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 a