-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have all talked about what the primary goal is right now in the Senate. It is to reopen the Federal Government, but that is not all we need to reopen right now.

As we focus on ending this shutdown, I have come to speak in support of a disapproval resolution that is now pending. This is H.J. Res. 106. This is the companion to the resolution that Senator Sullivan and I have introduced to reopen the Central Yukon resource management plan after BLM finalized it over our objection last fall.

The formal name of this rule is the Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan. The name is big, and it is a really big area, encompassing nearly 56 million acres, mostly in Northern and Interior Alaska, so the full State of Alaska.

But it is this central area here that is really quite substantial. Not all of that is Federal land. You will see the different colors here. In fact, most of it is not. This RMP is only supposed to affect 13.3 million acres managed by BLM. That is still a lot of land. To put it into perspective, it is more than twice the total acreage of Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Vermont. That is what you are looking at here within this region.

We do need an RMP, resource management plan, to guide management of the Central Yukon's Federal acres. This plan is meant to replace older regimes that were put in place back in 1981, 1986, and 1991, as well as some lands that are unplanned. This is a big undertaking. It has been going on for a long time. It started back in 2013, 12 years ago, costing taxpayers millions of dollars to complete.

I didn't want to have to overturn this RMP because I really do respect much of the work that was done--certainly, the people who worked really hard to do it. I also recognize that some Alaskans support pieces of last year's final plan and are concerned that their input could be lost if it is reopened.

But the problem we have here and why we are taking this resolution up today, is that the Biden administration, which was in office during the last few years of this 12-year process, really has left us with no choice here. They lost sight of the need for balanced management. They dropped any pretense of it from the final plan.

So despite objections from me, from Senator Sullivan, the State of Alaska, many Alaskan stakeholders, BLM kind of plowed ahead, and they finalized a plan that overwhelmingly prioritizes conservation but fails to reflect the principle of multiple use, multiple use that is required with our public lands and fails to honor the explicit requirements of a Federal law.

There are some very significant issues within this plan. There are further deficiencies based on what BLM pledged to do and then refused to do. And that combination is what caused us to file this resolution and to seek a more balanced plan going forward.

Let's go through those problems in a little bit greater detail. I expect that one of the things you are going to hear today in opposition is that this is unprecedented; that Congress is now overturning 12 years of nonpolitical, legally sound Agency work. If that were true, I would not be standing here in opposition to this. I would be a no on the resolution, but that is not where we are.

In December of 2020 and BLM's eighth year of work on this RMP, the Agency released a draft plan with a pretty reasonable preferred alternative. This is a proposal that would have protected sensitive areas; it would have upheld subsistence and recreational uses; it would have provided opportunities for resource development and other legal uses on BLM land. Under that proposal, many outdated public land orders--we call them PLOs--would have been lifted, and the majority of BLM lands would have been accessible.

Just a few years later, we saw a very different preferred alternative emerge from BLM. This was in the middle of the Biden administration. The final Record of Decision issued last November is 362 pages long. There are multiple appendices that total another 1,428 pages. It is 1,800 pages. This is the stack of the maps and the pages of the final Record of Decision--1,800 pages showing those various designations and restrictions.

This is in not a user-friendly plan. It is not a printer-friendly plan, that is for sure. But it is also not a BLM employee-friendly plan. It is long and complex. And unless you are really superinvested in learning what was designated as visual resource management class II as opposed to class III or IV, you are probably not really going to enjoy reading it.

The differences between what the BLM proposed in 2020 and what BLM finalized in 2024 show how this process went off the rails. I will give you a couple of examples here. In 2020, BLM proposed one area of critical environmental concern--we call them ACECs--and research natural area. These are administrative withdrawals for conservation and restrict other uses. This covered 77,000 acres.

Then, last year, BLM's final RMP ballooned this to include 21 ACECs and RNAs, covering 3.6 million acres. This is imposing restrictions on nearly 47 times more land.

