Transcripts For CSPAN2 Energy Development In The Arctic 20171116

Existing fan on gas and oil leasing and republicans and democratic senator john manchin voted in favor of the bill while the rest of the committees democrats voted against it. Alaskas senator Lisa Murkowski chairs the committee. [inaudible conversations] good morning everyone. The committee will come to order. Before we begin this mornings marked up i would like to send a special welcome to some of the folks that are here this morning, there 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 it is important that they are here with us today so we welcome them. I would also like to add just a farewell at the same time that we acknowledge a welcome. I do not see angela but she is over there. Angela who has been staff director i understand is moving back to the west coast. And this is perhaps your last day on the committee or last week on committee and i just, i want to acknowledge the work that you have done. I think that certainly, the staff on outside have enjoyed the working relationship that we have had with you some interesting and challenging issues and your leadership has been greatly appreciated. We will miss you here. Thank you. [applause] lets get to work and we are to mark up legislation to allow responsible Energy Development in a small portion of a nonwilderness area in northeast alaska. When reporting this legislation pursuant to the reconciliation instruction that we received under house concurrent resolution 71. Which is the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018 to raise at least 1 billion in revenues over the next 10 years. Both the house and the Senate Passed the resolution through regular order process including debate and a roll call vote on an amendment here in the senate that attempted to strike our communities instruction. We then followed the passage of the budget resolution with a regular order hearing and it was over four hours in length almost november 2 to reset a focused exclusively on the 1002 area. And if we can go with or notice that is required by our three day rule. I released the text of the reconciliation legislation that we have before us today. We have given members plenty of time to review the legislation and certainly consider possible amendments. Again, this was done in regular order so that we may report to the Senate Budget committee. Our text as you have seen is four pages long. Just 587 words total. I think it presents a tremendous opportunity for both alaska and our nation. The authorize an oil and gas with the framework used to manage the nearby and pra. We required to sales over the next 10 years and apply a royalty of 16 67 percent or 16 on the production that results. We have split the revenues from Development Evenly between the federal government and the state of alaska. This is an agreement that we are willing to make out of necessity even though our state had act and our mineral leasing act provided for a 90 10 split in alaskas favor. We also have limited Service Development to just 2000 federal acres. With the 1. 5 million acre 1002 area which itself, is just a percent of the 19. 3 million acre refuge. I keep telling that to the map of anwr to remind you that that is the area furthest to the north. The one for 5 million acres that was specifically set aside under for consideration of oil and Gas Exploration. It is separate from any wilderness, it is separate from the refuge itself. When we talked about where the 10 o2 sats and how it sets as a function, i think it is important to keep that in mind. Some have claimed that we are on the verge of ruining the area with developing but we are talking about 2000 total federal acres, just one 10,000 of anwr itself. That is also important to understand that we are not preempted the Environmental Review process in this legislation. We have not preempted the Environmental Review. Nor have we limited the consultation process with alaskan natives in any way. All relevant laws, vacations and executive orders will apply under this language. They estimate that the legislation will raise 1. 092 billion in federal revenues over the next 10 years. We recognize that that is significant sometime enough to meet our instruction. 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 10 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 through college. We will help Keep Energy Affordable saving families and businesses money every time they pay for fuel essentially and energy tax cuts. Will ensure a steady supply of energy for west coast refineries in state washington and california and reverse the foreign imports have taken hold as a leftist production has declined. Of Course Energy securities and National Security will hand in hand. 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 a herd at the hearing to restore the site of development had to decrease by roughly 80 percent. 80 percent since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface rage of the newest rigs by 4000 percent over the same. Many escalation walls are built 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 are now almost 50 years old. We are far past those now. Alaskans understand this. That is why so many of us strongly support development. That is why you heard from senator sullivan and congressman young. We heard from our independent governor and our democratic lieutenant governor. We heard from alaskan natives who actually live on the north slope whose voices gently are often ignored in the debate. And who 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 of commerce, the trucking association, labor organizations, state legislators but republican and democrats. In hundreds and hundreds of alaskans that have either called my office or written statements for the record in support. All of them support responsible Energy Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. Alaskans know we must delve the potential impact of development. I will be the first to agree that the environment and local wildlife will always be a concern and that is why we have not avoided Environmental Reviews. That is why consultation requirements will apply and that is why we have limited Service Development to a total of just 2000 federal acres. We will not sacrifice the caribou, the polar bear way the migratory birds for the sake of development. But we also recognize that that is not a choice that we face here. That is not what has happened where the central arctic caribou herd has grown. And no matter how hard sums tried to make this an either or proposition there is no question that the protections can and do exist in america. If we are lucky move phone with development we will do it right. Well take care of the land, the wildlife and our people. I would not support development i was not convinced that we can do it safely. And the alaskans and the audience this morning, many who flew down from the north slope to be here in support of our efforts, would not support development if they thought it threatened their land and cultures. Alaskans will do this the right way. We will protect the environment, providing substantial economic benefits all across america. I would encourage members to set aside the old arguments, to recognize the opportunities before us and find me in taking the next step by voting in favor of our reconciliation legislation. I will check to senator cantwell for her Opening Statement and then i will outline for colleagues schedule for the morning. Senator cantwell. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for recognizing angela on our team. 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 Ranking Member. Angela, i just wanted to remember the saying, third times a charm. [laughter] i know that this is great we do appreciate your help. I think that the statement about her being here today is a remembrance of what we really should be doing here. It is Pretty Amazing that we all Work Together to pass an energy bill 85 a12 of the United States senate with hundreds of priorities and members on both sides of the aisle both on the next phase of energy on land, on a full 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 it is only through during our regular order that this can even be considered. Energy and Natural Resources committee has been instructed to raise 1 billion. At the same time, the finance committee is trying to increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion with tax cuts corporations and millionaires while they are raising taxes on 13 nine americans including over 300,000 in my state. The fact that our Committee Contribution to that deal is about 7 100 of one percent of the republicans increase deficit spending shows that this is not serious budget proposal. It is a cynical effort to open up the heart of the arctic wildlife refuge for oil. And i am sure at the heart of it is the interest of alaskans. Not saying alaskans economy does not deserve the nations attention. I believe it does. I have made many recommendations and well so again today about how to help alaska. But the notion that oil prices have fallen and the state has been overreliance on oil does not mean that we should be destroying a wildlife refuge today. The mark removes the statutory prohibition against oil and Gas Development. And it reminds me of the debate that happened when people wanted to establish the grand canyon. We cant do that, we can do that, we needed for other things thank god there was a stewardship in the country to preserve the grand canyon. Instead legislation before this committee would require that the refuge coastal plan be placed in oil and Gas Development. So it really does turn regular order on its head. Last week, this committee did not have a hearing on this legislation. That is the Nuclear Water in the United States senate. The republicans in charge here, instead of working in a bipartisan and regular order process, have not determined the only way that you can get legislation through here, is by having hearings without the legislation, hiding the information from the general public and then throwing it out and when you realize your own colleagues do not want it, edging it overnight and then trying to rush it through in breakneck pace. That is the open process of thesenate . If you stand for these and is, then you and your colleagues should follow regular order. The chairmans mark was circulated after the hearing. Now we are being asked to vote on legislation that is different from any previous arc bill and has not been subject to a single hearing to help evaluate the impact on this crown jewel. At its core, the chairmans transport would manage and change current law of the arctic wildlife refuge and turn it into a Petroleum Reserve. That is what this does. Friends the coastal plain in this refuge into and oilfields. Like to submit for the record, a letter from 27 different scientists and biologists say that this is incompatible with the size of the refuge. I like to submit the record is about a letter from both democrat republicans and independent u. S. Senate assistant secretary of interior fish and while the director of Us Wildlife Service will also say it is inconsistent. And madam chair, i will hold onto the other one. What we are doing today is just creating another avenue, and another avenue by legislation to change the Wildlife Reserve because we ask this question. How could it possibly coexist given what the purpose of the refuge is . So that is easily changed. Villages change a purpose of the refuge. But info and so, you are doing great damage to the wildlife and habitat and the diversity of the area. This would directly Oil Gas Program in the arctic to be managed under the same laws and regulations as the Petroleum Reserve. That is despite the fact that they were established for very different purposes. They are subject to different laws and management requirements and they are not even managed by the same agencies. By imposing the requirements, you just raised more questions than your answer. And we will have several amendments to try and clarify this. And what we think is wrong with this mark. These amendments will attempt to return us to regular order ensuring that the purpose of the refuge remains true to the reason it was established. The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlife that lived there. It is amazing to me, but the run over of the cra that happened earlier this year, is almost as if you want to run a newspaper ad saying, come and hunt in the arctic wildlife refuge by helicopter, by guessing polar bears in their dens. 