    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

        H.R. 1146, ``ARCTIC CULTURAL AND COASTAL PLAIN PROTECTION ACT''

    =======================================================================

                              LEGISLATIVE HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
                               MINERAL RESOURCES

                                     OF THE

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                            Tuesday, March 26, 2019

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 116-9

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
                                       or
              Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    35-816 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2019

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, po@custhelp.com.

                         COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

                          RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
                        DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
       GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
                   ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member

    Grace F. Napolitano, CA              Don Young, AK
    Jim Costa, CA                        Louie Gohmert, TX
    Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,      Doug Lamborn, CO
        CNMI                             Robert J. Wittman, VA
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Tom McClintock, CA
    Alan S. Lowenthal, CA                Paul A. Gosar, AZ
    Ruben Gallego, AZ                    Paul Cook, CA
    TJ Cox, CA                           Bruce Westerman, AR
    Joe Neguse, CO                       Garret Graves, LA
    Mike Levin, CA                       Jody B. Hice, GA
    Debra A. Haaland, NM                 Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
    Jefferson Van Drew, NJ               Daniel Webster, FL
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Liz Cheney, WY
    Nydia M. Velazquez, NY               Mike Johnson, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
    Wm. Lacy Clay, MO                    John R. Curtis, UT
    Debbie Dingell, MI                   Kevin Hern, OK
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Russ Fulcher, ID
    A. Donald McEachin, VA
    Darren Soto, FL
    Ed Case, HI
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Paul Tonko, NY
    Vacancy

                         David Watkins, Chief of Staff
                            Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
                    Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
                       http://naturalresources.house.gov

                                  ------

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

                          ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Chair
                  PAUL A. GOSAR, AZ, Ranking Republican Member

    Mike Levin, CA                       Doug Lamborn, CO
    Joe Cunningham, SC                   Bruce Westerman, AR
    A. Donald McEachin, VA               Garret Graves, LA
    Diana DeGette, CO                    Liz Cheney, WY
    Anthony G. Brown, MD                 Kevin Hern, OK
    Jared Huffman, CA                    Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Raul M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio

                                  ----------

                                   CONTENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Hearing held on Tuesday, March 26, 2019..........................     1

    Statement of Members:
        Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the
          State of Arizona...........................................     4
        Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from
          the State of California....................................     1
            Prepared statement of....................................     3

    Statement of Witnesses:
        Alexander, Sam, Gwich'in Leader, Gwich'in Steering Committee,
          Fairbanks, Alaska..........................................    25
            Prepared statement of....................................    27
        Amstrup, Steven C., Chief Scientist, Polar Bears
          International, Bozeman, Montana............................    48
            Prepared statement of....................................    49
        Brown, Chad, Founder, Soul River, Incorporated, Portland,
          Oregon.....................................................    59
            Prepared statement of....................................    60
        Demientieff, Bernadette, Executive Director, Gwich'in
          Steering Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska......................     6
            Prepared statement of....................................     7
        Gilbert, Hon. Galen, Chief, Arctic Village Council, Arctic
          Village, Alaska............................................    11
            Prepared statement of....................................    13
        Glenn, Richard, Executive Vice President, External Affairs,
          Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Barrow, Alaska..........    63
            Prepared statement of....................................    64
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    67
            Questions submitted for the record.......................    71
        Joseph, Hon. Victor, Chief/Chairman, Tanana Chiefs
          Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska..............................    19
            Prepared statement of....................................    21
        Lattime, Mark, Right Reverend, Bishop of Alaska, The
          Episcopal Church, Fairbanks, Alaska........................    43
            Prepared statement of....................................    45
        Rexford, Fenton, Advisor to the Mayor of the North Slope
          Borough; Tribal Member, Native Village of Kaktovik,
          Kaktovik, Alaska...........................................    28
            Prepared statement of....................................    30
        Rexford, Matthew, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of
          Kaktovik, Kaktovik, Alaska.................................    72
            Prepared statement of....................................    74
            Supplemental testimony submitted for the record..........    82
        Tizya-Tramm, Hon. Dana, Chief, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation,
          Fairbanks, Alaska..........................................    17
            Prepared statement of....................................    18

    Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:

        Gwich'in Nation, Letter dated 4/8/19 to Chairman Lowenthal...   101

        List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
          Committee's official files.................................   105

        Smith, Allen T., Olympia, Washington, testimony submitted for
          the record.................................................   102

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Gosar

            Slides presented during the hearing......................   100

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Huffman

            Slide presented during the hearing.......................    98

            Friends of Animals, testimony submitted for the record...    99

        Submissions for the Record by Representative Westerman

            Slides presented during the hearing......................    91

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1146, TO AMEND PUBLIC LAW 115-97 (COMMONLY
       KNOWN AS THE TAX CUTS AND JOBS ACT) TO REPEAL THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
     WILDLIFE REFUGE OIL AND GAS PROGRAM, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ARCTIC
                  CULTURAL AND COASTAL PLAIN PROTECTION ACT''

                                  ----------

                            Tuesday, March 26, 2019

                         U.S. House of Representatives

                  Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources

                         Committee on Natural Resources

                                 Washington, DC

                                  ----------

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:45 p.m., in
    room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Alan Lowenthal
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lowenthal, Levin, Cunningham,
    DeGette, Huffman; Gosar, Lamborn, Westerman, and Hern.
        Also present: Representative Young.
        Dr. Lowenthal. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
    Resources will come to order.
        First, I want to welcome all the guests and all of our
    panelists for coming. I appreciate that.
        We are meeting today to hear the testimony on the prospect
    of oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge, and on H.R. 1146, Mr. Huffman's Arctic Cultural and
    Coastal Plain Protection Act. And I am proud to be 1 of the 115
    co-sponsors of that legislation.
        Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
    hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
    Member, or their designees.
        I am going to ask unanimous consent that all other Members'
    opening statements be made part of the hearing record, if they
    are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. today.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.

       STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Dr. Lowenthal. As I mentioned just at the beginning, I
    would like to welcome all of our witnesses, particularly those
    from Alaska and from the Yukon, who have traveled a great
    distance to be here so their voices could be heard at this
    hearing today.
        The question about how to approach the Coastal Plain of the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has been going on for decades.
        For the oil and gas industry, it is a promising cash cow,
    with billions of dollars of oil awaiting to be sold. But for
    others, such as myself and the majority of Americans, it is a
    fragile ecosystem with exceptional wilderness values that is
    considered the biological heart of the Arctic Refuge, a place
    that the Fish and Wildlife Service has said is, and I quote,
    ``the most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge
    for wildlife, home to polar bears, caribou, hundreds of species
    of migratory birds, and countless other species.''
        And for the Gwich'in people, it is simply sacrosanct. They
    call it, ``the sacred place where life begins.'' A number of
    their leaders are here today to tell us more about the
    importance of the Coastal Plain to their history and to their
    way of life.
        I think we should all be able to agree that decisions about
    the future of the Arctic Refuge should be made thoughtfully,
    carefully, and with an understanding that this is a one-way
    street.
        Oil and gas development, particularly on the tundra in the
    Arctic, is irreversible. We only need to look at the
    development to the west of the Coastal Plain to see the
    incredible impact--or rather, impacts, not just impact--that
    are caused by oil and gas development, where exploration from
    the 1980s left scars that can still be seen today. The impacts
    of any new development in the area will be there for millennia.
        Because of the exceptional character of the area and its
    importance to Alaska Natives and Canadian First Nations, it was
    protected by bipartisan efforts for decades. But the way the
    Coastal Plain was forced open in the 2017 tax bill was not
    thoughtful. In fact, it was barely even thought about.
        This unrelated provision stuck into a tax cut for
    billionaires on the questionable rationale that it would help
    offset the cost. But, in fact, the only way congressional
    Republicans have tried to pay for their tax bills at all is
    through this.
        But destroying a wilderness to get a $1 billion offset to a
    $1.5 trillion tax bill is clearly not about fiscal
    responsibility. It was simply about getting this through the
    Senate with only 50 votes, with no vote on protecting the
    Refuge allowed on the House Floor, no debate at all, as a
    matter of fact.
        And all this time, we have never heard the proponents of
    drilling on the Arctic Refuge explain why now. Even the oil and
    gas industry and conservatives--conservatives who are members
    of think tanks--did not call for opening the Refuge in their
    energy recommendations to the incoming Trump administration.
        Let's be clear. We are producing record levels of oil in
    this country. The biggest problem for the oil and gas industry
    is not trying to find enough places to drill. It is getting
    enough pipelines and dock space to be able to export even more
    than the 3 million barrels a day that we are currently shipping
    overseas.
        An economic analysis for the Attorneys General of 15 states
    and the District of Columbia found that any oil produced from
    the Coastal Plain would not be used in the United States.
    Rather, it would be sold onto international markets. So, we
    should destroy a great American wilderness that is sacred to
    indigenous peoples so that ConocoPhillips or BP or ExxonMobil
    can sell more oil to China, India, and Japan?
        There is absolutely no need to open the Arctic Refuge to
    oil and gas drilling.
        But it is as if the congressional Republicans were so out
    of new energy ideas, they had no choice but to recycle theirs
    from 15 years ago, whether it makes sense now or not. I will
    tell you that it doesn't make sense, and we should protect the
    Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain, and not hand it over to the
    highest corporate bidder.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Hon. Alan S. Lowenthal, Chair, Subcommittee
                        on Energy and Mineral Resources
        The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources will come to
    order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on the
    prospect of oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge, and on H.R. 1146, Mr. Huffman's Arctic Cultural and Coastal
    Plain Protection Act--and I am proud to be 1 of the 115 co-sponsors of
    that legislation.
        I would first like to welcome all of our witnesses, particularly
    those from Alaska and the Yukon, who have traveled a great distance to
    be here so that their voices could be heard at this hearing today.
        The question about how to approach the Coastal Plain of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge has been going on for decades. For the oil and
    gas industry, it is a promising cash cow, with billions of dollars of
    oil just waiting to be sold. But for others, such as myself and the
    majority of Americans, it is a fragile ecosystem with exceptional
    wilderness values that is considered the biological heart of the Arctic
    Refuge--a place that the Fish and Wildlife Service has said is, ``the
    most biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife,
    home to polar bears, caribou, hundreds of species of migratory birds,
    and countless other species.''
        And for the Gwich'in people, it is simply sacrosanct. They call it
    ``the sacred place where life begins.'' A number of their leaders are
    here today to tell us more about the importance of the Coastal Plain to
    their history and their way of life.
        I think we should all be able to agree that decisions about the
    future of the Arctic Refuge should be made thoughtfully, carefully, and
    with an understanding that this is a one-way street.
        Oil and gas development, particularly on the tundra in the Arctic,
    is irreversible. We only need to look at the development to the west of
    the Coastal Plain to see the incredible impacts that are caused by oil
    and gas development, where exploration from the 1980s left scars that
    can still be seen today. The impacts of any new development in the area
    would be there for millennia.
        Because of the exceptional character of the area and its importance
    to Alaska Natives and Canadian First Nations, it was protected by bi-
    partisan efforts for decades. But the way the Coastal Plain was forced
    open in the 2017 tax bill was not thoughtful. In fact, it was barely
    even thought of. This unrelated provision stuck onto a tax cut for
    billionaires on the questionable rationale that it would help offset
    the cost. In fact, it's the only way congressional Republicans tried to
    pay for their tax bill at all. But destroying a wilderness to get a $1
    billion offset to a $1.5 trillion tax bill is clearly not about fiscal
    responsibility.
        It was simply about getting this through the Senate with only 50
    votes. With no vote on protecting the Refuge allowed on the House
    Floor. No debate allowed at all, as a matter of fact.
        And all this time we have never heard the proponents of drilling on
    the Arctic Refuge explain: why now? Even the oil and gas industry and
    conservative think tanks didn't call for opening the Refuge in their
    energy recommendations to the incoming Trump administration.
        We're producing record levels of oil in this country. The biggest
    problem for the oil and gas industry isn't trying to find enough places
    to drill. It's getting enough pipelines and dock space to be able to
    export even more than the 3 million barrels a day that we are currently
    shipping overseas.
        An economic analysis done for the Attorneys General of 15 states
    and the District of Columbia found that any oil produced from the
    Coastal Plain would not be used in the United States. Rather, it would
    be sold into international markets.
        So, we should destroy a great American wilderness that is sacred to
    indigenous peoples so that ConocoPhillips or BP or ExxonMobil can sell
    more oil to China, India, and Japan?
        There is absolutely no need to open the Arctic Refuge to oil and
    gas drilling.
        It's as if congressional Republicans were so out of new energy
    ideas, they had no choice but to recycle theirs from 15 years ago,
    whether it made sense now or not. I will tell you that it doesn't make
    sense, and we should protect the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain, not hand
    it over to the highest corporate bidder.
        With that, I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses, and
    I now recognize Ranking Member Gosar for his opening statement.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. With that, I look forward to the testimony
    from our witnesses, and now I recognize Ranking Member Gosar
    for his opening statement.

       STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA

        Dr. Gosar. I thank you for yielding, Mr. Chairman, and
    thank all of you that have traveled so far to be here today,
    especially those who have traveled all the way from the Alaskan
    North Slope. I, myself, have been to the North Slope, so I
    understand the distance, and appreciate you taking the time to
    share your perspective on an important topic.
        Today, this Subcommittee will consider a bill sponsored by
    my colleague, Representative Jared Huffman, known as the Arctic
    Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act. This legislation
    would eliminate provisions in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017
    authorizing energy development in the 1002 Area of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge.
        Alaska's North Slope contains an abundant supply of oil and
    natural gas, and has long provided Alaska and the Lower 48
    states with affordable, domestically sourced energy. In
    addition to providing billions in revenues for schools and
    infrastructure and other public services, the oil and gas
    industry in Alaska serves as a significant source of
    employment, supporting nearly one-third of the jobs in the
    state.
        Nevertheless, the previous administration did everything in
    its power to make sure that much of the North Slope remained
    untapped, including the national petroleum and the energy-rich
    region of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge known as the 1002
    Area.
        Recognizing the potential for job creation, revenue
    generation, and increased domestic energy production, the 115th
    Congress acted with support of the current administration to
    open this small corner of the Refuge for any energy exploration
    after decades of study and debate.
        When Congress established the Refuge in 1980 it recognized
    the potential for oil and gas development in the 1002 Area,
    also known as the Coastal Plain. This region, which spans just
    1.57 million acres of the 19 million-acre Refuge, was
    specifically set aside by Congress for an assessment of its
    recoverable resources.
        The Reagan administration noted the region's capacity for
    robust production, and recommended full energy development of
    the 1002 Area, noting the need to balance this new development
    with access to the Refuge for subsistence and recreational
    purposes. Congress limited surface development impacts to 2,000
    acres. That is roughly one-fifth the size of the Dulles
    Airport.
        Once operational, energy production in ANWR is estimated to
    support between 55,000 and 130,000 jobs over the life of
    production, and have the impact of $1.1 billion from lease
    sales over the next decade.
        I would like to point out that not one part of the Coastal
    Plain region of ANWR contains wilderness. In fact, the region
    has been continuously occupied by the Inupiat people for
    millennia. The Native Village of Kaktovik is located within the
    Coastal Plain, and is the closest neighboring community to any
    potential oil and gas development in the region.
        Notably, Mr. Huffman's legislation before us today makes no
    mention--not one--of the Village of Kaktovik or the Inupiat
    people. That is why we, Committee Republicans, have invited
    witnesses representing the Village of Kaktovik and the Inupiat
    communities on the North Slope to testify before us today. They
    own the land, they live and work in the Coastal Plain, and they
    are directly impacted by decisions made by Congress regarding
    the use of their land. Their voices are crucial to this
    conversation, and I look forward to hearing their testimony
    today.
        With that, I am going to yield the rest of my time to the
    gentleman from Alaska, Mr. Young.

        Mr. Young. Thank you for yielding. And Mr. Chairman, I will
    copy the words of Mr. Gosar, because it was not a wilderness,
    it has never been a wilderness, and it was set aside by a
    Congress led by Mo Udall and John Seiberling, the leading
    environmentalists for drilling, when the Congress decided to do
    so, and then Congress decided it. I passed it out of the House
    13 times. It is the right thing to do.
        And I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, I want to believe the
    people. Not the Gwich'in, because they are not the people. They
    are 400 miles away. I am talking of the Inuits that live there.
    That is their land, it has always been their land. And to
    totally ignore them in any mention of their occupancy is wrong
    in this report, and including in your written statement. It is
    wrong.
        These are the Alaskan Natives directly impacted, not the
    Gwich'in, and that is my tribe. My wife was Gwich'in, my
    daughters are Gwich'in. We have a few Gwich'in that make a
    living out of this, by promoting something that is wrong, by
    saying we want to take away from their brothers. That is wrong.
        You have divided two tribes, two tribes. This isn't the
    people that live there. If not, you are not representative of
    all.
        That is all I ask you to do. Listen to them. Hear what they
    say. Not someone who is living in Fairbanks. It is not someone
    that has not killed a caribou in 10 years and probably doesn't
    have a license. That is wrong. Think about that when you say we
    want to save the culture. Save the culture of the people, not
    those that are foreigners, who are living away from the area.
    These are not the Natives directly affected.
        With that, I yield back.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the gentleman. And I just want to say
    that when you visit and see, you understand so much. And I want
    to thank the gentleman from Alaska for inviting us up 2 years
    ago. It was a fabulous trip, eye-opening.
        I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I will introduce today's witnesses.
        First we have Ms. Bernadette Demientieff, Executive
    Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee.
        Next is Chief Galen Gilbert, from the Arctic Village
    Council in Arctic Village, Alaska.
        Then Chief Dana Tizya-Tramm--I hope I pronounced it right--
    from the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation in Old Crow from Yukon,
    Canada.
        Next is Chief Victor Joseph, Chairman of the Tanana, and he
    is also the Chairman of the Tanana Chiefs Conference.
        Then there is Mr. Sam Alexander, a Gwich'in leader and
    veteran.
        And finally, Mr. Fenton Rexford, advisor to the Mayor of
    the North Slope Borough, and a tribal member of the Native
    Village of Kaktovik.
        Let me remind the witnesses that they must limit their oral
    statements to 5 minutes, but their entire written statements
    will appear in the hearing record.
        When you begin, the lights on the witness table will turn
    green. After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on. Your
    time will have expired when the red light comes on, and I will
    ask you to please complete your statement.
        I will also allow the entire panel to testify before
    questioning the witnesses.
        The Chair now recognizes Ms. Demientieff for 5 minutes.

       STATEMENT OF BERNADETTE DEMIENTIEFF, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
             GWICH'IN STEERING COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

        Ms. Demientieff. Thank you to the members of the Committee
    for having me testify today. I would like to acknowledge the
    Piscataway Tribe, whose lands we are on.
        Shrooshii Bernadette Demientieff oozhii [speaking Native
    language]. I am Bernadette Demientieff, the Executive Director
    for the Gwich'in Steering Committee. I am Gwich'yaa Gwich'in
    and a member of the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government
    from Fort Yukon, Alaska. I am a mother of five and a
    grandmother of five. On behalf of the Gwich'in Nation, I am
    speaking today in support of H.R. 1146.
        Founded in 1988, the Gwich'in Steering Committee is the
    unified voice of the Gwich'in speaking out to protect the
    calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. We represent
    8,000 Gwich'in in 15 communities of Alaska and Canada. The
    Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is the calving grounds of
    the Porcupine caribou herd.
        Protection of the calving and nursery grounds on the
    Coastal Plain is a human rights issue for the Gwich'in Nation.
    Our human rights are protected by international law, which says
    ``by no means shall a people be deprived of their own means of
    subsistence.''
        Oil and gas activities on the Coastal Plain is a direct
    attack on the Gwich'in way of life, and our human rights.
        We call the Coastal Plain ``Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii
    Goodlit,''--the Sacred Place Where Life Begins. This name shows
    the great significance of this area to the Gwich'in people. We
    are caribou people. We carry a piece of the caribou in our
    heart, and the caribou carry a piece of us in their heart. And
    there was a time when we were able to communicate with the
    caribou. There was a vow that we would take care of each other.
    To honor this, we have been taught that we must take care of
    the caribou. And in return, they will take care of us. The
    spiritual connection we have with the caribou is very much
    real. The survival of the Gwich'in depends on the survival of
    this herd.
        The caribou are the foundation of our culture and our
    spirituality. They provide food, clothing, and tools. They are
    the basis of our songs, stories, and our dances. The ancestral
    homeland of the Gwich'in and the migratory route of the
    Porcupine caribou herd are identical. For thousands of years we
    migrated with the caribou. We settled along the migratory road
    so that we could continue to live and thrive off of them. This
    area is sacred to our people, so sacred that during the years
    of food shortage we still honored the calving grounds and never
    stepped foot on the Coastal Plain.
        Our elders recognized that oil development in the Porcupine
    caribou herd's calving grounds was a threat to the Gwich'in
    people. In 1988, for the first time in over 100 years, our
    elders and chiefs gathered. They directed us to protect the
    calving grounds, which is known to you as the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain.
        Our elders directed us to do this in a good way. That means
    to work respectfully, but not to compromise our position. And
    every 2 years we come together to reaffirm our commitment to
    protect the calving grounds from oil and gas development.
    Protecting the Coastal Plain is protecting our identity and our
    human rights. It is our fundamental human right to continue to
    feed our families on our ancestral lands, and to practice our
    traditional way of life.
        For us, this is a matter of physical, spiritual, and
    cultural survival. This is all interconnected. I am here today
    for my children, my grandchildren, and my future ancestors. It
    is their human right to have caribou. It is their human right
    to keep their identity. The Porcupine caribou herd is the heart
    of our people, our food security, and our way of life. We are
    not asking for anything but to keep our identity and practice
    our way of life.
        Our elder, Jonathon Solomon said, ``It is the belief that
    the future of the caribou and the future of the Gwich'in are
    the same. Harm to the Porcupine caribou herd is harm to the
    Gwich'in culture and millennia-old way of life.''
        I ask that you quickly pass this legislation to protect the
    human rights and our way of life.
        On behalf of the Gwich'in Nation I say thank you very much
    for having us. Mahsi'choo.

