Transcripts For CSPAN3 Energy Development In The Arctic 20171122

This is just over three hours. Good morning, everyone. The committee will come to order. Before we begin this mornings markup, id like to extend a special welcome to some of the folks that are here this morning. They have come a long way. Several of alaskans have flown down are the north slope to be with us recognizing that this is their home. I think its important that they are here with us today. We welcome them. Id also like to add, just a farewell at the same time that we acknowledge a welcome. I dont see angela heres over there. But Angela Becker editman who has been senator cantwells staff director, i understand, is moving back to the west kocoast. And that this is perhaps your last day on the committee or last week on the committee. And i just i want to acknowledge the work that you have done. I think that, certainly, the staffs on our side have enjoyed the working relationship that we have had with you through some interesting and challenging issues and your leadership has been greatly appreciated. So know that and were going to miss you here. So thank you. [ applause ] so lets get to work here. We are here to markup legislation to allow responsible Energy Development in a small portion of the nonwilderneledd 1002 area in alaska. Under house concurrent resolution 71 which is the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018 to raise at least 1 billion in new revenues over the next ten years. Both the house and the Senate Passed that resolution through regular order process, including debate and a roll call vote on an amendment here in the senate that attempted to strike our committees instruction. We then followed the passage of the budget resolution with a regular order hearing. I might note that it was over four hours in length on november 2nd, almost two weeks ago that focused exclusively on the 1002 area. Then a full week ago with more notice than is required by our threeday rule i released the text of the reconciliation legislation that we have before us today. We have given committee membersent plaintiff time to review the legislation and 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 in total. But i think that it presents at opportunity for both alaska and our nation. We authorize an oil and Gas Development program in the 2100 area in accordance with the framework used to manage the nearby npra. We require two lease sales over the next ten years and require a royalty of 16. 67 or one sixth on the products that results. We split the revenues from production evenly between the federal government and the state of alaska. This is an agreement we are willing to make out of necessity even though our statehood act and the mineral leasing act provided for a 90 10 split in alaskas favor. We also have limited Service Development to must 2,000 federal acres within the 1. 5 million acre 1002 area which itself is just 8 of the 19. 3 million acre refuge. And i keep going back to the map of anwar to remind colleagues that the 1002 area is that area furthest to the north, that 1. 5 million acres that was specifically set aside under anilka for consideration for oil and Gas Exploration. It is spread and any wilderness. It is separate from the refuge it self. So when we talk about about where the 1002 sits and how it sits as a function of anwar, i think its important to keep that in mind. Now, some have claimed that we are on the verge of ruining anwar with development but we are talking about 2,000 total federal acres, just one tenthousandths of anwar itself. I think its also important to understand that we have not preempted the Environmental Review process in this legislation. We have not preempted the Environmental Review. Nor have we limited the consultation process with alaska natives in any way. All relevant laws, all regulations, and executive orders will apply under this language. Cbo estimates that our organization will raise 1. 92 billion in federal revenues, we recognize thats a significant sum, enough to meet our production is instruction. Even though the vast majority of likely revenues, likely tens of billions of dollars of new federal revenues will be generated after production begins outside the ten year window. 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 will support families and put kids through college. We will help Keep Energy Affordable saving families and businesses money every time they pay for fuel essentially and enjoy a tax cut. We will provide stability for west coast refine rears and reverse the imports that have taken hold as alaskas production has declined. Energy security and National Security go 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 we heard in our hearing two weeks ago, the size of the development pads has decreased by roughly 80 . 80 , since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the is your sub pass reach of the newest rigs by 4,000 over the same period. Many exploration wells are now built using ice roads and ice pads, leaving no impact to the tundra. The reality is that we need less land to access more resources than ever before. The technologies that built prudo bay are now almost 50 years old. We are far past those now. And alaskans understand this. Thats why so many of us strongly support development. Thats why we heard from senator sullivan and congressman young. We heard from our independent governor and our democratic lieutenant governor. We heard from alaska natives who actually live on the north slope whose voices unchaply 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 bureau, the Alaska Chamber of economies, the alaska trucking organization, labor organizations, our state lemgs lators, both republicans and democrats, and hundreds and hundreds of alaskans who have either called my office or written a statement for the record in support. All of them support responsible Energy Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. Alaskans know we must balance the potential impacts of development. And i will be the first to agree that the environment and local wildlife will always be a concern. And thats why we have not avoided Environmental Reviews. Thats why consultation requirements will apply. And thats why we have limited Surface Development to a total of just 2,000 federal acres. We will not sacrifice the caribou, the polar bear or the migratory birds for the sake of development. But we also recognize that that is not a choice that we face here. That is not what has happened at prudo, where the central arctic caribou herd has grown more than sevenfold since development began. And no matter how hard some try to make this an either or proposition there is no question that development and Environmental Protection can and do exist in alaska. If we are allowed to move forward with the development, we will do it right. We will take care of our lands, our wildlife, and our people. I would not support development if i was not convinced that we can do it safely. And the alaskans in the audience this morning, againing many who flew down from the north slope to be here and support our efforts would not support development if they thought it threatened their land and their cultures. Alaskans will do it the right way, they will protect the environment while providing substantial economic benefits all across america. I would encourage members to set aside the old arguments to recognize the opportunity before us and to join me in taking the next step by voting in favor of our reconciliation legislation. Ill turn to senator cantwell for her opening statements. Then i will outline for colleagues the schedule for the morning. Senator cantwell. Thank you madam chair and thank you for recognizing Angela Becker editman on our team. She ski worked together for a long time. First on my staff. And then when she joined the Energy Committee under smaert binghamman, and then coming back to take this post as i took over as Ranking Member. So, angela, i just want you to remember the saying, third times a charm. [ laughter ] i know the Pacific Northwest is great lore but do appreciate your help. And i think that that statement about her being here today is a remembrance of what we really should be doing here. Its Pretty Amazing that we all Work Together to pass an energy bill 8512 out of the United States senate with hundreds of priorities from members on both sides of the aisle both on the next phases of energy, on land, on a whole variety of thing. And yet we have not gotten that over the hurdle. Instead, today, we are spending our time and energy on this. On something that is a divisive issue, that there is not full agreement on. And its only through throwing out regular order that this can even be considered. The energy and Natural Resources committee has been instructed to raise a billion dollars. At the same time, the finance committee is trying to increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion with tax cuts for corporations and millionaires while they are raising taxes on 13 million americans, including over 300,000 in my state. So the fact that our committees contribution to that deal is about. 07 of 1 of the republicans increased deficit spending shows this is not a 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 doesnt deserve the nations attention. I believe it does. I have made many recommendations and will so again today about how to help alaska. But the notion that oil prices have fallen and the state has been overreliant 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. No. No. No. We need it for all sots of other things. Thank god that was stewardship in this country to preserve the grand canyon. Instead, it would require that the refuge plains be played into oil and Gas Development. It really does turn regular order on its head. Last week the members of this committee did not have a hearing on this legislation. That is the new regular order in the United States senate. The republicans in charge here, instead of working in a bipartisan regular order process have now determined the only way that you can get legislation through here is by having hearings without the legislation, hiding the information from the general public, and then throwing it out, and then when you realize your own colleagues dont want it, changing it overnight. And then trying to rush it through in break neck pace. Thats the open process of the United States senate . If the you stand by these ideas, then you and your colleagues should follow regular order. The sharemans mark was circulated after the hearing. And now we are being asked to vote on legislation that is different from any previous Arctic Drilling bill and has not been sub to a single hearing to help evaluate the impacts on this crown jewel. At its core, the chairmans mark would manage and change current law of the arctic wildlife refuge and turn it into a petroleum resever. Thats what this mark does. It turns the coastal plain in this refuge into an oil field. Now id like to submit for the record a letter from 27 different scientists and biologists who say that this is incompatible with the status of the refuge. It will be included. I would like to submit for the record as well a letter from both democrat, republicans, and independent u. S. Senate assistant secretary of interior fish and wildlife parks director of u. S. Fish and wildlife who also say its inconsistent. Well include that. And madam chair ill hold on the other one. So what were doing here today is just creating another avenue, another avenue by sleight of hand in legislation, to change the wildlife reserve. Because we asked this question, how could it possibly, possibly coexist given what the purpose of the refuge is . So thats easily changed. Well just change what the purpose of the refuge is. But in doing so, you are doing great damage to the wildlife in the habitat and the diversity of the area. This mark would direct the oil and gas program in the arctic to be managed under the same laws and regulations as the Petroleum Reserve. That is despite the fact that the Arctic Refuge and Petroleum Reserve were established for very, very different purposes. They are subject to different laws and management requirements. And they around even managed by the same agencies. By imposing the requirements, you just raise more questions than you answer. And we will have several amendments to try to clarify this and what we think is wrong with this mark. These amendments will attempt to return us to regular order, ensuring that the purpose of the refuge remain true to the reason it was established. The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlivs that live there. It is amazing to me w the runover of the cra that happened earlier this year, it is almost as if you want to run a newspaper ad saying come and hunt in the arctic wildlife refuge by helicopter, by gassing polar bears in their den. That will be the new way that you want to attract people to the arctic. Because that is what you are doing here. You are taking a wildlife refuge and turning it on its ear and marrying that up with the cra that you ran over before on Wildlife Management is a whole new style and message. I guarantee you that is not what is unique about alaska. That is not why thousands of people go there every year and have impact to your economy. They go there to enjoy the beauty and the wonder and the great significance that your state is. This mark is not done in compliance with environmental law. And its definitely not done in compliance with what every other state and refuge does. Most importantly, i dont agree that you should manage the wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. So we will have many questions. For example, how will it work with the fish and Wildlife Service being responsible for the management under one set of laws and the bureau of Land Management being under another set of laws. What happens when there is inevitable conflict, and all of these issues . Does every word of the npra law apply . Or just parts of it . How do we know which parts apply and which dont. How will the alaska corporations in the arctic be managed . In what authority . So there are many many questions here. But at the heart of this i think it was best said in the letter we received yesterday from jane goodall. And that is, let us not add quote, let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We have other sources of energy. Please, i beg you, please use your voice and your vote as a senator to protect the people and this american treasure that is the arctic wildlife refuge. End quote. Madam, chair, thou we dont think this is what we should be doing today. No we dont think this is regular order. No doe wasnt think its right to management a refuge as a po troll yum reserve. No, we dont think you are protecting environmental law or stewardship. So we are very, very frustrated by this process, but i guess it matches, in tandem with where our Committee Colleagues in finance are. I know several people here are running back and forth between those committees. But i think that you should ask yourselves about a process that just continually runs over regular order, and without the broad input from the public on a specific mark. With that, madam chair, im happy to take time to ask questions of staff. 