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 and this is a whole new style and message i guarantee you that is not what is unique about alaska. That is not why thousands of people go there every year and have impact dear economy. They go there to enjoy the beauty and the wonder and the great significance that your state is. This marked is not done in compliance with environmental law. And it is definitely not done in compliance with what every other state and refuge does. Most importantly, i do not agree that you should manage the wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. We will have many questions, for example, how will it work with the fish and Wildlife Service being responsible for the management under one set of laws and the bureau of Land Management being under another set of laws . What happens when there is inevitable conflict in all of these issues . Does every word of the followup time were just parts of it . How do we know what part supply and which do not . How will they last and under what authority . There are many many questions here. But, at the heart of this, i think it was best that in the letter we received yesterday from jane goodall. And that is, let us not u let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We have other sources of energy, please, i beg you, please use your voice and your vote is assented to protect the people and this american treasure that is the arctic wildlife refuge. So madam chair, no, we do not think this is what we should be doing today. No, we do not think this is regular order, we do not think it is right to manage a wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. No, we do not think your protecting environmental law or stewardship. And so, we are very, very frustrated by this process. I guess it matches in tandem with our community and colleagues on finance where they are. I know several people running back and forth between those committees. I think that you should ask yourselves about a process that is continually running over regular order and without the input from the public on a specific market. With that, madam chair, and have his take time to ask questions. Senator cantwell, you mentioned the reality that we are facing this morning. There are multiple committees that are meeting. I know senator barrasso is chairing a committee in. And others are very busy this morning. I would try to get to the series of amendments that we have before us. There were over 50 that have been filed. Today, i also want to recognize that we are scheduled to have three votes at noon today. It would be my intention that we try to move as expeditiously and efficiently as we can hear. But, i think you also know, those of the you that have been on this committee would be for the years i have been sharing, ive run the committee and a manner and a way that is respectful of other members and. Trying to balance that with competing demands on everyones time. I would ask as we processed a series of amendments that we have in front of off, that instead of introductions that last 15 or 20 minutes, that which to truncate the time and get our point across quickly and move on to the next. I also recognize that in order to facilitate our work, we are going to be in a situation where we will have some amendments, processing amendments, requires eight members to work in form, it would be my intention that we have an opportunity for member to bring up an amendment, have a debate on each and then move to the next and then we will stack the votes. It is my intention that we would ask all members to be present here for as much of the hearing, the marked up this morning as possible. But at 1130 we will then turn to stack votes and hopefully be able to process all of the committees business before that time. Recognizing that it is a lot of work but i think we certainly are capable of doing just that. I would like to proceed to initial amendments. Senator cantwell, you have identified a series of amendments from members on your side and i will certainly defer to you which one you would choose to call up first. Madam chair, since we like to clarify with staff, some questions here. And so, i would hope that in the process of regular order, which is done mostly anytime you mark up a bill or when a bill is before a committee, you have a chance to ask questions. We would so appreciate the ability to better understand this. We can certainly do that although i would anticipate that as a result of individual amendments are before us, we would have the opportunity to consult with staff to that but, if there are specific questions that you have of staff that we can dispense with quickly, we will. Chris greg, thank you. Determines mark as new proposed purpose to the refuge, to provide for coastal oil and Gas Development and a coastal plain, how many other National Wildlife refuges have development of oil and gas programs as a refuge . I will go ahead and turn t mr. Kelly. Can i ask our counsel . You can, but i would also just include for the companys information, crs report dated yesterday, two days ago, november 13. It does detailed oil and gas operations within the National Wildlife refuge system. That details where they are and how they are managed. Not only on federal oil and gas operations but nonfederal oil and gas operations and oil and gas activities in Alaska National wireless refuges pits i think it is instructive to the committee. Madam chair. Yes . Wouldnt post the results of existing race that existed before the creation of the refuge as opposed to something developed by the government after the creation of the refuge . It is a mix of both. Some were pre creation of the refuge and others were i am not aware. I think you clarify the question, the question was a purpose as a refuge. So the element of oil and gas programs as a refuge purpose. That is what you are doing here. Which not only sets the precedent, it sets the precedence for what happens in the future. You are saying, a wildlife refuge purpose is for oil and Gas Developments. You would take that unique stream of what would happen with upper refuges in the future, but you can 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 call mingle ideas. Development and preservation of wildlife can and should occur together. Anything that we have a list here for biologists and other people and scientists and republicans and democrats and independents that say no, this is not a good idea. So it is not that you havent had a previous wildlife and a colleague from new mexico said may have guaranteed rights grandfathered integrity is that youre putting into the purpose, the purpose of the refuge is to have oil development. Senator cantwell, before we can to step i think it is important to recognize, we are not turning entire 19 million acre refuge into a refuge that will host oil and gas programs. We are including within an allowance right purpose that is in the 1002 area. Not within the rest of the refuge. The rest of the refuge remains in place. What we are talking about is the 1. 57 million acres in the coastal plain that was specifically set aside for further study and potential future oil and Gas Exploration. That is the distinction here. That is the distinction that we laid down. That not only the entire record, not the entire 19. 64 million acres. But it was specifically designated in this that the area would be reserved specific for further study and potential future oil and Gas Exploration. So what we are doing is making a consistency with what was outlined in anil cut itself back in 1980. So this is not turning the wildlife refuge close to 20 million acres into an oil and gas fields. We are speaking specifically to the tenants area. Do you want to see what we already limit to 2000 federal acres. It is a tentative area legally part of the arctic wildlife refuge . Yes, senator it is. Okay severe talking about protecting it. We are talking about we do not want to see oil and Gas Development will have a chance to vote on a narrow footprint they tried to articulate with people but we know that you will vote against that because you know that you are not really limiting it to that area. Is a question for sam . X, that isnt. That is a statement. So, can i ask another question . The coastal plain is considered by legible the refuge. That there is a conflict between the proposing purpose of protecting wildlife and Wildlife Habitat in diversity and having oil programs and guest programs developed in which prevails under the chairmans market . Senator, under current law, there can be no oil and gas develop men in any refuge unless the fish and Wildlife Service determines that it is compatible with the purpose for which that refuge is established. And the secretary of the interior gets his approval and consent to the lease and development. Under the mark, the fish and Wildlife Services are largely excluded from his whole process and is that it is transferred to the bureau of Land Management. And the chairmans mark specifically says that the bureau of Land Management is to manage the refuge in accordance with the National Rolling reserve Petroleum Reserve protection act. It is different than what you find in the National Wildlife Refuge Administration act. Under the Refuge Administration act, and the development can occur unless it will not materially interfere or detract from the purpose in which this was established in this case it was established to protect wildlife and its habitat. Whereas under the protection act, exploration can proceed certainly with protecting wildlife but only to the extent consistent with the exploration purpose. For the purpose rolling reserve. And in addition, leasing activities and development and production of oil can occur. They just need to be medicated for foreseeable and significantly adverse effects. That is a very different standard. Under the current law, the predominant purpose of a refuges protecting wildlife and under the chairmans mark, predominant purpose of the tentative area of the refuge would become the leasing and oil and Gas Development program. I will ask you to explain to the committee that with the reference Management Company npr a plan and the consultation that blm has within that construct with fish and wildlife, along with other federal state and local agencies, that effectively, you have fish and wildlife corroborating agencies, consultation. Can you address the implications there when you have this management within the npra construct as this chairmans mark outlines. Yes, senator. I would like to note 1st that the blm leasing on federal land north of the federal resource including plans of their agencies including fish and Wildlife Service. Just to clarify, that is not only in alaska but it is around the country . Yes. You can go onto land and manageable oil and gas purposes even if it is a refuge. Here, we are adding to the purpose of anilca as conference contemplated in 1980 four just the coastal plain aspect of the 1002 area for just the 1. 5 million acres. The rest of the refuge will be continued to be administered by the fish and Wildlife Service as a refuge. We talked about the refuge compatibility act. It is really anilca that will guide this. And in anilca there is a compatibility act to be complied with. Were not deeming compliance, we are not deeming compatibility. But what we talk about the tentative area, when anything eligibility determination they should look at the congressional intent behind establishing oil and gas program on the coastal plain. Thank you. Is pretty clear that is what the intent is. To establish because we are mandating the leasing. And you are mandating that the money be in the budget and your mandating that the production happens. So there is no doubt about that. That is all going to happen under this proposal. There is no question that it is budget affect the caribou in which they do not have a food source, what is going to happen . The leasing and the drilling will happen regardless of their objections. We do established and administer a Competitive Oil and gas program. With pleasing Development Protection and transportation of oil and gas in and from the coastal plains. I would like to ask staff, isnt it true that this effectively waives the requirements of the Refuge Administration act . s,senator i believe it does. Because you were asking earlier about oil and Gas Development on wiley refuges. There is not a single wildlife refuge in the system that i am aware of that has oil and gas develop meant as a purpose as the chairmans mark would provide for the arctic. There are in fact hundred and three 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 i believe are grandfathered in prior to the refuge being established. I think they are another eight refuges that did have federal oil and gas leases but they too were grandfathered in. I do not believe the fish and Wildlife Service has made a compelling ability determination to a single wildlife refuge lease since the enactment of the Refuge Administration at. But 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 what is essentially being circumvented by simply adding a new purpose which is oil and Gas Development and then on top of that, shifting management of the refuge over to the national Petroleum Reserve production act of 30. Again, just point out that what we are talking about is this 1002 area. This area that was specifically set aside. Under anilca in 1980, 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. I have a question about anilca. Go ahead. As i said, i think it is very clear with the answer of the tenant to being within the National Wildlife refuge. Because i have been here for many debates on this in the past it is very clear that defendant is part of the arctic wildlife refuge and many conferences have turned down the same proposal that we are considering today. That is to drill in the 1002. So the blm 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 these departments but how that impact the ability to