Transcripts For CSPAN Energy Development In The Arctic 20171120

Before we begin the markup, id like to extend a special welcome. Recognizing that this is their home, i think its important theyre with us here today, so we welcome them. Id also like to add just a farewell at the same time we acknowledge a welcome. I dont see angela, but shes over there. But Angela Becker dipman who has been senator cantwells staff director i understand is moving back to the west coast and that this is perhaps your last day on the committee or last week on the committee. And i just i want to acknowledge the work that you have done. I think that certainly the staffs on our side have enjoyed the working relationship weve had with you through some interesting and challenging issues, and your leadership has been greatly appreciated. So know were going to miss you here. So thank you. [applause] so lets get to work here. We are here to markup legislation to allow responsible Energy Development in a small portion of the nonwilderness 1002 area in northeast alaska. Were reporting this legislation pursuant to the reconciliation instruction we received under house concurrent resolution 71, which is the budget resolution for fisqual year 2018 to raise at least 1 billion in new revenues over the next ten years. Both the house and the Senate Passed that resolution through regular order process including a debate and roll call vote on and amendment here in the senate that intended to strike our committees instruction. We then followed the passage of the budget resolution with a regular order hearing. I might note it was over 4 hours in length on november 2nd, almost two weeks ago that focused exclusively on the 1002 area. And two weeks ago i released the text of the reconciliation legislation that we have before us today. So weve given members plenty of time to review the legislation and certainly consider possible amendments. But, again, this was done in regular order so that we may report to the Senate Budget committee. Our text as youve seen is four pages long, just 587 words in total, but i think it presents a tremendous opportunity for both alaska and our nation. We authorize an oil and gas program in the 1002 area in accordance with the environmentally protective pram framework used to manage the npra. And we require a royalty of 0. 7 or one sixth of the development that results. This is an agreement that we are willing to make out of necessity even though our statehood act and the mineral leasing act provided for a 9010 split in alaskas favor. We also have limited Service Development to just 2,070 acres within the 1,501,002 area, which itself is just 9 of the acreage. I keep going back to the map to remind colleagues that the 1002 area is that area furthest to the north, that 1. 5 million acres that was specifically set aside for consideration for oil and Gas Exploration. It is separate from any wilderness. It is separate from the refuge itself. So when we talk about where the 1002 sits and how it sits as a function of nwra i think thats important to keep in mind. Some have claimed were on the verge of ruining it with development. But were talking about 2,000 total federal acres, just 0. 001 of anwar itself. Nor have we preempted the Environmental Review process in this legislation. We have not preempted the emperor mental review. Nor have we limited the consultation process with alaska natives in anyway. All regular laws and executive orders will apply under this language. Cbo estimates that our legislation will raise 1. 092 billion in federal revenues over the next ten years. We recognize thats a significant sum, enough to meet our instruction. Even though even though the vast majority of revenues, likely tens of billions of dollars in new federal revenues will begin after its outside the ten year. Well also create thousands of good jobs that support families and help put kids through college. Well help Keep Energy Affordable saving families and businesses money every time they pay for fuel essentially and energy tax cut. Well ensure a study supply of energy for west coast refineries in states Like Washington and california and reverse the foreign imports that have taken hold as alaskas production has declined. And of Course Energy security and National Security go hand in hand. And while we can be confident in those benefits, we can be equally confident that none of this will come at the expense of our environment. Because new technologies have left the footprint of Development Even smaller. As we heard in our hearing two weeks ago the size has decreased by roughly 80 since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface reach of the newest rigs by 4,000 over the same period. Many exploration wells are now built using ice roads and ice pads leaving no impact to the tundra. The reality is that we need less land to access more resources than ever before. The technologies that built prudo bay are now almost 50 years old. Were far past that now. And alaskans understand this. Thats why so many of us strongly support development. Thats why we heard from the senator and congressman young and our independent governor and our democratic lieutenant governor. We heard from alaskan natives who actually live on the north slope whose voices unfortunately are often ignored in the debate. And who said right here before the committee, yes, we want to develop. Our witnesses were part of an out ofwere part of an outpouring support from back home. The voices, the north slope borough, the trucking association, labor organizations, our state legislators both republicans and democrats and hundreds and hundreds of alaskans who have either called my office or written a statement for the record in support. All of them support responsible Energy Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. Alaskans know we must balance the potential impact the potential impacts of development. And i will be the first that the impact on local wildlife and environment has always been a concern. Thats why consultation requirements will apply, and thats why we have limited Surface Development to a total of just 2,000 federal acres. We will not sacrifice the caribou, the polar bear or the migratory birds for the sake of development. But we also recognize that is not a choice we face here. That is not what has happened at prudo where the central arctic caribou herd has grown more than seven fold since development began. And there is no question that development and Environmental Protection can and do exist in alaska. If were allowed to move forward with the development, we will do it right. We will take care of our lands, our wildlife and our people. I would not support development if i was not convinced that we can do it safely. And the alaskans in the audience this morning, again, many who flew down from the north slope would not support development if they thought it threatened their lands and their cultures. Alaskans will do this the right way. We will protect the environment while providing substantial economic benefits all across america. So i would encourage members to set aside the old arguments, to recognize the opportunity before us and to join me in taking the next step by voting in favor of our reconciliation legislation. Ill turn to senator cantwell for her opening statements, and then i will outline for colleagues the schedule for the morning. Senator cantwell. Cantwell thank you, madam chair. And thanks for recognizing andrea an our team. She and i have worked together for a long time. First on my staff and then when she joined the Energy Committee and then coming back to take this post as i take over as Ranking Member. So angela, i just want you to remember the saying, third time is a charm. I know the Pacific Northwest is a great lure, but i do appreciate your help. I think that statement about her being here today is remembrance of what we really should be doing here. Its Pretty Amazing that we all Work Together to pass an energy bill 8512 out of the United States senate with hundreds of priorities with members on both sides of the aisle. Both on the next phases of energy, on land, on a whole variety of things. And yet we have not gotten that over the hurdle. Instead today were spending our time and energy on this, on something that is a divisive issue, that there is not full agreement on. And its only through throwing out regular order that this can even be considered. The energy and Natural Resources committee has been instructed to raise a billion dollars. And at the same time the finance committee is trying to increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion with tax cuts for corporations and millionaires while theyre raising taxes on 13 million americans including over 300,000 in my state. So the fact that our committees contribution to that deal is about seven one hundredthss of 1 shows this is not a serious budget proposal. Its a cynical effort to open up the heart of the arctic wildlife refuge for oil. And i am sure at the heart of it is the interest of alaskans. Not saying the alaskan economy doesnt deserve attention. I will make recommendations today on how to help alaska. But the notion oil prices have fallen and a state has been overreliant on oil does not mean we should be destroying a wildlife refuge today. The mark removes the statutory prohibition against oil and Gas Development. And it reminds me of the debate that happened when people wanted to establish the grand canyon. Oh, no we cant do that, we cant do that, we need it for all sorts of other things. Thank god there was stewardship to save the grand canyon. So it really does turn regular order on its head. Last week this committee did not have a hearing on this legislation. That is the new regular order in the United States senate. The republicans in charge here instead of working in a bipartisan regular order process have now determined it only way the only way that you can get legislation through here is by having hearings without the legislation, hiding the information from the general public, and then throwing it out. And then when you realize your own colleagues dont want it, changing it overnight and then trying to rush it through in break neck pace. Thats the open process of the United States senate. If you stand by these ideas, then you and your colleagues should follow regular order. The chairmans mark was circulated after the hearing. And now were being asked to vote on legislation that is different from any previous Arctic Drilling bill and has not been subject to a single hearing to help evaluate the impacts on this crown jewel. At its core, the chairmans mark would manage and change current law of the arctic wildlife refuge and turn it into a Petroleum Reserve. Thats what this mark does. It turns the coastal plain and this refuge into an oil field. Now id like to submit for the record a letter from 24 27 different scientists and biologists who say this is incompatible with the status of the refuge. Id like to submit for the record as well a letter from both democrat republicans and independent u. S. Senate parks director of u. S. Wildlife service who also say its inconsistent. And madam chair i will hold on the other one. So what were doing here today is just creating another avenue. Another avenue by slight of hand and legislation to change the Wildlife Reserve because we ask this question, how could it possibly, possibly coexist given what the purpose of the refuge is . So thats easily changed. Well just change what the purpose of the refuge is. But in doing so you are doing great damage to the wildlife and the habitat and the diversity of the area. This mark would direct the oil and gas program in the arctic to be managed under the same regulations as the Petroleum Reserve. They are subject to different laws and management requirements, and they arent even managed by the same agencies. So by imposing the requirements, you just raise more questions than you answer. And we will have several amendments to try to clarify this and what we think is wrong with this mark. These amendments will attempt to return us to regular order, ensuring that the purpose of the refuge remain true to the reason it was established. The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlivs that live there. It is amazing to me with the run over of the cra that happened earlier this year, its almost as if you want to run a newspaper ad saying come and hunt in the arctic wildlife refuge in helicopter, by gassing polar bears in their den. That will be the new way you will attract people to the arctic, because that is what youre doing here. You are taking a wildlife refuge and turning it on its ear. And marrying that with the cra is a whole new style and message. I guarantee you that is not what is unique about alaska. That is not why thousands of people go there every year and have impact to your economy. They go there to enjoy the beauty and the wonder and the great significance that your state is. This mark is not done in compliance with environmental law. And its definitely not done in compliance with what every other state and refuge does. Most importantly, i dont agree that you should manage the wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. So we will have many questions, for example, how will it work with the fish and Wildlife Service being responsible for the management under one set of laws and the bureau of Land Management being under another set of laws . What happens when there is inevitable conflict and all of these issues . Does every word of the npra law apply or just parts of it . How will the alaska native corporations within the arctic ref rouge we manage, under what authority . So there are many, many questions here. But at the heart of this i think it was best said in the letter we received yesterday from jane goodall. And that is let us not add quote, let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We have other sources