[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 156 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6693-S6698]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ALASKA DAY
Ms. MURKOWSKI. Today, there is a celebration in Alaska. Tonight is
the 144th anniversary of Alaska Day. This is the day that commemorates
the first raising of the Stars and Stripes over Lord Baranof's castle
in Sitka, AK. At the time, Sitka was called New Archangel. Until that
moment, it was the capital of Russian America.
We celebrate Alaska's statehood today, October 18, and we also
celebrate our 52-year-old compact with the United States and its
promise to grant Alaskans the opportunity to participate equally with
the other States of the Union. Together with Hawaii, statehood for
Alaska marked the last chapter in America's great westward expansion.
Of course, that expansion began well before Alaska's statehood, well
before the purchase from Russia. It goes back to Thomas Jefferson's
Northwest Ordinance, which promised an equal footing for a State
government to stand on its own and to make that leap out of territorial
status. This resulted in States such as Ohio and Indiana forming as
sovereign governments with the Federal Government, relinquishing almost
all control over the lands within those borders. So people came to
live, to build their lives in these new States; and with their new
lives came the infrastructure--the roads, bridges, factories, and the
industry.
That set things in motion for expansion into the Far West frontier
States such as Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, and Montana. And then gold in
California and Colorado brought an urgency to the expansion. We saw the
railroads that helped accelerate and accommodate it.
In times past, the terms began to change. Precedents were
increasingly set for vast Federal land withdrawals in the form of
national forests, monuments, parks, and preserves. The promise and
definition of ``equal footing'' changed during these times. Ultimately,
more States had more of an equal footing than others, as we saw the
newest western States would soon have to contend with Federal land
managers.
None of this, though, took away from the hope that Alaskans felt when
Secretary of State William Seward negotiated the purchase of Alaska
from Tsar Nicholas, and he negotiated this purchase for $7.2 million.
We are talking a lot about money nowadays, and usually we are talking
in billions rather than millions. Think about it. The purchase of
Alaska came at the price of $7.2 million. That is about 2 cents an
acre, which is clearly a deal under anybody's terms.
Back in Sitka today, this day is always commemorated by the town's
biggest parade of the year as a time of
[[Page S6694]]
celebration, when many Alaskans remember the hope they felt for a
brighter future when we became the 49th State in the Union back in
1959. In 1959, I was only a year old, and so when President Eisenhower
signed that statehood act into law, it didn't have much of an
impression at that point in time. But I have felt--and I still feel--I
have grown up with Alaska, that we have both matured over the years.
Those who know me know I can go on and on extolling the virtues of my
State--something as simple as potatoes. I will brag that while we might
not have the biggest potatoes in the country, ours are germ free. We
are bigger, better, and we have more sun, more darkness, and it is
colder, and it is warmer. We are a land of extremes. We are an
incredible place.
Alaska is unparalleled in its beauty and its potential. There has
always been something that is very classically American about Alaska.
It is truly our Nation's last frontier--a place where it is still
possible for adventurous men and women to live the greatest version of
the American dream. I think that is what draws so many people to our
State. They still believe there is a place where you can live on the
edge of a lot of possibility, and that continues to make us a
remarkable place to be.
Statehood itself was a dream for many years among our pioneers and
native people. It didn't come quickly and certainly not easily. Prior
to statehood, we only had territorial status in the United States. That
left us without any votes here in the Congress. We weren't entitled to
receive funding for many programs, including highways. We were at the
mercy of the generosity of the Federal Government. We were at the mercy
of those out-of-State interests, which had locked in a foothold over
many of our resources.
I was born and raised in southeastern Alaska. My grandparents raised
their families there. I can remember the stories about the push for
statehood, stemming from the desire to control our fisheries--the
salmon wars that went on at that time.
Ultimately, statehood came about after 92 long years and only after
heroic efforts from a great many individuals--too many to do justice
this evening. But for purposes of my statement tonight, I want to
invoke three names that some in this town and some in this Chamber may
still remember.
The first is our former Governor and Senator Ernest Greuning, whose
seat in this Chamber I am humbled to hold. Senator Gruening was an
intellectual titan, the consummate public servant. He was an alumnus of
Harvard Medical School, a prolific journalist who served as editor to
both the New York Tribune and the magazine The Nation. He also
contributed to the Atlantic Monthly.
