Thank you. I think this is a big point of departure. Very difference of opinion by Legal Counsel which can happen. Again, very important part of this realty issue. There is great concern about how this is managed in the future and the concept of what royalties and revenues will be there and what sleightofhand could be used to change that dynamic as opposed to what were doing is a legislative perspective. Madam chair, i suggest we go to amendments. That answers a lot of our questions. Definitely answers the premise of our concerns about the chairmans mark both on the fact that it does change existing on a significant way. Depending on how you want to perceive we can call up and amendment. It appears all the amendments members seek to have brought forward today for discussion appeared to be on your side. I will defer to as to which we take up first. Cassidy 16 is not going to be considered . We dont believe so. Lets go to cantwell number three which is the chairmans mark adds new purpose to the arctic wildlife refuge to provide oil and gas refuge on the coastal plain. This editions is contrary to the purposes which are to conserve fish and wildlife populations that fulfill the International Treaty obligations of the United States and to provide in a manner inconsistent with the first two. The opportunity for consistent use in a primary issue and in sure water quality. Adding oil and gas is a purpose doesnt make sense for wildlife refuge. It does if you want to drill. No other wildlife refuge list this as a purpose of a wildlife refuge. Even those dont include it by a purpose. By putting that purpose and you turn everything on its ear. It doesnt make sense of the waivers. Under the law it allows for development within a wildlife refuge if its only compatible with the purposes. Our amendment would delete this from the refuge purposes to clarify that the Arctic Refuge should remain in authentic refuge. The secretary shall not establish it unless its compatible with the conservation purposes of the arctic wildlife refuges which is the existing standard for approving development. Theyve assured us that oil and gas is compatible. We just received a letter confirming the Administration Support authorizing the development is consistent. Make sures it will be consistent with those purposes. We asked for the consideration to strike that language and purpose. Weve had much discussion on this. I will repeat that again, we are not waiving any environmental laws in this mark. All of the laws will apply to this area. We recognize each refuge in the refuge system is managed for a variety of purposes i keep going back to our history in 1980 when congress established and wore. It specified the purposes of the refuge. But it further directed further study of the coastal play for its oil and gas potential. It provided that if authorized it could be developed for oil and gas. Thats the distinction. That when it was created it was specifically said this area is recognized for its potential and if Congress Authorizes it the coastal plain can be developed for oil and gas. We dont change in our mark the purposes for which and where was established. Instead the legislation as this new purpose that applies only to this area designated in 1980. It applies only to the coastal plain. The rest of the refuge, 17. 8 million acres remain the same in terms of the purposes, their unaffected and cannot be impacted by oil and Gas Development. We are ensuring Congress Decision to establish an oil and gas program as it was contemplated back in 1980 is expressly represented in the statute. So what the amendment does is seek to defeat the congressional decision by striking this limited purpose so the program is steam noncompatible. I will note that National Wildlife refuges are governed by the provisions of other alaska specific laws in general authorities over the refuge system. It is onauku that contains compatibility determination. s requirement not waived by the mark. We are not deeming the 1002 oil and gas program to be compatible with an war as a whole. I expect to consider additional congressional purpose for limited development in making a determination. We heard two weeks ago and its repeated today that development within this area is a limited area of development. No more than 2000 federal acres. New purposes we added is consistent with the history and consistent in the language will ensure Environmental Protection is included as responsible development occurs. I would like to support Ranking Member cantwells amendment. While you have reassured us the environmental laws apply, im looking at the plain language of your mark and it says the secretary shall, this is an instance where it is shall, not may allow these leases to occur regardless of any ias, dnieper, or anything. The plain language of the mark is what prevails. Sadly, i look at that and what you have said in your reassurances to not look at the actual language of your mark. I support the amendment. Im trying to square these two things. Your counsel said no action underneath the or would be lawful under this legislation. I will let you speak to that. I dont understand how it does not demon outcome if under the language of the bill and no action alternative would not be consistent with the legislation. It doesnt incompatibility. The it will still apply. In so doing, they will examine alternatives and analyze a no action alternative. But they cant pick one. No, because congress is making a decision to establish this in that area. If i could, the 1002 section purpose in current law reads the purpose of this section is to provide for comprehensive assessment of the coastal plains. Now analysis of the impact of oil and Gas Production and to authorize exploratory activity in a manner that avoid significant adverse impact on fish and wildlife and resources. Changing it and changing the focus of the refuge so you dont have to consider those impacts allows you and mandates it has to happen. Thats our objection and purpose to strike the language. If our colleagues have more to say, we can vote whenever is appropriate. The only thing i would add is the 1987 report. It did determine oiling Gas Exploration could perceive because there would be it was no adverse impact, but what are the word specifically . If congress directed the secretary to examine the potential on coastal play they reported back seven years later until congress that they should open up the 1002 area to oil and Gas Development. 