work in this case . Isnt it a problem that legislation has already directed the out . So what happens in the event if a friend or a Significant Impact to wildlife . None of the Environmental Reviews are waived. It is still in place as are all of the other esa, on the other Environmental Reviews are out there remain. That is not touched mccammons mark. The chair is correct that the chairmans mark does not waive this. There is a body of law however, that indicates where agency has no discretion where it is basically performing at ministerial act doing something that has to do under statutory direction and has no discretions to how to go about it. That the whole point of well a two of the points are effectively eliminated. The court has said that they have two purposes. One is to provide informed decisionmaking by providing information on Environmental Impact to the decisionmaker so the decisionmaker can decide not to take an action or take a different action in order to avoid the environmental consequences. And if the decisionmaker has no question in the matter, there is no point in doing an Environmental Impact statement. In some cases they have said in that case, there is a statutory conflict and no Environmental Impact statement is required. There is still a second purpose that is to inform the public. That is so they can be informed on participation. There will be a purpose as of then having an Environmental Impact statement prepared to the public would know the Environmental Impact statement in the right mental impact of the Land Management taking under statutory instruction. Madam chair. I have a question in process. Before we moved to that and go off, i would like ms. Donnelly to address us because i think it is important part of this discussion here this morning and will probably facilitate a quick process for the amendment as soon as we can fit them. I think it is important for college so that when it comes environmental regulations out there, they stay in place. That there is, when we say that no environmental laws are being wavelet phase nefa, esa, clean water, clean air, everything applies. There is a multistep process that goes on here. Given integrated activity plan that was developed which is a very open process. You adopt the iap three record decisions. Then you move to exploration and discovery and predevelopment. Then development is approved and there is a process throughout each one. Where again, you have a level of regulatory and Environmental Review of consultation and of a public engagement. So kelly if you can speak to that and then will go to the senator. Is exactly right, chairman. Nefa is not waived in the chairmans mark. They will have to do that at the beginning and through every step of the process. Through every step. Yes it will be an open public process. I will let you keep going on this point. And i you going to go over. Yes, im sorry. This is very important discussion. I want to be clear, modern fear that because after step over to finance committee. I would be within the timeframe to offer an amendment at that point. Yes. Thank you. On this, you may not be waving nefa technically. But what youre doing is mandating a process that basically waives nefa. So the word nefa waiver may not be there but in the npra, the blm and it cannot legally select a nonaction alternative. Youre putting into place a process by the language of this legislation, mandating the sale, mandating development, not giving people an alternative to select other by putting it to contest the management of the refuge under its original purpose being obstructed by a new purpose. Wed still with this all the time. The language underwent people make decisions determines how they make decisions. And you are confusing the purpose of a refuge by saying the purpose of the refuge is for oil development. So it makes it nearly impossible for the wildlife consideration to win under this language. As a corrective blm not being able to legally select a nonalternative action . Yes, senator that is. That was the case in the national Petroleum Reserve alaska which is the exact same statutory framework that would be applied to the refuge. Kelly . Through this process blm will be able to have a range of alternatives and also be able to analyze action alternative to however, it would not be appropriate for them to select a new action alternative since congress is establishing an oil and gas program in the 1002 area. Okay, there you go thank you. Does counsel agree that the language constructed in a way that would not require fish and wildlife concurrence . Yes, senator. I believe that under anilca, youll have to make a compelling ability determination. If someone costs this guy, then a bird got a letter from him. He agrees that they can happen concurrently. This is a guy that basically wants to raise park fees and in a variety of things that we do not need to get into today. So yeah. Okay. No Teddy Roosevelt there. Come on yeah. Yes, this is a process here in which we are going to hold accountable, the department of interior for agreeing under question that these purposes can exist. We will not finish with the secretary today. But i guarantee you, we will continue to pursue the fact that his conclusion is that without this, they can agree pay without this they can occur together. So i guarantee that his current legal thinking. Senator cantwell, i would remind you that we have interior secretary, they go and happy different perspectives for the last one that we lived with had an entirely different one and it was a view and it was a perspective that certainly helped to lock up alaska for a considerable period of time. I will enter into the record his letter that we received when we asked the question last weekend we will come back to it. Okay, i would remind our colleagues that we do have over 50 amendments and well, i know that getting these answers out on record will help expedite the discussion. We do want to save in taking these up. Well, i think out of courtesy to your office, which we have had zero courtesies in this debate, we told you which amendments they were likely to consider today and we said they were under 15. I think you should just allow us the courtesy to ask these questions so we can establish. I have been allowing the courtesy. Thank you. Does the council a copy that the language as instructed would not blm only estimate concurrence to did i get an answer on that, fish and wildlife concurrence . Yes, senator. Why should we have that language to preserve . The court said that one of the purposes of the refugee Administration Act was to prohibit joint administration. That it makes it exclusively the jurisdiction of the fish and Wildlife Service to administer it. That point secretary waltz attempted to administratively shift responsibility to his ju Geological Survey was country. Congress can legislatively overturn the act but that would be a major change in the way these are administered. Under the leasing act limits judicial review by requiring legal challenge to be barred within 60 days after the publication of the federal register. With these limitations be applied here . Part of the difficulty of figuring out what will happen if the National Petroleum reduction act was written for the impurity enough for wildlife refuge. The chairmans mark says they are to manage the arctic reference in accordance with that production act. In translating the words creates many unanswered questions. Is the correct that blm blm manages other refugees for oil and Gas Production purposes. But under the regulations there are specific provisions about giving fish and Wildlife Service authority to concur over the time, place, nature of the operations which under the chairmans mark by transferring jurisdiction and transferring the Statutory Authority from which is managed to the production a changes all of that. Because the chairmans mark talks about blm managing in accordance with the refugee act does not say the court has to construe its jurisdiction based upon the production act. Because the statute of limitations in the production act is a restriction on the jurisdiction of the court rather than how blm manages and i would argue a court should not be bound by that provision. Again, all of these questions will be litigated. The statute has complaints to be brought within 60 days. I would expect that to govern. That does not decide on the venue or cause of action. Does it deemed previous environmental studies to have been fulfilled under the requirements for the first two sales . We are calling for need but in the chairmans marks. And saying that it is now going to be administered in accordance with the refugee act it creates confusion. The former chairman used to say that a wellpaid bar is the bulwark of the public. I think we make clear there are no Environmental Reviews that are waived. That is underscored. You are changing the purpose of moving it to an agency does not have to consider the same laws and now has a conflicting purpose and a mandate. Ultimately it will change the purpose. I dont think when he still have in place your laws related to endangered species, when all that remains in place to suggest that we are waving these important loss is not accurate. The mpr a laws do not seem to include productions for critical habitat. How will this be affected by the mpr leasing act . It sure those habitats are protected . I can speak to that. It goes back to the framework of the mpr a statute. We will be managing under that management program. If you look to the many stipulations, the best Management Practices and stipulation that would be incorporated, is speak specifically to habitat, not only you mention critical habitat but the entire north of alaska has been designated under the Obama Administration is critical habitat for the polar bear. We have contained in the stipulations are not only interaction plans, protect grizzly bear, theres a whole host of stipulations that speak to the areas of protection and how we are to ensure protection of the species in the area. Could you repeat . The mpr doesnt seem to protect critical habitat. How will the mpr a provisions which dont include protection of the polar bear impact their critical habitat . Is it the same standard under the wildlife management. Nyman the chairmans mark nor the Petroleum Reserve production act waive the endangered species act. Here are my that the endangered species act authorizes the secretary of interior to issue incidental take permits. Namely you can kill the endangered species according to an incidental permit that is issued. Those permits can be issued for any lawful activity which oil and gas activity would become a lawful activity within critical habitat of the chairman set mark is enacted. As counsel said, yes is not waived, this section seven consultation was still apply under the rags when they came out in 2013 they came forth with these and in that they have specific revision just on polar bears in this process. Blm can mitigate going forward, we know the technological advances that they have looking for dens to avoid them. So action can still take place on the north slope. The issue i guess i would say to counsel on both sides is that youre changing the management status. To think you get the same management status from an agencys whose purse purpose has just been changed. Thats why we have the letter from the scientist, democrats republicans and independents. They say cant coexist. I know people would like to think that these caribou would like to cozy up to a pipeline but thats not true. The issues we have an Indigenous People who are there who need the support of this food source and their migratory habits are at question. Im amazed people want to throw away such an unbelievable ecological jewel of our planet. I dont mean just our nation, our planet. The factor government has spent millions of dollars, that we have a National Treaty with canada to protect them. We have their migratory habits for scientific purpose have been amazing the notion that we think now building oil rigs next to them and changing the ability to protect them is critical is somehow compatible with oil drilling is just not true. Pc another agency, be like saying you would turn over the purpose of the epa to the faa say they both have something to do with the skies in air. If youre going to manage the skies and carbon based on what they faa or the epa says it would be the point is you change in the standard of the agencies. By doing so youre going to change the management. You have been clever and maybe not purposely so, maybe you believe it but this is what the intent is going to be. The challenge we face we think its a critical habitat that should be protected and is not consistent with oil and Gas Development. I have allowed as a courtesy to into all members this is an opportunity to ask questions of clarification of our Legal Counsel. I also recognize that is an opportunity for debate as we try to advance through the amendments. If there are specific questions i would like to be addressed were Legal Counsel the require legal responses lets finish those so we can move to the amendments. Have a question on the mpr a leasing act to reduce rental fees or minimum royalties. Does that mean 16. 