In the epic novel ``Alaska,'' written by James Michener, he credited
Senator Gruening with publicizing the cause for Alaskan statehood at
the national level. He called him ``perceptive and gifted.'' As a
testament to his legacy, Ernest Greuning's statue now stands just a few
steps away from here in the Capitol Visitor Center.
Another individual, a man who truly built our State, was Wally
Hickel, a former Governor. He was the man with whom President Nixon was
so impressed that he named him as his Secretary of the Interior.
Wally was a former boxer from Kansas. He arrived in Alaska with--the
legend goes--about 37 cents in his pocket. He rose to prominence in
both business and politics. He was at the forefront of negotiating
statehood. He understood the critical balance between the Federal
interests and the State interests, between the corporate interests and
the public interests.
Governor Hickel is important to this conversation because Alaska is
where he saw and realized the American dream, all the while with a
clear eye and vision toward the future of our State. We lost Wally
Hickel last spring, but his writings and his vision clearly continue to
guide our State.
A third name I want to bring up this evening is a man I was
privileged to work for and to serve with, and that is the late Senator
Ted Stevens.
I hold Senator Stevens--or Uncle Ted, as many in the State referred
to him--in great personal and professional regard. He was a World War
II pilot, a Harvard lawyer, who served as prosecutor in the territorial
days. He was a congressional liaison to President Eisenhower. He was an
attorney for the Interior Department. Much of the leg work that is
associated with statehood was Ted's, and much of what Alaska has become
is directly attributable to his work here in this Chamber.
Ted's work and his influence carried so much farther beyond Alaska.
His work in matters of national defense, telecom, and fisheries shaped
national and global politics. He was truly larger than life. He made
Alaska matter in a way that nobody could have imagined. Without him, it
is indisputable that we would not have the opportunities we have now.
The reason I invoke these names is to remind my colleagues about the
consequential nature, the gravitas of great men and women who made sure
that Alaska became our 49th State. These were exceptional Americans
with an exceptional vision. They qualified as the founding fathers of
my home State. They knew what Thomas Jefferson knew at the time of the
Northwest Ordinance--that the new State of Alaska didn't have the
population at the time and wasn't likely to get the population; that
they didn't have the infrastructure to support an economy, and that it
would not succeed without open access to this huge natural resource
base. This is why they negotiated 104 million acres of pure State land
and a 90-percent share of revenues from resource development on Federal
lands, compared to the 50 percent that is enjoyed by the rest of the
States.
There was no clear path to Alaska's self-sufficiency without these
terms. As a matter of fact, there still isn't. In 1958, the U.S.
Senate's official committee report on the Alaska Statehood Act promised
Alaska that it would be given great latitude to develop its resources.
It read:
Some of the additional costs connected with statehood will
be met by granting the State a reasonable return from Federal
exploitation of resources within the new State. In the past,
the United States has controlled the lion's share of
resources and, in some instances, retained the lion's share
of the proceeds. This situation, though, has not proved
conducive to development of the Alaskan economy. The
committee deems it only fair that when the State relieves the
United States of most of its expense burden, the State should
receive a realistic portion of the proceeds from resources
within its borders.
There is more to this. Secretary of Interior Fred Seaton, while in
Alaska in the summer of 1958, said that the statehood compact
``reaffirms Alaska's preferential treatment in receiving 90 percent of
all revenues from oil, gas, and coal leasing on public domain.'' In
Fairbanks, he went further, promising ``since early this year, the
territory has received 90 percent of all these oil lease revenues, and
the State of Alaska will continue to do so.''
These statements are remarkably clear. Alaska would be allowed to
develop these resources and receive most of the revenues from that
development. I truly wish I could stand here tonight, all these years
later, and say these promises have been upheld. I wish I could go to
sleep tonight or any night knowing the Federal Government had kept its
promises to the people of Alaska and that my children and their
children will surely see our State continue to prosper and come into
its own.
But the reality is that Alaska's relationship with the Federal
Government has become strained. The Federal Government has always had a
significant presence in the last frontier, from the first Alaska Day to
this one. But today, at a time when Alaskans need the Federal
Government to act as our partner, it has become an obstacle. Its
default position is no longer to enable prosperity for Alaskans. More
often than not, the Federal Government now delays or denies those
opportunities.
That leaves me concerned about the future of my State, not because of
the global economy, not because of high unemployment levels, but
because of the treatment we receive at the hands of our own Federal
Government.
I am here today to say that this treatment cannot go on like this. I
want to ensure that my colleagues in the Senate understand why.
