Transcripts For CSPAN2 Energy Development In The Arctic 20171120

Folks that are here this morning. I have come a long way. Several alaskans have flown down from the north slope to be with us. Recognizing that this is their home, i think its important that theyre here with us today, so we welcome them. I would also like to add just a farewell at the same time that we acknowledge the welcome. We dont see angela shes over there, but angela who is been senator cantwell 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. I just, i want to acknowledge the work that you have done. I think that certainly the staffs on our site have enjoyed the working relationship that we have had with you through some interesting and challenging issues, and your leadership has been greatly appreciated. So know that were going to miss you, so thank you. [applause] so lets get to work. We are here to mark up legislation to allow responsible Energy Development in a small portion of the nonwilderness 1002 area in northeast alaska. We reporting legislation pursuant to the reconciliation instruction we received under house concurrent resolution 71 which is the budget resolution for fiscal 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 the bait and a roll call vote on an amendment in the senate that attempted to strike our committees instruction. We then followed the passage of the budget resolution with a regular order hearing. I might note that it was over four hours in length on novembes ago, that focus exclusively on the trenton area. And a full week ago with more notice than is required by our threeday rule i released the text of the reconciliation legislation that we have before us today. So weve given members plan 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 but i think that it presents a tremendous opportunity for both alaska and our nation. We authorize an oil and Gas Development program in the 1002 area in accordance with the environmentally protective framework used to manage the nearby in pra. We require to lease sales over the next ten years and apply a royalty of 16. 67 , 16 16, the production that results here we split the revenues from Development Evenly between the federal governments and the state of alaska. 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 and 90 90ten split in alaskas favorite. We also limited Service Development to just 2000 federal acres within the 1. 5 million acres 1002 area which itself is just 8 of the 19. 3 millionacre refuge. I keep going back to the map of anwr 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 about where the 1002 sets and how it says as a function of anwr i think its important to keep that in mind. Some have claimed that we are on the verge of ruining anwr with development, but we are talking about 2000 total federal acres, just one10,000 of anwr its over i think its also would understand that we have not preempted the Environmental Review process in this legislation. We have not preempted the Environmental Review. Nor have we limited the consultation process. With alaska natives in any way. All relevant laws, regulations and executive orders will apply under this language. Cbo estimates are 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 be generated after production begins just outside the ten year budget window. Of course revenues are not the only benefit that will result from Careful Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. We will also create thousands of good jobs that support families and help put kids to college. We will help keep energy affordable, saving families and businesses money every time they pay for fuel essentially in energy tax cut. We will ensure a steady supply of energy for west coast refineries in states Like Washington and california, and reverse the foreign imports that are 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 at our hearing two weeks ago, the size of development pads has decreased by roughly 80 , 80 since since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface region of the newest rigs by 4000 over the same time. 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 prude obey are now almost 50 years old. We are far past those now. And alaskans understand this. Thats why so many of us strongly support develop it. Thats why we heard from senator sullivan and congressman young we heard from our independent governor and her 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 you said right here before the committee that yes, we want to develop. Our witnesses were part of an outpouring of support from back home. The voice of the arctic the north slope borough, the Alaska Chamber comes, the alaska talking organization, labor organizations, state legislators both republicans and democrats, and hundreds of alaskans who have either called my office are written a statement for the record in support. All of them support responsible Energy Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. Alaskans know that we must balance the potential impacts of development, and i will be the first to agree that the environment and local wildlife will always be a concern. And thats why we have not avoided Environmental Reviews. Thats why consultation requirements will apply, and thats why we have limited Surface Development to a total of just 2000 federal acres. We will not sacrifice the caribou, the polar bear or a migratory birds for the sake of development. But we also recognize that that is not a choice that we face. That is not what has happened at prudhoe bay where the central arctic caribou herd has grown more than sevenfold since department began. And no matter how hard some try to make this an either or proposition, 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. The alaskans in the audience this morning, again, men who flew down from the north slope to be here and support our efforts, would not support development if they thought it threatened their lands and their cultures. Alaskans will do this the right way to 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, to join in taking the next step by voting in favor of our reconciliation legislation. Ill turn to senator cantwell or her opening statements, and then i will outline for colleagues the schedule for the morning. Senator cantwell. Thank you, madam chair, thank you for recognizing angela. She and i have worked together for a long time. First on my staff and then when she joined the Energy Committee under senator bingaman, and then coming back to take this post as i took over as Ranking Member. The priorities of members of both sides of the aisle on the next phases of energy, land, on a whole variety of things, and yet we have not gotten that over the hurdle. Instead, today, we are 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. The same time the finance committee is trying to increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion with tax cuts for corporations and millionaires while they are raising taxes on 13 million americans including over 300,000 in my state. The fact that our committees contribution to that deal is about 71 hundreds of 1 of the republicans increase deficit spending shows that this is not a serious budget proposal. Its a cynical effort to open up the heart of the arctic wildlife refuge for oil. I am sure, at the heart of it is the interest of alaskans, not seeing their economy doesnt deserve the nations attention. I believe it does. I have made many recommendations and i will continue to do so today. The notions that prices have fallen and they have been overreliance on oil does not mean that we should be destroying wildlife refuge today. The mark removes the statutory prohibition against oil and Gas Development and reminds me of the debate that happened when people wanted to establish the grand canyon. We can do that. We need that for other things. Thank god there was stewardship in this country to preserve the grand canyon. Instead the legislation would require the coastal plain be placed in oil and Gas Development. It really does turn regular order on its head. Last week, this committee did not have a hearing on legislation. That is the new regular order in the United States senate for the republicans in charge, instead of working in a bipartisan regular order process have now determine the only way you can get legislation through here is by having hearings without the legislation, hiding the information from the general public and throwing it out and when you realize your own colleagues dont want it, changing it overnight and trying to rush through in breakneck pace. If you stand by these ideas, you and your colleagues should follow regular order. We are being asked to vote i on legislation that has not been subject to a single hearing to evaluate the impacts on this crown jewel. At its core, the chairmans mark would manage and change current law and change it into a Petroleum Reserve. Thats what this does. It turns the coastal plain in this refuge into an oil field. I would like to submit for the record, a letter for 27 different scientists and biologist that this is incompatible with the status of the refuge. I would like to cement for the record as well a letter from democrats, republicans and independent u. S. Assistant secretary of wildlife parks director and Wildlife Service who also say its inconsistent , and madam chair, old on the other one. So what we are doing here today is just creating another avenue by sleightofhand and legislation to change the wildlife reserve. We asked this question, how could it possibly coexist given what the purpose of the refuges. Thats easily changed, will just change the purpose of the refuge. In doing so, you are doing great damage to the wildlife and habitat and the diversity of the area. This mark would direct the oil and gas program, the arctic to be managed under the same laws as the Petroleum Reserve. That is the despite the fact that the reserves were established for very, very different purposes. There subject to different laws were not even managed by the same agency. You just raised more questions than you answer. We won several amendments to try to clarify this and what we think is wrong with this mark. These amendments will attempt to return us regular order and ensure that the purpose remain true to the reason it was established. The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlife that lives there. Its amazing with the run over, its almost as if you want to run a newspaper ad that says common hunt in the refuge by helicopter by gassing polar bears in their den. That will be the new way that you want to attract people to the arctic because that is what you are doing here. You are taking a wildlife refuge and turning it on its ear and marrying that up with the cra that you remember before on Wildlife Management and thats a whole new style and message. I guarantee you that is not whats unique about alaska. That is not why thousands of people go there every year end have impact to your economy. They go there to enjoy the beauty and 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 refuse as a reserve. How will they manage it under one set of laws in the bureau of management under another set of laws. What happens when theres conflict and all of these issues. Does every word apply or just part of it. Which parts apply in which dont. There are many, many questions here. At the heart of this, i think it was best said in a letter we received from jane goodall. That is let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We have other sources of energy. Please, i beg you, please use your voice to help protect the people and this treasure that is the wildlife refuge. Madam chair, no, we dont think this is what we should be doing today, no we dont think its regular order, no we dont think its right to manage a wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. We dont think you are protecting environmental law or stewardship and so we are very, very frustrated by this process, but i guess it matches in tandem with where our Committee Colleagues on finance are. I know several people running back and forth between those committees, but i think you should ask yourselves about a process that continually runs over regular order and without the broad impact on us the specific mark. Im happy to take time to as take questions from staff. Senator cantwell, you mention the reality that we are facing. There are multiple committees meeting. I know the senator who is chairing a hearing in ep w. Other colleagues have things going on in health and finance committee is very, very busy this morning. I would like to try to get to the series of amendments we have before us. They are 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 to move expeditiously as we can. Those of you who have been on this committee, i run this in a way thats respectful of others in their point of view and try to balance that with competing demands of everyones time. I asked as we practice the series of amendments in front of us, instead of introductions that last 15 or 20 minutes, we try to truncate the time and get our point across weekly move on to the next. In order to facilitate our work we will be in a situation where we are processing amendments and that requires eight members, a total of 12 members is required to vote on final passage. I would like to have the opportunity to have a member bring up an amendment and have debate and then we will stack those votes. Its my intention we would ask all members to be present here for as much of the hearing markup as possible, and at 1130 we will turn to stacked votes be able to process all of the business before that time. Recognizing that thats a lot of work but i think we are capable of doing just that. So, i would like to proceed to initial amendments. Senator cantwell, you have identified a series of amendments on your side and i will certainly defer to you as to which one you would choose to call up first. Manager, we would like to clarify some questions and so i would hope in the process of regular order which is done anytime you mark up a bill or when a bill is poor for a committee, you have a chance to affect question. We would appreciate the ability to better understand not. We constantly do that but i would anticipate as a result of individual amendments we would have