region, along with industry and regulatory stakeholders.

In addition to the legislation I am introducing today, Senate ratification of two treaties would dramatically improve our Nation's ability to address Arctic climate change.

The first is the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Negotiated in 1982, this treaty is designed to settle long-standing disputes over national rights to offshore waters and resources. The Senate's ratification of this treaty would put the United States at the table at a time of great change in the Arctic.

I note support for the Law of the Sea Treaty comes from a broad spectrum of organizations, from environmental groups and oil companies to the U.S. military.

I strongly support ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty and will be proud to cosponsor this measure.

The second key international agreement the Senate should ratify to address Arctic health issues is the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs.

These pollutants--PCBs, DDT, dioxin, and even fire retardants--are carried by wind and sea currents to the Arctic. They are then trapped by the ice and are stored in the fatty tissue of fish and marine mammals that are a main component of the local subsistence diet.

The POPs treaty was adopted in 2001. But like the Law of the Sea, it has never been ratified. It is time that changed. I am honored to be a cosponsor of Senator Harkin's bill, S. 519, to implement provisions of this treaty.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Obama Administration to bring these treaties forward to the Senate for consideration as soon as possible.

Mr. President, because of Alaska, America is an Arctic nation. My State has over 700 miles of shoreline along the Arctic Ocean, and over 100 million acres above the Arctic Circle. If you define Arctic by temperature, it encompasses an even broader area that includes the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands.

Through the diligent work of many scientists, we have learned much over the past century. But there is much we still do not understand.

This century, and the next 50 years of Alaska statehood, brings great challenges and even greater opportunities. To succeed, we must address the broad policy implications of an ice-diminishing Arctic on the diplomatic, scientific, and national security fronts.

We must make the needed investments to ensure the United States maintains its leadership at the top of our globe. We must listen to and address the needs of the residents of the Arctic.

With this Inuvikput package of legislation, we will take a major step toward achieving these important goals.

As they say in America's Arctic, Quyanaqpak. Thank you.

Mr. President, I rise today for the first time on this floor to mark the 50th anniversary of Alaska's statehood and to draw the attention of my colleagues to an urgent issue that affects not only my State but all of our States--the issue of global climate change.

This year, thanks to actions taken in this very Chamber, Alaska is celebrating its golden anniversary of statehood. Acquiring the rights and responsibilities of full citizenship was the culmination of a dream for citizens of the 49th State. Statehood granted us the ability to exercise control over our vast natural resources and gave us a full voice in our national government. In the half century since, Alaska has grown from the Nation's largest supplier of salmon to become the Nation's storehouse of both seafood and energy.

Because of its strategic location near the top of the globe, Alaska plays a critical role in our Nation's defense. During the Cold War, the superpowers stared down each other across the frozen polar ice cap. Thanks to a thaw in the geopolitical climate, the ``ice curtain'' separating Alaska and Russia melted some 20 years ago. Today, it is a change in the climate itself that present serious new challenges--and great opportunities--to my State and our Nation.

Alaska is now at Ground Zero for the effects of global climate change. I take this opportunity today to detail how that is affecting the lives of Alaskans. I will describe a package of legislation I am introducing to prepare my State and the Nation for the next 50 years. During that time, the Arctic will play an even larger role in the Nation's commerce, foreign policy, and energy independence.

Mr. President, to me there is no more dramatic illustration of global warming in Alaska than these two pictures taken at Portage Glacier, just about 50 miles south of Anchorage. The top photo, taken by my dad in 1970, shows me and two of my brothers and a sister. The glacier is clearly in view. The bottom photo was taken 35 years later, in 2005. It is of my son, Jacob, standing in the exact same spot at the same time of year. The glacier is nowhere to be seen because it has dramatically receded due to global warming.

Today in the Arctic, the sea is melting so fast that most of it could be gone in 30 years. You can clearly see it in this polar projection of the Arctic. The implications of the loss are enormous. Devastating for species such as the polar bear, walrus, and seals, which depend on ice for their very survival; life-altering for Arctic residents who have depended on marine mammals for their nutritional and cultural needs for thousands of years; literally earth-shattering for entire Alaskan Arctic communities, which are being wiped away by erosion and thawing permafrost.

