Transcripts For CSPAN3 Politics Public Policy Today 20150501

And make investments. This gives us the ability to move beyond just looking at one set of criteria. It seems that your mitigation effort has to be focused on the actual hazard. In this budget youre looking at additional funds for Hazard Mitigation but i would certainly want to know that is based on the actual hazard itself and mitigate both the hazard and longterm cost for the federal government and the locality. And that has been the criteria for determining Hazard Mitigation. I can show you example where we have had predisaster mitigation. States have taken that like in oklahoma to do grants to families to build safe roads for tornadoes. Our goal is to reduce risk. Theres a lot of driving factors of that and changing environment but when we want to look at, what are things as taxpayers if we can spend money on the front end and reduce future costs and potential disruptions to disaster. This is very much in our predisaster mitigation looking at it from outcomes that are based upon buying down risk, reducing risk or building more resiliency in the infrastructure that is hazard based. Theres a lot of things out there driving change. I have to look at the consequences of impact. Thats where we focus mitigation dollars. Again, i go back to the measure and show whether its providing funding up front and flexibility, whether its making sure that youre mitigating youve got to have a system to come back and have measurable how about lives saved . Lives saved, obviously huge priority there. Ive got to give you a little good news story. Talked about in d. C. , but few give you a concrete example. Our Fire Administration collects fire information from fire departments, National Fire reporting data base. We never had a good program of opening that data up and finally got the data were providing it but what are we going to do with it . Weve been working with red cross and red cross decided to focus on Smoke Detector installs and areas that have had the highest risk to loss of life. They were able to take our data, match up the communities that use fire grant dollars and got volunteers and we installed Smoke Detectors and now have using data to drive where we met the installs 13 documented cases of lived saved where Smoke Detectors went off and people got out of the building. So were using big data to leverage our limited funds, partnering with organizations like the red cross and getting outcomes we can document that those reports that people used to follow i always wonder, what are you doing with that . Were making the Data Available so people can use analysts and drive wheres the most need and greatest risk . Where can we make the biggest difference with our limited resources, i was talking to red cross this morning, they now have 13 cases where they had installed the Smoke Detector. It went off and people got out. And the data says that was a high risk area without the Smoke Detector we would have probably had loss of life. Where are you measuring that so we can track it. Thank you. As you pointed out, what youre always looking to do is figure out where to spend money to mitigate potential risk and how you can be more effective in doing that. And one of the places where i think theres real potential is working with the private sector because as you know, government doesnt respond to disasters alone. It often has the benefit of using the private sector and femas Industry Liaison Program is one point of entry for those who want to do business with fema. But ive got to tell you, ive heard from businesses in New Hampshire that have not had a good experience with that program. And one of those in particular, i wont name because i havent gotten clearance to use their name, but they have worked with marine corps, in haiti responding in new orleans responding to katrina, and they really wanted to try to Market Technology to fema. Over the course of beginning in 2009, 2011, 2012, they presented to fema at three industry liaison vendor outreach sessions appropriate policy and Program Staff attended only two of those meetings. Although initially officials appeared enthusiastic, the procurement staff limited the Agency Employees from sharing business cards and regularly failed to respond to the followup phone calls and emails and when we try to inquire about the process and how to ensure they were getting a fair hearing, we were told they have to go through the normal procurement process. Thats what they tried to do. Can you talk about how you can do more to ensure when companies have Good Technology that can be a benefit to fema, that there is ab opportunity for them to be heard and you to take advantage of some of that technology where it exists . Senator, given the time frames, we have changed leadership of the chief Procurement Officer it addresses some of this. Sometimes were overly concerned about not obtaining potential bid processes and there are certain things we need to be careful about that we dont give favoritism to. They bring in industry and did this with i. T. And said heres where were going, not giving anybody any one on one sitdowns because this is going out to bid. We brought everybody in and they were looking at looking at our i. T. As a potential vendor and we laid out what we are thinking about doing and what our time frames are and what the well work this but sometimes we overcorrect and not trying to get into procurement issues that may exclude companies from being able to present. And finding a better Playing Field so we dont mess somebody up. As you know, if its seen as giving favoritism and disputed bid, you have a bid protest. We have a new Procurement Officer, making it as transparent as possible and part of the tools are we want to do the meeting and try to set them up so we dont end up contaminating and Industry Days bringing groups around our mission and challenges and go heres what were looking at and this is what were thinking, were going to be putting bids at this but have all of the presentation and they ask, less jaded than what we have. I think what youre probably running into, Procurement Office that was not where we needed to be but also to overcompensate and not always provide level of Service Without jeopardizing future procurement. Thats encouraging, theres hopefully a new process that is more transparent and an opportunity to be heard. Thank you, i look forward to hearing how that works. Theres one issue around the flood mapping that the senator has not touched on that i wanted to raise. And i think its the final issue i would like to raise and that is around the new position of the Flood Insurance advocate, because one of the things that again weve heard, i think chairman said he heard in north dakota, theres a lot of uncertainty and not a clear understanding about how the new flood maps are done and what kind of Community Input is available and how decisions are made. Can you talk about the new Flood Insurance advocate and what that office will be doing and how they can help communities better understand the process of the flood mapping . I have to thank you for the funding and budget to stand the office up. Were approaching this from two ways, we think in servicing maps we need to look at building staff capabilities as advocates in the regional offices to be closer to attend meetings, knowing when maps are coming out. Theres a whole process the community is involved in but having the advocate in the region not part of that mapping process but there to go out and meet with groups get issues and bring them back and dealing with claims issue, we think claims have to be made because we pay essentially. We didnt want to wait and now building the office out, we started to take form, we still have detailed staff but going to the job descriptions to be posting permanent positions to start the program on a more permanent footing. They are going to be housed as part of the Flood Insurance program but they dont report to the administrator, they report to the administrator fema. We put them in the office so all of the connections and Logistical Support and proximity would be there. Their reporting chain other than signing off on time sheets and travel, Everything Else comes to the administrator. So as we move forward and establish that, we looked at specifically in maps the best place to coordinate but what were still looking at workload do we need fulltime or specific map revisions coming up, some map revisions are not contested and they are small, we may be looking at deployable staff as we know we have a large project coming in or Large Community or a lot of concerns about it, we have staff to go in and detail for the duration of that update. I think this is sort of like an ombudsman to deal with flood issues within the office and i think this is a really positive develop the and look forward to hearing how its working and to be helpful if we can. Thank you very much, chairman. Just a couple more questions and well wrap up. First is the talking about the preparedness grants return on investment and really what you feel a level of preparedness is across the nation and how we measure this and how effective they are in helping improve that preparedness across the country. Part of or report that we again struggled with early on was i can do a better job at telling you how much money had been spent and not telling what capabilities had been built. Were seeing through the threat Hazard Reduction and other surveys and state preparedness report that over time were seeing the change and i can give you specific examples. The state of mississippi identified early in some of this they needed more funding for operation direction and control communications and manage disasters. With the Grant Funding thats matured and on the state preparedness report showing that they are more into maintenance mode and not building as much capacity. They are switching to other things like cyber but still see they need to make improvements in. Between the state preparedness reports, were seeing trends where people are shifting to other areas in maintenance or still identifying areas theyve got to make investments in. Part of this comes back to looking again at the tops of threats and disasters and are we seeing capabilities being built out there. When you look at cyber, its been consistent, one of the areas most states are identifying that they have a lot of work to do but its going from were just starting to were seeing things come back on what they are doing. We can show you where the money has started that process of where we have bill capability and what that looks like and how its being used you about how they are not shifting to other priorities within those areas. And what they do there. But then how do you turn that into some type of ongoing analysis where we can say okay, these grants are very effective and we kind are moving up the chain and what the impact is nationwide. How do you develop some system