Nick Begich Advocated For Industrial Development Initiatives That Would Threaten Native And Rural Alaskans’ Ways Of Life

Begich Condemned The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), Which Sought To Protect Alaska’s Natural Ecosystems And “Traditional Ways Of Living On The Land”

Begich Condemned ANILCA And Said That Alaska Had Been Denied The “Ability To Develop Our Own State, Our Own Resources.” BEGICH: “The reason why we’re continuing to take this money is because we’ve been denied the ability to develop our own state, our own resources in Alaska. This started, with President Carter put ANILCA through, which locked up enormous amounts of Alaska land.” [YouTube, Michael Dukes Show, 1:10:46-1:12:19, 4/1/24]

The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) Sought To Protect Alaska’s Natural Ecosystems And Landscapes While Preserving “Opportunity For Traditional Ways Of Living On The Land.” “In 1980, when Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), it recognized the importance of protecting Alaska’s splendid natural ecosystems and landscapes, while preserving the opportunity for traditional ways of living on the land to continue.” [National Park Service, accessed6/6/24]

ANILCA Explicitly Protected Subsistence Uses For Rural Residents Of Alaska. “Congress acknowledged the exceptional and unique conditions of life in Alaska’s rural areas in Title VIII of the Act, noting that: ‘The Congress finds and declares that the continuation of the opportunity for subsistence uses by rural residents of Alaska, including both Natives and non-Natives, on the public lands and by Alaska Natives on Native lands is essential to Native physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence’” [National Park Service, accessed6/6/24]

Rural Alaska Natives Relied “Significantly On Subsistence Harvests, Which Constitute 50-90% Of Their Dietary Intake.” “Rural Alaska Native communities rely significantly on subsistence harvests, which constitute between 50% to 90% of their dietary intake. The loss of access to these vital sources of food would have profound consequences.” [Alaska Beacon, 4/12/24]

ANILCA Was Created In Response To A Lack Of Protection For Alaska Native Hunting And Fishing Rights. “In 1980 Congress reacted to the State’s lack of protection of Alaska Native subsistence uses and attempted to carry out the unfulfilled settlement of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights through the passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980.” [University of Alaska Fairbanks, accessed 6/6/24]

Native American Rights Fund: ANILCA “Recognizes That Subsistence Fishing Is Essential To Alaska Natives’ Physical, Economic, Traditional, And Cultural Existence.” “The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) recognizes that subsistence fishing is essential to Alaska Natives’ physical, economic, traditional, and cultural existence, and mandates a subsistence fishing preference for rural residents whenever it becomes necessary to restrict fishing to conserve fish populations.” [Native American Rights Fund, Press Release, 4/2/24]

Begich Agreed “100%” That The Federal Government Was Wrong To Block Pebble Mine Development And Supported A Lawsuit Seeking “Billions Of Dollars” From The Federal Government In Response

Begich Agreed “100%” That The Federal Government Was Wrong To Block Pebble Mine Development And Supported A Lawsuit Seeking “Billions Of Dollars” From The Federal Government In Response. Kelly: “We have a mine, called Pebble Mine, that could be developed in Alaska. But it’s been a great source of controversy because there’s some conflicting views over whether developing Pebble Mine would jeopardize a very, very lucrative and essential fishing area up here in Alaska […] What I do not support is the federal government coming in with a preemptive veto, not listening to the voices of the natives who live in the region, not listening to the voices of the people here in Alaska who’ve studied it, not listening to the voices of the people who understand the fish in Bristol Bay, not listening to any of them, and just imposing their decree as bureaucrats from Washington, D.C. without even stepping foot in the area, Nick, and saying, ‘No, we know better as Washington, D.C. bureaucrats, as government officials from on high, to decide what you’re gonna do with your resources in D.C.’ And Mary Peltola just introduced an act to support permanent preemptive vetoes from the federal government on Alaska’s development of resources.” […] Begich: “100%. I couldn’t have said it any better and I totally agree with everything you just said, and let me just add one additional piece to that. You know, the administration, our gubernatorial administration, is actually suing the federal government because of this attempted preemptive veto of the project out in that region of our state. And they’re suing for hundreds of billions of dollars, because when the state selected these lands, they did so at statehood because they recognized the mineral potential for this region […] and at the same time that we have this lawsuit going forward, we have Mary Peltola trying to take it off the table.” [Rumble, STAND_Show, [23:12], 6/19/24]