of energy. I beg you, please use your voice and your vote as a senator to protect the people and this american treasure that is the rctic wildlife refuge,. So madam chair, no, we dont think this is what we should be doing today, no we dont think this regular order. No, we dont think its right to manage a wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. No we dont think youre protecting environmental law or stewardship. So we are very, very frustrated by this process. But i guess it matches in tandem with where our Committee Colleagues on finance and i know several people here are running back and forth between those committees. But i think you should ask yourself about a process that just continually runs over regular order and without the broad input from the public on a specific mark. So with that, madam chair, im happy to take time to ask questions of staff. Well, senator cantwell, you mentioned the reality that we are facing this morning. There are multiple committees that are meeting. I know senator and of course the finance committee is also very busy this morning. So i would like to try to get to the series of amendments we have before us. There have been over 50 that have been filed today. I also want to recognize that we are scheduled to have three votes beginning at noon today. It would be my intention that we try to move as expeditiously and efficiently as we can here. But i think youll also know, those of you have been on this committee with me for the years that i have been chairing, i run the committee in a mamanner that is respectful of other members and their points of views. And trying to balance that with competing demands of everyones time. So i would ask that as we process this series of amendments that we have in front of us, that instead of introductions that last 15 or 20 minutes, we try to truncate the time. And in order to facil that ino recognize order to facilitate our work we will be in a situation where we will have to stack amendments. Processing amendments requires a working quorum of eight members. A total of 12 members is required to vote on final passage. So it would be my intention that we would have an opportunity for a member to bring up an amendment, have a debate on each and then move to the next. And then we will stack those votes. Its my intention that we would ask all members to be present here for as much of the hearing, the markup this morning as possible. But at 11 30 we will then turn to stack votes and hopefully be able to process all of the committees business before that time. Recognizing that thats a lot of work, but i think were certainly capable of doing just that. So i would like to proceed to initial amendments. Senator cantwell, you have identified a series of amendments from members on your side. And i will certainly defer to you as to which one you would choose to call up first. Senator cantwell well, madam chair, since wed like to clarify with staff some questions here, and so i would hope that in the process of regular order, which is done mostly anytime you markup a bill or when a bill is before a committee, you have a chance to ask questions. We would so appreciate the ability to better understand this. We can certainly do that. Although i would anticipate that as a result of individual amendments that are before us, we would have the opportunity to consult with staff to that. But if there are specific questions that you have of staff we can dispense with quickly then move to them. Great, thankell you. Itll provide for a coastal oil and Gas Development in a coastal plain. How many other National Wildlife refuges have developmental oil and gas programs as a refuge . Well, mr. Kelly, ill go head and turn to you on that but senator cantwell can i ask our council . You can. But you would include for the committees information crs report actually dated two days ago, november 13th, that does detail oil and gas operations within the National Wildlife refuge system. That details where they are and how they are managed. Not only on federal oil and gas operations but nonfederal oil and gas operations and oil and gas activities in alaska National Wildlife refuges. So i think its instructive to the committee so i think it is instructive to the Committee Madam chair, wouldnt those be the valid right of existing rights as opposed to something developed by the government after the creation of the show its a mix of both. Some were precreation of refuge and others id love to hear from both of our staff about that because im not aware. And i think the clarify the question. The question was the purpose as a refuge. So the development of oil and gas programs as a refuge purpose. That is what you are doing here, which not only sets a precedent. It sets a precedence for what happens in the future. You are saying a wildlife refuge purpose is for oil and Gas Development. Now, you could take that to the extreme of what would happen to other refuges in the future, but you could also take that to other areas of law of where we are trying to protect open space. And why not just say it has the same purpose . Because now were going to commingle ideas, that development and preservation of wildlife can and should occur together. And i think we have a list here from biologists and other people and scientists and republicans and democrats and independents that say, no, thats not a good idea. So its not that you havent had a previous wildlife that as my colleague from new mexico said may have had guaranteed rights grandfathered in. Its that youre changing the statute and putting into the purpose the purpose for a refuge is to have oil development. Senator cantwell, before we turn to staff on this, i think its important to recognize we are not turning the entire 19 millionacre refuge into a refuge that will host oil and gas programs. We are including within an allowance or a purpose that within the 1002 area, not within the rest of the refuge. The rest of the refuge remains in place. What we are talking about is the 1. 57 million acres in the coastal plain that was specifically set aside for further study and potential future oil and Gas Exploration. That is the distinction here. That is the distinction that was laid down in anelca that not the entire refuge, that the entire 19. 64 million acres. But it was specifically designated that this area would be reserved specific for further study and potential future oil and Gas Explorations. So what we are doing is making a consistency in 1980. Was outlined so this is not turning acres this is not turning close to 20 million acres into an oil and gas field. We are adopting specifically the 1002. We already limit to 2,000 federal acres. Cantwell sam, council, is the 1002 area legally part of the wildlife refuge . Yes, senator, it is. Senator cantwell okay, so were talking about protecting it. Were talking about we dont want to see oil and Gas Development there. And we will have a chance to vote on the amendment to limit oil and Gas Development to a very narrow footprint that you tried to articulate with people. But we know youll vote against that because you know youre not really limiting it to that area. Is that a question for sam . Cantwell that isnt, no. Thats a statement. So can i ask another question . The coastal plain is considered the biological heart of the refuge. If theres a conflict between the purpose of protecting wildlife and theyre diversity and having oil and gas programs development, which prevails under the chairmans mark . Show senator, under current law there can be no oil and Gas Development in any refuge unless the fish and Wildlife Service determines it is compatible for which that refuge is established. And the secretary of the interior gives his approval and consent to the lease and development. Under the chairmans mark, the fish and Wildlife Services largely excluded from this whole process and instead it is transferred to the bureau of Land Management. And the chairmans mark specifically says if youre in Land Management to manage the refuge in accordance with the National Production act, which has a very different standard for management than what you find in the National Wildlife Refuge Administration act. Under the Refuge Administration act, no development can occur unless it will not materially interfere or detract from the purpose of which the refuge was establish. Was established. And in this case the Arctic Refuge was established to protect wildlife and its habitat. Whereas under the production act, exploration can proceed certainly with protecting wildlife but only to the extent consistent with the exploration purpose. For what the Petroleum Reserve. And in addition leasing activities in development and production of oil can occur. They just need to be mitigated for foreseeable and adverse effects. That is very different standard. Under the current law, the predominant purpose of the refuge is to protect wildlife. And under the chairmans mark, the predominant purpose of the 1002 area of the refuge would become the leasing of the oil and gas program. Ms. Donnelly, im going to ask you to explain to the committee that with the reference to management under the npra plan and the consultation that blm has within that construct with fish and wildlife along with other federal state and local agencies, that effectively you have fish and wildlife as a cooperating agency, consultation. Can you address the implications there when you have this management within the npra construct as this chairmans market outlines . Ms. Donnelly yes, senator. Id like to note first that the blm administers oil and gas leasing on federal lands now including lands for other agencies including the fish and Wildlife Service. So just to clarify, thats not only in alaska but thats around the country . Ms. Donnelly yes, yes. So they can go onto the land and manage it for oil and gas purposes even if it is a refuge. Here were adding to the purpose as congress comp tump plated back in 1980 for just the coastal plain aspect of the 1002 area, so just the 1. 5 acres. We talked about the refuge compatible act. Its really anilka, and there is a compatible determination in that act which would still need to be complied with. So were not deeming compliance . Ms. Donnelly were not deeming compatibility, no. Excuse me, compatibility. Ms. Donnelly when the secretary of interior does make the compatibility they should be looking at the intent of establishing on the koegscoastal plain. Senator cantwell well, it should be pretty clear because were mandating the leasing. And youre mandating that it be in the budget and mandating that the production happen. So theres no doubt about that. Thats all going to happen under this proposal. Theres no question if its going to affect the caribou and they dont have a food source, whats going to happen, the leasing will happen. Well, we do establish a Leasing Programed the the oil and gas that is what the mark does. Senator cantwell doesnt this waive the requirements of the Refuge Administration act . Yes, senator, i believe it does. You are asking earlier about oil and Gas Development on wildlife refugees. Refuges. There is not a single refuge in the system that has oil and Gas Production as an objective. Refugese 103 wildlife that have existing oil and gas nonfederal leases where the oil and gas rights are owned by private individuals. But, all of those, i believe were grandfathered in prior to the refuge being established. Another eight refuges have federal oil and gas leases but they also were grandfathered in. I do not leave the fish and Wildlife Service has made a compatibility determination for a single wildlife refuge lease since the enactment of the Refuge Administration at. Act. At any event, the Refuge Administration act. Clearly requires that the very clearly requires that the development be compatible with the Production Services of the wildlife refuge. And that is what is essentially being circumvented by simply adding a new purpose which is oil and Gas Development. And then, on top of that, shifting the management of the refuge over to the Natural Petroleum reserve production act authority. Again, i would point out that we are talking about this 1002 area that was specifically set in 1980,der anilca specific for the potential for oil and Gas Production. Notre not, we are implicating the rest of the refuge. We are specific to that area that was set aside. Cantwell i want to ask a question about mnipa. Said, it is clear the question about the 1002 being part of the refuge. It is clear that the 1002 is part of the arctic wildlife refuge. Many congresses have turned out the same proposal we are today which is to drill in the 1002. Blm required at least two leases of 400 today 400,000 acres e. Including the area of the highest potential of hard jerk potential of the production. What happens in the event of what happens in the event that Analysis Finds . The esa, all of the other Environmental Reviews out there that remain. That is not touched in the chairmans mark. The chair is correct that the chairmans mark does not waive nipa. , there is a body of case law though that indicates that an agency has no discretion. It is performing and administer real act. Doing something it has to do under statutory direction. And has no discretion as to how to go about it. But thedoing whole point onef the two points of this is effectively eliminated. The courts have said that it has two purposes. One is to provide for informed decisionmaking by providing about Environmental Impact. To the decisionmaker so the decisionmaker can decide not to take action or take a different action to avoid environmental consequences. If the decisionmaker has no discretion in the matter, there is no point in doing an Environmental Impact statement. And some courts in some cases have decided or said that there is a statutory conflict and no Environmental Impact statement is needed. There theres still a second purpose and