        [The prepared statement of Ms. Demientieff follows:]
       Prepared Statement of Bernadette Demientieff, Executive Director,
                 Gwich'in Steering Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on
    this very important piece of legislation, the Arctic Cultural and
    Coastal Plain Protection Act, H.R. 1146.
        Shrooshii Bernadette Demientieff oozhii, I am the Executive
    Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee. I am Gwich'yaa Gwich'in
    and a member of the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government from Fort
    Yukon, Alaska. My mother is Betty Flitt from Fort Yukon. My great
    grandmother was Marcis (Horace) Moses from Old Crow, Yukon Territories,
    Canada, and my grandfather was Daniel Horace from Fort Yukon. I have
    five children and five grandchildren. I am here at the direction of my
    elders on behalf of the Gwich'in Nation of Alaska and Canada.
        Founded in 1988, the Gwich'in Steering Committee is the unified
    voice of the Gwich'in Nation speaking out to protect the Coastal Plain
    of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We represent the communities of
    Arctic Village, Venetie, Fort Yukon, Beaver, Chalkyitsik, Birch Creek,
    Stevens Village, Circle, and Eagle Village in Alaska, and Old Crow,
    Fort McPherson, Tsiigehtchic, Aklavik, and Inuvik in Canada. Our work
    is to protect the Coastal Plain from any disturbance or destruction.
        Protection of the birthing and nursery grounds on the Coastal Plain
    is a human rights issue for the Gwich'in Nation. Our human right is
    upheld by the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and
    its International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states,
    ``by no means shall a people be deprived of their own means of
    subsistence.'' This principle must be respected. We rely on the
    Porcupine Caribou and the Porcupine Caribou rely on the Coastal Plain
    as their calving and nursery grounds. Oil and gas activities on the
    Coastal Plain is a direct attack on our ways of life and to our human
    rights.
        We call the Coastal Plain ``Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit''--
    ``the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.'' This name demonstrates the
    great significance of this area to the Gwich'in people. We are caribou
    people. We believe that we each have a piece of caribou in our heart
    and the caribou have a piece of us in their heart. There was a time
    when we were able to communicate with the caribou and there was a vow
    that we would take care of each other. To honor this, we have been
    taught that we must take care of the caribou and that, in turn, the
    caribou will take care of us. This spiritual connection we have with
    the caribou is very real. The survival of the Gwich'in depends on the
    survival of this herd.
        The caribou are the foundation of our culture and our
    spirituality--they provide food, clothing, and tools, and are the basis
    of our songs, stories, and dances. The ancestral homeland of the
    Gwich'in and the migratory route of the caribou are identical (see
    Attachment 1). For thousands of years, we migrated with the caribou.
    When we were forced to settle in villages, we settled along the
    migratory route. If you look at the map attached to this statement, you
    will notice that one place that the caribou go that we do not is the
    Coastal Plain. This area is sacred to our people, so sacred that during
    the years of food shortage we still honored the calving grounds and
    never stepped foot on the Coastal Plain.
        The Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge is very important to the
    caribou. Drilling there would cause lower birth rates and threaten
    migrations, risking everything we hold dear. Pregnant females come to
    the Coastal Plain to give birth in May and early June. They have up to
    40,000 calves in a 2-week period. The food on the Coastal Plain helps
    the mothers recover from birth and provides rich milk and nutrition for
    the new calves. Mosquitos can kill a newborn calf. The breezes on the
    Coastal Plain protect the calves from being attacked. The Coastal Plain
    also has fewer predators than areas to the south. A calf that is only a
    few days old can run faster than a wolf, but there would be a
    significant risk to the caribou if they had to leave the Coastal Plain
    to have their calves and raise them in other areas where there are more
    predators.
        Our elders recognized that oil development in the Porcupine Caribou
    Herd's calving and nursery grounds was a threat to the Gwich'in people.
    That is why, in 1988, our Nation came together for the first time in
    over a hundred years. Our elders called together the chiefs of all of
    the Gwich'in villages for a traditional gathering. We gathered in
    Vashraii K'oo and decided that we would speak with one voice to protect
    the Coastal Plain. That unified voice is expressed in a formal
    resolution, Gwich'in Niintsyaa (see Attachment 2). This resolution
    calls on the United States to recognize the rights of the Gwich'in to
    continue our way of life and permanently protect the calving grounds of
    the Porcupine Caribou Herd. We come together every 2 years to reaffirm
    our commitment to protecting the Coastal Plain. We convened last summer
    in Tsiigehtchic, Northwest Territories, Canada. We sang, we danced, we
    shared food and stories. During the Gathering, our Nation voted
    unanimously to reaffirm our commitment to protecting the calving
    grounds.
        Our elders directed us to ``do it in a good way.'' Following their
    guidance, the Gwich'in Steering Committee has worked for over three
    decades to protect this sacred place so that our people have a future
    in our homelands. Protecting the Coastal Plain is protecting our
    identity and our human rights. It is our fundamental human right to
    continue to feed our families on our ancestral lands and practice our
    traditional way of life. For us, this is a matter of physical,
    spiritual, and cultural survival.
        For me, this issue has also brought me back to my identity and my
    heritage. While I am from Fort Yukon, and spent many summers in
    Venetie, I lost my way as a teenager and young woman. I moved
    spiritually and culturally away from my people and what was important.
    Only when I began to work at the Gwich'in Steering Committee, did I
    return to my rightful place. I remember one trip to Arctic Village I
    went up to a mountain called Duchanlee. I felt so overwhelmed, I just
    started crying. I don't know why. I asked Creator for forgiveness and
    said that I am here now to share in my responsibility as a Gwich'in.
        I don't choose to travel thousands of miles each year and spend
    time away from my family; I was forced into a corner. I am forced to
    advocate for protecting the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou
    Herd. I do this work for my children and my grandchildren; it is their
    birthright to have caribou. I do this work because it is my
    responsibility as a Gwich'in; our pact with the Porcupine Caribou
    requires me to take care of them as they have taken care of us.
        We have occupied these areas for thousands and thousands of years,
    and we will be the first to be impacted if oil and gas activities
    occur. Our elders are our scientists. They have hunted and lived off
    the land far longer than any western researcher. Our science and our
    traditional knowledge tells us that oil and gas leasing, exploration,
    and development will damage the calving grounds. It will impact the
    quality, health, and availability of our traditional resources, like
    caribou and birds. We know that oil and gas activities will also impact
    the air, water, and lands. We have watched as other areas on the North
    Slope dramatically changed because of industrial development. These
    changes continue to become more widespread and intense with every
    passing year, as development expands. Places that used to support
    indigenous communities and ways of life no longer do. Animals are
    showing signs of sickness, and are not following their traditional
    migratory paths. We are seeing great changes in our land and animals as
    a result of climate change, which is impacting Alaska more intensely
    than the Lower-48.
        We must protect the Coastal Plain to protect our food security.
    ``Gwich'in'' means ``people of the land.'' We are real people. We have
    jobs, families and children. We live off the land. We eat moose, fish,
    birds, berries, medicines, and of course, caribou. Western food is very
    expensive in our villages and it is not healthy for us to eat. When we
    do not have our traditional foods, our people get sick. When we cannot
    share foods within communities and between our communities, our culture
    suffers. When we cannot practice our traditional ways, our youth cannot
    learn their heritage.
        People have said that you can have development on the Coastal Plain
    and take care of the plants and animals. People have said that you can
    have development on the Coastal Plain and the caribou will not be
    impacted, that they will even like the pipelines and roads. People tell
    us that the technology is so good now that there will be no harm to
    land, air, and water. But as Gwich'in, we know that is not true. And it
    is not a risk we can afford to take. Because if you take that risk and
    are wrong, we are what is lost--the Gwich'in people.
        I am here today because our congressional delegation has not
    listened to us or respected our human rights. The Coastal Plain is not
    just a piece of land with oil underneath. It is the heart of our
    people, our food, and our way of life. Our very survival depends on its
    protection. Our children, our future generations, deserve to see the
    world the way it was in the beginning, not just when we are done with
    it.
        I am here today because the process that the Bureau of Land
    Management is taking to hold a lease sale this year is trampling our
    human rights. The agency is not respecting our knowledge, is not
    responding to our requests, and is not meeting its obligations under
    the law. Instead, the agency is rushing to lease the calving grounds
    without regard to the risk it poses to us and our villages.
        I want to publicly state that the Native corporations do not speak
    for us. They are the ones who will benefit from development while the
    tribes live with the aftermath. Our elders taught us to respect and
    honor our lands. They did not encourage us to fight each other for oil
    and gas development; that is just self greed.
        We are not asking for anything more than the ability to hold on to
    our identity; to be able to practice our way of life, which has
    sustained us since time immemorial; to be able to pass our traditions
    on to our children and to their children; and to continue to live and
    thrive in our homelands. That is what is at stake for the Gwich'in
    people.
        That is why the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act is
    so important. As our elder Jonathon Solomon said ``It is our belief
    that the future of the Gwich'in and the future of the Caribou are the
    same. Harm to the Porcupine Caribou Herd is harm to the Gwich'in
    culture and millennia-old way of life.''
        We thank the millions of Americans who stand with us in support of
    protecting the Coastal Plain. We thank the more than 200 Alaska Native
    and Tribal organizations and the many Native American tribes who have
    resolutions supporting the Gwich'in. We thank every Member of Congress
    who is standing in solidarity with the Gwich'in Nation by co-sponsoring
    the bill.
        I ask that you quickly pass this legislation to protect our human
    rights and our way of life. Mahsi'choo for the opportunity to address
    you today.

                                     *****

                                  ATTACHMENT 1
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     *****

                                  ATTACHMENT 2

                            Gwich'in Niintsyaa 2018
                    Resolution to Protect the Birthplace and
                 Nursery Grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd

    WHEREAS:

        For thousands of years, the Gwich'in people of northeast Alaska and
    northwest Canada, have relied on caribou for food, clothing, shelter,
    tools and life itself, and today the Porcupine Caribou Herd remains
    essential to meet the nutritional, cultural and spiritual needs of our
    People; and

    WHEREAS:

        The Gwich'in have the inherent right to continue our own way of
    life; and that this right is recognized and affirmed by civilized
    nations in the international covenants on human rights. Article 1 of
    the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, ratified by
    the U.S. Senate, reads in part:

            ``. . . In no case may a people be deprived of their own means
            of subsistence''; and

    WHEREAS:

        The health and productivity of the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and
    their availability to Gwich'in communities, and the very future of our
    People is endangered by proposed oil and gas exploration and
    development in the calving and post-calving grounds in the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge; and
    WHEREAS:

        The entire Gwich'in Nation was called together by our Chiefs in
    Arctic Village June 5-10, 1988 to carefully address this issue and to
    seek the advice of our elders; and

    WHEREAS:

        The Gwich'in people of every community from Arctic Village,
    Venetie, Fort Yukon, Beaver, Chalkyitsik, Birch Creek, Stevens Village,
    Circle, and Eagle Village in Alaska; from Old Crow, Fort McPherson,
    Tsiigehtchic, Aklavik, and Inuvik in Canada have reached consensus in
    their traditional way, and now speak with a single voice; and

    WHEREAS:

        The Gwich'in people and Chiefs of our communities have met
    biennially since 1988 to re-affirm this position guided by the wisdom
    of our elders; and met again in 2018 in Tsiigehtchic, Northwest
    Territories, Canada, now re-affirm our position.

    NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED:

        That the United States President and Congress recognize the rights
    of the Gwich'in people to continue to live our way of life by
    prohibiting exploration and development in the calving and post-calving
    grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED:

        That the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge be made
    Wilderness to protect the sacred birthplace of the caribou.

    Passed unanimously on the 26th day of June, 2018 in Tsiigehtchic,
    Northwest Territories, Canada.

                                     *****

    Additional Materials: A Moral Choice for the United States: The Human
    Rights Implications for the Gwich'in of Drilling in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge (2005), available at http: / / ourarcticrefuge.org /
    wp-content / uploads / 2012 / 10 / GSC humanrightsreport.pdf.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes Chief Gilbert for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. GALEN GILBERT, CHIEF, ARCTIC VILLAGE
                    COUNCIL, ARCTIC VILLAGE, ALASKA

        Mr. Gilbert. Good afternoon. My name is Galen Gilbert, and
    I am the first Chief of Arctic Village. I am the son of Brenda
    and Gregory, the late Gregory Gilbert, and the grandson of
    Reverend Trimble and Mary Gilbert. I live in Arctic Village
    with my fiancee, Jessica, and our three daughters.
        Before I begin my full testimony, I would like to thank the
    Chair and the Committee for hosting us.
        The Neets'aii Gwich'in of Arctic Village and Venetie are
    part of a larger Gwich'in Nation, and we stand united on this
    issue. The Neets'aii have rejected both city governments and
    Native corporations. We are governed by our tribal governments
    and live on 1.8 million acres of land that our tribe owns. We
    opted out of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act because we
    wanted to continue being tribal and landowners. Our way of life
    is based on our relationship to the land. We must care for and
    respect the land and animals given to us by the Creator.
        Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit is a sacred and important
    place. It has historic value as a place where Gwich'in have
    traveled, camped, hunted, and traded since the beginning of
    time.
        Our cultural practices are important to maintaining our
    identity, and a big part of that is our connection with the
    caribou. Development in the Coastal Plain is a direct attack on
    our Gwich'in culture. Just the idea of development is causing
    stress and fear in my village.
        The caribou that calve on the Coastal Plain are the primary
    source of our tribal members' subsistence. They make it
    possible for us to live within our traditional homelands.
    Caribou are the backbone of the Gwich'in life and culture. They
    provide for the physical, cultural, and spiritual health of my
    tribe. We take care of the caribou because we need them.
        I live in Arctic Village and I speak on behalf of my
    people. Our way of life is dependent on the Porcupine caribou
    herd. It is more than providing food; the herd provides a basis
    for our identity. Our way of life provides positive, social,
    and emotional benefits that extend far beyond just putting food
    on the table.
        One of the most important values we have as the Neets'aii
    is when a young hunter harvests their first caribou, they then
    take that meat and share it with everyone in the community.
    This act passes on our values, and ensures good luck in their
    life as providers.
        Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit is not only a place of
    birth. It is also a place of our peace. Our people have a story
    of my great-great-grandfather, Dajalti', who was a leader long
    ago. During the conflict between the Neets'aii and the Inupiat,
    Dajalti' led the Neets'aii north, over the Brooks Range, into
    the Coastal Plain. From there, he went to the coast alone to
    meet with the Inupiat. At their meeting, he met the Inupiat
    leaders and they made an end to the war. Our stories tell us
    this is the last time there was a conflict between the
    Neets'aii and the Inupiat.
        The Coastal Plain is the most important natural, cultural,
    and subsistence resources to our tribe and to the Gwich'in
    people, as a whole. It is not just a place on the map for our
    people. It is the foundation of our entire life. From it we
    have our caribou, our stories, and our identity. For our
    tribes, this is not just an issue of the conservation versus
    development. We just don't see it in that way. This is about
    our conservation versus our desire as Native people to live the
    way of life that we choose. We choose to settle where we did
    because we know that is where the caribou go. We established
    our reservation to ensure we would keep our land and culture.
        In closing, our identity, culture, and our way of life are
    at stake. Like our ancestors, we will never give up. We will
    never stop fighting to protect the Coastal Plain, the animals
    that depend on it, and the way of life. We speak for those that
    came before us and for those that will come after.
        Arctic Village fully supports H.R. 1146 and I urge the
    Committee to move this bill forward. We only ask for the right
    to live the way we have always lived as the Neets'aii Gwich'in.
    Mashhi'.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gilbert follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Chief Galen Gilbert, First Chief of the Arctic
                    Village Council, Arctic Village, Alaska
                                  introduction
        My name is Galen Gilbert and I am the First Chief of the Arctic
    Village Council, a federally recognized tribe. I am the son of Brenda
    Gilbert and the late Gregory Gilbert and the grandson of Rev. Trimble
    and Mary Gilbert; Alan and the late Margaret Tritt of Arctic Village. I
    am 30 years old and have lived in Arctic Village all of my life. Arctic
    Village is one of two Neets'aii Gwich'in villages located on the former
    Venetie Indian Reserve, a 1.8 million acre land base that our Tribal
    Government now owns in fee simple.
        Before I begin my full testimony today, I would like to thank the
    Chair and the Committee for hosting me today in Washington, DC. It is a
    long way from Arctic Village to here and I greatly appreciate the
    hospitality you all have shown me and my fellow panelists. I would also
    like to recognize the presence of my fellow Chiefs here today: Chief
    Dana Tizya-Tramm of the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and Chief/Chairman
    Victor Joseph of the Tanana Chiefs Conference.
        At the outset, I would like to state the position of my Tribal
    Government on this issue: we unequivocally oppose the proposed oil and
    gas leasing program set out in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The
    Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of the most
    important natural, cultural, and subsistence resources to our Tribe and
    to the Gwich'in people as a whole. This is reflected in the Gwich'in
    name for the Coastal Plain: Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit, or ``the
    sacred place where life begins.'' Oil and gas development in this area
    is wholly incompatible with the Gwich'in worldview. The caribou that
    calve within the Coastal Plain are the primary source of our Tribal
    members' subsistence harvests--the keystone species that has made it
    possible for us to live within our traditional areas from time
    immemorial to the present. Any impacts to those animals, from changes
    in migration patterns, lower fertility rates, and/or loss of habitat,
    will be felt by the Neets'aii Gwich'in in Arctic Village and Venetie.
                             the neets'aii gwich'in
        The term ``Neets'aii Gwich'in'' refers to the descendants of those
    families who traditionally occupied the territory south of the Brooks
    Range between the Chandalar and Coleen Rivers. The Neets'aii are a
    subset of the larger Gwich'in Nation whose territory extends from what
    is now known as the northeastern Interior of Alaska to the Yukon and
    Northwest Territories of Canada. The term ``Gwich'in'' refers generally
    to a people; however, when coupled with place-name identifiers, it
    literally translates to the people of a certain location. At present,
    the Gwich'in occupy 12 villages located along the Yukon, Chandalar,
    Porcupine, Black, Arctic Red, Mackenzie, and Peel Rivers and their
    tributaries.
        The experiences of the Neets'aii Gwich'in, as compared to other
    Alaska Native groups, are unique in some important respects. Most
    notably, the Neets'aii hold fee simple title to 1.8 million-acres and
    have rejected both municipal governments and Native corporation
    structures. Today, the communities of Arctic Village and Venetie are
    independently governed by their respective Tribal governments, the
    Arctic Village Council and the Venetie Village Council. The land base
    is jointly managed by a third Tribal entity, the Native Village of
    Venetie Tribal Government.
        For most of our history, Neets'aii people lived in scattered camps
    moving in relation to seasonal resources. Traditional housing models
    such as neevyaa zhee (caribou skin tents) and, later, canvas tents were
    designed to be transportable enabling families to move between
    customary use areas. Life in those days cycled through periods of
    abundance and scarcity. A prominent theme of our oral history is the
    struggle against starvation. Each season posed unique challenges that
    often required Neets'aii families to continually evaluate and adjust
    their plans. Sometimes this meant camping together and other times
    apart. Sometimes it meant moving to areas that were known to be
    productive in terms of harvesting and other times it meant taking
    calculated risks in terms of where and when to move.
        The pattern of life for Neets'aii people in a pre-settlement
    context generally followed the four seasons: shin (summer-time),
    khaiits`a' (fall-time), khaii (winter-time), and shreenyaa (spring-
    time). Not all camps followed the same patterns of movement. Different
    families had their own customary use areas for hunting, trapping, and
    fishing. While most families operated from a seasonal blueprint, plans
    had to be continually adjusted to account for changes in weather,
    resource availability and other external factors.
        Around the turn of the 20th century, certain locations became more
    prominent in terms of supporting several Neets'aii families at a given
    time. Arctic Village (or Vashraii K'oo as it is known in Gwich'in
    meaning ``creek along a steep bank'') was a traditional fishing spot
    which later was strategically chosen as a site for a permanent
    settlement due to the supply of both animals and fish. Venetie (or
    Viihtaii) was similarly chosen due to the regular crossing of moose,
    caribou, and other migrating animals. The first cabin constructed in
    Arctic Village occurred in 1909 however many years would pass before
    the community became a year-round place of residence. Most Neets'aii
    families continued to maintain seasonal camps or traplines along the
    Koness, Sheenjek, Wind and other rivers.
        Since contact, the traditional territory of the Neets'aii Gwich'in
    has been threatened by numerous forces including encroachment,
    ownership transfers, and resource extraction. In a (post)colonial
    context, the Neets'aii Gwich'in have frequently found themselves to be
    in value-conflict with others, particularly on issues relating to the
    use and management of lands and resources.
               our connection to izhik gwats'an gwandaii goodlit
        The living history of the Neets'aii Gwich'in is embedded within
    googwandak (our stories) that have been passed down between generations
    for as long as anyone can remember. Gwich'in people, in general, are
    natural storytellers, and for many decades outside researchers have
    busied themselves with documenting our stories, traditions, hardships,
    and ways of life that seemed to them to be quickly disappearing. The
    existing literature on the Neets'aii Gwich'in has overwhelmingly been
    dominated by non-Gwich'in authorship, and the outcome has been mixed.
    Though some of the literature offers interesting insights into
    Neets'aii culture and experiences post-contact, it invariably requires
    critical reading and careful consideration of the author, their
    intended audience, and the extent to which Neets'aii people were
    involved in the co-creation of documented knowledge. It is from
    googwandak that the Neets'aii Gwich'in have come to know the meaning of
    Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit, what you call the ``Coastal Plain''
    or the ``1002 area.''
        ``We have always, for countless generations, governed our own
    people our own Indian way, according to Gwich'in traditional customs.''
    \1\ Our way of life is based on a unique relationship with the land. We
    are a people of place with extraordinarily strong ties to our
    traditional territory and are guided by a desire to exercise
    stewardship over the places our ancestors called home.\2\ We must care
    for and respect the land and animals given to us by the Creator and
    left for us by our ancestors.\3\ According to our elder Gideon James,
    ``The very purpose of [the Native Village of Venetie] tribal government
    was for the tribe to maintain control over their land and water and to
    be able to continue to practice their spiritual and cultural
    activities.'' \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Arctic Village Council, Nakai't'in'in: ``Do It Yourself!'' A
    Plan for Preserving the Cultural Identity of the Neets'aii Gwich'in
    Indians of Arctic Village, 36 (1991).
        \2\ Charlene Barbara Stern, From Camps to Communities: Neets'aii
    Gwich'in Planning and Development in a Pre-and Post-Settlement Context
    118 (2018).
        \3\ Arctic Village Council, supra, at 33.
        \4\ Arctic Village Council, supra, at 45.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have always regarded Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit as sacred
    and important. It has historical significance as a place where Gwich'in
    have traveled, camped, hunted, and traded since time immemorial. Today,
    we avoid Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit to reduce the chances of
    disrupting caribou calving and to ensure future successful harvesting.
    It continues to be associated with our cultural practices and belief
    system and is important to maintaining our cultural identity. Our
    cultural identity as caribou people is intertwined with the Porcupine
    Caribou Herd's calving areas in the Coastal Plain. Development in the
    Coastal Plain constitutes a direct attack on Gwich'in culture. Proposed
    oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain is already negatively
    impacting us through stress and fear for our way of life and cultural
    identity.
        ``We are the caribou people since the beginning of time.'' \5\ The
    caribou that calve on the Coastal Plain are the primary source of our
    Tribal members' subsistence harvests--the keystone species that has
    made it possible for us to live within our traditional homelands for
    countless generations. Caribou form the backbone of Gwich'in life and
    culture, providing for the physical, cultural, and spiritual health and
    well-being of our Tribal members. We adhere to the traditional laws and
    practices surrounding the stewardship of resources, which emphasize
    respect and relational accountability for all life forms.\6\ We take
    care of the caribou because we need them. It is our responsibility to
    provide for the needs of present and future generations. ``[W]hat we do
    is not really for us but for our children's and our grandchildren's
    futures.'' \7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ BLM, Transcript, Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program EIS
    Public Scoping Meeting: Arctic Village, Alaska 49 (May 24, 2018)
    (statement of Jewels Gilbert).
        \6\ Stern, supra, at 121.
        \7\ Arctic Village Council, supra, at 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Our way of life is dependent on the Porcupine Caribou Herd,
    including our reliance on caribou for subsistence. The act of
    harvesting and providing traditional subsistence resources has positive
    psychological health benefits both at the individual and community
    levels. Hunting, fishing, picking berries, and other land-based
    traditions hold mental, social, and emotional benefits that extend far
    beyond the actual harvest.\8\ Our subsistence resources and practices
    are an essential component of our relationships with one another. Our
    people share among each other and help out those in need. Sharing
    reinforces our kinship ties with family and the community. For example,
    during community potlatches it is common knowledge among our people
    that elders are the first to be served food. Similarly, when boys
    harvest their first vadzaih (caribou) or dinjik (moose), families know
    to distribute the meat around the community. Any impacts to caribou and
    the other migratory animals that depend on the Coastal Plain, will have
    significant adverse social, cultural, spiritual, and subsistence
    impacts on our Tribes and Tribal members.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Stern, supra, at 119.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ``We will oppose any efforts by outsiders, which we believe
    threatens our land, our animals, or our traditional way of life.'' \9\
    Oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain is wholly incompatible
    with the Gwich'in worldview. Our identity, culture, and way of life are
    at stake. Like our ancestors, we will never give up. We will never stop
    fighting to protect the Coastal Plain, the animals that depend on it,
    and our way of life.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Arctic Village Council, supra, at 33.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit is not only a place of birth, it
    is also a place of peace. My great-grandmother was Maggie Gilbert. She
    passed on the story to my grandfather Trimble of our ancestor Dajalti',
    who was a leader of our people long ago. During a conflict between the
    Neets'aii and the Inupiat, Dajalti' led the Neets'aii north over the
    Brooks Range into what we now call Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit.
    From there, Dajalti' and his people made camp, and he struck out to the
    coast alone to meet with the Inupiat. At their meeting, Dajalti' met
    the Inupiaq leaders and they made an end to the war. Our stories tell
    us this is the last time there was conflict between the Neets'aii and
    the Inupiat. All of this occurred in the land you now call the Coastal
    Plain.
    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5816.002