to track that and have a good understanding of where we are how much progress were making . Again our National Preparedness report we try to use analytics and double data to show heres what the data trends are doing and specific case studies where people have done that. The question we get a lot of times, high do we know when were done . The answer is were never done. One of the reality thats hard to explain, because we built teams and capabilities. People retire and move on, you have to train new team members and equipment has to be updated and Technology Changes and needs to be replaced. All of the laptops bought in first go arounds, thats ten years ago, youve had to replace those at least twice. Maybe we need as we go through this and funding going through increasing every year to reduction and being stable, which i also appreciate, were seeing communities make decisions what capacities they need to maintain. Some things they are making a decision no longer feasible or the change how we do business no longer requires it. But maintaining that capability and again, what youre seeing is starting in 2011, i can point to very specific disasters where previously had had a much greater response because of capability to build funding and federal role was to support recovery. For a lot of disasters, thats probably our best indicator were seeing preparedness take place. As i tell people, sandy, when i look at what state and local governments did and what they were able to manage all the way from the carolinas getting ready for the storm, a lot was grant dollars built paid for and administered through all of the Homeland Security grants, that was the capability responded and the federal role is more a support to that versus a primary agency which had been what we had had to do in previous large scale catastrophic disasters. Done right, i think it can make a huge difference. Between continuing to spend a Disaster Recovery money repeatedly year after year building the infrastructure through the preparedness grants, you spend lots and may spend more in one year but youre not you get out of this repetitive spending for recovery. Part of the center too, we made decisions that we were funding each jurisdiction hoping it added up to being prepared and the reality is this through mutual aid to consolidate a lot of resources we as a nation built. We began changing language to recognize these are Building National capabilities that you use at the local level and may use at the local level exclusively until theres a large disaster somewhere else and every state that receives these they have to certificate that that state remembers a member of the Emergency Management system compact and when you look at the resources as national assets. That change began then leveraging do we need to have the same equipment in every jurisdiction side by side or could we start moving towards identifying hey, weve got a lot of search and rescue teams here. What we dont have are Mortuary Services or Specialized Communications to support that or as the case of the trains and other things, may have an emerging threat we need hazmat teams for. Do we do everything or certain teams to start that process. But that to your point is really looking at were building capabilities and capacity that is housed at the local level, ugsed day to day at the local level but in a catastrophic terrorist event, there are Natural Resources to be mobilized across state lines. We saw that in sandy, where a lot of assistance from outside of the area those funded with these dollars and built capabilities but shared governor to state, in mutual aid. We talk about a national framework, National Capabilities and National Preparedness, not federal or fema. The grant dollars are building a national system. Thats working, you have the coordination you need so people feel those resources are available when and where they need them . Again, senator, the ability for governors to share resources whether its National Guard or state resources is the foundation of that. We still work as some states do a better job internally of being able to acty vat local resources as part of that and others need more work. We continue looking at tieing back grants to that capability and getting communities, including urban security areas to recognize they are a national asset. Were never going to strip resources where we need them but also seen time and time again some of the fastest most effective responses have come neighbors helping neighbors and governors helping governors and making it clear we need to build the capability around what governors do best in dealing with disasters. All right, ive got one more question then senator sheehan has one more and well wrap. Can you comment your sense of solvency of the Flood Insurance program in terms of how were going right now and how were managing the national Flood Insurance program and all of these other steps that youre taking to both mitigate risk, Hazard Mitigation, preparedness, all of these steps where does that put us in terms of creating long term solvency for the Flood Insurance fund . Well, the challenge you have if you have average levels of flood events, the fund does find that the programs actually fairly well adapted to recurring flood risk. But its not designed to handle well are large flood events particularly coastal areas where youre dealing with such large responses like a katrina or sandy and there are numerous communities, including in my old state of florida that have significant exposure to tropical systems. The program does not handle that well. If we see a normal level of localized flooding and events we typically experience outside of a coastal storm, the program has done well and paying back interest and debt. But we also want to make sure were looking at some of the practices that i think were finding as we look at what happened with sandy, were paying a lot of money to run this program. I want to start driving down cost like were trying to drive down costs in our other programs, i want to look at these cost analysis, because does it make sense to spend this money to get this product . Are there better ways to get a better outcome at lower cost . As we get into this, this is my third phase of the Flood Insurance. I have to deal with what happened in sandy and take the steps of making sure that doesnt happen again then my third step to go back in and fundamentally relook how we administer the programs through the direct Service Policy and Service Claims and going what are we spending to do that . What makes sense . How do we ensure we have a good product that stable available gets written timely and gets serviced timely and pays out what is owed at the least amount of administrative overhead . Thank you. Senator . Based on something you said, i had a couple of other questions. When you were talking to senator hoven about where the risks are and how effective weve been at preparedness across the country, can you map where those potential high threat areas are. Where there are areas that need more coverage and where Communication Systems are inoperable and where we have teams that can address chemical or biological threats . So is there a map like that that exists for the entire country . It is in elements in the fields of visualization, weve got to get data to do things like that. We can do some things already. We can take all of the major fault areas in the country and lay that down. Then we can take the known locations where we have our federal urban search and rescue teams which you fund as well as the urban search and rescue teams that states have identified and overlay that and show what that looks like. So we have been doing that as we look at where threats are. What are the capabilities, one example is the cascade yus abduction zone. Where is that . Its off the northwest coast, involving all the way down to british columbia. We have to look at areas vulnerable to that type of event and look at where the resources come from. We do the same thing in the u. S. For the earthquake. It is not that we dont look at all states but we look at where are specific hazards we know that are geographical, whether it is stormbased or tsunami risks. We have to look at the resources because you figure if youre in the area you may be as much a part of that disaster and not be in the resource capability. So where are the funds coming from . We actually look through the list of what the state and locals have, how the gaps are. We actually work all of this through our ultimate partners and dod with north com so that both the locals the state and the dod are looking at optimal resources. Part of that is looking at capability across the nation. One thing we dont want to do, we saw the unit respond, almost exclusive east of the mississippi. We asked a question, well, what happens if we have another event . Now youre going to have to pull resources all the way from the west coast. Maybe it would make sense to start to distribute some of the resources. We were working with frank grass at the national bureau, looking at the capabilities. We look at where we have known threats and plan deliberately for that. We have the ability to then use that if we have it then occur if it was not in an area that we then planned for or had not been identified. We have the same tools we have been building as far as resources and capabilities. Again, we go through the disasters and go what are the consequences and what type of support you even need to deal with that. So a lot of times we focus less on what caused it, if you go to search and rescue, what do you do against search and rescue and you have to treat patients. If youre going to shelter people, how many people do you need to shelter . How much of duration. We can now apply the resources versus waiting until it happens and going well, how do we deal with this . We deal with these things all over the place, its really coming back and taking a step back and going collectively in the nation, there are some events so big that if were not bringing in all the capabilities of a nation, well end up with a shortfall. A lot of things happened with katrina. But one thing i saw it was not that the nation didnt have the resources to respond. We didnt have an effective way. Clearly, we have people we can send, who do we call . So we dont want to have that happen again. And this means that you have to take a step back and go look, there are disasters bigger than the federal government. They are going to be so big that they will require that we engage the states and local governments that are not impacted as part of that response. And that goes back to the Grant Funding. The building capacity capability that we have had before, by using tools, the responsive frame work, i have never known a government that was not willing to give everything they got including sometimes how much they should send to help a government out in time of need. So when people say are we better