that is to inform the public so there can be informed pub hick participation. And there would be a purpose. I suppose in having an Environmental Impact statement prepared so the public would know the Environmental Impact statement, the Environmental Impacts of the action that the bureau of Land Management is taking under statutory direction. Madame chair, i just have a question. But i before we move to that, and go off, i would like ms. Dawnly to address this. I think its an important part of this discussion here this morning and will probably help facilitate a quick process through the amendments as soon as we can get to them. Because i think it is important to know when it comes to the environmental regulations that are out there, they stay in place. That there is when we say that no environmental laws are being waived, everything applies, there is a multistep process that goes on here. You have an integrated activity plan that is developed, which is a very open process. You adopt the i. A. P. Through a record of decision. Then you move to lease sale, then exploration, discovery, then predevelopment. And then that development is approved and there is a process throughout each one where, again, you have a level of regulatory and Environmental Review of consultation and of a public engagement. So kelly if you can speak very quickly, then well go to the senator. They will have to do nipa at the beginning and every step of the process. It will be an open public process. I would hike to keep going on this point. I know youre going to go over. Yes, im sorry. This is very, very important discussion. I just wanted to be clear, madame chair, because i have to step over to finance committee, that if im back within an hour, it would be within the time frame to offer amendments at that point . Yes. Thank you. Hurry back. So on this point, you may not be waiving nipa technically, but you are mandating a process that basically waives nipa. So the word nipa waiver may not be there, but the Environmental Impact statement for the purpose of lease, the blm could not legally select Something Like that. So you are putting into place by the language of this legislation, mandating the lease sale, mandating the development, not giving people an alternative to select other by putting into contrast the management of the refuge by being obstructed by a new purpose. We deal with this all the time. Ferc deals with this all the time. You are confusing the purpose of a refuge by saying the purpose is for oil development. So it makes it nearly impossible for the wildlife consideration to win under this language. Is that correct about blm not being able to legally select the nonalternative action . Yes, senator, that is. That was the case in the national Petroleum Reserve alaska, which is the exact same statutory framework that would be applied to the refuge. Blm will be able to analyze a range of alternatives and analyze an actionable alternative. Thank you. Does counsel agree that the language is constructed in a way that would not require the fish and Wildlife Service concurrence . Yes, senator. Thats how i construe it. I believe that under section 120 1008, the secretary of interior will have to make a compatibility determination. Oh, if someone trusts this guy, he agrees that they can agree concurrently. This is a guy that wants to waive park fees and so yeah, okay. No Teddy Roosevelt there. Come on. Yes, this is a process here in which we are going to hold accountable the department of interior for agreeing under question that these purposes can exist. So we will not finish with the secretary today, but we will continue to pursue the fact that his conclusion that, without this, they can agree. Without this they can occur together. So i guarantee that is not current legal thinking. I just remind you that we have interior secretaries that come and go, and they have different perspectives. The last one that we lived with had an entirely different one, and it was a view and it was a perspective that certainly helped to lock up alaska for a considerable period of time. Ill enter into the record his letter that we received when we asked this question last week and come back to it. Okay. I would just remind our colleagues that we do have over 50 amendments, and i know that getting these answers out on the record will help expedite the discussion, we do want to proceed in taking these up. Well, i think out of a courtesy of your office, which we have had zero courtesies in this debate, we told you which amendments we were likely to consider today and there were under 15. So you should allow us the courtesy to ask these questions i have been allowing the courtesies. Please proceed. Okay. So does counsel agree that the hang wage would not we asked about concurrence. Did i get an answer on that . Yes, senator. Why shouldnt the standard be applied to the arctic, one of the most important environmental areas of our nashgstion, why shouldnt we have that language if youre asking my personal opinion, it should apply. When this question was litigated many years ago in the District Court in alaska about joint administration of a fish and Wildlife Service with the bureau of Land Management, the court said that one of the purposes of the Refuge Administration act was to prohibit joint administration, that the Refuge Administration act makes it exclusively the jurisdiction of the fish and Wildlife Service to administer and manage wildlife refuges. And at that point, secretary watts attempted to administratively fish responsibility to in that case, the geological survey, contrary to the Refuge Administration act. Congress can, of course, legislatively overturn the Refuge Administration act, but that would be a major change in the way wildlife refuges are administered. Under the npra leasing act, would these limitations on npra review be applied here to the Arctic Refuge . Part of the difficulty in figuring out what is going to happen is the fact that the national Petroleum Reserve production act was written for the npra and not for a wildlife refuge. And the chairmans mark is to manage the Arctic Refuge in accordance with that production act. And translating the words to a wildlife refuge creates a lot of unanswered questions. Isnt it correct, though, that blm manage ss refuges for oil and gas purposes . But under the bureau of Land Management regulations, there are very specific provisions about getting fish and Wildlife Service authority to concur over the time, place, nature of the operations. Which under the chairmans mark by transferring jurisdiction and transferring the Statutory Authority under way its managed changes all that. But to get back to senator cantwells question, because the chairman talks about blm managing in accordance with the refuge act, it doesnt say a court has to construe its jurisdiction based upon the production act. And because the statute of limitations and the production act is a restriction on the jurisdiction of the court. Rather than how blm manages it. I would argue that a court should not be bound by that provision in the chairmans mark. But again, all of these questions will be litigated. The statute and the regs do have a profission for compliance to be brought within 60 days, and i would expect that to govern, but that does not decide on the venue or cause of action. The venue can be any District Court under blm. Does that nipa waiver apply to the arctic wildlife refuge . We are calling for nipa in the chairmans mark, but is not waived. Again, saying the refuge is going to be administered in accordance with the refuge act creates a lot of confusion. A former chairman of this committee used to say a well paid bash is the bull wart for the republican. There are no Environmental Reviews that are waived, and that is underscored. You are changing the purpose and moving it to an agency who doesnt have to consider the same laws, and now has a conflicting purpose in a mandate to get the money. So it definitely will change the purpose. I dont think that when you still have in place your laws relating to endangered species, clean water, clean air, when all of that remains in place to suggest that were waiving these important laws is not accurate. We would like to ask counsel, the npra laws do nod seem to include critical habitat. How will this be affected by the npr leasing act in ensuring those habitats are projected. Ill speak to that. It goes back to the statute, and the fact that well be managing under the management program. If you look specifically to the many stipulations, that are would be incorporated, it speaks specifically to habitat. Not only you mentioned critical habitat habitat. The entire north of alaska has been designated as critical habitat for the polar bear under the obama administration. But what we have contained in the stipulations are not only bear interaction plans, protect grizzly bears, and how we are to ensure protection of the various species in the area. Can i get an answer from counsel . Thank you. Would you repeat the question . Over threefourths of the coastal plains are designated protected. So is this the same standard that theyre managed neither the chairmans mark nor the Petroleum Reserve act waive the endangered species act. But the endangered species act authorizes the secretary of the interior to issue incidental take permits. Namely, you can kill a threatened species. According to an incidental take permit that the secretary issues. Those permitks be issued for any lawful activity, which oil and gas would become lawful if the chairmans mark is enacted. Do you want to reply to that . As counsel said, e. S. A. Is not waived in the chairmans mark. The section seven would still apply under the npr and blm regs. They came forth with these best Management Practices and in that, they have a specific provision just on polar bears. Blm can mitigate as they go forward. Its the issue, i guess, i would say to counsel on both sides, is that you are changing the management status. So to think were going to get the same just been changed and conflicted, then youre going get the same management status. Thats why we have this letter from all the scientists. They say these caribou or bear want to cozy up to a pipeline, but that is just not true. So the issue is we have Indigenous People that are there who do need the support of this food source and their migratory habits are at question here. Im just amazed that people want to throw away such an unbelievable ecological jewel of our planet. I dont even just mean our nation, i mean our planet. The fact that our government has spent millions of dollars for decades studying the habit of caribou, that we have a treaty with canada to protect them, that their migratory habits have been so amazing, because how they distribute themselves to not deplete the food source is of scientific relevance. The notion that building oil rigs next to them and changing the ability to protect them is somehow compatible with oil drilling just doesnt its just not true. So if you say that another agency, it would be like saying that you would turn over the purposes of the epa over to the faa and say okay, they both have something to do with the skies and air. But if youre going to manage the skies based on what the faa says versus what the epa says, those are two different standards. The point is, youre changing the standard of these agencies, and by doing so, you are going to change the management. You guys have been clever, maybe not purposefully so, maybe you believe this, we think well see how many people ultimately think this way, we think that its a critical habitat that should be protected and that it is not consistent with oil and Gas Development. Senator cantwell, i have allowed as a courtesy to you and to other members of the committee, this is an opportunity to ask questions of clarification, and im happy to do that. I also recognize that there is an opportunity for debate here as we try to advance through system of these amendments. So i would hike if there were specific questions to be athere issed to our Legal Counsels that require legal responses. So lets finish those up so we can move on. Under the language of the chairmans mark, does that mean the 16. 