Existing fan on gas and oil leasing and republicans and democratic senator john manchin voted in favor of the bill while the rest of the committees democrats voted against it. Alaskas senator Lisa Murkowski chairs the committee. [inaudible conversations] good morning everyone. The committee will come to order. Before we begin this mornings marked up i would like to send a special welcome to some of the folks that are here this morning, there come a long way. Several alaskans have flown down from the north slope to be with us. Recognizing that this is their home. I think it is important that they are here with us today so we welcome them. I would also like to add just a farewell at the same time that we acknowledge a welcome. I do not see angela but she is over there. Angela who has been staff director i understand is moving back to the west coast. And this is perhaps your last day on the committee or last week on committee and i just, i want to acknowledge the work that you have done. I think that certainly, the staff on outside have enjoyed the working relationship that we have had with you some interesting and challenging issues and your leadership has been greatly appreciated. We will miss you here. Thank you. [applause] lets get to work and we are to mark up legislation to allow responsible Energy Development in a small portion of a nonwilderness area in northeast alaska. When reporting this legislation pursuant to the reconciliation instruction that we received under house concurrent resolution 71. Which is the budget resolution for fiscal year 2018 to raise at least 1 billion in revenues over the next 10 years. Both the house and the Senate Passed the resolution through regular order process including debate and a roll call vote on an amendment here in the senate that attempted to strike our communities instruction. We then followed the passage of the budget resolution with a regular order hearing and it was over four hours in length almost november 2 to reset a focused exclusively on the 1002 area. And if we can go with or notice that is required by our three day rule. I released the text of the reconciliation legislation that we have before us today. We have given members plenty of time to review the legislation and certainly consider possible amendments. Again, this was done in regular order so that we may report to the Senate Budget committee. Our text as you have seen is four pages long. Just 587 words total. I think it presents a tremendous opportunity for both alaska and our nation. The authorize an oil and gas with the framework used to manage the nearby and pra. We required to sales over the next 10 years and apply a royalty of 16 67 percent or 16 on the production that results. We have split the revenues from Development Evenly between the federal government and the state of alaska. This is an agreement that we are willing to make out of necessity even though our state had act and our mineral leasing act provided for a 90 10 split in alaskas favor. We also have limited Service Development to just 2000 federal acres. With the 1. 5 million acre 1002 area which itself, is just a percent of the 19. 3 million acre refuge. I keep telling that to the map of anwr to remind you that that is the area furthest to the north. The one for 5 million acres that was specifically set aside under for consideration of oil and Gas Exploration. It is separate from any wilderness, it is separate from the refuge itself. When we talked about where the 10 o2 sats and how it sets as a function, i think it is important to keep that in mind. Some have claimed that we are on the verge of ruining the area with developing but we are talking about 2000 total federal acres, just one 10,000 of anwr itself. That is also important to understand that we are not preempted the Environmental Review process in this legislation. We have not preempted the Environmental Review. Nor have we limited the consultation process with alaskan natives in any way. All relevant laws, vacations and executive orders will apply under this language. They estimate that the legislation will raise 1. 092 billion in federal revenues over the next 10 years. We recognize that that is significant sometime enough to meet our instruction. Even though the vast majority of revenues, likely tens of billions of dollars in new federal revenues, will be generated after production begins just outside the 10 year budget window. Of course revenues are not the only benefit that will result from Careful Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. We will also create thousands of good jobs that support families and help put kids through college. We will help Keep Energy Affordable saving families and businesses money every time they pay for fuel essentially and energy tax cuts. Will ensure a steady supply of energy for west coast refineries in state washington and california and reverse the foreign imports have taken hold as a leftist production has declined. Of Course Energy securities and National Security will hand in hand. While we can be confident in those benefits, we can be equally confident that none of this will come at the expense of our environment because new technologies have left the footprint of Development Even smaller. As a herd at the hearing to restore the site of development had to decrease by roughly 80 percent. 