1987 study says it would reduce use by caribou up to 37 and direct loss of approximately 2700 acres of muss oxen habitat due to avoidance. The report is clear as they quote, unavoidable impacts to wildlife. That will be included as part of the record. Its important to note that we were talking about impact to wildlife that within the area of development around trudeau bay and the impact to the centric actor occurred, i heard that missing growth seven times over since we Began Development in the 70s. It was around 5000, now, about 22000. Within the central caribou herd thats important to acknowledge as it relates to the porcupine heard which is further to the east and crosses the border between canada, that heard several years ago their numbers were 195,000. The caribou treaty we have between alaska and canada requires management of a population of around 135,000. Whether the central arctic heard her porcupine, these are areas we have concern. The people of the north rely on the caribou, were paying attention to whats going on with the population. You mention the central arctic heard, do they cabin protopic . They moved through. I dont believe they can. I appreciate that, the calving of the porcupine heard is not in the 1002 area, it is in the broader refuge but not in that portion. Maybe we can get clarification. When i was on the refugea thats not what i understood. You have a comment in another clarification . Yes, i dont know the answer to your question. But clarification, it is true 1008 is not waived of the chairmans mark. Its really not applicable. If you read what section 1008 says. The secretary shall establish according to the mineral leasing act a Leasing Program on the federal lands of alaska not subject to a study, and section 1001 of the act talks about a study of lands east of the western boundary of the in pra and the Arctic Refuge is east of that. What section 10008 does is give secretary the ability to say we wont allow drilling in National Wildlife refuge if its in compatible, but then again the chairmans mark mandates the Leasing Program be conducted. Where Congress Passes to conflicting laws, the courts try to harmonize the two with their incompatible a later more specific statute which this certainly would be controls over the earlier general statute. According to their website it was 70,000 in 2010 and 2,202,016 so the numbers are not matching up as well. A couple of weeks ago, it was bracket i think that the herds will move from one to another so the counting often times is difficult. Being able to distinguish between that he did note fluctuations, and we recognize as you have seen, these animals dont settle down in one place, and they can be impacted by what is happening with the weather, what is happening with an earlyy spring or later spring and we just recognize we try to do the best job that we can understanding the strength. I would like to note the decision and best Management Practices and stipulations avoided the area so there are ways as you go through the process in general to mitigate against these types of things. I would just in wrapping up part of the debate say that i think my colleague is bringing this up because it has been greatly impacted since 2010, but more importantly, our government sent a biologist to study the herd and the difference in the alaska because they had a unique quality of being able not to deletdepletes the sources of fod it was those habits of the herd that we paid for as taxpayers and went to study. We thought that it was so unique and that is what we are trying to destroy so if we have a good sense decades ago to understand the appreciation of this refuge and the Science Behind it i dont know why we would throw it out today. Final discussion on cantwell number three. A second amendment, what do you have . For the oil and gas drilling in alaska, the Big Oil Companies it holds 1 million acres of federal land under lease in alaska. In the end of fiscal year 2016, less than 2 of the acres were actually producing less than 17,000 acres out of 1 million so this would require the department of interior to assess and certify those that are already held by Oil Companies are tapped out before opening up the refuge. If you have another million acres in alaska that are least, lets make sure that those are tapped out or have been explored and if youve only have 2 of those, then why go to this place where they have the porcupine herd . Y. This place where there is another million acres that the Oil Companies can be producing that they are not doing it. We would require the department of interior to assess and certify the leases that are already held by the Oil Companies that are tapped out before opening the wreckage. I can understand where you are going with this. It is the last place that we should be looking to for energy development. I would disagree with that. The rest of the delegation disagrees with that or the governor or lieutenant governor. We have been seeking to develop the potential that was identified decades and decades ago we have been seeking to be able to access this area again. A much smaller area because the technologies allow us to do just that. But we have been working on this for some 40 years now. But for many of us, this productive area is actually one of the best places that we can go for responsible development and we should have done it some time ago. Again, we are talking about an area that was recognized when the great compromise was together