I have asked for a large block of time tonight, and I don't usually
take a lot of floor time, particularly to go back into history. But
this is important to not only my State's past but my State's future.
I wish to explain some of what we are dealing with. Some of this may
not be
[[Page S6695]]
easy for some to see. Some believe that Alaska--and the rest of the
country, for that matter--is past the point where we need to develop
our resources. Many of our newer Members may not understand the
promises that were made to Alaska upon statehood. Therefore, they don't
understand what has been happening since then.
Adding to the complication is that our resource options have been
greatly restricted over the course of decades, not individual months or
even years. So to understand what has changed, we can't look back to
the start of this administration.
I will not single out the President and the administration and say
you are not letting us do something. The fact is that we have to go
back many administrations. We have to go all the way back to the late
1970s, a time when much of Alaska had already been withdrawn into
Federal wilderness status. President Carter and his Interior Secretary
had decided that, well, that wasn't enough. They designated over 56
million more acres of new national monuments, 40 million more acres of
wildlife refuges, and 11 million more acres of restricted national
forest. Now that in and of itself would have been unprecedented,
unprecedented in terms of the amount of land for the Federal Government
to unilaterally withdraw if it were nationwide, but this land was all
in Alaska. Every acre of it was in Alaska. So, not surprisingly, this
came over the State's objection.
Congress reacted to this tremendous Federal overreach so that
Alaska's Senators and lone Congressman, together with a few sympathetic
colleagues, could at least try to control that impact. That negotiated
truce was the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call
it ANILCA for short. In no uncertain terms, ANILCA was a compromise. It
was clearly a compromise.
For his part, when he signed ANILCA into law, President Carter
stated:
100 percent of the offshore areas and 95 percent of the
potentially productive oil and mineral areas will be
available for exploration or for drilling.
Again, that is President Carter saying that 100 percent of offshore
areas and 95 percent of potentially productive oil and mineral areas
will be available for exploration or for drilling--a pretty strong
statement, and it seemed pretty clear and very reassuring at the time
of this compromise. But today it stands as probably the worst broken
promise the Federal Government has ever made to the State of Alaska. As
the Department of the Interior reported just this past spring, less
than 1 percent--less than 1 percent--of Federal lands in Alaska is
currently producing oil or natural gas. I would suggest that is an
indictment. A significant portion of our lands have been placed off
limits, and then where development is allowed, it is often stalled by
Federal redtape. That is wrong. It is wrong, it is unacceptable, and it
is to the detriment of both Alaska and our Nation as a whole.
Alaska is nearly 4,000 miles from where we are here in Washington,
DC. I know because I log that trip on Alaska Airlines quite frequently.
I know that what makes news back home doesn't always make news here. So
I would like to use part of my time tonight to provide the Senate with
some of the many examples of how resource development in my home State
is being held back. Let's start with mining.
Back in 2009, the EPA attempted to halt the Kensington Gold Mine from
proceeding in southeast Alaska, and this happened after two decades--
two decades--of agency review and legal challenges. It happened even
though the Supreme Court had ruled that a crucial permit for the mine
was indeed valid. But the EPA was so unhappy with this decision, it
jumped back in. It sought to nullify the plan that had just held up to
the scrutiny of the Supreme Court. This was not the Alaska Supreme
Court, this was the U.S. Supreme Court. This was not an effort to
protect the environment by the EPA. The EPA proposal was demonstrably
worse for the environment. This was an effort to stop the mine at all
costs, regardless of the consequences for the local economy or the
hundreds of Alaskans who were depending on jobs from this particular
mine.
More recently, we have seen Senators within this body from other
States challenge a mine that could one day be located in southwest
Alaska. Those Senators have asked the EPA to consider a preemptive veto
of the mine. This is even before a plan has been proposed. I have said
that a preemptive veto makes no more sense than a preemptive approval
and that we should provide a robust environmental review when and if a
permit application is going to be submitted.
I will remind everyone here that we don't have a habit of hastily
approving mines in this country. In fact, we rank dead last--dead
last--among all the countries in the world in the amount of time it
takes to review permits. This mine will have to secure at least 67
different permits, approvals, and authorizations from Federal, State,
and local governments. That represents about 67 chances for the mine to
be delayed, modified, or halted. But some apparently believe that
process is still not sufficient.
Now let's talk about timber and the wholesale destruction of the
timber industry in southeast Alaska. At this point, I feel once again
as though I need to put my Alaska bona fides out there and remind
everybody how big Alaska is. We are more than twice the size of Texas.