    ajalti' makes a speech to thousands of Eskimos on the Arctic Coast
                                 to end the war

                         (Illustration by Kathy Tritt)

                    our experience in the blm's nepa process
        When the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) initiated its review
    process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) last year,
    our Tribes made a controversial decision: our Councils agreed we would
    each become ``cooperating agencies'' in the NEPA process. We made this
    choice, not to support the development of oil and gas in the Refuge; an
    outcome that our Tribes unequivocally oppose. Rather, we sought to sit
    at the table as equals with the BLM to provide a direct link between
    the agency and the Tribes so that the BLM's Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (DEIS) would be the kind of comprehensive and thorough report
    that our people deserve. That was not, however, our experience in this
    process.
        At the outset, the BLM's review process was destined to be
    inadequate. This was a self-inflicted injury by the agency itself by
    laying out a timeline for completion that is unparalleled in Alaska.
    Our Tribes continually expressed our concerns about the BLM's
    compressed timeline for completing this DEIS, and routinely advised the
    agency that the speed at which it was working was undermining the
    integrity of the NEPA process and creating significant barrier to our
    Tribes' meaningful participation. Despite our Tribes' good faith
    participation in this process, the BLM has consistently rebuffed the
    Tribes' substantive comments and concerns. The DEIS's wholly inadequate
    analysis of the proposed leasing program's impacts on cultural and
    subsistence resources reflects the BLM's continued failure to
    adequately consider and address our Tribes' concerns.
        One potentially positive note in this process, was the BLM's
    willingness to fund our Tribes' effort to translate sections of the
    DEIS into written Gwich'in. In our villages, our Native language is
    still widely spoken and read, and indeed for many, English is their
    second language. However, the BLM's priority focus on completing this
    process as quickly as possible once again hindered any possibility of
    Tribal success. In order to fund this project, the BLM had to establish
    a section 638 self-governance contract with my Tribe. This contracting
    process takes time, especially when there is, as was the case here, no
    prior contracting relationship between the Federal agency and the
    tribal government. Between the lengthy bureaucracy and the recent
    government shutdown, the funding for the translation effort did not
    make it to the Tribes until late January 2019, well into the BLM's
    comment period for the DEIS. Because of the delay in funding, the
    Tribes were unable to translate the entire draft environmental impact
    statement, and the translation of selected sections of the DEIS was not
    available until March 10, 2018--three days before the DEIS comment
    deadline.
        During the shutdown, the Tribes requested that the BLM extend the
    comment period to provide sufficient time to produce an accurate and
    understandable translation. The Tribes also informed the BLM that not
    extending the comment period to provide sufficient time for translation
    would severely hinder the participation of tribal members and other
    Gwich'in people who speak Gwich'in as their first language. The BLM
    ignored the Tribes' requests. The BLM's decision to continue to work on
    the DEIS during the government shutdown--but to not provide timely
    funding for translators or additional time for translation--
    disenfranchised tribal members and other Gwich'in people from the
    public comment process. Funding the translation efforts while
    simultaneously not providing adequate time to translate the DEIS
    demonstrates, in my view, how the BLM views trust responsibility to our
    Tribes.
        Finally, while BLM officials did commit to and attend government-
    to-government ``consultations'' in Arctic Village and Venetie, I want
    the Committee to understand these sessions did not live up to our
    expectations as Tribal Nations and did not live up the Federal
    Government's trust responsibilities to Tribes. Rather, these sessions
    consisted of BLM representatives and their consultants arriving in the
    village and meeting with the Councils for what was essentially a
    ``listening session.'' Questions asked by Council members often went
    unanswered, information presented by the agency was little more than
    information previously available to the public, and little if any of
    our Tribes' requests were followed up on by the agency. Our Tribes
    provided literature, posters, and other documents at these meetings for
    the BLM and their consultants to review, however they did not review
    them even after our elders reminded them of the importance of this
    information. Our Tribes' have come to view these ``consultation''
    sessions as mere ``box-checking'' exercises by the agency. It seems to
    me that the BLM measures the effectiveness of government-to-government
    consultation in terms of quantity not quality. That is not, in any way
    shape or form, how the trust responsibility should work.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, I would like to thank the Committee again for inviting
    me to testify today. I must share that this has not been easy for me to
    do. I have three small daughters back home as well as the rest of my
    family and my village. It is hard to come all this way and to talk
    about this issue. But, I am doing it for my people and that makes it
    all worth it. Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit is not just a place on a
    map for our people. It is the foundation for our entire way of life
    back home. From it, we have our caribou, our stories, and our identity.
    For our Tribes, this is not just an issue of conservation versus
    development. We just do not see it that way. For us, this is about our
    desire as a tribal people to continuing living a way of life that we
    chose for ourselves. We chose to settle where we did because we knew
    that is where the caribou go. We established our reservation to ensure
    we would keep that land. We did not participate in the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act of 1971 because we wanted to continue being
    Tribal landowners. And today, we want to carry on that legacy by
    protecting the place that provided for our people throughout our
    history: Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit. No one, from any walk of
    life, has the right to deny our people the right to be who we are or
    believe what we believe. Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit is not just
    the sacred place where caribou life begins. It is the sacred place
    where all life, including the lives of the Neets'aii, begin. And we
    will never stop in our effort to protect it.

        Mashhi' Cho (Thank you).

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Chief Tizya-Tramm for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANA TIZYA-TRAMM, CHIEF, VUNTUT GWITCHIN
                    FIRST NATION, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar,
    members of the Subcommittee and of the Piscataway-Conoy people
    whose traditional territory we are on today. Mashhi' cho for
    the opportunity to speak with you in favor of this piece of
    legislation, which is critical to the future of my people.
        I notice in the paintings on your walls you have a buffalo
    people. Well, I am proud to sit in front of you today as a
    caribou people, as Gwich'in. And nobody speaks on behalf of
    Gwich'in, except our Gwich'in leaders.
        My name is Dana Tizya-Tramm, grandson of Clara Linklater
    and Old Peter Tizya. I am the Chief of the Vuntut Gwitchin
    First Nation of the Yukon in Canada. But no border separates
    the Gwich'in, and we speak in unity in protection of the
    Porcupine caribou herd.
        Long ago, the Gwitchin followed the caribou to see where
    they went and to learn their ways. They led us to the Northeast
    Coastal Plains of what you now call Alaska. It is here we
    became one with the caribou. We did this by exchanging half of
    our heart with half of the caribou's own. And in this way we
    would always know where the other was. In this way, we would be
    connected forever.
        The immense value of the birthing grounds was recognized on
    this day over a millennia ago, and why today the Gwitchin call
    it Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit, the Sacred Place Where
    Life Begins. If you drill in this sacred place, it will destroy
    the caribou, and therefore, destroy the Gwich'in.
        Our nation stretches from Alaska throughout Northern Yukon
    and into the Northwest Territories of Canada. Vahdzaii,
    caribou, is known as the lifeblood of our people and our
    connection to them. We are a people who belong to these lands
    and waters, and to the animals who share them with us. The
    Vuntut Gwitchin define themselves by the life-giving lakes in a
    region in the Yukon called the Crow Flats. The term Vuntut
    Gwitchin literally translates to ``Those Who Dwell Among the
    Many Lakes.''
        The Gwitchin in Northeast Alaska call themselves the
    Gwichyaa Gwich'in, Those Who Dwell in the Flats, and so on.
    Every region, the identity of our people is reflected in our
    names to represent the body of our persons, and the deep
    understanding of our belonging to these lands. We are all
    Gwich'in, and we are a caribou people.
        Our entire nation as a northern Arctic people, and
    especially our hunters, trappers, and gatherers, can tell you
    of the immense changes our lands are subjected to under the
    breaking weight of changing climate. Our lands are now
    slumping, entire lakes draining, and even entire rivers
    reversing, as the permafrost and glaciers that held our ancient
    lands together are now melting and eroding at accelerating
    rates.
        Protected lands will give animals the chance to survive our
    changing climate on our lands. Development in the calving
    grounds of the Porcupine caribou will further threaten the fate
    of the herd and the fate of my people and our Nation.
        The herd is the sustenance of our very being, mind, body,
    and spirit. Our people know where we come from, and we can see
    the exponential pace at which this new world is affecting us, a
    world that seeks dominion over the lands, animals, and
    resources that is at odds with our traditional way of life,
    which teaches a respectful relationship with each. The complete
    change of our lands and culture leaves us in possibly one of
    the most important junctures in our history--the question
    being, will the velocity of these changes and development
    swallow our people's future, our relationship, and our
    ancestors?
        This bill directly addresses Gwich'in human rights. This
    bill will restore protection to a sacred land and life cycle
    that Gwich'in have always recognized since time immemorial and,
    if passed, will respect the caribou and the Gwich'ins'
    continued journey together in this world.
        Since 1988, upon our elders' direction, we have tirelessly
    advocated and worked to protect these lands and our ancient way
    of life from the needless development. I am here today to
    testify that this development on the Coastal Plain amounts to
    the cultural genocide of the entire Gwich'in Nation. We have
    lived in balance with the Porcupine caribou herd since before
    any mark of modern history, and now development threatens to
    destabilize all of this.
        At one of the most important points in our collective human
    history, it is now your turn to stand with the Gwich'in Nation,
    the Porcupine caribou herd, and these lands. We have done our
    work. Now it is up to you to respect, honor, and value the
    lives of us all by passing this bill. Mashhi'.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Tizya-Tramm follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Dana Tizya-Tramm, Chief, Vuntut Gwitchin,
                               Fairbanks, Alaska
        Long ago the Gwitchin followed the caribou to see where they went
    and to learn their ways. They lead us to the Northeast Coastal Plains
    of what is now called ``Alaska.'' It is here that we made treaty, it is
    here we became one. We did this by the exchange of half of one
    another's heart. In this way we would always be connected, forever. The
    immense value of their calving grounds was recognized on this day over
    a millennia ago, and why today all Gwitchin call it, ``Iizhik Gwats'an
    Gwandaii Goodlit,'' ``the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.''
        Among the Gwitchin the expanse from the Northeast of Alaska,
    through Northern Yukon Territory, to the mid-Western region of the
    Northwest Territories, vahdzaii (caribou) is known as the lifeblood of
    our people, as well as our connection to them. As a people who define
    themselves by the life giving lakes in a region called the ``Crow
    Flats'' the term ``Vuntut Gwitchin'' literally translates to ``They Who
    Dwell Among the Many Lakes,'' and the Gwitchin in Northeastern Alaska
    residing in the ``Yukon Flats'' refer to themselves as the ``They Who
    Dwell in the Flats'' and so on, every region of our people their
    identity, reflected in our names that represents the body of our
    persons, and the deep understanding of our person, and its connection
    to our lands, but we are all a caribou people.
        As a young man today I can see our past traditional world as we
    were the last to have made contact with the ``oonjit'' (outsiders) or
    ``white people'' which were the colonial explorers. I can see where our
    people came from and the exponential pace at which this new world has
    affected us. A world that seeks dominion over the lands, animals, and
    resources opposed to our traditional one that teaches that we must have
    a respectful relationship with each. The respect taught to us by our
    ways so strict that we are never, ever to laugh, or make fun of any
    animal. Now we must carry our traditional values and principles taught
    by our traditions and elders from the past into the future in a way in
    which they may be realized in contemporary ways. The onslaught of
    technology, alcohol, drugs, and outside pressures from our new non-
    indigenous partners and their new world is completely changing the
    ancient world of our culture and lives leave us in possibly one of the
    most important points in our people's history. How will we continue our
    way with the land, waters and animals? Will we be able to balance the
    best of both of these worlds to gift our coming generations a totally
    balanced and new world in which we have woven our traditional guiding
    principles into new works? Or will the velocity of alcohol, drugs, and
    new influences swallow our people, our identities, our relationships,
    our connections to our ancestors and future generations?
        The Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation Signed our Self-Government
    Agreement with the Crown of Canada in 1995 establishing our own
    government, the certainty of our lands, as well as the laws that govern
    this relationship and the frameworks that we are to build from
    together. This mechanism defines our peoples right to self-
    determination, and self-governance and from this we have thrived as a
    people free from the confines of the ``Indian Act'' under Canadian law.
    This however is not how our relationship began and we have a
    significant legacy of changes both good and bad, both chosen and
    forced. When it comes to our lands specifically we created ``Special
    Management Areas'' and even large swaths of lands in our traditional
    territories designated as Federal parks although we still retain the
    right to harvest within these lands. Through our agreement and
    partnership with the Canadian Government we have protected all of our
    headwaters and the most important lands that sustained flora and fauna.
        As a leader of my people I must say now, to be retained by outside
    people, government, and systems of my people that the development of
    the ``1002'' lands as designated by ANILCA, known to my people as
    ``Iizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'' is certainly the highest practice
    of cultural genocide of the entire Gwitchin Nation as it will lead to
    the destabilization of the Porcupine Caribou herd which carries the
    spirit, intent, and founding of our nation as a people. No word on any
    format can replace the meaning of the last, and largest land animal
    migration left today that drives northern arctic ecosystems in which we
    belong to. No words can ever truly convey to people in which I am
    mandated to convince to support the protection of these lands to side
    with a people they know nothing about to understand that our existence
    is dependant on an animal as humble as the caribou. On behalf of my
    people I plead that we be recognized, that our internationally
    recognized human rights be honoured, that our international agreements
    between Canada and the U.S.A. are honoured, that from the misty
    fundamental place from whom ever reads this helps to protect the most
    fundamental part of who my people are because obviously this is beyond
    just our control, and is now in your hands. Support this legislation
    that will not just stop oil and gas development of the ``1002'' lands,
    but will ensure the living of an ancient ecosystem and an ancient
    people that depend on them.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Chief Joseph for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF THE HON. VICTOR JOSEPH, CHIEF/CHAIRMAN, TANANA
                  CHIEFS CONFERENCE, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

        Mr. Joseph. Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member
    Gosar, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the
    opportunity to testify today.
        My name is Victor Joseph. I serve as the Chief Chairman at
    Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC). TCC is a non-profit consortium
    of 42 members, of which 37 are federally recognized tribes. Our
    region includes the Gwich'in Nation. TCC is governed by tribal
    leaders who provide oversight and guidance in the management of
    TCC. Our tribes stand united with the Gwich'in Tribes in
    opposition of all oil and gas activities on the Coastal Plain
    of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        You have heard firsthand from the Gwich'in leaders why the
    birthing grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd is so important
    to their existence as a people. TCC joins the comments provided
    by my fellow panelists.
        The purpose of my testimony today is to provide the
    Subcommittee with an overview of how the complex legal history
    of Alaskan tribes have impacted our ability to continue our way
    of life. The history reinforces why protecting the Coastal
    Plain is so important.
        Alaska is often misunderstood, even by those who live in
    the state. Alaska Native tribes have always existed, and
    continue to exist, despite our lands being stripped from tribal
    sovereign authority when Congress passed the Alaska Native
    Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, in 1971. ANCSA created profit-
    making Alaska Native Corporations to receive over 45 million
    acres of land. Tribes were not mentioned anywhere in that Act.
    But there are 229 federally recognized tribes in the state of
    Alaska.
        To be clear, the ANCSA corporations are not tribes or
    tribal governments. While some hail ANCSA as a success because
    of their financial successes of the for-profit corporations it
    established, it has made it extremely difficult for tribes to
    have a meaningful role in wildlife and resource management. The
    lack of co-management often creates hunting and fishing
    regulations that criminalize our people for doing what we have
    been doing since time immemorial, living off the land and
    practicing our religious and spiritual rights.
        In Alaska, Native communities harvest approximately 22,000
    tons of wild foods each year, and an average of 370 pounds per
    person. Our spirituality and culture is deeply rooted in
    harvesting of these wild foods, and sharing them within our
    communities.
        A decade after ANCSA, Congress sought to protect Alaska
    Native hunting and fishing rights by enacting the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. To be direct,
    ANILCA has failed to protect the Alaska Native way of life. The
    complex legal landscape is the backdrop in the fight to protect
    the calving grounds for the Porcupine caribou herd, and the
    ability of the Gwich'in Nation to exist.
        The TCC tribal leadership recently reaffirmed its
    resolution, which calls on Congress and the President to
    permanently protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine
    caribou herd. TCC urges Congress to return to the strong
    support of protecting the Refuge, including the sensitive
    Coastal Plain. This place is one of the most sacred locations
    to the Gwich'in people. Its protection is necessary for their
    continued way of life.
        When TCC opposed the Tax Act, we warned that the NEPA
    process would be truncated, and the Native tribal voice
    silenced in any plan. Unfortunately, we were right. That is
    exactly what is happening.
        The Tanana Chief Conference concludes that protecting the
    Coastal Plain and setting it aside as wilderness is the best
    and highest use of the fragile area. It preserves the intact
    ecosystem critical to both the caribou and the Gwich'in people.
    This way of life is dependent on the herd and each other.
        We hope that you agree, and will advocate for the
    protection of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal
    Plain, its wildlife, and the indigenous people who are so
    closely linked to it.
        Thank you for this opportunity.
        [Speaking Native language.]

