Cap and trade is an anti-growth proposal that will hurt American industries and American families more than it will help them.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I do believe that climate change must be addressed, but only after considering all of our options.

We can't be implementing policies that are 'a wish and a prayer' policy.

We need to appreciate it was limited to what was happening here in this country.

The cost estimates that we are here to discuss are clearly very important, and will significantly impact the Senate's ability to pass climate legislation.

I'm hopeful that their column will mark a shift in the climate debate.

We all know we're in the midst of a recession that is costing us millions of jobs, trillions of dollars.

It is important that we understand where our resources are and as we are talking about public land set-asides, what we are doing.

Good and complete information about the extent and the location of our Nation's natural resources is clearly essential.

We still would ask for the assistance that we gained in 2007 with that study.

It is incredibly important that within USGS they help to work with us to predict and minimize the risk to people in the State of Alaska.

I would just add another one to put on your radar screen.

I don't want this to be a situation where this legislation that would bring, equity to the Sealaska people would be held hostage to a process that is certainly important, but it's also one that is very complicated, takes a great deal of…

NPCA is opposed to all language in this bill that directs the National Park Service to enter into a cooperative agreement with Sealaska Corporation, or any other Village or Urban Corporation.

I would suggest to you that 38 years for the Sealaska people to wait for their lands is not treating them fairly.

I appreciate the administration's statement of support for S. 522.

I very much appreciate your sense of urgency and understand that this is an important issue and that it does have to be addressed in a timely fashion.

Almost everyone agrees that Sealaska should be able to gain the last 65,000 to 85,000 acres promised the corporation by ANCSA's terms.

Is it not also accurate that it's not just Sealaska, but through the 7 [i] distributions other Alaska Native corporations throughout the State would also be impacted through that loss of revenue source?

The question some have asked me is, well, if Sealaska has waited for 38 years to get their final conveyance and if in fact there is this process under way through the Tongass Futures Roundtable, what is another few years of waiting?

What we're trying to provide here is equity to the Sealaska shareholders.

I appreciate the explanation because I think it goes to the heart of what we're doing here today.

Let me ask the question about the environmental impacts, because I believe it was Ms. Burke, and also Mr. Jensen, but I believe that Ms. Burke spoke to the fact that Sealaska, they can always select from the remaining acres of the original…

We have expressed our concern about the cooperative agreement language on numerous occasions to Sealaska and to both Senators Murkowski and Begich.