67 realty would be reduced. That would remain the rate. My reading is that when the chairmans mark makes the production act, the statute under which the refuges administer that provision would apply. The chairmans mark sets forth royalty rates. One of the things is the requirement to manage in accordance with the production act which gives the secretary authority to decrease or eliminate the royalty if they think thats appropriate. This means that we were talking specifically on an issue thats what governs. Thank you. I think this is a big point of departure. Very difference of opinion by Legal Counsel which can happen. Again, very important part of this realty issue. There is great concern about how this is managed in the future and the concept of what royalties and revenues will be there and what sleightofhand could be used to change that dynamic as opposed to what were doing is a legislative perspective. Madam chair, i suggest we go to amendments. That answers a lot of our questions. Definitely answers the premise of our concerns about the chairmans mark both on the fact that it does change existing on a significant way. Depending on how you want to perceive we can call up and amendment. It appears all the amendments members seek to have brought forward today for discussion appeared to be on your side. I will defer to as to which we take up first. Cassidy 16 is not going to be considered . We dont believe so. Lets go to cantwell number three which is the chairmans mark adds new purpose to the arctic wildlife refuge to provide oil and gas refuge on the coastal plain. This editions is contrary to the purposes which are to conserve fish and wildlife populations that fulfill the interNational Treaty obligations of the United States and to provide in a manner inconsistent with the first two. The opportunity for consistent use in a primary issue and in sure water quality. Adding oil and gas is a purpose doesnt make sense for wildlife refuge. It does if you want to drill. No other wildlife refuge list this as a purpose of a wildlife refuge. Even those dont include it by a purpose. By putting that purpose and you turn everything on its ear. It doesnt make sense of the waivers. Under the law it allows for development within a wildlife refuge if its only compatible with the purposes. Our amendment would delete this from the refuge purposes to clarify that the Arctic Refuge should remain in authentic refuge. The secretary shall not establish it unless its compatible with the conservation purposes of the arctic wildlife refuges which is the existing standard for approving development. Theyve assured us that oil and gas is compatible. We just received a letter confirming the Administration Support authorizing the development is consistent. Make sures it will be consistent with those purposes. We asked for the consideration to strike that language and purpose. Weve had much discussion on this. I will repeat that again, we are not waiving any environmental laws in this mark. All of the laws will apply to this area. We recognize each refuge in the refuge system is managed for a variety of purposes i keep going back to our history in 1980 when congress established and wore. It specified the purposes of the refuge. But it further directed further study of the coastal play for its oil and gas potential. It provided that if authorized it could be developed for oil and gas. Thats the distinction. That when it was created it was specifically said this area is recognized for its potential and if Congress Authorizes it the coastal plain can be developed for oil and gas. We dont change in our mark the purposes for which and where was established. Instead the legislation as this new purpose that applies only to this area designated in 1980. It applies only to the coastal plain. The rest of the refuge, 17. 8 million acres remain the same in terms of the purposes, their unaffected and cannot be impacted by oil and Gas Development. We are ensuring Congress Decision to establish an oil and gas program as it was contemplated back in 1980 is expressly represented in the statute. So what the amendment does is seek to defeat the congressional decision by striking this limited purpose so the program is steam noncompatible. I will note that National Wildlife refuges are governed by the provisions of other alaska specific laws in general authorities over the refuge system. It is onauku that contains compatibility determination. s requirement not waived by the mark. We are not deeming the 1002 oil and gas program to be compatible with an war as a whole. I expect to consider additional congressional purpose for limited development in making a determination. We heard two weeks ago and its repeated today that development within this area is a limited area of development. No more than 2000 federal acres. New purposes we added is consistent with the history and consistent in the language will ensure Environmental Protection is included as responsible development occurs. I would like to support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. While you have reassured us the environmental laws apply, im looking at the plain language of your mark and it says the secretary shall, this is an instance where it is shall, not may allow these leases to occur regardless of any ias, dnieper, or anything. The plain language of the mark is what prevails. Sadly, i look at that and what you have said in your reassurances to not look at the actual language of your mark. I support the amendment. Im trying to square these two things. Your counsel said no action underneath the or would be lawful under this legislation. I will let you speak to that. I dont understand how it does not demon outcome if under the language of the bill and no action alternative would not be consistent with the legislation. It doesnt incompatibility. The it will still apply. In so doing, they will examine alternatives and analyze a no action alternative. But they cant pick one. No, because congress is making a decision to establish this in that area. If i could, the 1002 section purpose in current law reads the purpose of this section is to provide for comprehensive assessment of the coastal plains. Now analysis of the impact of oil and Gas Production and to authorize exploratory activity in a manner that avoid significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife and resources. Changing it and changing the focus of the refuge so you dont have to consider those impacts allows you and mandates it has to happen. Thats our objection and purpose to strike the language. If our colleagues have more to say, we can vote whenever is appropriate. The only thing i would add is the 1987 report. It did determine oiling Gas Exploration could perceive because there would be it was no adverse impact, but what are the word specifically . If congress directed the secretary to examine the potential on coastal play they reported back seven years later until congress that they should open up the 1002 area to oil and Gas Development. 1987 study says it would reduce use by caribou up to 37 and direct loss of approximately 2700 acres of muss oxen habitat due to avoidance. The report is clear as they quote, unavoidable impacts to wildlife. That will be included as part of the record. Its important to note that we were talking about impact to wildlife that within the area of development around trudeau bay and the impact to the centric actor occurred, i heard that missing growth seven times over since we Began Development in the 70s. It was around 5000, now, about 22000. Within the central caribou herd thats important to acknowledge as it relates to the porcupine heard which is further to the east and crosses the border between canada, that heard several years ago their numbers were 195,000. The caribou treaty we have between alaska and canada requires management of a population of around 135,000. Whether the central arctic heard her porcupine, these are areas we have concern. The people of the north rely on the caribou, were paying attention to whats going on with the population. You mention the central arctic heard, do they cabin protopic . They moved through. I dont believe they can. I appreciate that, the calving of the porcupine heard is not in the 1002 area, it is in the broader refuge but not in that portion. Maybe we can get clarification. When i was on the refugea thats not what i understood. You have a comment in another clarification . Yes, i dont know the answer to your question. But clarification, it is true 1008 is not waived of the chairmans mark. Its really not applicable. If you read what section 1008 says. The secretary shall establish according to the mineral leasing act a Leasing Program on the federal lands of alaska not subject to a study, and section 1001 of the act talks about a study of lands east of the western boundary of the in pra and the Arctic Refuge is east of that. What section 10008 does is give secretary the ability to say we wont allow drilling in National Wildlife refuge if its in compatible, but then again the chairmans mark mandates the Leasing Program be conducted. Where Congress Passes to conflicting laws, the courts try to harmonize the two with their incompatible a later more specific statute which this certainly would be controls over the earlier general statute. According to their website it was 70,000 in 2010 and 2,202,016 so the numbers are not matching up as well. A couple of weeks ago, it was bracket i think that the herds will move from one to another so the counting often times is difficult. Being able to distinguish between that he did note fluctuations, and we recognize as you have seen, these animals dont settle down in one place, and they can be impacted by what is happening with the weather, what is happening with an earlyy spring or later spring and we just recognize we try to do the best job that we can understanding the strength. I would like to note the decision and best Management Practices and stipulations avoided the area so there are ways as you go through the process in general to mitigate against these types of things. I would just in wrapping up part of the debate say that i think my colleague is bringing this up because it has been greatly impacted since 2010, but more importantly, our government sent a biologist to study the herd and the difference in the alaska because they had a unique quality of being able not to deletdepletes the sources of fod it was those habits of the herd that we paid for as taxpayers and went to study. We thought that it was so unique and that is what we are trying to destroy so if we have a good sense decades ago to understand the appreciation of this refuge and the Science Behind it i dont know why we would throw it out today. Final discussion on cantwell number three. A second amendment, what do you have . For the oil and gas drilling in alaska, the Big Oil Companies it holds 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska. In the end of fiscal year 2016, less than 2 of the acres were actually producing less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million so this would require the department of interior to assess and certify those that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening up the refuge. If you have another million acres in alaska that are least, lets make sure that those are tapped out or have been explored and if youve only have 2 of those, then why go to this place where they have the porcupine herd . Y. This place where there is another million acres that the Oil Companies can be producing that they are not doing it. We would require the department of interior to assess and certify the leases that are already held by the Oil Companies that are tapped out before opening the wreckage. I can understand where you are going with this. It is the last place that we should be looking to for Energy Development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the delegation disagrees with that or the governor or lieutenant governor. We have been seeking to develop the potential that was identified decades and decades ago we have been seeking to be able to access this area again. A much smaller area because the technologies allow us to do just that. But we have been working on this for some 40 years now. But for many of us, this productive area is actually one of the best places that we can go for responsible development and we should have done it some time ago. Again, we are talking about an area that was recognized when the great compromise was together decades ago prior to, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. That is an deniable. And as a consequence of that, not only was the wilderness created, refuge and parks created, but there was an acknowledgment and recognition. Again i keep going back to the specific designation of this area as one that was recognized for its extraordinary potential. So what we are seeking to do today is open up a very small portion of the 110 thousandths of all of a noi to development. And again, what i want to remind people of this is an area that just 3 miles to the west you have thompson. Theres nthere is no fans, no wd no border between the 1002 area and the state land on which it is built. And so, when you have an opportunity to look at that area and recognize how we have proceeded with the