When this global air-conditioner is knocked off kilter, it accelerates climatic changes we are already witnessing around the globe that neither science nor our political systems can stop.

Consider these examples.

Storms raging over waters that once were frozen solid but which are now ice-free for much of the year are eroding sections of the Alaska shoreline at rates of 45 feet per year or more. This undermines entire coastal villages like Shishmaref and Kivalina.

Thawing permafrost is causing roads and the foundations of homes to buckle.

A recent study by the University of Alaska's Institute of Social and Economic Research estimated that the impacts of climate change will increase the cost of maintaining or replacing just today's public infrastructure in my State by $6 billion.

The potential release of massive amounts of methane now sealed in the permafrost threaten to accelerate the pace of climate change. That is known to scientists as ``Arctic Feedback.''

Warming water temperatures are pushing cold water species north and attracting warm water species from the south. Fishermen in Sitka are encountering the giant Humboldt squid from Mexico.

Tuna--whose usual habitat favors the tropics--have been caught near Homer. And invasive species such as green crab are moving steadily northward.

Ocean acidification--the result of absorption of carbon into our marine waters--weakens shellfish, coral, and even plankton, the very first link of the marine food chain.

At the G-8 Summit last month in Italy, developing nations agreed to the principle of limiting the average increase in the Earth's temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

In the American Arctic, we exceeded that long ago. The diminishing ice creates opportunities in the Arctic, but even these pose new challenges. For example, the Beaufort and Chukchi seas are believed to contain almost twice as much oil as already has been produced from the North Slope.

Arctic oil and gas development has been conducted safely on-shore in Alaska. Alaskans also have the technology to safely produce it off- shore.

But subsistence users who rely on marine mammals for their way of life are legitimately concerned about the special challenges of how to prevent and respond to an oil spill in broken sea ice.

The diminishing Arctic ice pack could open new grounds to commercial fishing, which can create new jobs. This also presents challenges to manage fish stocks in this region as we learn more about the impact of fishing in these previously inaccessible waters.

Opening the Northwest Passage, the Northern Sea Route and eventually the polar sea, will bring an increase in shipping and even tourism to the Arctic. This means new economic development and additional jobs to the northern part of our state.

Our neighbors have taken notice of the warming Arctic, too. This picture of a Russian submersible planting that country's flag on the North Pole's ocean floor was shocking to Americans and other Arctic nations.

The Swedish Foreign Minister, whose nation is president of the European Union this year, demonstrates that Europe understands these changes when he recently said the melting polar sea ice is creating revolutionary new transportation possibilities between the Atlantic and Pacific.

Although Alaskans are well aware of the impacts of climate change in our State, national decisionmakers are just starting to come to grips with its challenges and opportunities.

A proposed American Arctic policy was adopted in the final days of the Bush administration. While not perfect, it highlights many areas that need further focus.

Here in the Congress, climate change has risen to a high priority in these Halls and in the Obama administration.

I commend these many initiatives and pledge my cooperation with other Members of this body and the national administration.

To advance that effort, today I am introducing a package of seven bills to address these challenges, almost all of which have been caused by, or made worse by, climate change.

I call this package--Inuvikput. It is a word from the Inupiaq Eskimos of the Alaska North Slope which means ``the place where we live.''

I can think of no more appropriate term coming from the very people who are being affected every day by climatic changes in America's Arctic, the place they have called home for thousands of years.

Mr. President, my package starts with improving our fundamental understanding of the region. We need to invest in basic science to better understand Arctic oceanography, meteorology, biology of its fish and marine mammals, as well as natural resources and oil and gas potential.

We need a coordinated research plan. It should start with baseline observations and include better science supporting Arctic-specific oil spill prevention and response.

This plan also must include local and traditional knowledge. After all, some of the first and most accurate predictions of Arctic climate change were from Native elders.

My bill calls on the Secretary of Commerce to undertake a comprehensive strategy to coordinate Arctic research, to make recommendations to Congress on a long-term Arctic Ocean research plan and to provide the resources for this vital mission.

We also need to promote Pan-Arctic research, especially with our Russian and Canadian neighbors, to address scientific issues that span international borders.

My second bill would provide the United States equal standing with other Arctic nations when it comes to our participation in the international Arctic Council and other forums.

Other leading Arctic nations--Russia, Canada, Norway--are represented by ambassador-level diplomats on the Council.