67 royally would be reduced at the discretion of the secretary in anwr . No. That will remain the rate. My thinking is that when the chairmans mark makes the production act, the statute under which the refuge is administered, that that provision would apply. The challenge mark says accepted, otherwise provided in a section. And the chairmans remark sets forth their loyalty rate. And one of the things is required to manage the refuge act. Thank you. I think this is a big point of departure. Very difference of opinion by Legal Counsel which can happen. Again, very important part of this realty issue. There is great concern about how this is managed in the future and the concept of what royalties and revenues will be there and what sleightofhand could be used to change that dynamic as opposed to what were doing is a legislative perspective. Madam chair, i suggest we go to amendments. That answers a lot of our questions. Definitely answers the premise of our concerns about the chairmans mark both on the fact that it does change existing on a significant way. Depending on how you want to perceive we can call up and amendment. It appears all the amendments members seek to have brought forward today for discussion appeared to be on your side. I will defer to as to which we take up first. Cassidy 16 is not going to be considered . We dont believe so. Lets go to cantwell number three which is the chairmans mark adds new purpose to the arctic wildlife refuge to provide oil and gas refuge on the coastal plain. This editions is contrary to the purposes which are to conserve fish and wildlife populations that fulfill the International Treaty obligations of the United States and to provide in a manner inconsistent with the first two. The opportunity for consistent use in a primary issue and in sure water quality. Adding oil and gas is a purpose doesnt make sense for wildlife refuge. It does if you want to drill. No other wildlife refuge list this as a purpose of a wildlife refuge. Even those dont include it by a purpose. By putting that purpose and you turn everything on its ear. It doesnt make sense of the waivers. Under the law it allows for development within a wildlife refuge if its only compatible with the purposes. Our amendment would delete this from the refuge purposes to clarify that the Arctic Refuge should remain in authentic refuge. The secretary shall not establish it unless its compatible with the conservation purposes of the arctic wildlife refuges which is the existing standard for approving development. Theyve assured us that oil and gas is compatible. We just received a letter confirming the Administration Support authorizing the development is consistent. Make sure it will be consistent with those purposes. We asked for the consideration to strike that language and purpose. Weve had much discussion on this. I will repeat that again, we are not waiving any environmental laws in this mark. All of the laws will apply to this area. We recognize each refuge in the refuge system is managed for a variety of purposes i keep going back to our history in 1980 when congress established and wore. It specified the purposes of the refuge. But it further directed further study of the coastal play for its oil and gas potential. It provided that if authorized it could be developed for oil and gas. Thats the distinction. That when it was created it was specifically said this area is recognized for its potential and if Congress Authorizes it the coastal plain can be developed for oil and gas. We dont change in our mark the purposes for which and where was established. Instead the legislation as this new purpose that applies only to this area designated in 1980. It applies only to the coastal plain. The rest of the refuge, 17. 8 million acres remain the same in terms of the purposes, their unaffected and cannot be impacted by oil and Gas Development. We are ensuring Congress Decision to establish an oil and gas program as it was contemplated back in 1980 is expressly represented in the statute. So what the amendment does is seek to defeat the congressional decision by striking this limited purpose so the program is steam noncompatible. I will note that National Wildlife refuges are governed by the provisions of other alaska specific laws in general authorities over the refuge system. It is onauku that contains compatibility determination. His requirement not waived by the mark. We are not deeming the 1002 oil and gas program to be compatible with an war as a whole. I expect to consider additional congressional purpose for limited development in making a determination. We heard two weeks ago and its repeated today that development within this area is a limited area of development. No more than 2000 federal acres. New purposes we added is consistent with the history and consistent in the language will ensure Environmental Protection is included as responsible development occurs. I would like to support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. While you have reassured us the environmental laws apply, im looking at the plain language of your mark and it says the secretary shall, this is an instance where it is shall, not may allow these leases to occur nis, orss of anything. The plain language of the mark is what prevails. Sadly, i look at that and what you have said in your reassurances to not look at the actual language of your mark. I support the amendment. Im trying to square these two things. Your counsel said no action under nipa would be lawful under this legislation. An i will let you speak to that. I dont understand how it does not demon outcome if under the language of the bill and no action alternative would not be consistent with the legislation. It doesnt deem incompatibility. He it will still apply. In so doing, they will examine alternatives and analyze a no action alternative. But they cant pick one. No, because congress is making a decision to establish this in that area. If i could, the 1002 section purpose in current law reads the purpose of this section is to provide for comprehensive assessment of the coastal plains. Analysis of the impact of oil and Gas Production and to authorize exploratory activity in a manner that avoid significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife and resources. Changing the focus of the refuge so you dont have to consider those impacts allows you and mandates it has to happen. Thats our objection and purpose to strike the language. If our colleagues have more to say, we can vote whenever is appropriate. When you have it now or i think the only thing i would add is the 1987 report. It did determine oiling Gas Exploration could perceive proceed because there would be and i will look to kelly word, it was no adverse impact, but what was the words the civic league . But what but what were the words specifically . Directed the secretary to examine the potential on coastal play they reported back seven years later until congress that they should open up the 1002 area to oil and Gas Development. The 1987 study says it would reduce use by caribou up to 37 and direct loss of approximately 2700 acres of musk ox habitat due to avoidance. The report is clear as they quote, unavoidable impacts to wildlife. That will be included as part of the record. Its important to note that we were talking about impact to wildlife that within the area of development around trudeau bay and the impact to the Center Arctic caribou herd, i heard that missing growth seven times over since we Began Development in the 1970s. It was around 5000, now, about 22,000. Within the central caribou herd thats important to acknowledge as it relates to the porcupine herd which is further to the east and crosses the border between canada, that heard several years ago their numbers were 195,000. The caribou treaty we have between alaska and canada requires management of a population of around 135,000. Whether the central arctic heard the porcupine, these are areas we have concern. The people of the north rely on the caribou, were paying attention to whats going on with the population. You mention the central arctic heard, do they calve in prudhomme bay . They moved through. I dont believe they can. I appreciate that, the calving of the porcupine heard herd is not in the 1002 area, it is in the broader refuge but not in that portion. Maybe we can get clarification. When i was on the refuge thats not what i understood. You have a comment in another clarification . Yes, i dont know the answer to your question. But clarification, it is true 1008 is not waived of the chairmans mark. Mr. Fowler its really not applicable. If you read what section 1008 says. The secretary shall establish according to the mineral leasing act a Leasing Program on the federal lands of alaska not subject to a study, and section 1001 of the act talks about a study of lands east of the western boundary of the in pra and the Arctic Refuge is east of that. What section 10008 does is give secretary the ability to say we wont allow drilling in National Wildlife refuge if its in incompatible, but then again the chairmans mark mandates the Leasing Program be conducted. Where Congress Passes to two conflicting laws, the courts try to harmonize the two with their incompatible a later more specific statute which this certainly would be controls over the earlier general statute. I went to provide somewhat of a correction. I just got a note passed to me that in fact the central arctic , some of them do calve area and the dies e herd im looking at the fish and Wildlife Services website. According to their website, the central arctic herd was 70,000 in 2010, and 22,000 in 2016. So our numbers arent matching up, as well. And that was part of the testimony that we had a couple of weeks ago from mr. Cronin, recognizing that the herds will kind of move from one to another so that the counting often times is difficult. Central arctic caribou probably looks pretty close like a porcupine caribou. So being able to distinguish between them. But he did note the fluctuations, and we recognize, as you have seen, these animals dont settle down in one place. And they can be impacted by what is happening with weather, what is happening with an early spring or a later spring, and we just recognize that we tried to do the best job we can in understanding the strength of the herds. Ms. Donally i would like to note that the record of decision for the npra and the company best Management Practices and stipulations avoided the calving areas. So there are ways to mitigate against these things. I would just, in wrapping this part of the debate, say that i sen. Cantwell i would just, in wrapping this part of the debate, say that i think my colleague from new mexico is bringing this up, because this population of caribou has been greatly impacted since 2010. But more importantly, our government sent a biologist in the 1950s to study the porcupine caribou herd, and the difference between it and different herds in alaska. Because those porcupine had a unique quality of being able not to deplete the sources of food and to migrate. And it was those migratory habits of that herd that we paid for as taxpayers and went to study. We thought that science was so unique. And this is now what we are trying to destroy. So if we have the good sense decades ago to understand the appreciation of this refuge and the Science Behind it, i dont understand why we would throw it out today and pretend that we are going to be able to protect what is such a unique place. Madam, i dont think theres anyone that seeks to destroy the caribou. Further discussion on cantwell amendment number three . I would suggest we go to another amendment. No other debate. Lets move to a second amendment. What do you have in order, senator cantwell . Sen. Franken i think senator cantwell has me next. Okay, senator franken. Sen. Franken this is amendment number 32. Okay. And this is really about the need to evoke more public land to oil and gas drilling in alaska. Big Oil Companies do not lack access to public lands in alaska. Oil and Gas Companies already hold more than 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska. But as the end of fiscal year 2016, as of then, less than 2 of those acres were actually producing. Less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million. So this amendment would require the department of interior to assess and certify that leases that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening up the refuge. If you have another million acres in alaska that are leased, lets make sure that those are tapped out or have been explored. If you only have 2 of those actually drilling on them, why go to this place where they calve . The porcupine herd calves there. Why this place when theres another million acres that Oil Companies can be producing on but they arent doing it . It doesnt make any sense to me. So this amendment would simply require the department of interior to assess and certify the leases that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening the refuge. Well, i can understand where youre going with this, senator franken. You are among those that say the 1002 is the last place we should be looking to for Energy Development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the alaska delegation disagrees with that, the governor, lieutenant governor, the legislature. We have been seeking to develop this extraordinary potential that was identified decades and decades ago. Weve been seeking to be able to access this area again. A smaller area because of technologies allow us to do just that. But we have been working on this for some 40 years now. For many of us, we believe that this area, this very productive area is actually one of the best places that we can go for responsible development and we should have done it some time ago. Again, were talking about an area that was recognized, when the great compromise was knit together decades ago, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. Thats undeniable. And as a consequence of that, not only was their wilderness created, refuge created, parks created, but there was an acknowledgement, a recognition. Again, i keep going back to the specific designation of this 1002 area, as one that was recognized for its extraordinary potential. And so what we are seeking to do today is to open up a very, very small portion, 1 10,000th of all of anwar to development. And, again, what i want to remind people, this is an area where just three miles to the west, you have Point Thompson. Um, uh theres no fence, theres no wall, theres no border between the 1002 area, and the state lands which Point Thompson is built. And and so when you have an opportunity to look at that area, and recognize how we have proceeded with development, again, particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years now since prudhoe came into being, what were able to do with a limited footprint, with the extraordinary advances and technology, this takes us to a different level, that allows us to not only produce safely, but with a focus and a concern for impact to the surface. So that so that whether it is the caribou, whether it is the polar bear or the people, the people who live in the 1002 area, that they are able to have a life and a lifestyle that not only allows for subsistence, but also allows for jobs and opportunities. So i think its important to put that into perspective. Again, i want to repeat the protections that come into play with the Management Plan you under the construct of the national Petroleum Reserve that allows for the protection. I do think that it, again, is important to ignore