development again particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years mouse in it came into being. What we are able to do with a limited footprint with the extraordinary advances in technologthetechnology this taka different level but with a focus and a concern for impact so that whether it is the caribou, polar bear, they are able to have a lifestyle that not only allows for subsistence but also allows for jobs and opportunities so i think its important to put that into perspective. Those that come into play with the management plan. I think that again it is important to acknowledge that when you say we need to tap out Everything Else that is a. He said this is her food source and you first said the caribou herd has increased. This is a very contentious issue and since there is another million. Why would you lease anything where you didnt think there was oil . I just wanted to briefly reply to a comment there because you mentioned the testimony of mr. Alexander who is before us who clearly isnt supportive of opening up an alarm if we had testimony before this committee who happens to live within the area and happens to be in alaska native and it is important that we listen to our native people, but i do think that it is important that we recognize that when we are talking about subsistence and the opportunity for the food source, the people that live in this area that have homes in schools and airstrips, these people need to be heard and their issues need to be addressed as well. Just looking at this amendment, if the concern is the service of the area, i would assume forcing every acre to be developed would create a significantly more level of pipeline then what is considered under the legislation. Is that your interpretation of the amendment as well . I hurt my colleagues question about how would they lease if they are not producing. I can explain that as far as economics whether it is oil, coal, natural gas. They get contracts and it might be for ten years then we get a longterm contract so you do deplete what you have you have to go somewhere else or you lose it. So, economically it is basically for the leases. Further to that point if i may, if the Oil Companies knew exactly where the oil was that would make life easier but they purchased the leases and there is no certainty that there is productive reserves. Those of us have come from the oil and Gas Producing states dont produce immediately. They do not produce immediately. It takes ten years plus sometimes even longer than that. Its important to put this in the context of the whole. Go ahead. Is that any different . So its not any different than the other million acres. Before we drill there and disturb this beautiful place, go to some of the other million acres first. I dont get it. I dont get it. We dont have any cold or gas. Movinmoving onto on to some othr amendments i was just saying i think the senators point is that this will not be the last that weve heard about in the illegal and Gas Development in alaska that we guarantee there will be lots of discussions about ncr dick continues to open up, all the things that are going to happen with various countries in the arctic i guarantee we will be talking about it for a long time. I think that his point of summation is that he wants to preserve one aspect that is still this ecosystem with the great migratory population so lets continue to pursue the issues of opportunity before us. We did get a letter this morning from a resident that i would like to submit for the record. It is an organization they were not told by the city council they dont represent us and they previously said they would represent the position. Roberts testified he is a board member of the Forprofit Corporation which has contract obligations with the industry that supporters the refuge and should be disclosed. It should be representing the Forprofit Corporations rather than and i submit that for the record. He is again a resident. Of the administration is going to open another 10 million acres of the national Petroleum Reserve in december. So, what im saying is if 1002 is no different than these other 11 million acres. And yes, you have a member of the alaskan village now he has a profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. So think about this. This is why they are one of the 11 million other acres opened to drilling. I take it back to we are not always sure where the oil is, and this is no different. One of the things we do know is within the npr a, the leases are not as perspective. Its less than 3 per acre of the amount that is likely. The reason we have been so interested in accessing again a very small portion within the 1002 is because this area has been identified over the years with dot very little that we have demonstrated the estimate is 10. 5 billion barrels of oil a within that far northwestern corner. You want to try to go where the resource is rapid and spending the resource is hoping that you do get lucky engaging in exploration that may have more impact then you want. You want to try to use the knowledge that you have to make sure it is most efficient and expedient. Any other debate . I understand the argument, but early here in this debate, you said it is no different than the others but permitting that will be required and the analysis that will be required but will require ten years to go past before you see any production to that. The way that we handle it within the state land o of the fact of the matter is the regulatory process is long and attenuated and drawn out. Further debate . Seeing none, senator cantwell. This is amendment number 43. Madam chair, as i said before, i think that our children and grandchildren are going to look back at the meetings and markups like this and they are going to be shaking their heads and asking what role does the United States living when the time is devastating damage responsible people were talking about more exploration for fossil fuel and not addressing the planetary crisis of Climate Change. I think that our kids and our grandchildren, i really do think our kids and our grandchildren will be walking back and not in a kind way. What is amazing to me is just yesterday, 24 hours ago in this room on that panel where the staff now sits, we have the governor of puerto rico, the Virgin Islands and representatives of the United States government who are talking about the incredible devastation dot i descend hurricanes. Madam chair, as you know, there will be a supplemental bill coming down the pike. Nobody knows how much it will cost to repair the damage in texas, florida. We are talking well over 100 billion. Six years ago he dealt with hurricanes and e. , 60 billion, very few scientists d. Nine dot the extent and severity and frequency of the weather disturbance is only going to increase. And that is because of a warming climate. Now youve are talking about raising a million dollars. Im talking about the United States Government Spending hundreds of billions of dollars repairing damage which to a significant degree, not totally, had to do with Climate Change and they tell us that the worst is yet to come. Its from the oil and gas to Sustainable Energy, and the good news is everybody here knows the cost of Sustainable Energy is declining precipitously. We now know the corporations are investing not been oil, coal but wind and solar and other sustainable technologies. That is the future of this country and the planet if we are going to make it habitable for our kids and grandchildren. Madam chair, the amendment i am offering is a very simple amendment. It says instead of more fossil fuel leases on federal land we should issue permits for Renewable Energies like wind, solar and geothermal. It says that that we must aggressively transition towards Sustainable Energy and renewable energy. We should understand that in chile for example, concentrated solar will bring the cheapest electricity ever produced on the planet. That is where the future is. For the sake of our kids and grandchildren, we should defeat the mark, move the country and leave the world in a very different direction. Senator sanders, thank you for the amendment. You and i have had opportunities to build thats out and i do think it is an important part of the portfolio in this country and one that we can and should be aggressive on. As it relates to what we are doing in the markup here, the amendment that youve introduced is in violation of the byrd rule under the congressional budget act. To work with the secretary of interior, so you are effectively taking this out of our jurisdiction. I have come to learn and understand a lot of the requirements we have to meet not only jurisdictional but the second is whether or not the matters are incidental to the changes and outlays and revenu revenues. This falls into that incidental. I would also question whether or not in amendment of this nature would raise what the committee has been instructed to do to the budget resolution so i would urge the committee to reject antiwould understand with your focus on renewables and i think we do have opportunities to work on that, but not in the context of the market we have in front of us this morning. The ruling as i understand you are making the amendment out of order and i would like to vote to override the ruling. I believe that your amendment does violate the rule as it is codified under section 313 so i suggest this is not in amendment that we should support. Support. When it comes time for us to have a vote, we can certainly do it at this time. I would point out it is a bipartisan bill introduced as a member of cosponsors and if you would like to promote it is a great bill that lays out but permitting process and focuses on the bipartisan and i would love to have your sponsorship. My main concern today is to make sure that we do not remain or open the exploration. If we are going to mandate the development senator sanders is simply saying we will make it seem kind of commitment for other sources of energy. Seeing none, lets move to the next amendment. I would offer of amendment number 34 page three between 96 and seven insert the following as it is pretty straightforward. No activity may be carried out under the program under this section of the wildlife refuge that would be detrimental to the habitat of the caribou herd as determined by the secretary of interior acting to the directorr of the United States fish and Wildlife Service this would simply put them back in the driver seat for determining what would or would not be detrimental to the habitat thank you. I will oppose the amendment because they do not need you to think it is needed. I have referred repeatedly to the framework of the statute and the stipulations that have been laid out in the best Management Practices in the 2013 record decision. I will point to some of those specifics that refer to protection for the caribou, whether it is the caribou movement and subsistence areas of habitat to be respected and protected. I would also recognize the efforts we have made to try to reduce the impact of the land so that the caribou can move freely through the area. We are still talking about geek ridges. Do we have a sense of how many roads and pipelines for development is going to need . Because it is those kind of barriers they stand on the roads and lick salt. One of the largest mortalities is from standing by the road getting hit by a truck. One thing we havent been able to ascertain even if we havent split up over the bunch of over the coastal plain, how many miles of road and other linear structures like Gas Pipelines are going to be spread across the landscapes we heard some of that in the hearing from two weeks ago. The do not know exactly where they may be and its important to recognize we have done a development outside of the village. But i think that you can look to other areas of develop on the north slope. Again, pretty old, but the alpine field wa field was builte late 90s. There is 6 miles of road in total. Now as we are seeing expansion into the greater your seeing of 12 miles of road. That is one example of the development its been around for 20 years in terms of limitation. I think it is also pretty important to understand when we are talking about the mitigation for the caribou, and we heard this from matthew cronin. He said it is important to realize mitigation activities can be laid down to a nice disturbance, and again, whether it is elevated pipeline so that they can cross under or to limit or prohibit the development during the early Spring Season in may and june and again it takes us back to the stipulations that have been laid down within the framework so making sure we have protections in place and stipulations included and so there is a sensitivity to the fact that we have some extraordinar extraordd that moved through these areas. So how can we balance that Development Activity with the fact that we want to encourage and support and allow for continuation of the very healthy herds so this is exactly what we have built into this framework. So not only the caribou are impacted by other species, whether it be the polar bear and knowing where they are in avoiding them at all turns or those that are there during the nesting season, so. It would say no activity to produce oil and gas would happen if they are deemed detrimental to the habitat is not necessary that what we are doing and what we will be giving to ensure protection of the herd is important to recognize. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment and i think it gets to the heart of what we are talking about here. This is a National Wildlife refuge and i heard earlier that the 1002 area separate itself, it is inside the refuge. And the question is on the wildlife refuge, what comes first, does wildlife come first . You would think so from the name, but if we dont make the change in the legislation, once the say is oil and Gas Development comes first on the National Wildlife is. That is a very dangerous precedent to make. If i may respond to that, because it isnt a chronological sisters anbasis for standard thn second. It has to be in concert with and thats why we have this suite of environmental regulations that we are not waiving or going around. We have to work with not only the federal that the state and local, we have to work with the tribes done in consultation. Speaking in support of the senators amendment and i know we want to hear from a couple other colleagues that want to offer amendments, and i think we should hear from them is that the amendment is at the crux of this issue. His amendment fixes what is wrong with the underlining though. So if you truly believe that beh and Wildlife Service should play a role, that is what the amendment fixes. I think the council has been a good job on both sides of the aisle saying what will happen here and what will happen to the views of the surface, theyve been very clear so i support the amendment because it reestablishes the goal for the fish and Wildlife Service. When i got on the website this morning, they make the point that it occurs from the central and the porcupine herd it happens to one side or the other of the development, and i do not think that is accidental. Other amendments to be considered. I would like to call up number 22. The legal and Gas Development didnt contribute to or cause a negative effect on the quality or any other damage. If we are going to allow this, one of the most pristine we should hold applicants to a heightened standard. The areas are too important to allow those with these environmental records to operate on the coastal plain. They have a terrible track record and need not apply. I hear people discuss operators can come in and perform such extraction activities with minimal invasion. This simply asks operators to prove the ability for us and if they cant prove it, they dont get the least an lease and it it simple. Senator, i would suggest again that we look to the mark that i have laid down. Again, we are not waiving any environmental requirement or any of the other environmental laws. They still must be adhered to. Again, we put this under the framework of the statute in regulation that governs to ensure responsible development. You have indicated that its important operators on the north slope or within the areas that are speaking specific here adhere to high standards. I can attest that they are if not the highest then the highest in terms of environmental compliance. I would challenge you to look to any other Oil Producing area in the country and then go north to alaska to see the requirements and standards we put in front of the operatives. Nothing is 100 . I think we recognize that and we always push for higher and better, but i do think that it is important to recognize that the way we require the operators to work in terms of the Environmental Standards and protections, ive taken several of my colleagues up to see firsthand how the Oil Operations are conducted, and i recall one conversation with a colleague from north dakota who thought he understood environmental regulations as it was related to the oil production, and he was honestly stunned at the level of retirement down to requiring that when it rained and there were little splashes of water on the gravel pad that they had to be sucked up by a truck with some technical term to make sure there was no runoff onto the tundra. So it is a standard as alaskans we are proud of, but we push and demand and require. If you fail to comply, and you are fined and analyzed and ver verse. So it is important to us and i absolutely agree we have to have high standards but i would suggest again this is probably a bird rule violation outside of the committees jurisdiction but id just remind colleagues here the requirements that we put a in front of those that wish to access the resources under the land or some of the highest in the world. I respect and appreciate your comments. But at the same time, we have seen instances where thereve been oil spills. They were ordered to pay 22 million criminal and Civil Penalties for drilling in the slope. If youre going to allow drilling in the refuge for the first time, we should put a heightened standard standard fre companies that want to show us their record. The past is the precedent of what we should expect or ask questions of how they should ensure that it doesnt happen again and if we are not able to look at the past history to see how these companies have upgraded and if there is any type of environmental regulations then shame on us. We should be asking that and thats all this does is looks back to say prove to us, lets look at the record what youve done in the past. Theres nthere is no guarantee. We know that. And i get the comments over and over and i know we are not waiving any environmental revi review. I dont disagree with that but we are also changing the oversight and type of reviews that have been. Something is changing here and thats why i dont understand why we even have to change the purpose of it. You are indicating this is something that will happen over any type of activity that is a contradiction to the original purpose for the refuge, so all this amendment does is ensure that if we are going to allow these companies to come forward to show the past record and history and what they have done and if they violated the environment anywhere then we should be able to look at that and make a determination and be able to do that as well. Speaking in support of the senators amendment, thereve been over 640 oil spills from 1995 to 2009 including 13 spills over 10,000 gallons so we are not talking about an inconsequential issue here. Since 2009, 10,000 spilled on the slope as a result of oil and gas from obligations and theyve been routinely fined for contamination or discharge for air pollution. I think British Petroleum was ordered to pay 22 million in civil and criminal fines so all my colleague is asking is that a heightened awareness if you are concerned about this area, then an understanding of the background is very important. We will put this in the stack that we will be taking about 11 30. I also want to indicate support and when we are looking at oversight and accountability and who benefits from this bill in larger policy it comes to an amendment that i have and i will be requesting 48 by the major oil and Gas Companies most of which biograph by the way has bn place for about 100 years. We have struggled to have Clean Energy Policy in any longterm way on solar, wind or any other policies on clean energy, but yet he oil company tax breaks have been indicted in the tax code for about a hundred years. Oil companies have enjoyed billions of dollars in special tax breaks, about 470 billion in total. The Biggest Companies would receive 22 billion in the next ten years, yet believe it or not i just came from the finance committee that actually has a bill in front of us that adds a brandnew 4 billion tax break for the companies by allowing them to shelter their profits as a brandnew addition for Oil Companies. If we are going to open up the pristine areas of the arctic National Wildlife refuge to drilling which would boost the mind i dont believe that we should be handing the same companies more enormous tax breaks. My amendment eliminates the tax breaks enjoyed by the five major oil and Gas Companies and we intend to ask for a record roll call vote. I anticipate the chair will rule if the amendment is not germane and if that is correct, i would ask for a roll call to overturn that. You have anticipated where im going with this. If you do request a roll call vote i will move to table it because i do believe that it does fall outside this committees jurisdiction. As you know the tax provisions are within the finance and i thinthink its telling that thee actually taking up things like the oil taxes in the committee at this time so i would suggest an amendment of this nature would probably be more appropriate before that finance committee on which you sit. I also want to just address somehow or another, opening up of and is a favor or a gift if you will to the big oil. There are no giveaways to anything we are talking about here. Youve heard me say in this committee may need time that alaska as a resource state has been producing for decades now, but the reality is the trans Alaska Pipeline is less than halffull and we not only want to be able to produce more of the resource for the benefit of alaska and benefit of th the bee nation, but we also want to be able to put people to work and be able to help our state as well. So for those that suggest a visit somehow about big oil, its not. Its about alaska being able to keep the promise that was made to us that we would be allowed to produce our own resources to be a state that has a future with the Peace Process that we have in allowing our people to gain benefits and opportunities, and i think when our governor was here a couple of weeks ago, he spoke very well to this point this was a promise made to us at statehood that we can access our resources and a fight this fight has just been yet one more example where we have been denied that opportunity to. Within the text of the mark we do require the competitive Leasing Sales in the full Environmental Review process but also a royalty for all resources that would ultimately be produced from the 1002 area so i just wanted to include that as a part of the discussion here but i would remind colleagues that the amendment does fall outside of the committees jurisdiction interrupt request members oppose. We are doing all of this in the context of a budget resolution with instructions to this committee. It alall relates to budget reso. When the Oil Companies enjoyed 470 billion in incentives and tax breaks over the years that relates to what happens in terms of the budget and the budget deficits. We know who gets the direct benefit and who will be the ones operationally getting benefits from. When i was in alaska i had the opportunity to see new Wind Generation and was very pleased that some of those Wind Turbines were being made in michigan. They will continue to speed up the changing of the climate. They will change the tax policy in the direction that will actually benefit not only alaska about the whole country and the whole world. So, when i step back all of this fits. If we talk about where we spend the money, what are the incentives, what are we going to be promoting, and in my judgment this goes in the wrong direction. The way i read this amendment there are important issues. The way that i read it it would increase the cost of gasoline as well with fuel on consumers, so the Public Policy behind it would end up hurting consumers and driving up the cost. With report of the senators amendment, the larger issue here is that oil and gas prices are falling. They are falling. And People Holding onto economies depend on the revenue are getting hurt. Even if saudi arabia so i think senator stabenow is simply saying why do we continue to put the tax payer dollars behind incentives and price keeps falling, and the point is why not focus on some of the diversification efforts to help the economy grow in the future and lead us better protected instead of making up the shortfall. So, i am supportive of the amendment. And if there is no other. We do have in this opportunity and the committee for the micro grids we will continue to work on it but im also very sensitive to this act that we have limited jurisdiction in the tax provision is not one of th them, so as we move forward, that is a discussion in the baker reconciliation picture but not specific to the committee. So thank you, senator stabenow. Senator manchin. I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for the opportunity to make a statement id like to go on record i support the authorization for the National Wildlife refuge. This area known as 102 is a prospect coming from an extraction and i understand the importance of growing the state economy as well as an ongoing role in the enhancement of the Energy Security independence and i believe that such developed and must be done in a responsible manner with a focus on ensuring a balance balance ad but i would be remiss if they didnt express my extreme disappointment in the budget process and i believe we all can do better. Last month the Senate Passed resolution 71 which even included. I did so understanding to authorize the oil and gas in the wildlife refuge. I remain committed to passing tax reform. Why would support the chairmans mark for Energy Security and