Transcripts For CSPAN2 Energy Development In The Arctic 20171116

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 sures 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. s 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 regardless of any ias, dnieper, or 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 underneath the or would be lawful under this legislation. 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 incompatibility. The 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. Now 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 it and 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. The only thing i would add is the 1987 report. It did determine oiling Gas Exploration could perceive because there would be it was no adverse impact, but what are the word specifically . If congress 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. 1987 study says it would reduce use by caribou up to 37 and direct loss of approximately 2700 acres of muss oxen 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 centric actor occurred, i heard that missing growth seven times over since we Began Development in the 70s. It was around 5000, now, about 22000. Within the central caribou herd thats important to acknowledge as it relates to the porcupine heard 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 her 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 cabin protopic . They moved through. I dont believe they can. I appreciate that, the calving of the porcupine heard 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 refugea 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. 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 compatible, but then again the chairmans mark mandates the Leasing Program be conducted. Where Congress Passes to 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. According to their website it was 70,000 in 2010 and 2,202,016 so the numbers are not matching up as well. A couple of weeks ago, it was bracket i think that the herds will move from one to another so the counting often times is difficult. Being able to distinguish between that he did note 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 the weather, what is happening with an earlyy spring or later spring and we just recognize we try to do the best job that we can understanding the strength. I would like to note the decision and best Management Practices and stipulations avoided the area so there are ways as you go through the process in general to mitigate against these types of things. I would just in wrapping up part of the debate say that i think my colleague is bringing this up because it has been greatly impacted since 2010, but more importantly, our government sent a biologist to study the herd and the difference in the alaska because they had a unique quality of being able not to deletdepletes the sources of fod it was those habits of the herd that we paid for as taxpayers and went to study. We thought that it was so unique and that is what we are trying to destroy so if we have a good sense decades ago to understand the appreciation of this refuge and the Science Behind it i dont know why we would throw it out today. Final discussion on cantwell number three. A second amendment, what do you have . For the oil and gas drilling in alaska, the Big Oil Companies it holds 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska. In the end of fiscal year 2016, less than 2 of the acres were actually producing less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million so this would require the department of interior to assess and certify those 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 least, lets make sure that those are tapped out or have been explored and if youve only have 2 of those, then why go to this place where they have the porcupine herd . Y. This place where there is another million acres that the Oil Companies can be producing that they are not doing it. We would require the department of interior to assess and certify the leases that are already held by the Oil Companies that are tapped out before opening the wreckage. I can understand where you are going with this. It is the last place that we should be looking to for energy development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the delegation disagrees with that or the governor or lieutenant governor. We have been seeking to develop the potential that was identified decades and decades ago we have been seeking to be able to access this area again. A much smaller area because the technologies allow us to do just that. But we have been working on this for some 40 years now. But for many of us, this 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, we are talking about an area that was recognized when the great compromise was together decades ago prior to, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. That is an deniable. And as a consequence of that, not only was the wilderness created, refuge and parks created, but there was an acknowledgment and recognition. Again i keep going back to the specific designation of this area as one that was recognized for its extraordinary potential. So what we are seeking to do today is open up a very small portion of the 110 thousandths of all of a noi to development. And again, what i want to remind people of this is an area that just 3 miles to the west you have thompson. Theres nthere is no fans, no wd no border between the 1002 area and the state land on which it is built. And so, when you have an opportunity to look at that area and recognize how we have proceeded with the development again particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years mouse in it came into being. What we are able to do with a limited footprint with the extraordinary advances in technologthetechnology this taka different level but with a focus and a concern for impact so that whether it is the caribou, polar bear, they are able to have 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. Those that come into play with the management plan. I think that again it is important to acknowledge that when you say we need to tap out Everything Else that is a. He said this is her food source and you first said the caribou herd has increased. This is a very contentious issue and since there is another million. Why would you lease anything where you didnt think there was oil . I just wanted to briefly reply to a comment there because you mentioned the testimony of mr. Alexander who is before us who clearly isnt supportive of opening up an alarm if we had testimony before this committee who happens to live within the area and happens to be in alaska native and it is important that we listen to our native people, but i do think that it is important that we recognize that when we are talking about subsistence and the opportunity for the food source, the people that live in this area that have homes in schools and airstrips, these people need to be