In 2020, BLM proposed 497,000 acres of special recreation management areas. In 2024, we saw that triple to 1.453 million acres. In 2020, BLM proposed a little over a million acres of utility and transportation corridors. In 2024, that fell by two-thirds to just 33,000 acres.

In 2020, BLM proposed to have almost 7.5 million acres open to fluid mineral leasing. Then, in 2024, it leaves just 845,000 acres, and that is 89 percent less. So you can see the dramatic differences between the plan in 2020 and the plan in 2024.

There is a lot more I could go through, but the point is that restrictions exploded in the final plan while opportunities for economic development were severely curtailed. We saw it over and over in Alaska over the last 4 years. We don't think it was any accident. You have heard my colleague speak on the floor about this a great deal, but it was just, really, the last administration's goal to reduce and curtail many of these activities. BLM's treatment of public land orders, which have been obsolete in Alaska for decades, also backslid dramatically. These came to be in the 1970s when Alaska's land ownership was greatly unsettled, but they should have been revoked a long time ago.

In 2020, BLM proposed to revoke 5.863 million acres of so-called d-1 withdrawals, but then, in 2024, BLM zeroes that out. Instead, they have only lifted withdrawals for one narrow purpose. It is an important purpose, but it is very narrow, and that is allotments for eligible Alaska Vietnam veterans but no others. In 2020, BLM proposed to lift PLO 5150, reflecting State and Native selections around our Trans- Alaska Pipeline corridor, but then, in 2024, BLM reversed course. It refused to lift a single acre of PLO 5150 within the RMP process.

The problem is that BLM told us--they told me; they told my team-- that they would address PLO 5150 through a separate process. They called it a tiered environmental assessment, and they said that that was going to begin immediately after the finalization of the Central Yukon RMP. They just had to get to that point, and they just needed us to back off so they could. Guess what never happened. The day after the State of Alaska's consistency review period for the Central Yukon RMP ended, BLM canceled its separate process for PLO 5150. It was an absurd decision.

BLM spent years--they spent years--telling us that they could only lift public land orders within the RMP process. And then, as the Central Yukon RMP nears completion, they then tell us that they could only lift one of the most visible PLOs in Alaska outside of it. And then as soon as we reach that point, they break their promise, immediately pulling the whole thing down.

My team was actually on the phone with BLM when this happened. They asked about the process, and they were told everything was on track. Everything was going just fine. Right after--probably not even more than 30 minutes after that--BLM calls State officials to tell them it is off and is never coming back. If that is not a bait and switch, you know, I don't know what is. This is where you can start to see how BLM's actions--both what it did and what it refused to do in this RMP-- directly contradict multiple Federal laws.

The first is ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. That was Alaska's grand bargain. This is where Congress withdrew and conserved tens of millions of acres in our State in exchange for reasonable opportunities for economic development, whether it be within the 1002 Area, the Ambler Road, but this was the deal back in 1980. And to confirm that Alaska had done its part for national conservation, ANILCA also includes several of what we call ``no more'' clauses, reflecting the fact that we were done and that no more wilderness needed to be designated in the State of Alaska.

It should be pretty apparent that the unilateral, administrative designation of 3.6 million acres of ACECs, dozens of other restrictions across millions of other acres, and the retention of virtually all land withdrawals, which were supposed to be lifted decades ago, are all directly contrary to ANILCA.

The Central Yukon plan also conflicts with a law that I wrote called the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act. Some people around here are still surprised that Alaska's land ownership is still not settled yet. Sixty-six years after statehood, neither our State nor our Native land entitlements have been fulfilled. We have got millions of acres remaining outstanding on both of these, and their settlement hinges on the Federal Government making available and then transferring selected lands.

Congress agreed to enact my Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act back in 2004. We set this goal that our land entitlements would be complete by 2009. That was the 50th anniversary of statehood. Well, that didn't happen, but some good did come from it. BLM surveyed its land withdrawals in Alaska. Then, in 2006, there was a report to Congress that recommended that 95 percent of them--covering 152 million acres--could be lifted consistent with the protection of the public's interest. The only caveat here was that BLM preferred to lift its orders through its land planning process.