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 hearing in epw. Other colleagues have things going none health, and of course finance committee is also very, very busy this morning. So i would like to try to get to the series of amendments that we have before us. There have been over 50 that have been filed today. I also want to recognize that we are scheduled to have three votes beginning at noon today. It would be my intention that we try to move as expeditiously and as efficiently as we can here. But i think you will also know, those of you who have been on this committee with me for the years that i have been chairing, i run the committee in a manner and a way that is respectful of other members and their points of views. And trying to balance that with competing demands on everyones time. So i would ask that as we process the series of amendments that we have in front of us that instead of introductions that last 15 or 20 minutes that we try to truncate the time and get our points across and move on quickly to the next. I also recognize that in order to facilitate our work we are going to be in a situation where we have to stack amendments, processing amendments requires eight members to a working quorum of eight members. A total of 12 members is required to vote on final passage. So it would be my intention that we would have an opportunity for a member to bring up an amendment, have a debate on each, and then move to the next. And then we will stack those votes. Its my intention that we would ask all members to be present here for as much of the hearing of the markup this morning as possible. But at 11 30, we will then turn to stack votes and hopefully be able to process all of the committees business before that time. Recognizing that thats a lot of work, but i think we are certainly capable of doing just that. So i would like to proceed to initial amendments. Senator cantwell, you have identified a series of amendments from members on your side. And i will certain defer to you as to which one you would choose to call up first. Well, madam chair, since wed like to clarify with staff some questions here, and so i would hope that in the process of regular order, which is done mostly any time you markup a bill or when a bill is before a committee, you have a chance to ask staff questions, we would so appreciate the ability to better understand this. Well, we can certainly do that, although i would anticipate that as a result of individual amendments that are before us we would have the opportunity to consult with staff to that. But if there are specific questions that you have of staff that we can dispense with quickly, well lets move to them. Great. Thank you. The chairmans mark adds a new proposed purpose to the refuge, to provide for coastal oil and Gas Development in the coastal plain. How many other National Wildlife refuges have development of oil and gas programs as a refuge . Well, mr. Kelly, ill go ahead and turn to you on that. Can i ask our counsel . You can. But i would also just include for the committees information crs report actually dated yesterday, november two days ago, november 13th, that does detail oil and gas operations within the National Wildlife refuge system that details where they are and how they are managed. Not only on not only on federal oil and gas operations but nonfederal oil and gas operations, and oil and gas activities in alaska National Wildlife refuse ungs. I think its instructive to the committee. Madam chair . Yes . Wouldnt those be the result of valid existing rights that exhibited before the creation of the refuge, as opposed to something devilled by the government after the creation of a refuge . It is a mix of both. Some were precreation of the refuge. And others not alaska. Id love to hear from our staff about that. Go ahead. Im not aware of that. I think to clarify the question, the question was the purpose as a refuge. So the development of oil and gas programs as a refuge purpose. That is what you are doing here. Which not only sets a precedent. It sets a precedent for what happens in the future. You are saying a wildlife refuge purpose is for oil and Gas Development. Now you could take that to the extreme of what would happen with other refuges in the future, but you could also take that to other areas of law of where we are trying to protect open space. And why not just say, it has the same purpose because now we are going to comingle ideas that development and preservation of wildlife can and should occur together. And i think that we have a list here from biologists and other people and scientists and republicans and democrats and independents that say, no, thats not a good idea. So its not that you havent had a previous wildlife that as my colleague from new mexico said may have have guaranteed rooi rights grandfathered in. Et cetera he. You are changing the statute and putting in the purpose, the purpose of a refuge is to have oil development. Senator cantwell, before we turn to staff on this, i think its foreign to recognize, we are not turning the entire 19 million acre refuge into a refuge that will host oil and gas programs. We are including within anilka allowance or purpose that within the 1002 area, not within the rest of the refuge. The rest of the refuge remains in place. What we are talking about is the 1. 57 million acres in the coastal plain that was specifically set aside for further study and potential future oil and Gas Exploration. That is the distinction here. That is the distinction that was laid down in anilka that not the entire refuse eun, not the entire 19. 64 million acres. But it was specifically designated in anilka that will 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 anilka itself in 1980. So this is not turning the wildlife refuge, the close to 20 million acres, into an oil and gas. We are speaking specifically to the 1002 area. Do you want to adopt my amendment by voice the one that limits it to 2,000 acres . Because we could do that right now . We already limit to 2,000 federal acres. Sam, counsel, is the 1002 area legally part of the wildlife refuge . Yes, senator, it is. Okay. So we are talking about protecting it. We are talking about we dont want to see oil and Gas Development there. And we will have a chance to vote on an amendment to limit oil and Gas Development to a very, very narrow foot print that you try 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 that a question for sam . That isnt. No. Nope. Thats a statement. So can i ask another question . The coastal plain is considered the biological heart of the refuge. If there is a flicks between protecting wildlife and having oil and Gas Production, which prevails under the chairmans mark . Senator, under current law, there can be no oil and Gas Development in any refuge unless the fish and will life service determines that it is compatible with the purpose for which that refuge is established. And the secretary of the interior gives his approval and consent to the lease and development. Under the chairmans mark, the fish and Wildlife Service is largely excluded from this whole process and instead 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 Petroleum Reserve production act. Which has a very different standard for management than what you find in the National Wildlife refuse ooj administration act. Under the Refuge Administration act, no development can occur unless it will not materially interfere or detract from the purpose for which the refuge was established. And in this case the Arctic Refuge was established to protect wildlife and its habitat. Where under the production act exploration can proceed certainly with protecting wildlife, but only to the extent consistent with the exploration purpose for the Petroleum Reserve. And in addition, leasing activities and development and production of oil can occur. They just need to be mitigated for reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects. That is a very different standard. Under the current law, the predominant purpose of a refuge is to protect wildlife. And under the chairmans mark, the predominant purpose of the 1002 of the refuge would become the leasing and oil and Gas Development program. Kelly ms. Donnelly, im going to ask you to explain to the committee that with the with the reference to management under the npra plan and the consultation that blm has within that construct, with fish and wildlife, along with other federal, state, and local agenci agencies, that effectively you have fish and wildlife as a cooperating agency consultation. Can you address the implications there when you have this management within the npra construct as this chairmans mark outlines. Yes, senator. Id like to note first that the blm administers oil and gas leasing on federal lands now for the federal resource including on other agencys lands including the wish and Wildlife Service. To clarify thats not only in alaska but around the country. Yes, they can go on to the land and manage it for oil and gas purposes even if it is a refuge. Here we are adding to the purpose of anilka as congress contemplated back in 1980 for just the coastal plain aspect of the 1002 area. Just the 1. 5 million acres. The rest of the refuse ung willton to be administered by the fish and Wildlife Service as a refuge. We talked about the refuge compatibility agent of its really nilka that will guide the compatibility for alaska refuges. In anilak there is a compatibility determination in that act which would still need to be complied with. We are not deeming compliance . We are not deeming compatibility, no. Excuse me. Compatibility. But because we are adding a purpose to the 1002 area when the seth of the interior does make the compatibility determination they should be looking at the congressional intent behind establishing a oil and gas program on the coastal plain. Thank you. Okay. Well its pretty clear that thats what the intent is, to establish because we are mandating the leasing, and mandating that the money be in the budget, and you are mandating that the production happen. So there is no doubt about that. Thats all going to happen under this proposal. There is no question that if its going to going to effect the caribou and the witchen dont have a food source who is going to happen . The leasing and the trilling is going to happen regardless of their objections. We do establish and administer a Competitive Oil and gas program for the leasting development, production, transportation of oil and gas within the coastal plain. Thats what the mark does. I would like to ask staff, isnt it true that this effectively waives the rooirsz requirements of the Refuge Administration act. Yes, senator, i believe it does. Because you were askinglier about oil and Gas Development on wildlife refuges. There is not a single wildlife refuge in the system that im aware of that has oil and Gas Development as a purpose as the chairmans mark would provide for the arctic. There are in fact 103 wildlife refuges that have existing oil and gas nonfederal leases where the oil and gas rights are owned by private individuals. But all those i believe were grandfathered in prior to the refuge being established. I think there are another eight refuges that have federal oil and gas leases, but they, too, were grandfathered in. I dont believe the fish and Wildlife Service has made a compatibility determination for a single wildlife refuge lease sense the enactment of the Refuge Administration act. 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 circumstance up vented by simply adding a new purpose, which is oil and Gas Development. And then on top of that shifting the management of the refuge over to the national Petroleum Reserve production act authority. Again, i would just point out, though, that what we are talking about is this 1002 area, this area that was specifically set aside under anilka in 1980 specific for the potential for oil and Gas Production. We are not we are not implicating the rest of the refuge. We are specific to that area that was set aside. Can i ask a question about nepa . Go ahead. As i said, i think its very clear as the answer to the question about the 1002 is within the National Wildlife refuge. Since ive been here for many debates on this discussion in the past its clear that the 1002 is part of the arctic wildlife refuge and many congresss have turned down this same proposal that we are considering today. That is to drill in the 1002. The blm would be under this mark releasing three areas each including areas for the highest potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons. How will that impact nepas ability to work in this case . What happens in the event if Analysis Finds there is Significant Impact to wildlife . None of the Environmental Reviews are waived. Nepa is still in place, as are all of the other esa, all of the other Environmental Reviews that are out there, remain. So that is not touched in the chairmans mark. Mr. Fowler. The chair is correct that the chairmans mark does not waive neapa. There is a body of case law, however, that indicates where an agency has no discretion, where it is basically pmpling a ministerial act doing something that it has to do under statutory direction and has no discretion as to how to go about it that the whole point of well, one of the two points of neapa is effectively eliminated. The courts have said that neapa has two purposes. One is to provide for informed Decision Making by providing information on Environmental Impacts to the Decision Maker so the Decision Maker can decide not to take an action or to take a different action in order to avoid the environmental consequences. And if the Decision Maker has no discretion in the matter, there is no point in doing an Environmental Impact statement. And so courts in some cases have said in that case there is a statutory conflict, and no Environmental Impact statement is required. There is still a second purpose to neapa. And that is to inform the public so there can be informed public participation. And there certainly would be a purpose i suppose in having an Environmental Impact statement prepared so the public would know the Environmental Impact statement or the environment impacts of the action that the bureau of Land Management is taking under statutory direction. Madam chair kelly madam chair, i have a question on process for madam chair. Before we move to that and go off, id like ms. Donnelly to address this because i think its an important part of this discussion here this morning and will probably help to fatal tate a quick process through the amendments as soon as we can get to them. Because i think it is important for colleagues to know that when it comes to the environmental regulations that are out there, they stay in place, that there is when we say that no environmental laws are being waived whether its neapa, esa, clean water, clean air, everything applies. There is a multistep process that goes on here. You have an integrated activity plan that is developed which is a very open process. You adopt the iap through a record of decision. Then you move to lease sale. Then you move to exploration. Then you move to discovery. Then predevelopment. Then that development is approved and there is a process throughout each one where, again, you have a level of regulatory and Environmental Review, of consultation, and of a public engage men. Kelly, if you can speak very quickly to that, and then well go to senator stabenow. Thats exactly right, chairman. Neapa is not waived in the chairmans mark. They will have to do neapa at the beginning and through every step of the process. Through every step. Every step that you outline of the it will be an open public process. I would like to keep going on this point. Know you are going to go over to just wanted im sorry. This is a very, very important discussion i just want to be clear had am chair because i have to step over to finance committee that if im back within an hour that i would be within the time to offer amendments at that point . Yes. Thank you. Hurry back . On this point, you may not be waiving neapa technically, but what you are doing is mandating a process that basically waives neapa. So the word neapa waiver may not be there, but in in the npra, the blm developmental impact statement for purposes of lease the blm could not select a nonactionable alternative. You are putting into place a he process by the language of this legislation mandating the lease sale, mandating the development, not giving people an alternative to select other by putting into contrast the management of the refuge under its original purpose being obstructed by a new purpose. We deal with this all the time. Ferc deals with this all the time. The language under which people make decisions drms how they make decisions. And you are confusing the purpose of the refuge by saying the purpose of a refuge is for oil development. It makes it nearly impossible for the wildlife consideration to win under this language. Is that correct about blm not being able to legally select 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 . They will be blm through the neapa process will be able to analyze a range of all tiffs, and be able to analyze a no action alternative, however it would not be amenable for them to select a nonactionable alternative. Yes, senator, thats how i construe it. I believe under anilkka section 1008 that the seth of the interior is going to have to make a compatibility determines. If someone trust this guy, he agrees that they can happen concurrently. This is a guy who basically wants to raise park fees and you know, involved in a whole variety of things that we dont need to get into today. So yeah okay. Yeah. No Teddy Roosevelt there. Come on. Yes. 