[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 29, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2116-S2118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ALASKA'S SESQUICENTENNIAL

  Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this evening 
in celebration of an important milestone, but speaking about it 
actually presents a little bit of a challenge. In our current 
environment, how do you give a statement about a Secretary of State, a 
Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, a Russian Ambassador, and 
an exchange of millions of dollars without making sensational 
headlines? Well, my answer to that is you tell the story of Alaska and 
the Treaty of Cession that brought Alaska into our Nation on March 30, 
1867, exactly 150 years ago tomorrow.
  If we are going to be fair, this story actually begins years before 
1867. The United States and Russia had been in discussions over 
Russia's territorial claims since 1856, but the domestic turmoil and 
the Civil War in the United States stymied progress. So it wasn't until 
March 11, 1867, when Edouard de Stoeckl, Russia's Foreign Minister to 
the United States, met with then-Secretary of State William Seward that 
discussions really began in earnest.
  From that time on, things really picked up speed. Just a few weeks 
later, on March 29, 1867--150 years ago today--Stoeckl received a cable 
from Czar Alexander II, approving a deal--a deal that would transfer 
Russia's interests in North America to the United States. In my office, 
I actually have a copy, a replica of the deal that was written, along 
with the note for $7.2 million. That was the deal, but closing it in 
time was far from certain.
  With work in this Congress rapidly wrapping up ahead of its April 
adjournment--can you imagine that, actually having an adjournment 
around this body in April? But that was the way it was 150 years ago. 
There was little time to complete an agreement and see it ratified, but 
Secretary Seward was determined, and despite some rather lackluster 
interest from President Andrew Johnson, he pressed forward with this.
  When Ambassador Stoeckl received the cable, he went to Seward's house 
on Lafayette Square to deliver the news to him. According to the 
National Archives, Mr. Stoeckl said: ``Tomorrow, if you like, I will 
come to the department, and we can enter upon the treaty.'' To which 
Seward replied: ``Why wait until tomorrow, Mr. Stoeckl? Let us make the 
treaty tonight.''
  Secretary Seward was not merely a determined man; he was really a 
very canny man--canny because before he met Ambassador Stoeckl, he 
consulted with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, 
who at the time was Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. He did this to 
ensure smooth action by the U.S. Senate in approving a treaty. In other 
words--and this is a lesson that all good members of the executive 
branch should perhaps take to heart--the Secretary consulted with the 
Congress before taking action.
  Conveniently, Senator Sumner and Secretary Seward lived on opposite 
sides of Lafayette Square from each other, and, according to the 
National Archives, they were able to meet at Secretary Seward's home. 
While Senator Sumner made no commitments about the passage of the 
treaty, he did send a note to Secretary Seward later that evening 
saying that following its adjournment at noon on Saturday, March 30, 
``the Senate would be glad to proceed at once with Executive business'' 
and consider the treaty. With that, Ambassador Stoeckl and Secretary 
Seward went to work, crafting the treaty that night and long into the 
morning, finally putting their signatures to it at 4 a.m. on Saturday, 
March 30, 1867.
  By 10 a.m. that same day, Secretary Seward had met with the Cabinet 
and with President Johnson to execute a proclamation calling the Senate 
into special session on Monday, April 1.
  It was in Senator Sumner's famous speech to the Senate that day that 
the word ``Alaska'' was first officially used to describe the new 
territory. The word ``Alaska'' is Aleut in origin. Traditionally 
translated as ``mainland,'' it literally means, ``the object toward 
which the action of the sea is directed.''
  It is important that I pause in reciting how Alaska came into the 
United States, first as a territory and later as a full member of our 
Union, by recognizing that while Western nations made deals about who 
``owned'' the lands and the waters of Alaska, a diverse and vibrant 
Native people had already lived there for at least 14,000 years. While 
explorers, scientists, trappers, and settlers had come to Alaska from 
all over the world, the vast majority of our population were Alaska 
Natives.
  Thankfully, after years of wrongful and misguided policies of 
assimilation, we in Congress now appreciate the incredible history and 
cultures of Alaska's indigenous peoples and have worked diligently to 
fulfill our trust responsibilities to them. Today, major landmarks like 
Denali, which is the highest mountain in North America, are again known 
by their rightful Native names. Today, Tribes are empowered to provide 
healthcare and other services to their people, and Federal agencies are 
required to consult with Alaskan Native Tribes on issues that impact 
their daily lives.