So we worked with them. We pushed to make that happen. We have appropriated funding to make it happen. But when BLM undertakes a new RMP and decides that not a single acre of a single PLO can be lifted across 13.3 million acres for any other purpose other than Native allotments, you are going to see patience run out, and then it turns to frustration; it turns to opposition. Then it takes us to where we are today, which is to the congressional disapproval of a resource management plan.

I would also point out that the Central Yukon RMP conflicts with ANCSA, or the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The regional ANC in the Central Yukon area, Doyon, has rightly pointed out that BLM's actions in this RMP would make it difficult, if not impossible, to utilize its lands for the benefit of its people in line with congressional intent.

We also received a letter of support for this resolution from the North Slope Trilateral, which includes the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC. Their letter lays out a series of fundamental flaws within the final Central Yukon plan, including its failure to account for North Slope priorities, the impact that it would have on Native lands, the barriers it creates to cooperative land management, the restrictions it imposes to foreclose the production of rare earth elements and other resources, as well as the lack of consultation with Alaska Natives who live on the North Slope during its development.

The sad part is that what these Alaskans are pointing to-- restrictions that encumber access to lands and opportunities--was largely the point of BLM's final RMP, and that again points to why we are here to disapprove this plan.

I should point out that there is a big misunderstanding about the effects of this resolution. There have been some false claims out there, and I think there has been some kind of sloppy reporting of them. But when the House passed this resolution, we saw over and over again in different articles that somehow or other the passage of that resolution had approved the Ambler Access Project, which is not the case. That project has been in permitting for a decade. Then, just on Monday, President Trump issued a determination reapproving it, which we appreciate, but nothing in this disapproval resolution approves that project. So that is just misinformation out there.

What is true is that, over the course of decades, Congress has ceded a lot of authority on Federal land management to the executive branch. We trust them to follow the laws that we have made and find a balance between competing uses and priorities. We know it is not an easy job, especially in a State where you have more than 223 million Federal acres, but when the Agencies lose sight of that, it is our job here--it is our responsibility--to rein them in.

That is what we are doing. We are reminding BLM that these are public lands that are generally available for multiple use, not exclusively conserved lands with layer after layer of administrative restrictions heaped onto them.

Before I end here, I would like to briefly discuss what comes next if we are able to pass this disapproval resolution.

It should be very clear. Passage does not invalidate 12 years of Agency work. It does not overturn the environmental analysis that has been done or the public comments that have been received. We are simply reopening this plan, and we are telling BLM: Return. Come back with a new one that is more balanced. That shouldn't be hard, and it shouldn't take that long because the plan already exists. It was just abandoned once the Biden administration took office.

For 8 years, BLM was on the right track in this process. It has a readymade plan in the form of its preferred alternative from 2020. The record of decision from last year even acknowledges that the 2020 preferred alternative features a ``blend of resource protection and resource development.'' It is an actual balance between the two, and that is what we should be seeking. It is time to go back to that proposal, update it as needed based on the passage of time, and put into place a final Central Yukon plan that maintains access, respects multiple use, and conserves where necessary and appropriate.

It is entirely possible to serve the varied interests of this region, and through this resolution, that is exactly what we are telling BLM to do. When they do, we will have a final Central Yukon resource management plan that Alaska's delegation, the State of Alaska, the largest landowner in the region--Doyon--and a wide range of Alaska stakeholders can support. So I would urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Hon. Nicholas J. Begich III, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Begich: Thank you for introducing H.J. Res. 106, to disapprove the November 12, 2024, Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (Central Yukon RMP). Doyon, Limited (Doyon) strongly supports this joint resolution and urges Congress's and the President's swift action to reject this misguided and harmful planning decision.

Doyon is a major stakeholder in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Central Yukon RMP planning process. Many large tracts of lands that were conveyed to Doyon under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) are surrounded by, or abut, BLM-managed public lands. Doyon owns substantial interests in the Central Yukon Planning Area, holding an ownership interest in approximately 4.65 million acres. In addition, it has selected an additional 127,000 acres in the Planning Area under ANCSA that have not yet been conveyed. Doyon's land base shares approximately 3,000 miles of border with BLM lands--potentially more than any other Indigenous landowner in the nation. Consistent with ANCSA's intent, much of the land that Doyon selected was selected for its economic developmental potential.