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. Without this, they can occur together. I guarantee you that is not current legal thinking. Senator cantwell i will just remind you that we have interior sections that come and they go and they have different perspectives. The last one that we lived with had an entirely different one and it was of you and it was a per a view and a perspective that certainly helped to lock up alaska for a considerable period of time. Ill enter the record his letter that we received when we asked this question last week and well come back to it. Okay. I would just remind our colleagues that we do have over 50 amendments, and well, i know that getting these answers out on the record will help expedite the discussion, we do want to we do want to proceed in taking these up. Well, i think out of a courtesy to your office, which we have had zero courtesies in this didnt we told you which amendments we would like to consider today and we said there were under 15. I think you would allow us the courtesy to ask these questions. I have been allowing the courtesies. Please proceed. Okay. Does the counsel agree that the language as its structured would not when we asked about concurrence. I did get an answer on that . Fish and wildlife concurrence . Yes, senator. Why shouldnt the standard be applied to the arctic, one of the most important environmental areas of our nation . Why shouldnt we have that language to preserve . If you are asking my personal opinion, yes, i think it should apply. And i think when this question was litigated many years ago in the District Court in alaska about joint administration of a fish and Wildlife Service refuge with the bureau of Land Management, the court said that one of the purposes of the Refuge Administration act was to prohibit joint administration, that the Refuge Administration act makes it exclusively the jurisdiction of the fish and Wildlife Service to administer and manage wildlife refuges. And that at that point secretary watts attempted to administratively shift from the fish and Wildlife Service to in that case the Geological Survey was contrary to the Refuge Administration act. Congress can of course legislatively overturn the Refuge Administration act, but that would be a major change in the way wildlife refuges are administered. Under the npra leasing act, it limits judicial review by requiring any legal challenge underneath it to be barred unless brought within 60 days after the application of the federal register. Would these limitations on npra review also be applied here to the Arctic Refuge . Well part of the difficulty in figuring out what is going to happen is in fact that the national Petroleum Reserve production act was written for the npra and not for a wildlife refuge. And the chairmans mark says that blm is to manage the Arctic Refuge in accordance with that production act. In translating the words in the production act to a wildlife refuge creates a lot of questions. Isnt it correct, though, that blm manages on other refuges . Or. Yes. For oil and Gas Production purposes. But under the bureau of Land Managements regulations for managing on wildlife refuges there are very specific provisions about giving the fish and Wildlife Service authority to concur over the time, place, nature of the operations, which under the chairmans mark, by transferring jurisdiction to the bureau of Land Management and transferring the Statutory Authority under which its managed from the Refuge Administration act to the production act changes all that. To get back to senator cantwells question about judicial review because the chairmans mark talks about blm managing in accordance with the refuge act, it doesnt say that a court has to construe its jurisdiction based upon the production act. And because the statute of limitations in the production act is a restriction on the jurisdiction of the court rather than how blm manages it, i would certainly argue that a court should not be bound by that provision in the chairmans mark. But, again, all of these questions will be litigated. Kelly . The statute and the regs do have a provision for complaints to be brought within 60 days. And i would expect that to govern. But that does not decide on the venue or the cause of act. The venue can be any federal District Court under the npra and the blm regs. Thank you. Does the blm leasing act deem studies to be fulfilled under the first two sales. Does that neapa waiver also apply to the wildlife refuge. We are calling for a neapa in the chairmans mark. Neapa is not waived. Well, again, in saying that the refuge is now going to be administered innard r accordance with the refuge act just creates a lot of confusion. A former chairman of this committee used to say that a well paid bar is the bullwork of the republic. And this will provide a lot of employment for lawyers. I think we make clear there are no Environmental Reviews that are waived and thats that is underscored. I you are changing the purpose and moving it to an agency who doesnt have to consider the same laws and now have as a conflicting purpose, and a mandate, a mandate to get the money. So it definitely will change the purpose. I dont think that when you when you still have in place your laws relating to endangered species, clean water, clean air, neapa, when all that remains in place, to suggest that somehow or other we are waiving these important laws is not accurate. I would like to ask counsel. The npra laws do not seem to include any Protection Force critical habitat but over three fourths of the coast al plain is dedicated at habitat for polar bears. How will this ensure that those habitats are protected . I will ill speak to that. It goes back to the framework of the npra statute and the fact that we will be managing under that management program. If you look specifically to the many stipulations, the best Management Practices and the stipulations that would be incorporated, it speaks specifically to habitat. Not only you mention critical habitat. The fact of the matter is is the entire the entire north of alaska has been designated under the Obama Administration as critical habitat for the polar bear. But what we have contained in the stipulations are not only bear interaction plans, lets see, protect grizzly bear, polar bear, marine mamas, denning and bureau locations, there is a whole host of stipulations that speak to the areas of protection and how we are to enensure protection of the various species from the area. Can i get an answer from counsel, please. Thank you. Excuse me, could you repeat your original question. The npra doesnt seem to protect critical habitats. Over three 40s of the coastal plain is designated that way. How will the npra protect their critical habitat as it relates to this. To this . Is it the same standard that theyre managed under now . Neither the chairmans mark nor the Petroleum Reserve act waive the endangered species act. But its important to bear in mind that the endangered species act authorizes the secretary of the interior to issue incidental take permits. Namely, you can kill a threatened species. According to an incidental take permit that the secretary issues. And those permits can be issued for any lawful activity, which oil and Gas Development would back a lawful activity within the wildlife refuge, within the critical habitat if the chairmans mark is enacted. Do you want to reply to that . As counsel said, e. S. A. Is not waived in the chairmans mark. The section 7 consultation would still apply under the npr and blm regs. When they came out with the regs in 2014, they came forth with these best Management Practices and in that, they have a specific provision just on polar bears. Just on the section 7 consultation process. Blm can mitigate as they go forward to avoid that. You know the technological advances they have, polar bear dens in order to avoid them. Actions can still take place on the north slope and the consultation process is not affected in any way. Its the issue, i guess, i would say to counsel on both sides is that you are changing the management status. So to think were going to get the same management status from an agency whose purpose has just been changed and conflicted, then youre going get the same management status. Thats why we have this letter from all the scientists. From all the republicans and democrats and independents who have been in this job before. They say it cant coexist. The reason theyre saying that is because i know people would like to say that these caribou want to cozy up to a pipeline, but that is just not true. So the issue is we have people that are there who do need the support of this food source and their migratory habits are at question here. Im just amazed that people want to throw away such an unbelievable ecological jewel of our planet. I dont even just mean our nation, i mean our planet. The fact that our government has spent millions of dollars for decades studying the habit of caribou, that we have a treaty with canada to protect them, that their migratory habits have been so amazing, because how they distribute themselves to not deplete the food source is of scientific relevance. The notion that we think that now all of a sudden building oil rigs next to them and changing the ability to protect them is critical hab tap tat under the fish and Wildlife Service just doesnt its just not true. So if you say that another agency, it would be like saying that you would turn over the purposes of the epa over to the faa and say okay, they both have something to do with the skies and air. But if youre going to manage the skies based on what the faa says versus what the epa says, those are two different standards. I know that might seem a little dramatic as an example, but its the only one i could think of at this second. The point is, youre changing the standard of these agencies, and by doing so, you are going to change the management. You guys have been clever, maybe not purposefully so, maybe you believe, but this is what the intent will be. The challenge we face, we think well see how many people ultimately think this way, we think that its a critical habitat that should be protected and that it is not consistent with oil and Gas Development. Senator cantwell, i have allowed as a courtesy to you and to all members of the committee that this is an opportunity to ask questions of chair clarification of our Legal Counsel and im happy to do that. I also recognize that there is an opportunity for debate here as we try to advance through some of these amendments. So i would like if there were specific questions to be addressed to our Legal Counsel that require legal responses, lets finish those up so we can move to the amendments. I have a question on the npr leasing act to spend or reduce spending fees or minimum royalties. Under the language of the chairmans mark, does that mean the 16. 67 royally would be reduced at the discretion of the secretary . No. That will remain the rate that is set in law. Its in the chairmans mark. My reading is that when the chairmans mark makes the production act, the statute under which the refuge is administered, that that provision would apply. The chairmans mark says accept adds otherwise provided in a section. And the chairmans remark sets forth their loyalty rate. That would not be able to be changed. And one of the things in the section is required to manage the refuge in accordance with the production act which gives the secretary the authority to decrease or eliminate entirely the royalty if the secretary thinks thats appropriate. Accept as otherwise provided means that when were talking specifically on an issue in the chairmans mark, thats what governs. Anything else will come in through the npra statute and the governing regs. I think this is a very big point of departure here and very difference of opinion by Legal Counsel, which can happen sometimes, but again, a very important part of this royalty issue. I think that there is great concern about how this is managed in the future and the concept of what royalties and revenues will be there in the future and what slight of hand by a secretary can be used to change that dynamic as opposed to what were doing from a legislative branch perspective. So thats why were asking the question. Madame chair, i would suggest we go to amendments now. That answers a lot of our questions. Not that it completes our conversation, but it definitely answers a lot of the premise of our concerns about the chairmans mark. Both on the fact that it does change existing law in a significant way. So i would, depending on how you want to proceed, we can call up an amendment. Well, it appears that all of the amendments that members seek to have brought forward today for discussion and vote appear to be on your side, so i will defer to you as to which we take up first. Okay. So we cassidy 16, thats not going to be considered . We dont believe so. Okay. Lets go to cantwell number three, i guess, which is the chairmans mark adds new purpose to the article wildlife refuge to provide for oil and gas programs on the coastal plane this is as we were discussing contrary to the refuge purposes which are to conservative fish and wildlife and habitats and their natural diversity and to fulfill the International Treaty congratulations of the United States with respect to fish and Wildlife Habitat and to provide so in a manner which is consistent with the first two purposes. So the opportunity for continued subsistance by primary residents and water quantity within the refuge. Adding oil and Gas Development as a purpose of the arctic wild refuge doesnt make any sense for wild receive refuge. It certainly does if you want to drill. But no other wildlife refuge list as oil and gas as a purpose. So even if they have oil and Gas Development dont include this as a purpose, by putting that purpose in, you turn everything on its ear. It doesnt make sense, but doesnt make sense as a waiver from the requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge Administration act. Under the law the fish and Wildlife Service allows for development within a wildlife refuge if it is only compatible with the purposes. So our amendment would delete the addition of oil and Gas Development from the refuge purposes to clarify that the arctic National Wildlife refuge should remain a refuge and not be turned into an oil field. This amendment states that the secretary shall not establish the oil and gas program unless the secretary determines that it is compatible with the conservation purposes of the arctic wildlife refuge which was established which is the existing standard for approving development and National Wildlife. Drilling proponents have assured us that oil and gas compatible with the refuge. We just received a letter from secretary zinke confirming the administration supports authorizing the development as consistent. This amendment makes sure that it will be consistent with those purposes which we dont believe exist now. So we would doask for the consideration of this amendment to strike that language and strike that purpose. Senator cantwell, weve had much discussion on this already, but i will just repeat that, again, were not waiving any of the environmental laws in this mark. All the aplick kabl laws will apply. I think we recognize that each refuge in the refuge system is managed for a variety of purposes, including the specific purposes for which the refuge was established. But i keep going back to our history here with anilka in 1980 when congress established anwar, it specified the purposes of the refuge. But it also further directed the further study of the coastal plane for its oil and gas potential. And it provided that if congress so authorized it, the coastal plane could be developed for oil and gas. Thats the distinction here. Thats the distinction with this refuge is that when it was created, it was specifically, put it all in highlights or caps, whatever, it said this area up here is recognized for its potential. And provided that if Congress Authorizes it, the coastal plane can be developed for oil and gas. We dont change in our mark the purposes for which anwar itself was established. Instead, the legislation adds this new purpose which is the oil and gas program that applies only to this area that was designated back in 1980 under anelka. Applies only to the coastal plane. The rest of the refuge, the 17. 