People forget that. We have a lot of room up there. We could produce a
tremendous portion of our Nation's timber and pulp if we were only
allowed to do so. We could do that while leaving the vast majority of
our lands untouched. But that hasn't been possible. Southeast Alaska is
nearly all Federal lands, so our ability to conduct logging there is
very heavily dependent on the Federal Government's willingness to grant
access.
When ANILCA passed, the timber industry, in return for accepting the
creation of more than 5 million acres of new national monuments closed
to timber harvesting, was assured that the Forest Service would make
450 million board feet of timber available in the future--half of what
was being produced prior to the bill's passage. We accepted that as a
compromise. ANILCA also guaranteed $40 million worth of funding each
year for road building, for precommercial thinning to allow the
existing industry to survive on a smaller land base.
So you might ask the question, what happened? Alaska's timber
industry has not thrived. It struggles. Go down to the southeast and
talk to people in Ketchikan or out in Thorne Bay, and it is worse than
struggling. They are on life support. They are struggling to survive as
outside forces repeatedly attempt to shut it down. At the urging of the
Washington, DC, environmental community, the funding within ANILCA was
repealed and the allowable harvest level was cut in half again over the
following decade. But even that reduced amount of logging seems
expansive today because the Forest Service has made far less than 50
million board feet available for timber harvest within the past 3
years. So far this year, the Forest Service has amazingly sold just 2
million board feet of new timber offerings. This is a dramatic decline
for an industry that once provided thousands of well-paying jobs for
residents in southeast Alaska, as well as the revenue that came in and,
by the way, some really world-class quality wood and pulp resources for
the rest of our country.
Given these restrictions, it probably comes as no surprise that
employment in the industry has plummeted from about 6,000 total jobs in
1980 to where we are today, which is about 450, and that includes all
of the support structure as well. So for those of us who grew up in the
Tonkas--I was born in Ketchikan and raised in places such as Juneau and
Wrangell--to see an economy be truly just cut off to the point that it
is no longer existent because of Federal policies is very difficult to
deal with.
Then, of course, we can take a look at Alaska's oil and gas industry,
which currently provides nearly 90 percent of the revenues for Alaska's
State budget and historically as much as 20 percent of our Nation's
petroleum supply. We are pretty proud of this. We feel as though we
have done a pretty good job. Here more than anywhere else we see the
scope and the consequences of Federal decisions to restrict resource
development.
Just to put things in context so that people know what I am talking
about--and I don't have the rest of the country on here, Mr. President,
because that
[[Page S6696]]
chart is coming later--in understanding where Alaska's resources lie, I
think it helps to understand the management and the division within our
State in terms of our lands. I don't expect most can see this map, but
it is kind of a jumble of colors. What I will direct your attention
to--and those who are looking at this--is all of the green areas, which
are Forest Service, and the orange and tan areas are our BLM parklands.
The areas that are in blue are the State lands. The small areas where
you have red are areas held in private lands, whether it is Native
lands or whether it is held in private lands.
Up here, in the National Petroleum Reserve at the top of the State,
is an area that Congress explicitly designated--they have singled out
and explicitly designated--for producing oil. But Federal regulators
will not allow a simple bridge to be built over a remote river, and
without this bridge, it is not possible or it is exceptionally
difficult to begin commercial production. So you have production within
a National Petroleum Reserve that is remaining off limits at this
moment.
I have asked the question--and it is not a rhetorical question but
one clearly worth repeating--if we can't get petroleum from the
National Petroleum Reserve, from where can we get it? This is an area
that was specifically designated by the Congress. Yet we are being held
up from accessing this because we cannot get approval to place a bridge
over the Colville River. So we continue to work this because it is
extraordinary that we would be held up these many years.
Offshore, in the Beaufort and the Chukchi, are areas estimated to
contain more than 20 billion barrels of oil. Production in these areas
could help us refill our pipeline, which is running dangerously low,
and create many thousands of good-paying jobs. But Federal regulators
have held this up over really, of all things, air permits needed for
exploratory operations to begin miles offshore in the Arctic Ocean. We
have seen some steps in the right direction, and that is good. But the
fact is, drilling has been canceled each of the last four seasons, and
next year is still uncertain.