the opportunity to consult with staff to that, but if there are specific questions that you have of staff that we can dispense with quickly, we will welcome them. Thank you. Chairmans mark adds a new proposed purpose to the refuge to provide for coastal oil and Gas Development and a coastal plain. Many other National Wildlife refuges have developed those as a refuge. Mr. Kelly, i will turn to you on that. Can i ask our counsel . You can but i would also include, for the committees information a crs report dated yesterday, two days ago november 13 that does detail oil and gas operations within the wildlife refuge system that details how they are managed, not only on federal willing gas operations but nonfederal oil and gas operations and oil and gas operations in alaska wildlife refuge. I think its constructive to the committee. Madam chair, wouldnt those be the results of valid existing rights that existed before the refuge as opposed to something developed by the government after the creation of a refuge. Its a mix of both. Some were precreation of the refuge. I love to hear from both of our staff about that. I think to clarify the question, the question was as a refuge. It sets a precedent for what happens in the future. You are saying a wildlife refuge purpose is for oil and Gas Development. You can take that to the extreme of what would happen with 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 we are going to co mingle ideas, that development and preservation of wildlife can and should occur together, and i think we have a list from biologist and scientist and republicans in democrats that say thats not a good idea. Its not that we havent had a previous wildlife that my colleague from texaco said may have had previous writes guaranteed, its that youre putting it into a purpose for the purpose of a refuges to have oil development. Before we turn to staff on this, its important to remember we are not turning the entire 19 millionacre refuge into a refuge that will host oil and gas programs. We are including, with in it, and allowance or purpose that within the 1002 area, not within the rest of the refuge. The rest of the refuge remains in place. What were 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. Not the entire refuge. Not the entire 19. 64 million acres, but specifically designated that this area would be reserved specific for further study and potential future oil and Gas Exploration. What we are doing is making a consistency of what was outlined back in 1980. This is not turning the wildlife refuge, the close to 20 million acres into an oil and gas field. We are speaking specifically to the 1002 area. You want to limit it to 2000 acres because we could do that right now. We already limited 2000 federal acres. Is not legally part of the arctic wildlife refuge. Yes, sir, it is. Okay, so we are talking about protecting it. We dont want to see oil and gas the development there. We will have a chance to vote on that to limit it to a very narrow footprint but we know that you will vote against that because you know youre not really limiting it to that area. Is not a question for sam . That isnt. , no. Thats a statement. I ask another question . The coastal plain is considered the biological heart of the refuge. [inaudible] the senator, under current law there can be no oil and gas refuge and less the fish and while Light Service determined its compatible with the purpose for which that refuge is established in the secretary of the interior gets his approval and consent to the leasing development. The fish and Wildlife Services is largely excluded. The chairmans mark specifically says the bureau of Land Management is to manage the refuge in accordance with the National Petroleum reserve production act which has a very different standard for management than what you find in the Refuge Administration act. No development can occur unless it will detract from the purpose for which the refuge was established, and in this place the refuge was established to protect wildlife and its habitat whereas under the production act, exploration can proceed with protecting wildlife but only to the extent consistent with the exploration purpose for the Petroleum Reserve. In addition, leasing activities and development and production of oil can occur but they need to be mitigated for foreseeable and significantly adverse affec affect. That is a very different standard. Under the current law, the predominant purpose is to protect wildlife and under the chairmans mark the predominant purpose of the 1002 area would become the leasing and oil and Gas Development program. Mr. Donnelly, i will ask you to explain to the committee, that with the reference to management under the plan and the consultation that blm has within that construct, whic with fish and wildlife and other state and local agencies, that effectively you have fish in wildlife as a cooperating agency, can you address the implications there when you have this management within the construct as this chairmans mark outlines. You senator. I would like to note that they administer oil and gas leasing on federal lands including other agencies including fish and Wildlife Service. Just to clarify, thats not only in alaska but around the country. Yes. They can go on to the land and manage it for oil and gas even if it is a refuge. We are adding to the purpose as congress determined back in 1980 for bot just the coastal plain aspect of the ten or two area. The rest of the refuge will continue to be administered. We talk about the compatibility act. We dont waive this requirement and it is a determination within the act which would need to be dealt with. We are not deeming compatibility, but because we are adding a purpose to the 1002 area. Its pretty clear thats what the intent is, to establish, because we are mandating the leasing and your mandating that the money be in the budget and your mandating that the production happen. Theres no doubt about that. That will all happen under this proposal. Theres no question that it will affect the caribou and they wont have a food source. The leasing of the drilling will happen regardless of their objections. We do establish and administer a Competitive Oil and gas program. Thats what the market does. I would like to ask, isnt it true that this effectively waives the requirements of the Refuge Administration act . Yes, i believe it does because you are asking earlier about oil and Gas Development on wildlife refuges. Theres not a single wildlife refuge in the system that im aware of that has oil and Gas Development as a purpose, as the chairmans mark would provide for the arctic. There are in fact, 103 wildlife refuges that have existing oil and gas, nonfederal leases where the oil and gas rights are owned by private individuals, but all of those were grandfathered in prior to the refuge being established. I think there are another eight that have federal oil and gas leases, but they too were grandfathered in. I dont believe the fish and Wildlife Service has made a compatibility determination for a single wildlife refuge lease since the enactment of the Refuge Administration act. In any event, the Refuge Administration act, very clearly requires that the development be compatible with the protection purposes of the wildlife refuge, and that is essentially what is being circumvented by simply adding a new purpose which is oil and Gas Development and on top of that shifting the management of the refuge over to the National Petroleum reserve authority. Again, i would point out what we are talking about is this 1002 area, this area that was specifically set aside. In 1980, it was specific for the potential for oil and Gas Production. We are not implicating the rest of the refuge. We are specific to that area that was set aside. Can i ask this question. Goahead. As i said, i think its very clear the answer to the question about the 1002 is within the National Wildlife refuge and since ive been here for many debates on this discussion in the past, its very clear that the 1002 is part of the arctic wildlife refuge and Many Congress have turned down the same proposal we are considering today. That is to drill in the 1002. The blm which would be under this mark required at least two leases of 400,000 acres each within four years and seven years after the date of enactment including areas of the highest potential for discovery of hydrocarbons. How will that impact the visibility to work in this case. Isnt it a problem that the legislation has already directed the outcome . What happens in the event if they find there is Significant Impact to wildlife . None of the Environmental Reviews are waived. It is still in place as are all of the other esa, all of the other Environmental Reviews that are out there remain. That is not touched in the chairmans mark. The chair is correct that the chairmans mark does not waive. There is a body of case law, however that indicates where agencies have no discretion, where it is basically performing a minuscule act, doing something it has to do under statutory direction and has no discretion as to how to go about it. The whole point, one of the two points is effectively eliminated. The court that said they have two purposes, one is to provide for informed decisionmaking by providing information on Environmental Impacts to the decisionmakers so they can decide not to take an action or to take a different action in order for the environmental causes to be avoided. If the decisionmaker has no discretion in the matter, theres no point in doing an Environmental Impact statement and in some cases courts have said, in that case, there is a statutory conflict and no Environmental Impact statement is required. There is still a second purpose and that is to inform the public so there can be inform among participation and there certainly would be a purpose and having an Environmental Impact statement prepared so the public with no Environmental Impact statement , the Environmental Impacts of the action that the bureau of Land Management is taking understaffed direction. Madam chair, i just have a question. But before we moved to that and go off, i would like ms. Donnelly to address this because i think its an important part of this discussion this morning and we will probably facilitate a quick process through the amendment as soon as we can get to them because i think it is important for colleagues to know that when it comes to the environmental regulations that are out there, they stay in place. When we say no environmental laws are being waived, clean water, clean air, everything applies. There is a multistep process that goes on. You have an integrated activity plan that is developed which is a very open process, you adopt through a record of decision, then you move to exploration and discovery and 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 public engagement. If you can speak very quickly to that, then we will move on. Thats exactly right chairman. Niebuhr is not waived in the chairmans remarks, they will have to do it at the beginning and through every step of the process. Through every step. Yes. It will be an open, public process. I would like to keep going on this point. And know youre going to go over. Yes, im sorry. This is very important. I just want to be clear, madam chair, because i had to step over the finance committee. If im back within an hour i would be within the timeframe to offer amendments at that point. Yes. Thank you. On this point, you may not be waving me but technically, but what you are doing is mandating a process that basically waits it. The waiver may not be there, but in the and pra, the blm development and Environmental Impact statement, it cannot legally select a non action alternative. You are putting into place a process by the language of this legislation, mandating the lease sale, mandating to the development, not giving people an alternative to select other by putting into contrast the management of the refuge under its original purpose, being obstructed by a new purpose. We deal with this all the time. The language under which people make decisions determines how they make decisions. You are confusing the purpose of a refuge by saying the purpose of the refuge is for oil development. 