independence i stress, i deeply stress my fundamental opposition to the manner in which this process is being executed. Thank you medine chair. Senator manchin thank you for your continued support for responsible development of a small portion of the 1002. I think you recognize coming from a producing state what that means not only to a state but to a nation that relies on the resources and i think you have had an opportunity to see that we do it responsibly and do it well. Being caught in between such a situation and using this as a gimmick for budget reconciliation is so wrong. I would rather just voted up or down but those of us who agree or disagree vote in move on but thats not the way it is here. I understand that and i think we both know thats not the way we are in a reconciliation of process. I think we recognize that it is limiting and perhaps an imperfect process so i thank you for your contacts there. Id like to actually call up if we could just get through to that would be great but id like to call up number six. Cantwell six . Yes. The gulf of mexico Energy Security act of 2006 directed federal revenues from offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico to four states and incentivize to promote offshore oil and gas drilling. Under current law those dates get 100 of oil and gas revenues for the first three nautical miles from their shores through the oil and gas revenues beyond three nautical miles belongs to the United States as a whole not coastal states. In my opinion it was a terrible idea for the nation as a whole. The Trump Administration agrees and is asked for it to be changed. Thats the whole those 46 states dont benefit. We dont need drilling in the arctic wildlife to meet our reconciliation instructions. We can meet those instructions by raising 3 billion by eliminating these giveaways of federal revenues and giving alaska over a billion dollars which would help in not only protecting the art takes refuge for getting revenue and impact to the state of alaska. I look at this issue and their challenges moving forward, when the discussion of go mesa when i said in my comments i objected to because it was giving federal revenue away at the time there was a lot discussion of why we should do that but what are the primary things the other kids from those four states mentioned is that they wanted the money to go to protect their coastal areas and not sure how much of that has been achieved. Money has gone into the coffers of State Government but as i look at oil and gas settlement and the federal revenue that i think is in the Trump Administration which it passed back to me i do want to start doing adaptation and mitigation of the impacts of Climate Change in the sector and what is happening to us. By keeping this revenue for the federal government and putting it towards adaptation and mitigation places like alaska we can start this preparing. We can make a decision now not to keep drilling and putting more into our environment and start instead protecting the adaptation and mitigation that has to happen. So i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Senator cantwell im looking at the modified amendment for the first time here and recognize that you are seeking to provide statistics to the state of alaska as well which is appreciated but i think that the amendment is one that, it really erodes and undermines a policy that we should all be working to expand. This is something that senator cassidy and i and others have been working on under his leadership. So blunt the gulf of mexico Energy Security act provides specifically for revenues to four states as part of the very, very carefully crafted compromise that puts the eastern gulf off limits increase funding for the state cited al wtf. I think we need to recognize that offshore revenuesharing is a good policy that needs to be continued and authorized for all out there off for producing states. Thats what we have been trying to do with alaska instead of eliminating or reducing soap one is to expand the revenuesharing provisions that we have and effectively working to address inequities that we have with on shore states. On shore states receive roughly half of the revenues from production on federal lands within their borders. We have this discussion so many times the revenuesharing in my view is really a matter of fairness to the states that are producing it and senator cassidy a. Certainly hope you are going to be jumping in here. You know full well the disproportionate impact that louisiana has as it hosts the offshore development and happy to host that offshore development but its also fair that there be that effort to provide revenues back and recognizing that so much of these revenues to go to priorities like Coastal Restoration and Hurricane Protection. He wrote in the compromise again that was made, the promise and the commitment that was made to the gulf states is not a direction that i supported but encouraged. Madam chairman. Senator cassidy. First i totally agree with senator cantwell. And actually was senator sanders when i mentioned that we have two add resiliency to our coastline. We have to mitigate the impact of rising sea levels. In fact is we have been speaking louisiana has lost the equivalent of two football fields of coastline. Can you put that poster of our coastal loss up . That right there depicts coastal loss and flood risk to our communities. Now what we could do and by the way developing off the coast of louisiana we dont get the 50 revenue share that other states get. For example new mexico. We dont. We get 35 up to 500 billion split before between two states. If we have that under our constitution we have to put it towards Coastal Restoration projects. The money doesnt start until 2017 so senator cantwells observation is that she hasnt seen these projects occur and that is true because we have gotten two or 3 million which is helpful for panel planning and construction but we are having a comprehensive plan to begin to restore that coastline which by the way helps protect federal assets such as the strategic Petroleum Reserve and also mitigates the risk of the future hurricane would hit a city like new orleans and cause billions of dollars of damage which federal taxpayers have to help. Lots of benefits they are so the question is should the money come up to the federal bureaucracy and then go back down to the state where the inevitable friction that takes off 10, 20, 30 or 40 and doesnt rebuild those coastlands and by the way that is the strategic Petroleum Reserve asset. Would you think of the map aegis showed that demonstrates why restoring this coastline protects it. The issue is whether we cant give louisiana and the other coastal states consideration but at least some consideration that the restaurant states receive and we shouldnt have the money directly going to protect those federal assets or whether it should come to the federal government with all the friction that takes on. I think that its in the federal taxpayers interest to do something for that coastline because we are either going to pay now or pay later to quote and no commercial. In fact i will have an amendment which says that we should allow one days worth of reserves from the Petroleum Reserve. The reason why federal policy has decreased the revenue available for gomesa by 300 million over two years in the absence of that means that restoration will not occur. They will cancel projects and all of those federal assets will stay at rest that much longer. So i agree with your concern that we need to mitigate coastlines. I think the effect of what you are suggesting senator cantwell would work against that to the area which is the most vulnerable in our nation. A so of course i posted. If i may very briefly in response to senator cassidy and mitigation is one issue and begin talk about it but the essence of todays debate is not mitigation. Its whether the United States tells the world and our own people that we are going to go forward and increase our dependency on fossil fuel or get to the root of the problem and that is the Climate Change is devastating to louisiana, to vermont in every other state in this country and the time is now common now to make for our kids and our grandchildren that we are going to break our dependency on fossil fuel and move to Sustainable Energy. I would say to my colleague from louisiana this is an important issue but not the issue today. This is the uneventful issue on which way this country goes in terms of drilling from more oil and not the way believe it should go forward. Senator sanders just a speak to that i dont know though with the way you make a statement is to allow the washing away of a coastline and im speaking specifically to senator cantwells amendment, the washing away of a coastline which will not only destroy federal assets with the most protect fisheries in the lower 48 and i emphasize the lower 48 as well as other Natural Resources. By the way i point out the amendments we have, the amendment we have is endorsed by the environment of defense fund and i have a whole list here, the coalition to restore coastal louisiana. The National Wildlife federation federation. We are talking about preserving an ecosystem here in terms of this particular amendment and another thing i will point out senator franken and i have been talking about puerto rico and what can we do. The National Bureau of Economic Research pointed out that for every. 8 units of a grid that is run by renewables you need 1. 0 per unit and i can explain that later fast acting liquefied natural gas or natural gas in case it goes down. Now i wont go into the details. A lot of these resources or natural gas. Again im only thinking of senator cantwells amendment but if you want to preserve that ecosystem it creates the opportunity to replace coal with natural gas and enable renewables. We need that natural gas but by the way we also need the ecosystem and all im trying to do is the restoration of that ecosystem. Madam chairmans much as i would like this to be a very long time im going to be short because id like to give discretion to our colleague senator wyden was offering his amendment but i would say to senator cassidy this does lead to 1. 6 billion for the coastal states. Its just recognizing that i think its time to try to mitigate both in alaska which is having unbelievable impacts that are affecting indigenous populations and assets there. I love youre in you see as him to that part of your state because i guarantee when senator murkowski and i needed that muscle to communicate to the leadership on your side of the island why they shouldnt continue to focus on taking investment dollars away from that area and investing in other areas we were in a losing battle with our colleagues on back, so my point is this amendment is that it is federal resources that should be going too well spent things that are now we are going to be dealing with in the supplemental and we are going to be dealing with in our expenses. Senator collins and i asked how much all of this is costing us and they said 635 billion over the next 10 years. I simply believe the resources should be spent on helping alaska mitigated this point in time as well as continuing to allow you to mitigate and i will work with you in whatever ways that we can to achieve our objectives on this dynamic change thats happening and how investments are being made in oil and gas and in the federal government huge, huge costs that we are seeing on these issues. With that madam chair i would like to call up if i could wyden number 49 and offered for my colleague he could see cant be here at this moment. I think this will be the last amendment and we can go to both but senator wyden would like to be here but hes in finance. We are told that the chairman generates 1 million for treasure were 10 years. Think senator stabenow is a cosponsor of this. The chairman said it would generate 725 billion by 2022. Senator wydens amendment simply says that the federal government does not receive 725 million in the arctic of the wildlife refuge before a sober first of 2022 the drill is rescinded. Based on historically singh on the north slope it would bring in 76 million by 2022 at the most. Under that scenario would have to have sales of 4 million acres of the Arctic Refuge to generate the 225 million that cbo is projecting by 2022. I think thats the issue, 4 million acres of the number does not take into account the companies rarely bid on every acre between 2010 and 2015 industry only bid 1. 5 to 5. 