knowledge that, you know, when you say we need to tap out Everything Else that is of what the Oil Companies have taken under lease are being drilled on. And i would and, youou just know, you are the chairman and can talk as long as you like. You are the chairman. You just argued what we have been arguing. And i say theres another side. And the other side is, this is where the porcupine caribou calve. We had testimony from a veteran you was aber of veteran in iraq. He said this is their food source. You first said that they dont calve there. They do calve there. Then you said that at prudhoe, the caribou herd has increased. Well, then weve heard it hasnt increased. This is a very this is a very contentious issue. And since theres another million acres that are already leased, Oil Companies dont lease land, i dont think they do. It doesnt make any sense to me. I dont know the oil business. But why would you lease anything if you didnt think there was oil . Doesnt make any business sense. Madam chair, i have a question. Yes. Go ahead. But before you do i just wanted to briefly reply to a comment there because you mentioned the testimony of a mr. Alexander who was before us who clearly is not supportive of opening anwr. But we also had testimony from mr. Rexford, who happens to live within the 1002 area and happens to be an alaskan native. It is important that we listen to our native peoples. But i do think it is important that we recognize that when were talking about subsistence and the opportunity for a food source there, the people who live in the 1002 area, who have homes and schools and airstrips, these people too need to be heard. And their issues need to be addressed, as well. Senator gardner. Senator gardner thank you, madame chair. If the concern is disturbance of the area, i would assume that forcing every acre to be developed would create a significant significantly more level of pipelines and disturbance than what is considered under this legislation. Is that your interpretation of this amendment, as well . That would be my interpretation. So this requires far nor significant infrastructure i think thats correct. Sen. Franken i would love to respond to that, but go ahead. I heard my colleagues question about why would you have reserves leased that youre not producing. I can explain that as far as economics, whether its oil, coal, natural gas or whatever. They get contracts, and the contract might be for ten years. You have to show you have the reserves to produce. So if you deplete what you have, you have to go somewhere else to fulfill the contract or you lose it. So economically, its basically for the leases. Well, and further to that point, if i may, if the Oil Companies knew exactly where the oil was, that would make life easier. But the fact of the matter is, they purchase leases, and theres no certainty that there is there is a productive reserves that are underneath. And its important to recognize those of us that come from oil and Gas Producing states, they dont produce immediately. Leases do not produce immediately. Alaska is a pretty telling case of that. It takes ten years plus. Unfortunately, sometimes even longer than that. Because of the permitting, the nepa, all of that. It all takes time. So its important to put this in the context of the whole is my point. Go ahead, senator franken. Sen. Franken so is the area youre talking about drilling in the arctic wildlife preserve the 1002. Yes. Sen. Franken is that any different . In terms of how long it will take. Yeah. Not at all. So its not any different than this other million acres. Sen. Franken so its not any different than this other million acres. So why not say before we drill there and disturb this beautiful place, go to some of the other million acres first . I dont get it. I dont get it. Minnesota has no oil, im sorry. We dont have any coal. We dont have any gas. Thats why you need alaska. Madame chair. [laughter] sen. Cantwell im not trying to close out debate, but in maybe supporting our colleague and moving on to some other amendments. I would just say that i think senator frankens point is that this will not be the last that weve heard about oil and Gas Development in alaska. That we guarantee there will be lots of discussion about the areas as the arctic that continues to open up, all the Different Things that will happen with all the different countries. So i think his point in summation is that he wants to preserve one aspect of it that is still this intact ecosystem with a great migratory population. Hes saying lets continue to pursue, or pursue the issues of opportunity that are before us. I just want to note, we did get a letter this morning from a resident that i would like to submit for the record. Their key point is an organization, the voice of the arctic was mentioned as being supportive of development. They were not. They were told by city council they do not represent us. They have said they would represent our position. They should not be considered the voice of captovic. One person that testified has contracts with the oil industry which borders the refuge and should be disclosed. They are chevron, texco and bp. His testimony should be looked at representing forprofit corporations, and not the Indigenous People. That will be part of the record. Certainly, mr. Rexford, who is a resident of captovic. Senator franken the Trump Administration is going to open ofanother 10 million acres the national Petroleum Reserve in december. So what im saying is, why if 1002 is no different from any of these other 11 million acres, why not drill there . [laughter] franken and yes, you had a member of the thethe alaskan village or peoples that lived there, but now it turns out he has a profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. So i just think about this. Why drill there and not one of the 11 million other acres open to drilling . Well, senator franken, i take it back to were not always sure where the oil is, but one of the things senator franken and this is no different. Senator murkowski one of the things we do know, within the npra, the leases there are not as prospective as we certainly know within the anwr area. 896 Million Barrels on 23. 3 million acres. Thats less than 3 per acre of the amount of oil thats likely in anwr for a smaller area. So the reason we have been so interested in accessing, again, a very small portion within the 1002, is because this area has been identified over the years with the very little that we have demonstrated, the mean estimate is 10. 5 billion barrels of oil within that far western, northwestern corner. So you want to try to go where the resource is, rather than trying to either spending the resources, hoping that you do get lucky. Engaging in exploration that may have more impact than you want. You want to try to use the knowledge that you have, to make sure that it is most efficient and expedi senator franken i understand your argument. Any other debate to senator frankens amendment . Franken i just want to say, i understand your argument, but earlier in this day about this amendment, you said the 1002 was no different. Senator murkowski what i was referring directly to, its no different in the sense of the permitting that will be required, the analysis that will be required, that will require ten years to go past before you see any production to that. The way that we handle it within npra and within the state lands the fact of the matter is, that regulatory process is long and attenuated and drawn out. And yourken my view view, so there. i think everyone has heard my view and your view. So thank you, madame chair. Further debate . Seeing none, senator cantwell . Thank you. Sen. Sanders madame chair, as ive said before, i think that our children and our grandchildren are going to look back on meetings and markups like this and they are really going to be shaking their heads and asking what world was the United States senate living in when, at a time of devastating damage done by Climate Change, responsible people were talking about more exploration for fossil fuel, and not addressing the planetary crisis of Climate Change . I think that our kids and grandchildren will be looking back to us, and not in a kind way. You know, what is amazing to me is that just yesterday, 24 hours ago, in this room, on that panel where the staff now sits, we had the governor of puerto rico, the governor of the Virgin Islands, and representatives of the United States government who were talking about the incredible devastation done by recent hurricanes in puerto rico, Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Madame chair, as you well know, there will be a supplemental bill coming down the pike, nobody knows how much it will cost, to repair the damage in texas, florida, puerto rico, Virgin Islands. Were talking well over 100 billion. Six years ago, we dealt with hurricane sandy. 60 billion. Very few scientists deny that the extent and the severity and the frequency of extreme weather disturbances is only going to increase. And that is because of a warming climate. Youre talking about raising a billion dollars here. Im talking about the United States Government Spending hundreds of billions of dollars repairing damage to a significant degree had to do with Climate Change. And the scientists tell us that the worst is yet to come. What this committee should be doing, working with people all over the world, is saying how do we transform our Energy System away from fossil fuel . Away from coal, oil, and gas to Sustainable Energy . And the very good news is, as everybody here knows, the cost of Sustainable Energy, solar, wind, is declining precipitously. We know now that corporations are investing, not in oil, not in coal, but in wind and solar, and other sustainable technologies. Thats the future for this country. Thats the future for the planet if were going to say, make this planet habitable for our kids and grandchildren. Madame chair, the amendment that im offering is a very simple amendment. It says that instead of more fossil fuel leases on our federal lands, we should issue permits for Renewable Energies like wind, solar and geothermal. Renewable energies like wind, solar and geothermal. It says that that we must aggressively transition towards Sustainable Energy and renewable it says we must aggressively transition towards sustainable and renewable energy. We should understand that in chile for example, concentrated thermosolar is delivering the cheapest electricity. Of our kids and grandchildren, we should defeat the mark, move the country and leave the world in a very different direction. Senator sanders, thank you for the amendment. You and i have had opportunities to build thats out and i do think it is an important part of the portfolio in this country and one that we can and should be aggressive on. As it relates to what we are doing in the markup here, the amendment that youve introduced is in violation of the byrd rule under the congressional budget act. To work with the secretary of interior, so you are effectively taking this out of our jurisdiction. I have come to learn and understand a lot of the requirements we have to meet not only jurisdictional but the second is whether or not the matters are incidental to the changes and outlays and revenu revenues. This falls into that incidental. I would also question whether or not in amendment of this nature would raise what the committee has been instructed to do to the budget resolution so i would urge the committee to reject antiwould understand think we do have opportunities to work on that, but not in the context of the market we have in front of us this morning. The ruling as i understand you are making the amendment out of order and i would like to vote to override the ruling. I believe that your amendment does violate the rule as it is codified under section 313 so i suggest this is not in amendment that we should support. Support. When it comes time for us to have a vote, we can certainly do it at this time. I would point out it is a bipartisan bill introduced as a member of cosponsors and if you would like to promote it is a great bill that lays out but permitting process and focuses on the bipartisan and i would love to have your sponsorship. My main concern today is to make sure that we do not remain or open the exploration. If we are going to mandate the development senator sanders is simply saying we will make it seem kind of commitment for other sources of energy. Seeing none, lets move to the next amendment. I would offer of amendment number 34 page three between 96 and seven insert the following as it is pretty straightforward. No activity may be carried out under the program under this section of the wildlife refuge that would be detrimental to the habitat of the caribou herd as determined by the secretary of interior acting to the directorr of the United States fish and Wildlife Service this would simply put them back in the driver seat for determining what would or would not be detrimental to the habitat thank you. I will oppose the amendment because they do not need you to think it is needed. I have referred repeatedly to the framework of the statute and the stipulations that have been laid out in the best Management Practices in the 2013 record decision. I will point to some of those specifics that refer to protection for the caribou, whether it is the caribou movement and subsistence areas of habitat to be respected and protected. I would also recognize the efforts we have made to try to reduce the impact of the land so that the caribou can move freely through the area. We are still talking about geek ridges. Do we have a sense of how many roads and pipelines for development is going to need . Because it is those kind of barriers they stand on the roads and lick salt. One of the largest mortalities is from standing by the road getting hit by a truck. One thing we havent been able to ascertain even if we havent split up over the bunch of over the coastal plain, how many miles of road and other linear structures like Gas Pipelines are going to be spread across the landscapes we heard some of that in the hearing from two weeks ago. The do not know exactly where they may be and its important to recognize we have done a development outside of the village. But i think that you can look to other areas of develop on the north slope. Again, pretty old, but the alpine field wa field was builte late 90s. There is 6 miles of road in total. Now as we are seeing expansion into the greater your seeing of 12 miles of road. That is one example of the development its been around for 20 years in terms of limitation. I think it is also pretty important to understand when we are talking about the mitigation for the caribou, and we heard this from matthew cronin. He said it is important to realize mitigation activities can be laid down to a nice disturbance, and again, whether it is elevated pipeline so that they can cross under or to limit or prohibit the development during the early Spring Season in may and june and again it takes us back to the stipulations that have been laid down within the framework so making sure we have protections in place and stipulations included and so there is a sensitivity to the fact that we have some extraordinar extraordd that moved through these areas. So how can we balance that Development Activity with the fact that we want to encourage and support and allow for continuation of the very healthy herds so this is exactly what we have built into this framework. So not only the caribou are impacted by other species, whether it be the polar bear and knowing where they are in avoiding them at all turns or those that are there during the nesting season, so. It would say no activity to produce oil and gas would happen if they are deemed detrimental to the habitat is not necessary that what we are doing and what we will be giving to ensure protection of the herd is important to recognize. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i think it gets to the heart of what we are talking about here. This is a National Wildlife refuge and i heard earlier that the 1002 area separate itself, it is inside the refuge. And the question is on the wildlife refuge, what comes first, does wildlife come first . You would think so from the name, but if we dont make the change in the legislation, once the say is oil and Gas Development comes first on the National Wildlife is. That is a very dangerous precedent to make. If i may respond to that, because it isnt a chronological sisters anbasis for standard thn second. It has to be in concert with and thats why we have this suite of environmental regulations that we are not waiving or going around. We have to work with not only the federal that the state and local, we have to work with the tribes done in consultation. Speaking in support of the senators amendment and i know we want to hear from a couple other colleagues that want to offer amendments, and i think we should hear from them is that the amendment is at the crux of this issue. His amendment fixes what is wrong with the underlining though. So if you truly believe that beh and Wildlife Service should play a role, that is what the amendment fixes. I think the council has been a good job on both sides of the aisle saying what will happen here and what will happen to the views of the surface, theyve been very clear so i support the amendment because it reestablishes the goal for the fish and Wildlife Service. When i got on the website this morning, they make the point that it occurs from the central and the porcupine herd it happens to one side or the other of the development, and i do not think that is accidental. Other amendments to be considered. I would like to call up number 22. The legal and Gas Development didnt contribute to or cause a negative effect on the quality or any other damage. If we are going to allow this, one of the most pristine we should hold applicants to a heightened standard. The areas are too important to allow those with these environmental records to operate on the coastal plain. They have a terrible track record and need not apply. I hear people discuss operators can come in and perform such extraction activities with minimal invasion. This simply asks operators to prove the ability for us and if they cant prove it, they dont get the least an lease and it it simple. Senator, i would suggest again that we look to the mark that i have laid down. Again, we are not waiving any environmental requirement or any of the other environmental laws. They still must be adhered to. Again, we put this under the framework of the statute in regulation that governs to ensure responsible development. You have indicated that its important operators on the north slope or within the areas that are speaking specific here adhere to high standards. I can attest that they are if not the highest then the highest in terms of environmental compliance. I would challenge you to look to any other Oil Producing area in the country and then go north to alaska to see the requirements and standards we put in front of the operatives. Nothing is 100 . I think we recognize that and we always push for higher and better, but i do think that it is important to recognize that the way we require the operators to work in terms of the Environmental Standards and protections, ive taken several of my colleagues up to see firsthand how the Oil Operations are conducted, and i recall one conversation with a colleague from north dakota who thought he understood environmental regulations as it was related to the oil production, and he was honestly stunned at the level of retirement down to requiring that when it rained and there were little splashes of water on the gravel pad that they had to be sucked up by a truck with some technical term to make sure there was no runoff onto the tundra. So it is a standard as alaskans we are proud of, but we push and demand and require. If you fail to comply, and you are fined and analyzed and ver verse. So it is important to us and i absolutely agree we have to have high standards but i would suggest again this is probably a bird rule violation outside of the committees jurisdiction but id just remind colleagues here the requirements that we put a in front of those that wish to access the resources under the land or some of the highest in the world. I respect and appreciate your comments. But at the same time, we have seen instances where thereve been oil spills. They were ordered to pay 22 million criminal and Civil Penalties for drilling in the slope. If youre going to allow drilling in the refuge for the first time, we should put a heightened standard standard fre companies that want to show us their record. The past is the precedent of what we should expect or ask questions of how they should ensure that it doesnt happen again and if we are not able to look at the past history to see how these companies have upgraded and if there is any type of environmental regulations then shame on us. We should be asking that and thats all this does is looks back to say prove to us, lets look at the record what youve done in the past. Theres nthere is no guarantee. We know that. And i get the comments over and over and i know we are not waiving any environmental revi review. I dont disagree with that but we are also changing the oversight and type of reviews that have been. Something is changing here and thats why i dont understand why we even have to change the purpose of it. You are indicating this is something that will happen over any type of activity that is a contradiction to the original purpose for the refuge, so all this amendment does is ensure that if we are going to allow these companies to come forward to show the past record and history and what they have done and if they violated the environment anywhere then we should be able to look at that and make a determination and be able to do that as well. Speaking in support of the senators amendment, thereve been over 640 oil spills from 1995 to 2009 including 13 spills over 10,000 gallons so we are not talking about an inconsequential issue here. Since 2009, 10,000 spilled on the slope as a result of oil and gas from obligations and theyve been routinely fined for contamination or discharge for air pollution. I think British Petroleum was ordered to pay 22 million in civil and criminal fines so all my colleague is asking is that a heightened awareness if you are concerned about this area, then an understanding of the background is very important. We will put this in the stack that we will be taking about 11 30. I also want to indicate support and when we are looking at oversight and accountability and who benefits from this bill in larger policy it comes to an amendment that i have and i will be requesting 48 by the major oil and Gas Companies most of which biograph by the way has bn place for about 100 years. We have struggled to have Clean Energy Policy in any longterm way on solar, wind or any other policies on clean energy, but yet he oil company tax breaks have been indicted in the tax code for about a hundred years. Oil companies have enjoyed billions of dollars in special tax breaks, about 470 billion in total. The Biggest Companies would receive 22 billion in the next ten years, yet believe it or not i just came from the finance committee that actually has a bill in front of us that adds a brandnew 4 billion tax break for the companies by allowing them to shelter their profits as a brandnew addition for Oil Companies. If we are going to open up the pristine areas of the arctic National Wildlife refuge to drilling which would boost the mind i dont believe that we should be handing the same companies more enormous tax breaks. My amendment eliminates the tax breaks enjoyed by the five major oil and Gas Companies and we intend to ask for a record roll call vote. I anticipate the chair will rule if the amendment is not germane and if that is correct, i would ask for a roll call to overturn that. You have anticipated where im going with this. If you do request a roll call vote i will move to table it because i do believe that it does fall outside this committees jurisdiction. As you know the tax provisions are within the finance and i thinthink its telling that thee actually taking up things like the oil taxes in the committee at this time so i would suggest an amendment of this nature would probably be more appropriate before that finance committee on which you sit. I also want to just address somehow or another, opening up of and is a favor or a gift if you will to the big oil. There are no giveaways to anything we are talking about here. Youve heard me say in this committee may need time that alaska as a resource state has been producing for decades now, but the reality is the trans Alaska Pipeline is less than halffull and we not only want to be able to produce more of the resource for the benefit of alaska and benefit of th the bee nation, but we also want to be able to put people to work and be able to help our state as well. So for those that suggest a visit somehow about big oil, its not. Its about alaska being able to keep the promise that was made to us that we would be allowed to produce our own resources to be a state that has a future with the Peace Process that we have in allowing our people to gain benefits and opportunities, and i think when our governor was here a couple of weeks ago, he spoke very well to this point this was a promise made to us at statehood that we can access our resources and a fight this fight has just been yet one more example where we have been denied that opportunity to. Within the text of the mark we do require the competitive Leasing Sales in the full Environmental Review process but also a royalty for all resources that would ultimately be produced from the 1002 area so i just wanted to include that as a part of the discussion here but i would remind colleagues that the amendment does fall outside of the committees jurisdiction interrupt request members oppose. We are doing all of this in the context of a budget resolution with instructions to this committee. It alall relates to budget reso. When the Oil Companies enjoyed 470 billion in incentives and tax breaks over the years that relates to what happens in terms of the budget and the budget deficits. We know who gets the direct benefit and who will be the ones operationally getting benefits from. When i was in alaska i had the opportunity to see new Wind Generation and was very pleased that some of those Wind Turbines were being made in michigan. They will continue to speed up the changing of the climate. They will change the tax policy in the direction that will actually benefit not only alaska about the whole country and the whole world. So, when i step back all of this fits. If we talk about where we spend the money, what are the incentives, what are we going to be promoting, and in my judgment this goes in the wrong direction. The way i read this amendment there are important issues. The way that i read it it would increase the cost of gasoline as well with fuel on consumers, so the Public Policy behind it would end up hurting consumers and driving up the cost. With report of the senators amendment, the larger issue here is that oil and gas prices are falling. They are falling. And People Holding onto economies depend on the revenue are getting hurt. Even if saudi arabia so i think senator stabenow is simply saying why do we continue to put the tax payer dollars behind incentives and price keeps falling, and the point is why not focus on some of the diversification efforts to help the economy grow in the future and lead us better protected instead of making up the shortfall. So, i am supportive of the amendment. And if there is no other. We do have in this opportunity and the committee for the micro grids we will