Begich Adopted An Exaggerated Complaint About The Biden Administration’s Use Of Executive Orders, Including Counting The Pebble Mine Rejection Order Three Times. “Nick Begich the Third, who finished second in the primary election for Congress, has adopted the Sen. Dan Sullivan canard that the Biden”administration has crippled our economy by restricting resource development and has now issued 66 executive orders specifically targeting Alaska. As I’ve made clear here before, 66 is an imaginary number…President Biden’s rejection of the oil leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Ambler Road are each counted six times, while the Pebble mine and the roadless rule in the Tongass are each counted three times.” [Dermot Cole, 8/24/24]

• 2022: When Asked If He Supported “Development Of The Pebble Mine,” Begich Said “A Scientific, Lawful, And Comprehensive Process Must Determine This Outcome.” “To help Alaskans sort through the dozens of options, we’re asking each candidate where they stand on the issues. Here’s how they responded, in their own words, to the following questions on natural resource development: […] Do you want to see … (Please answer yes or no. If needed, add an explanation of no more than 10 words.) […] 2. Development of the Pebble Mine? […] Nick Begich (R): […] Pebble? ‘A scientific, lawful, and comprehensive process must determine this outcome.’” [KTOO, 6/2/22]
• 2022: Begich Refused To Take A Position On Pebble Mines, Offering That A “Scientific, Lawful, And Comprehensive Process” Should Determine The Outcome.” “Nick Begich (R): Pebble? ‘A scientific, lawful, and comprehensive process must determine this outcome.’” [KTOO, 6/2/22]
• 2022: Begich Did Not Respond To Alaskans For Bristol Bay Action’s Questionnaire And Did “Not Have A Public Record On Pebble Mine.” “This year’s special election for Alaska’s only seat in the U.S. House will play an important role in the fate of Bristol Bay. For more than 20 years, the region has lived under threat from the disastrous Pebble Mine, which would poison the watershed with billions of tons of toxic waste, destroying one of the last great salmon runs on Earth, wiping out thousands of jobs, and devastating communities that have thrived in the region for generations. We asked the candidates if they would stand with Alaskans and help protect Bristol Bay. […] The following candidates did not respond to the questionnaire and do not have a public record on Pebble Mine, so we ask ‘Whose Side Are They On?’ […] Nick Begich III (R).” [Alaskans for Bristol Bay Action, accessed 9/13/22]

360 Scientists Signed A Letter To The EPA Urging The Agency To Reject Pebble Mine Development. “A whopping 360 scientists from Canada, Poland, Australia, the contiguous United States and elsewhere in the world are pleading with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) en masse not to approve the Pebble Mine development in Bristol Bay, Alaska…The letter was sparked by the EPA’s final assessment of the project, which came out in mid-January and concluded that ‘large-scale mining in the Bristol Bay watershed poses risks to salmon and the tribal communities that have depended on them for thousands of years.’ [ICT News, 9/13/18]

The Environmental Damage From Pebble Mine Would Threaten Alaska’s Salmon Industry. “A mining company plans to dig a pit, more than a mile square and a third of a mile deep, over two decades to obtain the metals, estimated to be worth at least $300 billion. Supporters say the project, known as the Pebble Mine, would be an economic boost for a remote region that has missed out on the North Slope oil boom and other resource-extraction development in the state over the past half century. […] But opposition has long been widespread, both in the region and statewide, with concerns about environmental damage and the potential for harming another critical resource: salmon. The fish is the main traditional subsistence food for many of the Alaska Natives in the region and the basis of both a thriving sport-fishing industry and, in nearby Bristol Bay, one of the largest commercial wild salmon fisheries in the world.” [The New York Times, 7/24/20]

Begich Opposed 2018’s Salmon Habitat Initiative, Which Would Require Public Hearings Before Permitting Decisions For Major Industrial Projects, “Notably The Controversial Pebble Mine”

Begich Opposed 2018’s Salmon Habitat Initiative. Moderator: “In 2018, did you support or would you have supported ballot measure 1, the salmon habitat initiative?” In response, Begich held up a sign reading, “No.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, [18:02], 8/31/22] (VIDEO)

