[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.
____________________