I appreciate the dedication of those who have represented us before the Arctic Council and other forums. I also thank Secretary Clinton and other high level diplomats for their interest in the Arctic. But the United States needs a permanent representative on an equal footing with the representatives of other nations in these important forums. Our Ambassador should advocate American interests in science, sustainable development, transportation and our defense posture.

The third piece of legislation deals with preparedness for the coming expanded use of the Arctic. We must increase our investment in basic infrastructure to maintain a permanent presence in the Arctic, for scientific, economic development and national security missions.

Critical to that is the need to replace our fleet of icebreakers. The Polar Sea and the currently idled Polar Star have both served beyond their 30-year life. The Healy is newer, but designed primarily for scientific research.

That scientific mission is important. But we need an icebreaking fleet to assert our national interests by patrolling our Arctic waters, monitor increased traffic, and respond to search and rescues, oil spills and other incidents.

In addition to their life-saving mission, the Coast Guard is a vital partner with Alaska's commercial fishing industry. This $4 billlion industry is one of our Nation's truly American industries, providing 58,000 jobs. Our Coast Guard needs facilities to serve as a base for aerial surveillance, spill prevention and emergency response capabilities in the Arctic.

Currently, our closest Coast Guard air base is located in Kodiak, a 900-mile commute just to reach the Arctic Coast. That's like patrolling the Gulf of Mexico from air bases in New York.

I applaud the stamina of our Coast Guard crews who have kept our C- 130s in the Arctic skies by performing maintenance work on the ramp in subfreezing conditions. The least we could do is provide them with a heated hangar. My legislation would address that need and other critical infrastructure needs.

Fourth, we must achieve a balance in environmentally responsible resource development in the Arctic. A diminished ice cap may clear the way for more affordable development of the enormous energy reserves the U.S. Geological Service says lie beneath Arctic waters. This region contains an estimated 30 billion barrels of oil and 220 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

These resources can create thousands of American jobs and help assure our national energy security.

We must get the science right and provide the infrastructure necessary to protect human and animal life and the environment.

To help achieve that, my measure calls on the Coast Guard to assess Arctic development and develop the necessary infrastructure.

It also requires the Secretary of Commerce to direct research to prevent and improve oil spill recovery in Arctic waters.

My fifth bill deals with the benefits of energy development in the Arctic. Most Alaskans support oil and gas exploration in the Outer Continental Shelf. We can do development there in the right way, as shown here.

Another example is BP's Liberty field, located off Alaska's northern

coast. To minimize impacts, directional drilling from this island pad can tap oil reserves 8 miles away in the water.

As a part of this package, my bill extends to Alaskans the same share of Federal revenues that residents of the gulf coast States currently receive. It would direct a portion of those revenues to those most affected--the residents of Alaska's North Slope--where communities have depended on marine mammals from these same waters for thousands of years. I believe the Arctic's resources belong to the people of the Arctic and should be shared among them.

My sixth bill deals with a critical omission from the new Presidential directive on the Arctic--addressing the health problems of Arctic people.

Alaskans and others who live in Northern latitudes experience numerous health problems, including higher rates of alcohol abuse, diabetes, high blood pressure and, tragically death from injury and suicide.

In many cases, it is unclear what causes these problems. More research is necessary into prevention and treatment.

This bill proposes a study of mental and behavioral health issues in the Arctic. It would create an ``Arctic desk'' at the National Institutes of Health that was called for in Federal legislation in 1984 but has never been established.

Finally, it would institute a health assessment program at the Centers for Disease Control focused on the Arctic. This vital research will not only benefit residents of my State but citizens across the country.

The seventh bill in this package addresses the huge losses of coastal Alaskan territory, as a result of dramatic climate change. A June 2009 Government Accountability Study on this issue says: ``most of Alaska's more than 200 Native villages are affected to some degree by flooding and erosion.'' In some cases, entire Arctic villages in my State are at risk of serious erosion or of being washed into the sea.

To make matters worse, some of the most severe flooding in recent history occurred this spring. Millions of dollars in damage was done to Alaska communities, prompting State and Federal disaster declarations.