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Victor Joseph, Chief and Chairman, Tanana Chiefs
                         Conference, Fairbanks, Alaska
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, members of the
    Subcommittee, on behalf of the Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC), I
    appreciate the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee regarding
    ``The Need to Protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal
    Plan'' on H.R. 1146. TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 37
    federally-recognized Indian tribes and 41 communities located across
    Alaska's interior including the tribes of the Gwich'in Nation of Arctic
    Village, Venetie, Fort Yukon, Beaver, Chalkyitsik, Birch Creek, Circle
    and Eagle Village. TCC serves approximately 18,000 tribal members in
    Fairbanks where TCC headquarters is located, and in the rural villages
    in Alaska's vast interior, located along the 1,400 mile Yukon River and
    its tributaries. Over 100 years ago, TCC was formed when tribal leaders
    of the interior met with Federal officials and strategically created a
    unified tribal voice to ensure the tribes received adequate health
    care, employment, education, and protection of our traditional
    territories in order to continue hunting and fishing practices.
        Today, TCC aims to meet the health and social service needs of
    tribes and tribal members throughout the region, which covers 235,000
    square miles here in the Interior of Alaska, with our Health Services
    covering 185,000 square miles. Our region covers 37 percent of the
    state, an area that is just slightly smaller than Texas. TCC is
    governed by the Full Board, Executive Board, Health Board and
    Traditional Chiefs who provide oversight and guidance in the management
    of TCC. In addition, at TCC's Annual Convention, TCC member tribes
    deliberate and pass resolutions that guide TCC through the coming
    years. I serve as Chief/Chairman of TCC, elected by our tribal
    delegates, I am a Tanana tribal member. As the Chief/Chairman, I have
    the honor to serve our region, represent the tribes, and to carry out
    the intent and legacy of the founding TCC chiefs.

        We stand united with the Gwich'in Tribes in opposition to all oil
    and gas activities on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge. Each year, the Coastal Plain acts as the birthing grounds for
    the Porcupine Caribou Herd. Our people live in remote villages on the
    migratory route of the caribou. Tribal citizens across our Region rely
    on these animals for their physical, cultural, and spiritual health.
    The proposed oil and gas leasing and subsequent exploration and
    development will undoubtedly directly and significantly impact the
    quality, health, and availability of those traditional subsistence
    resources, such as caribou, fish, and birds, and therefore the Gwich'in
    way of life.
        We join the comments provided by my fellow panelists. The purpose
    of my testimony is to provide the Subcommittee with an overview of how
    the complex legal history of Alaskan tribes have impacted our ability
    to continue a subsistence lifestyle and reinforce why protecting the
    Coastal Plain is so important.
        Alaska is often misunderstood even by those who live in the state.
    Alaska Native tribes have always existed and continue to exist despite
    our lands being stripped from tribal sovereign authority when Congress
    passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. Tribes'
    inherent powers of self-governance over tribal citizens have long been
    recognized, and there is no evidence that Congress intended to
    extinguish Alaska Tribes' powers in enacting ANCSA.\1\ Federal courts
    have likewise concluded that tribes in Alaska retain inherent sovereign
    authority.\2\ There are 229 federally-recognized tribes in Alaska. As a
    general matter, sovereign governments have authority, or jurisdiction,
    over citizens, over land, and over people who enter their land. This
    ``dual nature of Indian sovereignty'' derives from two intertwined
    sources: tribal citizenship and tribal land. These two aspects of
    jurisdiction, or authority, while intertwined, have been ``teased
    apart'' in Alaska.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738, 753 (Alaska 1999) (``Congress
    intended ANCSA to free Alaska Natives from the dictates of ` ``lengthy
    wardship or trusteeship,'' ' not to handicap tribes by divesting them
    of their sovereign powers.'').
        \2\ Native Vill. of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 944 F.2d 548,
    556-59 (9th Cir. 1991); Native Vill. of Venetie I.R.A. Council v.
    Alaska, 994 WL 730893, at *12-21 (D. Alaska, Dec. 23, 1994); Kaltag
    Tribal Council v. Jackson, 344 F. App'x 324 (9th Cir. 2011).
        \3\ John, 982 P.2d at 754; Kaltag Tribal Council v. Jackson, 344 F.
    App'x at 325 (9th Cir. 2011) (``Reservation status is not a requirement
    of jurisdiction because `[a] Tribe's authority over its reservation or
    Indian country is incidental to its authority over its
    members.''(quoting Venetie, 944 F.2d at 559 n.12)).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ANCSA created 12 regional profit-making Alaska Native corporations
    and over 200 village, group, and urban corporations to receive what
    would end up being around 45.5 million acres of land along with about a
    billion dollars cash payment. Tribes were not mentioned in the Act. To
    be clear, the ANCSA corporations are not tribes or tribal governments.
    While some hail ANCSA as a success because of the financial success of
    the for-profit corporations it established, ANCSA's purported
    elimination of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights has had
    devastating effects on Alaska Native way of life, and has made it
    extremely difficult for tribes to have a meaningful role in resource
    management by virtue of our reserved tribal rights.\4\ The lack of co-
    management often creates hunting and fishing regulations that
    criminalize our people for doing what we have been doing since time
    immemorial--subsisting off the land and practicing our religious and
    spiritual beliefs. In Alaska, Native communities harvest approximately
    22,000 tons of wild foods each year, an average of 375 pounds per
    person.\5\ Our spirituality and our culture is deeply rooted in
    harvesting these wild foods, and sharing them within our communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Robert T. Anderson, Sovereignty and Subsistence: Native Self-
    Governance and Rights to Hunt, Fish, and Gather After ANCSA, 33 Alaska
    L. Rev: 187 (2016), http://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/
    49.
        \5\ Hearing to Examine Wildlife Management Authority Within the
    State of Alaska Under the Alaska National Interest Lands Act and the
    Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: Hearing Before the S. Comm. On
    Energy and Nat. Res., 113th Cong. 1 (2013).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While tribes relentlessly advocate for protection of tribal hunting
    and fishing practices and the ceremonies that accompany those
    practices, achieving this without a land base is extremely challenging.
    Much of the land is owned by the ANCSA corporations, and while ANCSA
    corporations are Native owned and operated, their main mission is to
    make profits which is sometimes at odds with tribal cultural and
    spiritual pursuits.

        In the drafting of ANCSA, Alaska Natives communicated that
    protection of our hunting and fishing rights were one of the highest
    priorities.\6\ However, nothing was stated in the Act that clearly
    defined what protections the Alaska Native people would continue to
    have. Congress nevertheless made its promise clear in the Joint Senate
    and House Conference Committee Report accompanying the Act:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ The first Alaska Federation of Natives draft bill emphasized
    subsistence protection and the final Senate version of the land claims
    bill included elaborate provisions protecting Native subsistence. Case,
    supra, at 284.

            The Conference committee after careful consideration believes
            that all Native interests in subsistence resource land can and
            will be protected by the Secretary through the exercise of his
            existing withdrawal authority . . . The Conference Committee
            expects both the Secretary and the State to take any action
            necessary to protect the subsistence needs of the Natives.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 92-746, 92nd Cong.; 1st Sess., December 14,
    1971, at 37 reprinted in 1971 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2247, 2250.

        After a decade of failure by the Secretary of the Interior and the
    State of Alaska to protect subsistence needs of Native peoples,
    Congress sought to protect Alaska Native hunting and fishing rights by
    enacting the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    (ANILCA).\8\ ANILCA has two purposes: first, ``to set aside land in
    order to preserve the natural features and resources of those lands and
    waters for present and future generations,'' and second ``to protect
    the resources related to subsistence need and provide the opportunity
    for rural residents engaged in a subsistence way of life to continue to
    do so.'' \9\ The Act professed to protect Native lifestyles and did so
    under ``its constitutional authority over Native affairs and its
    constitutional authority under the property and commerce clause.'' \10\
    Decades after ANCSA and ANILCA passed, neither the Department of the
    Interior nor the State of Alaska have lived up to Congress'
    expectations to protect Alaska Native hunting and fishing practices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 16 U.S.C.A.
    Sec. Sec. 3111 et seq. (1980).
        \9\ 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3101 (b), (c).
        \10\ 16 U.S.C.A. Sec. 3111 (4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This complex legal landscape is the backdrop in the fight to
    protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd and,
    therefore, the ability of the Gwich'in Nation to exist. In October 27,
    2017, the TCC Tribal leadership reaffirmed its 2015 Board resolution
    (2015-71), passed by the Full Board, which called on Congress and the
    President to permanently protect the biologically rich calving grounds
    of the Porcupine (River) Caribou Herd within the ``1002 Area'' Coastal
    Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We stand in unity
    with the Gwich'in People who rely on the Porcupine Caribou for the
    physical, cultural, and spiritual well-being, and who, since 1988, and
    every 2 years thereafter, have unanimously called on the United States
    to protect the 1002 Area ``Coastal Plain'' and respect their
    traditional way of life. The Porcupine Caribou represent food security
    and a way of life to the Gwich'in people who have hunted the caribou
    for thousands of years. Oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain
    will cause disruptions to land and subsistence activities and uses,
    which will have severe social, cultural, and health impacts on the
    Gwich'in people.
        Until recently, the protection of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge enjoyed bipartisan support, dating back to 1960 when President
    Dwight David Eisenhower established the area as the Arctic National
    Wildlife Range, which was expanded in 1980 by President Jimmy Carter
    and renamed a Refuge. TCC urges Congress to return to the strong
    support for protecting the Refuge, including the ecologically sensitive
    Coastal Plain, and the Gwich'in people. In 2017, when TCC opposed, the
    ``Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act,'' and inclusion of Arctic Refuge
    drilling in the Tax Act, we warned that the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA) process would be truncated and Native tribal voices
    silenced in any mitigation plan and regulations for the Coastal Plain.
    Unfortunately, we were right; this is exactly what is happening.
        The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (draft EIS) fails to acknowledge the significant impact oil
    and gas activities on the Coastal Plain will have on the tribal
    communities that rely on the Coastal Plain for subsistence. The draft
    EIS is wholly inadequate in researching, identifying, analyzing, and
    planning for mitigation of potential impacts as a result of the
    proposed three action alternatives for BLM's implementation of an oil
    and gas program in the Coastal Plain of the Refuge as mandated by the
    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law 115-97. The draft EIS does
    not meet basic legal requirements of a sufficient EIS, and is clearly
    deficient in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
    Section 810 preliminary analysis. Each section lacks adequate research
    and analysis of scientific data and traditional knowledge currently
    readily available. Furthermore, it lacks necessary required research
    and analysis to fill existing data gaps.
        The draft EIS is a futile exercise, lacking integrity, and
    concluding potential and cumulative impacts as a result of the proposed
    three action alternatives for the BLM implementation of an oil and gas
    program in the Coastal Plain of the Refuge would be minimal or
    inconsequential to habitat, fish, wildlife, and indigenous people. The
    scoping and draft EIS process have selectively acknowledged science,
    data, technical reports, and public comments that support and validate
    the administration's position, while selectively not including years of
    science, data, technical reports, and indigenous knowledge that clearly
    demonstrate the high likelihood of severe and significant direct and
    cumulative impacts to habitat, fish, wildlife, indigenous peoples, and
    the global environment. This silences Alaska Native voices.
        ANILCA Section 810, subtitled Subsistence and Land Use Decisions,
    outlines the requirements for addressing impacts to subsistence uses of
    resources in the Federal land use decision-making process in Alaska.
    The draft EIS contains an analysis under Section 810 of the ANILCA that
    egregiously fails to recognize the significant impacts to the Gwich'in
    subsistence way of life that are likely to result from oil and gas
    activities on the Coastal Plain. All of BLM's proposed action
    alternatives would result in: displacement impacts on calving and post-
    calving PCH caribou; increased calf mortality, and impacts to migration
    patterns, and therefore may substantially restrict and/or reduce the
    abundance and availability of PCH for subsistence uses. Oil and gas
    exploration and development in the heart of the calving and post-
    calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd is a direct threat to
    indigenous culture and the ability to continue the subsistence way of
    life--and yet BLM has wholly ignored these concerns. As a result of
    this finding, BLM does not intend to hold ANILCA 810 hearings in any
    Gwich'in communities, further inhibiting their ability to participate
    meaningfully in this process. This is unacceptable.
        We heard promises when Congress was considering opening the Coastal
    Plain in the Tax Act that BLM would ensure that the Federal process
    meets all legal and moral obligations, allowing Tribal voices to be
    heard and address known impacts to our ways of life. These promises
    were not kept. But no process will change the fact that the proposed
    oil and gas leasing and subsequent exploration and development on the
    Coastal Plain will have significant, serious, and harmful impacts on
    Alaska Native ways of life. As a result, the Tanana Chiefs Conference
    concludes that protecting the Coastal Plain and setting it aside as
    Wilderness is the best and highest use of this fragile ecosystem. It
    preserves an intact ecosystem, critical to both the Porcupine Caribou
    herd and the Gwich'in people, whose way of life is dependent upon the
    herd. The health of the herd and the health of the Tribal communities
    are inextricably dependent.
        H.R. 1146, which repeals the provisions of the Tax Act that opened
    the Coastal Plain to destructive oil and gas activities is an important
    step. We hope you agree and will advocate for protection of the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain--its wildlife and the
    indigenous people who are so closely linked to it.

        Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on this
    important legislation.

                                     *****

                                   ATTACHMENT
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       PROTECT THE PORCUPINE CARIBOU BIRTHPLACE IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
                         WILDLIFE REFUGE COASTAL PLAIN
                             RESOLUTION NO. 2015-71

        WHEREAS, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the birthplace and
    nursery grounds of the Porcupine (River) Caribou Herd; and

        WHEREAS, for countless generations the Gwich'in People relied upon
    the porcupine caribou to meet their cultural, spiritual and subsistence
    needs, and continue to rely on the caribou to meet the needs of their
    people; and

        WHEREAS, the Gwich'in and all Native people have the right to
    continue to live their traditional way of life, and this right is
    recognized in the International Covenants on Human Rights which reads
    in part: ``In no case may a people be deprived of their own means of
    subsistence . . .''; and

        WHEREAS, oil development in the birthplace of the Porcupine Caribou
    Herd would hurt the caribou and threaten the future of the Gwich'in
    People.

        NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Tanana Chiefs Conference Full
    Board of Directors direct the TCC staff to call on Congress and the
    President to take action to permanently protect the birthplace of the
    Porcupine Caribou Herd in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as
    the 1002 lands; and

        NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this is the standing
    policy of TCC until amended or rescinded.

    CERTIFICATION

    I hereby certify that this resolution was duly passed by the Tanana
    Chiefs Conference Full Board of Directors on March 19, 2015 at
    Fairbanks, Alaska and a quorum was duly established.

                                                        ___________________

                                                                Pat McCarty
                                                        Secretary/Treasurer

    Submitted by: Yukon Flats Subregion

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Alexander for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF SAM ALEXANDER, GWICH'IN LEADER, GWICH'IN STEERING
                      COMMITTEE, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

        Mr. Alexander. Drin gwinzii, Shoozhri' Sam Alexander
    oozhii, Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ihtii, gaa Tanan gwihch'ii.
    Shiyeghan naii Clarence ts'a' Ginny Alexander gaavoozhri',
    Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ginlii [Speaking Native language]. Good
    afternoon. My name is Sam Alexander. I am from Fort Yukon, but
    I live in Fairbanks. My parents are Ginny and Clarence
    Alexander from Fort Yukon.
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and members of
    the Subcommittee, Mahsi' Choo for the opportunity to speak to
    you in favor of H.R. 1146.
        Today, I am here to talk with you about why my people, the
    Gwich'in Nation, continue to fight to protect the Arctic
    Refuge. As a prior U.S. Army Special Forces officer and
    graduate of Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, my people have
    asked me to speak because of my experience with Western
    society.
        Why do we fight so hard to protect this land? The word
    Gwich'in means ``people of a place,'' and the Refuge is one of
    the places we are from, long before it was a refuge, and long
    before there was a United States.
        The Refuge is very close to my heart, as it is the reason
    for my own existence. My grandmother was orphaned by diseases
    that wiped out her family and brought our tribe to the brink of
    extinction. She was able to survive because she left her home
    and went to live on the land that later became the Refuge.
    There, the land and animals provided for her.
        How do we repay the land for all that it has given us? As
    Gwich'in, we are bound by tradition to be stewards of the land,
    for it has provided us with so much. Stewardship of the land is
    a sacred duty and, as such, one that cannot be entrusted to
    corporations, even if they have the words ``Native'' in front
    of them.
        Beyond our duty to be stewards of this land lays another
    powerful motivator. We protect this land because our connection
    to the land is the basis for our culture. What we eat, what we
    wear, the words that we use, our sense of time and space all
    come from our connection to the land. Our connection with the
    caribou and all creatures of the land sustain our language. How
    we communicate the detailed directions needed to survive on the
    land go beyond general terms such as ``north'' and ``south,''
    but instead incorporate the features of the land, such as
    traveling up river, oonji', or down the river, oodi'.
        Our concept of time is based on the land's natural cycles.
    For example, we call the month of May Gwiluu Zhrii, which means
    ``The Month of Crusted Snow.'' Of course, with climate change,
    we have started to see the crusted snow for which May is named
    now in April. Our knowledge of the land is best understood in
    the language.
        Yet, we are at an inflection point with our language. We
    have fewer and fewer speakers every year, and knowledge is
    being lost. Recognizing this loss, the United Nations has
    declared this the year of indigenous languages. These languages
    are recognized for the value that they bring to our
    understanding of the world.
        But beyond the accumulated knowledge and insight the
    Gwich'in language provides, it gives something more. Diiginjik,
    our language, gives the Gwich'in people a connection to each
    other and our ancestors. We have place names that inform us and
    guide us. My father is from a place called Shoo, which means
    happy, and you can see the light in his eyes when he speaks of
    this place.
        I have heard it said that there can be balanced
    development, but I must not understand what balanced means,
    because so much of the North Slope is already open to
    development. How is opening the remainder creating balance?
        The animals are already under stress, with climate change
    impacting their lives now. As the temperatures stay near the
    freeze-thaw point we are seeing more rain and wet weather. This
    is making one of the mainstays of the caribou diet, lichen,
    inaccessible, as it is buried under ice instead of snow.
    Environmental stresses like this make protection of the calving
    grounds all that much more important, as the caribou are facing
    the unprecedented stress of rapid climate change.
        And it is not just the caribou, but the fish and other
    animals, as well. Drilling the refuge will exacerbate these
    changes.
        How do we know that activity in the refuge will impact
    animal behavior? Our traditional knowledge informs us.
        Once I was moose hunting with my father, an esteemed elder,
    and we were traveling along and saw a bear in the distance. He
    put up his rifle like he was going to shoot it, and then
    dropped his rifle down. I asked him why he didn't shoot the
    bear, and he said, ``Bears are always in front of moose.''
        And I thought to myself, what does that mean? I thought
    maybe he was tired. And we went around the corner, and a bull
    moose is standing right there.
        How could he know that? He knows that because he has spent
    a lot of time on the land, and he learned from his elders our
    traditional knowledge. This is hard-fought knowledge, and has
    to be very accurate in order for it to be of use. Our
    traditional knowledge helps us understand the behavior of
    animals in ways that Western science is only beginning to
    grasp. And this knowledge tells us that oil and gas development
    in birthing grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd will
    devastate them.
        I asked my father what message he thought you needed to
    hear. He said without the caribou, our tribe dies. He didn't
    say without more oil drilling our tribe dies, and he didn't say
    without greater infrastructure and development of the land our
    tribe dies. He said without caribou.
        The caribou bring life to the land. Without caribou the
    Refuge dies. And not just in iizhik gwats'an gwandaii goodlit,
    not just the Coastal Plain, we are talking about the entire
    Refuge. So, a choice must be made, and I hope you make the
    right one. Please pass this important piece of legislation.
        Mahsi' choo. De Oppresso Liber.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Sam Alexander, Gwich'in Leader, Gwich'in Steering
                          Committee, Fairbanks, Alaska
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, members of the
    Subcommittee, and Chief Swan of the Piscataway Conoy people, Mahsi'
    Choo for the opportunity to speak to you in favor of the Arctic
    Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, H.R. 1146.

        Drin gwinzii, Shoozhri' Sam Alexander oozhii, Gwichyaa Zhee
    gwats'an ihtii, gaa Tanan gwihch'ii. Shiyeghan naii Clarence ts'a'
    Ginny Alexander gaavoozhri', Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ginlii.