I had an opportunity to quiz Director Bromwich today. He is trying to
give me the assurance that this might be on track for next season. But
it has been almost 5 years and cost almost $4 billion, all in an effort
to get to the point where we can proceed to begin exploration. Alaska
has already lost hundreds of jobs and millions in revenues because of
these federally imposed delays.
Of course, I cannot not talk about Alaska's oil and gas resources
without discussing Alaska's coastal plain, which is this area right
over here adjoining Canada. We have an area up north that is estimated
to hold 10.4 billion barrels of oil. This is the mean estimate, so it
is quite possibly much more than that. I have sponsored legislation to
allow responsible development in the nonwilderness portion--not in the
wilderness portion--of ANWR. We are not going to touch the wilderness
portion, just the nonwilderness portion of ANWR. I have offered this
for several Congresses now.
But even limiting that development to 0.1 percent of the refuge has
proven unacceptable to many Members of this Chamber. We repeatedly hear
from others that this area is too sensitive, despite Alaska's very
strong record of environmental stewardship in nearby Prudhoe Bay. We
repeatedly hear it is just going to take too long for this oil to come
to market. They will say it is going to take 10 years to get ANWR oil.
That is too long.
The ``10 years away'' argument has been made for over 20 years now.
So instead of continuing to delay, let's figure out how we make this
happen. But instead of any promotion in Congress and from the Fish and
Wildlife Service, we face efforts to put all the Coastal Plain into
permanent wilderness restriction.
To anyone who thinks the nonwilderness portion of ANWR was never
meant for energy development, I would point you to President
Eisenhower's original designation creating not a refuge but the Arctic
Range. I would also remind you that President Eisenhower had both an
assistant to the Secretary of the Interior Department and a
congressional liaison, and that individual was named Ted Stevens. Ted
was in the room with Interior Secretary Seaton, drafting the Executive
order for the Arctic Range Conservation Program. If you think he would
have considered locking up Alaska's resources, I don't think you know
him as I did.
The order clearly provided that oil and gas development would be
permitted so long as there were reasonable protections in place for the
flora and the fauna. I would encourage any of my colleagues, look up
this Executive order of December 6, 1960, if you have any further
questions.
For all of its broken promises, ANILCA is still law, and it contains
two very important provisions that were negotiated by Senator Stevens.
The first is for an oil and gas exploratory program to occur in the
1002 Area. This is this small portion of the Coastal Plain that I have
sought to open. But I wish to repeat this. Existing law provides for
oil and gas exploration, and exploratory drilling has already occurred
in ANWR. In fact, in the two winters in 1984 and 1985, seismic
exploration was conducted along 1,400 miles of survey lines in ANWR.
There were several companies that were also permitted to conduct other
geologic studies, such as surface rock sampling and mapping and some
geochemical testing. This resulted in a report from the Interior
Department based on what it learned about the resource and the ability
to develop it responsibly, recommending that Congress take the next
step and authorize oil and gas leasing for the entire 1002 Area.
We have to ask the question: Why is this relevant? To begin with, it
is worth noting that the current law already provides for exploratory
drilling in ANWR. All that is prohibited is development leading to
production. I doubt many people realize we have actually already
authorized drilling in ANWR, and Congress's real decision is to decide
whether we leave the oil in there or whether we let it come to market.
The second major provision in ANILCA is probably better known. It is
called the ``no more'' clause, and we talk about it a lot in Alaska. It
is an express prohibition on any more wilderness withdrawals in Alaska.
Included is a congressional finding that Alaska has unequivocally
contributed enough of its lands to conservation purposes. I am going to
quote directly from this law. It has been upheld in court, it remains
in place today, and it provides as follows:
This act provides sufficient protection for the national
interests in the scenic, natural, cultural, and environmental
values on the public lands in Alaska, and at the same time
provides adequate opportunity for satisfaction of the
economic and social needs of the State of Alaska and its
people. Accordingly, the designation and disposition of the
public lands in Alaska pursuant to this Act are found to
represent a proper balance between the reservation of
national conservation system units and those public lands
necessary and appropriate for more intensive use and
disposition. And, thus, Congress believes that the need for
future legislation designating new conservation system units,
new national conservation areas, or new national recreation
areas has been obviated thereby.
I don't think it could be any more clear than that. It troubles me a
great deal when people in Washington then take it upon themselves to
look for more wilderness in Alaska.
In 2004, the General Services Administration reported that more than
60 percent of Alaska was owned by the Federal Government--about 250
million acres in total. Again, if we look at the map, outside of the
blue areas, pretty much all that we are seeing the green, the kind of
tan, the orange, these are all Federal areas. So about 250 million
acres are owned by the Federal Government. Compare that with some of
the other States.
