[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.

                          ____________________