  While we can all wrestle with the inherent challenge created for many 
by words like ``purchase'' and recognize

[[Page S2117]]

historical injustice, we must also look at the moment through the eyes 
of those who played a part--to see the opportunity as they did--so that 
we may capture it to better inform our future.
  Senator Sumner's words remind us that what he, Secretary Seward, and 
others saw then was a foundation for opportunity, which continues in 
Alaska to this day. For example, in his remarks, Senator Sumner 
referenced a communication from the legislature of the Washington 
Territory to President Andrew Johnson in 1866. He said:

       Your memorialists, the Legislative Assembly of Washington 
     Territory, beg leave to show that abundance of codfish, 
     halibut, and salmon of excellent quality have been found 
     along the shores of the Russian possessions. Your 
     memorialists respectfully request your Excellency to obtain 
     such rights and privileges of the Government of Russia as 
     will enable our fishing vessels to visit the ports and 
     harbors of its possessions to the end that fuel, water, and 
     provisions may be easily obtained, that our sick and disabled 
     fishermen may obtain sanitary assistance, together with the 
     privilege of curing fish and repairing vessels in need of 
     repair.

  Long before my advocacy for Alaska's fisheries here in the United 
States Senate, long before my warnings about the dangers of genetically 
modified seafood, Washington and Alaska had a strong connection that 
was built on the bounty of our oceans. The economic importance of 
Alaska's fisheries was a prime consideration in America's acquisition 
of Alaska even then. It was a critical part of our effort to attain 
Statehood some 50-plus years ago. And today, it has grown into a 
fundamental element of the Pacific Northwest's economy.
  Alaska's seafood industry now creates an estimated 118,000 jobs, $5.8 
billion in annual income, and $14.6 billion in economic output 
nationally. We feed America, and we feed the world, with everything 
from our cod and our crab to our halibut and our salmon. Alaska's 
seafood exports alone would rank sixth compared to all other seafood-
producing nations--not States, but nations.
  Yet fisheries were but a small part of the justification Senator 
Sumner offered his colleagues at the time. The prime consideration is 
one that today remains unappreciated by most Americans. Senator Sumner 
stated the following:

       The projection of maps is not always calculated to present 
     an accurate idea of distances. From measurement on a globe it 
     appears that a voyage from San Francisco to Hong Kong by the 
     common way of the Sandwich islands, is 7,140 miles, but by 
     way of the Aleutian islands it is only 6,060 miles, being a 
     saving of more than one thousand miles, with the enormous 
     additional advantage of being obliged to carry much less 
     coal. Of course a voyage from Sitka, or from Puget sound, the 
     terminus of the North Pacific railroad, would be shorter 
     still. . . . To unite the east of Asia with the west of 
     America is the aspiration of commerce now as when the English 
     navigator recorded his voyage.

  Thus said Senator Sumner. The cession of Alaska secured the Pacific 
trade route with Asia for America. And today, that great circle route 
represents the path that thousands of vessels annually take from ports 
along the west coast of the United States to Asia and back again. 
Chances are that the products created through the hard work of 
Americans in the middle of our country transit through Alaskan waters 
on their way to Asia.
  Beyond the economic linkages, Alaska's geography has long been an 
asset recognized not just by our domestic strategic institutions but 
also by our enemies. While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a day 
that will live in infamy, the Japanese campaign in the Aleutians has 
been called the Forgotten Battle. Six months after Pearl Harbor, the 
Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor and occupied Attu and Kiska in the 
Aleutian Islands. Alaska Natives were captured and sent to Japan. On 
May 11, 1943, the United States moved to retake Attu, landing 11,000 
troops on the island. Some 1,000 Americans and more than 2,000 Japanese 
lost their lives in the fighting--the only land battle on American soil 
during World War II.

  The Japanese attacked the Aleutians for the same reason that Senator 
Sumner supported the purchase of Alaska--for control of the Pacific 
transportation routes.
  Many historians believe Japanese Admiral Yamamoto launched the attack 
to protect his nation's northern flank. The United States fought to 
regain those islands for the very same reason.
  Brigadier General William ``Billy'' Mitchell--often called the 
``father of the Air Force''--told Congress back in 1935:

       I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will 
     hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic 
     place in the world.