heard and their issues need to be addressed as well. Just looking at this amendment, if the concern is the service of the area, i would assume forcing every acre to be developed would create a significantly more level of pipeline then what is considered under the legislation. Is that your interpretation of the amendment as well . I hurt my colleagues question about how would they lease if they are not producing. I can explain that as far as economics whether it is oil, coal, natural gas. They get contracts and it might be for ten years then we get a longterm contract so you do deplete what you have you have to go somewhere else or you lose it. So, economically it is basically for the leases. Further to that point if i may, if the Oil Companies knew exactly where the oil was that would make life easier but they purchased the leases and there is no certainty that there is productive reserves. Those of us have come from the oil and Gas Producing states dont produce immediately. They do not produce immediately. It takes ten years plus sometimes even longer than that. Its important to put this in the context of the whole. Go ahead. Is that any different . So its not any different than the other million acres. 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. We dont have any cold or gas. Movinmoving onto on to some othr amendments i was just saying i think the senators point is that this will not be the last that weve heard about in the illegal and Gas Development in alaska that we guarantee there will be lots of discussions about ncr dick continues to open up, all the things that are going to happen with various countries in the arctic i guarantee we will be talking about it for a long time. I think that his point of summation is that he wants to preserve one aspect that is still this ecosystem with the great migratory population so lets continue to pursue the issues of opportunity before us. We did get a letter this morning from a resident that i would like to submit for the record. It is an organization they were not told by the city council they dont represent us and they previously said they would represent the position. Roberts testified he is a board member of the Forprofit Corporation which has contract obligations with the industry that supporters the refuge and should be disclosed. It should be representing the Forprofit Corporations rather than and i submit that for the record. He is again a resident. Of the administration is going to open another 10 million acres of the National Petroleum reserve in december. So, what im saying is if 1002 is no different than these other 11 million acres. And yes, you have a member of the alaskan village now he has a profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. So think about this. This is why they are one of the 11 million other acres opened to drilling. I take it back to we are not always sure where the oil is, and this is no different. One of the things we do know is within the npr a, the leases are not as perspective. Its less than 3 per acre of the amount that is likely. 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 dot very little that we have demonstrated the estimate is 10. 5 billion barrels of oil a within that far northwestern corner. You want to try to go where the resource is rapid and spending the resource is hoping that you do get lucky engaging in exploration that may have more impact then you want. You want to try to use the knowledge that you have to make sure it is most efficient and expedient. Any other debate . I understand the argument, but early here in this debate, you said it is no different than the others but permitting that will be required and the analysis that will be required but will require ten years to go past before you see any production to that. The way that we handle it within the state land o of the fact of the matter is the regulatory process is long and attenuated and drawn out. Further debate . Seeing none, senator cantwell. This is amendment number 43. Madam chair, as i said before, i think that our children and grandchildren are going to look back at the meetings and markups like this and they are going to be shaking their heads and asking what role does the United States living when the time is devastating damage 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 our grandchildren, i really do think our kids and our grandchildren will be walking back and not in a kind way. What is amazing to me is just yesterday, 24 hours ago in this room on that panel where the staff now sits, we have the governor of puerto rico, the Virgin Islands and representatives of the United States government who are talking about the incredible devastation dot i descend hurricanes. Madam chair, as you 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. We are talking well over 100 billion. Six years ago he dealt with hurricanes and e. , 60 billion, very few scientists d. Nine dot the extent and severity and frequency of the weather disturbance is only going to increase. And that is because of a warming climate. Now youve are talking about raising a million dollars. Im talking about the United States Government Spending hundreds of billions of dollars repairing damage which to a significant degree, not totally, had to do with Climate Change and they tell us that the worst is yet to come. Its from the oil and gas to Sustainable Energy, and the good news is everybody here knows the cost of Sustainable Energy is declining precipitously. We now know the corporations are investing not been oil, coal but wind and solar and other sustainable technologies. That is the future of this country and the planet if we are going to make it habitable for our kids and grandchildren. Madam chair, the amendment i am offering is a very simple amendment. It says instead of more fossil fuel leases on federal land we should issue permits for Renewable Energies like wind, solar and geothermal. It says that that we must aggressively transition towards Sustainable Energy and renewable energy. We should understand that in chile for example, concentrated solar will bring the cheapest electricity ever produced on the planet. That is where the future is. For the sake 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 with your focus on renewables and i 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 presiding officer the democratic leader. Mr. Schumer i ask unanimous consent that the quorum be dispensed with. The presiding officer without objection. Mr. Schumer mr. President , the republican tax plan, even before yesterday, would exacerbate income inequality at a time when it is also spiraling out of control, helping the rich get richer, big corporations get bigger, while the middle class is left stuck in neutral. Many of many middleclass would wind up paying higher taxes at the end of the day, 20 million in 2027 under the senate plan. Thats the wrong approach for our economy. It betrays the American Worker and the American Family who