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 non alternative action . Yes it 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. Kelly. Through the niebuhr process they will be able to analyze a range of alternatives and a no action alternative, however it would not be appropriate for them to select a no action alternative since congress is establishing a no oil and gas area. Does counsel agree that the language is constructed in a way that would not require the fish and Wildlife Service concurrence. Yes, that is how i construe it. I believe under the section 1008, the secretary of the interior will have to make a compatibility determination. If someone trust this guy, i think everybody got a letter from him, he agrees they can happen concurrently. This is a guy who basically wants to raise park fees and is involved in overrated things that we dont need to get into today. No Teddy Roosevelt there. Come on. Yep, this is a process in which we are going to hold accountable the department of interior for green, under question that these purposes can exist. We will not finish with the secretary today, but i guarantee we will continue to pursue the fact that his conclusion is that, without this, they can agree. Without this they can occur together. I guarantee you that is not current legal thinking. Senator cantwell, i would remind you we have interior secretaries that come and go and have different perspectives. The last one we lived with had an entirely different one it was a perspective that certainly help to lock up alaska for considerable period of time. I will enter into the record his letter that we received when we asked this question last week it will come back to it. Okay. I would just remind our colleagues that we do have over 50 amendments and while i know getting these answers out on the record will help expedite the discussion, we do want to proceed in taking these up. I think out of a courtesy to your office which we have had zero courtesies in this debate, we told you which amendments were we were likely to consider and we said they were under 15. And you should allow us the courtesy to ask these questions. I have been allowing the courtesies. Thank you. Okay. Does the counsel agree that the language as instructed, when we asked about concurrence, did i get an answer on that, fish and wildlife concurrence. Why shouldnt the standard be applied to the arctic in one of the most important environmental areas of our nation. Why shouldnt we have that language to preserve . If youre asking my personal opinion, yes, i think it should apply and i think when this question was litigated many years ago in the District Court in alaska about joint administration of fish and Wildlife Service refuge with the bureau of Land Management, the court said 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. At that point, secretary watts attempted to administratively shift responsibility from the Wildlife Service to the geological survey. It was contrary to the Refuge Administration act. Congress can legislatively overturn the Refuge Administration act, but that would be a major change in the way wildlife refuges are administered. Under the and pra leasing act, it limits judicial review by requiring legal challenges. With these limitations on and pra 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 and pra and not for a wildlife refuge. The chairmans market says that blm is to manage the Arctic Refuge in accordance with that production act. In translating the words in the production act to a wildlife refuge creates a lot of unanswered questions. Isnt correct though that blm manages on other refuges for oil and Gas Production purposes. But under the bureau of Land Managements regulations for managing on wildlife refuge, there are very specific provisions about giving fish and Wildlife Service authority to concur of the time, place and nature of the operations. Under the chairmans market, by transferring jurisdiction to the bureau of Land Management and transferring the Statutory Authority under which its managed from the Refuge Administration act to the production act, it changes all that. But get back to senator cantwells question about judicial review, because the chairmans mark talks about blm managing in accordance with the refuge act, it doesnt say that a court has to construe its jurisdiction based on the production act. And because the statute of limitations in the production act is a restriction on the jurisdiction of the court, rather than how blm manages a, i would certainly argue that a court should not be bound by that provision in the chairmans mark. Again, all of these questions will be litigated. The statute and regulations, do you have a process for complaints to be brought within 60 days . That does not decide on the venue or the cause of action. It can be any federal District Court under the and pra. Does the leasing acting previous environmental studies and assessment to be fulfilled under the requirements for the first two sales . Does that waiver also apply to the wildlife refuge . We are calling for it in the chairmans mark. It is not waived. Again, in saying that the refuge is now going to be administered in accordance with the refuge at creates a lot of confusion. A former chairman of this committee used to say that a wellpaid bar is the bulwark of the republic, and this will provide lots of employment for lawyers. I think we make it clear that there are no environmental waivers that are waived. That is underscored. You are changing the purpose and moving it to an agency who doesnt have to consider the same law and now has a conflicting purpose and a mandate to get the money so it definitely will change the purpose. I dont think, when you still have, in place, your laws relating to endangered species, clean water, clean air, when all that remains in place, to suggest that somehow or other we are waving these important laws is not accurate. I would like to as council, the and pra laws do not seem to include critical habitat but over three force the coastal plain is designated as habitat for polar bears. How will this be affected by the leasing act in ensuring those habitats are protected . I will speak to that. It goes back to the framework of the and pra statute and the fact that will be managing under that management program, if you look specifically to the many stipulations, the best management practice in the stipulations that would be incorporated, it speaks specifically to habitat not onl only, you mention critical habitat, the fact of the matter is, the entire north of alaska has been designated under the Obama Administration as critical habitat for the polar bear. What we have contained in this stipulations are not only their interaction plans, protect grizzly bear, there is a whole host of stipulations that speak to the areas of protection and how we are to ensure protection of the various species within the area. Could you repeat your original question. They dont seem to protect critical habitat. So over three force the coastal plain is designated that way. How would the and pra provisions which dont include protection of the polar bear impact their critical habitat as it relates to this . Is it the same standard thats under the Wildlife Management . Is it the same standard that their manager and are now. Neither the chairmans mark nor the Petroleum Reserve production act waived the endangered species act, but its important to bear in mind that the endangered species act authorizes the secretary of the interior to issue incidental take permits. Namely, you can kill endangered and threatened species. According to an incidental take permit that the secretary issue issues, those permits can be issued for any lawful activity which, oil and Gas Development which become a lawful activity within that refuge, within critical habitat if that mark is enacted. Kelly, do you want to reply to that . As council said, esa is not waived in the chairmans mark. The section seven consultation would still apply under the and pra when they came out with their rod in 2013, they came forth with these Management Practices and stipulations and in that they can mitigate as they go forward to avoid that. You know the technological advances that they have now in alaska, looking for polar bear dens, in order to avoid them so actions can still take place on the north slope in the consultation process is not affected in any way. Its the issue to counsel on both sides that you are changing the management status, so to think that you are going to get the same management status from an agency whose purpose has just been changed and conflicted, but youre going to get the same management status, thats why we have this letter from all the scientists and democrats and independents who have been in this job before. They say it cant coexist. The reason they are saying that is because i know people would like to say these caribou or polar bear want to cozy up to a pipeline, but that is just not true. The issue is we have an Indigenous People that are there who do need the support of this food source, and their migratory habits are a question. Im just amazed that people want to throw away such an unbelievable ecological jewel of our planet. I dont even mean our nation, i mean our planet. The fact that our government has spent millions of dollars for decades, studying the habits of caribou, that we have a National Treaty with canada to try to protect them, that their migratory habits for scientific purpose have been so amazing because how they distribute themselves to not deplete the food source is of scientific it irrelevant for the notion that we think all of the sudden building oil rigs next to them and changing the ability to protect them as critical habitat under the fish and Wildlife Service is somehow compatible with oil drilling, it just doesnt, its just not true so, if you say that another agency, it would be like saying 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 error, but if youre going to manage the skies and carbon based on what the ffa says based on what the epa says, those are two different standards. I know that might seem a little dramatic as an example but its the only one i can think of at the second. The point is you are changing the standard of these agencies, and by doing so, you are going to change the management. You have been very clever, and maybe not purposely so, maybe you really believe this, but im telling you, this is what the intent is going to be. Challenge we face as we think we will see how many people think this way, we think its a critical habitat that should be protected and it is not. It is not consistent with oil and Gas Development. Senator cantwell, i have allowed, certainly as a courtesy to you and to all members of the committee, that this is an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of our legal counsel, and i am happy to do that. I also recognize that there is an opportunity for debate as we try to advance through some of these amendments. I would like if there were specific questions, to be addressed so we can. [inaudible] i would like to waive and suspend or reduce rental fees or royalties. Under the chairmans mark, does that mean that royalty would be reduced at the discretion of the secretary . No, that will remain the rat rate. When the chairmans mark makes the production act, the statute under which the refuge is administered, that that provision would apply. They say as otherwise provided. They set forth the royalty rate. One of the things in the section is a requirement to manage it in accordance with the production act which gives the secretary the authority to decrease or eliminate entirely the royalty. If the secretary thanks thats appropriate. When you are talking specifically on an issue and the chairmans mark, thats what governs anything else and that will come into the statute. Thank you. I think this is a very big point of departure and a very different opinion by legal counsel, which can happen sometimes. Again a very important o part of this royalty issue, i think there is great concern about how this is manage in the future and the concept of what i royalties will be there in the future and what sleightofhand could be used to change that dynamic as opposed to what we are doing from a legislative branch perspective. Thats why we are asking the question. Madam chair, i suggest we go to amendments, that answers a lot of our questions. Not that it completes our conversation, but it definitely answers the premise of the concern post on both on the fact that it does change existing law and a significant way, so i would, depending on how you want to proceed, we can call up an amendment. It appears that all of the amendments that members seek to have brought forward today for discussion and vote appear to be on your side so i will defer to you as to which we take up first. Okay, so cassidy 16 will be considered . We dont believe so. Okay. Lets go to cantwell number three which is the chairmans mark adding new purpose to the wildlife refuge to provide for oil and gas programs on the coastal plain. This edition is, as we were just discussing, contrary to the refuge purposes which are to conserve fish and wildlife population and habitat and their natural diversity and to fulfill the interNational Treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and Wildlife Habitat and to provide so in a manner which is consistent with the first two purposes so the opportunity for continued subs used by a local resident being of primary issue, and i to ensure Water Quality within there refuge. Adding oil and Gas Development as a purpose of the refuge doesnt make any sense for wildlife refuge. It certainly does if you want to drill, but no other National Wildlife refuge list this as a purpose of a wildlife refuge. So, even if refuges that have oil and gas dont include this as a purpose, by putting that purpose in, you turn everything on its ear. It doesnt make sense as a waiver from the requirements of the National Wildlife refuge and ministration act. Under the law, the fish and Wildlife Service allows for development within a refuge if it is only compatible with the purposes. So our amendment would delete the addition of oil and Gas Development from the refuge purposes. To clarify that the arctic National Wildlife refuge should remain a refuge and not be legislatively turned into an oil filled. This amendment states, that the secretary shall not establish the oil and gas program unless the secretary determines it is compatible with the conservation purposes of the wildlife refuge, which is the existing standard for approving development in National Wildlife refuge. Drilling proponents have assured us that its compatible with the refuge, in fact we just received a letter from secretary confirming the ministration support authorizing the development as consistent. This amendment make sure that it will be consistent with those purposes which we dont believe exist now. Thats the consideration of this amendment to strike that language and strike that purpose. Senator cantwell, we have had much discussion on this already, but i will just repeatea that again, we are not waiving any of the environmental laws in this market. All of the applicable law, whether its esa or otherwise will apply to the tenor to area. I think we recognize that eachl refuge is managed for a variety of purposes, including the specificag purposes for which the refuge was established, but i keep going back to our history here in 1980 when congress established and specified the purposes ofit the refuge, but it also further directed the further study of the coastal plain for its oil and gas potential, and it provided that if congress authorized, that the coastal plain could be developed for oil and gas, and thats the distinction here. Thats the distinction with this refuge, that when it was create created, it was specifically put it all in highlights or caps, it said this area up here is recognized for its potential and if Congress Authorizes it, the coastal plain can be developed for oil and gas, and we dont change, in our mark, the purposes for which and war itself was established. Instead, the legislation adds this new purpose which is the oil and gas program that applies only to this area that was designated back in 1980. It applies only to the coastal plain, 1. 5 million acres. The rest of the refuge, the 17. 