prepared . Yes, do we have a mechanism to administer it . Yes, do we have the work . Yes, were not longer telling you how much we have as a measure of preparedness. Sure, one is, as we point out the way were most effective is when everybody mobilizes, because that provides more volunteers, more resources to the effort. I just want to close with a final issue that you raise. You talked about hearing from states and localities about the threats from two cyber the Cyber Security threat. And i wonder if you can talk about what fema is doing with respect to grants to address Cyber Security threats. What percentage of the funds are actually awarded for those kinds of grants. And do you work with the cyber center at Homeland Security at the nddk on how those grants are distributed. Or the technology that theyre developing there. Explain a little bit how that process works . Should most of what we look at are state enhancement cyber centers, i would have to go back and look at that we have the ability to expand, but within the cyber world there is still a lot to be determined how much with the practices and how much is an i. T. Investment. Our role in the grant process is really funding states with the consequences. I spoke with the management, this was at the top of their list, they talked about what do we do . I said guys, what would happen if the communications went out . They said oh, that is our earthquake plan. We expect communications to go out, we get our units to go out, they know theyre supposed to get out, start to patrol, get on the radios, and they will actually go truck to truck. When we get the cyber emergency, it is about protection and dealing with that as much as what happens if it effects or disrupts critical infrastructure. And then youre back to we respond to Power Outages and communication outages. And what cyber does is, its rarely going to be just geographically specific. It may not be available. But it is a Reference Point for Emergency Managers to get their heads wrapped around it. That our primary responsibilities if the disruptions occur, while we work with the hs and others over the threat, the intrusion, the detection, to make sure our systems are infallible, and understanding that it could degrade communications and other tools that we would assume would be available. What happens if theyre not. So we do some pretty extreme planning of what if you cannot use the public switch network to communicate. How do we communicate with the 50 states . So we push the extreme in the cyber event because were not going to be dealing with the event itself, were going to deal with the consequences as other people deal with the actual event itself. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This will conclude our hearing today, thank you, administrator for being here, we look forward to continuing to work with you. The hearing record will remain open for two weeks from today. Senators may submit written questions for the record, and we ask that fema respond in a timely manner. And with that, this subcommittee stands in recess. The new congressional directory is a handy guide with every senator and bio and Contact Information and twitter handles. Also district maps, a fold out map of capitol hill and a look at congressional committees the president s cabinet, federal agencies and state governors. Order your copy today. Its 13. 95 plus shipping and handling through the cspan online store at cspan. Org. On capitol hill yesterday, Bernie Sanders announced hes seeking the democratic nomination for president. Also nancy pelosi was asked about his campaign. Do you believe the democrats should have debates even if it is just a twoway race . You mean between bernie. I thought you asked about me Lincoln Chaffey last week. I think its healthy. I think its healthy for a party to have an exchange of ideas and to have a bench especially when were talking about leadership that comes after and so i dont care anybody who is running for president should fear having someone else run for president. I have every confidence they are yet to come will enliven the debate and that will be whole system if we have it. If we dont have it, well just get moving with what we have. Im very excited about this. I think the distinction is so very, very clear. The distinction between middle class economics and trickle down economics is what the republicans have proposed and failed every time they have implemented it is really a debate that the public should hear. I hope it can be done in the most respectful way so that one of the things the democrats stand for is respect for other peoples ideas. Rather than having analysis of whether its good for somebody to be in or not, lets hear what their ideas is for the future. I think the country is enriched by that and our party is as well. Jeb bush yesterday spoke at a conference hosted by the Magazine National review. One of the topics he talked about is the recent violence in baltimore and approaches to dealing with poverty. First, i think its important to reflect on the fact that a young man died. Thats a tragedy for his family and this is not just a statistic. This is a person who died. Secondly, there were a lot of people who lost their livelihoods because of this. I think we need to be respectful of private property. I think the beginning allowing the riots to kind of happen was disturbing. You cant just push over that and go to the grand societal problems. I think Public Safety is the First Priority for any city or any government jurisdiction. There were a lot of people that will suffer because of the what happened and hopefully order will be restored. Thirdly, i say i think it sends the wrong signal not to have a baseball game with people in it. I think we need to recognize that life doesnt just get paralyzed when these tragedies occur. You cant allow that to happen because it might create more of them. Im going to get that out of the way. I do think the tendency on the left is to blame to create a set of reasons why this happens. The president s view on this, i thought he started pretty well by talking about we had one sentence in his response about the decline of families in urban core america. I think that is absolutely true. Theres much broader issues that go along with this. The pa tholthologies of where you were born into poverty and you will much likely stay in poverty. His approach is conservatives havent offered enough money. At one point do we go past, 10 trillion, a trillion a year. At what point, you have to conclude that the top down driven poverty programs have failed. I think we need to be engaged in this debate and say theres a bottom up approach. It starts with building capacity so people can achieve earned success and having Higher Expectations and higher accountability. The kinds of things that will yield a chance for families to survive in a really difficult time. Here is the big challenge i think for people born in poverty today. If youre born poor today, by the time you reach 18 its possible youll never have a job in your entire life. Thats the world were moving towards of dramatic disrupted technologies putting first wrung on the ladder higher and higher. Were going to have a america that is radically different than what created its greatness. The ability for people to rise up, i think will be challenged in ways we cant even imagine. Having this conversation in the broader sense is probably not appropriate completely today but i hope conservatives dont feel compelled to hold back. We dont need to be defensive. Its the failed progressive policies that we need to address and we need to offer compelling alternatives to it. Let me circle back on the rioting. I know youre not going to run for my Municipal Office but mayor guiliani said the right approach, the first person that throws the rock is arrested and thats it. I completely agree that the broken window policy has been proven successful. Its not, you dont have to take it to the extreme of having Police Brutality but there needs to be a certainty of punishment to create order and security. Who are the people that get hurt by this . Its the shop owner. Its the person who now may lose their job in a business that cant reopen. Its the nursing home. Its the church. These are people this is the community that creates the vibrancy that allows for the communities to be successful are always hurt the most in these events. I think the mayors record creating this strategy with the Police Department was the right one. You can see the two of them on cspan2 at 7 20 p. M. Eastern. This weekend the cspan citys tour will learn about the history and literary life of topeka, kansas. The very act of signing it of just signing that piece of paper was viewed as an october of war. When northerners decided that if popular sovereignty will decide the fate of kansas were going to send the people to settle. That was viewed as an act of war by many missourians who assumed this will all be there. In may of 1856, john brown, his sons and a couple other followers dragged five men from the cabins along the mosquito creeks and they were shot and hacked to death with broad swords. That effectively cleared that area of southern settlers. If you look atted the schools just standing outside youd be very hard pressed to determine whether white students or africanamerican students attended because the school board really did provide all of the same materials that the white schools offered. What is more interesting is they find out after graduating from Elementary School africanamerican students attended sbre attended attended integrated middle and high schools. The Africanamerican Community was proud of their schools because these were excellent facilities. While there was support for the idea of integration there was also some resistance especially from the teachers and the local chapter of the naacp who feared the loss of these institutions and the loss of those jobs. Washington post National Security support where his opinion on the 2003 invasion in iraq. Is that we look at things from our own point of view and get deceived by it. We can go back to vietnam is a great example of the first time we did it openly. We have a history of trying to think other people are like us. The world is different. The u. S. Recently began chairing the Arctic Council which sets policy for the ark sick regarding drilling and other issues. Eight countries are members of the Arctic Council. The chair spoke to the group. Welcome. Im extremely proud that the arctic is any my formal title. Weve had in 2011 the road to noop. Today we have the road to igluet. Were off to noonavit next week. Chairwoman of the Senate Committee on energy and Natural Resources. She serves as a member of the Senate Health education labor and Pensions Committee as well as the Senate Indiana affairs committee. You could not be better place to help give us these insights. They seek you out to hear your thoughts on u. S. Policy towards the