        Good afternoon, my name is Sam Alexander, I am from Fort Yukon,
    Alaska, but I live in Fairbanks, Alaska. My parents are Clarence and
    Ginny Alexander from Fort Yukon. Today I am here to talk with you about
    why my people, the Gwich'in Nation continue to fight to protect the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        As a prior U.S. Army Special Forces Officer and graduate of
    Dartmouth's Tuck School of Business, my people have asked me to speak
    because of my familiarity with the Western society.
        So why are we here? Why do we fight so hard to protect this land?
    The word Gwich'in means people of a place. And the refuge is one of the
    places we are from, long before it was a refuge, long before the United
    States existed. The refuge is very close to my heart, as it the reason
    for my own existence. My grandmother was orphaned by diseases that
    wiped out her family in the early 20th century, diseases that ravaged
    our people and brought us to the brink of extinction. She was able to
    survive because she left her home and went to live on the land that
    later became the Refuge. There, the land and animals provided for her.
        How do we repay the land for all that it has given us? As Gwich'in
    we are bound by tradition to be stewards of the land, for it has
    provided us so much.
        In our traditional way, animals and the land are revered and
    treated with the utmost respect. Our traditional protocol says that
    even the smallest of animals are not to be taken advantage of or
    disrespected. When you take a resource from the land you are supposed
    to leave something in return. For example, mice often store food. They
    hide small piles of wild Indian potato for a later date when they'll
    need it. Food can be scarce, at times in the Arctic. A Gwich'in person
    may help himself to the mice's food, but he knows, in exchange he must
    leave something of value for the mouse. Our values say that just
    because you are human that you are not above the other creations. In
    our way, the mice are no less worthy of respect than you or I.
        Stewardship of the land is a sacred duty, and as such, one that
    cannot be entrusted to corporations, even if they have the words Native
    in front of them.
        Beyond our duty to be stewards of this land lays another powerful
    motivator. We protect this land because our connection to the land is
    the basis for our culture. What we eat, what we wear, what we talk
    about, the words that we use, our sense of time and space all come from
    our connection to the land. Our connection with the caribou and all
    creatures of the land sustain our language. How we communicate the
    detailed directions needed to survive on the land go beyond general
    terms such as north or south, but instead incorporate the features of
    the land, such as traveling up river, oonji', or down the river, oodi'.
    Our concept of time is based on the land's natural cycles. For example,
    we call the month of May Gwiluu Zhrii, which means ``The Month of
    Crusted Snow.'' Of course, with climate change, we have started to see
    the crusted snow for which May is named in April. Our language contains
    knowledge of the land from time immemorial, and that knowledge is best
    understood in the language.
        And yet we are at an inflection point with our language. We have
    fewer and fewer speakers every year, and knowledge is being lost. This
    loss is being recognized. The United Nations has declared this the year
    of indigenous languages. These languages are recognized for the value
    that they bring to our understanding of the world. But beyond the
    accumulated knowledge and insight the Gwich'in language provides, it
    gives something more. Diiginjik, our language, gives the Gwich'in
    people a connection to each other and our ancestors. We have place
    names that inform us and guide us. Place names that have existed for
    millennia. My father is from a place called Shoo, which means happy,
    and you can see the light in his eyes when he speaks of this place. And
    so what do we want? We want what people have always wanted, to live in
    a place we love, living the way we want with the people that we love
    and cherish.
        I've heard it said that there can be balanced development, but I
    think I must not understand what balanced means, because so much of the
    North Slope of Alaska is already open to development. How is opening
    the remainder creating balance? The animals are already under stress
    now. Climate change is impacting our lives now. As the temperatures
    stay near the freeze-thaw point we are seeing more rain and wet
    weather. This is making one of the mainstays of the caribou diet,
    lichen, inaccessible as it is buried under ice instead of snow.
    Environmental stresses like this make protection of the calving grounds
    all that more important, as the caribou are facing the unprecedented
    stress of rapid climate change. And it is not just the caribou, but the
    fish and other animals as well. Drilling the refuge will exacerbate
    these changes.
        How do we know that activity in the refuge will impact animal
    behavior? Our traditional knowledge informs us. Once I was moose
    hunting with my father, an esteemed elder. We were traveling along and
    saw a bear in the distance. He raised his rifle as if he was he was
    going to shoot it and then stopped. He put his rifle down and said we
    should keep going. I asked him why? And he replied, ``bears are always
    in front of moose.'' And I thought, well what does that mean?! He must
    be tired, because he wasn't making any sense to me. Well we went around
    the corner and sure enough, there was a Bull Moose. How could he know
    this? He knows this because he has spent a lot of time on the land, and
    a lot of time learning from elders our traditional knowledge. That is
    hard fought knowledge, and has to be very accurate in order for it to
    be of use. Our traditional knowledge helps us understand the behavior
    of animals in ways that western science is only beginning to grasp. And
    this knowledge tells us that oil and gas development in birthing
    grounds of the Porcupine Caribou will devastate the herd.
        I asked my father what message he thought you needed to hear. He
    said, without the caribou, our tribe dies. He didn't say, without more
    oil drilling our tribe dies. He didn't say without greater
    infrastructure and development of the land our tribe dies. He said
    without caribou. The caribou bring life to the land. Without caribou
    the refuge dies. And not just in iizhik gwats'an gwandaii goodlit, not
    just the calving grounds on the Coastal Plain, we are talking about the
    entire refuge. So a choice must be made, and I hope you make the right
    one. Please pass this important piece of legislation.

        Mahsi' choo for your time. De Oppresso Liber.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rexford for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF FENTON REXFORD, ADVISOR TO THE MAYOR OF THE NORTH
       SLOPE BOROUGH, TRIBAL MEMBER, NATIVE VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK,
                            KAKTOVIK, ALASKA

        Mr. Rexford. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and
    the members of the Subcommittee, I thank you very much for the
    opportunity to present my comments.
        My name is Fenton Rexford from Kaktovik on Barter Island,
    also known as Barter Island. I was born and raised there, and
    am here to speak to you on behalf of my people and myself.
        Kaktovik is the only community, the only village within the
    boundaries of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are the
    only village and community located within the Coastal Plain of
    ANWR.
        We agree the human rights of the Gwich'in people must be
    honored and respected. But there are many other tribes in
    Alaska with diverse interests in many resources, including
    caribou, birds, fish, moose, whale, seals, minerals, and even
    the oil and gas.
        Your legislation does not mention at all the human rights
    of the Kaktovik people, the Kaktovikmiut. Your legislation does
    not mention the Kaktovikmiut at all. It doesn't mention the
    Inupiat people of the country there. What about our Inupiat
    human rights? We have human rights, as well as the Gwich'in.
    What about our land, which has been our home since immemorial,
    over 11,000 years? What about our resources? What about our
    interest in the Porcupine caribou herd that we rely on, as well
    as the Gwich'in? What about our voice?
        Do you intend us to disappear, like you have done for the
    Havasupai, the Navajo in creating the Grand Canyon? You
    legislated them out. And with this bill, H.R. 1146, you are
    legislating the Kaktovik people out of this country, or even
    existence.
        Our tribe has over 23 million of acres of homeland that we
    have inhabited and used for hunting, fishing, gathering, and
    raised our families for 11,000 years, from continental divide
    in the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean, from the Sagavanirktok
    on the west well into Canada into the east.
        Then the Federal Government showed up in 1867. The United
    States purchased all of Alaska from Russia, even though Russia
    did not exercise dominion over our lands. The U.S. Senate
    ratified the purchase, and Congress funded it.
        In 1947, the U.S. military, a cold war, arrived on Barter
    Island to build a 5,000-foot runway and hangar. We were told to
    move our village, our homes, our ice cellars. Graves and
    cemeteries were bulldozed and filled in.
        In 1950, the Department of the Interior sent their game
    warden to Kaktovik and told my grandfather, ``You are only
    going to be hunting one sheep and one caribou.'' And this was
    70 years ago.
        In 1951, the Village of Kaktovik and most of our island was
    withdrawn for a military reserve by Public Land Order 82.
        In 1953, the military directed our village again to move a
    second time.
        In 1957, an application for the withdrawal of lands to
    create the Arctic Wildlife Range was filed. The first group to
    propose the withdrawal was a sportsmen's hunting group from
    another region of Alaska that wanted to protect their interest
    in our region.
        In 1958, Congress passed the Alaska Statehood Act, which
    did not even protect our interests.
        In 1960, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land
    Order 2214, reserving the Arctic National Wildlife Range. The
    Range was established without Kaktovik input, without
    consultation. Our rights to hunt were now restricted further.
        In 1964, the military directed our village again to move
    the third time.
        In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act. Kaktovik received just four townships of land
    within our region. Congress terminated our aboriginal rights
    and claims to the hunting and fishing rights, as well.
        In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act, which renamed ANWR a ``Refuge,'' and
    increased the size of the refuge, and imposed new restrictions
    on hunting and fishing, and access to the land and gathering
    food for the people. Congress claimed to protect our access to
    the refuge, but we have struggled for 40 years to exercise our
    subsistence rights and our right to travel across the land
    managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Once again, the
    interests of the outside conservation groups have trumped the
    interests of our people.
        We have spent over 40 years lobbying Congress to allow oil
    and gas leasing within the Coastal Plain. Even leasing on our
    own Native lands requires an Act of Congress.
        Since the Federal Government showed up 152 years ago, the
    outside groups have used the Federal Government as a tool to
    assert their own interests in our land. To protect our
    interest, we have formed a powerful government and a voice--the
    non-government organizations--the voice of the Arctic Inupiat,
    to make sure that all our activities within the region return
    benefit to our people and our communities.
        So, as Inupiat, we maintain our traditional values. Our
    culture continues to evolve and adapt to the changing world
    around us. We are not an exhibit in a museum, nor should the
    lands that we have survived and thrived for centuries be locked
    away for the peace of mind from those from far-away places.
    This school of thought amounts to nothing more than green
    colonialism, a political occupation of our land in the name of
    environment, while others exploit the idea of wilderness for
    economic gain.
        I want to end this by saying my grandfather was told in
    1950, before I was born, ``You are allowed only one sheep and
    one caribou,'' and he said this, he has seen a lot, he has seen
    much happen over his life, because they had been living there
    for many years. And then the evil day came, trouble was
    happening, bringing deep worry over the existence of our
    people. It was the only trouble, he said, we have ever had in
    our own long living at Barter Island. Strict game loss had been
    imposed upon him and his people. Our aboriginal rights have
    been taken away.
        This is 50 years ago. And he thought maybe some day. And
    today is the day the game warden will see things our way, and
    protect our way of life. We have human rights, as well.
        Thank you very much.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rexford follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Fenton Rexford, Advisor to the Mayor, North Slope
                                Borough, Alaska
        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present my comments. My
    name is Fenton Rexford and I come from the community of Kaktovik, where
    I was born and raised, to speak to you on behalf of my people and
    myself. Kaktovik is the only community within the boundaries of the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We are the only community located
    within the Coastal Plain of ANWR.
        The legislation introduced by Congressman Huffman declares that it
    is the policy of the United States to ``sustain'' the Coastal Plain of
    ANWR as a ``natural treasure for the current generation of Americans''
    and ``to honor and respect the human rights of the Gwich'in.''
        We agree that the human rights of the Gwich'in people must be
    honored and respected. But there are many tribes in Alaska with diverse
    interests in many resources, including caribou, fish, birds, moose,
    whales, seals, minerals, timber, and even oil and gas. There are 32
    caribou herds in Alaska, and every one of those herds deserves to be
    protected, and the rights of the Native people to continue hunting
    those animals also should be respected.
        Within Alaska, we try to balance our use of these resources to
    benefit all communities. But within each region, we try to show respect
    for the people who are from that place.
        Your legislation doesn't mention the human rights of the
    Kaktovikmiut. Your legislation doesn't mention the Kaktovikmiut at all.
    It doesn't mention the Inupiat people. What about our rights? What
    about our land, which has been our home since time immemorial? What
    about our resources? What about our interest in the Porcupine caribou
    herd, on which we rely as well? What about our voice? Do you intend for
    us to disappear? We do not exist in your legislation.
        I would like to give you a short history of our land and our
    relationships with outside groups. Growing up, we considered our
    homelands to extend from the continental divide in the Brooks Range to
    the Arctic Ocean; from the Sagavanirktok River on the west, well into
    Canada on the east.
        Our tribe had over 23 million acres of lands that we have
    inhabited, used for hunting, fishing, gathering, and raised our
    families on for over 11,000 years. Then the Federal Government showed
    up.

        In 1867, the United States purchased all of Alaska from Russia,
    even though Russia did not exercise dominion over our lands. The Senate
    ratified the purchase and Congress funded it.

        In 1947, the military arrived on Barter Island to build a 5,000-
    foot runway and hangar. We were told to move our village. Our homes
    were bulldozed and our ice cellars were filled in.

        In 1950, the U.S. Department of the Interior restricted game
    hunting to just one caribou and one sheep per person, restricting our
    ability to feed our families.

        In 1951, the Village of Kaktovik and most of our island was
    withdrawn for a military reserve by Public Land Order 82.

        In 1953, the military directed our village to move a second time.

        In 1957, an application for the withdrawal of lands to create an
    Arctic Wildlife Range was filed. The first group to propose the
    withdrawal was a sportsmen's group from another region of Alaska that
    wanted to protect their interest in our region.

        In 1958, Congress passed the Alaska Statehood Act, which did not
    protect our interest in the land.

        In 1960, the Secretary of the Interior issued Public Land Order
    2214, reserving the Arctic National Wildlife Range. The Range was
    established without Kaktovik's input and without consultation. Our
    rights to hunt were now restricted further.

        In 1964, the military directed our village to move a third time.

        In 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
    Kaktovik receive just four townships of land within our region.
    Congress terminated our aboriginal land claims and our hunting and
    fishing rights.

        In 1980, Congress passed the Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act, which renamed ANWR a ``Refuge,'' increased the size
    of the Refuge, and imposed new restrictions on hunting and fishing and
    access to the land. Congress claimed to protect our access to the
    Refuge, but we have struggled for four decades to exercise our
    subsistence rights and our right to travel across the land managed by
    the Fish and Wildlife Service. Once again, the interests of outside
    conservation groups have trumped the interests of our people.

        We had to spend more than four decades lobbying Congress to allow
    oil and gas leasing within the Coastal Plain. Even leasing on Native-
    owned lands required an Act of Congress.

        Since the Federal Government showed up 152 years ago, outside
    groups have used the Federal Government as a tool to assert their own
    interest in our land. To protect our interests, we have formed a
    powerful government--the North Slope Borough--to make sure that all
    activities in our region return benefit to our people and our
    communities.
        As Inupiat, we maintain our traditional values, while our culture
    continues to evolve and adapt to the changing world around us. We are
    not an exhibit in a museum. Nor should the lands that we have survived
    and thrived from for centuries be locked away for the peace of mind of
    those from faraway places. This school of thought amounts to nothing
    more than green colonialism--a political occupation of our lands in the
    name of the environment while others exploit the idea of Wilderness for
    economic gain.