8 million acres remaines the same in terms of the purposes. They are unaffected, they cannot be impacted by oil and Gas Development. What we are doing here is insuring that Congress Decision to establish an oil and gas program on the coastal plain, as it wasde contemplated back in 1980 is expressly represented in the statute. So what the amendment before is actually does is speak to defeat the congressional decision to open up the 1002 area by striking this new limited purpose so the program is deemed noncompatible. I will note that National Wildlife refuges in alaska are governed by the provisions and other alaska specific laws as well as general authorities over the refuge system. It contains a compatibility determination. This is a requirement that is not waived by the market, and as i mentioned earlier, we are not deeming the 1002 areas of oil and gas to be compatible. I would expect the agency would consider additional congressional purpose for the limited development in the coastal plain and making such a determination, but again we have heard in hearings and its repeated today that development within the 1002 area is a very limited area of development, no more than 2000 federal acres and the new purpose that we have added to this is consistent with the history, its consistent in the language and it would ensure Environmental Protection is included as responsible development occurs. Madam chair. I would like to support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. While you have assured us that all of the environmental laws apply, i am looking at the plain language of your mark and the plain language says that the secretary shall i think this is an instance where shall means shall. Shall does not mean may, that the secretary of the interior shall allow these leases to occur regardless of any ias, nepad, anything. So, i think the plain language of this mark is what prevails and sadly, i look at that and what you have said in your reassurances do not comport with the actual language of your report. I n support Ranking Members amendment. Senator heinrich. Im trying to square these two things. Your counsel said no action alternative would not be lawful under this legislation. I want to put words in your mouth. Hi so i will let you speak to that and i will listen to what you have to say. I dont understand how this is not deemed an outcome if, under the language of the bill , that a no action alternative would not be consistent with the legislation. It doesnt deem compatibility. Why do you speak to that. Under this provision it will apply. In so doing, they will be examining a range of alternatives, and they will be able to analyze and no action alternative. But they can actually pick a no action alternative. No because congress is making the decision to establish that in the limited area of the 1002 area. My point exactly. And if i could,is the 1002 section purpose and current law reads, the purpose of this section is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of fish and wildlife of the coastal plain of the wildlife refuge. Analysis of that exploration, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and resources. Changingl it so you will, changing the focus of the refuge so you dont have to consider those impacts allows you, and as your counsel just said, mandates that has to happen. That is our objection. That is a the purpose to strike that language in cantwell number three, and we can have, if our colleagues have more to say about this, we could have the vote now i think the only thing i would add is the 1987 report that did determine that oil and Gas Exploration and production could proceed because there would be, and i will look to kelly for the exact technical words, it was not no adverse impact, but what were the word specifically. They did report. It was in the 1002 section, congress directed the secretary to examine the potential on coastal plain for oil and gas potential and the resources. They reported back seven years later p in 1987 and told congress they should open up the 1002 area to oil and Gas Development. a summary unavoidable impact to wildlife. That will be included as part of the record. I thinkof it is important to knw that as long as we are talking about impact to wildlife, and i certainly within the area of development up and around the bay and the impact to the central arctic caribou herd, and this is a herd that has seen growth seven times over since we Began Development back in the 70s come in the late 70s it was around 5000. Now we are about 22,000 within a caribou herd and as it relates to the porcupine herd, which is further to the east and crosses the border between canada. That herd is presently or at least several years ago, their numbers were 195,000. The international caribou treaty that we have between alaska and canada requires management of the population around 135,000. So whether we are talking talking the central arctic herd or the porcupine committees are area as we do. We do have concern. The people of the north, whether they rely on the bowhead in the caribou, we are paying attention to what is going on with population. Madam chair. Hispanic center heinrich tiered you mention that central, do they they move through. I dont believe they cast. Thats an important distinction with the porcupine herd. I appreciate that, but i also recognize that kathleen of the porcupinehe herd is not in the tenet to area. It is in the refuge area im in the broader refuge but not in the 1002 portion of the north. Maybe we can get clarification because when i was in the refuge last year that is not what i understood from the refuge managers. General counsel, do you have a comment on this in another clarification on an earlier point . Yes, sorry, senator heinrich. I dont know the answer to yourc question, but the clarification i wanted to make, it is true that section 1008 is now waived by the chairmans mark, but the ability isnt applicable. If you read section 1008 says, the secretary shall establish of course its not what the chairmans mark says, in oil and Gas Leasing Program on the federal lands in alaska, not subject to the study required by section 1001 of the act. It talks about a study of the lands east of the western boundary of the npr am in the Arctic Refuge is each of that he said that boundary. In any event, whatt section 10,008 as this gives the secretary of the interior that we will not allow drilling of National Wildlife refuge of the incompatible, but then again the chairmans mark mandate is senator corona says that releasing the program be conduct did and where Congress Passes to conflict the inlaws, and the courts try to harmonize the two where they are incompatible later and more specific statute, which certainly would be controlled over the earlier general statute, which it was. Senator heinrich, i want to provide someone of a correction. I just got a note passed to me that in fact the central arctic herd, some of that herd do calve in and around that they have also been informed that the porcupine herd does calve in the 1002. The other relevant issue is according to their website, and the central arctic herd was 72,010 and 2,202,016. Our numbers are matching a. I was part of the testimony we have a couple weeks ago recognizing that their herds will kind of move from one to another so that the accounting often times its difficult, central arctic caribou probably like a porcupine to distinguish between them. But he did note the fluctuation and we recognize that you have seen these animals dont settle down in one place and they can be impacted by what is happening with what is happening with an early spring a later spring. We tried to do the best job we can in understanding the strength of theun herd. Ms. Donnelly. I would like to note that the record of the decision for the npr rate and a best Management Practices and tabulation avoided the calving areas. There always has to go through the need for process and the process in general to mitigate against these types of things, which is what they are doing in thehi npra. Madam chair. Senator cantwell. I would than as part of the debate, my colleague from new mexico is bringing this up because this population of caribou has been greatly impacted since 2010. More importantly more importantly, ourur government since a biologist send the cariboust herd and the differene between it in 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 us taxpayers and went to study and was so unique and that is now what we are trying to destroy. If we have a 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 we are going to protect what is such a unique place. I dont think theres anyone who seeks to display the caribou. Further discussion on cantwell amendment three. I would suggest you go to another amendment. No other debate. Lets move to a Second Amendment what do you have an order, senator cantwell . Senator cantwell has mean acts. Senator franken. This is amendment number 32. This is really about the need to vote more public lands to oil and gas drilling in alaska appeared Big Oil Companies do not lack access to public lands in thees last. Oil and Gas Companies already hold more than 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska, but adds the end of fiscal year 2016, as it then, less than 2 of those acres are actually producing. Less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million. So this amendment would require the department of interior to assess and certify 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 least, lets make sure those are tapped out or been explored. If you only have 2 of those drilling on them, why go to this place where they calve. The porcupine herd calves bear. Why this place when there is another million acres that Oil Companies can be producing nonand they are doing at. It doesnt make any sense to me. This amendment would simply require the department of interior to assess and certify the lease is already held by Oil Companies are capped out before opening the refuge. I can understand where youre going with this, senator franken. You are among those that say that 1002 is the last place that we should be looking for Energy Development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the alaska delegation isha a good attack. Our lieutenant governor, legislature. We have been we have been seeking toee develop this extraordinary potential within the 1002 that was identified decades and decades ago. We have been seeking to be able to access this area. Again, a small a much smaller area because 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 one of the best places that we can go for responsible development and we should do it sometime ago. In area recognize when the great compromise was together decades ago, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. Thats undeniable. As a consequence of that, not only was their wilderness created, refuge created in parks created, but there was an acknowledgment, a recognition. Again, i keep going back to the specific designation of this 1002 area as one recognized for its extraordinary potential. And what we are seeking to do today is to open up a very, very small portion. 110,000 of olive and water to development. Again, what i want to remind people, this is an area where three miles to the west you have point thompson. Theres no friends, no walls, no border between the 100 area amnesty lands on which it is built. When you have an opportunity to look at that area and recognize how we have preceded with development, particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years now since proto team online, came into being, what we are able to do with a limited footprint, with the extraordinary advances in technology, and it takes us to a different model that allows us to not only produce faithfully, but with a focus and concern for impact to the surface. So that whether it is the caribou, the polar bear, the people who live in the 1002 area, and that they are able to have a life and a lifestyle that not only allows for subsistence, butst also allows for jobs and opportunities. I think its important to put that into days. Again, i want to repeat the protections that come into play with the Management Plan under the construct of the Petroleum Reserve that allows for the protection. I do think that it again is important to acknowledge that when you say we need to tap out Everything Else only 2 but the Oil Companies have taken under lease are being drilled on. So, what you just you know, you are chairman and talk as long as you like. You are the chairman. He just argued what we have been arguing. I say there is another side in the other side is this is where the porcupine caribou calve. We had a testimony for the members that is a veteran in iraq and he says this is their food source. You first said that they dont calve they are. They do calve fair. I put a caribou herd has increased. This is a very contentious issue and since there is another million acres that already least, Oil Companies dont lease land. I dont think they do. That doesnt make any sense to me. I dont know the oil business, but why would you lease anything when we didnt think there was a loyal . Why would you do that . It doesnt make any business sense. I have a question. Yes, go ahead here before you do, i just wanted to briefly reply to a comment they are because you mentioned the testimony of mr. Alexander before s. Who clearly is not supportive of opening an wire. We also had testimony before this committee or mr. Mackey record of having to live in the 10 of two area and happens to be in alaska natives and it is important that we listen to our native peoples, whether they be in a chant or ap act and it is important that we recognize that when we are talking about subsistence and the opportunity for a food source they are, and the people who live in the 1002 area, who have homes and schools and airstrip, these people, to need to be heard and their issues need to be addressed as well. Thank you, madam chair. If the concern is disturbing that area, i would assume that forcing every acre to be developed would create a significant significantly more level of pipelines than what is considered under this legislation. Is that your interpretation of the amendment as y well . Significant more infrastructure that the mission under. Is that correct . Thank you, madam chair. Id love to respond to that, go ahead. I heard my colleagues question about why wouldy you have reserves leased. I can explain that whether its oil, coal, natural gas or whatever, they get contracts. You sure you have the reserves to produce a longterm contract. If you do deplete what you have coming out to go to somewhere else toyo fully contract can use it. Economically, its basically for the leases and if you cant do that so you have the reserves come you cant get the contract. Further to that point, if i may, if the Oil Companies know exactly where the oil was, that would make things easier. The fact of the matter is they purchased leases and there is no certainty in that areas a productive reserve that are underneath and this goes to calm firm Gas Producing date, they do not produce immediate need. Alaska is a pretty telling case of that. It takes 10 years plus. Unfortunately sometimes even longer than notso because of all of the review, it all takes time. It is important to kind of put that in the context of the whole is my point. Senator franken. So, is the area you are talking about drilling in the arctic wildlife reserve, is that any different . In terms of how long itll take . No, not at all. Not any different than a million other acres . 