arctic. You hold hearings when the government shuts down keeping that focus on the arctic. You encourage the administration to do more and awe plaud them when they do. You are very clear in your analysis and criticism when you think the u. S. Administration has not quite made the mark. Were so delighted that the senate has an arctic with you and senator king from maine providing that leadership. You often talk about the arctic opportunity. Will you join me in welcoming senator merkowski to the podium. [ applause ] heather, thank you. Good morning. Its always a good morning when we can gather together to talk about places of great opportunity. I can think of no other place on planet earth where we have more opportunity than the arctic. Next week the United States will assume the chair of the Arctic Council for the next two years now. This is truly an kpietsing opportunity for us. For those of us pushing for some time now to really place the arctic in a space of Greater National priority. Certainly those of you here have embraced that position. I really thank you you for your continued interest the advocacy on the arctic issues. Your presence today those of you who have joined us, those who are joining by the internet, youre showing your interest in a topic that is really quite keen right,000. I dont need to imprez upon you why the arctic matters to the United States. I would suggest to you that perhaps the biggest challenge that we face right now on arctic policy is not with other members of the Arctic Council. Its not with the rest of the International Community which is taking a very interested focus on the far north. Its not with the permanent participant groups representing the Indigenous People who are truly impacted by more than anyone else. I would suggest to you that the biggest challenge for the United States is the United States itself. We face hurdles both at a Public Interest level and a government policy level. And a government policy level. From the Public Interest perspective, i think its a fair question to ask. Why should somebody from alabama or from arizona care about the arctic . And i suppose there could be those that would say, why should alaskans care about policies that relate to using corn for ethanol or the security of our southwest border. I would argue back that these are all national priorities, national impacts. Well we know we repeat it all the time we are an arctic nation because of alaska. But every state in our union has some kind of a stake in the arctic. Whether its from trade. Nearly 20 of the u. S. Exports go to the seven other arctic nations. Thats significant. We have the research activity. The National Science foundation has provided Arctic Research grants to entities that are based in 44 different states, plus the district of columbia. I remember having a conversation with my colleague from iowa some years ago. It was kind of a trick question to him. About arctic and arctic policy. I was able to remind him that in one of his iowa state institutions, they host an Arctic Research program there. Kind of caught him by surprise. But thats important that they recognize their connection. But theres also the National Security matters. The arctic touches every corner. The arctic touches every corner of our nation. And we must remind everybody of this. From a security perspective, the arctic is centrally located for multiple areas of operation, from the asia pacific to north american to europe and russia. Our ability to reach each area via the arctic significantly reduces response times with increased activity in the arctic at both the commercial and the military levels. Our ability to project power and have Rapid Response capability in the region is of even greater importance. Of course, from an economic standpoint, we talk about the shipping routes and the advantages of shorter shipping routes between europe and asia or the west coast. With the potential to cut seemingly 12 to 15 days off of transit schedules allowing for quicker delivery of goods, reduced maritime emissions. Overall, lower costs to consumers for all americans. Again, a benefit regardless of where you come from in the country. Our Natural Resource potential. We talk about it a lot in alaska. We recognize the potential is high. Usgs estimates roughly 412 billion barrels of oil and oil equivalent, natural gas, lies there in the arctic. The dredge halls suggest rare earth elements. Our neighbors russia to the west, canada to the east they continue with very very purposeful national plans, combined with state interests to develop arctic resources and really pushing to advance commerce in the north. Their plans are helping to create jobs raising economic fwrout in growth in areas that have historically faced extraordinary challenges. Even the nonarctic nations are em praising the opportunities that come with diminished polar sea ice. I think this is one area that grabs the attention of folks here at home. Theyre looking at these nonarctic nations and saying, well, what interest does india have here . They should be scratching their heads about that. Shay they should be asking that question. Because if theres an interest from nonarctic nations then why here in this country, are we not looking with greater interest . But when you think about the nonarctic nations theyre reaping the transit benefits. They are looking to possibly move forward with resource extraction or exploration and development activities. So when you think about the u. S. Position and whether we engage or whether we dont engage we need to appreciate that this level of activity is going to continue whether the United States engages or not. Increased access in the arctic also means enhanced scientific opportunities to better understand the region, its environment, its ecosystem, and how the arctic might impact other areas of the nation and the world. We talk about maintaining the arctic as a zone of peace to allow for Greater International Cooperation and coordination in a harsh environment that requires Specialized Skill and equipment. So areas that we can be collaborating and working together are important. Really regardless of where you live in this country or what your interests may be theres a nexus. There is a connection out there to the arctic that explains why our arctic priorities should matter to the entire country. But our challenge here is enabling this nonalaska portion of the arctic to recognize that nexus. Heather mentioned that senator king and i have joined together. Were kind of bookending the country, between alaska and maine. We formed a Senate Arctic caucus. Not only to look at our National Arctic policyies and priorities, but really to place a greater focus on each individual state and how its connected to the arctic. We think that this is something that other colleagues can take home and use to highlight our arctic opportunities with individuals and communities. So when we sent letters of invitation to the other members, it was not just lets focus on arctic together, it was accompanied with a white paper that was put together by a great arctic intern im going to do a shoutout here. Done great work for us but reminding the senators from alabama, for instance that 25 of alabamas total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. To my colleague, john mccain, who has joined the arctic caucus because he saw that in his state of arizona about 16 of their total exports go to the seven other arctic nations. So, again, making that connection there so that the arctic is not so remote, so far away. Now, we all recognize the role that admiral pap has assumed as the United States special representative for the arctic. I think that senator kerry selected an individual who is obviously very knowledgeable about the region and someone who can bring that knowledge to the rest of the country. But he cant do it alone. So how we can be working together to support not only his role, but ways to develop interest in and truly greater awareness in the arctic is something that i challenge each of us to do. One suggestion that i have this morning, and im going to encourage next week when we are in iqaluit, is allow the Arctic Economic Council a greater opportunity for some visibility. Basically, take the aec on a road tour. We know in this room that the Arctic Economic Council is a forum formed by the Arctic Council to bring businesses together with arctic communities to promote greater economic investment. I think it would be important for the aec to visit throughout the country. Go to different states. Go to the city chamber of commerces. Promote investment in arctic communities for Economic Development. At the same time what youre doing is raising the collective knowledge, awareness in the arctic. This suggestion about bringing this to a higher level through utilizing the aec brings me to the second hurdle. Thats the federal governments arctic policy goals and its agenda for the Arctic Council chairmanship in these next couple years. I would suggest that the effort at this point in time, by our government, in terms of where we are in assuming this chairmanship position is incomplete. Heather noted that i have been quick to applaud the administration when i think things are moving as they should. But im there to offer what i hope is constructive criticism when i think we have not yet done what we need to do in these arenas. And i would hope that if you get nothing else from my remarks this morning, that you will take away that you will remember the people who live in the arctic. This must be a priority for us. As an arctic nation. Now, for many who have never seen the arctic, many nonarctic residents, they view the arctic as this pristine, untouched environment. I described it as something akin to a snow globe that sits on the shelf, and its pretty and its contained. It always looks the same. Please dont touch it. Please dont shake it up. But our arctic is an area that is home to nearly 4 million people. Humans have been living and hunting and working there for thousands of been harvesting the region, developing the land. They live, work and raise their families there. Just yesterday, i had an opportunity to see a series of advertisements a corporation that sits up in the north slope area. Stunning commercials about. The one that is probably most powerful is a series of pictures of a whaling captain, who happens to be the ceo of this native corporation, moving from shots of him out on the ice, looking as traditional and ancient as any might. The next is him in his office, looking just like those of you in suits ties and leather shoes. It speaks to the reality of the people of the arctic today. So we must always remember the people. A focus on Climate Change, its impact on the arctic and how to adopt to a changing environment is absolutely warranted. I dont have concern with that, but it cannot be our sole and singular focus. And it cannot be held over or held against the people of the