8 million acres remain the same in terms of the purposes. Theyre unaffected. They will not they cannot be impacted by oil and Gas Development. So what were doing here is ensuring that congresss decision to establish an oil and gas program on the coastal plane as it was contemplated in anelka back in 1980 is expressly is expressly represented in the anelka statute. So what the amendment before us actually does is seek to defeat the congressional decision to open up the area by striking this new limited purpose so that the program then is deemed noncompatible. I will note that National Wildlife refuges in alaska are governed by the provisions and other alaska specific law as well as general authorities over the refuge system. It is anelka that contains compatibility determination. This is a requirement that again is not waived by the mark. And as i mentioned earlier, were not deeming the 1002 areas oil and gas program to be compatible with anwar as a whole. I would expect that the agency would consider Additional Congressional purpose for the limited development in the coastal plane in making such a determination. But again, weve heard, we heard two weeks ago in hearing and its repeated today that development within the 1002 area is a very, very limited area of development. No more than 2,000 federal acres. The new purposes that we have added to this is consistent with the history of anelka. Its consistent and the language would ensure, will ensure that Environmental Protection is included as responsible development occurs. Madame chair. Senator hirono. I would like to support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. So while you have reassured us that all the environmental laws apply, i am looking at the plain language of your mark. And the plain language says that the secretary shall. I think this is an instance where shall means shall. Shall does not mean may. That the secretary interior shall allow these leases enable these leases to occur regardless of neis, nepa, anything. So i think the plain language of the mark is what prevails and i am sadly, i look at that and what you have said and your reassurances do not comport with the actual language of your mark. So i support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. Senator heinrich. Im just trying to square these two things. Your counsel said that no action under nepa and no action alternative would not be lawful under this legislation. I dont want to put word in your mouth. So ill let you speak to that and ill listen to what you have to say. I dont understand how this does not deem an outcome if under the language of the bill that a no action alternative would not be consistent with the legislation. It doesnt deem compatibility. Kelly, why dont you speak to that. Under this provision, nepa will still apply. In so doing they will be examining a range of alternatives and theyll be analyze a no action alternative. But they cant actually pick a no action alternative. No. Because congress is making the decision to establish an oil and gas program in the limited area of the 1002 program. My point exactly. Madame chair. Senator cantwell. If i could, the 1002 section the purpose of this section of fish and wildlife resources of the coastal plane wildlife refuge. Analysis of the impact of oil and Gas Exploration and development and production and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal in a manner that avoids significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife and resources. So changing so that you will so you dont have to consider those impacts and as your counsel just said mandates that it has to happen. That is our objection. That is purpose the to strike that language in cantwell number three and we can have if our colleagues have more to say whenever the vote is appropriate. We can have it now. The only thing i would add to that is a 1987 report that did determine that oil and Gas Exploration and production could proceed because there would be, and im going to look to kelly for the exact technical words. It was not no adverse impact, but what are the words specifically . They did report back, congress in the 1002 section congress directed the secretary to examine the potential on coastal plain for oil and gas potential. They reported back seven years later in 1987 and told congress that in their opinion they should open up the 1002 area to oil and Gas Development. If i could just submit to the record that 1987 study, because it basic says it would reduce use by caribou up to 37 and direct loss of approximately 2,700 acres of musk, ox and habitat due to replacement disturbance and avoidance and high use. So the report is very clear it has as they quote summary unavoidable impacts to wildlife. That will be included as part of the record. I think it is important to note as long as were talking about impact to wildlife that certainly within the area of development up and around prudo and the impact to the central arctic caribou herd, this is a herd that has seen growth seven times over since we Began Development back in the late 70s. It was around 5,000. Now were about 22,000 within the central caribou herd. I think thats important to acknowledge. As it relates to the purr key pine herd which is further to the east and crosses the borden between canada, that herd is presently, or at least several years ago their numbers were 195,000. The international caribou treaty that we have between alaska and canada requires management of a population around 135,000. We do have concern. Whether they rely on the bow head and the caribou, were paying attention to what is going on with their populations. You mentioned the central arctic herd. Do they calf in prud obey . They move through. I dont believe they calf. Thats an important distinction with the por key pi herd. It is in the broader refuge, but not the 1002 portion of the. Maybe we can get clarification on that. When i was on the refuge last year, thats not what i understood from the refuge managers. Im sorry, senator heinrich, i dont know the answer to your question, but the clarification i wanted to make, it is true that section 1008 is not waived by the chairmans mark, but it really isnt applicable. If you read the what section 1008 says, the secretary shall establish pursuing to the mineral leasing act which of course is not what the chairmans mark does. An oil and Leasing Program on the federal lands of alaska not required by the section 1001 of the act and that talks about a study of lands east of the western boundary of the npra. Of course, the Arctic Refuge is east of that boundary. In any event, what section 1008 does is give the secretary of the interior the ability to say were not going to allow drilling in a National Wildlife refuge if its incompatible. Where Congress Passes two convicting laws, courts try to harmonize the two where theyre incompatible later. More specific statute which this certainly would be. I want to provide somewhat of a correction. I just got a note passed to me that in fact the central arctic herd, some of that herd do calf in and around prud obey area and ive also been informed that the excuse me, the porcupine herd does calf in the 1002. Im looking at the fish and Wildlife Services website. According to their website, the central arctic herd was 70,000 in 2010, and 22,000 in 2016. So our numbers arent matching up, as well. And that was part of the testimony that we had a couple of weeks ago from mr. Cronin, recognizing that the herds will kind of move from one to another so that the counting often times is difficult. Central arctic caribou probably looks pretty close like a porcupine caribou. So being able to distinguish between them. But he did note the fluctuations, and we recognize, as you have seen, these animals dont settle down in one place. And they can be impacted by what is happening with weather, what is happening with an early spring or a later spring, and we just recognize that we tried to do the best job we can in understanding the strength of the herds. Ms. Donnelly. I would like to note that the record of decision for the npra and the company best Management Practices and stipulations avoided the calving areas. So there are ways as you go through the process and the process in general to mitigate against these things. I would just, in wrapping this part of the debate, say that i think my colleague from new mexico is bringing this up, because this population of caribou has been greatly impacted since 2010. But more importantly, our government sent a biologist in the 50s to study the porcupine caribou herd, and the difference between it and different herds in alaska. Because those porcupine had a unique quality of being able not to deplete the sources of food and to migrate. And it was those migratory habits of that herd that we paid for as taxpayers and went to study. We thought that science was so unique. And this is now what we are trying to destroy. So if we have the good sense decades ago to understand the appreciation of this refuge and the Science Behind it, i dont understand why we would throw it out today and pretend that we are going to be able to protect what is such a unique place. I dont think theres anyone that seeks to destroy the caribou. Further discussion on cantwell amendment number three . I would suggest we go to another amendment. If theres no other debate. No other debate. Lets move to a second amendment. What do you have in order, senator cantwell . I think senator cantwell has me next. Okay, senator franken. This is amendment number 32. Okay. And this is really about the need to devote more public land to oil and gas drilling in alaska. Big Oil Companies do not lack access to public lands in alaska. Oil and Gas Companies already hold more than 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska. But as the end of fiscal year 2016, as of then, less than 2 of those acres were actually producing. Less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million. So this amendment would require the department of interior to assess and certify that leases that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening up the refuge. If you have another million acres in alaska that are leased, lets make sure that those are tapped out or have been explored. If you only have two 2 of those actually drilling on them, why go to this place where they calve . The porcupine herd calves there. Why this place when theres another million acres that Oil Companies can be producing on but they arent doing it . It doesnt make any sense to me. So this amendment would simply require the department of interior to assess and certify the leases that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening the refuge. Well, i can understand where youre going with this, senator franken. You are among those that say the 1002 is the last place we should be looking to for Energy Development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the alaska delegation disagrees with that, the governor, lieutenant governor, the legislature. We have been seeking to develop this extraordinary potential within the 1002 that was identified decades and decades ago. Weve been seeking to be able to access this area again. A much smaller area because our technologies allow us to do just that. But we have been working on this for some 40 years now. For many of us, we believe that this area, this very productive area is actually one of the best places that we can go for responsible development and we should have done it some time ago. Again, were talking about an area that was recognized, when the great compromise was knit together decades ago, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. Thats undeniable. And as a consequence of that, not only was their wilderness created, refuge created, parks created, but there was an acknowledgement, a recognition. Again, i keep going back to the specific designation of this 1002 area, as one that was recognized for its extraordinary potential. And so what we are seeking to do today is to open up a very, very small portion. 1 10000th of all of anwr to development. And, again, what i want to remind people, this is an area where just three miles to the west, you have Point Thompson. There no fence. Theres no wall. Theres no border between the 1002 area and the state lands on which Point Thompson is built. So when you have an opportunity to look at that area, and recognize how we have proceeded with development, again, particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years now since prudo really came online, prudo came into being, what were able to do with a limited foot print, with the extraordinary advances in the technology, this takes us to a different level, that allows us to not only produce safely, but with a focus and a concern for impact to the surface. So that so that whether it is the caribou, whether it is the polar bear, whether it is the people who live in the 1002 area, that they are able to have a life and a lifestyle that not only allows for subsistence, but also allows for jobs and opportunities. So i think its important to put that into perspective. Again, i want to repeat the protections that come into play with the Management Plan under the construct of the national Petroleum Reserve that allows for the protections. I do think that it is important to acknowledge that when you say we need to tap out Everything Else that is only 2 of what the Oil Companies have taken under lease are being drilled on, and and i would so, so i mean, what youve just you know, youre the chairman and talk as long as you like. Youre the chairman. But you just argued what weve been arguing. And i say theres another side. And the other side is, this is where the porcupine caribou calve. We had testimony from a veteran in iraq. He said this is their food source. You first said that they dont calve there. They do calve there. Then you said that the at prudo, the caribou herd has increased. Well, then weve heard it hasnt increased. This is a very this is a very contentious issue. And since theres another million acres that are already leased, Oil Companies dont lease land, i dont think they do. It doesnt make any sense to me. I dont know the oil business. But why would you lease anything if you didnt think there was oil . I mean, why would you do that . Doesnt make any business sense. I have a question, if i could, madame chair. Yes. Go ahead. But before you do, i just wanted to briefly reply to a comment there, because you mentioned the testimony of a mr. Alexander who was before us who clearly is not supportive of opening anwr. But we also had testimony before this committee from mr. Rexford, who happens to live within the 1002 area and happens to be an alaskan native. It is important that we listen to our native peoples. But i