I don't mean to pick on the smaller States, but Connecticut, 0.4
percent of Connecticut, about 14,000 Federal acres. New York is 0.8
percent, about 230,000 acres. Illinois is 1.8 percent. They have about
640,000 Federal acres. But, again, according to that report, the State
of Alaska has about 250 million acres of land under Federal control.
So we would say: Where are their private lands? Less than 1 percent
of Alaska's lands are privately held. People have a tough time with
that because they think: They have so much land. They have so much
acreage. It is so huge. Surely, they must have some of that in private
land.
[[Page S6697]]
It is less than 1 percent. It begs the question, when we are looking
to add more wilderness, how fair is it to look to Alaska for more
wilderness, when we have some 250 million acres in Federal control
already, more wilderness in Alaska, in one State, than in the rest of
the Nation combined? It is an important question to be asked.
We would at least suppose that the vast areas where Alaska cannot
develop our resources would give us a silver lining of more
recreational access. I know the Chair enjoys the great outdoors, as do
I, and we like to get out and hike and be part of what we have with the
land. But with Alaska's land management, even access to our lands makes
it complicated, and that promise too has been broken.
Under ANILCA, Alaska's outdoor recreational enthusiasts were promised
access to the 120 million acres of new parks, refuges, and wilderness
areas. Again, whether it is our Forest Service lands, our Park Service
lands, our refuge lands, it was all promised that, OK, it is there. It
is for all to enjoy. But as we feared, soon after the bill was passed,
after ANILCA passed, Federal agencies closed access. They closed access
by snow machines, they closed access by road, and they closed access by
plane to some of the lands. In other words, we can enjoy access, we can
enjoy this if we can walk there. That is good for those of us who are
still able-bodied, and we are much stronger when we are going up those
mountains. But the fact is, it is limited if we can't access it by any
other means other than walking there.
The access further went when Glacier Bay was shut off to commercial
fishing entirely. It especially hurt where Alaskans, whose property
then became in-holdings within these new conservation areas, they faced
regulations just 5 years after this law was passed that made permission
for access into their lands much more difficult, clearly, much more
expensive, and sometimes shutting them out altogether. To this day, I
deal with constituents who are out here in the McCarthy area, a great
park area, but there are in-holdings, private in-holdings. But in order
to gain access to their property that is rightly theirs--and the
Federal Government recognizes it--they say: They can be there, but we
are going to make it extraordinarily difficult for them to gain access
to their own property.
So the promise that we as Alaskans would be able to enjoy this
incredible land we have, even that has been hindered.
I have chosen to speak about these broken promises today because I
wish to make clear that both history and the law point squarely to
Alaska's right to the use and enjoyment of its lands. While the law
should be well enough, we can't forget why good public policy weighs in
favor as well.
The decisions to block Alaskan development have come to a head at the
worst possible time. We have high unemployment. We have record Federal
debt. We have global financial distress. Alaska could help on all these
fronts. We stand ready to create tens of thousands of jobs. We can
create hundreds of billions of dollars in new Federal revenues. We can
help relieve the staggering costs our Nation pays for foreign oil, but
we need permission from the Federal Government.
At times it seems that many in this Chamber have forgotten why we
need to produce our natural resources in the first place. The answer is
pretty simple: It leads to economic growth, it leads to prosperity, and
it helps us compete in a rapidly changing world. But because we have
slowed down resource production, because we have locked down so much of
our lands, our Nation is increasingly--and I believe needlessly--facing
scarcity issues and dependency, dependent on foreign sources, for so
many of the resources we depend upon. In terms of many of these crucial
resources, whether it be energy, timber, minerals, Alaska is not just
the last frontier; it is truly the best option.
I am not overstating the case to say that much of our Nation's
competitiveness rests on our ability to access our resources. Right
now, though, we are constantly blocked. Production is happening all
around us. Just look at what is going on. We had a hearing today in the
Energy Committee discussing what is happening offshore of Cuba. It is
not just happening offshore of Cuba. It is offshore in Russia. It is
offshore in Canada. It is down in Mexico. It is in Cuba. We can look to
China for our rare earth elements, but why would we do that when we
have the prospects in this country in Alaska? Alaska has these
resources.