        Thank you for listening to me. Quyanaq.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to thank the panel for
    their testimony. I want to remind the members of the Committee
    that Rule 3(d) imposes a 5-minute limit on questions.
        I am now going to recognize Members for any questions they
    may wish to ask witnesses. I am going to recognize myself for 5
    minutes.
        And, again, I want to thank all of you for being here, as
    we hear from all of you, your deeply heartfelt testimonies.
    Traveling from your villages to Washington, DC, is an extremely
    long trip. But if you listen to some of the proponents of
    drilling, your opposition to drilling in the Arctic Refuge--
    those of you that are opposed to it--is, in large part, based
    on your interest in taking just these kinds of trips.
        For example, one of our witnesses in the second panel, Mr.
    Glenn, testified in front of the Senate Energy Committee in
    2017 that, and I quote, ``Big and powerful environmental
    lobby'' is effectively bribing the Gwich'in with again, I
    quote, ``promises of trips around the world and per diem in
    order to oppose drilling on the Coastal Plain and generate
    large donations to the environmental lobby.''
        I have two questions about this. First, how do you respond
    to Mr. Glenn's characterization of how and why you became
    involved with this issue? And second, is there any irony in
    referring to this ``big and powerful environmental lobby'' when
    we are looking at how the oil and gas industry operates on the
    North Slope?
        Mr. Alexander, I want to start with you and then I am going
    to ask any of the other panelists to jump in. I understand you
    have some thoughts about this. Would you like to respond to
    this?
        Mr. Alexander. I do, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make
    something very, very clear to this audience and to everybody
    out there that is listening, and that is Mr. Don Young does not
    represent the Gwich'in. He does not represent the Gwich'in and
    our voice.
        Mr. Young. I represent Alaska.
        Mr. Alexander. He might----
        Mr. Young. I don't represent you, because you don't
    represent----
        Mr. Alexander [continuing]. Have a wife who was Gwich'in,
    but he does not represent the Gwich'in.
        I am here because the elders have sent me to be here. I
    want to be clear on that. The question I will answer, though.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Don't mention the names of people, Members.
        Mr. Alexander. Let us be clear on that.
        What I would like to say is this. I am here, and somebody
    tells me I get to take a trip around the world. I got that
    invitation years ago. It is called the U.S. Army, when I did my
    three tours in Iraq. So, I have seen plenty of the world, and I
    don't need somebody to send me out elsewhere.
        So, you think about that. I have been to combat, I know
    what war is like. And I came home, and I see my people under
    attack. So, what do I do? I do what a warrior does, and I go
    where my people send me, and that is here. That is what I am
    here to do, is to represent us, as Gwich'in people, as the
    warriors that we are. So, let's be clear on that.
        As for this--you think about the oil industry and the
    influence that they have. Imagine that we are here, and we are
    not getting paid to be here. I have a 7-month-old son. If you
    think I want to be here more than I want to be with my son, you
    are out of your mind.
        We are making sacrifices. I paid for my trip getting down
    here with my veterans disability. I made a sacrifice. Everybody
    you see here made sacrifices to be here. To say that we are
    doing this because we are going to get some sort of trip is an
    insult.
        Thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Anyone else wish to respond to this?
        Yes, Chief?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Mashhi' Cho. These comments that you had
    made known are completely convenient for their own prerogative,
    and are wholly inaccurate. And I can tell you, as a people that
    come from a very accurate oral history that spans back to the
    time of wooly mammoths, who can actually point out to
    scientists where they will find these fossils and they are
    found, that it was not long ago where Myrajo, an elder of our
    people, was approached. Her and another elder were approached
    by hunters when planes were flying into our territory, scaring
    our animals, bringing our hunters back with nothing, and they
    came to our two elders and asked what they should do. And it
    was these two elders who called the first gathering of our
    people in 100 years. And from this born was the biannual
    Gwich'in gathering, which we still meet at today. This has
    nothing to do with environmentalists. This is spearheaded by
    Gwich'in for Gwich'in.
        But, really, this leads to a larger point--that this is a
    canary in a coal mine, because what this issue really speaks to
    is a displacement of value. Because these caribou are in
    effect, and for all respectful purposes, a renewable energy
    source. All you have to do is leave them alone. And to go into
    this area, which they have used for 2.1 million years, and set
    up shop would be paramount to trading cold fusion for a tank of
    gas. And I believe that all of us together, as people, have far
    more ingenuity than reductionist thinking and actions such as
    this. Mashhi'.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr.
    Gosar, for 5 minutes of questions.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The previous administration took any action they could to
    lock up oil and gas development on the North Slope. For
    residents of the region, this meant lost job opportunities and
    lost revenues. For the United States, this resulted in an
    increased reliance on foreign oil imports, often from
    unfriendly actors.
        As a matter of fact, my colleague, Mr. Huffman's home state
    of California currently relies on foreign resources, mostly
    from Saudi Arabia, to meet over half its rising demand for oil.
        [Slide.]
        Dr. Gosar. If you take a look at the chart on the screen
    you will see that California has been steadily importing less
    and less domestically produced oil from Alaska, and has instead
    increased their dependence on foreign oil from 5 percent to 57
    percent over the last 30 years. Yet, my colleagues want to lock
    up energy development in the 1002 region and further our
    reliance on foreign oil imports.
        By the way, I just want to--this chart is a product of the
    California Energy Commission.
        I think there is a misconception about the scale of
    production we are talking about here, relative to the vastness
    of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        [Slide.]
        Dr. Gosar. If you look at the second slide, you will see
    how ANWR and the 1002 Area compares to the continental United
    States. Within the orange area, way up there in the upper-right
    corner, you will see how ANWR and the 1002 Area compares to the
    continental United States. Within the orange area is where the
    oil and gas development is now authorized. Surface impacts
    cannot exceed 2,000 acres, which is one-fifth of the size of
    the Dulles airport.
        Mr. Rexford, we have heard testimony today about concerns
    surrounding the potential impact of energy development in the
    1002 Area on local Native populations and subsistence. In fact,
    the bill mentions the Gwich'in people by name, but does not
    mention the Village of Kaktovik. How close is your village to
    the 1002 Area?
        Mr. Rexford. Thank you for the question. We are right smack
    dab in the middle of 1002, the only village and community
    located within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        Dr. Gosar. Can we have the slide put up, just so that
    everybody has reference?
        [Slide.]
        Dr. Gosar. That is you in the upper right.
        Mr. Rexford. That is us in the upper right. We own 92,000
    acres. As I mentioned earlier, it requires an Act of Congress
    to develop our own private lands. Who in America would have to
    have an Act of Congress to develop their own lands? Nowhere
    else in the world.
        Dr. Gosar. It is crazy. Let me ask you a question. How will
    energy development in the 1002 Area impact the Village of
    Kaktovik?
        Mr. Rexford. Can you say that again?
        Dr. Gosar. How will the development of oil resources in the
    1002 Area affect your village?
        Mr. Rexford. Sir, we have had benefits--earlier, I
    mentioned that we created the North Slope Borough to impose
    income tax to the oil industry. We have created schools, we
    have created jobs, we have created roads. These things we
    didn't have 60, 70 years ago. And the benefits are very good
    for our health. We have education, higher education. So, the
    impact is for the benefit of our future generation of
    Kaktovikmiut.
        Dr. Gosar. I want to ask you again. Looking at this slide,
    that is your village in the upper right corner. Is there any
    other village close to that?
        Mr. Rexford. Not within 100 miles, sir. Nuiqsut is the only
    village within the North Slope Borough that is closest----
        Dr. Gosar. So, I find it preposterous that we would
    introduce a piece of legislation that you weren't even
    consulted?
        Mr. Rexford. We were not consulted that this bill would be
    introduced.
        Dr. Gosar. It is absolutely incredible. And I have been
    there, to the North Slope. To hear and see, functionally, what
    is there is astonishing. I have to commend the former Chairman
    for inviting us up there, because once you see, you will
    understand.
        In another hearing we actually had on government oversight
    last year, we actually started looking at the Russian
    involvement with environmental groups. Because the Russian
    country is a one-trick pony, they are only about energy, and if
    they can stop energy production here, once again, you will see
    maybe California take more Russian oil or Mediterranean or
    Saudi Arabian oil. So, this really has a big impact.
        Can you tell me quickly how you talk about the green
    colonialism again? I think we need to hear that again.
        Mr. Rexford. Yes. Thank you for that question. When the
    Grand Canyon was created, U.S. Congress legislated them out of
    existence. Another example, Glacier National Park. Another
    example, the Hoover Dam, the first dam that was created in
    California kicked out and killed a lot of Indians,
    legislatively.
        So, this legislation is proposing to legislate us out, make
    us non-existent in the bill. And I find that very insulting.
        Dr. Gosar. I thank the Chairman, and I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to remind Members to be
    respectful of each other, not to mention people's names in
    their presentations. Other Members try to refrain from doing
    that.
        I now recognize Representative Huffman for 5 minutes of
    questioning.
        Mr. Huffman. I want to thank the Chairman for having this
    very important hearing on the bill. And I am actually pleased
    to hear at least an inkling of concern for consultation with
    indigenous people from some of my colleagues across the aisle.
    It is the first evidence I have heard of any interest in this
    notion of actually treating indigenous people with respect, and
    listening to them. It is too bad that it is limited to Native
    corporations, who sell out in multi-million-dollar ways to big
    oil and gas companies. But, hey, it is a start. Maybe we can
    build on that, and include all indigenous people.
        And I want to thank our witnesses today who have traveled
    so far to join us and tell their story about the importance of
    the Coastal Plain, about this very sacred place to you, about
    this sacred way of life to you and your ancestors. I am sorry
    that you had to suffer the indignity of having your character
    and your motives and even your connection to this place and
    this sacred way of life impugned. That is very unfortunate,
    that you had to hear that. But I am grateful that you are here.
        I think the question before us is if the Federal
    Government, our government, is going to protect one of the last
    great wild places on Earth, a place that solid majorities of
    the American people want us to protect, whether we are going to
    honor the communities that depend on this very special place,
    or if our government is going to be responsible for its
    destruction by auctioning it off to big oil. So, it is a
    question of whose side we are on, indigenous people or
    industrial profit.
        And one of the talking points that we always hear for those
    that want to drill is about the limited footprint. You saw a
    very carefully constructed slide just a moment ago to try to
    make this point. They talk about how it is only 2,000 acres out
    of 1.5 million. They say it is nothing more than a postage
    stamp. But this talking point is incredibly misleading. It is
    hard to say if it is intentional, or if people just don't
    realize what 2,000 acres of oil and gas infrastructure actually
    looks like.
        So, let me show you a chart that actually attempts to
    depict that. And I want to draw your attention to what I hope
    we can cause to appear on the screen here.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Huffman. It is behind me? Oh, OK. We are going to go
    old school here, we are going analog.
        All right. If you can see the black lines on this map,
    these are roads and pipelines. There are over 200 miles of
    them. They stretch like a spider across the entire Coastal
    Plain, end to end, from the coast to the foothills. There are
    gray boxes on this map that depict drilling pads. There are
    nearly two dozen of those. They are spaced according to state-
    of-the-art drilling technology.
        And what people don't realize when they hear ``2,000
    acres,'' is that 1 mile of road only covers roughly 7.5 acres;
    100 miles of road only covers 750 acres. But it creates a 100-
    mile-long barrier and a 100-mile-long scar on the landscape.
    And I want people to take a good look at this map, and
    understand this is the development that we are talking about in
    the Coastal Plain. It is not low impact, it is not a tiny
    corner of the Coastal Plain. This is a 200-mile network of
    roads that will completely destroy its current character, the
    character of one of the last great wild places on Earth.
        So, my question is, could any of you discuss what the
    impact of this oil and gas infrastructure development would be,
    and this road network, on the Coastal Plain? What would it mean
    to you?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Mashhi' for the opportunity to speak. I
    can tell you, unequivocally, that it will do irreparable damage
    which we will never recover from. And I have spoken with
    hydrologists, geologists, geoscientists, biologists in this
    work, and it is a resounding no from every one of them. I wish
    I had the time to stress the percentages and the birthing
    rates. And to destabilize that would be to put into question
    the fate of the last largest land animal migration and healthy
    caribou herd in the world.
        And just for your information, the Lower 48 just lost
    another caribou herd, as the last female has now been taken in
    to biologists. So, the Lower 48 no longer has a single caribou.
    This is it. This is our only chance in this very, very
    opportune moment of history in time. Mashhi'.
        Mr. Huffman. Anyone want to add to that?
        Ms. Demientieff. I would like to say that it is going to
    destroy our identity, our way of life, and our food security.
    This is where they calve, this is where they give birth, and
    this is the most sensitive area.
        Mr. Huffman. All right, thank you.
        Mr. Chair, I believe it is important to listen to these
    local voices regarding the impacts of oil and gas development,
    and what that will mean to the Coastal Plain and the way of
    life that it sustains. This is not a postage stamp, it is a
    bullet through the heart of America's Arctic Refuge.
        With that, I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Young for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will stick by my
    guns. When I am in the chair, the witnesses will not mention my
    name, because I did not mention theirs. You can ring them out
    of order. I used to sit in that chair. Is that understood?
        Dr. Lowenthal. A statement like that----
        Mr. Young. I just want to make it clear.
        Dr. Lowenthal  [continuing]. I have made already.
        Mr. Huffman. A point of--a parliamentary inquiry. Does this
    standard that my colleague is articulating include mentioning
    where he thinks their hometown is, and disparaging them for not
    living close enough to the Coastal Plain? Because that got
    pretty personal.
        Mr. Young. If you want to argue, I will argue with you
    later, OK?
        Mr. Huffman. OK.
        Mr. Young. All right. We will take care of that little
    problem.
        I just want to thank the panel, although some flew out of
    Fairbanks on a nice, clear airfield. Mr. Fenton had to take and
    get a charter airplane because of the weather.
        And I want to ask you, Mr. Fenton. Do you live in a
    wilderness area?
        Mr. Rexford. No. A lot of laws have been passed, and I have
    heard an inkling, something about creating a wilderness. I do
    not live in a wilderness area, sir.
        Mr. Young. Well, in your testimony you mention the Air
    Force, Fish and Wildlife, roads, airport--that is not a
    wilderness. Yet, this bill would make it a wilderness because
    you weren't consulted. I think that is unfortunate.
        I mean, how long do you think your generations have lived
    there?
        Mr. Rexford. We have lived there many, many thousands of
    years, sir. Even before Moses and Jesus were born.
        Mr. Young. And you took care of the area?
        Mr. Rexford. Say again.
        Mr. Young. You have taken care of the area?
        Mr. Rexford. Oh, yes. We were the stewards. We have been
    stewards of the land for many years.
        Mr. Young. And you have utilized the land to the benefit of
    your people?
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Young. That is very good, because you live there, these
    are the people that live there. I keep stressing that.
        And I will say again, Mr. Chairman, I have been into this
    business--actually passed this bill 13 times. And I have an old
    saying. When you own a boat, Mr. Huffman, you never go to the
    bow and urinate. You go to the stern. You can catch what I am
    saying.
        Dr. Lowenthal. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Levin for 5
    minutes of questioning.
        Mr. Levin. Thank you, Chair Lowenthal, and thank you again
    to our witnesses for traveling so far in order for us to hear
    your testimony today.
        I am a proud Californian. And in regard to the claim that
    any measure being discussed would increase oil imports in
    California, I would remind my colleagues that my state has made
    an overarching commitment to cut all petroleum use in half by
    2030. And our objective in California is to reduce oil
    consumption, period. Any scare tactics alleging the opposite
    ring hollow.
        That being said, I appreciated the opportunity to hear
    about how drilling would affect your communities, as well as
    the impacts your communities are already feeling, as a result
    of our changing climate.
        Similar to the Arctic, climate change is impacting the
    continental United States, including California. Climate change
    is driving more intense wildfires, increased and more severe
    droughts, and stronger storms.
        To the panel, I understand that NOAA, the National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration, recently released a study
    showing that the Arctic has experienced the 5 warmest years on
    record, and the amount of sea ice in the region is close to its
    all-time lowest level.
        One of my concerns about the Administration's headlong rush
    to start drilling in the Arctic is the climate impacts of
    creating an entirely new oil and gas field out of a wilderness.
    This is particularly concerning the Arctic, since you are
    seeing some of the most dramatic warming on the entire planet.
        So, I will ask the panel: How are your communities dealing
    with the climate-driven changes you are seeing, and how will
    oil development impact these changes?
        Ms. Demientieff. We are experiencing something that I have
    never seen before: our ticks in our caribou and our moose. And
    we have 33 coastal communities that are falling into the ocean.
    Our elders are very concerned with the changes that we are
    experiencing, because they really have never seen it before. We
    are starting to gather and discuss these issues because we are
    living them daily. And we are not sure how to deal with it. We
    are thawing at twice the rate as the rest of the world.
        And this will not help us, whatsoever. I think it is going
    to add to the negative impacts that we are already feeling.
        Mr. Levin. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. If I may, as well, one of the largest ways
    that we can weather this is to have large swaths of lands to
    help our animals actually survive the changes. And I appreciate
    the question, because we are the experts of living in these
    areas for 20,000 years or more. And we are already seeing
    mercury seeping from the Richardson Mountains. We can find
    mercury in our fish, we can find the slumping of our lands, the
    draining of lakes. And there was a river that reversed in the
    Yukon, as well.
        How do you prepare for something like that? It is all of us
    working together, and that includes the animals, because some
    of this, a lot of it, will be irreparable and unchangeable. The
    best thing that we can do to survive, as an indigenous people,
    is to have protected lands and to protect the animals that have
    nursed us through an Ice Age, who have brought us the strength
    that we have today. That is the way that we are going to
    weather this storm. It is together, and that includes the
    animals. Mashhi'.
        Mr. Levin. Go right ahead, sir. Please.
        Mr. Joseph. When we think about climate change and the
    impact that it can have on animals, we have to think about all
    of what we are experiencing in Alaska. It is just not on the
    Coastal Plains that we are experiencing it. We are also
    experiencing it in the interior.
        There is a lot of bank erosion that is happening on the
    main river streams, and even in the creek beds, which is
    changing the way that we live off the land. We are seeing a lot
    more of our traditional hunting camps and fishing camps go
    away.
        I was talking to our friend, Mr. Fenton, earlier, and we
    were speaking about the impacts of climate change upon the
    Coastal area, and it is significant. It is significant
    everywhere. And in Alaska, we are experiencing it more than
    others.
        Mr. Levin. Despite the incredible importance to the Coastal
    Plain, the Trump administration seems intent on making leasing
    there into a test run for how fast they can complete an
    Environmental Impact Statement. They are rushing to meet
    arbitrary internal deadlines and to get a lease sale done over
    2 years early.
        And I understand that the Administration's draft EIS says
    communities would not experience significant restrictions on
    uses of the area. Could anyone on the panel explain whether or
    not you think the EIS is correct in its findings?
        Mr. Joseph. Thank you for the question. When I look at the
    NEPA process and the ANILCA 810 intent, that has been greatly
    undermined by the fast-tracking process that has been put into
    place. And we can count through it many times.
        One of the reasons for the ANILCA 810 was to make sure that
    it protected Alaska Native rights, and all those people that
    could be impacted on any potential development. That was the
    key.
        From that point, when we look at the NEPA process, and we
    look at the analysis that was done in the EIS for the ANILCA
    810, or the ANILCA 810 analysis, it left out the Gwich'in. You
    can't just put this to a certain location that was so neatly
    done on a map: ``It is only impacting this group of people
    right here, because I am closer than you.'' What we are talking
    about is the full impact and the impact on all the Native
    people that rely on the resources within that area.
        The caribou don't know boundaries. They have a migration
    pattern. That migration pattern is really essential, and it
    goes through the lands of these people that we are talking
    about, about the Gwich'in, when the Gwich'in depend on the
    caribou.
        Mr. Levin. We are out of time right now, but I want to
    thank you so much for traveling so far to be here with us
    today. Thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Mr. Hern, you have 5 minutes for questions.
        Mr. Hern. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Republican Leader, Mr.
    Gosar, thank you so much, and for our witnesses for being here
    today on the topic of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        As we all know, this topic is of great importance, as the
    oil and gas sector has historically served as a significant
    source of employment revenue and reliable energy for the state
    of Alaska and the Alaska Natives.
        However, here in Washington, people often talk about things
    they know very little about, and do not allow the true experts
    in the field to discuss their views on important topics. To
    save myself from making this same mistake, I would like to
    yield my time to a gentleman who has a great deal of knowledge
    on this topic, Congressman Gosar.
        Dr. Gosar. I want to put my second slide up there. Can we,
    please?
        I am sorry, third slide.
        [Laughter.]
        Dr. Gosar. You like that? The blue? Yes.
        [Slide.]
        Dr. Gosar. Look at the size. Look at what was detailed over
    here on this map. And now concentrate it very smally up there,
    in that upper right. Now, I am going to ask a question, and I
    am going to ask very carefully, starting from the right,
    working to my left.
        Is the caribou herd smaller or bigger now?
        Mr. Rexford. Thank you for that question. There are similar
    caribou herds in the Arctic. There is the western Arctic
    caribou herd, the central Arctic caribou herd, and the
    Porcupine caribou herd. These two central herds and the
    Porcupine here commingle. Central caribou herd have been
    collared. They go into Arctic Village. They go down south. So,
    why aren't they worried about the central Arctic herd, as well
    as the Porcupine herd? Because the Porcupine is not the only
    herd. They have increased. And there was a recent report that
    the Porcupine caribou herd increased.
        I just wanted to emphasize again Porcupine is not the only
    herd. And then the central Arctic herd, and they commingle and
    mix each other up. Sometimes the Porcupine herd go to the
    Prudhoe Bay fields and stick around there for a while. The
    central Arctic herd would go back, go south, and migrate, and
    hang around the Arctic Village. So, there is commingling. You
    cannot call a herd Porcupine herd when they are commingled,
    and----
        Dr. Gosar. Well, what we have seen from scientific data is
    they have gone up. Let me ask you one more question, Mr.
    Rexford.
        We were told when we were up there, in consultation with
    the tribes, that the pipeline has had no ill effect at all on
    the caribou herd.
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, we have had the same fear. And when the
    well was discovered in 1968, sir, we had the same fear. We were
    fearful. We were against development. We were thinking that the
    caribou would not be there, the waterfall would not return, we
    would not be able to hunt.
        So, these kind of things are not there, because the caribou
    and the waterfall are coming back.
        Dr. Gosar. All right. Chief, I want to come to you, because
    you showed some interest in this. Please explain to me how a
    road is irreparable. And I need to understand the geological
    structure, how it is irreparable on a road.
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Science easily shows that, just from two-
    dimensional exploration.
        Dr. Gosar. No, it doesn't.
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. In the 1980s, in Alaska, those roads--
    there are reports that show that the trails are still there.
    And as a people that live in the same area with permafrost,
    even driving a four-wheeler over these very sensitive areas can
    kill some of the flora that these caribou need to eat. It is
    some of the highest nutrients in the grasses in this area.
        Dr. Gosar. Once again, I will come back to you. Is the herd
    increasing or decreasing?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. If you look at this----
        Dr. Gosar. No, it is one or the other. The science shows
    that it is increasing.
        Go ahead.
        Mr. Alexander. The Porcupine caribou herd has been growing
    because we are picking up the remnants of the central herd,
    because they are trying to leave their polluted homelands and
    live under the stewardship of the Gwich'in.
        Dr. Gosar. Once again, that is not scientific fact.
    Unfortunately, you have to give me something more on science,
    because what you are----
        Ms. Demientieff. It is traditional knowledge.
        Dr. Gosar. It is not showing us, because the herd is
    actually increasing.
        I will yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. And now I offer 5 minutes to
    Representative DeGette.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you look at that
    exhibit that is up on the screen right now, there is no
    pipeline right now in Kaktovik. Is that correct, Chief?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. The pipeline is over in Prudhoe Bay, is that
    right?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. And what you are saying is that some of the
    herds have commingled, and they have gone over to the Porcupine
    caribou area. Is that correct?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. That is correct.
        Ms. DeGette. And from 2008 until 2016 under the Obama
    administration that area was managed as a wilderness area. Is
    that correct?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Correct.
        Ms. DeGette. So, that is the time the herds have gone up in
    number, right?
        Mr. Tizya-Tramm. Yes.
        Ms. DeGette. I also want to thank our Gwich'in friends for
    coming today, and everybody for coming. I actually have been to
    these lands some years ago, and I actually camped on these
    lands some years ago. I didn't just go there and stay in some
    hotel and fly over. I went and camped and walked your lands--
    thank you for letting me visit--and I saw 45,000 caribou,
    Porcupine caribou, on one mountainside over here, and they were
    migrating to the plains to engage in their calving process.
        So, I agree with what you are saying, having seen it. And I
    do think Mr. Young and others--that is why I wanted to come
    today. I think it is important to see a place when you are
    talking about legislating about that place, or building oil and
    gas pipelines, and all of the other things that Congressman
    Huffman talked about here. And I did see it, and I know those
    45,000 caribou, they don't just stay in one place, where the
    line is marked. They move through.
        And I also met with many of the Gwich'in leaders when I was
    there, and I learned how integrated you and the Porcupine
    caribou are. You are part of the same. And I understand that,
    and many of us understand it.
        So, I really want to thank you for coming to talk to us
    about this today. And I also just want to stress what
    Congressman Huffman said, which is these lands have been
    managed as wilderness because of these concerns. It is not like
    suddenly we are removing development that has been there today.
        Ms. Demientieff, I want to particularly thank you for
    coming to my congressional district, Denver, Colorado, to
    testify at a hearing. The Gwich'in Steering Committee,
    Defenders of Wildlife, Alaska Wilderness League, and the
    Wilderness Society hosted these hearings across the country,
    because the BLM wouldn't. And you were there. I want to thank
    you for coming there, too.
        And Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    enter for the record the community hearing that was held on
    March 7 for the ANWR in my district.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Without objection.
        Ms. DeGette. And I want to apologize for not being there. I
    was here voting. And I always tell my constituents you really
    want me in Washington, voting, when we have the votes.
        Thank you for coming. I wonder if you could tell us, Ms.
    Demientieff, about what happened at that hearing, and the
    testimony that we heard in Denver on that day.
        Ms. Demientieff. Sorry, thank you. And it was really nice
    visiting your state.
        There was not one person who testified that wanted to open
    such a special place. I was really, really welcome. Everybody
    was very kind. And I think we understand the importance of
    these places, because once they are ruined, they are ruined.
    You can never go back, and you can never take back.
        But the damage that you cause there with oil and gas
    development, we already see that in Alaska. We already see the
    damages all across. And that is why we are fighting so hard for
    the Porcupine caribou herd. We are not asking for anything. We
    are asking to keep our identity as Gwich'in.
        But your state was very kind, all of them, and not one
    person testified to open this area.
        Ms. DeGette. Mr. Alexander, can you just explain for the
    record why the roads--I think it was you, or maybe, Chief, it
    was you--if you can, just explain why these roads are not
    easily reversed. Someone said it very briefly, because of the
    permafrost.
        Mr. Alexander. The tundra is a very sensitive place. And I
    don't know if it is understood well, but the changes and the
    impacts of something on the tundra, they last for decades and
    decades.
        When I served in the military, we understood the impact in
    the areas we operated in. And Alaska has had a large--there has
    been a large footprint of military involvement in the state
    because, as you know, it was invaded in the 1940s. So, there
    are a lot of remnants of that material. And it still exists,
    because the decay time is so slow. That impact prevents, those
    roads, they don't just go away.
        Ms. DeGette. It is because of the tundra and the
    permafrost, is that right?
        Mr. Alexander. Absolutely.
        Ms. DeGette. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Alexander. And as it is melting, it becomes even more
    vulnerable.
        Ms. DeGette. Right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your commenting.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. That is going to bring us to a
    conclusion of this panel. I want to thank the panelists. But
    before you get up, I want to tell you this has been a very,
    very, very important panel. You have provided us with a great
    deal of information. And it has been very meaningful.
        I also want to encourage my colleague, Mr. Huffman, and
    offer my support for trying to create a CODEL to this area. I
    think this would be amazingly important, that we come and visit
    ourselves. I mean this is such a critically important topic. I
    thank Mr. Huffman, I thank the panelists, and now I thank the
    Members, too. It got a little testy, but that is because of the
    passion and the importance of this issue.
        I want to thank you for coming, and I want to have a second
    panel come up to the table.
        [Pause.]
        Dr. Lowenthal. First, I would like to introduce the panel.
        We have Bishop Mark Lattime. Bishop Lattime is the Bishop
    of Alaska for the Episcopal Church.
        Next we have Dr. Steven Amstrup, Chief Scientist at Polar
    Bears International.
        Then we have Mr. Chad Brown, Founder and President of Soul
    River, Incorporated.
        Then Mr. Richard Glenn, Executive Vice President for
    External Affairs at the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
        And Mr. Matthew Rexford--name sounds familiar from the
    last, I believe you are the nephew--and you are the Tribal
    Administrator for the Native Village of Kaktovik.
        Let me remind the witnesses that they must limit their oral
    statements to 5 minutes, but that their entire statements will
    appear in the hearing record.
        When you begin, the lights on your witness table will turn
    green. After 4 minutes, the yellow light will come on. Your
    time will have expired when the red light comes on, and I will
    ask you to please complete your statements. I will try to let
    you complete them first before I do that. I was, I thought,
    very generous with the last panel.
        I will also allow the entire panel to testify before we do
    any questioning.
        The Chair now recognizes Bishop Lattime for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF RIGHT REVEREND MARK LATTIME, BISHOP OF ALASKA, THE
                  EPISCOPAL CHURCH, FAIRBANKS, ALASKA