  Most of us in Alaska think that Billy Mitchell was correct.
  Just as Alaska straddles the great circle route across the Pacific, 
it sits at the center of the air crossroads of the world. Ted Stevens 
International Airport in Anchorage sits halfway between Tokyo and New 
York City and less than 9\1/2\ hours by air from 90 percent of the 
industrialized world.
  Think about that. Oftentimes we think about Alaska as so remote and 
so far away, but when you look at that globe and you look at Alaska's 
geographic position, we are in the center.
  The airport is No. 2 in the United States for landed cargo weight and 
No. 6 in the world for cargo throughput. In 2012, 71 percent of all 
Asia-bound air cargo from the United States and 82 percent of all U.S.-
bound air cargo from Asia transited through it.
  It is no exaggeration to say that the significance of Alaska to the 
airborne and maritime trade of the United States likely exceeds even 
the treaty's biggest boosters' dreams back in 1867.
  Alaska's strategic significance is now more important than ever. Our 
natural resources have provided energy and minerals for our Nation for 
decades--from the oil on our North Slope to our gold, silver, copper, 
and other metals. We are a storehouse of just about everything that you 
can think of and everything that you need in modern society.
  We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We have 
committed to harnessing them responsibly. As long as there is an 
understanding of that here in Washington, DC, we will continue to 
produce every type of energy and many types of minerals for the good of 
our Nation.
  Alaska also remains key to our Nation's defense. North Korea's 
consistent disregard for international norms and their aggressive 
attempts to acquire ballistic nuclear capabilities threaten our 
national security. The investments that we must continue to make in 
Alaska's missile defense infrastructure are fundamental to our national 
security interests.
  Thanks to my colleagues here in the Senate and the Pentagon's 
continued recognition of Alaska's strategic importance, we continue to 
leverage our strategic location for America's national security. The 
installation of the long-range discrimination radar at Clear, the 
stationing of F-35s at Eielson, and the continued support for the 425th 
at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson--or JBER, as we call it--are just 
some of the critical investments we are making and must continue to 
make in Alaska.
  Understanding the opportunity of Alaska also means understanding the 
geography and the environment of our State. In preparing for this 
speech, I was struck by a latter part of the communication from the 
Washington Territorial Legislature to President Andrew Johnson in 1866. 
It stated:

       Your memorialists finally pray your Excellency to supply 
     such ships as may be spared from the Pacific Naval Fleet in 
     exploring and surveying the fishing banks known to navigators 
     to exist along the Pacific Coast from the Cortes Banks to the 
     Bering Straits, and as in duty bound, your memorialists will 
     ever pray.

  I would be remiss if I didn't note that--historical language aside--
this request reads as if it could have been submitted to the Budget 
Committee by the current delegations from Alaska and Washington.
  As we prepare to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Treaty of 
Cession tomorrow, our sesquicentennial, it is important to remind 
ourselves just how little has changed in our understanding of Alaska--
understanding where it is, how far we have come, and how far we have 
yet to go when it comes to mapping and to charting.
  In 2015, a couple of years ago, I had the honor of attending a 
celebration back home. It was an event where we celebrated a landmark 
event--that 57 percent of our land in the State had finally been 
mapped. That is how young a State Alaska really is. Recognizing that we 
just do not have accurate mapping in the State, it kind of struck me. 
For what else do we celebrate 50 percent of completion of anything, 
except

[[Page S2118]]

for us? We were making some progress, and it was worthy of celebration.
  As bad as our basic mapping is, the situation is worse offshore in 
our waters, in the same places where the Washington Territorial 
Legislature asked for assistance back in 1866.
  So 150 years ago, we were asking for assistance with the charting, 
but after 150 years, just 2.5 percent of the U.S. Arctic has been 
surveyed to modern standards. Just 2.5 percent of the U.S. Arctic has 
been surveyed to modern standards. Some 91 percent of the U.S. Arctic 
has either not been surveyed at all or relies on lead line readings, 
many of which were taken prior to the Treaty of Cession in 1867.
  We talked to the Coast Guard and continue to hear stories about 
Captain Cook's voyage up to the north. It was actually a voyage on 
which a relative of mine, John Gore, was with Captain Cook, and they 
literally would put lead lines over the side of the ship, drop them 
down, and then recorded the readings.