To address these issues, I propose creation of an Arctic adaptation fund. This fund would help the State of Alaska, Alaska Native organizations, affected Arctic communities, and the private sector deal with the impacts of climate change. This includes flooding, erosion, permafrost melting, and damage to public transportation systems and buildings. The fund also would assist in dealing with habitat restoration, clean energy development, and other economic development activities.

Mr. President, I am considering introducing an additional piece of legislation in this package. It focuses on providing the people of Alaska's Arctic with a greater voice in development decisions affecting their lives.

This bill would establish on Arctic Regional Citizens Advisory Council. It would be modeled after similar councils operating successfully in the Prince William Sound and Cook Inlet regions of Alaska.

At the request of North Slope Borough Mayor Edward Itta and our constituents there, I agreed to hold off on this bill for now so we can continue the conversation with the people of the region, along with industry and regulatory stakeholders.

In addition to the legislation I am introducing today, Senate ratification of two treaties would dramatically improve our Nation's ability to address Arctic climate change.

The first is the Convention on the Law of the Sea. Negotiated in 1982, this treaty is designed to settle long-standing disputes over national rights to offshore waters and resources. The Senate's ratification of this treaty would put the United States at the table at a time of great change in the Arctic.

I note support for the Law of the Sea Treaty comes from a broad spectrum of organizations, from environmental groups and oil companies to the U.S. military.

I strongly support ratification of the Law of the Sea Treaty and will be proud to cosponsor this measure.

The second key international agreement the Senate should ratify to address Arctic health issues is the Treaty on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or POPs.

These pollutants--PCBs, DDT, dioxin, and even fire retardants--are carried by wind and sea currents to the Arctic. They are then trapped by the ice and are stored in the fatty tissue of fish and marine mammals that are a main component of the local subsistence diet.

The POPs treaty was adopted in 2001. But like the Law of the Sea, it has never been ratified. It is time that changed. I am honored to be a cosponsor of Senator Harkin's bill, S. 519, to implement provisions of this treaty.

I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee and the Obama Administration to bring these treaties forward to the Senate for consideration as soon as possible.

Mr. President, because of Alaska, America is an Arctic nation. My State has over 700 miles of shoreline along the Arctic Ocean, and over 100 million acres above the Arctic Circle. If you define Arctic by temperature, it encompasses an even broader area that includes the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands.

Through the diligent work of many scientists, we have learned much over the past century. But there is much we still do not understand.

This century, and the next 50 years of Alaska statehood, brings great challenges and even greater opportunities. To succeed, we must address the broad policy implications of an ice-diminishing Arctic on the diplomatic, scientific, and national security fronts.

We must make the needed investments to ensure the United States maintains its leadership at the top of our globe. We must listen to and address the needs of the residents of the Arctic.

With this Inuvikput package of legislation, we will take a major step toward achieving these important goals.

As they say in America's Arctic, Quyanaqpak. Thank you.

Mr. President, there are some very important provisions in the Armed Services Committee bill, S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, regarding the Ground-based Midcourse Defense, GMD, element of the Ballistic Missile Defense System, BMDS. GMD is a system designed to protect the homeland against long-range missile threats. Would the chairman agree that GMD plays an important role in the architecture of the overall BMDS?

Mr. President, Alaska plays a critical role in GMD. The majority of infrastructure currently required to support deployment of the GMD system is located at Fort Greely in Alaska. Recently, the Missile Defense Agency determined that in order to ensure the best infrastructure is available to support deployment of interceptors from Alaska in defense of the Nation, a seven-silo configuration in Missile Field 2 is warranted to replace older, less reliable, silos in Missile Field 1. In the Armed Services Committee report accompanying S. 1390, the committee expressed the view that, if the Department of Defense believes there is a benefit to completing the seven silos at Missile Field 2 during fiscal year 2010, the committee would look favorably upon a reprogramming request from the Secretary of Defense to provide the funds to complete the seven-silos in fiscal year 2010. Would the chairman agree that providing a seven silo capability in Missile Field 2 is beneficial to GMD in defense of the homeland?

: I thank the chairman for his response. Section 243 of S. 1390, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2010, would require the Department of Defense to submit to Congress early next year two reports concerning the GMD element. Would the chairman agree that until the reports required in section 243 of S. 1390 are delivered to Congress the Department of Defense should not make any irreversible decision concerning operational silos in Missile Field 2 at Fort Greely, and that decommissioning of Missile Field 1 should not be completed until the seven-silos have been emplaced at Missile Field 2?