continue to work on it but im also very sensitive to this act that we have limited jurisdiction in the tax provision is not one of th them, so as we move forward, that is a discussion in the baker reconciliation picture but not specific to the committee. So thank you, senator stabenow. Senator manchin. I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to make a statement id like to go on record i support the authorization for the National Wildlife refuge. This area known as 102 is a prospect coming from an extraction and i understand the importance of growing the state economy as well as an ongoing role in the enhancement of the Energy Security independence and i believe that such developed and must be done in a responsible manner with a focus on ensuring a balance balance ad but i would be remiss if they didnt express my extreme disappointment in the budget process and i believe we all can do better. Last month the Senate Passed resolution 71 which even included. I did so understanding to authorize the oil and gas in the wildlife refuge. I remain committed to passing tax reform. Why would support the chairmans mark for Energy Security and independence i stress, i deeply stress my fundamental opposition to the manner in which this process is being executed. Thank you medine chair. Senator manchin thank you for your continued support for responsible development of a small portion of the 1002. I think you recognize coming from a producing state what that means not only to a state but to a nation that relies on the resources and i think you have had an opportunity to see that we do it responsibly and do it well. Being caught in between such a situation and using this as a gimmick for budget reconciliation is so wrong. I would rather just voted up or down but those of us who agree or disagree vote in move on but thats not the way it is here. I understand that and i think we both know thats not the way we are in a reconciliation of process. I think we recognize that it is limiting and perhaps an imperfect process so i thank you for your contacts there. Id like to actually call up if we could just get through to that would be great but id like to call up number six. Cantwell six . Yes. The gulf of mexico Energy Security act of 2006 directed federal revenues from offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico to four states and incentivize to promote offshore oil and gas drilling. Under current law those dates get 100 of oil and gas revenues for the first three nautical miles from their shores through the oil and gas revenues beyond three nautical miles belongs to the United States as a whole not coastal states. In my opinion it was a terrible idea for the nation as a whole. The Trump Administration agrees and is asked for it to be changed. Thats the whole those 46 states dont benefit. We dont need drilling in the arctic wildlife to meet our reconciliation instructions. We can meet those instructions by raising 3 billion by eliminating these giveaways of federal revenues and giving alaska over a billion dollars which would help in not only protecting the art takes refuge for getting revenue and impact to the state of alaska. I look at this issue and their challenges moving forward, when the discussion of go mesa when i said in my comments i objected to because it was giving federal revenue away at the time there was a lot discussion of why we should do that but what are the primary things the other kids from those four states mentioned is that they wanted the money to go to protect their coastal areas and not sure how much of that has been achieved. Money has gone into the coffers of State Government but as i look at oil and gas settlement and the federal revenue that i think is in the Trump Administration which it passed back to me i do want to start doing adaptation and mitigation of the impacts of Climate Change in the sector and what is happening to us. By keeping this revenue for the federal government and putting it towards adaptation and mitigation places like alaska we can start this preparing. We can make a decision now not to keep drilling and putting more into our environment and start instead protecting the adaptation and mitigation that has to happen. So i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Senator cantwell im looking at the modified amendment for the first time here and recognize that you are seeking to provide statistics to the state of alaska as well which is appreciated but i think that the amendment is one that, it really erodes and undermines a policy that we should all be working to expand. This is something that senator cassidy and i and others have been working on under his leadership. So blunt the gulf of mexico Energy Security act provides specifically for revenues to four states as part of the very, very carefully crafted compromise that puts the eastern gulf off limits increase funding for the state cited al wtf. I think we need to recognize that offshore revenuesharing is a good policy that needs to be continued and authorized for all out there off for producing states. Thats what we have been trying to do with alaska instead of eliminating or reducing soap one is to expand the revenuesharing provisions that we have and effectively working to address inequities that we have with on shore states. On shore states receive roughly half of the revenues from production on federal lands within their borders. We have this discussion so many times the revenuesharing in my view is really a matter of fairness to the states that are producing it and senator cassidy a. Certainly hope you are going to be jumping in here. You know full well the disproportionate impact that louisiana has as it hosts the offshore development and happy to host that offshore development but its also fair that there be that effort to provide revenues back and recognizing that so much of these revenues to go to priorities like Coastal Restoration and Hurricane Protection. He wrote in the compromise again that was made, the promise and the commitment that was made to the gulf states is not a direction that i supported but encouraged. Madam chairman. Senator cassidy. First i totally agree with senator cantwell. And actually was senator sanders when i mentioned that we have two add resiliency to our coastline. We have to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels. In fact is we have been speaking louisiana has lost the equivalent of two football fields of coastline. Can you put that poster of our coastal loss up . That right there depicts coastal loss and flood risk to our communities. Now what we could do and by the way developing off the coast of louisiana we dont get the 50 revenue share that other states get. For example new mexico. We dont. We get 35 up to 500 billion split before between two states. If we have that under our constitution we have to put it towards Coastal Restoration projects. The money doesnt start until 2017 so senator cantwells observation is that she hasnt seen these projects occur and that is true because we have gotten two or 3 million which is helpful for panel planning and construction but we are having a comprehensive plan to begin to restore that coastline which by the way helps protect federal assets such as the strategic Petroleum Reserve and also mitigates the risk of the future hurricane would hit a city like new orleans and cause billions of dollars of damage which federal taxpayers have to help. Lots of benefits they are so the question is should the money come up to the federal bureaucracy and then go back down to the state where the inevitable friction that takes off 10, 20, 30 or 40 and doesnt rebuild those coastlands and by the way that is the strategic Petroleum Reserve asset. Would you think of the map aegis showed that demonstrates why restoring this coastline protects it. The issue is whether we cant give louisiana and the other coastal states consideration but at least some consideration that the restaurant states receive and we shouldnt have the money directly going to protect those federal assets or whether it should come to the federal government with all the friction that takes on. I think that its in the federal taxpayers interest to do something for that coastline because we are either going to pay now or pay later to quote and no commercial. In fact i will have an amendment which says that we should allow one days worth of reserves from the Petroleum Reserve. The reason why federal policy has decreased the revenue available for gomesa by 300 million over two years in the absence of that means that restoration will not occur. They will cancel projects and all of those federal assets will stay at rest that much longer. So i agree with your concern that we need to mitigate coastlines. I think the effect of what you are suggesting senator cantwell would work against that to the area which is the most vulnerable in our nation. A so of course i posted. If i may very briefly in response to senator cassidy and mitigation is one issue and begin talk about it but the essence of todays debate is not mitigation. Its whether the United States tells the world and our own people that we are going to go forward and increase our dependency on fossil fuel or get to the root of the problem and that is the Climate Change is devastating to louisiana, to vermont in every other state in this country and the time is now common now to make for our kids and our grandchildren that we are going to break our dependency on fossil fuel and move to Sustainable Energy. I would say to my colleague from louisiana this is an important issue but not the issue today. This is the uneventful issue on which way this country goes in terms of drilling from more oil and not the way believe it should go forward. Senator sanders just a speak to that i dont know though with the way you make a statement is to allow the washing away of a coastline and im speaking specifically to senator cantwells amendment, the washing away of a coastline which will not only destroy federal assets with the most protect fisheries in the lower 48 and i emphasize the lower 48 as well as other Natural Resources. By the way i point out the amendments we have, the amendment we have is endorsed by the environment of defense fund and i have a whole list here, the coalition to restore coastal louisiana. The National Wildlife federation federation. We are talking about preserving an ecosystem here in terms of this particular amendment and another thing i will point out senator franken and i have been talking about puerto rico and what can we do. The National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out that for every. 8 units of a grid that is run by renewables you need 1. 0 per unit and i can explain that later fast acting liquefied natural gas or natural gas in case it goes down. Now i wont go into the details. A lot of these resources or natural gas. Again im only thinking of senator cantwells amendment but if you want to preserve that ecosystem it creates the opportunity to replace coal with natural gas and enable renewables. We need that natural gas but by the way we also need the ecosystem and all im trying to do is the restoration of that ecosystem. Madam chairmans much as i would like this to be a very long time im going to be short because id like to give discretion to our colleague senator wyden was offering his amendment but i would say to senator cassidy this does lead to 1. 6 billion for the coastal states. Its just recognizing that i think its time to try to mitigate both in alaska which is having unbelievable impacts that are affecting indigenous populations and assets there. I love youre in you see as him to that part of your state because i guarantee when senator murkowski and i needed that muscle to communicate to the leadership on your side of the island why they shouldnt continue to focus on taking investment dollars away from that area and investing in other areas we were in a losing battle with our colleagues on back, so my point is this amendment is that it is federal resources that should be going too well spent things that are now we are going to be dealing with in the supplemental and we are going to be dealing with in our expenses. Senator collins and i asked how much all of this is costing us and they said 635 billion over the next 10 years. I simply believe the resources should be spent on helping alaska mitigated this point in time as well as continuing to allow you to mitigate and i will work with you in whatever ways that we can to achieve our objectives on this dynamic change thats happening and how investments are being made in oil and gas and in the federal government huge, huge costs that we are seeing on these issues. With that madam chair i would like to call up if i could wyden number 49 and offered for my colleague he could see cant be here at this moment. I think this will be the last amendment and we can go to both but senator wyden would like to be here but hes in finance. We are told that the chairman generates 1 million for treasure were 10 years. Think senator stabenow is a cosponsor of this. The chairman said it would generate 725 billion by 2022. Senator wydens amendment simply says that the federal government does not receive 725 million in the arctic of the wildlife refuge before a sober first of 2022 the drill is rescinded. Based on historically singh on the north slope it would bring in 76 million by 2022 at the most. Under that scenario would have to have sales of 4 million acres of the Arctic Refuge to generate the 225 million that cbo is projecting by 2022. I think thats the issue, 4 million acres of the number does not take into account the companies rarely bid on every acre between 2010 and 2015 industry only bid 1. 5 to 5. 