  Again, 91 percent of the U.S. Arctic has either not been surveyed or 
was surveyed with lead lines, and we are still relying on this data.
  The U.S. has been chairing the Arctic Council now for 2 years. As we 
wrap up our term at the Arctic Council, I fear that we have 
accomplished much less than I, and many Alaskans, had hoped. It is 
Alaska that makes the United States an Arctic nation, a fact that was 
appreciated even at the time this body considered the appropriations 
for the treaty.
  In a letter to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 
1868, Joseph Wilson, who was the Commissioner of the General Land 
Office at the Department of the Interior, relayed the importance of the 
treaty to the committee, including this:

       It gives her [the United States] also a hold upon the coast 
     of the great circumpolar ocean, the importance of which, as 
     yet imperfectly appreciated in the country, is awakening very 
     great interest in Europe. England, Denmark, Sweden, France, 
     and Germany are contemplating and organizing movements 
     looking to the exploration and occupancy of the 
     unappropriated northern regions of this continent--movements 
     which it becomes us to watch with jealousy, and promptly 
     circumvent.

  Think about that statement 150 years ago.
  Well, today, Russia, China, India, and a great number of other 
nations are looking to the Arctic as an emerging region of 
international significance, and they are seizing the opportunities that 
we continue to defer there.
  I greatly appreciate my colleagues' attention to these issues, 
particularly the work of my colleague from Maine and the members of the 
Arctic Caucus, as we work to raise awareness and press administrations 
to put the same sort of energy and effort into the region that other 
nations are. They, too, see the importance of the Arctic to our 
national interest, as Commissioner Wilson did back in 1898.
  After noting the importance of the Arctic attributes of Alaska, 
Commissioner Wilson went on to say:

       Judged from this standpoint alone, and supposing the entire 
     country of Alaska to be a mere polar desert and utterly 
     uninhabitable, the developments of a very few years will show 
     that the acquisition of this territory at the stipulated 
     price is one of the most advantageous arrangements that our 
     diplomacy ever secured.

  Think about those words: $7.2 million and the United States has 
Alaska.
  So when Commissioner Wilson said that in a few years it would ``show 
that the acquisition of this territory at the stipulated price is one 
of the most advantageous arrangements that our diplomacy ever 
secured,'' I would suggest, President Trump, this was a deal. We got a 
great deal with Alaska.
  Popular history may refer to ``Seward's folly'' or you hear that when 
you are reading it in history books, or it is also referred to as 
America's acquisition of ``Walrussia'' when describing the Treaty of 
Cession, but that ignores the broad support that the treaty actually 
had at the time. For example, the editors of the Charleston Daily News 
Miner recognized this on April 12, 1867:

       As that territory is said to contain the highest mountain 
     in the world, he [Secretary Seward] has provided a fit 
     pinnacle from which the American Eagle can, when the days of 
     good feeling come back, spread itself over the immense 
     country that will then lie peacefully beneath the shadow of 
     its wings.

  Indeed, there was opposition to the Treaty of Cession. Two Members of 
this body even voted against ratifying the treaty, but 37 did vote to 
ratify. And while the appropriations actually took another year, as 
appropriations often do, the treaty was largely viewed as a success.
  From Alaska's fisheries to its minerals, from its oil and gas 
resources to its diverse and vibrant cultures, and from its position on 
important trade routes to its significance to our national security, 
Alaska's contribution to America has been and continues to be as big as 
our geography.
  We are still a young State. I was actually born in the Territory of 
Alaska. I am just the sixth Senator to have the honor of serving my 
State in this body. But while we might be young and small in 
population, we are very, very rich in spirit.
  In his speech on this floor, Senator Sumner said: ``Small beginnings, 
therefore, are no discouragement to me, and I turn with confidence to 
the future.''
  So I stand before the Senate today grateful for the future that 
Senator Sumner and Secretary Seward saw for Russian America. They were 
men of vision who brought a diverse, challenging, rich territory under 
the wing of the United States. Alaska, I believe, is better for it and 
so is America.
  I appreciate the Senate's indulgence to tell a bit of the story of 
this day in our national experience and would like to close my remarks 
as Senator Sumner did on this floor nearly 150 years ago today by 
quoting him.

       As these extensive possessions, constituting a corner of 
     the continent, pass from the Imperial Government of Russia, 
     they will naturally receive a new name. They will be no 
     longer Russian America. How shall they be called? Clearly, . 
     . . Alaska.

  Clearly, Alaska.
  Mr. President, as we celebrate the sesquicentennial of Alaska's 
purchase from Russia, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________