do think it is important that we recognize that when were talking about subsistence and the opportunity for a food source there, the people who live in the 1002 area, who have homes and schools and airstrips, these people too need to be heard. And their issues need to be addressed, as well. Senator gardner. Thank you, madame chair. Just looking at this amendment, if the concern is disturbance of the area, i would assume that forcing every acre to be developed would create a significant significantly more level of pipelines and disturbance than what is considered under this legislation. Is that your interpretation of this amendment, as well . That would be my interpretation. So this requires far nor significant infrastructure and disturbance than anything else envisioned under your legislation. Is that correct . I think that is more than expect. I would love to respond to that, but go ahead. I heard my colleagues question about why would you have reserves leased that youre not producing. I can explain that as far as economics, whether its oil, coal, natural gas or whatever. They get contracts, and the contract might be for ten years. You have to show you have the reserves to produce. You wont get a longterm contract. So if you deplete what you have, you have to go somewhere else to fulfill the contract or you lose it. So economically, its basically for the leases. And to fulfill the contract. If you cant do that, show that you have the reserves, you cant get the contracts. Well, and further to that point, if i may, if the Oil Companies knew exactly where the oil was, that would make life easier. But the fact of the matter is, they purchase leases, and theres no certainty that there is there is a productive reserves that are underneath. And i think its also important to recognize those of us that come from oil and Gas Producing states, they dont produce immediately. Leases do not produce immediately. Alaska is a pretty telling case of that. It takes ten years plus. Unfortunately, sometimes even longer than that. Because of the permitting, it all takes time. So its important to put this in the context of the whole is my point. Go ahead, senator franken. So is the area youre talking about drilling in the arctic wildlife preserve the 1002. Yes. 1002. Is that any different . In terms of how long it will take . Yeah. No, not at all. So its not any different than this other million acres. So why not say before we drill there and disturb this beautiful place, go to some of the other million acres first . I dont get it. I dont get it. Maybe im maybe minnesota has no oil, im sorry. We dont have any coal. We dont have any gas. Thats true. Thats why you need alaska. [ laughter ] im not trying to close out debate, but in maybe supporting our colleague and moving on to some other amendments. I would just say that i think senator frankens point is that this will not be the last that weve heard about oil and Gas Development in alaska. That we guarantee there will be lots of discussion about the areas as the arctic that continues to open up, all the Different Things that will happen with all the different countries. I guarantee you well be talking about arctic oil for a long time. So i think his point in summation is that he wants to preserve one aspect of it that is still this intact ecosystem with a great migratory population. Hes saying lets continue to pursue, or pursue the issues of opportunity that are before us. I just want to note, we did get a letter this morning from a resident that i would like to submit for the record. Their key point is an organization, the voice of the arctic was mentioned as being supportive of development. They were not. They were told by city council they do not represent us. They have said they would represent our position. They should not be considered the voice of captovic. Robert glen tested, he is is a board member of for profit corporations, which has contractual arrangements with the oil industry which borders the arctic whieildlife refuge wh should be disclosed the companies he his Business Ventures with are chevron, texco and bp. His testimony should be looked at representing forprofit corporations, and not the indigenous people. That will be part of the record. Certainly, mr. Rexford, who is a resident of captovic. May i say one his statement certainly speaks for itself. The Trump Administration is going to open up 10 million acre of the national Petroleum Reserve in alaska in december. So what im saying is, why if 1002 is no different from any of these other 11 million acres, why not drill there . And yes, you had a member of the alaskan village or peoples that lived there, but now it turns out he has a profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. So i just think about this. This is why drill there and not one of the 11 million other acres open to drilling . Well, senator franken, i take it back to were not always sure where the oil is, but one of the things and this is no different. One of the things we do know, within the npra, the leases there are not as prospective as we certainly know within the anwr area. 896 Million Barrels on 23. 3 million acres. Thats less than 3 per acre of the amount of oil thats likely in anwr for a smaller area. So the reason we have been so interested in accessing, again, a very small portion within the 1002, is because this area has been identified over the years with the with the very little that we have demonstrated, the mean estimate is 10. 5 billion barrels of oil within that far western, northwestern corner. So you want to try to go where the resource is, rather than trying to either spending the resources, hoping that you do get lucky. Engaging in exploration that may have more impact than you want. You want to try to use the knowledge that you have, to make sure that it is most efficient and expedient. I understand your argument. Any other debate to senator frankens amendment . I just want to say, i understand your argument, but early early in this debate about this amendment, you said the 1002 was no different. What i was referring directly to, its no different in the sense of the permitting that will be required, the analysis that will be required, that will require ten years to go past before you see any production to that. The way that we handle it within npra and the way we handle it within the state lands, the fact of the matter is, that regulatory process is long and drawn out. I think everyone has heard my view and your view. So thank you, madame chair. Further debate . Seeing none, senator cantwell . It was franken 32. Thank you. This is amendment number 43, sanders 43. Okay. Madame chair, as ive said before, i think that our children and our grandchildren are going to look back on meetings and markups like this and they are really going to be shaking their heads and asking what world was the United States senate living in when, at a time of devastating damage done by Climate Change, responsible people were talking about more exploration for fossil fuel, and not addressing the planetary crisis of Climate Change . I really do think that our kids and our grandchildren will be looking back to us, and not in a kind way. You know, what is amazing to me is that just yesterday, 24 hours ago, in this room, on that panel where the staff now sits, we had the governor of puerto rico, the governor of the Virgin Islands, and representatives of the United States government who were talking about the incredible devastation done by recent hurricanes in puerto rico, Virgin Islands and elsewhere. Madame chair, as you well know, there will be a supplemental bill coming down the pike, nobody knows how much it will cost, to repair the damage in texas, florida, puerto rico, Virgin Islands. Were talking well over 100 billion. Six years ago, we dealt with hurricane sandy. 60 billion. Very few scientists deny that the extent and the severity and the frequency of extreme weather disturbances is only going to increase. And that is because of a warming climate. Now, youre talking about raising a billion dollars here. 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 the scientists tell us that the worst is yet to come. What this committee should be doing, working with people all over the world, is saying how do we transform our Energy System away from fossil fuel . Away from coal, oil, and gas to Sustainable Energy . And the very good news is, as everybody here knows, the cost of Sustainable Energy, solar, wind, is declining precipitously. We know now that corporations are investing, not in oil, not in coal, but in wind and solar, and other sustainable technologies. Thats the future for this country. Thats the future for the planet if were going to say, make this planet habitable for our kids and grandchildren. Madame chair, the amendment that im offering is a very simple amendment. It says that instead of more fossil fuel leases on our federal lands, we should issue permits for Renewable Energies like wind, solar and geothermal. It says we must aggressively transition towards Sustainable Energy and Renewable Energy. We should understand that in chile for example, concentrated thermal solar is delivering the cheapest electricity. Ever produced on this planet. Thats where the future is. So for the sake of our kids and our grandchildren, we should defeat the chairs mark. We should move this country and lead the world in a very different direction. Senator sanders, thank you for the amendment. You know that you and i have had opportunities to not only discuss but work on aspects of Renewable Energy and what we can do to enhance and to build that out. And i do think that is an important part of our Energy Portfolio in this country, and one that we can and should be aggressive on. As it relates to what we are doing here in this markup this morning, the amendment that you introduced is in violation of the bird rule under the congressional budget act. You direct the secretary of agriculture to work with secretary of interior. So youre effectively taking this out of our jurisdiction. Ive come to learn and understand a heck of a lot more about the bird rule and the requirements that we have to meet, not only jurisdictional, but the second prong is whether or not matters are merely incidental to changes in outlays and revenues. And this clearly falls in that merely incidental. I would also question whether or not an amendment of this nature would actually raise what this committee has been instructed to do under the budget resolution. So i would urge the committee to reject the amendment. Certainly understand where you are coming from with your focus on renewables. I think we do have opportunities to work on that. But not in the context of the mark that we have in front of us this morning. Madame chair, i would appeal the ruling of the chair. The ruling is i dont support your amendment. [ laughter ] no, the ruling, as i understand it, youre making this amendment out of order. I would like a vote to override that ruling. What im saying is that i believe your amendment does violate the bird rule as codified under section 313, and so i suggest to colleagues that this is not an amendment that we should support. When it comes time for us to have a vote, if you would like to call up your amendment, we can certainly do it at that time. Later on this morning. At 11 30. Thats when well start the stack. I would just point out senate bill 282 is a bipartisan bill introduced by senator dean heller. Has a number of cosponsors. If youd like to promote Renewable Energy on public lands, its a great bill. It streamlines the permitting process on public lands. Its bipartisan. Thanks very much and i will consider it. But my main concern today is to make sure that we do not remain dependent on fossil fuels and that we do not open the arctic wilderness to oil exploration. I thank senator sanders for his amendment and to bring this discussion, if were going to mandate development, which is basically what this bill does, senator sanders is simply saying you should make the same kind of commitment to other sources of energy. I thank him for offering it. Further discussion on sanders 43 . Seeing none, lets move to the mechanics amendment. Who would choose to offer . I can. Senator heinrich. I would offer up amendment number 34, i believe it is. Okay. Amendment to the chairmans mark on page 3 between line 6 and 7, insert the following. This is pretty straightforward. Prohibition of certain activities, no activity may be carried out under the oil and gas program under this section of the arctic National Wildlife refuge that would detrit mental to the habitat of the porcupine kar caribou herd. This would simply put the u. S. Fish and wildlife back in the drivers seat as to determining what would or would not be detrimental to the habitat of the porcupine herd, porcupine caribou herd. Senator heinrich, thank you. I will oppose this amendment because i dont think that its needed to protect the health of the herd. I am stunned. I know. I have referred repeatedly to the framework of the npra statute and the stipulations that have been laid out in the best Management Practices in the 2013 record of decision and again, i will point to some of those specifics that refer to protection for the caribou, whether its movement and subsisstance use, areas of habitat to be protect. I also recognize, again, i take it back to the efforts that we have made to really try to reduce the impact to the land so that the caribou can move freely through the area so that when they were still talking about ac ac acreages, but do we have a sense of how many roads and pipeline this development is going to mean . Its those kind of barriers that people say this about alk. Well, they dont mind road. They stand on roads and lick salts. One of their largest mortalities is standing on roads and licking salt and getting hit a by truck. Even if we split up 2,000 acres over a bunch of little tiny well pads, over the coastal plain, how much of how many miles of roads and other linear structures like Gas Pipelines are going to be spread across this landscape . I think we heard some of that in the hearing that we had two weeks ago. What because we dont know exactly where these 2,000 acres may be, it is and its important to recognize that we havent done any development there outside of the village which sits in the center there. But i think you can look to other areas of development on the north slope. Again, pretty old. But alpine, the alpine field was built in the late 90s. Theres six miles of road in total. Now as were seeing expansion into the greater moose Tooth Development were seeing up to 12 miles of road there. But there are no roads along the pipelines in alpine or from Point Thompson to prud obeo bay. Thats one example of a development, again, thats been around for 20 years here in terms of limitations on our roads. I think its also pretty important to understand that when were talking about the mitigation for the caribou, and we heard this from matth Matthew Cronin it is important to recognize that mitigation activities can be laid down to minimize the disturbance and, again, whether its elevated pipeline so that the caribou can cross under or to limit or prohibit development during those that early Spring Season in may, in june. Again, it takes us back to these stipulations that have been laid down within the blm the npra framework with blm utilizing that. So making sure that we have protections that are in place, stipulations included in the leases within npra include limits on disturbances during the feeding periods and restrictions on development in insect relief areas or, again, where you have key calving areas. Theres a sensitivity to the fact that we have some extraordinary herds that move through these areas. So how can we balance that Development Activity with the fact that we want to encourage, we want to support, we want to allow for a continuation of very, very healthy herds. So working to mitigate is exactly what we have built into this framework. To ensure that not only the caribou are not impacted, but the