arctic. It should not be used as an excuse to prevent those who live in the arctic from developing the Resources Available to them in order to create a petter erbetter standard of living. My objection and the objection of many who live in alaska, is that this administration has placed Climate Change policy goals above Everything Else including the welfare of those who live in the arctic. It was just about a month ago, little over a month ago we had a hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee. It was a hearing specific to the arctic the first one weve had in the senate. Some members of the committee commented on the what they perceived to be the irony of alaskas strong support for oil and Gas Development. While noting the impact, the true impact Climate Change is having on our state communities and people. They suggested that alaskans should be leaders in moving the country away from fossil fuels. One of the witnesses we had at the hearing was charlotte brower, an eskimo. She was a mayor, the wife of a whaling captain. Has six kids is a grandmother of 25. As the mayor testified, Oil Development on alaskas north slope brought 200 years worth of Economic Development and advancement in a period of roughly 30 years. Let me repeat that. 200 years worth of advancement in 30 year ss time. Pretty remarkable. Also very challenging. As a result of responsible Resource Development, more people on the north slope of alaska now have access to medical clinics, that could provide care for themselves, their loved ones. They have improved telecommunications. Search and rescue equipment for hunting parties that previously would have simply disappeared on the ice, never to be heard from again. They have access to other modern amenities that we certainly take for granted. Like a simple flush toilet. So those who oppose Resource Development, youve got to look at what the situation is for those, again, who have lived and worked and raised their families in this area for thousands of years. Those who would oppose Resource Development would apparently prefer the eskimo to remain a semiknow seminomadic people, using wheal oil for heat instead of the resources of the region to advance their quality of life. The mayor reminded us it was just a few decades ago where there was no natural gas to heat their home. Where truly it was a time when you collected the driftwood that would come down the river for heat for your home. Theres some pretty powerful stories. From some people who are still in leadership positions today who describe that the reason they wanted to go to school in the morning was not eager for the education, necessarily but because the school was the only place where there was heat. When youre from alaska, youre going to go to school. There is no irony in the people of the arctic benefitting from the Economic Opportunities that are available in their region but there is an irony in deliberately limiting their economic futures, while claiming that somehow its for their own good and somehow in their best interest. Now, Administration Officials have said that the United States Arctic Council agenda has found the sweet spot between National Security and environmental goals. What is missing, i believe, from this equation, are the views of those who actually live in the arctic, like the mayor. What is missing . Are the Economic Development opportunities that would benefit those who live, work and raise their families in the arctic. A prime example of the disconnect that occurs when policy is being driven from thousands of miles away here in washington, d. C. We saw it play out at an event last september. This was entitled passing the Arctic Council torch. It was sponsored by csis. Every speaker who came from an arctic location, whether it was from alaska or the Yukon Territory territory, they praised the canadian governments Arctic Council theme of development for the people of the north. All of them, all of them, spoke about the need for Economic Opportunities as the priorities for those who live in the arctic. Meanwhile, those who came from outside of the arctic, whether it be from Government Agencies or universities or elsewhere, they focused their remarks on the need to have a bold, aggressive agenda on Climate Change. What we saw there was, i believe, an intent to use the Arctic Council as a bully pulpit to promote Climate Change policy goals, as if Economic Activity in the arctic is driving Climate Change. The contrast was significant. At least for those of us from the arctic here. Arctic policy is a difficult balance to achieve. As the vision in the arctic varies depending on who you speak with. But we must find a better place if the u. S. Chairmanship of the Arctic Council is going to be viewed as a net positive here. The Obama Administration will be in charge, as we assume the chair of the Arctic Council next week, but it will not be this administration that then hands the gavel to finland in 2017. We will have a new administration. Given what is coming up in these president ial elections, were going to see a new administration, new cabinet and potentially different priorities for the arctic. Really the only way to have a lasting arctic policy, a policy that goes beyond just the twoyear period that we have in front of us, we have to institutionalize this. We have to make it a policy that is supported across the aisle and supported across the nation. Thats what will make it enduring. So i am challenging not only this administration, but im challenging people around the country. Lets view this opportunity to chair the Arctic Council, to lead on a vision for the arctic that is endureing and its truly for the benefit of all in this country. Those who recognize that we are an arctic nation and those who are just beginning to discover the excitement and the opportunity that we hold as an arctic nation. With that, i thank you for the opportunity to be with you. I look forward to some questions in a bit. [ applause ] senator murkowski, thank you so much. That was a wonderful address. I love that national prioritization. As weve heard make the arctic a national imperative. Fantastic. I want to give us a warmup ask you one or two questions that have been on my mind. As i look across this room there is so much incredible arctic knowledge and expertise. Ill unleash the audience on you for the remaining minutes we have with you. My first question deals with u. S. Preparedness for arctic development. Earlier this week, i believe the comment out of the coast guard had made a statement that the United States is a bystander in the arctic. You and representative don young have had tough hearings with coast guard officials. Saying, where is the plan . Where is the readiness . I think theres been discussion of you beginning legislation on an infrastructure legislation. Its not just icebreakers, which we fixate on but its deep water ports Aviation Assets maritime domain awareness. Even if we the United States, decides not to develop, others are. Well have increased shipping, increased human activity. Whats your sense of where the where we need to be and the budget . Thats the hard part. How are we going to pay for this . Well, i have expressed concerns, and i will continue to express concerns about our readiness. Now, i dont fault the coast guard at all. The coast guard gets it. They know that we are lacking in deep water ports. They know that we have not sufficiently charted our arctic waters. They know that we need more navigational aids. They know that the communication gaps that exist up there must be addressed. And i think that they are internally quite concerned. Because they know where their budget is. We talk about an icebreaker. If coast guard were to take that out of their budget, they would have literally nothing for anything else. When we look at the infrastructure and the infrastructure needs in the arctic, this is not just the responsibility of the coast guard, who is tasked with ensuring that the safety in our arctic areas. This is, again, a national priority. This needs to involve multiagencies. It needs to involve everybody within the department of defense. It needs to involve the agencies within the department of interior. It needs to involve Homeland Security obviously. Again, we have got to get out of this little silo that the arctic is your responsibility. Part of what weve been dealing with to this point in time is this mindset that anything that has to do with the arctic is an alaskan earmark. Its not going to happen if it is viewed that way. Alaskans dont view it that way, and neither should anyone else in the country. Certainly not those in the administration. I have been pressing cabinet members when they come before the committees, whether its been appropriations subcommittees im on, energy or wherever. Where in this budget are we demonstrating that theres a priority . Because all of the agencies have been tasked to come up with your Strategic Plan. They probably spent more money coming up with Strategic Plans that do sit on a shelf than coming together to collaborate in defining how weirre going to accomplish these things. Weve known for years now we were going to be assuming the chair next week. Putting together a Strategic Plan is one thing, but making sure that we have demonstrated that priority by placing it within the budget, initiatives within the budget, thats where you demonstrate your commitment. We have havent seen that yet. So we hosted dr. John holdron to talk about the creation of the executive order that the white house released on creating this arctic executive steering committee, which he chairs. I asked a very similar question. Should me the money. Where is the budget . Lots of strategies but in the small print, each agency has to use within its existing resources. Which means it wont take it from a pot that youre already struggling to address the needs within your department. Tell me who is going to say, were going to put all these other responsibilities that we have had and were going to move the arctic up to the top. You think this new steering group, the deputy cabinet level, sub cabinet level, do you think that could provide the rigor to say, were going to fund this. Youre in a wait and see mode . Im in mississippi onthe missouri on this one. Dont tell the alaskans i said im from missouri. Let me move to the geopolitical strategic environment. This week, we heard from nordic ministers that characterized russia as the greatest threat to europes security. Particularly northern europes security. At the same time we had weve heard that from some of our own military leaders as well. Absolutely. At the same time, we had the Senior State Department official thats very engaged on the arctic saying russia is a partner. I am struggling with the concept of partner, yet im seeing extraordinarily aggressive actions, missing civilian airliners, a lot of military exercises in the arctic. Im getting repeated calls. Maybe you can help me. Reporters