5 acres offered in the national Petroleum Reserve in alaska so assuming the coastal plain is least at a similar rate becomes more probable. Think this is a commonsense amendment. It would appeal to members who are adjusted ensuring that the budget is there to make budget decisions in the future and ive put this as one of our roll call votes. Thank you senator cantwell. I will oppose wyden number 49 payday think effectively we are in a situation where termination like this would amount to federal taking of the leases would have been awarded but then youve got the government stepping in and canceling everything if we dont reach a certain amount. I worry that your runs afoul of the u. S. Constitution because its taking without compensation compensation. The 725 milliondollar threshold im assuming comes from the cbo estimates which we recognize as an estimate. I think we go back and forth in terms of whether we like or dont like the cbo and how cbo operates but it is designed to be that nonpartisan entity and its supposed to take the politics out of the budgeting process. Trying to substitute our judgment for there is her use their work to justify arbitrary conditions i dont think is the right way to go. I do think if you kind of game this out and say okay well lets just say the first lease sale could end up raising 724 million and that could wind up being five aliens thats not going to match the cbo estimate for what you would have done that is effectively terminate the program at the beginning. So i dont think that it would withstand the test in terms of meeting the constitutional confines. I think it would set it dangerous precedent so i would urge members to oppose it. Counsel is that your read of this that links to any kind of mandate . Thats not my read senator. Certainly if the bureau of Land Management issued leases that committed to the left sees that they would be able to develop oil on those leases and it kept the money and returned it if the amendment took effect then that might constitute a tape but to simply say the secretary or the bureau of Land Management in implementing this program should issue leases that are conditioned on the full amount he paid in and then returning the money if its not, the companies would get their money back. I cant think of a greater way to add uncertainty into an already uncertain process when it comes to accessing resources so again i would urge colleagues to reject the wyden amendment. Madam chairman think we should vote on the amendment that we have called up so far and thats the best way to proceed here. I did ask colleagues to try to be here between 11 30 and 12 00 so we could take this up and we certainly would in that time. I would ask if its the end tension of any members to call up other amendments. My hope would be that we would be able to take up this block of amendments and then move to the final passage before we have our round at noon here. Madam chairman . I just want to clarify or add to the record senator wyden has indicated that hes supportive of the cortez amendment number 22 and would like to be added as a cosponsor. Thank you he will be added as a cosponsor. Senator king. This shouldnt take us long to move through these votes but again i would just remind colleagues that we have got votes coming up. I dont want to cut anybody off. I suggest we move to cant well number three and call it up for a vote. And i ask for the as in the nays. Yeas and nays. Senator cassidy we have just asked the members if they ran the other amendments that wish to be considered. There were none. I do know that you and i had a conversation about your proposed amendment. I have reminded colleagues that we are running up against three votes at noon here but if you would like to speak to your amendment as you indicated to me i will provide for that. I will do it in a minute and a half because i spoke to earlier. Can you show these posters . Western states get 50 of the revenue from offshore lease set up 10 years ago that gave coastal states 35 up to a max of 3500. Begins this year. There has been a decrease in the amount of the federal policies and that decreased for a couple of years. This is lazy and those coastal loss. This is a flood risk that increased impact of katrina upon new orleans which cost taxpayers 20 billion. This is the strategic Petroleum Reserve assets which are all at risk because of this. By our state constitution and the revenue we get from gomesa has to be used to restore this coastline which in turn protects these assets as well as communities that live there. It mentioned earlier this amendment has been endorsed by the Environmental Fund by the coalition to restore coastal louisiana, the fish and wildlife organizations. I would ask, and what it does is it takes one day of Petroleum Reserve assets and sells it and uses the money over the next two years because of coastal federal policies to allow restoration of our coastline. Would you accept an additional cosponsor . I would love it. Would you like to be added as a cosponsor . I want to make a slight correction that we get 40 of on shore basis we get 0 of offshore leases. The coastline is very small. I would move that would call up camp well number one or ask for the gase baze in the nays im in camp on the periphery. I just wanted to make sure that we were done with debate on senator cassidys amendment. I will be supporting senator cassidy. I have confirmed with him that my view is we need to expand revenue sharing and will work specifically in that area. I think he knows that i have great reluctance when it comes to sale of the sapporo but prioritizing the Coastal Restoration and Hurricane Protection is something that again i will see my support for you. Senator cantwell is called up amendment number three, cantwell amendment number three. I asked for the yeas in the nays. Yeas in the nays and the nos were. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] ball. [roll call] [roll call] the nays are 13 in the yeas are 10. The agreement is not agreed to. Madam chairman by two call of cortez masto and ask for the yeas and the nays. The yeas in the nays have been called for. We scope the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nays are 13 and the yeas are 10. The amendment does not agreed to. The amendments not agreed to pay that by two heinrich numbers 64. Madam chairman as for the yeas and the nays. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] but this vote this yeas or 129 nays are 11. The agreement the amendment is not agreed to. The amendment failed. And the other members . I would like to call up franken number 32. And as for the yeas and the nays . The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nos or 14 in the ayes are the amendment fails. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nays or 12 and the yeas r. Levin. The amendment fails. Ive would like to call up wyden stabenow amendment number 49. And as for the yeas and the nays nays. The clerk will call the roll on amendment number 49. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the nos are 12 negates or levin. The amendment is not agreed to. I call upstanders number 43. The clerk will call the roll and sanders 43. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] medine chairman nye would like to call a stabenow 45. I mentioned that this is not as jurisdictional so im going to move to table the stabenow amendment. So the motion and a vote the forest is a motion to table. On the motion to table. [roll call] [roll call] the amendment is a great to. Are there any others . Seeing none, lets move to the final package of chairman mark. Excuse me. A final vote on the chairmans market as amended. Yes, senator cantwell, i know there are colleagues who would like to make statements, but what i would like to do, the vote has been called, is to have taken, and then i will figure, and certainly encourage members to provide a discussion and comments at that point in time. I know we told our colleague we could let him make a comment before the vote. I think many of us have other things we could add to the record. I am fullyski prepared to stay here, but i weso recognize that have a vote. Senator king, if you like to speak, i am amenable to it. Sen. King i appreciate that, chair. Modern chair, just briefly, i have a great deal of respect for you and senator sullivan. I really try to dig in on this issue. Unfortunately, i have to vote no. Ugewords wildlife ref means something to me. It does say exploration is 03,owed, it does say 10 especially since congress has to act. The development is not limited to 10 thousand acres, and my consideration of this has been influenced by the number, which i find inappropriate. I did a little calculation. Cover under only the definition in this law to square feet of the area because it is only a square inch for each length of the chair that is on the ground, but most of us would say that is a pretty good coverage of the room by the chairs. We are talking about a lot of inerage of this area multiple wells, the minimum of 400,000 acres being released. Alaskas 375 million acres, the state owns 305 million acres. The Natural National Petroleum Reserve is 23 million acres. It just strikes me that the case has not been made for opening up this particular, relatively small area of the state for drilling, particularly when we are now projecting the news just yesterday a Record Oil Production in the United States almost 10 Million Barrels a day, ivaling that of saudi arabia find it hard to vote to vote to open this up given the questions say, iildlife, and as i do not think the case has been made that there is a National Security for other necessary for doing this, so given the respect that i have for the chair and for our colleague from alaska, senator sullivan, it is not easy for me to take this position, but the data compels me, i believe, and i just want to get the statement on the record. Sen. Murkowski senator kaine, i thank you king, i thank you for that, and i thank you for your willingness to sit and listen, not only to the alaska delegation but to our governor. I think that is important. We all come to our own conclusions, but i respect the time that you have really given to it. Before the final vote, is there anyone else who would like to . Ake a quick comment seeing none, the clerk will call the roll on the chairmans mark as amended. [roll call] by this vote, the yates are 13, 13, the yeas are nays are 10. Madam chair, i want to make sure we have time for members to file dissenting views. Sen. Murkowski there will be time. I want to thank colleagues for being here this morning. Time that you have given and the debate has been appreciated. With that, the committee stands adjourned. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] it seems like this is the focus politically at least. Well, no, keep in mind, in 1995, i was not in office. I was not even in legislature at the time. Meantsed both, and it clinton put his signature on the veto there. That inell you, though, 2005 when i had the opportunity, and we again thought we were close. So i think alaskans have had many opportunities in front of us. I have seen different times over that it has been introduced, had hearings, how the process had the process, that he has successfully advanced it from the house 12 times now. Todaywas nothing new here other than the advances that we have seen in technology that, again, allow us to access an important resource and do so in toay that has less impact the surface, less impact to the environment, and so that is the update. And i think that that was well conveyed throughout the discussion and debate. In 2021 come at that point, there could be a new president in charge. Would you support the potential change in administration . Sen. Murkowski you know, we take a long view with mr. We have to. I think this administration has been very clear that they support new Source Development and that they support new Source Development within alaska and within anwar. Unfold ifs that will he is successful with this is sometimes it takes longer than we would like. Obviously, i would like to see it happen sooner than later. , what we need to do right now, the first step is get the authorization to open it in the first place. We have taken that step again today. Withl be very transparent you i have no reason to believe that this is the last hurdle that we face. This will be part of the package thatand i fully anticipate just as we had the resolution, there would be an advantage to strike. We will gear up for that battle again. So we are doing this incrementally, and we are doing this in a way that people know full well what we are doing and why we are doing it. Ok . Thanks. Sen. Murkowski thanks, everybody. Hey. How are you . [indiscernible] washingtonwashingto withal, live every day issues that is vacuum. Coming up this morning, the Progressive Change Campaign committees adam green discusses progressives and campaign 2018. Then, the mercator centers oniel griswold employmentbased immigration policies. Then, the government on ability k onces charles jeszec saving for retirement. Live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern. Join the discussion. The cspan bus is driving across the country on our 50 capital store. We recently stopped in austin, texas, asking full what is the most important thing in your state . In texas, i was hoping texas would get rid of unnecessary and burdensome occupational regulations. Important issue is tax reform. We need to get that changed so the bestrican has opportunity possible. The most important issue facing texans in washington is transparency in government. I do not think there can be enough of it, and i do not think our leaders can never do enough transparent in terms of not only their own activities but also i think also the kind of records that need to see the light of day and that the citizens of texas deserve to know what is going on in washington. The most important issue for the state of texas as educational choice. Every parent has the right to direct their kids education, and hopefully we can get a bill passed next session