It's a very important bill to me. It's a very important bill to so many Alaskans.

This is yet another attempt to try to right a wrong that I really think we should have been able to resolve some time ago.

Does anybody else care to comment on that?

I'm more convinced that it's over water, because it's through water that we will be able to control so much of what we do in other parts of our world.

I think it's important that we have worked diligently throughout this process to ensure that it is not precedent setting.

We testified in support of the Alaska Land Transfer and Acceleration Act of 2004 legislation sponsored by Senator Lisa Murkowski.

S. 340 would not establish a precedent, given that the other regional corporations have assured her that they would not ask Congress to allow major changes to their existing land holdings.

I think these changes have vastly improved the bill from the 2008 original.

I think at the end of the day, we have to remember that everything begins with water.

If this legislation can't go through truly those timber jobs are no longer there to make this transition.

go fight the good fight, because Alaska also doesn't have that sales tax.

We appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this legislation which will shape the future of Southeast Alaska in profound ways.

this proposal, in my view, is dead on arrival. It's just not going to happen.

It's a big problem all through the Eastern United States.

It would be outrageous, really, if this small family-run business has to stop providing a service for local families with pets because the cost of compliance with the regulations, of dubious environmental benefit at least in this instance…

I have to tell you, I am concerned about what we have seen coming out of the Circuit Court here.

But we want to work with your staff to see if this is the final answer.

the EPA is using what they consider to be some overly optimistic forecasts that overstate the benefits of regulation and understates their cost.

The sheer number of rulemakings the EPA is currently proposing, the cost of compliance... It is very frustrating to the public.

We talk a lot around here about cost benefit analysis at times of declining budget. It is important.

It is just not acceptable and I mentioned in my opening comments that this really fundamentally alters Indian self-determination and with no consultation.

I just want to state for the record here this afternoon how very disappointed I am with the Administration's decision to alter the operation of Indian self-determination contracts.

Well, if you can encourage that shortly is sooner rather than later, as you know, fishing season is coming fast upon us.

Secure Rural Schools payments were made on time in early January 2013, while the sequestration debate continued in Congress.

Shortly is an ill-defined term in the Congress. Can you give me anything better?