2018’s “Stand For Salmon” Initiative Would Require Public Hearings Before Permitting Decisions For Major Industrial Projects, “Notably The Controversial Pebble Mine.” “Alaska is in the midst of a divisive civil war over a ballot initiative that pits the state’s revered wild salmon fisheries against its powerful oil and mining industries. In the Nov. 6 general election, Alaska residents will be asked to adopt strict new permitting regulations for developing any projects with the potential to affect salmon habitat. Supporters of Ballot Measure 1 argue that the current permitting rules are outdated and ineffective. They’re asking voters to adopt eight pages of new policy that would, among other things, require state regulators to write specific scientific standards to define salmon protection and habitat. […] The Stand for Salmon initiative would require the state to hold public hearings before permitting decisions for some of Alaska’s largest new industrial projects on the drawing board, notably the controversial Pebble mine and the Donlin Gold mine.” [E&E News, 10/26/18]

Begich Supported Eliminating The Environmental Protection Agency

Begich Supported Eliminating The Environmental Protection Agency. Host: “Can you name two or three federal agencies that you would be in favor of defunding and disbanding?” […] Begich: “The EPA has become another tool predominantly of the Left to slow down or, in some cases, eliminate the opportunity for growth in our nation. We see them continue to stretch their mandated scope to include reinterpretations of things like the Clean Air Act and the the Clean Water Act, and it’s taken recent Supreme Court decisions to push back on their overly-broad interpretations of this long-standing Congressional legislation. And as a result, I think the EPA should be disbanded. Does that mean we shouldn’t have a clean environment? Absolutely not. But these sorts of groups have far exceeded their government mandates, they’re infested in large part with lifetime bureaucrats who see it as their lifelong mission to make it difficult for our nation to grow and prosper.” [Rumble, AnimalAK, [20:47], 1/17/24]

Begich Argued That Federal Energy Policy Was Driven By “Environmental Extremism That Borders On Religious Fanaticism.” Begich: “D.C.’s currently current policies are more than a deadbolt for Alaska. These policies are enacted and designed to mothball and board up our state. The policies are born from a combination of ignorance of Alaska’s resource base, ignorance of the quality of our resource practices, and a level of environmental extremism that borders on religious fanaticism.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, [8:25], 8/31/22] (VIDEO)

Begich Supported The Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn The Chevron Doctrine, Which “Made It Easier For The Federal Government To Regulate The Environment”

Begich Called The Overturning Of Chevron Deference A “Great Development.” BEGICH: “Chevron deference being overturned, that’s a great development for us and it works in our long-term interest.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, 5:37-5:43, 8/28/24] (VIDEO)

Begich Supported The Overturn Of Chevron Deference. Begich: “For the industry Chevron deference being overturned that’s a great development for us and it works in our long-term interest, but we have got to do more at the end of the day. We need Congress to step up in their role and provide prescriptive language in the aftermath of Chevron Deference being overturned and ensure that the rights of Alaskans to develop our own resources are locked in law and don’t move from one Administration.” [Youtube, Anchorage Daily News, 8/28/24]

Begich: “The Left In This Country Has Weaponized… The Carbon Lie,” And Congress Must Use The Repeal Of Chevron Deference To Push Back Against “The Carbon Lie.” “A carbon zero Aviation sector by 2050, yeah these are unrealistic, and I’m not even sure they should be goals at all. We look at how the left in this country has weaponized what I’m going to call the ‘carbon lie’ or the carbon economy right and they’ve weaponized it for every against everyone in this room they are trying to use these methodologies to shut us down and the first thing that you got to do is you got to be willing to stand up in the Congress and call them out on this. You can’t accept the lie on its face right? And I’m willing to do that, I’m willing to do it here. I’m willing to do it in DC. Secondly we’ve got to use our power on the resources committee to make sure that we are passing bills that repeal these attempted actions. We’ve talked about Chevron deference and the restoration of powers to the Congress. Well, now the Congress has to use those powers. We’ve got to use those powers in committee to make sure that on ‘must-pass’

legislation, we’re pushing back against ‘the carbon lie’ and that’s what I’m going to do.” [Youtube, Anchorage Daily News, 8/28/24]

Begich Supported The Supreme Court’s Decision To Overturn Chevron. Begich: “The recent Supreme Court decision to overturn Chevron deference should allow Alaska to move more quickly in deploying new infrastructure, as it reduces the bureaucratic hurdles that have previously slowed down such projects.” [Alaska Beacon, Candidate Survey, Accessed 9/10/24]