say, is this a new cold war . What are we seeing . Im growing increasingly concerned that the u. S. Government isnt focusing enough attention on this. What do you think . The foreign minister wont be at the ministerial. What is moscow sending us now on the arctic . I, for one, perhaps take the signal of aircraft in areas that are unexpected and unwelcomed and very aggressive. I take that as a strong signal that causes me great concern. There is a pushing of the envelope here with russia. If its not getting the attention of our leadership here in this country, im not quite sure what else we need to do. Youve heard me say today and as i go around the country that the arctic should be this zone of peace. I absolutely believe that adhere to it. But i also recognize that within a zone of peace, there is respect that you show for one another. What we are seeing right now is a an aggression in a way that, you know, were not going to make the front page of the news but were certainly on a2. With the aggressive behavior that were seeing out of russia right now. It causes me to wonder if they are not taking advantage of the fact that we have said, we want to be your friend. We want to be your partner in all of this. Well, if you want to be a partner, then you behave like one. You show that level of respect. Thats what were not seeing right now. So i think that we need to ensure that our signals are equally strong. And we say, thats not acceptable. Its not acceptable. And as much as we want to be working together we want to collaborate on scientific opportunities, we want to collaborate in areas of the environment, lets not say one thing on the one hand and then our actions take us in a different direction. We need to call russia out when russia needs to be called out. Very strong message. I know the audience is waiting. We dont have a lot of time but ill collect questions and ask the audience to keep them very, very short. If you could introduce yourself and the affiliation. Microphone will come your way. Sometimes you have to speak directly into the microphone. Please. Senator, formally with wwf and the state department. I wanted to compliment you first of all, and then ask one question. I come from the conservation side of the debate probably as far as that goes. On the other hand, i spent a lot of time way up north, and i agree with 90 of what you said about the benefits that Oil Development has provided to towns like waneright and the need they have of continued money to enter into the commercial and world economy. Be part of something while protecting their traditional ways of life. Granted, and i wanted to congratulate you on the realities of the budget. Honestly, having been in government its time for conferences where the agencies come forward and say Pretty Things and to be at the table saying how much money theyll pony up for what is a white house priority. It is or it isnt. You cant add it on top of the debt the agency is already struggling with. That wont work. I agree with you entirely. The question is the following. The thrust of your remarks and substance was that theres the debate between those who are concerned mostly with Climate Change and with the Natural Resource health of the arctic. And those who are concerned with the development of the people of the arctic. I wonder if there isnt a space somewhere in between, where one can be concerned with both . Specifically, that maybe development can occur in some places and not others in a discriminating way rather than an overwhelming way. Then the question is, if youre mostly concerned about the Human Development of the arctic communities, how do you make sure that the money from development doesnt shoot straight to houston, and some of it stays in the arctic . Its nice to benefit from royalties, but thats not enough honestly. How about jobs for the people up there . What do you do . Whats your program about that . Thank you, brooks. I think i saw a microphone there. I dont have a law of the sea question for you. The arctic nations russia by far has the most integrated development plan. Theyve gone through their budgets for different sectoral plans. The development of bases will serve as the nucleus for Economic Development as well. Is that something that we should be trying to work with on Economic Development building a regional arctic Economic Growth . If we dont do it i assume some of the port production or port operation facilities in Southeast Asia will be in there. Its not something we can stop by not participating. It seems like that region is an area that could be separated from the normal moscow washington tengsions weve had forever and have something that focuses more on a back channel for building a partnership in that region the arctic. Where we want to see reasonable Economic Development. The russians want to see Economic Development and reasonable environmental protection. Seems like there is an opportunity to Work Together in spite of the Strategic Issues that have gone on. Even after the cold war. Do you think theres an opportunity there to build that Regional Partnership between alaska and the russian far east, in spite of the tensions we have in our more strategic level dialogue . Thanks. Take one more sir. Then well let you answer. You remember all the questions . I will do my best. Audience, help me. With oil and gas journal. Following up on the question about where the money is going to come from to address these challenges. Would Public Private partnerships be an option to develop . How would they be developed . We had getting the revenues in, but where is the money and how do we keep the administration focused on the budget. Russia, how can we find those opportunities . Theyve done fabulous work with the administration. Resources and where they go. Ill speak to brooks question first because it is a key one. We do want to ensure that the benefits of Development Flow to the people that are in the arctic. I mentioned in my comments the benefit that the areas have seen with the value of natural gas coming to their community. Now, that was a very direct agreement between the producers and the people of those native villages. That resource would be made available to you, to them. That was transformative. You talk to the people, and that was transformative. You know youve been there. One of the things that i believe very strongly, we must incorporate our ability for increased revenue sharing. I have a revenue sharing measure that directs a portion of the revenues derived from offshore development, for instance, directly to the governmental structures within the north slope that would receive that would host the development but also then return benefit directly to them. I think that that has to be a significant and a key piece in ensuring that they receive that financial benefit. You speak very clearly to the reality of the people of the north. They want to ensure that they can be a participant in the cash economy. They want to ensure that they have certain amenamenities whether its clean water, sewers or level of energy coming to them. But they also want and require that access to the subsistence lifestyle that sustained them since time and memorial. How we find that balance there how we ensure there is a level of development that allows for that benefit but still provides for a level of management of those resources. This has got to be key. You suggest that perhaps there are certain areas that would not be subject to development. I think, in fact, there has been that discussion and that there is that direction. That when the caribou are migrating or the bow head are coming up, with the exploration plan, for instance, they are out of the water when the bow head are migrating. To allow for the whale captains and their crews to be out and have a successful hunt. Its pretty serious, the accommodations that go on to provide for that level, and it must be key. To the comment about Economic Cooperation with russia. I do think there are opportunities where we can be working together whether its search and rescue capacity or kind of establishing these maritime i dont know that i want to go so far as to describe them as a maritime commercial hub but effectively servicing points, if you will. Having the opportunity to build on the strength that russia will put in place, and that we can partner with. I dont think that we should assume that if russia moves forward, that we dont have to. Again, this notion that we can just sit back while everybody else engages and somehow that we would reap those benefits, i dont know that that is realistic. Ile i express my skepticism with what were seeing with russia right now i do recognize that we have built relationships. We certainly have between alaska and the russians directly as our neighbor there. We can build on it, but i am also very cautious in recognizing that the political tensions that we are experiencing with russia right now, perhaps erode a little bit of the desire for greater reliance on cooperation. Im just very cognisant of this. I would like to see a greater collaborative effort. But i think we know whether its from a research perspective, all the other arctic nations have been very willing to work with us. Russia has been, perhaps, a little more closed about sharing their data. We can talk about cooperation. Again, it has to be a twoway street here. Our final point on the funding. How does that development go back. Public private. I do believe that this is so much a part of our answer, is Public Private partnerships. Last year in the omnibus or no it was in the word a bill we advanced a measure to allow for not necessarily Public Private, but utilizing our state institutions in the state of alaska. We have ada, which is the Alaska Industrial development authority. It would allow for partnerships that could help build out, whether it is a deep water port or other infrastructure there. I think it is an important step. We did not advance the Public Private Partnership Concept because there were some that were a little anxious about, well, what happens if you have an oil company that would come in and want to do that private partnership . Im looking at it and saying if we are building out, an Infrastructure Project thats going to benefit the region, lets talk about this. I think that this is an opportunity for us, particularly as we face the reality of budgets that do not allow for the level of commitment to the arctic region that i think we need to address. I think that that is a positive avenue to explore. I think that we should be doing more in that area. Senator murkowski, thank you so much. This was so timely. We wish you very safe travels next week as part of the delegation. We look forward to seeing the outcome of the canadian chairmanship and the Arctic Economic Council, which is a deliverable for their chairmanship. And then the torch is passed to us. We look forward to the hearings and the leadership and guidance that you will