The positive benefits that would result if we reversed the current
dynamic are not up for debate. Countless studies clearly show that
development in Alaska, because of its grand scale and high resource
values, will create jobs and economic benefits for literally every
single State--for the Chair's State of Colorado, for all our States.
This does not require clear-cutting the State or drilling every inch of
our State or every acre or every region--not even close. We are asking
to pursue development on a very small amount of land, especially when
we consider Alaska's prolific standards.
To put it into context of the whole, and I hope everyone can see the
outline of the lower 48 States here and Alaska is superimposed. I
didn't put Alaska in the middle there because it looks better in the
middle. What I am trying to show is, this is a proportionate picture of
how Alaska, if it were superimposed over the lower 48--where we extend
to: all the way in southeastern Ketchikan over here, which sits in
Florida, to fully the furthest part of the west coast, which is the
Aleutian Islands, all the way down here, going all the way up to the
North and into the South.
The reality is, Alaska is a State the size of which can't easily be
measured or even understood. As I mentioned, its most distant points
stretch from Florida to California. Lay it across the continental
United States like this, and people say we must be making it up.
Mr. President, you have had the opportunity to travel to my State.
You appreciate that when you are flying in an airplane for hours and
still looking down and realizing, I am still flying over the same
State--you can appreciate the size and scope of what we are dealing
with. Within this area lies a tremendous natural resource base,
conventional and nonconventional, renewable and nonrenewable.
When you see Alaska on a map, you never see it represented in
proportionate size. You never realize just how unbelievably large it
is. Unfortunately, for years when I was in school, Alaska was always in
a little box down off of California or off of Mexico, that little piece
down there. Our kids did not know where the exact spot on the map was.
They did not know the size. We are continuing to educate and educate in
an important way because it does make a difference.
Before I go off this chart, I want to again put in context the
management issues we deal with. Look at this green area. This would be
about 64 percent of Alaska under Federal management. State management
is about 24.5 percent, about 90 million acres; 10 percent is Native
held; and then less than 1 percent, about 1 million acres, is in
private hands. That gives you an appreciation of what it is we are
dealing with.
Mr. President, you and I have had an opportunity to talk about some
of the truly magical places you have enjoyed in Alaska. I appreciate
your perspective and the special places you have been. There is no
argument--you will not find argument from this Alaskan--that major
portions of Alaska are truly worth protecting and should not be
developed. Those are some pretty spectacular areas. You may see them
advertised. Oftentimes you will have environmental groups that will
advertise them. The photographs may or may not always reflect the
actual proposed sites, but they are beautiful. We will not ever dispute
that they are beautiful.
The current Deputy Secretary of the Interior has said we are not
going to drill in our pristine wilderness any more than we are going to
build a dam in the Grand Canyon. We are not proposing that, not by any
legal or commonsense definition.
We have in our State five major oil-bearing regions that remain
nonproducing. We have a pipeline that is dwindling at one-third of its
capacity. This pipeline literally bisects the State of Alaska. It is
the spinal cord of our State's economy. It is a critical artery for
America's energy security. Right now, that pipeline is running low, it
is running slow, and we are being prevented from accessing the
resources to
[[Page S6698]]
build it up. We have negotiated, pleaded, and begged for access to our
resources for more than a generation. We have even been willing to
sacrifice some of the revenues Alaska is clearly entitled to by law,
and it has fallen on positively deaf ears here in Washington, even at a
time when those dollars would mean quite a lot in terms of avoiding
painful tax hikes or program cuts. When you look back on the past 50
years, it is more than a little astonishing that opposition to
development continues to be so just dug in.
I think what has been borne out from Alaska's resource development is
a very strong record of environmental stewardship. We have produced our
natural resources for generations. For my entire life there, we have
been producing our resources, whether it is our timber, whether it is
our fisheries, whether it is mining and now oil. We have produced them
for generations, and we have preserved our pristine qualities and the
natural beauty perfectly. We are a world-class vacation destination for
everyone who wants to come up on the big cruise ships, to those who
want to do the ecotourism. We are a genuine paradise for the trophy
fisherman, for the hunters who want to come to Alaska. We have a fish
and game management program that is the most productive, the most
sustainable model for the entire world.
I have people tell me: The one thing I want to do before I die is go
to Alaska and see it. So if we have been producing all of our resources
for all these years, for all these generations--if we really had been
doing that terrible of a job, why does everybody want to see this
incredibly beautiful land we have? I suggest it is because we have been
doing a pretty good job of resource development as we have gone along
the course.
