But Giessel asserted that the economy is declining along with oil production. "I'm interested in seeing that robust economy come back,'' she said. ``Right now, what we're seeing is a continued decline while other producing sectors in our country are seeing an increase in production -- Texas, North Dakota, California. ... Right now, we're seeing folks move out of our state."
Stevens, who was Senate president last year when Parnell's bill died in the Senate, urged his fellow senators to be cautious about trusting the oil industry, given its history in the state. He cited three major events: the Amerada Hess court case in the 1970s in which a judge ruled the industry cheated Alaska out of nearly $1 billion, the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989, and the Veco corruption scandal of 2006.
"Those three events are not the only abuses we have experienced -- they're just the three you cannot forget," Stevens said. "There is really no hurry to make a decision today, or really this session. It's better to get it right than do it quickly, with questions unanswered and with results unknown. This bill gives away too much to the major oil companies who are producing oil in the legacy fields at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk. Those fields seem to be doing just fine under the current tax policies and are enormously profitable to the industry. ... This body has decided to place enormous trust in an industry that has often proved itself to be untrustworthy. To believe the industry will indeed substantially increase oil throughput without a (sunset provision) if that does not happen, I appreciate your purity of heart."
"Let's kill this bill today, let's start from scratch," said state Sen. Bill Wielechowski, D-Anchorage.
Like several other opponents, he then referred to an interview in the Juneau Empire by a leading supporter of the bill, state Sen. Kevin Meyer, R-Anchorage, who called the chances of more development "a crapshoot."
"I've heard this bill called a crapshoot," Wielechowski continued. "Is that we're down to, basing our public policy on a gamble, basing a bill that moves billions of dollars across the table to the oil industry, on a crapshoot? Basing our ability to fund teachers, troopers, VPSOs, roads, bridges, on a crapshoot? Basing the future of Alaska on a crapshoot? Is that what we're down to?"
"ACES doesn't work and something has to be done," said state Sen. Pete Kelly, R-Fairbanks. "This bill does something. I think it does something very good. The biggest thing it does for me is it tells me we don't have to accept failure as our destiny. We don't have to have future of decline. I don't want to look my kids in the eye and say when I stepped out of high school in 1974, the world was my oyster. ... Sorry, to you, we spent it all and when we were faced with the tough decision of changes in things that maybe looked like we were in the pocket of the oil companies, we didn't have the guts to do the right thing so that you, my kids, and all your kids, so that you guys could have the same kind of future that we had. I just hope you'll all vote yes."
"One thing we know for sure," said state Sen. Lesil McGuire, R-Anchorage, "is that a driver in investment is fiscal policy, and when we, as those that govern, have been told time and time again that our fiscal policy is not competitive and broken, it is absolutely incumbent upon us, as those that take that oath to the Constitution, to make every effort we can to change that tax policy in a way to encourage investment. ... I'm proud to be voting for Senate Bill 21 today -- it is not a haphazard, last-minute solution or anything that we're rushing into."
"I've taken a lot of votes over the years, and I've got to say that this is probably the most important vote that I'm going to be taking in my political career," said veteran legislator Lyman Hoffman, D-Bethel. "These are some of the highest stakes that we are addressing today -- which is the future direction that this state is going to take.
"My great grandfather came to Alaska in the 1850s. I state that because my grandchildren, when they lived in Bethel, were sixth-generation Bethelites, and I have to stand here today and justify my vote to them, and having heard the debate, the stakes are too high for us to go all in without some assurances that we are going to be able to provide services and protect the (Permanent Fund) dividend that the people of Alaska deserve, as the result of the profits that we've been able to get out of what our Constitution says is the maximum sustained benefit for the people of Alaska. I won't be able to look them in the face and say that's what I have accomplished if I am a yes vote. There is no way that I'd be able to do that, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I'm a no vote."
Most Popular Stories
- AIG to Create 230 Jobs in Charlotte
- Bipartisan Negotiators Reach Modest Budget Agreement
- Justin Bieber Visits Typhoon Victims, Plays Concert
- MasterCard to Split Shares, Raise Dividend
- Russia Says Nyet to Canada North Pole Claim
- Senate Dems Move Forward With Obama Nominees
- Obama Nominee Confirmed for D.C. Appeals Court
- New Obama Aide to Focus on Climate Change
- GOP, Dems Strain to Unearth a Modest Budget Pact
- Office Depot Moving HQ to Florida