80 percent since the 1970s. New technologies have expanded the subsurface rage of the newest rigs by 4000 percent over the same. Many escalation walls are built leaving no impact to the tundra. The reality is that we need less land to access more resources than ever before. The technologies that built are now almost 50 years old. We are far past those now. Alaskans understand this. That is why so many of us strongly support development. That is why you heard from senator sullivan and congressman young. We heard from our independent governor and our democratic lieutenant governor. We heard from alaskan natives who actually live on the north slope whose voices gently are often ignored in the debate. And who said right here before the committee that yes, we want to develop. Our witnesses were part of an outpouring of support from back home the voice of the arctic. The north slope borough, the Alaska Chamber of commerce, the trucking association, labor organizations, state legislators but republican and democrats. In hundreds and hundreds of alaskans that have either called my office or written statements for the record in support. All of them support responsible Energy Development in the nonwilderness 1002 area. Alaskans know we must delve the potential impact of development. I will be the first to agree that the environment and local wildlife will always be a concern and that is why we have not avoided Environmental Reviews. That is why consultation requirements will apply and that is why we have limited Service Development to a total of just 2000 federal acres. We will not sacrifice the caribou, the polar bear way the migratory birds for the sake of development. But we also recognize that that is not a choice that we face here. That is not what has happened where the central arctic caribou herd has grown. And no matter how hard sums tried to make this an either or proposition there is no question that the protections can and do exist in america. If we are lucky move phone with development we will do it right. Well take care of the land, the wildlife and our people. I would not support development i was not convinced that we can do it safely. And the alaskans and the audience this morning, many who flew down from the north slope to be here in support of our efforts, would not support development if they thought it threatened their land and cultures. Alaskans will do this the right way. We will protect the environment, providing substantial economic benefits all across america. I would encourage members to set aside the old arguments, to recognize the opportunities before us and find me in taking the next step by voting in favor of our reconciliation legislation. I will check to senator cantwell for her Opening Statement and then i will outline for colleagues schedule for the morning. Senator cantwell. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you for recognizing angela on our team. She and i have worked together for a long time. First on my staff and then when she joined the Energy Committee under senator bingaman and then coming back to take this post as Ranking Member. Angela, i just wanted to remember the saying, third times a charm. [laughter] i know that this is great we do appreciate your help. I think that the statement about her being here today is a remembrance of what we really should be doing here. It is Pretty Amazing that we all Work Together to pass an energy bill 85 a12 of the United States senate with hundreds of priorities and members on both sides of the aisle both on the next phase of energy on land, on a full variety of things and yet, we have not gotten that over the hurdle. Instead, today, we are spending our time and energy on this. On something that is a divisive issue. That there is not full agreement on. And it is only through during our regular order that this can even be considered. Energy and Natural Resources committee has been instructed to raise 1 billion. At the same time, the finance committee is trying to increase the deficit by 1. 5 trillion with tax cuts corporations and millionaires while they are raising taxes on 13 nine americans including over 300,000 in my state. The fact that our Committee Contribution to that deal is about 7 100 of one percent of the republicans increase deficit spending shows that this is not serious budget proposal. It is a cynical effort to open up the heart of the arctic wildlife refuge for oil. And i am sure at the heart of it is the interest of alaskans. Not saying alaskans economy does not deserve the nations attention. I believe it does. I have made many recommendations and well so again today about how to help alaska. But the notion that oil prices have fallen and the state has been overreliance on oil does not mean that we should be destroying a wildlife refuge today. The mark removes the statutory prohibition against oil and Gas Development. And it reminds me of the debate that happened when people wanted to establish the grand canyon. We cant do that, we can do that, we needed for other things thank god there was a stewardship in the country to preserve the grand canyon. Instead legislation before this committee would require that the refuge coastal plan be placed in oil and Gas Development. So it really does turn regular order on its head. Last week, this committee did not have a hearing on this legislation. That is the Nuclear Water in the United States senate. The republicans in charge here, instead of working in a bipartisan and regular order process, have not determined the only way that you can get legislation through here, is by having hearings without the legislation, hiding the information from the general public and then throwing it out and when you realize your own colleagues do not want it, edging it overnight and then trying to rush it through in breakneck pace. That is the open process of thesenate . If you stand for these and is, then you and your colleagues should follow regular order. The chairmans mark was circulated after the hearing. Now we are being asked to vote on legislation that is different from any previous arc bill and has not been subject to a single hearing to help evaluate the impact on this crown jewel. At its core, the chairmans transport would manage and change current law of the arctic wildlife refuge and turn it into a Petroleum Reserve. That is what this does. Friends the coastal plain in this refuge into and oilfields. Like to