provide. Please join me in thanks senator murkowski for being with us. [ applause ] because we have more to come, just one quick thing please refresh your coffee. Were going to do a scene change up here. We have an incredible conversation about the petroleum arctic study talking about Economic Development. Can i put a final plug in before people stand . Of course. Sorry. You can see, i get very energized and animated about the arctic opportunities. What i am finding exciting is what is happening with young people and their interest in the arctic. In my senate office, the enthuse yas asm is infectious. I have a couple young people in the audience today who went off to law school to focus specifically on the arctic. Ive got one who the a student at georgetown who has been helping me in his spare time because hes so focused on the arctic. I really do feel that when our young people view this as their future, theyre going to drag the rest of us along. So to the young people out there who are aiming high aiming north, thank you for your enthusiasm because this is whats going to make the difference. Thats a better way to end this conversation. Thank you so much. [ applause ] thanks, heather. Following senator murkowskis remarks, the group hosted a discussion on Economic Issues related to the arctic. Well hear from an executive with exxon, energy lobbyist, and the deputy to Energy Assistant secretary to oil and gas. Thank you travis. Must have been a loose wire. Thank you so much. Were now going to turn to a discussion, very much in keeping with senator murkowskis conversation about the need for Economic Growth and the importance of energy and Resource Development. We are going to turn to a panel that i will tell you a secret. All four of us on this panel have one thing in common. Probably a lot more than that, but i at least know one thing we have in common. That is we all participated in the National Petroleum councils Arctic Research study. I was just a supporting cast member on the subcommittee work. Drue as well. Our cocaptains on this subcommittee were none other than carol lloyd from exxonmobil and paula gant from the department of energy. I want to briefly introduce our wonderful power panel. And talk a little bit about the study, which was released on march 27th. I know carol and other colleagues have done some outreach about the study. You may know a little bit about it. You may have never heard about it. We wanted to share with you this study. More importantly, talk about a broader array of Arctic Energy re related issues. Maybe going beyond the study. Were grateful to have drue drue pearce here. Shes promised to give some new insights. Before i begin, let me introduce this wonderful and distinguished panel. Immediately to my left, dr. Paula grant, the Deputy Assistant secretary for oil and natural gas in the department of energys office of fossil energy. She administrates both domestic and International Oil and gas programs. She previously worked at the American Gas Association and duke energy. Also, she has an impressive academic background. To the far left, we have ms. Carol lloyd, who is the engineering Vice President at exxonmobils upstream research company. Shes also a long distinguished career both with Engineering Management at exxonmobil and imperial oil. She is the smartest person on technology ive ever met. If you have technical things, write to her. To my right we have ms. Drue drue pearce. Senior policy advicer at the Natural Resources and Government Affairs group. She is an alaskan and has been a senior advisers to two former secretaries of the interior on a range of issues. Specifically with alaskan affairs. She was the First Federal coop nader in the office of the federal coordinator for the alaska natural Gas Transportation projects. Its a mouthful. Drue is a legislator and served for 17 years in the alaskan state legislature. Shes going to help us in a powerful perspective from the state of alaska. So we have great slides. Each of the panelists have a short registration. Well begin with paula from the department of energys perspective. Turn to carol for the industry perspective. Drue is going to do cleanup, and then well ask questions and bring you into it. With that, thank you. Paula, the floor is yours. Thanks heather. Pleasure to be here today. Thanks everyone, for coming in from this beautiful spring day. Very pleased to see that spring has finally arrived in d. C. I think it was actually warmer in alaska when we were in juneau last week than it was in d. C. Its a funny world. Were really thrilled to have the opportunity to talk about the arctic and alaska and our oil and Gas Resources here today. Its a very important moment in our history, as we think about the arctic. I want to share a little bit of the administrations perspective on sort of where our head is right now on the arctic. I think many of you know, because youre in here focused on the arctic, the president set a national imperative for the u. S. To take a leadership role in ensuring stewardship of the arctic. As set out in the National Strategy for the arctic a couple years ago and the following implementation plan. Our leadership and our presence in the region will be vital over the coming decade to ensuring continued u. S. Leadership, and in setting standards of behavior and norms of behavior and activity in the region. As the Climate Changes and sea ice begins to be less prevalent in some areas and move around more in other areas were seeing an increased amount of activity in the arctic. From a commercial perspective significant increase in shipping activity. Or from a military perspective, with demonstrations of activity on other parts. As well as an increased presence of other countries looking at commercial opportunities. Even if they arent arctic nations, in the region. There is a tremendous opportunity for the United States to lead as this activity increases. Its within this context that the secretary of energy asked in october of 2013 that the National Petroleum council conduct a study, looking at what is the nature of the oil and gas resource in the arctic. And what are the technologies and practices available and or needed to ensure that those resources are developed in a prudent matter. Prudent encompasses as carol will talk through when she talks through the results of the Research Work prudent encompasses the idea that these resources are valuable and developing them have both national and Energy Security benefits. Also, these resources must be developed in a manner that minimizes the negative impacts on other Natural Resources, like our air and land and our water. As well as taking into account the benefits that can be accrued to local communities and the knowledge that local communities can contribute to the Resource Development. So that is the question or the request that the secretary made of the National Petroleum council. Carol in a bit is going to walk you through how the npc responded to the request. I want to talk for a couple of minutes. Heather has admonished me to be brief. Theres so much to talk about in this area. I know. The secretary was very pleased to receive the results of the study as heather mentioned, at the end of march. Its very timely, as many of you know. The u. S. Will assume the chairmanship of the Arctic Council in the next couple of weeks actually. We have an opportunity to work through our leadership of the council to ensure not only leadership and stewardship of the arctic environment, but also to find ways to enhance international cooperation. Through the Arctic Council, we have demonstrated an ability to cooperate internationally on science and technology. That forms the core of the secretarys request. Its a question about what are the science and technologies needed to ensure the oil and Gas Resources. In particular, what could the department of energy do to further advance science and technology . One of the key aspects of the recommendations that youll hear about today is a recognition that in order to develop, to realize the promise presented by our oil and Gas Resources in alaska, the Alaskan Arctic it will be absolutely vital to secure the Public Confidence that those resources can be developed in a responsible manner. In order to ensure the Public Confidence, we are going to have to make sure that we are conducting science and demonstrating technologies in transparent manners. That means in some sort of public manner. Whether its through the work of our National Labs. We have a network of National Labs across the country part of the department of energy. Whether its through Public Private partnerships, whether are referenced in the study. Or through academic work. In order for policymakers to rely on science and technology demonstration, and policymaking, that work is going to have to be done in a transparent manner that the public can have confidence in. I think youll see quite a few of the recommendations in the study have that in mind. We very much look forward to identifying ways the department of energy can be part of that continued research in that demonstration. Many will ask why the arctic . Why not . Outside of this leadership imperative. When we have such a tremendous abundance of domestic oil and gas in the lower 48. The simple answer to that question is that we make we should be making decision at a policy level that have our children in mind. The office that i have the pleasure and privilege of managing right now, the initial work was done in 1978 on horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing. George mitchell took it on and perfected it demonstrated in the barnett in knotnorth texas. That has been applied to a prolific resource found in many parts of this country. Both natural gas and oil and has generated an incredible abundance of domestic supply. The reason we need to be thinking about the arctic now is because it will take us a good decade of exploration and proving up this resource to get to the place where we are at a significant level of commercial production. So if you think about the work we did in 1978 to provide for the domestic supplies we have now, thats where we need to be in the arctic right now. This is about our children, securing their Energy Security. So thats the why now why the arctic. I encourage you all to take a look at the report that carol is going to share here in a bit. I think its a valuable contribution to our understanding of the oil and gas resource, as well as the environment in which it will be developed. And how we ensure its done in a prudent matter. Thank you for being here today. Thank you so much. I dont mean to be an ogre as far as time, but short presentations and lots of questions are always the best. Carol, walk us through the highlights of the Petroleum Councils work. Good morning and thank you so very much for the invitation to be here to talk about the arctic and to talk about the natural Petroleum Council study. I would offer for you three key take aways that im going to focus on in the next five to seven minutes. Then ill be pleased to take your questions. The first take away is the very collaborative process that was undertaken in this study. Paula mentioned it briefly. It may be tempting because of the name of the organization under which this study was done to dismiss it as an Industry Position piece, an industry advocacy document. It is not that. I hope to demonstrate that to you directly in the next few moments. The second key take away is that the u. S. Arctic potential is significant material in the future, as paula so ably articulated to you in her comments about our children. And the technology to access, to explore for and develop that u. S. Offshore arctic potential exists today based on technology that has been developed and proven in other jurisdictions. Finally, the key take away is what happens next. Ill close with some of the more important recommendations in the report from a technical perspective. Im happy to wear the cloak that heather has given me of the technical guru on the panel. Ill focus on those. Then leave drue pearce to talk about the other aspects which we discussed at great length with regard to the Arctic Council and our thoughts on the most important actions to undertake as the u. S. Transfers or assumes the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. With that, ill make a couple of comments with regard to the team that we assembled and the collaborative process. In the slide, you can see we had 266 participants from over 105 organizations. 