• ZeroGPT Identified Begich’s Responses To The Alaska Beacon’s Candidate Survey As Possibly Having Been 100% AI-Generated. Zero GPT’s analysis identified Begich’s responses to the Alaska Beacon’s candidate survey as 100% AI-generated. AI text generators can produce false information; Zero GPT claims that it detects AI text with 98% accuracy. [Zero GPT, Accessed 9/10/24]

Image: see original report, p. 51

[Zero GPT, Accessed 9/10/24]

The Chevron Doctrine “Made It Easier For The Federal Government To Regulate The Environment, Public Health, Workplace Safety And Consumer Protections.” “The Supreme Court on Friday upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections, delivering a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests. The court’s six conservative justices overturned the 1984 decision colloquially known as Chevron, long a target of conservatives who have been motivated as much by weakening the regulatory state as social issues including abortion. The liberal justices were in dissent.” [Associated Press, 6/28/24]

The Chevron Decision Allowed The Maintenance Of A “Rule That Herring Fishermen Pay For Government-Mandated Observers Who Track Their Fish Intake,” Which Led To The Lawsuit That Overturned It. “The heart of the Chevron decision says federal agencies should be allowed to fill in the details when laws aren’t crystal clear. Opponents of the decision argued that it gave power that should be wielded by judges to experts who work for the government. […] The court ruled in cases brought by Atlantic herring fishermen in New Jersey and Rhode Island who challenged a fee requirement. Lower courts used the Chevron decision to uphold a 2020 National Marine Fisheries Service rule that herring fishermen pay for government-mandated observers who track their fish intake. […] Gun, e-cigarette, farm, timber and home-building groups were among the business groups supporting the fishermen. Conservative interests that also intervened in recent high court cases limiting regulation of air and water pollution backed the fishermen as well. The fisherman sued to contest the 2020 regulation that would have authorized a fee that could have topped $700 a day, though no one ever had to pay it. In separate lawsuits in New Jersey and Rhode Island, the fishermen argued that Congress never gave federal regulators authority to require the fisherman to pay for monitors. They lost in the lower courts, which relied on the Chevron decision to sustain the regulation.” [Associated Press, 6/28/24]

The Nature Conservancy Claimed That The Supreme Court’s Overturn Of The Chevron Doctrine Would Present Challenges To Preserving The Planet. “The decisions are likely to present challenges to preserving the many decades of progress we have made in protecting people and the planet. They affect the requirement articulated by the Supreme Court 40 years ago for federal courts to give deference to reasonable determinations by a federal agency on how best to interpret, implement and enforce provisions of federal laws that agencies are charged by Congress to implement. That is concerning, given the high level of scientific and other relevant expertise, as well as practical experience, there is among the people who work in our federal agencies. It is exactly this kind of expertise and experience we need if we want to successfully implement laws enacted by Congress, particularly since the laws often deal with complex and ambiguous issues that require the development of detailed regulations that are open for public comment.” [The Nature Conservancy, 6/28/24]

The Decision Overturning Chevron Regarded “Petitioners To A Rule Promulgated By The National Marine Fisheries Service” And Involved At Least Two Trawler Operators. “The Court granted certiorari in these cases limited to the question whether Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, should be overruled or clarified. Under the Chevron doctrine, courts have sometimes been required to defer to ‘permissible’ agency interpretations of the statutes those agencies administer—even when a reviewing court reads the statute differently. Id., at 843. In each case below, the reviewing courts applied Chevron’s framework to resolve in favor of the Government challenges by petitioners to a rule promulgated by the National Marine Fisheries Service pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U. S. C. §1801 et seq., which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq. […] Petitioners Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc., H&L Axelsson, Inc., Lund Marr Trawlers LLC, and Scombrus One LLC are family businesses that operate in the Atlantic herring fishery. In February 2020, they challenged the Rule under the MSA, 16 U. S. C. §1855(f ), which incorporates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. §551 et seq. In relevant part, they argued that the MSA does not authorize NMFS to mandate that they pay for observers required by a fishery management plan. […] Petitioners Relentless Inc., Huntress Inc., and Seafreeze Fleet LLC own two vessels that operate in the Atlantic herring fishery: the F/V Relentless and the F/V Persistence. These vessels use small-mesh bottom-trawl gear and can freeze fish at sea, so they can catch more species of fish and take longer trips than other vessels (about 10 to 14 days, as opposed to the more typical 2 to 4). As a result, they generally declare into multiple fisheries per trip so they can catch whatever the ocean offers up. If the vessels declare into the Atlantic herring fishery for a particular trip, they must carry an observer for that trip if NMFS selects the trip for coverage, even if they end up harvesting fewer herring than other vessels—or no herring at all.” [Supreme Court of the United States, Loper Bright Enterprises V. Raimondo, Decision, 6/28/24]