decades ago prior to, there was a recognition that alaska had some extraordinary areas. That is an deniable. And as a consequence of that, not only was the wilderness created, refuge and parks created, but there was an acknowledgment and recognition. Again i keep going back to the specific designation of this area as one that was recognized for its extraordinary potential. So what we are seeking to do today is open up a very small portion of the 110 thousandths of all of a noi to development. And again, what i want to remind people of this is an area that just 3 miles to the west you have thompson. Theres nthere is no fans, no wd no border between the 1002 area and the state land on which it is built. And so, when you have an opportunity to look at that area and recognize how we have proceeded with the development again particularly in the 40 years, almost 50 years mouse in it came into being. What we are able to do with a limited footprint with the extraordinary advances in technologthetechnology this taka different level but with a focus and a concern for impact so that whether it is the caribou, polar bear, they are able to have a lifestyle that not only allows for subsistence but also allows for jobs and opportunities so i think its important to put that into perspective. Those that come into play with the management plan. I think that again it is important to acknowledge that when you say we need to tap out Everything Else that is a. He said this is her food source and you first said the caribou herd has increased. This is a very contentious issue and since there is another million. Why would you lease anything where you didnt think there was oil . I just wanted to briefly reply to a comment there because you mentioned the testimony of mr. Alexander who is before us who clearly isnt supportive of opening up an alarm if we had testimony before this committee who happens to live within the area and happens to be in alaska native and it is important that we listen to our native people, but i do think that it is important that we recognize that when we are talking about subsistence and the opportunity for the food source, the people that live in this area that have homes in schools and airstrips, these people need to be heard and their issues need to be addressed as well. Just looking at this amendment, if the concern is the service of the area, i would assume forcing every acre to be developed would create a significantly more level of pipeline then what is considered under the legislation. Is that your interpretation of the amendment as well . I hurt my colleagues question about how would they lease if they are not producing. I can explain that as far as economics whether it is oil, coal, natural gas. They get contracts and it might be for ten years then we get a longterm contract so you do deplete what you have you have to go somewhere else or you lose it. So, economically it is basically for the leases. Further to that point if i may, if the Oil Companies knew exactly where the oil was that would make life easier but they purchased the leases and there is no certainty that there is productive reserves. Those of us have come from the oil and Gas Producing states dont produce immediately. They do not produce immediately. It takes ten years plus sometimes even longer than that. Its important to put this in the context of the whole. Go ahead. Is that any different . So its not any different than the other million acres. Before we drill there and disturb this beautiful place, go to some of the other million acres first. I dont get it. I dont get it. We dont have any cold or gas. Movinmoving onto on to some othr amendments i was just saying i think the senators point is that this will not be the last that weve heard about in the illegal and Gas Development in alaska that we guarantee there will be lots of discussions about ncr dick continues to open up, all the things that are going to happen with various countries in the arctic i guarantee we will be talking about it for a long time. I think that his point of summation is that he wants to preserve one aspect that is still this ecosystem with the great migratory population so lets continue to pursue the issues of opportunity before us. We did get a letter this morning from a resident that i would like to submit for the record. It is an organization they were not told by the city council they dont represent us and they previously said they would represent the position. Roberts testified he is a board member of the Forprofit Corporation which has contract obligations with the industry that supporters the refuge and should be disclosed. It should be representing the Forprofit Corporations rather than and i submit that for the record. He is again a resident. Of the administration is going to open another 10 million acres of the National Petroleum reserve in december. So, what im saying is if 1002 is no different than these other 11 million acres. And yes, you have a member of the alaskan village now he has a profit motive and wasnt speaking for them. So think about this. This is why they are one of the 11 million other acres opened to drilling. I take it back to we are not always sure where the oil is, and this is no different. One of the things we do know is within the npr a, the leases are not as perspective. Its less than 3 per acre of the amount that is likely. The reason we have been so interested in accessing again a very small portion within the 1002 is because this area has been identified over the years with dot very little that we have demonstrated the estimate is 10. 5 billion barrels of oil a within that far northwestern corner. You want to try to go where the resource is rapid and spending the resource is hoping that you do get lucky engaging in exploration that may have more impact then you want. You want to try to use the knowledge that you have to make sure it is most efficient and expedient. Any other debate . I understand the argument, but early here i