43 of those were from the oil and gas industry. 30 from government, including washington and also the state of alaska and government representatives and 12 from academic institutions, not surprising given the research and technology. We saw the need to reach out to those institutions that were directly involved in research in the arctic and ice and logistics and topics which were relevant to our report. The remainder the remaining 15 roughly split between alaska native representation, consultants, think tanks and the environmental community. We met, we received the secretarys request. A Study Committee was formed and we developed a work plan that looks kind of like the one shown on the righthand side and tested that with the secretary of energy before we undertook our work. The result itself is split into three parts and the first part is Prudent Development and that includes a global perspective and Global Resource potential including the u. S. Onshore, offshore with the focus on conventional gas and it includes interesting facts with regard to the oil industrys long history of experience in arctic and arctic like conditions and it includes policy, history in the u. S. And it compares and contrasts u. S. Arctic policy with other nations. We describe at a high level what exploration in the arctic might take and what some of the challenges and opportunities might be other than technology. Thats part one. Part two and three are the majority of the report. Its 550plus page report and those are the research and technology sections. There is an Engineering Section that includes four chapters, with the exploration and Development Technology and the logistics and the very important topic of Oil Spill Response and then the environmental section includes ecology and the human environment. These two teams assess the current state of technology and the current state of ongoing research, assessed gaps and selected opportunities for the Current Administration and the department of energy to pursue. Those opportunities were prioritized and the most important ones highlighted in the executive summary for consideration. A very, very collaborative report. A broad and deep team that came together to have conversations first, do analysis and then come to conclusions. We worked for more than a year. We did not start putting pen to paper on recommendations until the last two months of this study. The next topic is that i wanted you to take away is that the u. S. Arctic potential is significant and the technology exists to explore for and develop it safely today and ill develop that further in the next five minutes or so. There are seven key findings in the report, in the executive summary. You can see them listed and summarized on this page and the order is important. It was this is first and foremost, a Technical Report and the order follows a logical, technical order. In finding one we describe the size of the oil and gas resource potential and ill tell you more about that in a subsequent slide. In finding two we explore the arctic ecological, physical and human environment which we found was well understood after decades of research from many different institutions and organizations. In finding three, we explore the oil and gas industrys long history of successful operations in the arctic which has been enabled by continuing technology advances. More than a century of experience that starts with the very Coldwater Development in norman wells in canada and then moves forward to the cook inlet in the u. S. Exploration programs in the u. S. And canadian seas in the 70s and 80s and moves into the development rain beginning in the rough 1990s through to the present day. In finding four, perhaps the most important in the study or one of the most important, most of the u. S. Arctic conventional oil and gas potential can be developed using existed field proven technology. Of course, we recognize the technical know how is not enough in order to move forward the Development Must be economically viable as we discussed in finding five and we must also have Public Confidence that the opportunity can be pursued in a prudent manner as paula described earlier and as we describe in the report in finding six. We recognize that were not there in the u. S. With the Public Confidence. We note in the report the shared responsibility between the oil and gas industry and the government in securing and maintaining this Public Confidence and then finally in finding seven we outline the substantial recent Technology Improvements in the area of Oil Spill Prevention and Oil Spill Response in ice. Those Technology Improvements have not yet been fully accepted in the u. S. Which opens up the opportunity for Collaborative Research in the public forum as paula discussed and we see those in the recommendations which ill show to you shortly. Briefly, on resource potential, we use the u. S. Geological surveys assessment and in the pie chart on the left you see the assessment and the global potential and global endowment in the arctic is 923 billion barrels of Oil Potential and as we move to the 4 00 position we see roughly onethird is in produced and reserves entirely in u. S. And russia. The 4 00 position starts the discovered and not yet developed and there are no Development Plans in the books for those resources and about 100 billion barrels and the majority look at that 51 or 426 billion barrels of undiscovered potential in the global arctic. The global arctic contains the Worlds Largest accumulation of undiscovered oil and gas hydrocarbons. So splitting that potential, that global potential by country is shown on the right. You can see by inspection that russia is by far the largest holder of that global potential, but look who is second. Its none other than the u. S. Focusing on the Oil Potential we see the Oil Potential in russia and the u. S. Is roughly equivalent and the u. S. Has more Oil Potential than either canada or greenland other than norway. So this illustrates the Significant Resource potential in the global arctic and then in the u. S. We discuss in the report why to pursue the arctic now and paula covered that point. In the third bullet on the slide we talk about the National Security and economic benefits associated with oil and Gas Development in the north and for those of you that were here this morning to hear senator murkowskis remarks on the economic benefit of oil and Gas Development to local alaskans i dont think i can say it any better than she did, but for those of you that like numbers theres quite a lot of discussion in the report about the potential economic implications of an offshore development. I would encourage you to take a look at that. This particular display is illustrates the variability in arctic ice conditions around the world. There is not one arctic. In the first two columns in this table we describe arctic environment. By environment we describe of ice depth and water depth. In the first column you have a word description and in the second column we have the examples around the world where that environment is found. The third column is the Technology Implications on oil and Gas Development. You can think of these as technology tiers. Tier one being the first rough rowan roughly the easiest, although easiest is a relative term in an area as remote as the arctic and tier 5 being the most difficult from a technology perspective. You will note immediately that there are pictures in tiers 1, 2 and 3 and no pictures in tier 4 and 5 and thats because tiers 4 and 5 have not yet been proven, not yet, i always say. Im in the Research Business and thats what were working on now. The other item i would point out to you is the red text illustrates where the u. S. Potential is located and the majority of the u. S. Potential, 90 of undiscovered potential is assessed to be in the buford in less than 100 meters of water depth and you can see the photos in tier 3 you can see Exploration Technology which was demonstrated in the 70s in the canadian and u. S. Overseas and they were in the 2000s and in the 90s and 2000s and finally with regard to well control Technology Improvements, theres been significant improvement post the macondo tragedy and also by the regulators. This particular display we call the bow tie for obvious reasons. At the center of the bow is a loss of containment event and on the left hand side are all of the prevention technologies available to eliminate and reduce the risk of a well containment event occurring in the first place and usually these topics, Oil Spill Prevention and Oil Spill Response are separated and the prevention side is the engineering domain and the response side tends to be an environmental domain. In our report we brought those industrys objective and the objective of stakeholders to prevent them from taking place in the first place. Ill direct your attention to the picture of the sea bed emergency shutin device. These are the new technologies that i mentioned that have been recently developed and we see the need for additional Collaborative Research to validate these technologies which the industry views as proven and adopt them for full use in the u. S. Finally, with regard to what comes next, ive highlighted as promised on this chart the key recommendations coming out of the report, the key technical recommendations. We have grouped the recommendations into three teams, environmental, stewar