Funding for the National Park Service and other Interior Department bureaus could turn into a bargaining chip U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski is willing to dangle to prevent the Obama administration from standing in the way of energy development in Alaska.
The Republican from Alaska threatened as much last week in a meeting with Interior Secretary Sally Jewell. With the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, which Sen. Murkowski chairs, set to take up Interior's Fiscal 2016 budget request Tuesday, there could be a heated discussed between the senator and Interior secretary over the administration's plans for energy development, wilderness preservation, and Interior jobs during the hearing.
Specifically, the senator is concerned about the administration's desire to set aside much of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, and to possibly stymie development of the trans-Alaska pipeline. President Obama last month announced his intention to ask Congress to designate core areas of the refuge – including its Coastal Plain – as wilderness, the highest level of protection available to public lands.
Interior's FY16 budget request is $13.2 billion. Within that the administration is seeking $3 billion for the National Park Service, which will mark its centennial in August 2016.
“I’m very hopeful she doesn’t hurt the men and women that are working hard on behalf of all Americans and Alaskans, who require the support from Congress to do our work in the various federal agencies, whether it’s the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Geological Survey,” Secretary Jewell, quoted by the Alaska Dispatch, said last week after the senator said the Republican-led Congress might resort to cutting Interior's budget if the administration doesn't allow Alaska to develop its oil reserves as it sees fit.
“Well, if budgets are reduced and people lose their jobs, then that is an outcome,” Sen. Murkowski replied. “But the land is the land, and that’s what I am here to protect, and the people of the state of Alaska and their right to access the lands,” she said. “This is what we need to be fighting for. I’m not going to be fighting for some short-term job for a bureaucrat.”
Comments
Sen. Murkowski: "But the land is the land, and that’s what I am here to protect, and the people of the state of Alaska and their right to access the lands."
Sure a lot of conflicting ideas--and interpretations of terms--in just one sentence!
According to the story, a key part of her definition of "right to access the lands" means oil and gas development on federal lands in Alaska. I'll let others who are smarter than I am explain how that meshes with "protecting the land." A more honest statement would be to say her goal is to protect the economic interests of Alaska. That's what some expect their senator to do, of course, but such clear admissions of goals are rarely the stuff of sound bites for politicians.
Some see the value in "land" as more than just dirt.
Agreed, Jim. Predictable rhetoric from Murkowski. The land isn't being threatened by development; the local commuity is being threatened by the federal government. One wonders if the history of American political rhetoric might be mapped according to pivots for reversing commonplace narratives.
And again, Koch Industries has spent millions on the politicians who can affect their extraction of mineral resources and profits from Alaska. Local resident commentary on articles regarding Senator Murkowski's recent comments have not been complimentary.
Money is all that counts.
No, money is how you count.
Dave - thanks for the links.
So?