As Doyon explained to BLM throughout the Central Yukon RMP planning process, futher enveloping Doyon's lands within new or expanded Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) and other restrictive land designations, and otherwise imposing restrictions on use of surrounding lands, will further complicate access to and use of Doyon lands, and potentially prevent Doyon from fully realizing the economic and other benefits that Congress intended it would enjoy as a result of ANCSA's settlement of aboriginal land claims. In addition, because oil and gas, mineral, and other resource prospects often straddle federal, state, and/or private lands, the more that BLM planning processes place lands off limits to multiple uses, the more likely resource development opportunities will be unavailable on Doyon (and other non- federal) lands in the vicinity, impeding Doyon's ability to make economically productive use of its lands as Congress intended when it settled aboriginal land claims in Alaska. The management decisions made in the 2024 Central Yukon RMP also will have long-term implications for communications, electric transmission, and other infrastructure activities in the region, adding further obstacles to what already are extraordinary challenges to connecting rural communities in Alaska.

Doyon devoted significant resources to engaging with BLM over the course of the Central Yukon RMP planning process to ensure that the result of that process reflects the principles of multiple use and sustained yield established under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, as well as the unique framework that Congress established in Alaska under ANCSA and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Unfortunately, despite these concerted efforts of Doyon and others, the 2024 plan fails to do that.

Key flaws justifying congressional disapproval of the 2024 Central Yukon RMP--as further detailed in the protest that Doyon submitted in response to the Central Yukon Proposed Resource Management Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement released by BLM on April 19, 2024--include the following:

The 2024 Cental Yukon RMP improperly designates certain ACECs/Research Natural Areas by including areas that do not meet applicable requirements for designation and management of ACECs and improperly determines special management attention is required. It also improperly designates ACECs that effectively surround or restrict access to Doyon- conveyed lands, as well as that include Doyon-selected lands.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP fails to appropriately address impacts of right-of-way exclusion and avoidance areas on access and other activities.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP fails to adequately and appropriately address access rights guaranteed under Section 1323(b) and Title XI of ANILCA.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP inappropriately concludes that hypothetical future development of mineral deposits in the Amber Mining District, Wiseman East and West desposits, and the Ray Mountains could ``significantly restrict subsistence uses and have a disproportionate negative impact'' on certain ``environmental justice communities'' as well as ``significantly restrict subsistence uses for'' certain communities.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP fails to fully consider potential impacts of designating certain lands as Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class II and redesignate them as VRM Class III or IV.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP improperly ignores the long history of BLM's calling for the lifting of the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals and fails to provide a rational explanation for retaining those withdrawals other than for the limited purposes of selection by Alaska Native Vietnam- era veterans.

The 2024 Central Yukon RMP violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in adopting a new alternative not made available to the public for review and comment and in not providing the public an opportunity to provide informed comment after correction of an error in stated ANCSA 17(d)(1) acreages.

We appreciate your efforts to move forward with disapproval of the 2024 Central Yukon RMP and we urge Congress and the President to move quickly to enact this joint resolution.

Please let us know if you have any questions or if we can provide any additional information. Sincerely, Sarah E. Obed, SVP External Affairs, Doyon, Limited. ____ October 3, 2025. Re Support for H.J. Res. 106 and the Senate Companion-- Disapproval of the 2024 Central Yukon RMP. Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Dan Sullivan, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Hon. Nicholas Begich III, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Murkowski, Sullivan and Representative Begich: We write in strong support of H.J. Res. 106 and the Senate companion resolution disapproving the November 12, 2024, Central Yukon Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (Central Yukon RMP) and urge swift congressional and presidential action to reject this harmful and unlawful planning decision.