        Rev. Lattime. Thank you, Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member
    Gosar, members of the Subcommittee. I do thank you for this
    opportunity to speak to you about H.R. 1146, the Protection of
    the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
    Arctic culture, and the Gwich'in way of life.
        I am Mark Lattime. To the Gwich'in, I am Ginghe Cho, the
    Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska. My diocese covers
    the entire state of Alaska, with parishes from as far southeast
    as Ketchikan to as far northwest as Point Lay on the Arctic
    coast. It is a diverse diocese, with large, urban parishes in
    cities like Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Juneau, to rural
    communities accessible only by air or boat. Most of my
    Episcopal communities, however, are found in villages
    throughout the interior, many of which are Gwich'in.
        A significant part of a bishop's ministry is to visit
    communities within the diocese, to be present with the people
    there in prayer and worship, and to walk with them in their
    faith journey. In my travels around the diocese, I have
    observed, even in my short 9 years, the accelerating effects of
    climate change. While the physical effects of climate change
    are easy to measure, I have seen loss of sea ice, coastal
    erosion, shifts in animal migrations, receding glaciers, and
    melting permafrost.
        The human effects are too often left under-reported, or all
    together ignored. From my pastoral ministry to the people of
    Alaska, I can sadly report that climate change has profound
    consequences on human spirituality and identity. This is
    especially true for those who live closest to the land:
    Alaska's indigenous people.
        Communities that have thrived for tens of thousands of
    years in sustainable relationship with the land and animals are
    now being forced to evacuate their traditional homes.
    Indigenous social values of sharing and mutual care of one's
    community and elders, and even care of one's self are breaking
    down, as individuals are forced to abandon their traditions and
    the land of their ancestors to find work in the very industries
    that are hastening their own cultural demise.
        There is an insidious cultural genocide to the march of
    climate change. And our economic interests--yours and mine--are
    complicit in this march. This reality troubles my soul and
    haunts my prayers. The challenges of the human contribution to
    climate change are, therefore, deeply personal and spiritual to
    me, especially as I am convicted by my faith to seek justice
    and peace among all people, and to respect the dignity of every
    human being. Or, as Jesus said, to love my neighbor as I love
    myself.
        The Episcopal Church recognizes climate change as a justice
    issue. This Lent our presiding bishop, Michael Curry, called
    upon the church to make climate justice a matter of prayerful
    action, and invited all Episcopalians to renew our commitment
    to loving, life-giving stewardship of the land.
        As we have heard this afternoon, the Gwich'in call the
    Coastal Plain the Sacred Place Where Life Begins. This is not a
    casual, self-interested statement. It is, in fact, a profound
    understanding of the immutable relationship between God and
    creation, and it is consistent with biblical faith.
        Sacred space is not exclusively determined by the church,
    or by bishops, for that matter, nor is it defined by the walls
    of any house of worship. Sacred space is God's space, where the
    one who is present in all creation is recognized, if only
    dimly, by eyes open to seeing what is beyond human
    understanding.
        As Wendell Berry has said, ``Sacred space is where we stop
    and turn to realize the worth of things is not ours to assign.
    God assigns worth and value.'' Discerning the value and worth
    God gives to the land, the creatures, and the people of this
    world is the foundation of faithful stewardship, and it is my
    faith that it is the very God who loves the world so much that
    he sent his only son, Jesus, to save it that shows us also how
    to value it.
        Long before the first missionaries arrived in Alaska, the
    Gwich'in were exercising faithful stewardship of the Porcupine
    caribou in the land we now call the Alaska National Wildlife
    Refuge. As a Christian and a bishop, I would rejoice if more
    people were to follow the example of the Gwich'in and recognize
    the importance of honoring the holiness of this good earth, our
    island home, and the importance of setting apart portions of it
    as sacred.
        Therefore, I beseech you. I beseech you on behalf of a
    loving and life-giving God who fills all things because He
    created all things, to give prayerful consideration to H.R.
    1146, upholding the faithful stewardship of the Gwich'in
    culture, and protecting the Sacred Place Where Life Begins.
        Thank you very much.

        [The prepared statement of Rev. Lattime follows:]
     Prepared Statement of the Right Reverend Mark Lattime, Bishop of the
                 Episcopal Diocese of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
        At issue are two different and fundamentally opposed views with
    respect to the land. Drilling in the Coastal Plain must be seen in
    light of the legacy of colonialism, racism, and the Doctrine of
    Discovery, and the opposition of these to Indigenous peoples'
    relationship to the land. It is from this foundation that The Episcopal
    Church's views on environmental justice, economics and climate issues
    lead us to oppose the industrial exploitation of the Sacred Place Where
    Life Begins. In order to fully understand this context, it is necessary
    to establish a foundational understanding of the Doctrine of Discovery
    and how in the past, and today, it attempts to justify exploitation.
        The Doctrine of Discovery is the cumulative policy established
    through a series of policies and statements issued by the Bishops of
    Rome during the 15th century. The Episcopal Church's Missioner for
    Indigenous Ministries, the Reverend Dr. Bradley Hauff (Lakota Sioux),
    summarizes the outcome of these policies ``as a blessing on the
    dispossession of land, wanton theft, slavery, and enforce
    indoctrination, all in the name of God, and for the perceived good of
    the world.'' \1\ These teachings were not exclusive to the Roman
    Catholic Church, Queen Elizabeth I and other Protestants gladly adopted
    similar views to justify their actions in Africa and the Americas for
    hundreds of years to come.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https: / / cqrcengage.com / episcopal/file/R4Uf9M88Bag/
    Brad%20Hauff%20EAM%20Paper%20 2018.pdf.

        Sadly, this concept and the sins it gave rise to are not a vestige
    of the past. The Doctrine of Discovery has been ingrained into our
    American identity and economic system. As former Presiding Bishop of
    the Episcopal Church, The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    stated in a Pastoral Letter to the Church:

            The ongoing dispossession of Indigenous peoples is the result
            of legal systems throughout the ``developed'' world that
            continue to base land ownership on these religious warrants for
            colonial occupation from half a millennium ago. These legal
            bases collectively known as the Doctrine of Discovery underlie
            U.S. decisions about who owns these lands. The dispossession of
            First Peoples continues to wreak havoc on basic human
            dignity.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https: / / www.episcopalchurch.org / posts / publicaffairs /
    episcopal-presiding-bishop-katharine-jefferts-schori-issues-pastoral-
    letter.

        The Doctrine of Discovery is the underlying legal theory that has
    led to the current system of reservations, restricted sovereignty, and
    today potential violation of the Gwich'in peoples' human rights. While
    our legal system is still weighed down by the Doctrine of Discovery,
    The Episcopal Church has worked to change and come into a more
    Christian relationship with Indigenous people and the God we all seek
    to know and serve. The Gwich'in people's encounter with early Anglican
    and Episcopal missionaries was not unlike that of other Indigenous
    peoples in North America. Some of the missionaries came with an agenda
    of social and cultural assimilation, which included the establishment
    of church-run residential schools. Others came with a more theological
    motivation--to introduce Jesus Christ to the people without an
    assimilation agenda.
        Learning the Indigenous languages and living among the people
    within their cultural context was essential to achieving this, and some
    were committed to it, not merely as an evangelistic approach, but as a
    culturally integrated and theologically integrated manner of life.
        One very influential missionary to the Gwich'in was the Reverend
    Robert McDonald (1829-1913). McDonald married Julia Kutuq, a Gwich'in
    woman, with whom he had nine children. He achieved lasting recognition
    for his translations, having established an alphabet for the previously
    oral Gwich'in. With the help of various Native speakers of the
    language, he translated the Bible, Book of Common Prayer and many hymns
    into Gwich'in (which he called Takudh and, later, Tukudh). His
    translation work helped unify the various tribes speaking similar
    Athabascan languages. In 1911, he published a dictionary and grammar
    for the language under the title of ``A Grammar of the Tukudh
    Language.'' With these accomplishments, McDonald is in the same
    category of missionaries as the Reverend Samuel Hinman, who lived among
    the Lakota/Dakota, married a Native woman, became fluent in the
    language, and translated portions of the Bible and the Book of Common
    Prayer into Dakota, as well as developing the Dakota Hymnal, which is
    still in use within Episcopal Dakota/Lakota communities to this day.
        Unlike missionaries inspired by the Doctrine of Discovery, these
    two (McDonald and Hinman) did not see a need to force Indigenous people
    to learn English; rather, they learned the Indigenous languages. By
    doing so, they served as custodians and purveyors of Indigenous
    languages, contributing to their preservation within an environment
    where the Federal Government was trying to have them discontinued in
    favor of English through assimilation processes.
        To the present day, Indigenous language preservation has been one
    of the roles of the church within Indigenous communities. Language is
    important, because without it one cannot truly know and experience the
    depth of Indigenous culture and spirituality. So, language preservation
    is one way in which Gwich'in traditions are preserved by and within the
    church.
        Another way is by recognizing and acknowledging the pre-colonial
    presence of Christ as found within Gwich'in traditions and spiritual
    expressions. Inherent in this is the conviction that, when the early
    missionaries brought Christianity to the Gwich'in (and all other
    Indigenous tribes for that matter) they really weren't bringing
    anything to the people that they didn't already know and have. The
    Indigenous peoples didn't know about the first century Jesus of
    Nazareth, but they did know Christ within their own teachings,
    especially with regard to compassion, generosity, and living in right
    relationship with all of creation, values that are found within
    Gwich'in traditional life and that of Indigenous tribes universally.
        It is difficult to overstate the theological and moral importance
    of this point. The places and traditions, such as the Gwich'in Sacred
    Place Where Life Begins, that are sacred to Indigenous people today and
    before the introduction of formal European Christianity are still
    sacred under Christian teachings. Christians believe that Christ became
    human and engaged with us directly, as told in the Gospels.
    Additionally, the Holy Spirit has and does work among and through us in
    ways that are often hidden and indirect. Locations and traditions of
    Indigenous people are sacred because they are how the Holy Spirit
    engaged and taught them for thousands of years.
        The Doctrine of Discovery was a sin against our neighbors because
    it dehumanized them, it violated their rights, it tried to justify
    slaughter, and it was founded in hate, greed, and vanity. The Doctrine
    of Discovery was also a sin against God, because it was and still is
    used to justify the desecration of places and traditions made sacred by
    the Holy Spirit prior to the introduction of the Gospels and Jesus.
        The sins of previous generations have also warped and harmed the
    way we view and interact with God's Creation. The Doctrine of
    Discovery, and the legal and economic theories it has evolved into
    today, argued that God's Creation was a commodity for people to
    exploit. It transformed the traditional relationship between God's
    human and non-human creations from a respectful co-existence to a
    transactional exploitation. Just as the Doctrine of Discovery justified
    the enslavement of people it taught us that the earth was also our
    slave to be hedonistically used and exploited. Today, we see the impact
    of this heresy through climate change, pollution, toxic waste sites,
    Super Fund sites, and communities made sick as a result of our
    irresponsible use of God's Creation.
        In my travels around the Diocese, I have observed, even in my short
    9 years, the accelerating effects of climate change. While the physical
    effects of climate change are easy to measure: loss of sea ice, coastal
    erosion, shifts in animal migrations, receding glaciers, and melting
    permafrost; the human effects are too often left under-reported or all
    together ignored. In my pastoral ministry to the people of Alaska, I
    can sadly report that climate change has profound consequences on human
    spirituality and identity.
        This is especially true for those who live closest to the land:
    Alaska's indigenous people. As someone who is invited to pray and
    participate in the lives of the people of Alaska, to walk with them,
    through the struggles of life in a changing and uncertain world, I have
    firsthand experience how climate change has affected their lives and
    spirit. Communities that have thrived for tens of thousands of years in
    sustainable relationship with the land and animals are now being forced
    to evacuate their traditional homes. Indigenous social values of
    sharing and mutual care for one's community are breaking down as
    individuals are forced to abandon their traditions and the land of
    their ancestors to find work in the very industries that are hastening
    their own cultural demise.
        There is an insidious cultural genocide to the march of climate
    change, and our economic interests are complicit in this march. This
    reality floods my prayers and troubles my soul. The challenges of
    climate change are, therefore, deeply personal and spiritual to me,
    especially as I am convicted by my faith to seek justice and peace
    among all people and to respect the dignity of every human being.
        The Episcopal Church recognizes climate change as a justice issue.
    This Lent, our Presiding Bishop called upon the Church to make climate
    justice a matter of prayerful action and invited all Episcopalians to
    renew our commitment to loving, life-giving stewardship.
        It is time for our Nation and world to undo the social and
    environmental impacts of previous centuries. We must shift from a
    transactional relationship to a cooperative and equal balance. This is
    not done through actions alone but must include shifts in our
    philosophy and societal behaviors. We must work to live in a state of
    balance and harmony with God's Creation--human and non-human--for we
    are all equally entitled to prosper. Our Church has begun this work,
    however humbly, through a number of changes enacted by our General
    Convention--a legislative body elected by our members that serves as
    our official decision-making body.
        Since the early 1990s the Church has officially opposed drilling
    within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (1991-D125). This has been
    renewed many times, including last summer as we considered this most
    recent assault on the Gwich'in people, their way of life, and their
    faith. In pursuit of eco-justice, the Church has articulated it support
    for the self-determination of Indigenous tribes (2012-B023) and
    renounced the Doctrine of Discovery (2009-D035) in both its political
    and theological applications.
        As part of the Church's work to ensure the responsible and
    sustainable use of God's creation, the Church has called for
    significant efforts to transition the world, our Nation, and the
    economy away from fossil fuels. Recognizing that such changes will have
    adverse side effects for those currently employed in these legacy
    industries, the Church must work to support their transition. No
    commitment to environmental justice can be complete without advocating
    for those, who, through no fault of their own, will be harmed by the
    transition to renewable and clean energy.
        In my Diocese, Alaska, this transition will be incredibly
    difficult, but we must stop making the problem worse before we can
    seriously address the future. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is
    more than a wilderness preserve established to protect delicate arctic
    ecosystems, it is also a sacred place: the spiritual and cultural home
    of the Gwich'in people. Gwich'in identity--what it means to be a
    people--cannot be separated from the land and the caribou who thrive
    there; and long before the Church arrived, the Gwich'in recognized the
    sanctity of this place where life begins.
        Therefore, protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
    especially the Coastal Plain, is more than an effort to preserve the
    tundra, the caribou, or the caribou calving grounds. Protecting the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a matter of justice, a sacred trust
    that honors and preserves the life, culture, and spiritual integrity of
    a people.
        As a Christian and a Bishop, I frame my support for policy like
    H.R. 1146 in the context of Biblical and theological understandings.
    The Gwich'in recognize the Coastal Plain as ``The Sacred Place Where
    Life Begins.'' This is not a casual self-interested statement. It is,
    in fact, a profound understanding of the immutable relationship between
    God and creation, and it is consistent with Biblical faith. Sacred
    space is not exclusively determined by bishops or the Church, nor is it
    defined by the walls of any house of worship. Sacred space is God's
    space, where the One who is present in all Creation is recognized, if
    only dimly, by eyes open to seeing what is beyond human understanding.
    As Wendell Berry has said, ``sacred space is where we stop and turn to
    realize the ``worth'' of things is not ours to assign, God gives worth,
    value.''
        As a Christian and a bishop, I would rejoice if more people were to
    follow the example we have from the Gwich'in and recognize the critical
    importance of honoring the sacred nature of this good earth--our island
    home, and to set apart portions as sacred.
        If Congress will not respect the Gwich'in peoples' Constitutional
    right to the free exercise of their religion--which designates this
    space as sacred and is a view upheld and supported by our Church--then
    I hope you will consider history. History does not look favorably on
    those leaders who utilized the Doctrine of Discovery and its later
    embodiments to justify the physical and cultural slaughter of
    Indigenous people. Today, this generation, this Congress has the choice
    to perpetrate the same sins of our forefathers or to learn, grow, and
    work for a better world than they did.
        I beseech you on behalf of a loving, liberating, and life-giving
    God who fills all things because He created all things, to pass H.R.
    1146 and protect the Holy and Sacred Place Where Life Begins.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Bishop.
        Next we have Dr. Amstrup.

     STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. AMSTRUP, CHIEF SCIENTIST, POLAR BEARS
                    INTERNATIONAL, BOZEMAN, MONTANA

        Dr. Amstrup. Thank you. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member
    Gosar, members of the Subcommittee, I thank you for the
    opportunity to speak today. I am Steven C. Amstrup, Chief
    Scientist for Polar Bears International.
        At Polar Bears International we work to assure survival of
    polar bears and the Arctic sea ice on which they depend through
    research, outreach, and education.
        Prior to joining Polar Bears International, I served five
    administrations, from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama, as polar
    bear project leader for the U.S. Geological Survey between 1980
    and 2010. During those 30 years in Alaska, I authored and co-
    authored over 150 scientific papers documenting ecology,
    movements, and population status, and that the Arctic Refuge
    Coastal Plain is the most important place in Northern Alaska
    where mother bears give birth to their cubs.
        In 1980, when I first took over polar bear studies, I could
    stand on the northern shore of Alaska in the summer time and
    see the sea ice. It was right there. If I was lucky, I might
    even see a polar bear out there. By the latter years of my
    studies, the summer ice had retreated hundreds of miles
    offshore, was beyond the curvature of the earth, and it was
    increasingly clear that this retreat was a problem for polar
    bear welfare.
        In 2007, I spearheaded USGS research efforts that convinced
    Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne to list the polar
    bear under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. In a conference
    call with my entire research team, Secretary Kempthorne
    candidly admitted the Bush administration did not want to list
    polar bears, but our evidence regarding the threats of
    anthropogenic global warming had convinced him that listing was
    his only choice, and that it was the right thing to do.
        Polar bears everywhere face dire threats, but the polar
    bears of the southern Beaufort Sea in Alaska are the most
    threatened of all. Unless climate change is addressed quickly,
    this Alaskan population may be the first to disappear. Sea ice
    extent has retreated faster there than anywhere else. We
    recently documented a 40 percent population decline, and the
    government is now proposing oil development on vital maternal
    denning habitat.
        Until society takes the necessary actions to halt
    greenhouse gas rise, which is the only way to stabilize the
    climate and stabilize the sea ice, conserving onshore habitats
    in the Arctic refuge plain will be critical to assuring that
    polar bears persist. Each winter more pregnant female bears
    give birth to their cubs on the Arctic Refuge than any other
    area in Alaska. Seismic testing, road building, and drilling
    pose significant on-the-ground threats to denning mother bears
    and their cubs, and the record shows that existing detection
    and avoidance measures do not adequately protect denning bears
    from these disturbances.
        Let me be perfectly clear: Every maternal den matters. Of
    80 cubs that we tagged during our research between 2003 and
    2007 in the southern Beaufort Sea, only 2 were known to
    survive. Additional disruptions of denning cannot be allowed if
    we really care about the future of this population.
        Oil development on the Arctic Refuge will add to ongoing
    global warming. Seismic testing, road building, and drilling
    pose significant on-the-ground threats to denning mother bears
    and their cubs. And given that the reproductive success in the
    southern Beaufort Sea polar bear population is already severely
    compromised, additional impairment of denning success from oil
    and gas exploration and development is sure to exacerbate the
    ongoing decline of this imperiled population.
        Just as Secretary Kempthorne did in 2008, this Subcommittee
    and Congress need to take bold steps to protect polar bears and
    their Coastal Plain habitats on the Arctic Refuge. For this
    reason, I support passage of the Arctic Cultural and Coastal
    Plain Protection Act.
        Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Dr. Amstrup follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, Chief Scientist, Polar
                     Bears International, Bozeman, Montana

                                  Introduction

        Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today on
    this very important piece of legislation, the Arctic Cultural and
    Coastal Plain Protection Act.
        My name is Steven C. Amstrup, and I am the Chief Scientist for
    Polar Bears International (PBI), a global resource collecting and
    dispersing information on how to preserve polar bears and their
    habitat. At PBI, I advise and conduct research, publish in scientific
    outlets, and make sure PBI's education and outreach efforts are based
    on the best available science. I put the latest scientific information
    about threats to polar bears from global warming and threats from on
    the ground threat multipliers, into language and context understandable
    by the general public. I also communicate that information to media,
    and in a variety of speaking and writing formats.
        Prior to joining PBI, I was Polar Bear Project Leader for the U.S.
    Geological Survey (USGS) between 1980 and 2010. I am a past chairman of
    the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Polar
    Bear Specialist Group and have been an active member of this
    international group of polar bear experts since 1980. During my 30
    years directing and conducting polar research in Alaska I authored or
    co-authored over 150 scientific papers many of which addressed basic
    questions about movements, distribution, and population dynamics of
    Alaskan polar bears. I observed that they only reliably catch their
    prey (principally two species of seals) from the surface of the sea
    ice, I documented seasonal movements including where polar bears go to
    give birth to their cubs, and I discovered that retreating sea ice was
    impacting their welfare. In 2007, I spearheaded the USGS research
    effort informing Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne whether to
    list the polar bear under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA). In
    response to the research I led, Secretary Kempthorne decided to list
    polar bears as a Threatened Species in spring of 2008. With his action,
    Secretary Kempthorne made polar bears the first species ever listed
    under protections of the ESA because of threats to their future
    existence from anthropogenic global warming. In a conference call with
    my entire research team, Secretary Kempthorne candidly admitted that
    the Bush administration did not want to list polar bears, but that our
    evidence had convinced him that it was his only choice, and that it was
    the right thing to do.
        As I explain in this testimony, it is vital to protect the Coastal
    Plain from oil and gas development. Oil and gas development on the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain will accelerate the
    decline of the region's already imperiled polar bear population. This
    development will exacerbate the current trends in our climate and
    further sea ice loss. Sea ice is where polar bears catch their food and
    is the crux of their livelihood. On the ground impacts of oil and gas
    development will multiply threats from habitat losses caused by a
    warming climate and will make it more difficult to stop the extirpation
    of threatened polar bears from the United States. Until society takes
    the necessary actions to halt the rise of atmospheric greenhouse gas
    concentrations, which is the only way to stop warming and stabilize sea
    ice, conserving onshore habitat for polar bears will be of utmost
    importance to preserving this species.
        The Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain provides critical onshore habitat
    where threatened polar bears establish maternal dens in the winter.
    With recent warming, traditional summer foraging on the sea ice is no
    longer possible and an increasing number of bears also use the Coastal
    Plain as resting habitat during the ever longer ice-free season. As the
    world continues to warm and sea ice continues to decline, this area
    will only become more important to polar bears and their cubs during
    both the summer and winter months. Oil and gas activities such as
    seismic exploration, and subsequent leasing and development, will cause
    disturbance and potential direct lethal impacts to polar bears on the
    Coastal Plain. Past experiences confirm we do not have methods or
    technology to avoid these impacts. Much like the original listing of
    polar bears by Secretary Kempthorne, protecting the Arctic Refuge
    Coastal Plain is a politically charged issue, but it is the right thing
    to do in light of the evidence and importance of conserving polar
    bears.