5 acres offered in the national Petroleum Reserve in alaska so assuming the coastal plain is least at a similar rate becomes more probable. Think this is a commonsense amendment. It would appeal to members who are adjusted ensuring that the budget is there to make budget decisions in the future and ive put this as one of our roll call votes. Thank you senator cantwell. I will oppose wyden number 49 payday think effectively we are in a situation where termination like this would amount to federal taking of the leases would have been awarded but then youve got the government stepping in and canceling everything if we dont reach a certain amount. I worry that your runs afoul of the u. S. Constitution because its taking without compensation compensation. The 725 milliondollar threshold im assuming comes from the cbo estimates which we recognize as an estimate. I think we go back and forth in terms of whether we like or dont like the cbo and how cbo operates but it is designed to be that nonpartisan entity and its supposed to take the politics out of the budgeting process. Trying to substitute our judgment for there is her use their work to justify arbitrary conditions i dont think is the right way to go. I do think if you kind of game this out and say okay well lets just say the first lease sale could end up raising 724 million and that could wind up being five aliens thats not going to match the cbo estimate for what you would have done that is effectively terminate the program at the beginning. So i dont think that it would withstand the test in terms of meeting the constitutional confines. I think it would set it dangerous precedent so i would urge members to oppose it. Counsel is that your read of this that links to any kind of mandate . Thats not my read senator. Certainly if the bureau of Land Management issued leases that committed to the left sees that they would be able to develop oil on those leases and it kept the money and returned it if the amendment took effect then that might constitute a tape but to simply say the secretary or the bureau of Land Management in implementing this program should issue leases that are conditioned on the full amount he paid in and then returning the money if its not, the companies would get their money back. I cant think of a greater way to add uncertainty into an already uncertain process when it comes to accessing resources so again i would urge colleagues to reject the wyden amendment. Madam chairman think we should vote on the amendment that we have called up so far and thats the best way to proceed here. I did ask colleagues to try to be here between 11 30 and 12 00 so we could take this up and we certainly would in that time. I would ask if its the end tension of any members to call up other amendments. My hope would be that we would be able to take up this block of amendments and then move to the final passage before we have our round at noon here. Madam chairman . I just want to clarify or add to the record senator wyden has indicated that hes supportive of the cortez amendment number 22 and would like to be added as a cosponsor. Thank you he will be added as a cosponsor. Senator king. This shouldnt take us long to move through these votes but again i would just remind colleagues that we have got votes coming up. I dont want to cut anybody off. I suggest we move to cant well number three and call it up for a vote. And i ask for the as in the nays. Yeas and nays. Senator cassidy we have just asked the members if they ran the other amendments that wish to be considered. There were none. I do know that you and i had a conversation about your proposed amendment. I have reminded colleagues that we are running up against three votes at noon here but if you would like to speak to your amendment as you indicated to me i will provide for that. I will do it in a minute and a half because i spoke to earlier. Can you show these posters . Western states get 50 of the revenue from offshore lease set up 10 years ago that gave coastal states 35 up to a max of 3500. Begins this year. There has been a decrease in the amount of the federal policies and that decreased for a couple of years. This is lazy and those coastal loss. This is a flood risk that increased impact of katrina upon new orleans which cost taxpayers 20 billion. This is the strategic Petroleum Reserve assets which are all at risk because of this. By our state constitution and the revenue we get from gomesa has to be used to restore this coastline which in turn protects these assets as well as communities that live there. It mentioned earlier this amendment has been endorsed by the Environmental Fund by the coalition to restore coastal louisiana, the fish and wildlife organizations. I would ask, and what it does is it takes one day of Petroleum Reserve assets and sells it and uses the money over the next two years because of coastal federal policies to allow restoration of our coastline. Would you accept an additional cosponsor . I would love it. Would you like to be added as a cosponsor . I want to make a slight correction that we get 40 of on shore basis we get 0 of offshore leases. The coastline is very small. I would move that would call up camp well number one or ask for the gase baze in the nays im in camp on the periphery. I just wanted to make sure that we were done with debate on senator cassidys amendment. I will be supporting senator cassidy. I have confirmed with him that my view is we need to expand revenue sharing and will work specifically in that area. I think he knows that i have great reluctance when it comes to sale of the sapporo but prioritizing the Coastal Restoration and Hurricane Protection is something that again i will see my support for you. Senator cantwell is called up amendment number three, cantwell amendment number three. I asked for the yeas in the nays. Yeas in the nays and the nos were. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] ball. [roll call] [roll call] the nays are 13 in the yeas are 10. The agreement is not agreed to. Madam chairman by two call of cortez masto and ask for the yeas and the nays. The yeas in the nays have been called for. We scope the role. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nays are 13 and the yeas are 10. The amendment does not agreed to. The amendments not agreed to pay that by two heinrich numbers 64. Madam chairman as for the yeas and the nays. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] but this vote this yeas or 129 nays are 11. The agreement the amendment is not agreed to. The amendment failed. And the other members . I would like to call up franken number 32. And as for the yeas and the nays . The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nos or 14 in the ayes are the amendment fails. The clerk will call the roll. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the nays or 12 and the yeas r. Levin. The amendment fails. Ive would like to call up wyden stabenow amendment number 49. And as for the yeas and the nays nays. The clerk will call the roll on amendment number 49. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] the nos are 12 negates or levin. The amendment is not agreed to. I call upstanders number 43. The clerk will call the roll and sanders 43. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] medine chairman nye would like to call a stabenow 45. I mentioned that this is not as jurisdictional so im going to move to table the stabenow amendment. So the motion and a vote the forest is a motion to table. On the motion to table. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the ayes are 13 and the nays art and. The amendment is table. The amendment is table. Madam chair of those argued minutes we discussed this morning and i think you can see by the amendments that are filed that our colleagues have many other issues to discuss and i think those are a representation of the concerns that we have put this legislation moving forward unless colleagues on either side, i know of no one who wants to offer an additional amendment. Senator cassidy do you wish a roll call vote . I do please. Msu wish to vote by aqua mission. Senator cassidy did ring it up at the end and asked for it to be considered. If you would like it to be voice voted we can certainly do that at this time. By acclamation, of course. Yes, i am okay with that. Okay. Lets have a roll call vote. A roll call vote has been requested. Call the roll on cassidy strange. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] but this vote the yeas are 13 the nos are 10. The amendment is agreed to. 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 as amended but senator cantwell i know there are colleagues who would like to make statements. What i would like to do is the vote has been called is to have the final vote taken and then i will stay here and we can encourage members to provide a discussion and comment for the record at that point in time. I know we said to our colleagues that we could make a comment before the vote so i believe we should let his let him make his comment before the vote. Im fully prepared to stay here but i also recognize that we do have a vote. Senator king if you would like to speak before the vote i am amenable to it but i want to make sure we all have a chance. I appreciate that madam chairman. As long as none of us get between senator collins and they vote. Madam chair just briefly i have a great deal of respect for you and senator sullivan. I have met with your governor and commissioner Natural Resources and ive tried hard to dig in and understand this issue issue. Reluctantly however im going to have to vote no going back to something senator heinrich mentioned. The words wildlife refuge to mean something it seems to me and as i look back, the 1980 law does not designate 10,002 for drilling. Does say exploration is allowed but 10 of three expressly says congress has to act in order to allow drilling. The development is not limited to 2000 acres and i must say my consideration to this is influence by that number which i find inappropriate. I did a little calculation. These chairs only cover under the definition and this law to square feet of the area of this room excesses 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 chairs. We are talking about a lot of coverage of this area in multiple wells, a minimum of four and a thousand acres being leased. Alaskas printed 75 million acres in the state owns 105 million acres by 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 project aimed the news yesterday of Record Oil Production in the United States next year of almost 10 Million Barrels a day. I find it hard to vote to open this up given the questions about wildlife and as i say i just dont think the cases 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 my colleague from alaska senator sullivan its not easy for me to take this position that the data compels me i believe that i just wanted to get that statement on the route. Thank you. I thank you for that and i think you for your willingness to sit and listen not only to the alaska delegation but to our governor and our commissioners and their team. We all come to our own conclusions but i respect the time that you have given. Before the final vote is there anyone else that would like to make a quick comment . Seeing none the clerk will call the roll on the chairmans mark as amended. [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] [roll call] by this vote the yeas are 13 in the nays or 10. The legislation as amended is agreed to. Madam chair i want to make sure we have time for senators to file. There will be plenty of time for members to file dissenting views but it do want to thank my colleagues for being here this morning the time to give in 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] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] it passed both houses. It was vetoed then. Thats probably the closest of any measure ive ever covered. I will tell you though back in 2005 when i had the opportunity to be here via again it was very close so i think alaskans have had many opportunities. I think its 16 different times over the years that either it was introduced or has been held that a hearing or the process has moved that he is successfully from the house 12 times now. So there was nothing new here today other than the advances that we have seen in technology that again allow us to access important resource and do so in a way that has less impact to the surface, less impact to the environment and so thats the update. I think that was made throughout the discussion that they. Senator this will happen no later than 2021 so at that point is the Trump Administration moving into mark sola rated level . You know we take the long view on something we have been working on for 40 years. We have worked with the administration. This administration has been very clear that they support these developments and they support Resource Development in alaska with the npr and within anwr. The process that will unfold if we are successful with this is one that, sometimes it takes longer than we would like. Obviously i would like to see it happen sooner than later. We have been as i say waiting for 40 years but again what we need to do right now, the first step is get the authorization in the first place so we have taken that step again today. I will be very transparent. I have no reason to believe that this is the last hurdle that we take. This fully part of the tax package now and i fully anticipate that just as there was with the budget resolution therell be an effort to try to strike the energy peace. We will gear up for that battle again and so we are doing this incrementally and we are doing this in a way that people know full well what we are doing and why we are doing it. Okay . Thanks everybody. Hey, how are you . [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] next Senate Minority leader Charles Schumer talks about the senate g. O. P. Tax plan. The new york democrat criticized the inclusion of a