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. Maybe minnesota has no oil. Im sorry. We dont have any coal. We dont have any gas. Madam chair, im not trying to close out today, but maybe supporting our colleague and moving on to some other amendment i would say senator frankens point is that this will not be heard aboutt weve oil and Gas Development in alaska, that we guarantee there will be lots of discussion about other chuck chien at the ark it continues to open out come all the thingsal that happened at various countries in the arctic can guarantee we will talk about arctic oil for a longan time. I think his point in summation as he wants to preserve one aspect of it that is still this intact ecosystem of the great migratory population in tsa must 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. Their key point is, quote, an organization was mentioned as being supportive of development. They were told by her city council that they do not represent us. They previously said they would represent our position. They should not be considered the voice of catholic. Hes a board member of a forprofitor corporation, which has contract shall arrangements with the oil industry which borders and should be disclosed under Chevron Texaco and bp testimony should be looked at as representing forprofit corporations rather than the people a night said the for the record. Certainly mr. Rexford who is again the resident the statement speaks for itself. Account administration will open another 10 million acres of the National Petroleum reserve in december. What im singing as if 1002 is no different from 11 million acres, why not drill there . And yes, you have a number of the alaska native alaskan village are people still live there, but now it turns out he is theow profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. Think about this. Why is 11 million other acres to drilling. I take it back to where not only sure where the oil is. This is no different. One of the things we do know within the npra, the leases within that far northwestern ree is rather than sending resource is they need to get lucky. An exploration that may have more impact than you want. You have to try to use the knowledge that you have. Any other debate to senator frankens amendment . I understand your argument, but earlier in this debate about this amendment, you said 1002 is no different. It is no different in the sense that the permitting that will be required, the analysis that will 10 years to pass before you see any production for that. The way we matter is the regulatory process is attenuated and drawn out. I think everyone has heard my viewing your view. Thank you. Further debate on frank and 32 . See none. Senator cantwell . It was 32. Frank and 32. Thank you. This is amendment 43. Sanders 43. Madam chair, if i 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 hand and asking what world was the United States senate living in one 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 really do think that her kids and our grandchildren i really do think that our kids and our grandchildren will be looking back to last and not in a kindac way. What is amazing to me is that just yesterday, 24 hours ago, in this room im not piano where the staff now said, we have the governor of puerto rico, the governor of the Virgin Islands and where presenters of the United States government who are talking about the incredible devastation done by recent hurricanes in puerto rico, Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Madam 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 and tax, florida, puerto rico, Virgin Islands. We are talking well over 100 billion. Six years ago we dealt with hurricanes can be. 60 billion. Very few scientists be denied that the intent and severity and frequency of extreme 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 United States Government Spending hundreds of billions of dollars repairing damage which to a significant degree not totally had to do with Climate Change. The scientists tell us that the worst is yet to come. This committee should be doing working with people all over the world is saying and how do we transform our Energy System away from fossil fuel, away from coal, oil and gas to Sustainable Energy . The very good news is everybody here knows the cost of Sustainable Energy, solar, wind is declining precipitously. We now know that corporationsw are investing, not in oil, not in the cool, but wind and solar and other sustainable technology. That is the future for the planet if we are going to make this planet habitable for our kids and grandchildren. Madam chair, and the amendment i am offering is a veryy simple amendment. It says that instead of more fossil fuel leases on our federal lands we should issue permit for Renewable Energies like wind, solar and geothermal. It says we must aggressively sustainableor energy and Renewable Energy. We should understand that in chile, for example, concentrated thermal soil is delivering the cheapest elect her city ever produced on this planet. That is where the future is. For the sake of our kids and grandchildren, we should defeat the chairs mark. We should leave the world in a very different direction. s and understand various comic thank you for the amendment. You know that you and i have that opportunity is to not only discuss, but work on aspects of Renewable Energy and what we can do to enhance and to build that out. I do think that is an important part of our energy part olio in this country and one that would candidate should be aggressive on as it relates to what we are doing in this market this morning, the amendment that you introduced is in violation of the byrd rule under the congressional budget act. You direct the direct heir of interior so you are effectively taking meds out of our jurisdiction. I learn and understand the hype of a lot more about the role of the requirement, not only jurisdictional, but the second prong is whether or not merely incidental to changes in outlays and revenues. This clearly falls of not merely incidental. I would also question whether or not in amendment of this nature would actually raise what this committee has been instructed to do under the budget resolution. I would urge the committee to reject the amendment, certainly understand where youre coming from with your focus on renewable and think we have opportunities to work on not anon in context of the market we have in front of you. I would repeal the ruling of the chair. The ruling as i dont support your amendment. Now, the ruling as i understand it is youre making this amendment out of order and i would like to vote to overrule that. I would say your amendment does violate the byrd rule has codified under section 33rd team and so i suggest to colleagues that this is not an amendment we should support. When it comes time for us to have a vote, if you would like to call it the amendment, we can certainly do it at thatnl time. 11 30. I would just point out senate bill 282 produced by 700 dean heller is a number of cosponsors. If youd like to create a bill, this lays out the permitting process for public lands, focuses on bipartisan dilemma dagger cosponsorship. Thanks very much and i will consider it, but my main concern is to make sure we do not remain dependent on fossil fuels and oil exploration. I think senator sanders for his amend and tend to bring this discussion if we are going to mandate development, which is basically what this bill does come a senator sanders simply saying he should make the same kind of commitment to other sources of energy. I thank him for offering it. Further discussion on sanders 43. Lets move to the next amendment. Do we choose to offer . Senator heinrich. I would offer up amendment 34 i believe it is geared amendment to the chairman to the germans mark on page three between 96 and and seven insert the following. Pretty straightforward. Prohibition of certain activities do not to be may be carried out under the oil and gas program under the arctic National Wildlife refuge that would be detrimental to the habitat of the porcupine caribou herd as determined by the secretary of the interior acting to the director of United States fish and Wildlife Service. And the u. S. Fish and wildlife and what would or would not be detrimental to the habitaten of porcupine caribou herd. Senator heinrich, thank you. I will oppose this amendment because i dont think its needed to protect the health of the herd. I have referred repeatedly to the framework of the npra framework of the stipulations laid out in the best Management Practices in the 2013 record decision and again, i will point to some of the specifics that referred to the caribou, whether its caribou consistency is, areas of habitats to be respect dead and protect good. I would also recognize again i take it back to the impact to the land so that the caribou can move freely through the area so that when we are still talking about acreages here, doing this and how many miles of roads and pipelines this development is going to need . Its those kinds of linear barriers. People say this they stand on roseanne like salt. Also, one of their largest mortalities is standing on roseanne mckeon saw it and getting hit by trucks. One thing we havent been able to ascertain here if we went up 2000 acres over the coastal plains, how many miles of road in other linear a structures and gas pipe line are going to be spread across the landscape . I think we heard some of that in the hearing that we had two weekse ago. Because we dont know exactly where the 2000 acres may be, and its important to recognize that we havent done any developments there outside of the village which the in the center they are, but i think you can lock to other areas of development on the north slope. Again, pretty old. The alpine field was built in the lat 90s. Six miles of road in total. Now as we are seeing expansion into the greater mousses development, we are seeing up to 12 miles of road they are. There are no roads along the pipeline or to peru to obey, so that is one example of a development. Again,ro its been around 20 yes here in terms of limitation on our roads. I think it is also pretty important to understand when we are talking about the mitigation for the caribou from Matthew Cronin when he spoke to that it is important to recognize that mitigation activities can be laid down to minimize the disturbance and again, whether its elevated pipelines of the caribou or to limit or prohibit during those in may, june, a gannett takes us back to the stipulations that have been laid down within the blm and so making sure that we have things in place, stipulations included in thela least is within npra on disturbances and restrictions on development in insect relief areas are again where you have key calving areas. Theres a sensitivity to the fact we have some extraordinary herd that move through these areas. So how can we balance that Development Activity with the fact that we want to encourage, we want to support, want to allow for continuation and a very, very healthy herd. So working to mitigate is exactly what we have built into this framework, to ensure not only the caribou are not impact did, but other species, whether it be the polar bear and knowing where they are and avoiding them at all turns or the waterfowl that are nesting there during the nesting season. Again, when it comes time to take up amendment for a vote, and i would suggest this atndment that would say no trinity to produce oil and gas can happen if they would be deemed detrimental to thee habitat. If that is not necessary, but what we are doing, what well be doing to ensure protection of the herd is important to recognize. The mac i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. To get to the heart of what we ares talking about. This is a National Wildlife refuge. I heard earlier that the 1002 area is separate from the refuges health. 