Resource production has yielded substantial social and economic
benefits to the State. More than 16 billion barrels of oil have been
sent to the lower 48, with minimal environmental impact. Our oil also
supplies refineries near Fairbanks and Anchorage. It allows us to serve
as an international cargo hub. Our refineries produce the fuel for
fighter jets and other military needs at our four bases. The strategic
value of Alaska's geographical position--we sit literally at the top of
the world there--for military purposes alone is sufficient to justify
access to the resource, even if we were to ignore the jobs, ignore the
revenue and the energy security benefits that come along with it. Yet,
as I stand here today, virtually every extractive industry in Alaska
has been disrupted by the Federal Government. Mining, timber, oil and
gas--all these productions are well below or well behind the levels
that would best serve Alaska and our country. No matter the project, it
seems we have to fight the Federal Government for access and permission
every single step of the way.
Federal agencies are attempting to subvert Supreme Court decisions.
Senators from other States are attempting to halt mines that have not
even been proposed. Permits are delayed, they are withheld, and they
are outright refused. Drilling cannot take place in places Congress has
explicitly designated for drilling, including our National Petroleum
Reserve.
At the root of these troubles really is Alaska's treatment by the
Federal Government. Because we have so much land and because we do
depend on the development of these lands to thrive as a State, Alaska's
future truly rests in the Federal Government's hands. But at the very
moment--at the time when we most need the Federal Government to be
acting as our partner, it has become an obstacle to progress and to our
prosperity. The promises that were made at statehood and under ANILCA
seem to be remembered only by Alaskans.
So it is apparent to me that the system of Federal land management
and land use that used to work has now turned against us. Instead of
facilitating new development and working to ensure it is carried out
responsibly, the Federal Government now routinely denies our
opportunities and locks up Alaska's lands. No matter where we look, we
face this gauntlet of land use and environmental statutes that have
been twisted into permitting delays, project denials, endless
litigation. Put at risk is the sound economy we have worked very hard
to build, the livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of Alaskans, and our
ability to live up to our obligation at statehood to remain financially
solvent as a State. We are in this position for, I believe, one reason,
and that is because the promises that were made to Alaska by the
Federal Government have been broken. We have asked nicely--perhaps too
nicely--for a long time for those promises to be honored.
So, before I close, I would like to draw one more quotation from
Senator Gruening, of whom I spoke earlier. This is a rather lengthy
quote, but it is one worth hearing. Senator Gruening states:
We Alaskans believe passionately that American citizenship
is the most precious possession in the world. Hence we want
it in full measure; full citizenship instead of half-
citizenship; first class instead of second class citizenship.
We demand equality with all other Americans and the liberties
long denied us that go with it. To adapt Daniel Webster's
famous phrase uttered as a peroration against impending
separatism, we Alaskans want ``liberty and union, one and
inseparable, now and forever.''
But the keepers of Alaska's colonial status should be
reminded that the 18th century colonials for long years
sought merely to obtain relief from abuses, for which they--
like us--vainly pleaded, before finally resolving that only
independence would secure for them the ``life, liberty and
pursuit of happiness,'' which they felt was their natural
right.
We trust that the United States will not, by similar
blindness to our rights and deafness to our pleas, drive
Alaskans from patient hope to desperation.
That is pretty lofty language, I grant you, but I think it is suited.
I think it is suited to this conversation this evening. Just as Ernest
Gruening had to have this same fight from this same Chamber over 50
years ago, I am compelled to remind this body that the greatness of
this Nation, the ultimate and true greatness of the experiment, depends
on the greatness of the individual States which comprise it. As we look
at our States and what they are capable of achieving, I would bet
Alaska's potential against any other.
Today, on the 144th anniversary of Alaska Day, I ask the Senate to
just think, to consider the promises that were made to the State of
Alaska, to realize that those promises have not been kept but broken to
the detriment of both Alaska and our Nation as a whole. This must be
changed with the realization that partnership, not abject denial, is
truly the best path forward. If the Federal Government keeps its
promises, Alaska will realize its potential, grow as a State, and
secure its future.
We would not be doing this just for Alaska alone. The rest of the
Nation will benefit greatly as well. That is something we need. It is
something we should all agree to work for. There is probably no better
time to start than today as we recognize Alaska Day.
I thank the Chair for the attention of the Presiding Officer and for
the opportunity to share a little bit of Alaska's history and our
frustration with the present.
I yield the floor.
____________________