I thank the chairman and appreciate his work on improving GMD and recognizing Alaska's infrastructure is necessary to support GMD in defense of the homeland now and in the future.

Mr. president, today I submitted amendment No. 1572 to S. 1390 that would provide for earned retirement payments to be restored to a group of selfless heroes in Alaksa.

In 1942, after the Alaska National Guard was called overseas, a group of brave Alaska Native men formed a group called the Alaska Territorial Guard, ATG. These men helped protect the territory of Alaska during and after World War II by conducting scouting patrols and constructing military airstrips. The brave men received no pay or benefits for their sacrifices during their time of service in the ATG. After disbanding in 1947, many of these former ATG members continued their service in the army and Alaska National Guard and other services.

Recognizing the heroic and patriotic actions of the ATG members, in 2000 Congress passed a law that made former members of the ATG eligible for veterans' benefits. In 2008, approximately 25 of these guardsmen, mostly Native Alaskans in their mid-to-late eighties, were issued military retirement credit for their period of service in the ATG and began receiving a modest $500 a month in retirement pay.

However, in January of this year, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service abruptly ended these payments based on a finding that a misinterpretation of the law had resulted in erroneously awarding these payments. These men, who live in remote areas and rely on this payment for day-to-day needs, were devastated by the unexpected decrease in their monthly income.

Understanding the significant financial impact experienced by these heroes and their contributions during World War II, the Secretary of the Army provided them 2 months of pay from the emergency and extraordinary expense fund. The Alaska Legislature, further cushioning the economic loss experienced by this courageous group, enacted a bill that temporarily restores the entitlement to the ATG members until the earlier of the date that the Federal Government restores the entitlement or February 1, 2010.

My amendment permanently restores the earned Federal entitlement benefit to members of the ATG for their service. As Members of the Senate, it is our responsibility to take care of those who have served and sacrificed. Earlier this year, this body supported restoring this entitlement to the ATG in the Senate-passed budget resolution, S. Con. Res. 13. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment to honor those who have served.

Mr. President, amendment No. 1573 to S. 1390 would authorize the Department of Defense to reimburse military families for costs incurred for transport of a second personally owned vehicle on a change of permanent duty station to or from Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam.

Current law only authorizes servicemembers to be reimbursed for the cost to transport one personally owned vehicle. As with their counterparts in civilian life, many military families today own and rely on a second vehicle. For example, a significant number of military members live off base and commute to work, while their spouses work as well, making ownership of just a single vehicle impractical for most families.

Some military families ship their second vehicle back to the lower 48 States or Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam at their personal expense. Shipment of a second personally owned vehicle to Alaska, Hawaii, or Guam, or to the lower 48 States from these locations can cost our servicemembers as much as $2,000 out of pocket.

Other times, they opt to sell their second vehicle prior to the move and repurchase a second personally owned vehicle upon arrival of duty station. This is a costly option resulting in severe financial loss.

The current policy of reimbursing military families for only transport of one personally owned vehicle is an outdated policy that unfairly impacts the finances of these families who rely on a second vehicle to sustain their needs.

Authorizing reimbursement for a second privately owned vehicle will greatly enhance the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families stationed in Alaska, Hawaii, and Guam, and those returning to the lower 48 States and the District of Columbia from those locations, and will alleviate the unnecessary financial burdens on these families. I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.

Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Secretary inform the House of Representatives that the Senate is ready to receive the managers appointed by the House for the purpose of exhibiting articles of impeachment against Samuel B. Kent, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, agreeable to the notice communicated to the Senate, and at the hour of 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 24, 2009, the Senate will receive the honorable managers on the part of the House of Representatives in order that they may present and exhibit the said articles of impeachment against the said Samuel B. Kent, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following counsel and staff of the House of Representatives be permitted the privileges of the floor during Wednesday's proceedings with respect to the trial of the impeachment of Judge Kent: Alan Baron, Phillip Tahtakran, Branden Ritchie, Mark Dubester, Harry Hamelin, Ryan Clough, Elisabeth Stein, Michael Lenn.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Con. Res. 30 submitted earlier today.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table with no

intervening action or debate, and any statements related to the measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 201, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate, and any statements be printed in the Record.