The problem with the current wetlands system is that it lacks 

 broad-based public support. As Thomas Jefferson said in the Decla- 

 ration of Independence, "No government has the right to act with- 

 out the consent of the governed.' 



I can tell you this program has in large measure lost "the con- 

 sent of the governed." There is likely no area where there is more 

 frustration and downright hostility to the current system than in 

 my home State of Alaska. 



Mr. Chairman, as you know, there is probably no issue of more 

 importance to the economic health and the future of the State of 

 Alaska than wetlands regulation. Alaska has at least 170 million 

 acres of delineated wetlands. This figure represents an amount of 

 wetlands almost double those remaining in the Continental United 

 States. 



I hope all the Committee members have a map. And if you don't 

 have one in front of you, you have one down there that you are 

 looking at, the large one. All the dark green is wetlands. That has 

 been identified. God knows what the EPA and Corps of Engineers 

 may identify later on. But on the back map, those wetlands, if you 

 compare the two that are delineated on this map, are already pro- 

 tected. 



Look at the two of them together. If you look at that first map, 

 look at the dark green. That wetland is already protected, 170 mil- 

 lion acres of land are already protected. 



Special recognition should also be given to the fact that 90 mil- 

 lion acres of Alaska wetlands are already protected as national 

 parks, wildlife refuges, wilderness, or wild and scenic rivers. This 

 fact means that Alaska will never reach the percentages of wet- 

 lands loss that exist in lower 48 States. 



Wetlands comprise almost 75 percent of the usable lands in my 

 State, but unlike most of the rest of the Nation, we have only filled 

 approximately 100,000 acres of our historic base. This represents a 

 wetlands usage rate of less than one-tenth of 1 percent. To subject 

 us to the same level of onerous regulation that might be placed on 

 a State such as California which has lost over 90 percent of its wet- 

 lands is fundamentally unfair. 



Alaskans have been trying without much success to work with 

 the Federal agencies. They don't serve the people anymore — 

 they've run the 404 program since 1989. We have worked to devise 

 a fair and equitable solution for our wetlands problem. 



In November of 1992, EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rule- 

 making in an effort to solve the Alaskan wetlands problem. The 

 rules would have limited 404 permit review to ways to minimize 

 wetlands impacts on-site until the State had developed 1 percent of 

 its wetlands. Alaskans thought they had reached a balanced and 

 workable approach. 



While this plan engendered much opposition, most of it from 

 groups outside of Alaska and from the bureaucrats who would have 

 to give up their stranglehold on economic life in Alaska, the 1 per- 

 cent rule was the simplest and fairest proposal ever discussed. It 

 deserved better consideration than it received from this adminis- 

 tration. 



When President Clinton announced that he was organizing a 

 task force to develop a solution to the wetlands morass, I and most 



