[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 50 (Wednesday, April 29, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3751-S3752]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           ALASKA LANDS BILL

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak on behalf of S. 660, 
known as the University of Alaska lands bill.
  Alaska entered the Union in 1959 as the largest State with about 360 
million to 365 million acres of land, an area one-fifth the size of the 
United States. As part of our Statehood Compact, we were to be treated 
like other States and, from the standpoint of land provided for our 
land grant education system, namely the University of Alaska, we were 
to be accorded a reasonable amount of land for our land grant college.
  Today, Alaska ranks 48th out of 50 States in the federal land granted 
for higher education. We have approximately 112,000 acres. It is 
important that I put this in perspective, because the State of New 
Mexico has 1.3 million acres; Oklahoma has 1,050,000 acres; Indiana has 
436,000 acres; New York, 990,000 acres. And here sits Alaska, 48th, 
with 112,000 acres.
  Something is lacking with regard to the issue of equity. We are the 
only federal land grant college in the country without the federal 
land. We received less than one-half of the Federal land that was 
promised. There is only one other State that has less land in its land 
grant system, and that is the State of Delaware with approximately 
90,000 acres. Here is Alaska with 360 million acres receiving 112,000; 
New Mexico and Oklahoma over 1 million acres.
  This bill I have offered provides the university with land to support 
itself financially and to continue, obviously, to act as a responsible 
steward of the land for the education of our greatest resource, our 
children.
  Specifically, this bill would grant the university 250,000 acres of 
Federal land within our State. I might add that the Federal Government 
has approximately two-thirds of the landmass of our State, which is 
somewhere in the area of 200 million acres. So we are not talking about 
transferring very much. We are talking about 250,000 acres out of 200 
million, or thereabouts.
  In addition to this initial grant, if the State of Alaska chooses to 
grant the University land, we propose an acre for acre match, up to 
250,000 additional federal acres. This option would be solely at the 
option of the State.
  Again, the bill would provide 250,000 acres to be transferred to the 
State of Alaska, specifically for its university land grant system, and 
then if the State provides additional acres, there would be a provision 
for up to another 250,000 acres of matching Federal land.
  There are areas that the university cannot select land from within 
the Federal domain. They cannot select land within conservation units; 
they cannot select land within the LUD II areas designated in the 
Tongass National Forest. They cannot select land conveyed to the State 
or Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act Corporation land. They cannot 
select land with connection to any Federal military institution.
  This legislation also provides for what we think is a legitimate 
exchange, because the university does hold some rather sensitive land. 
They have land on the Alaska Peninsula in the Maritime National 
Wildlife Refuge. The university has land in the Kenai Fjords National 
Park. The university has lands in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park 
and Preserve and the Denali Park and Preserve. The University would be 
required to relinquish these lands under this legislation.
  To give you some idea of some of the inholdings the university has, 
many, many years ago there was a major discovery in Glacier Bay 
National Park by the Newmont Mining Company, and that was a large 
nickel reserve. It has never been mined, but it was patented. The 
patent was turned over to the university. They are willing to give some 
very sensitive environmental lands back to the Federal Government in 
exchange for a fulfillment of their federal land grant.
  It is not without equity, Mr. President. I know of no other State 
that has given lands back to the federal government in exchange for 
lands given to it for its higher educational system.
  S. 660 allows the State the option to participate in the process, as 
I indicated. I think it is time the Federal Government lived up to its 
commitment to the State of Alaska, as it has to the other States, by 
allowing Alaska to participate in a realistic Federal land grant for 
the education of the young people of our State.
  Let me advise the Presiding Officer how this process would basically 
be addressed. The University of Alaska, like most universities, has a 
board of regents. In our case, the board of regents is appointed by the 
Governor. They bear the responsibility of responding not only to the 
legislature and the Governor but the people of Alaska on how they 
utilize the land.
  Clearly, some of the land would be for development to help fund the 
university and would set up an endowment. We often look with envy to 
our sister State, the State of Washington to the south, where the 
University of Washington has large landholdings in the downtown Seattle 
area. From those leases which the university holds, there has been 
significant real estate development. The funding from the lease 
payments goes to the university, an endowment of sorts, and funds the 
university's needs.
  Some have expressed the concern that this land may be developed and 
there will not be the careful consideration given relative to the 
balance associated with how the land is used. But that is a legitimate 
responsibility of the board of regents. My answer is, if you cannot 
trust the board of regents, appointed people who are accountable to 
other Alaskans, as well as our Governor and the legislature, who can 
you trust?
  So I think what we have here, Mr. President, is an issue that begs 
the question of why Alaska should be treated any differently than any 
other State. We should have a reasonable amount of land for our land-
grant college.
  We are faced with a situation where we have an institution somewhat 
in crisis because it does not have the ability to have funding from an 
endowment, and, as a consequence, its entire operational budget must be 
met annually by the State legislature, which has resulted in a decline 
in maintenance

[[Page S3752]]

and other normal types of expenditures that most land grant university 
systems enjoy from the endowment that is generated from the 
landholdings that they have. But that is not the case with Alaska, and 
that is why we feel it is so important to rectify this situation.
  I conclude by indicating that some of America's environmental groups 
are in opposition to this. They are fearful that the university will 
make Federal land selections and develop that land. My answer to that 
is, what is wrong with responsible development? It provides jobs, it 
provides a tax base, and it would provide a regular source of funding 
for the university. To suggest that we cannot develop certain areas 
within strict accordance with environmental considerations I think is 
really selling Alaska and America's can-do technology short. We can 
responsibly develop these areas if given the opportunity.
  In the interest of equity and fairness, I encourage my colleagues to 
reflect on the merits of treating Alaska in the same manner in which 
other States were treated when they came into the Union by adequately 
funding their land-grant holdings so that they can meet the needs of 
the higher education system; namely, the University of Alaska.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

                          ____________________