1002 is inside the refuge. The question on the wildlife refuge, what comes first . Does the wildlife refuge come first . You would think so from the name. If we dont make this change to the legislation, what we say is oil and Gas Development comes first i National Wildlife refuge. That is a very, very dangerous precedent to make. Senator heinrich, if i may respond to that because it is not a chronological this is firstcome and this is second. It has to be and canthr do with them thatit is why we have this sweep of environmental regulations we are not going around and we have. To work with not only the federal that state and local with the tribes consultation. Again, this is not an either or proposition. Manager if i could, speaking in support of senator heinrichs amendment that would like to hear from a couple other colleagues who also want to offer amendments and i think we should hear from them is his amendment is at the crux of this issue. His amendment fixes what is wrong with the underlying bill. If you truly believe that the fish and Wildlife Service should play t a role, not that his amendment fixes. Counsel has done a good job on both sides of al fame what will happen here and what will happen to the views of the fish andap Wildlife Service or theyve been very clear they will be run over. I support his amendment because it reestablishes the role for the fish and Wildlife Service. I would just close by saying, you know, when i got in the fish and Wildlife Services website this morning, they make the point that most of the calving that p happens, happens to one side or the other of the development and i dont think thats accidental. Senator cantwell. Other amendments to be considered . Matted cherry. Senator joe. Of it to call up cortez masto 22. The amendment action and page three between lines six and seven theres the following proof of prior to be eligible to lease issued pursuant to this section an applicant shall demonstrate to the secretary that over the tenure. On the date of the the Application Window and Gas Development of the applicant did not contribute to or cause any negative effects on local air or Water Quality for anyit other damage to the local environment or wildlife. Madam chair, we are going to allow drilling in arctic wildlife refuge, one of the least such places of human neck cavity, we should hold applicants to a heightened standard. These areas are too important andht too fragile with core environmental records to operate on the coastal plains. Those that have a terrible track record need not apply. To me and i think this is just common a sense. I hear people discuss that operators can come in and perform such extraction at committees with minimal invasion to improve their if they can prove it they dont get the lease and its that simple. I would suggest again that we look specifically to the marks made down. Again, we are not waiving any environmental requirements, any of the other environmental laws still to be adhered to. Again, we put this under the framework of the statute blm regulations that ensure responsible development. You have indicated it is important that operators on the north slope are within a 1002 area which we adhere to high standards. I can attest to the standards in alaska are if not the highest in the country, if not the highest in the world in terms of environmental compliance. I would challenge you to look to any other oilproducing area and go north to alaska to see what were put in front. Nothing is 100 . We recognize higher and better. But i do think it is important to recognize that the way we require our operators were in terms of our environmental standards, Environmental Protections, i have taken several of my colleagues up to the north slope to see firsthand how Oil Operations are good and i recall one conversation with a colleague froml north dakota who thought that he really understood environmental regulations as they were related to Oil Production and he was honestly stunned at the level of requirement down to requiring that when it rained and there were little splashes of water on the gravel pad that they had to be up by a truck or some technical termit like that to me sure that there is no runoff onto the tundra. It is a standard that has alaskans we are proud of, but again, we push, we demand, we require if you fail to comply, and you are fine, youou are penalized and worse. So it is important to us and i absolutely agree we have to have high standards. I suggest again this is probably a violation outside the committees jurisdiction, but i would just remind colleagues here that the requirements we put in front of those who wish to access the resources under the land are some of the highest in the world. Thank you, madam chair. Believe me i respect and appreciate her comments, but at thect same time we also know wee seen instances where there have been oile, spills. In 2070 order to pay 2 million civil and criminal penalties of drilling in alaskas north slope. If we allow drilling in the refuge for the first time, then we should put a heightened and her these companies that want to come in to show us their t records. To me, the past is precedent of what we can expect or ask questions how they can ensure it doesnt happen again. If we arent able to look at our past history of to see how these companies and how theyve operated and if there have been any type of environmental regulations s in harm to the environment, then shame on us. We should be asking not thats all this does is looks 10 years back and says prove to us, lets look at your record, which he done in the past and prove to us. Theres no guarantees. We know that. The comments i keep hearing that we are not waiting any Environmental Review. I dont disagree with that, but we are also changing the oversight and the types of review in the types of oversight that happened by these agents these. And the attorneys i factor in listen to them. Agree to disagree, something is changing here and thats why dont understand why we have to change the purpose of it thereby changing the the purpose of it, you are indicating this is something that this is going to happen over any Environmental Reviews, any activity that is in contradiction to the original purposes for this o refuge. So while this amendment does is to ensure if we allow this drilling in these companies have to come forward and show us their past record, past history of what they have done. If they violated the environment anywhere and we should be able in the secretary should be able to do that as well. Matted chair, senator cantwell, speaking before i senator masses statement, there have been over in the north slope in 95 to 2009 including 13 spills over 10,000 gallons so were not talking about an inconsequential issueeq here. Since 2009, 10,000 gallons of crude oil comes billed as a result of operation and they have been routinely find. For contamination and Hazardous Substance for Oil Pollution and i think in 2000, British Petroleum was ordered to pay 22 million in civil and criminal fines. I think my colleague is asking if the heightened awareness if youre concerned about this area, and understanding of those backgrounds is very t t importa. I support this amendment. On the cortez masto 22. I want to ask about the amendment. A bit like to vote on this, well put it in the stack will take out out beginning at 11 30. Thank you. Madam chair, went to indicate support for the amendment would cannot oversight accountability. Looking at who benefits from this bill and larger policy, it comes to an amendment that i have. Ill be requesting a vote on amendment 45, which would eliminate the tax breaks enjoyed by the five major oil and Gas Companies, most of which by the way have been in place for about a hundredha years. We have unfortunately struggled to have Clean Energy Policy in any longterm way solar or wind or other policies on clean energy. But yet the oil company tax rates has been embedded in the tax code for about 100 years. Oil companies have enjoyed billions of dollars in special tax breaks. About 470 billion in total. The Biggest Companies who received 22 billion in the next 10 years coming to believeie itr 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 Big Oil Companies by allowing them to shelter their profits in tax havens. A brandnew addition for Oil Companies. If we are going to open a pristine areas in the arctic National Wildlife refuge to drilling, which would boost big oil, i dont think we should be handing the same companies more enormousmp tax breaks. It eliminates the tax breaks enjoyed by the five major oil and Gas Companies. I intend to ask for record rollcall. I anticipate that the chair will rule that the amendment is not germane in this that is correct, i would ask for rollcall to overturn i that. You have anticipated where im going with this and if you request a rollcall though, i wont have to table it because i do believe it does fall outside of this committees jurisdiction you well know, the tax provisions are within end it is telling that they are taking things like the oil taxes in the committee at this time. I would suggest that an amendment of this nature would probably be more appropriate before that finance committee on which you set there. I also want to address somehow rather opening up of an alarm is a favor for a gift, if you will, to big oil here. There are certainly no giveaways if you will too big oil in anything we are talking about here. We have you have heard me say on this committee many, many times that alaska as a resource state has been producing for decades now, but the reality is ourea transalaska 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 the benefit of the rest of the nation, but we also want to be able to put peopleo to work in o be able to help our state as well. For those who suggest that this is somehow about big oil, it is not. Its about a lack in 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 resources that we p have in allowing our people to gain benefits and opportunities. I think what our governor was here a couple weekswaee ago, he spoke he spoke very well to this point that this was a promise made to us at statehood that alaskans can access our resources. And i think that this fight has been yet one more example where we should have been denied that opportunity. S i would remind the colleagues that the amendment 45 does fall outside our committees jurisdictionommi and the chair request members oppose. Thank you. We are doing all of this within the context of a budget resolution withinon instruction to this committee and the finance committee and so on. It all relates to resources, budget resources. I would argue that when they have enjoyed 470 billions dollars in incentives and tax breaks over the years, that relates to what happens in terms of our budget, or budget deficit, policies on energy and what is happening here right now. We know who gets the direct benefit, who will be the ones getting the benefit from doing this. I would argue that it does all fit, and in fact, as i mentioned before, when i was in alaska i had the opportunity to see new Wind Generation and was pleased that those Wind Turbines were being made in michigan. I know there are opportunities for other incentives around clean energy that would change the pressure points, and for the life of me, knowing alaska is on the front line of the changing climate, i dont know why we wouldnt want to be working together to eliminate incentives that will continue to speed up the changing of the climate, and instead be redirecting precious resources in terms of tax policy in a direction that would actually benefit the whole country and the whole world in terms of clean energy. When i step back, all of this fits. If were talking about where we spend our money, what ou are our incentives, what are we going to be promoting, and in my judgment this shift goes in the wrong direction. Thank you. The way i read the amendment, theres important issues in colorado, it would dramatically increase the cost of gasoline as well and fuel on consumers. Even if this were true remain, the Public Policy would end up hurting consumers and driving up costs. I want to move on to another debate. I would say, in support of the senators amendment, the larger issue here is that oil and gas prices are falling. They are falling. People who are holding onto economies that depend on that revenue are getting hurt. Even saudi arabia is diversifying off of oil. I think senator stepanov is simply saying why are we continuing to put taxpayer dollars behind incentives when the price keeps falling. The point is, why not focus on some of the diversification efforts that will help our economy grow in the future and leave us better protected instead of trying to make up the shortfall. I supported her amendment and if theres no other discussion. I wanted to respond but id like to remove onto another amendment. I would like to move on to another as well, but i would just add a couple points. We do have the opportunity to do more when it comes to renewables michae micro grids and we will work on that. Im sensitive to the fact that we have limited jurisdiction within the Energy Committee. The tax provision is not one of them. As we move forward, i think it is a discussion in the bigger reconciliation picture, but not specific to this committee. Thankke you. Is a possible to make a statement . Certainly. Thank you for the opportunity. I would like to go on record and say i support the authorization of responsible development. This area, known as 1002 is a promising prospect and coming from and instructe extraction state, and understand the importance of growing your state economy as well as playing a role in the enhancement of our nations independence. I believe it must be done in a responsible manner with a focus on ensuring a balance achieved for all alaskans, but i would be remiss if i didnt express my extreme disappointment with this budget process. I believe we can all do better. Last month, the Senate Passed resolution 71 which included instructions to the Energy National Resource Committee to identify 1 billion in revenue. I voted in opposition to an amendment that attempted to strike that language. I did so understanding this committee would examine the opportunity to authorize oil andan gas in the oil and wildlife refuge. The Budget Office has concluded that such an authorization will raise approximately 1. 