Begich Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act, Which Allocated Billions In Funding To Address The Climate Crisis

Begich Opposed The Inflation Reduction Act. Moderator: “Do you support the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, August of 2022?” In response, Begich held up a sign reading, “No.” [YouTube, Anchorage Daily News, [24:34], 8/31/22] (VIDEO)

The Inflation Reduction Act Provided $3.3 Billion To NOAA To “Build A Climate-Ready Nation.” The IRA “provides $3.3 billion for NOAA to build on its commitment to help Americans - including tribes and vulnerable populations - prepare, adapt, and build resilience to weather and climate events; improve supercomputing capacity and research on weather, oceans, and climate; strengthen NOAA’s hurricane hunter aircraft and fleet; and replace aging NOAA facilities.” [NOAA, Accessed 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Offered $1 Billion In Grants To Develop Clean Heavy-Duty Vehicles. The IRA provided “funding to help Tribal, state, and local governments and other entities offset the cost of replacing heavy-duty Class 6 and 7 commercial vehicles with zero-emission vehicles, deploy supporting infrastructure, and train and develop the necessary workforce. At least $400 million must go to areas not meeting national air quality standards.” [EPA, 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Offered Approximately $2 Billion In Grants For The Environmental And Climate Justice Community Change Program. The IRA “will invest approximately $2 billion dollars in Inflation Reduction Act funds in environmental and climate justice activities to benefit disadvantaged communities.” [EPA, 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Allocated $6.2 Billion To The Department Of The Interior To ‘Tackle The Climate Crisis.’ According to the U.S. Department of the Interior’s website, the IRA provided the department “$6.2 billion, enabling our bureaus and offices to play a leading role in advancing key habitat restoration, land resilience and water projects, and securing environmental justice for historically disadvantaged communities.” This included: $4.6 Billion to “advance system conservation and mitigate drought impacts,” $700 million to “advance conservation, restoration and resilience activities on our public lands,” $500 million to “support additional staffing at the National Park Service,” and $425 million to “support communities prepare for and adapt to worsening threats brought on by the climate crisis.” [U.S. Department of the Interior, Accessed 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Provided Funding For USDA Rural Development. According to the USDA, the Inflation Reduction Act “provides funding to USDA Rural Development to help eligible entities purchase renewable energy and zero-emission systems and make energy-efficiency improvements that will significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” This included “Up to $1 billion for RUS loans for renewable energy infrastructure. The Act requires the agency to forgive up to 50% of the loan amount. Eligible entities include electric service providers, including municipals, cooperatives, investor-owned and Tribal utilities. […] Up to $2.025 billion for the RBCS Rural Energy for America Program (REAP), with $303 million set aside for underutilized technologies and technical assistance. Funds are anticipated to support renewable energy and energy-efficiency projects for more than 41,500 farms and small businesses. […] Up to $500 million in RBCS grants for infrastructure improvements to blend, store or distribute biofuels. This includes installing, retrofitting or upgrading dispensers for ethanol at retail stations as well as home heating oil distribution centers. […] Up to $9.7 billion for RUS to offer loans, grants, loan modifications and other financial assistance to support the purchase of renewable energy systems, zero-emission systems and carbon capture systems. Funding also may be used to deploy these systems or to make energy-efficiency improvements to generation and transmission systems of eligible entities.” [USDA, Accessed 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Provided $100 Million For Environmental Review Implementation For Surface Transportation Projects. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the Inflation Reduction Act allocated “$100 million to facilitate the development and review of documents for the environmental review process for proposed surface transportation projects.” [FHWA, Accessed 7/20/24]

The Inflation Reduction Act Provided $2 Billion For Low-Carbon Transportation Materials Grants. According to the Federal Highway Administration, the Inflation Reduction Act allocated “$2.0 billion to reimburse or provide incentives to eligible recipients for the use, in projects, of construction materials and products that have substantially lower levels of embodied greenhouse gas emissions associated with all relevant stages of production, use, and disposal as compared to estimated industry averages of similar materials or products as determined by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.” [FHWA, Accessed 7/20/24]