The Central Yukon RMP, if allowed to stand, would have significant and far-reaching consequences for Alaska Native landowners, critical transportation and infrastructure, economic development opportunities, and the ability of our people to exercise the selfdetermination guaranteed under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Like our neighbors in Interior Region of Alaska and Doyon, Limited, whose lands are directly impacted, we have consistently raised concerns about how the 2024 plan undermines ANCSA's framework, disregards the principles of multiple use and sustained yield under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, and violates key provisions of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Background

The North Slope Inupiat have lived in the Arctic for over 10,000 years. We are proud of our self-determination efforts to ensure future generations of Inupiat continue to reside in our communities and have access to essential services. Without a stable economy, our communities will suffer and so too will our ability to engage in our Inupiaq cultural traditions, including a subsistence way of life.

The North Slope of Alaska spans an area nearly the size of the state of Minnesota and, within that expansive area, there are eight Inupiaq communities--Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, Utqiagvik, and Wainwright. None of our communities are connected by a permanent road system; all supplies must be flown or barged in, making the cost of living extremely high and economic opportunities generally low.

Fifty years ago, the Federal Government directed Alaska Native people to organize in a new structure of indigenous representation. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) was a dramatically different approach by the Federal Government to federal Indian policy. The fact that our ancestral lands were claimed by the Federal Government before our people had a right to settle aboriginal land claims should inform every decision of the Federal Government in managing those lands.

Unlike the Lower 48 model of indigenous representation where tribal governments typically administer the delivery of services such as healthcare, public safety, education, land management, and economic development, the passage of ANCSA created a shared system of Alaska Native representation and delivery of services. Our region has a multitude of Alaska Native entities that work together to effectively serve, provide for, and enrich the lives of the North Slope Inupiat we represent. Our three regional entities, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), the North Slope Borough (Borough), and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) are three of those entities. While our roles differ, our constituencies overlap, which is why we work closely together to protect the cultural and economic interests of the North Slope Inupiat.

While our leaders over fifty years ago were initially wary of any development on our lands, our Inupiaq leaders have spent decades focused on open communication and transparency in planning with industry. We have exercised true self- determination through a unique framework of Alaska Native governance--a framework that relies on our tribal governments, municipal governments, and Alaska Native corporations established by Congress to serve our indigenous constituents. For millennia Inupiaq ingenuity has transformed our relationship with industry into a partnership that has both protected our environment and our way of life and has brought significant economic benefits to the region that would have otherwise been absent. Our North Slope residents are keenly aware that advances in our communities--running water, local schools, health care, public safety, electricity, and more--have come because of the coordination and cooperation of Alaska Native leaders and entities across the region. ICAS

Established in 1971, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope is the federally recognized regional tribal government for the North Slope and represents over 13,000 Inupiaq tribal members. The mission of ICAS is to exercise its sovereign rights and powers for the benefit of tribal members, to conserve and retain tribal lands and resources including subsistence. For millennia Inupiaq ingenuity has transformed our relationship with industry into a partnership that has both protected our environment and our way of life and has brought significant economic benefits to the region that would have otherwise been absent. Our North Slope residents are keenly aware that advances in our communities--running water, local schools, health care, public safety, electricity, and more--have come because of the coordination and cooperation of Alaska Native leaders and entities across the region. North Slope Borough

The Borough is a home rule government located above the Arctic Circle that represents roughly 10,000 residents. The Borough's jurisdiction includes the entire NPR-A and the eight villages within it. In 1972, the North Slope Inupiat formed the Borough, in part, to ensure our communities would benefit from oil and gas development on their ancestral homelands. It was the first time Alaska Natives took control of their destiny using a regional municipal government. The Borough exercises its powers of taxation, property assessment, education, and planning and zoning services to serve our communities. Taxes levied on oil and gas infrastructure have enabled the Borough to invest in public infrastructure and utilities, support education, and provide police, fire, emergency, health, and other services. Elsewhere in rural Alaska, these services are typically provided primarily by the State or Federal Government, or both. ASRC

ASRC is a for profit, land-owning Alaska Native regional corporation formed pursuant to ANCSA. ASRC represents the same region as the Borough and ICAS, and the same eight villages whose residents are predominantly Inupiat, and who comprise many of our approximately 14,000 Alaska Native shareholders. ASFRC holds the title to approximately five million acres of land on the North Slope, including both surface and subsurface lands. These lands--the ancestral lands of the North Slope Inupiat--were conveyed to ASRC by the United States pursuant to ANCSA to provide for the economic and cultural wellbeing of our Inupiaq shareholders.