other species, whether it be the polar bear and knowing where they are and avoiding them at all turns, or the water fowl that are nesting there. Again, i would when it comes time to take up amendments for a vote, i would suggest that this activity to produce oil and gas can happen if they would be deemed detrimental to the habitat. The protection of the herd is important to recognize. Well, i would urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I think it gets at the heart of what were talking about here. You would think so from the name. But if we dont make this change to the legislation, what we say is that oil and Gas Development comes first on a National Wildlife refuge. That is a very, very dangerous precedent to make. Well, senator heinrich, if i may just respond to that. Because it is not a it is not chronological, this is first, this is second. Thats why we have this suite of regulations. We have to work with not only the federal but the state and the local. We have to work with the tribes. Done in consultation. Again, this is not this is not an either or proposition. Madam chair, if i could. Senator cantwell. Speaking in support of senator heinrichs amendment, and we have a couple other colleagues who want to offer amendments, and we should hear from them. Is that his amendment is they crux of this issue. His amendment is what fixes what is wrong with the underlying bill. So if you truly believe that the fish and Wildlife Service should play a role, thats what his amendment fixes. I think counsel has done a very good job, actually, on both sides of the aisle saying what will happen here. And what will happen to the views of the fish and Wildlife Service. They have been very clear, they will be run over. So i support his amendment, because it reestablishings the proper role for the fish and Wildlife Service. On senator heinrichs amendment . I would just close by saying, when i got on the fish and Wildlife Services website this morning, they make the very they make the point that most of the cabbing which occurs, both from the central herd and pork pine herd caps to one side or the other of the development. And i dont think thats accidental. Senator cantwell . Other amendments to be considered. Senator cortez massthao. Inserts the following. Proof of prior environmental safety, to be eligible for a lease issued pursuant to the section, an applicant shall demonstrate to the secretary that over the tenyear period preceding the date of the application, the oil and Gas Development operations of the applicant did not contribute to or cause, a. , any negative effects on local air or water quality. Or b. , any other damage to the local environment or wildlife. Madam chair, if we are going to allow drilling in an arctic wildlife refuge, one of the most pristine, leasttouched places of human activity left on this planet, we should hold applicants to a heightened standard. These areas are too important and too fragile to allow those to operate on the coastal plain. Those companies that have a terrible track record, at least for ten years prior, need not apply. To me, and i think this is just common sense. I hear people discuss that operators can come in and perform such extraction activities with minimal invasion. This simply asks those operators to prove their ability first. Well, senator, i would suggest again that we look specifically to the mark that i have laid down. Again, were not waiving any environmental requirements. Neepa. Any of the other environmental laws still must be adhered to. Again, we put this under the framework of the statute and blm regulations that govern the npra to ensure responsible development. You have you have indicated that its important that operators on the north slope or within the 1002 areas were speaking specific here to adhere to high standards. I can attest to you that the standards in alaska are if not the highest in the country, if not the highest in the world in terms of environmental compliance. I would i would challenge you to look to any other oilproducing area in the country here. And then go north to alaska to see the requirements and the standards that we put in front of our operators. Nothing is 100 . I think we recognize that. We always push for higher and better. But i do think that it is its important to recognize that the way that we require our operators to work in terms of the environmental standards, the Environmental Protections, i have taken several of my colleagues up to the north slope to see firsthand how Oil Operations are conducted. And i recall one conversation with a colleague from north dakota who thought that he really understood environmental regulations as they related to oil production. And he was he was honestly stunned at the level of requirement down to requiring that when it rained and there were little splashes of water on the gravel pad, that they had to be sucked up by a sucker pumper truck or some technical term like that. To make sure that there was no runoff on to the tundra. So it is a standard that as alaskans we are proud of, but, again, we push, we demand, we require if you fail to comply, you are you are fined, you are penalized. And worse. So it is important to us, and i absolutely agree that we have to have high standards. But i would suggest that, again, this is as probably a bird rule violation outside the committees jurisdiction. But i would just i would just remind colleagues here that the requirements that we put in front of those who wish to access the resources under the land are some of the highest in the world. Rightly so. And thank you, madam chair. And believe me, i respect and i appreciate your comments. But at the same time, we also know weve seen instances where there have been oil spills. Look, in 2007, bp was ordered to pay 22 million in criminal and Civil Penalties over illegal disposal of waste for drilling in alaskas north slope. If we are going to law drillial drilling in the refuge for the first time, then we should put a heightened standard on these companies that want to come in to show us their record. I mean, to me, the past is precedent of what we can expect, or ask questions about how they can ensure it doesnt happen again. And if we arent able to look at our past history to see how these companies and how they have operated and if there have been any type of environmental violations and harm to the environment, then shame on us. We should be asking that. And thats all this does. Is looks ten years back, and says, prove to us and lets look at our record, what you have done in the past and prove to us. I mean, theres no guarantees. We know that. And i get the comments over and over. And i keep hearing that we are not waving any Environmental Review. And i dont disagree with that. But we are changing the types of reviews and the types of oversight that happens by these agencies. Even the two attorneys. I sat here and listened to them. They will agree to disagree. Something is changing here. And thats why i dont understand why we even have to change the purpose of it. By changing the purpose of it, mandating the shall, you are indicating that this is something that is going to happen over anything, any type of Environmental Reviews, any type of activity, that is in contradiction to the original purposes for this refuge. So all this amendment does is to ensure that if were going to allow this drilling, then these companies have to come forward and they have to show us their past record, their past history, and what they have done. And if they have violated the environment anywhere, then we should be able to look at that and make a determination, and the secretary should be able to do that, as well. Thank you, senator. Madam chair . Senator cantwell. Just speaking in support of the senators amendment, there have been over 640 oil spills in the Alaska North Slope from 1995 to 2009, including 13 spills over 10,000 gallons. So were not talking about an inconsequential issue here. Since 2009, 10,000 of those gallons of crude oil and drilling have been spilled on the north slope as a result of oil and gas operations. And they have been routinely fined. For contamination, for discharge of hazardous substance. For oil pollution, for air pollution. I think in 2000 British Petroleum was ordered to pay 2 million in civil and criminal fines. So i think all my colleague is asking is that a heightened awareness, if youre concerned about this area, then an understanding of those backgrounds is very important. So i support this amendment. Further discussion on the cortezmasstow 22. None other than i accept the amendment. If you would like a vote on this, we will put it in the stack that well be taking up beginning at 11 30. Senator stabenow. Thank you, madam chair. First i also want to indicate support for senator cortezmasstows amendment. And when were looking at oversight accountability. Were looking at who benefits in this bill and larger policy. It comes to an amendment that i have. Ill be requesting a vote on amendment 45, which would eliminate the tax breaks enjoyed by the five major oil and Gas Companies, most of which, by the way, have been in place for about 100 years. We have, unfortunately, struggled to have Clean Energy Policy in any longterm way on solar or wind or other policies on clean energy, but yet the oil company tax breaks have been embedded in the tax code for about 100 years. Oil companies have enjoyed billions of dollars in special tax breaks, about 470 billion in total. The biggest Oil Companies will 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 big Oil Companies by allowing them to shelter their profits in tax havens. Its a brandnew addition for Oil Companies. If were going to open up pristine areas of the arctic National Wildlife refuge to drilling, which would boost big oils bottom line, i dont believe 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. I intend to ask for a record roll call vote. I anticipate that the chair will rule that the amendment is not germane. And if that is correct, i would ask for a roll call to overturn that. Well, senator stabenow, 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 well know, the tax provisions are within finance and i think its telling that theyre actually taking up things like the oil taxes in the committee at this time. So i would suggest that an amendment of this nature would probably be more appropriate before that finance committee on which you sit there. I also want to just address that somehow or other opening up of anwar is some is a favor or a gift, if you will, to big oil here. There are certainly no giveaways, if you will, to big oil in anything that were talking about here. We have youve heard me say in this committee many, many, many times that alaska as a resource state has been producing for decades now, but the reality is that our transalaska pipeline is less than half full. And we not only want to be able to produce more of the resource for the benefit of alaska and the benefit of the rest of the nation, but we also want to be able to put people to work and to be able to help our state, as well. So for those who suggest that this is somehow about big oil, it is 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 resources that we have and allowing our people to gain benefits and opportunities. And i think when our governor was here a couple weeks ago, he spoke he spoke very well to this point. That this was this was a promise made to us at statehood that alaskans can access our resources. And i think this fight over anwar has just been yet one more example where we have been denied that opportunity. I will also point out that within the text of the mark, we do require that the two competitive lease sales, again, the full Environmental Review process, but also a 1 6 royalty, 16. 67 royalty for all resource that is would ultimately be produced from the 1002 area. So i just wanted to include that as part of the discussion here. But, again, i would remind colleagues that the stabenow amendment 45 does fall outside of our committees jurisdiction. And madam chair suggest members oppose. Senator stabenow . We are doing all of this within the context of a budget resolution with instructions to this committee. And to the finance committee. And so on. And so it all relates to resources, budget resources. I would argue that when the Oil Companies have enjoyed 470 billion in incentives and tax breaks over the years, that that relates to what happens in terms of our budget. Our budget deficit. Our policies on energy. And what is happening here right now. We know who gets the direct benefit, who will be the ones operationally getting the benefit from doing this. And so i would argue that it does all fit. And, in fact, as i mentioned before during the hearing, 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. And i know that there are opportunities for other incentives around clean energy that would change the pressure points. And for the life of me, knowing alaska is on the front lines of the change in climate, i dont know why we wouldnt want to be working together to eliminate incentives that will continue to speed up the changing of the climate, and instead be redirecting precious resources in terms of tax policy in a direction that will actually benefit not only alaska, but the whole country and the whole world in terms of clean energy. So when i step back, all of this fits. If were talking about where we spent our money, what are our incentives, what are we going to be promoting. And in my judgment, this just goes in the wrong direction. Madam chair. Senator gardner. Thank you. The way i read this amendment, there are important issues in colorado, like intangible drilling issues. It would dramatically increase the cost of gasoline, as well, and fuel on consumers. So i think even if this were germane, the Public Policy behind it would end up hurting consumers and driving up costs. I think senator cantwell. I want to move on to another debate. But i would say in support of senator stabenows amendment, the larger issue here is that oil and gas prices are falling. Theyre falling. Theyre falling. And people who are holding on to economies that depend on that revenue are getting hurt. Even saudi arabia is diversifying off of oil. So i think senator stabenow is simply saying, why are we continuing to put taxpayer dollars behind incentives when the price keeps falling . And the point is, why not focus on instead some of the diversification efforts that are going to help our economy grow in the future, and leave us better protected, instead of trying to make up the shortfall. So i support her amendment. And theres madam chair, no other discussion. I want you to respond, but i would like to move on to another amendment. I would like to move on to another, as well. But i will just add a couple points here. Again, that we do have in this opportunity the in this committee the opportunity to do more when it comes to renewables. There are micro grids. We will continue to work on them. But im also very sensitive to the fact that we have limited jurisdiction within the Energy Committee, the tax provision is not one of them. And so as we move forward, i think that that is a discussion in the bigger reconciliation picture. But not specific to this committee. So thank you, senator stabenow. Madam chair . Senator cantwell. Is it possible could i make a statement . Senator manchin, certainly. First of all, i want to thank you and Ranking Member cantwell for the opportunity to make the brief statement. I would like to go on the record and state that i support the authorization for the National Wildlife refuge. This area known as 1002 is a promising prospect coming from an extraction. I understand the importance of growing your state economy. As well as playing an ongoing role in the enhancement of our Nations Energy security independence. I believe that such Development Must be done in a safe environmentally responsible manner with a focus on ensuring a balance is achieved for all alaskans. But i would be remiss if i didnt express my extreme disappointment with this budget process. And i believe that we can all do better. Last month, the Senate Passed resolution 71, which included instructions to the energy and Natural Resource committee to identify 1 billion in revenue. I voted in opposition to an amendment that attempted to strike that language. I did so understanding that this committee would examine the opportunity to authorize oil and gas leasing in the arctic National Wildlife refuge. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office has concluded that such an authorization will raise approximately 1. 1 billion over the 2018 to 2027 time frame. That said, i did not and do not support the budget process itself, which is being manipulated by one party, in order to pass partisan tax reform. As well as new partisan efforts to undermine the Affordable Care act. And increase costs for all West Virginia families. I have repeatedly stated that the only way to fix what is wrong with the Affordable Care act is to Work Together and in a bipartisan way to improve the system for all americans. I remain committed to working with all my colleagues to ensure all West Virginians and americans have accessible and Affordable Health care. And i remain committed to passing common sense tax reform through a fair and transparent process. While i will support the chairmans mark in light of the importance of oil and gas expiration to our energy, security and independence, i stress i deeply stress my fundamental opposition to the manner in which this budget reconciliation process is being executed. Thank you, madam chairman. Senator manchin, thank you for your statement. 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 youve had an opportunity to see that we do it responsibly, and do it well. I recognize being caught in between in such a situation is using this as a gimmick for us to get budget reconciliation is just so wrong. I would rather just vote it up or down and those of us who agree and disagree vote and move on. But thats not the way it is here. Well, and i and i understand that. I think we both know that thats not the way it is. We are in a reconciliation process. That is very limiting. And i think we recognize that it is limiting and perhaps an imperfect process. So i thank you for your comment there. Were there further amendments . Yes. I would like to actually call up if we can just get through two, that would be great. I would like to call up cantwell number six, which is cantwell 6 . Yes. So the gulf of mexico Energy Security act of 2006 directed federal revenues for offshore drilling in the gulf of mexico to four states to incentivize and promote offshore drilling. Under current law, they get 100 of gas revenues for the first three nautical miles from their shores. The oil and gas revenues beyond three nautical miles belong to the people of the United States as a whole. In my opinion, go masa was a terrible idea for the nation as a whole. I know the Trump Administration agrees and has asked for it to be changed. As a whole, 46 states dont benefit. We dont need drilling in the arctic wildlife to meet our reconciliation instructions. We can meet those instructions by raising 3 billion by eliminating these go mesa giveaways of federal revenue and giving alaska over 1 billion, which would help in not only protecting the arctic wildlife refuge, but giving revenue and impact to the state of alaska. I look at this issue and our challenges moving forward. When the discussion of go mesa, which i said, as i did in my comments, objected to, because it was giving federal revenue away, at the time, there was a lot of discussion of why you should do that. But one of the primary things that the advocates from those four states mentioned is that they wanted the money to go to protect their coastal areas. And not sure how much of that has actually been achieved. Definitely money has gone into the coffers of state governments. But as i look at oil and Gas Development and the federal revenue that i think even the Trump Administration wishes it had back, to me, i do want to start doing adaptation. So i would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. Senator cantwell there. So the question is, should the money come up through the federal bureaus and then go back down to the state with the inevitable restriction that takes off 10, 20, 30, 40 and doesnt go down to rebuild those coastlines. By the way, that is the strategic Petroleum Reserve assets, which you think of the map i just showed, that demonstrates why restoring this coastline protects federal assets. So the issue is whether we should, you know, not give louisiana the other coastal states the same consideration. Less of a consideration, but at least some consideration that states the western states receive. And whether or not we shouldnt have the money kind of directly going to protect those federal assets, or whether it should come through the federal government with all of the friction that that then takes off. I think that its in the federal taxpayers interest to do something for that coastline. Because were either going to pay now or pay later. To quote an old commercial. In fact, i will have an amendment which says that we should allow one days worth of reserves from the strategic Petroleum Reserve to backfill this. The reason why federal policy has actually decreased the revenue available for go mesa by 300 million over two years. And the absence of that means that that restoration will not occur. They will cancel projects, and all of those federal assets will stay at risk that much longer. So i i agree with your concern that we need to mitigate coastline. I just think the effect of which youre suggesting, senator cantwell, will work against that to the area which is most vulnerable in our nation. So, of course, i oppose it. Madam chair. If i may, very briefly, in response to senator cassidy. Mitigation is one issue. And we can talk about it. But the essence of todays debate is not mitigation. It is whether the United States tells the world and our own people that were 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 and to every other state in this country. And the time is now. Now. To make the Bold Decision for our kids and our grandchildren that were going to break our dependency on fossil fuel and move to Sustainable Energy. So i would say to my colleague from louisiana, the issue is mitigation is an important issue. Not the issue of today. The issue is a fundamental decision, which way forward this country goes in terms of energy and drilling for more oil is not, in my view, the way it should go forward. Senator sanders, just to speak to that thank you, madam chair. Just to speak to that. I dont know, though, if the way you make a statement is to allow the washing away of a coastline, which im speaking specifically to senator cantwells amendment. The washing away of a coastline, which will not only destroy federal assets, but the most productive fisheries in the lower 48, i emphasize the lower 48, as well as other Natural Resources. By the way, ill also point out in the amendment we have, the amendment we have has been endorsed by the Environmental Defense fund, the ive got a whole list here. The coalition to restore coastal louisiana. The National Wildlife federation. Were talking about preserving an ecosystem here. In terms of this particular amendment. The other thing ill point out, senator franken and i have been talking about puerto rico, what can we do for grid. The National Bureau of Economic Research points out that for every. 8 units of a grid run by renewables, you need 1. 0 of a unit i can explain that later of fastacting Liquified Natural Gas or natural gas, in case it goes down. Now, i wont go into the details. But the two complement at least natural gas. And a lot of these resources are natural gas. Again, im only speaking to senator cantwells amendment. But if you want to preserve that ecosystem, actually create the opportunity to replace coal with natural gas, and complement and enable renewables, we need that natural gas. But, by the way, we also need the ecosystem which allows it. And all im trying to do is defend the restoration of that ecosystem. Madam chair, as much as i would like to debate this for a very long time, im going to be short, because i would like to give the discretion to our colleague, senator wyden, who is anchoring another rushthrough process and offer his amendment. But i would just say to senator cassidy, this does leave 1. 6 billion for the four coastal states. It is just recognizing that i think its time to try to mitigate both in alaska, which is having such unbelievable impacts that are affecting indigenous populations and assets there. I love your enthusiasm for the assets in that part of your state, because i guarantee you, when senator murkowski and i needed that muscle to communicate to the leadership on your side of the aisle, 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 that. So we my point of this amendment is that it is federal resources that should be going to wellspent things that are now were going to be dealing with in a supplemental, that were going to be dealing with in our expenses. My colleague, senator collins, and i asked the gao, how much is all of this costing us. They said 635 billion over the next ten years. So i simply believe that the resources should be spent on helping alaska mitigate at this point in time, as well as continuing to allow you to mitigate, and i will work with you in whatever ways that we can achieve our objectives of this dynamic change that is happening on both how investments are being made in oil and gas and in the federal governments huge, huge cost that we are seeing on these issues. So with that, madam chair, id like to just call up, if i could, wyden number 49 and offer it for my colleague, since he cant be here at this moment. I think this would be the last amendment, and then we could go to votes. But senator wyden would like to be here, but hes in finance. He were told that the chairmans bill generates 1 billion for treasury over ten years. I think senator stabenow was also a co suppoponsor of this. The chairmans bill would generate 1 billion for the treasury over ten years, including 725 million by 2022. Senator wydens amendment simply says, if the federal government does not receive 725 million from the sale in the arctic wildlife refuge before october 1st, 2022, the authority to drill in the arctic wildlife refuge is rescinded. Based on historical leasing on the north slope, if a 400,000 lease sale occurred. Under that scenario, we would have to have a lease sales of 4 million acres of the refuge to generate the 725 million that cbo is projecting by 2022. I think thats the key issue. 4 amillion acres. The number does not take into account that companies bid between 2010 and 2015 industryonly bid 1. 5 to 5. 5 of the acres offered in the national Petroleum Reserve in alaska. So assuming the coastal plain is leased in a similar way, the current budget assumptions become more improbable. I think this is a common sense amendment. It would repeal it would appeal to members who are interested in ensuring that the budget is there to make budget decisions in the future, and on behalf of my colleague, i ask we put this as one of our roll call votes. Thank you, senator cantwell. I will oppose wyden number 49. I think that you effectively are in a situation where a termination like this would amount to a federal taking. Because the leases would have already been awarded. But then youve got the government stepping in and cancelling everything if the receipts dont reach a certain amount. So i worry that it runs afoul of the u. S. Constitution, because it would be a taking without compensation. The 725 million threshold, im assuming comes from the cbo estimate, which we recognize is an estimate. I think we we go back and forth in terms of whether we like or dont like cbo and how cbo operates. But it is designed to be that nonpartisan entity thats supposed to take the politics out of budgeting process. But trying to substitute our judgment for theirs or use their work to justify arbitrary conditions i dont think is the right way to go. I do think that if you kind of if you kind of game this out and say, okay, well, lets just say that the first lease sale would could end up raising 724 million. The second could wind up being 5 billion. Thats not going to match the cbo estimate. But what you would have done then is effectively terminate that program at the beginning. So i dont think that it it would withstand the test in terms of meeting the constitutional confines. I think it would set a dangerous precedent. So i would urge members to oppose. Could i just ask counsel, is that your read of this . As it relates to any kind of mandate . No, thats not my read, senator. Certainly, if the bureau of Land Management issued leases, that committed to the lessees, they would be able to develop the oil on those leases and then kept the money and didnt return it if the amendment took effect. Then that might constitute a taking. But to simply say that the secretary or rather the bureau of Land Management in implementing this program should issue leases that are conditioned upon the full amount being paid in, and then returning the money if its not, that would not be a taking, because the companies would get their money back. Thank you. Wow, i cant think of a greater way to add uncertainty into an already uncertain process when it comes to being able to access resources. So, again, i would urge colleagues to reject the wyden amendment. Madam chair, i think we should just vote on the amendments that we have left i mean, vote on the amendments we have called up so far. I think that would probably be the best way to proceed here. Well, i did ask colleagues to try to be here between 11 30 and 12 00, so we can take this up. Were certainly within that time. I would ask if its the intention 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 final passage before we have our round of votes commencing at noon here. Madam chair . Im sorry, go ahead. I just wanted to clarify or add to the record. Senator wyden has indicated that he is supportive of cortez amendment number 22 and would be a co sponsor. Great. Senator king . Will there be opportunity for discussion when we get to final passage . Yes. I think there will be. It shouldnt take us long to move through these votes. But, again, i would just remind colleagues that were cognizant of the clock, because weve got votes coming up. But i dont want to cut anybody off with talking. I suggest we move to cantwell number 3 and call it up for a vote. Okay. And i ask for the yays and nays. Senator cassidy, we have just asked all members if there were any other amendments that wish to be considered. There were none. I do know that you and i have had a conversation about your proposed amendment. Ive 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 have indicated to me, i will provide for that. Ill do it in a minute and a half at the most. Thank you. Because i spoke to it earlier. Can you show these posters . Western states get 50 of the revenue from offshore lease. The go mesa set up about ten years ago gave the coastal states 35 up to a maximum of 500 million. Its to begin this year. Theres been a decrease in the amount of receipts because of federal policies, and that decrease will persist for a couple of years. This is louisianas coastal loss. This is the flood risk that increased the impact of katrina upon new orleans, which cost federal taxpayers 20 billion. This is the strategic Petroleum Reserve assets, which are all at risk because of this. Were trying by our states constitution, any revenue we get from go mesa has to be used to restore this coastline, which in turn protects these assets, as well as the communities that live there. I mentioned earlier, this amendment has been endorsed by the Environmental Defense fund, by the coalition to restore coastal louisiana, the fish and wildlife organizations. I would ask that and what it does is it takes one day of strategic Petroleum Reserve assets and sells it and uses the money to backfill over the next two years. The revenue lost because of coastal of federal policies to allow restoration of our coastline. I welcome any questions. Thank you, senator. Would you accept an Additional Co sponsor . Oh, i would love it. Im assuming you would like to be added as a co sponsor . Thank you. I want to make a slight correction we get 48 of onshore leases. Zero percent of offshore leases which i think was an inadvertent mistake. The coastline is very small. Senator cantwell . I would move we call up cantwell number 1 and i ask for the yays and nays. I mean, cantwell number three. 