1 billion over the 2018 to 2027 timeframe. That said, i do not support the budget process itself which is being manipulated by one party in order to pass partisan tax reform as well as partisan efforts to undermine the Affordable Care act. Increase cost for all West Virginia families. I repeatedly stated that the only way to fix what is wrong with the Affordable Care act is to Work Together and in a bipartisan way to improve the system for all americans. I remain committed to working with all my colleagues to ensure all West Virginians and americans have assessable and affordable healthcare, and i remain committed to passing tax reform through a fair and transparent process. All support the chairmans market in light of the importance of oil and Gas Exploration and independence, i deeplys dress i opposition in the manner this process is being executed. Thank you. Thank you for your continued support for responsible development of a small portion ofon the 1002. I think you recognize, coming from a producing state what that recognizes not only to the state but to a nation that relies on the resources, and i think youve had an opportunity to see that we do it responsibly and we do it well. Being caught in between in such a situation and using this is a gimmick for us to get budget reconciliation is just so wrong. I would rather vote up or down and those of us who agree u and disagree vote and move on, but thats not the way it is here. I understand that. I think we both know thats not the way we are in a reconciliation process. That is very limiting and i think we recognize it is limiting and perhaps an imperfect process. I think you for your comments. With her further amendment. I would actually like to call up, if we could just get through to, that would be great. I would like to call up cantwell number six which is. [inaudible] the gulftwel of mexico act incentivized and promoted off shore oil and drilling. Under current law those coastal state get one 100 of revenue from the first three nautical miles. That beyond three nautical miles belonged to that of the unitedta states. This was a terrible idea for the nation as a whole. I know the Trump Administration agrees and has asked for it to be changed. As a whole, 46 states dont benefit. We dont need drilling in the arctic wildlife to meet our reconciliation. We can meet those instructions by raising 3 billion by eliminating these go mesa giveaways of federal revenue and giving alaska over af billion g dollars which would help in not only protecting wildlife refuge but giving them an impact to the state of alaska. I look att this issue and our challenges moving forward, when the discussion, which i set it in my comments, it was giving federal revenue away. At the time theres a lot of discussion of why you should do that. One of the primary things that the advocates from those four states mentioned is that they wanted the money to go to protect their coastal areas. Im not sure how much of that is actually achieved, definitely money has gone into the coffers of state government, but as i look at oil and Gas Development and the federal revenue that i think even the Trump Administration wishes have back, to me i do want to start doing adaptation and mitigation of the impact. By keeping this revenue for the federal government, and putting it towardd adaptation in places like alaska, we can start best 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 thatat has to happen so i urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Senator cantwell, i am looking at the modified amendment for the first time and recognize that you are seeking to provide assistance to the state of alaska as well which is appreciated, but i think that the amendment is one that really erodes and undermines a policy that we should all be working to expand, and this is something senator cassidy and i and others have been working on under hisorer leadership, the gf of mexico Energy Security act provided specifically for revenues to force states, as part of a very, very carefully crafted compromise that put the eastern golf offlimits, increased funding for the stateside. I think we need to recognize that offshore revenueog sharing is a good policy that needs to be continued and authorized for all other offshore producing states. Thats what weve been trying to do with alaska, instead of eliminating or reducing its is to expand the revenuesharing provisions that we have, and effectively working to address inequities that we have with onshore states. Onshore states receive roughly half of the revenues for production on federal lands within theirir borders. We have had this discussion so many times that revenuesharing, in my view, is really a matter of fairness to the states that are producing and senator cassidy, i hope you will be jumping in here, you know full well the disproportionate impact thatat 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. Eroding the compromise again that was made, the promise in the commitment that was made to the gulf states is not t a direction that i am supportive and would encourage. Madam chair. Senator cassidy. First, i totally agree with senator cantwell, and actually with senator sanders. When they mention that we have to add resiliency to our coastline, we have to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels and since we have been speaking, louisiana has lost the equivalent of two football fieldsf of coastline. Can you put that poster of our coastal loss, that right there depicts coastal loss and flood risks 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 million split between four states. But, if we have that, under our constitution, we have to put it toward Coastal Restoration projects. Es the money doesnt start until 2017 so senator cantwells observation that she havent seen these projects occur, thats true because weve gotten two or 3 million which is helpful for planning but certainly not for construction. But we are having a comprehensive plan to begin to restore that coastline which, by the way, helps to protect federalfe assets such as the strategic Petroleum Reserve and also mitigates the risk that a future hurricane would hit a state, a city like new orleans because billions of dollars of damage, theres lots of benefit there. So the question is, should the money come up to the state to the federal bureaucracy and then go back down to theo state with the inevitable friction that takes off ten, 20 or 30 and it doesnt go down to rebuild those coastlines, by the way, that is the strategic Petroleum Reserve assets which you think of the map i just showed you that demonstrates why restoring this coastline protects federal assets. The issue is whether we i should not give louisiana, the other coastal state the same consideration less of a consideration but at least some consideration that the western states receive and whether or not we shouldnt have the money directly going to protect those federal assets, but whether it should come through the federal government with all the friction that bent then takes off. I think, it is in the federal taxpayers interest to do something forr that coastline because were either going to pay now or pay later, to quote an old commercial. In fact, i will have an amendment that says we should allow one days worth of reserves from the Petroleum Reserve to backfill this. The reason why federal policy has actually decreased the revenue available by about 300 million over two years and the absence of that means that that restoration will not occur, they will cancel projects and all of those federal a assets will stay at risk that much longer. So, i agree with your concern that we need to mitigate coastlines, i just think the effect of which you are suggesting would work against that to the area which is most vulnerables in our nation. Of course i oppose it. If i may briefly respond. Mitigationss is one issue, but the essence of todays debate is not mitigation. Its whether the United States tells the world and our people that we are going to go forwardar and increase our dependency of fossil fuel or get to the root of the problem and that is that Climate Change is devastating to every state in this country and the time is now to make the Bold Decision for our kids and our grandchildren that we will break our dependency on fossil w fuel and move to Sustainable Energy. I would say to my colleagues from louisiana, the issue is not mitigation. The issue is a fundamental decision, which way forward this country goes in terms of energy andnd drilling for more oil is not the way i think its a go. Just to speak j to that, i dont know if the way you make a statement is to allow the washing away of a coastline, which, im speaking specifically to senator cantwells amendment. The washing away of a coastline which will not only destroy federal assets but the most productivee fisheries in the lower 48, i emphasized the lower 48 as well as other Natural Resources, by the whale also point out in the amendment that we have, the men that we have has been endorsed by the Environmental Defense fund, ive got a whole list here, the coalition to restore coastal louisiana, the National Wildlife federation, we are talking about preserving an ecosystem in terms of this particular amendment. The other thing i point out, senator franken and i have been talking about puerto ricol , the National Bureau of Economic Resource points out that for every. 8 units of a grid that is run by renewables, you need 1. 0 of the unit. I can explain that later, a fast acting liquefied natural gas or natural gas in case it goes down. Now i will go into the details, but the to complement natural gas and a lot of these resources are natural gas. Again, im only speaking to senator cantwells amendment, but if you want to preserve that ecosystem, create the opportunity to replacece coal with natural gas, and complement and enable renewables, we need that natural gas. But by the way, we also need ecosystem which allows it. All im trying to do is defend the restoration of that ecosystem. Madam chair, as much as i would like to debate this for a very long time, i am going to be short because i would like to t give the discretion to our colleague, senator wyden who is anchoring another rush to do process and offer his amendment but i would say to senator cassidy, this does leave 1. 6 billion for coastal states. It is just recognizing that it is time to try to mitigate t both in alaska which is having such unbelievable impacts that are affecting indigenous populations, and assets there. I love your enthusiasm for the assets in that part of your state because the guarantee when senator murkowski and i needed that muscle to communicate to the leadership on your side of thehe aisle why they shouldnt continue to focus on o taking investment dollars away from that area, we were in a losing battle with our colleagues on that. My point of this amendment is that it is federal resources that should be going to well spent things that are now, we will be dealing with it within the supplemental, will be dealing with it in our expenses. We asked the gao, how much is all this costing us, they said 635 billion over the next ten years so i simply believe that the resources should be spent on helping alaska mitigate at this point in time as well as continuing to allow you to mitigateitat and, i will work wh you in whatever ways that we can achieve our objectives of this dynamic change that is happening on t both house, investments are being made in oil and gas and in the federal governmentd huge huge cost that we are seeing on these issues. With that, i would like to just call up, if i could, a wyden number 49 and offer it for my colleague since he cant be here at this moment. I think this would be the last amendment and we could go to vote. Senator wyden would like to be here, but he is in finance. Ldane we are told that the chairmans bill generates 1 billion. Treasury over ten years. I think senator stepanov is also a cosponsor of this. The chairmans bill would generate 1 billion for the treasury over ten years including 725 million by 2022. Senator wydens amendment simply says if the federal government does not receive 725 million from the lease out sale in the wildlife refuge before octobe october 21st 2022, the ability to drill is rescinded. Based on historical leasing on the north slope, for hundredth thousand acres occurred, it would bring in 76 million by 2022 at most. Under that scenario, we would have have lease sales of 4 million acres of the article while life to generate the 725 million that cbo is projecting a 2022. I think that is the key issue for. 4million acres. The number does not take into account that companies rarely bid on every acre. Between 2010 and 2015, industry only bid 1. 5 5. 5 of the acreses offered in the National Petroleum reserve in alaska so assuming the coastal plain is leased at a similar rate, current budget assumptions become more improbable. I think this is a common sense amendment, it would repeal, it would appeal to members interested in ensuring theblbl budget is there to make budget decisions in the future and on behalf of my colleague, this is one of our rollcall vote. Thank you senator cantwell. I i will oppose wyden number 49. I think you are effectively in a situation where termination like this would amount to a federal taking because the leases would have already been awarded but then youve got the government stepping in and canceling everything if the receipts dont reach a certain amount. I worry that it runs a foul of the u. S. Constitution because it would be a taking without compensationin. The 725 million threshold, im assuming comes from the cbo estimate which we recognize is an estimate. I think we go back and forth in terms of whether we like or dont likee cbo and how cbo operates, but it is designed to be that nonpartisan entity that is supposed to take the politics out of budgeting process. Trying to substitute our judgment for theirs or use their work to justify arbitrary conditions, i dont think it is the right way to go. I do think, if you kind of game this out and say well lets just say that the first lease sale could end up raising 724 million, the second could wind up being 5 billion, thats not going to match the cbo estimate, but what you would have done is effectively terminate that program at the beginning. So ith dont think that it would withstand the test in terms of meeting the constitution confines, i think it would set a dangerous precedent so i would urge members to oppose it. Can i just ask counsel, is that your read of this, as it o off mandate . Kind no, thats not my read senator. Certainly, if the bureau of Land Managementf issued leases that committed to the lessees, they would be able to develop the oil and keep the money and return it if the amendment took effect. Then that might constitute a taking, but to simply say the secretary or the bureau of Land Management, in implementing this program should issue leases conditionedd on the full amount being paid in and then return the money if its not, that would not be a taking because the companies will get their money back. Thank you. I cant think of a greater way to add uncertainty into an already uncertain process when it comes to being able to access