submit for the record, a letter from 27 different scientists and biologists say that this is incompatible with the size of the refuge. I like to submit the record is about a letter from both democrat republicans and independent u. S. Senate assistant secretary of interior fish and while the director of Us Wildlife Service will also say it is inconsistent. And madam chair, i will hold onto the other one. What we are doing today is just creating another avenue, and another avenue by legislation to change the Wildlife Reserve because we ask this question. How could it possibly coexist given what the purpose of the refuge is . So that is easily changed. Villages change a purpose of the refuge. But info and so, you are doing great damage to the wildlife and habitat and the diversity of the area. This would directly Oil Gas Program in the arctic to be managed under the same laws and regulations as the Petroleum Reserve. That is despite the fact that they were established for very different purposes. They are subject to different laws and management requirements and they are not even managed by the same agencies. By imposing the requirements, you just raised more questions than your answer. And we will have several amendments to try and clarify this. And what we think is wrong with this mark. These amendments will attempt to return us to regular order ensuring that the purpose of the refuge remains true to the reason it was established. The purpose of the refuge was to protect the wildlife that lived there. It is amazing to me, but the run over of the cra that happened earlier this year, is almost as if you want to run a newspaper ad saying, come and hunt in the arctic wildlife refuge by helicopter, by guessing polar bears in their dens. That will be the new way that you want to attract people to the arctic. Because that is what you are doing here. You are taking a wildlife refuge and turning it on its and this is a whole new style and message i guarantee you that is not what is unique about alaska. That is not why thousands of people go there every year and have impact dear economy. They go there to enjoy the beauty and the wonder and the great significance that your state is. This marked is not done in compliance with environmental law. And it is definitely not done in compliance with what every other state and refuge does. Most importantly, i do not agree that you should manage the wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. We will have many questions, for example, how will it work with the fish and Wildlife Service being responsible for the management under one set of laws and the bureau of Land Management being under another set of laws . What happens when there is inevitable conflict in all of these issues . Does every word of the followup time were just parts of it . How do we know what part supply and which do not . How will they last and under what authority . There are many many questions here. But, at the heart of this, i think it was best that in the letter we received yesterday from jane goodall. And that is, let us not u let us not add one more tragedy to the list. We have other sources of energy, please, i beg you, please use your voice and your vote is assented to protect the people and this american treasure that is the arctic wildlife refuge. So madam chair, no, we do not think this is what we should be doing today. No, we do not think this is regular order, we do not think it is right to manage a wildlife refuge as a Petroleum Reserve. No, we do not think your protecting environmental law or stewardship. And so, we are very, very frustrated by this process. I guess it matches in tandem with our community and colleagues on finance where they are. I know several people running back and forth between those committees. I think that you should ask yourselves about a process that is continually running over regular order and without the input from the public on a specific market. With that, madam chair, and have his take time to ask questions. Senator cantwell, you mentioned the reality that we are facing this morning. There are multiple committees that are meeting. I know senator barrasso is chairing a committee in. And others are very busy this morning. I would try to get to the series of amendments that we have before us. There were over 50 that have been filed. Today, i also want to recognize that we are scheduled to have three votes at noon today. It would be my intention that we try to move as expeditiously and efficiently as we can hear. But, i think you also know, those of the you that have been on this committee would be for the years i have been sharing, ive run the committee and a manner and a way that is respectful of other members and. Trying to balance that with competing demands on everyones time. I would ask as we processed a series of amendments that we have in front of off, that instead of introductions that last 15 or 20 minutes, that which to truncate the time and get our point across quickly and move on to the next. I also recognize that in order to facilitate our work, we are going to be in a situation where we will have some amendments, processing amendments, requires eight members to work in form, it would be my intention that we have an opportunity for member to bring up an amendment, have a debate on each and then move to the next and then we will stack the votes. It is my intention that we would ask all members to be present here for as much of the hearing, the marked up this morning as possible. But at 1130 we will then turn to stack votes and hopefully be able to process all of the committees business before that time. Recognizing that it is a lot of work but i think we certainly are capable of doing just that. I would like to proceed to initial amendments. Senator cantwell, you have identified a series of amendments from members on your side and i will certainly defer