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 revenuesharing. And will work specifically in that area. I think he knows that i have great hesitation and reluctance when it comes to sell of this. But prioritizing the costa restoration and Hurricane Protection is something that, again, i will be there with my support for you. So senator cantwell has called up amendment number 3. Cantwell amendment number 3. I ask for the yeahs aneighs nays. The clerk will call the roll. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Ms. Cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. Aye. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. No by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss douglas. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. Aye. In this vote, the nays are 13, the yays are 10. It is not agreed to. The clerk will call the roll. Cortezmasstow. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. No. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Mr. Manchin is aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Im sorry, mr. Heinrich . Aye. Mr. Ruino. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. Aye. By this vote, the nays are 13, the yays are 10. The amendment is not agreed to. I would like to call up heinrich number 64. Is that heinrich 34 . 34. Oh, yeah, sorry. And youre asking for yays and nays. Clerk will call the roll. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Cassidy . No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. Aye. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. Aye. By this vote, the nays are 12, the yays are 11, the amendment is not agreed to. The amendment fails. Any other members wish to call up amendments . I would like to call up franken number 32. Franken 32 and ask for the yays and nays. Yes, please. Clerk will call the roll. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. Yes. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. Yes. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. No. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. No by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. Aye. By this vote, the nos are 14, the ayes are nine, the amendment is not agreed to. I would like to call up cantwell number 6 and ask for the yays and nays. The clerk will call the roll. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. Aye. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. Aye. By this vote, the nays are 12, the yeahs are 11, the amendment is not agreed to. I would like to call up widenstabenow amendment number 49 and ask for the yays and nays. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Hoeven. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. Aye. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. The nos are 12, the yays are 11. The amendment is not agreed to. I call up sanders amendment number 43. The clerk will call the roll on sanders number 43. Miss murkowski. No. Mr. Brasso. No. Mr. Risch. No. Mr. Lee. No. Mr. Flake. No. Mr. Danes. No. Mr. Gardner. No. Mr. Alexander. No. Mr. Cassidy. No. Mr. Portman. No. Mr. Strange. No. Miss cantwell. Aye. Mr. Wyden. Aye by proxy. Mr. Sanders. Aye. Miss stabenow. Aye. Mr. Franken. Aye by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. Aye. Miss hirono. Aye by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Miss duckworth. Aye by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. By this vote, the nays are 12, the yays are 11. The amendment is not agreed to. I would like to call up stabenow number 45. The clerk will the clerk will call up seven of 45. I mentioned this is not jurisdictional, so i am going to move to table the stabenow amendment. So the motion the vote before us is a motion to table. On the motion to table. Miss murkowski. Yes. Mr. Veraso. Aye. Mr. Risch. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Flake. Aye. Mr. Danes. Aye. Mr. Gardner. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Mr. Hoeven. Aye. Mr. Cassidy. Aye. Mr. Portman. Aye. Mr. Strange. Aye. Miss cantwell. No. Mr. Wyden. No by proxy. Mr. Sanders. No. Miss stabenow. No. Mr. Franken. No by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Aye by proxy. Mr. Heinrich. No. His hirono. No by proxy. Mr. King. No. Miss duckworth. No by proxy. Miss cortezmastow. No. This vote, the ayes are 13, the nays are 10, the amendment is tabled. The amendment is tabled. Are there other madam chair . Those are the amendments we have discussed this morning. And i think you can see by the amendments that are filed that our colleagues have many other issues to discuss. But i think those are representation of the concerns that we have with this legislation moving forward through this process. Unless colleagues on either side i know of no one at this moment who wants to offer an additional amendment. Senator cassidy, did you wish for a roll call vote . I would, please. Unless we wish to i thought we were vote by acclimation. I thought we were not voting on his amendment. Senator cassidy did bring it up at the end, and asked for it to be considered. If you would like it could be voicevoted, we could certainly do that in the interest of time. And if its by acclimation, of course. Yes. Im okay with that. Okay. Lets have a roll call vote. Okay. A roll call vote has been requested. The clerk will call the roll on cassidystrange number 16. Miss murkowski. Aye. Mr. Barrasso. Aye. Mr. Risch. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Flake. Aye. Mr. Danes. Aye. Mr. Gardner. Aye. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Mr. Hoeven. Aye. Mr. Cassidy. Aye. Mr. Portman. Aye. Mr. Strange. Mr. Portman. Aye. Mr. Sanders. Nope. Ms. Stabenow. No. Mr. Franken. No by proxy. Mr. Manchin. No, by proxy. Ms. Had a rono. No by proxy. Mr. King. Aye. Ms. Duckworth. No by proxy. Ms. Cortez mat tow. No. By this vote the yeahs are 13, the nos are ten, the amendment is agreed to. 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, the clerk excuse me he excuse me. A final vote on the chairmans mark as amended, but yes senator cantwell, i know that there are dleegz who would like to make statements, what i would like to do since the vote has been called is to to have the final vote taken and then i will stay here and would certainly encourage members to provide discussion and comments for the record at that point in time. I know he we just said to our colleague here that he could make a comment before the vote so i feel like we should at least make his comment before the vote. I think many of us have other things that we can add to the record, so would you like to do i am 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, im i am amenable to it. I just want to make sure that we all have a chance to do our other job. I appreciate that. As long as no of us get mr. Senator collins and a vote. I appreciate that. Just briefly. This is i have great deal of respect for you and for senator sullivan. I met with your governor, your commissioner of Natural Resources. Ive tried to hard to understand this issue. Im going to have to vote no. Going back to something senator heinrich mentioned, the words wildlife refugee mean something it seems to me, and as i look back, the 1980 law does not designate 10,002 for drilling. It does say exploration is allowed by 1003 expressly says congress has to act in order to enact drilling. The development is not limited to 2,000 acres and my consideration of this has been influenced by that number which i find inappropriate. I did a little calculation. These chairs only covered under the definition in this law two square feet of the area of this room because its only a square inch for each leg of the chair thats on the ground but most of us would say thats a pretty good coverage of the room by the chairs. Were talking about a lot of coverage of this of this area in multiple wells, a minimum of 400,000 acres being leased. Alaskas 305 million acres, the state own 105 million acres, the natural Petroleum Reserve is 123 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 were now projecting the news just yesterday of Record Oil Production in the United States next year of almost 10 Million Barrels a day rivaling that of saudi arabia. I just i find it hard to vote to open this up given the questions about wildlife and as i say, i just dont think the case has been made that there is a necessity National Security or other necessity for doing this, so given the respect that i have for the chair and for her colleague from alaska, senator sullivan, its not easy for me to take this position, but the data compels me, i believe, and i just wanted to get that statement on the record. Thank you. Senator king, i thank you for that and i thank you for your willingness to sit and listen, not only to the alaska delegation but to our governor and our commissioners. I think that that is important. We all we all come to our own conclusions but i respect the time that you have really given to i believe study it. Before the final vote, is there any one else that would like to make a quick comment . Seeing none, the clerk will call the roll on the chairmans mark as amended. Ms. Murkowski. Aye. Mr. Ba rosso. Aye. Mr. Rich. Aye. Mr. Lee. Aye. Mr. Flake. Aye. Mr. Gardner. Cochlear implant. Mr. Alexander. Aye. Mr. Hoe van. Aye. Mr. Cassidy. Aye. Mr. Portman aye. Mr. Strange. Aye. Ms. Cantwell. No. Mr. Franken. No, by proxy. Mr. Manchin. Mr. Heinrich. No. Mr. Hirono. No by proxy. Mr. King. No. Ms. Duckworth. No by proxy. Ms. Cortezmasto. No. By this vote the yeahs are 13, the nays are ten, the legislation as amended is agreed to. Madam chair, senator, make sure we have time for members to file decenting views. Thank you. I think there will be plenty of time for members to file dissenting views. Thank you for being here, the time you have given and the debate has been appreciated. With that, the committee stands adjourned. It seems like this is the closest politically, at least, anyones ever coming. No, keep in mind that back in 1995, you know, i was not in office. I wasnt even in the state legislature at the time. It passed both houses, and it went up to president clinton for his signature and it was vetoed there, so thats probably as close as any measure has ever come. I will tell you, though, that it was back in 2005 when i had the opportunity to be here with senator stevenson and we, again, thought that we were very close, so i think alaskaions have had many opportunities with this in front of us. I think its like 16 different times over the years that that a either been introduced, held in hearing, congressman young reminds us that that he has successfully advanced it from the house 12 times now. So this is there was nothing new here today other than the advances that weve seen in technology that again allow us to access an important resource and do so in a way that has less impact to the surface, less impact to the environment and so thats thats the update and i think that that was that was well conveyed throughout the discussion and the debate. Senator, this bill seeks the first [ inaudible ] no later than 2021, at that point there could be a new president in charge, would you support the Trump Administration moving at a more accelerated schedule to lease these areas before potential change in administration . You know, we take the long view with you have to. And we will see administrations come and we will see administrations go. I think this administration has been very clear that they support Resource Development and they support Resource Development in alaska within the npra and within anwar, but the process that that will unfold if we are successful with this is one that sometimes it takes takes longer than we would like, obviously. I would like to see it happen sooner than later. Weve been waiting for this for some 40 years. But again, what we need to do right now, the first step is get the authorization to open it in the first place. Weve taken weve taken that step again today. I will be very transparent with you. I have i have no reason to believe that this is this is the last hurdle that we face. This will be part of a tax package now and i fully anticipate that just as there was with the budget resolution there will be an effort to try to strike the energy piece. We will we will gear up for that battle again and so were doing this incrementally and were doing this in a way that the people know full well what were doing and why were doing it. Okay . Thanks. Thanks, everybody. [ inaudible conversation ] heres whats coming up today on cspan3. Up next a discussion on health care costs. Then its a hearing looking at women in business and later remarks from fbi director christopher wray. Join us tonight for American History tv in primetime. We look at a discussion on the 70th anniversary of the 1947 hollywood black list hearings, American History tv in primetime begins at 8 00 p. M. Eastern here on cspan3. Tonight book tv is in primetime with the look at best sellers. Fox news host provides a history of the war of 1812s battle of new orleans in his book Andrew Jackson and the miracle of new orioles. Former fox news host Gretchen Carlson talks about combatting Sexual Harassment and Award Winning author examines race, the Obama Presidency and the 2016 election in his book, we are eight years in power. J. D. Vance talks about his book hill billy. Tonight at eight eastern we kick off our rode to the white house coverage. He was joined recent by tim ryan at the clinton dinner in new hampshire. Watch that starting at 8 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. Thanksgiving day on cspan. Here are some of the highlights. At 11 30 a. M. Eastern, the Liberty Medal ceremony honoring john mccain. At 1 00 p. M. , former secretary of state john kerry receiving a Lifetime Achievement award in boston. And at 2 45 p. M. , the New York Times columnist david brooks, and historian ronald white discuss character and the presidency. On book tv on cspan2, the southern festival of books. Jonathan ig on the former heavyweight champion of the world, mohammed ali. Authors discuss the middle class and politics and at 4 50 people Erick Erickson on his book, before you wake, life lessons from a father to his children. On American History tv on cspan3 at 9 50 a. M. The life and times of Teddy Roosevelt. At 11 00 a. M. , native americans and trade in 19th century california, then at 2 55 p. M. Eastern, from the national archives, a look at the first Motion Picture units world war ii films. Thanksgiving day on the cspan networks. A panel of healthcare policy officials shared their views on lowering cost while trying to maintain quality. Topics include changes in payment model. And transitioning from a fee for service to a value based reimbursement system. This event was hosted by the National Institute for Healthcare Management foundation. Its about two hours. Good afternoon. So wed like to go ahead and get started. Im nancy chockley. President and ceo of foundation and im just dlieded to welcome you all here today. We have an incredible panel of business and policy leaders. They come at the problems from different perspective. But one unifying theme between all of them is their concern for what rising healthcare costs do to americans. And the need to increase value in our healthcare system. So each of them will present their own ideas of how to increase value or how they are increasing value in the healthcare system