resources. Again, i would urge colleagues to reject the wydenac amendment. Madam chair, i think we should c vote on the amendments weve called on so far but i think that would be the best way to proceed. I did ask alex to try to be here between 1130 and 12 so that we can take this up so we are certainly within that time. I would ask, if its the intention ofof any members to call up otherr amendments, my hope would be that we would be able to take up this block of amendmentsoc and then move to final passage before we have our round of votes commencing at noon. I just want to clarify or add to the record, senator wyden has indicated he is supportive of cortez amendmentnt number 22 and would like to be added as a cosponsor. Great. He will be added. L will be opportunity for discussion when we get to final passage . Yes, i think there will be. It shouldnt take a long to move through these votes but i would just remind colleagues that we are cognizant of the clock. We have votes coming up. I dont want to cut anybody off h. I suggest we move to cantwell number three and called up to vote. Senator cassidy, we have just asked all members if there were any other amendments that wish to be considered. There were none. I do know you and i have had a conversation about youri proposed amendment. I have reminded colleagues that we are running up against three votes at noon. If you would like to speak to your amendment as youve indicated to me, i will provide for that. I will do it in a minute and a half at the most because i spoke to an earlier and you shall these posters. Western states get 50 ofer the revenue from offshore lease. The coastal states got about 35 just to begin this year. There has been a decrease in the amount of receipts because of federal policies and that decrease will persist for a couple years. This is louisianas coastal area. This is the flood risk the increase the impact of katrina upon new orleans which cost federal taxpayers 20 billion. This is the strategic Petroleum Reserve asset which are all at risk because of this. By our states constitution, any revenue we get has to be used to restore this coastline which in turn protects these assets as well as the communities that live there. I mentioned earlier this amendment is endorsed by the Environmental Offense Fund by the coalition to restore coastalit louisiana, the fish andli wildlife organizations, i would ask that, what it does is it takes one day of strategic Petroleum Reservetr assets and sells it and uses the money to backfill over the years the revenue loss because of coastal federal policies to allow restorations of our t coastline. We welcome any questions. Would you like to be added to the cosponsor. I only want to make the slight correctione that we get 40 of onshore leases. We get 0 of offshore which i think was an inadvertentnt mistake. Our coastline is very small. I would move that we call up cantwell number one and asked for the eighth and nasal. I mean cantwell number three is the First Amendment to be voted on. I just wanted to o make sure 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 we will work specifically in the area. I think he knows i have great hesitation and reluctance when this, buto sale of prioritizing a restoration is something that again i will be there with my support for you. Senator cantwell has called up amendment number three. Cantwell amendment number three. They have been asked for, the clerk will call the roll. Mr. Cassidy. Mr. Portman. Mr. Strange. Ms. Cantwell. Mr. Wyden. Mr. Sanders. Misstep now. Mr. Cantwell. Mr. Mansion. Mr. Heinrich. Mr. King. In this vote the amendment is not agreed too. Madam chair, i would like to call up number 22 and asked for the yeas in a. They have been called. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. Sanders. Mr. Franken. Mr. Heinrich. [inaudible] by this vote the amendment is not agreed too. I would like to call up heinrich number 64. Is that number 34 . Yes. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the vote, the amendment is not agreed too. A them amendment fails. Manyhe other members wish to call up. I would like to call up franken number 32. The clerk will call the roll. [rolll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the nos or 14 the amendment fails. Cantwell number six. Clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote, the amendment is not agreed too. I would like to call up amendment number 49. The clerk will call the roll. Number 49. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] on this vote the amendment is not agreed too. The amendment falls. I callnt up sanders number 43. The clerk will call the roll on sanders number 43. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote, the amendment is not agreed too. Madam chair i would like to call up 45. The clerk will call up 45, but i would, i mentioned this is not jurisdictional so im going to move to table the step now amendment. The motion, the vote before us is a motion to table. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote, the amendment is tabled. The amendment is tabled. Madam chair those are the amendments weve discussed this morning. I think you can see by the amendments that we have many other issues to discuss but they are representation of the concerns we have with this. I know of no one at this moment who wants to offer an additional amendment. Senator cassidy, did you wish for a roll call vote . I would, please. I must we vote by acclamation. I thought we were not voting on his amendment. Senator cassidy did bring it up at the end and asked for it to be considered. If you would like it to be voice voted we could do that in the interest of time. If its by acclamation, of course. Yes, im okay with that. Lets have a roll call vote. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the amendment is agreed too. Are there other amendments that any member wishes to have considered for a vote at this time . Seeing none, let us move to final passage of the chairmans mark. A final vote on the chairmans mark as amended, but senator cantwell, i know there are colleagues who would like to make statements. What i would like to do since the vote has been called is to have the final vote taken and then i will stay here and we can certainly encourage members to provide discussion and comments for the record at that point. I know we just said to our colleague that he could make a comment before the vote so i feel like we should at least let him make his comment before the vote. I think many of us have other things we can add to the record. Im fully prepared to stay here, but i also recognize we do have a vote, senator king, if you would like to speak before the vote, i am amenable to it but i just want make sure we all have a chance to do her other job. I appreciate that. And as long as is none of us get between senator collins in a vote. Madam chair, just briefly, have a great deal of respect for you and senator sullivan. I have met with your governor, your commissioner of national resources. I have tried hard to dig in and understand this issue. Reluctantly, however, i am going to have to vote no, going back to something center heinrich mentioned. The words wildlife refuge mean something. As i look back, the 1980 law does not designate 10002 for drilling. It does say expiration is allowed, but 1003 expressly says congress has to act in order to allow drilling. The development is not limited to 2000 acres. I must say, my consideration of this is influenced by that number which i find inappropriate. I did a little calculation. These chairs only cover, under definition, two square feet of the area of this room because its only a square inch for each leg of the chair thats on the ground, but most of us would say thats a pretty good coverage of the room by the chair. We are talking about a lot of coverage of this area in multiple wells, a minimum of 400,000 acres being leased. Alaskas 375 million acres, the state owns 105 million acres. The National Petroleum reserve is 23 million acres. And it just strikes me that the case hasnt been made for opening up this particular small, relatively small area of the state for drilling, particularly when we are now projecting, on the news yesterday, record Oil Production in the United States next year of almost 10 million barrels. Day rivaling that of saudi arabia. I find it hard to vote to open the sub given the questions about wildlife and, as i say, i just dont think the case has been made that there is a necessity, National Security or other necessity for doing this. Given the respect that i have for the chair and for her colleague from alaska, senator sullivan, its not easy for me to take this position, but the data compels me and i just wanted to get that statement on the record. Thank you. Senator king, thank you for that and thank you for your willingness to sit and listen, not only to the alaska delegation but to our governor and our commissioners and our team. I think that is important. We all come to our own conclusions, but i respect the time you have given to at least study it. Before the final vote, is anyone else wanting to make a quick comment . Seeing none, the clerk will call thcall the roll on the chairmans mark as amended. [roll call] by this vote the legislation as amended is agreed too. Adam chair just want make sure we have time for members to file dissenting views. I think there will be plenty of time for members to file dissenting views. I want to thank colleagues for being here this morning, the time that you have given, and the debate has been appreciated. With that, the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] you been working on this for a long time. My whole life i think. Keep in mind, back in 1995, i was not in office. I wasnt even in the state legislature at the time. It passed both houses. It went up to clinton for his signature and it was vetoed. Thats probably as close as any measure has ever come. I will tell you, it was back in 2005 when i had the opportunity to be here with senator stevens, and we again thought we were very close so i think alaskans have had many opportunities. What is it, 60 different times over the years that it has been introduced or has been held in hearing or the process has move moved. Congressman young has successfully advance it from the house 12 times. There was nothing new today, other than the advances that weve seen in technology that allow us to access an important resource and do so in a way that has less impact to the surface, less impact to the environment, so thats the update. I think that was well conveyed throughout the discussion and debate. Senator, this could happen as early as 2021. There could be a new administration involved. Would you want the Trump Administration to move at a more accelerated rate to release these areas for potential change administration. We take a long view. You have to if you been working on something for 40 years spread we will see administrations come and go. I think this demonstration has been clear they support development in all areas. The process that will unfold, if we move forward with this is one that sometimes it takes longer than we would like, obviously i would like to see happen sooner than later. Weve been waiting for this for 40 years. But then again, what we need to do right now, the first step is get the authorization to open it. We have taken that step again today. I will be very transparent with you. I have no reason to believe this is the last hurdle we face. This will be part of a tax package and i fully anticipate that just as it was with the budget resolution there will be an effort to try to strike. We will gear up for that battle again and we are doing this incrementally and we are doing this in a way that people know full well what were doing and why were doing it. Thank you everyone. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] tonight on our companion network cspan, former secretary of state Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice and the current un ambassador, nikki haley speaking out a form on freedom and security. When i first got there, we obviously had issues, but the one that was really defining was when the president made the decision to hit syria. After the chemical weapons. When he made that decision, the number of calls and emails i received from countries saying its so good to see america lead again was amazing. It was enlightening to me because they felt like we had been dormant and they really feel weak when the u. S. Doesnt lead. They want to see a speak out and weigh in and they want us to lead on the international stage, and when we do they feel more confident. I think you are seeing that whether its with japan and south korea or the north korea issue or our arab partners were dealing with iran, all of those things, whether its venezuela or cuba its always going to be important for us to know the power of our voice and know what leadership means to the world. You can see our entire conversation from the george w. Bush institute in new york tonight on our companion network cspan. It starts at 80 strength. In addition to nikki haley and former secretary of state, we will hear remarks from former first lady laura bush. That is that eight eastern tonight on cspan. The cspan buses traveling across the country on our 50 capital to her. We recently stopped in austin texas. In texas, the most important thing to me is getting rid of unnecessary and burdensome occupational regulation. I believe the most important issue is tax reform. We have an outdated system and we need to get a change so every american have the best opportunity possible. I think one of the most important issues, possibly the most important issue facing texans is transparency in government. I dont think there can be enough of it, and i dont think our leaders could ever do enough to be more transparent in terms of not only their own activity and behavior, but also the kinds of records that are used in government, the need to see the light of day and that the citizens deserve to know what is going on in washington. The most important issue is educational choice. Every parent has the right to direct their kids education and hopefully we get a bill passed next session. Voices from the state on cspan. Coming up shortly on cspan2, the white house b