ASRC is committed both to providing sound financial returns to our shareholders, in the form of jobs and dividends, and to preserving our Inupiaq way of life, culture, and traditions, including the ability to maintain a subsistence lifestyle to provide for our communities. In furtherance of this congressionally mandated mission to provide benefits to our shareholders, ASRC conducts and will continue to invest in a variety of activities related to infrastructure and natural resource development and other economic initiatives.

ASRC's perspective is based on the dual realities that our Inupiaq culture and communities depend on a healthy ecosystem and subsistence resources, as well as infrastructure and resource development as the foundation of sustainable North Slope communities. Disapproval of the 2024 Central Yukon RMP

Several fundamental flaws justify disapproval of this plan:

Access and Infrastructure: The RMP fails to account for the North Slope Borough's Community Winter Access Trails (CWAT) project and the Arctic Strategic Transportation and Resources (ASTAR) initiative, both of which are vital to lowering costs and connecting isolated communities. The plan also misrepresents existing rights-of-way and ignores the mandates of Section 1323(b) and Title XI of ANILCA, which guarantee reasonable access to Native-owned inholdings.

Impact on Native Lands: The RMP designates 21 ACECs and other restrictive areas that surround ASRC lands, devaluing them by blocking development potential and preventing reasonable use. These decisions not only harm ASRC's economic viability but also diminish potential revenue-sharing distributions under ANCSA Section 7(i), reducing benefits for Alaska Natives statewide.

Allotments and Alaska Native Veterans: By restricting surrounding BLM lands, the plan cuts off opportunities for individual Alaska Native allotment owners--including veterans eligible for allotments under recent legislation--to pursue development and long-term economic benefits from their property.

Land Status Conflicts: The RMP disregards the unique patchwork of ownership in the Planning Area, where BLM manages only limited tracts compared to ASRC and the State. In several parcels, BLM manages only the surface estate while ASRC holds subsurface rights, yet the plan creates barriers to cooperative management and development.

Economic and Energy Development: The RMP forecloses future opportunities on the North Slope unnecessarily limits exploration for rare earth elements critical to U.S. energy security. At the same time, it fails to acknowledge that adjacent lands already provide extensive wilderness values under ANILCA, making additional restrictive designations duplicative and unjustified.

Procedural Failures: After a decade of consultation contrary to those consultations, the Central Yukon RMP was finalized through a flawed process that included adopting alternatives not subject to public review, retaining outdated ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals without justification, and failing to engage in meaningful government-togovernment consultation with Alaska Native entities like ICAS and ASRC.

The result is a plan that ignores congressional intent under both ANCSA and ANILCA, disregards the economic needs of North Slope communities, and creates unnecessary obstacles to infrastructure, energy, and community health across northern Alaska.

Despite claims to the contrary, the Central Yukon Plan doesn't open the Armbler Access Road and covers a planning area of fifty million acres of land which largely are unmanaged by the BLM while directly preventing our ability to exercise self-determination through our respective entities. Support for H.J. Res 106 and Senate Companion

We therefore strongly support H.J. Res. 106 the Senate companion resolution and urge Congress and the President to act swiftly to disapprove the 2024 Central Yukon RMP. The North Slope Regional Trilateral stands ready to provide additional information and testimony as needed to ensure Alaska Native rights and priorities are upheld.

Thank you for your leadership on this critical issue. Sincerely, Nicole Wojciechowski,

President, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope. Josiah Patkotak,

Mayor, North Slope Borough. Rex A. Rock Sr.,

President and CEO, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source