                       WHY IS THIS LEGISLATION IMPORTANT?

                                   Background

    Polar Bears Depend on Sea Ice for Catching Their Prey
        Polar bears inhabit most ice-covered seas of the Northern
    Hemisphere. They are circumpolar in distribution but limited to areas
    covered by sea ice for most of the year. They occur in 19 identified
    populations (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-table.html) all of
    which feed principally on ringed (Pusa hispida) and bearded seals
    (Erignathus barbatus) (Amstrup 2003). Polar bears can predictably catch
    seals only from the surface of the sea ice, establishing a fundamental
    link between sea ice availability and polar bear welfare (Amstrup 2003,
    Rode et al. 2015). The fossil record verifies the polar bear's reliance
    on adequate sea ice cover. During Pleistocene glacial periods, sea ice
    extended farther south than it has in recent history. At the end of the
    last continental glaciation (approximately 10,000 years ago) polar
    bears occurred as far south as the Baltic Sea (Ingolfsson and Wiig
    2008). As the world warmed and ice cover in the Baltic became less
    reliable, polar bears did not adopt another way of making a living,
    they simply disappeared from the region.
    Sea Ice Extent is Directly Related to Global Mean Temperature
        There is a linear but inverse relationship between sea ice extent
    and global mean temperature (Amstrup et al. 2010). This relationship
    means, as anthropogenic global warming continues, sea ice extent can
    only be further reduced and polar bear distribution and abundance can
    only continue to decline. On the other hand, the linear relationship
    means there is not a tipping point or threshold temperature beyond
    which loss of sea ice becomes irreversible and unstoppable. It also
    means that more sea-ice habitat could be retained if the increase in
    greenhouse gases is mitigated, and that the extent to which sea ice is
    preserved depends on how quickly we address global warming. Therefore,
    continuing declines in polar bear distribution and numbers are not
    unavoidable, and polar bears can still be preserved across much of
    their current range with prompt societal action stabilizing atmospheric
    greenhouse gas concentrations.
    Climate Models Accurately Predict Global Mean Temperatures
        Over the period during which we have observational data, climate
    models have been extremely accurate in projecting global mean
    temperature. The mean or average of estimates from 40 accepted models
    closely overlaps the global mean temperature observed between 1880 and
    the present (Figure 1). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the
    mean of future global temperature projections accurately represents
    what the earth will experience. The mean of the projected future
    temperatures, like all averages, is composed of a number (40 in Figure
    1) of individual projections. Each of these 40 climate model outcomes,
    represent different possible realizations of the future global
    temperature. We of course will only get to experience one realization
    of the future. When looking over multiple decades, the greatest
    likelihood is that earth's future temperatures will approximate the
    mean of these projected realizations. On shorter time scales (years to
    perhaps two decades), some of these modeled futures are likely to be
    closer to what we experience than others, and the realized temperatures
    in a particular time frame could be near the extremes of the range of
    predictions.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Figure 1. Observed and projected change in mean monthly global
    temperatures. Vertical axis illustrates the difference between the mean
       annual temperature for the preindustrial period of 1880-1909) and
    monthly average temperatures from the late 19th century through January
     2019, Note that the warmest periods polar bears may have experienced
    during their evolutionary history may have been only about 1.5+ C than
                            the preindustrial mean.

        Deviations from the mean trend line, caused by the natural chaotic
    fluctuation in the climate system, are the ``uncertainties'' in climate
    predictions people often speak about. Earth has always experienced
    these short-term variations in the climate. Climate fluctuations caused
    by El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, or the Arctic Oscillation
    can impact temperatures for up to many years, while shifts in the Polar
    Jet Stream or the Trade Winds often cause more localized and shorter-
    term shifts. During the last several thousand years, when atmospheric
    greenhouse gas concentrations were relatively stable, the mean of these
    fluctuations was a flat or horizontal baseline--with no increasing or
    decreasing trend on a multi-centennial scale.\1\ With greenhouse gas
    concentrations constantly increasing these fluctuations continue to
    occur, but the average of all of the fluctuations now compose a
    steadily climbing trendline. Whereas the extremes (severe cold or hot
    spells) in the natural fluctuations often get our attention, it is that
    rising trend line, or average of the fluctuations, that is important.
    Note that Figure 1 does not include any model outcomes suggesting
    temperature stabilization or decreases in the future. This is because
    climate physics require that the earth's average temperature can only
    increase as long as atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations rise
    (Schneider 1989). At this point in our warming of the world, we are
    still low enough on that rising trend line that some extreme cold
    events still overlap with our historic flat baseline. When this
    happens, it provides momentary doubt about the rising average
    temperature. But whereas we used to experience the same number of
    record hot and record cold spells; record hot spells are now twice as
    frequent as record cold spells. And by the latter part of this century,
    on our current path, we'll see 50 record hot periods for every record
    cold (Meehl et al. 2009), And, summer temperatures over most of the
    world will be higher than anything we've ever experienced (Lehner et
    al. 2016).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The baseline or average of temperatures over the past several
    thousand years was actually declining as earth has gradually received
    less energy from the sun (Marcott et al. 2013). When viewed over time
    scales of 1,000 years or less however, the trend appears essentially
    flat.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Earth's future temperature is most likely to be near the mean or
    average of predictions in Figure 1, but because all predictions are for
    a much warmer earth, whether or not our true realization is near mean
    or the extremes, continuing on our current course will lead to a very
    different world than that in which polar bears (and humans) have
    thrived.
        The inverse relationship between global mean temperature and sea
    ice extent means that the polar bear's sea ice habitat can only
    continue to decline as temperatures continue to increase. The warmest
    global mean temperature polar bears have experienced since they
    separated from a common ancestor with the current brown bear was
    probably only 1+-1.5+ C higher than preindustrial average. Earth's
    temperature could exceed that as early as next year, or as late as 2050
    depending on which realization of the future we actually experience.
    The greatest likelihood, however, is that global mean temperature will
    be higher than anything in the polar bear's evolutionary history by
    approximately 2030 (Figure 1). Crossing that evolutionary threshold is
    unlikely to spell the immediate demise of polar bears. But, because of
    the linear relationship between global mean temperature and sea ice
    extent, we can be assured that average annual sea ice extent will be
    lower at that time than it is now. We can also be assured that polar
    bears will experience a greater frequency of ``bad'' ice years during
    that decade than they do now, emphasizing the importance of maximizing
    protections from on the ground disruptions.
    Polar Bears of the Southern Beaufort Sea are the Most Urgently
            Threatened
        Anthropogenic global warming has caused an average decline in
    summer sea ice extent of 20.5 percent per decade in the Southern
    Beaufort Sea--the greatest ice retreat experienced by any of the 19
    polar bear populations (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/status/status-
    table.html). In the Southern Beaufort Sea, the productive continental
    shelf, on which polar bears historically foraged through summer is very
    narrow and most polar bears historically spent summer on sea ice
    relatively near shore (Amstrup et al. 2004, Atwood et al. 2016).
    Because of retreating summer sea ice, this former summer hunting
    habitat is now unavailable. In response, polar bears are either forced
    onto land or onto remaining sea ice over the deep and unproductive
    waters of the polar basin. Whether on land or over the deep water of
    the polar basin, food is relatively unavailable (Atwood et al. 2016,
    Whiteman et al. 2018). In response to this decline in available
    habitat, the Southern Beaufort Sea population has declined 40 percent
    in recent years, making it the world's most rapidly declining
    population yet documented.\2\ A major contributor to the observed
    decline is poor cub survival (Bromaghin et al. 2015).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Western Hudson Bay population has declined approximately 30
    percent (Lunn et al. 2016) and the Southern Hudson Bay population has
    declined by about 17 percent (Obbard et al. 2018).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    If Temperatures are Allowed to Continue to Rise, Polar Bears Ultimately
            Will Disappear
        The rapid sea ice decline, and the limited area of productive
    habitat means polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea are among the
    most vulnerable to continued rising temperatures. Unless the rise in
    atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations is quickly abated, Southern
    Beaufort Sea polar bears are likely to be the first polar bear
    population to disappear. If temperature rise and sea ice loss continue,
    polar bears throughout their range also will be gone.
        Current evidence suggests polar bears broke away from a common
    ancestor with the brown bear around a million years ago. The warmest
    periods experienced during their evolutionary history were less than a
    degree warmer than current temperatures (Hanson et al. 2013, Marcott et
    al. 2013). We know from the fossil record that polar bears disappear
    from areas without sufficient sea ice cover (Ingolfsson and Wiig 2009).
    Without significant mitigation (see Figure 1) the world will be warmer
    within the next two or three decades than at any time during the polar
    bear's evolutionary history, and sea ice extent will be lower than
    anything polar bears ever have experienced. Therefore, we need to move
    swiftly toward sustainable energy sources if we are serious about
    preserving polar bears. Failure to act virtually assures polar bears in
    Alaska, and ultimately across their range, will follow the path of
    polar bears in the Baltic region and simply disappear.

                       WHY IS THIS LEGISLATION IMPORTANT?

    Specific Reasons Oil and Gas Development of the Arctic Refuge Must Not
                                    Proceed

    Oil and Gas Extraction on the Coastal Plain Will Perpetuate
            Unsustainable Dependence on Fossil Fuels
        Weaning society from fossil fuel dependence is critical to future
    polar bear persistence in the United States and throughout their
    current range in the circumpolar Arctic. Greenhouse gas emissions from
    extraction and combustion of the oil and gas that may lie under the
    Coastal Plain can only contribute to additional sea ice loss,
    compounding risks to Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears and accelerating
    polar bear declines worldwide. Recognizing that polar bears cannot
    survive unless global temperature is stabilized, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service Polar Bear Conservation Management Plan (U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife 2016) recommends swift action to mitigate rising
    concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Conservation
    Management Plan is intended to delineate reasonable actions that U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service believes will contribute to the conservation
    of polar bears and was developed in response to the polar bear's
    listing as a threatened species under provisions of the ESA.
    Development of the hydrocarbon reserves that may lie under the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge would contribute additional greenhouse gas
    emissions that are contrary to goals of maintaining a climate on earth
    that will allow polar bears to survive. Avoiding fossil fuel
    extraction, on the other hand helps mitigate greenhouse gas rise, and
    will benefit polar bears and their sea ice habitat. Because polar bears
    are sentinels of the Arctic marine ecosystem, trends in their sea-ice
    habitats foreshadow global changes. Therefore, we cannot overlook the
    fact that mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to improve polar bear
    status will have conservation benefits throughout and beyond the
    Arctic.
        Developing oil and gas reserves that may lie under the Coastal
    Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is inconsistent with the
    need to halt greenhouse gas rise and move society to sustainable energy
    sources. The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act (H.R.
    1146) will assure the oil and gas under the environmentally sensitive
    Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain does not contribute to ongoing sea ice
    loss.
    Development Would Remove Protections of Critically Important Onshore
            Polar Bear Habitat
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Conservation Management Plan
    (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2016) recognizes the need for ``on the ground''
    protections to assure as many polar bears as possible persist until sea
    ice is stabilized. The catastrophic rate of decline in the Southern
    Beaufort Sea polar bear population is driven by reduced survival,
    particularly of cubs. In fact, only 2 of 80 cubs captured between 2003
    and 2007 are known to have survived to enter older age classes
    (Bromaghin et al. 2015). This makes it clear that maximizing survival
    potential for every single cub is essential in maximizing opportunity
    for polar bears in this region to persist. Because the frequency of bad
    ice years can only increase as temperatures continue to warm, more such
    years of poor cub survival are assured. It is critical, therefore, that
    polar bear onshore habitat is protected from activities that will
    further compromise cub survival, and that direct human-caused
    mortalities, from polar bear/human conflict and industrial activities,
    be eliminated where-ever possible. The most important actions that will
    aid polar bear population persistence are: (a) affording protection to
    maternal denning areas where polar bears go to give birth to their
    cubs; and (b) minimizing human/polar bear conflict situations that
    often result in polar bears being shot. Exploration and development of
    the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is inconsistent with both imperatives.
    Risks to Maternal Denning Bears
        Preventing disturbance of habitats on the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain where pregnant female polar bears give birth to their cubs is
    vital to the future welfare of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
    population. Polar bear cubs are born very undeveloped (altricial) and
    unable to survive the rigors of the Arctic winter outside the shelter
    of the den. Amstrup and Gardner (1994) reported mortalities of cubs
    born to radio-collared polar bears that were forced from their dens
    prematurely, and we know mother bears that are able to stay in dens for
    longer periods have greater early cub survival (Amstrup and Gardner
    1994, Rode et al. 2018). Therefore, disruption of maternal denning must
    be avoided wherever possible.
        Pregnant female polar bears excavate snow dens in early winter.
    They give birth in mid-winter and emerge in spring when cubs are
    approximately 3 months old. (Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Amstrup 2003).
    In Northern Alaska, snow accumulation sufficient for denning is
    confined to narrow linear segments of coastal and stream bank habitats
    (Amstrup and Gardner 1994, Durner et al. 2001, 2003), and there is more
    of these suitable denning habitats on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
    than other parts of Northern Alaska. Although it composes only about 10
    percent of the coastal area of Northern and Northwestern Alaska,\3\ 22
    percent of pregnant female polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea den
    there each winter according to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing
    Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, see Vol. 1, 3-128).
    The distribution of suitable maternal denning habitats is essentially
    uniform across the Coastal Plain (Durner et al. 2006), but the more
    variable orientation of bank and drainage habitats also makes their
    distribution more complex. With more abundant and more complex denning
    habitat, identifying den locations on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
    when they are totally covered by winter snow, presents an especially
    difficult challenge.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Estimated by measuring approximate coastal extent, where polar
    bear dens have been observed, from the Canadian border to the north
    edge of Kotzebue Sound with Google Earth ruler tool.

        Polar bears in Northern Alaska may enter dens as late as mid-
    December and can remain in dens until mid-April (Amstrup and Gardner
    1994). Throughout most of this time they are invisible under the snow.
    Industry practice purports to avoid denning polar bears by aerial
    survey implementing Forward Looking Infrared (``FLIR'') technology to
    detect dens in advance of on-the-ground activities. Once dens are
    identified, oil and gas activities will generally observe established
    ``buffer zones'' around dens to avoid disturbance or chorusing of the
    den. I conducted the original testing of whether FLIR imaging could
    detect otherwise invisible dens in mid-winter and meet the challenge of
    locating dens so that they can be protected from possible industrial
    disturbances (Amstrup et al. 2004b). Whereas FLIR imagery can detect
    many dens under the snow, I emphasized that it cannot detect all dens
    and that it has many shortcomings, and subsequent research emphasized
    those shortcomings (Robinson et al. 2014). The track record of FLIR use
    in active oil field areas west of the Arctic Refuge verifies
    significant limitations. Between 2004 and 2016, FLIR surveys conducted
    in advance of various oil field operations along Alaska's North Slope
    correctly identified 12 maternal dens but missed 11 dens (essentially a
    50 percent detection rate) that were within the survey areas (Smith et
    al. In Prep). The denning habitat on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is
    more expansive and far more complex than other areas of Alaska's North
    Slope where oil and gas development has occurred--and where FLIR has
    been used to find dens. Therefore, it is unlikely detection rates on
    the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain will be any higher than the 50 percent
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    historic record.

        With a population of 236 females (Bromaghin et al. 2015), and an
    estimated breeding rate or probability of 0.55 \4\ we could expect
    131 bears to be denning each winter. If the statistics in the DEIS are
    correct and 22 percent of pregnant bears choose to den on the Arctic
    Refuge Coastal Plain, 29 (22 percent of 131) pregnant females could be
    expected to den there each winter. With a 50 percent detection rate
    for FLIR, half or approximately 15 of the dens annually expected to
    occur on the Coastal Plain are likely to be undetected before any oil
    and gas activities take place.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See my March 8, 2019 analysis of the DEIS. Because the breeding
    interval does not account for litter size, and because proportions of
    cubs in the population represent some litters of multiple (usually 2)
    cubs. The actual breeding probability is most probably higher than
    0.55. So this estimate must be considered conservative.

        Considering varying assumptions and current and future conditions,
    future annual denning on the Arctic Refuge is likely to exceed the 22
    percent or 29 dens that DOI estimates currently occur each year on the
    Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain. The proportion of female polar bears
    choosing to den on land as opposed to sea ice has continued to
    increase, from 46 percent in the 1980s to 77 percent between 2000 and
    2010 (Durner et al. 2010). The breeding probability is likely to
    increase in the near future as nutritional stress results in more
    females becoming pregnant but fewer being able to keep their cubs.
    Finally, summer-time land use has increased threefold (Atwood et al.
    2016) in recent years, and the number of bears on land in summer is
    expected to continue to increase. Because there are few nutritious
    foods available on land, a majority of the Southern Beaufort Sea polar
    bears that spend all or part of summer on land take advantage of
    supplemental food in the form of whale remains at the ``bone pile''
    near the village of Kaktovik (Atwood et al. 2016).\5\ Higher numbers of
    bears supplementing their pre-denning foraging near Kaktovik is likely
    to translate into higher numbers of bears denning on the adjacent
    Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain close to this food source. Therefore, it is
    most reasonable to assume 29 or more pregnant mother polar bears will
    den on the Coastal Plain each year as we go into the future.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The ``bone pile'' is where remains (not consumed by people) of
    bowhead whales (Balaena mysticetus) harvested by residents of the
    Kaktovik community are deposited.

        I understand that the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 authorized an
    oil and gas leasing program for the Coastal Plain, and that separately
    the Bureau of Land Management is considering a seismic survey
    application from SAExploration. Given the high density and largely
    uniform distribution of maternal denning habitat on the Arctic Refuge
    Coastal Plain, industrial operations like seismic testing, road and pad
    building, exploration and production drilling, and maintenance pose
    significant threats to denning polar bears (Amstrup 1993, Amstrup and
    Gardner 1994). Seismic exploration is an especially significant threat
    to denning success. Seismic work must be done in winter, when the
    ground is frozen enough and the snow is deep enough to protect the
    tundra from the 45-ton trucks that vibrate the ground to create sonic
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    images that may detect subsurface fossil fuel sources.

        SAExploration's proposed 200-meter by 200-meter grid of 3D seismic
    testing \6\ on the Coastal Plain exemplifies the risks from oil and gas
    activities to denning mother bears (Figure 2). Tracks remaining on the
    tundra, after recent seismic surveys, reveal that seismic testing
    vehicles actually make two or more passes along grid lines leaving an
    approximately 15-meter vehicle footprint (Walker et al. 2019).\7\ With
    a 15-meter wide footprint, over 14 percent of the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain denning habitat within the bounds of a seismic survey would be
    ``run over'' by seismic vehicles, essentially crushing any dens in
    these pathways, and 92 percent of the denning habitat would be within
    65 meters of vehicle paths, a proximity that can cause a mother polar
    bear to open her den prematurely, with potential negative consequences
    for cub survival.\8\ If as estimated, there are 15 undetected maternal
    dens on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain each year, such surveys would
    have a 90 percent probability of running over one or more occupied
    maternal dens with probable fatal consequences.\9\ And on average (if
    such a survey were repeated multiple times) each survey would result in
    vehicles running over two maternal dens. These outcomes do not include
    the additional (and a priori inestimable) risk from numerous cross-grid
    tracks that characterize recent seismic surveys. The above analysis
    makes it clear that exploration of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is
    virtually assured to negatively impact reproductive success of polar
    bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea population, and additional negative
    impacts would be sure to follow if development were approved. Current
    mitigation measures and den detection techniques are not sufficient to
    identify polar bear dens in advance of industrial activity. Because
    industry activities cannot avoid dens which they cannot locate in
    advance, reliance on these avoidance measures does not protect bears.
    Given that reproductive success in the Southern Beaufort Sea polar bear
    population is already severely compromised, added impacts on
    reproductive success of denning females, such as seismic exploration
    and oil and gas development, would surely exacerbate the ongoing
    decline of this imperiled population. The Arctic Cultural and Coastal
    Plain Protection Act (H.R. 1146) would prevent disruptions of polar
    bear maternal denning.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Because BLM has failed to provide the public with further
    information about pending Coastal Plain seismic survey proposals, this
    analysis considers the most recent proposal from SAExploration that BLM
    did make public.
        \7\ http://fairbanksfodar.com/science-in-the-1002-area.
        \8\ Based on prior information suggesting many denning females will
    emerge from dens if seismic vehicles approach to within 65 meters of
    the den site (Amstrup 1993).
        \9\ See my March 8, 2019 analysis of the DEIS (Pages 13-21) for
    computations.

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Figure 2. Map of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain (1002 area)
    showing denning habitat (narrow red polygons, Durner et al. 2006), and
     proposed 200 x 200-meter seismic survey grid (pale orange lines). The
    grid is so closely spaced it appears merely as shading at the scale of
     the entire Coastal Plain. The left inset illustrates the seismic grid
        spacing (orange lines) and a small area of denning habitat (red
     polygons) at much larger scale. The right inset shows the same larger
      scale view of the seismic grid plus a 65-meter zone of disturbance
    (grey-green shading) either side of the survey line. Blue-green squares
    in the right-hand inset are ``doughnut holes'' not within the 65-meter
    zone of influence. Red bands in these doughnut holes reveal how little
     denning habitat could escape potential disturbance.\10\ The dark grey
     polygon illustrates the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation lands, which are
    not included in this analysis because they were not part of the seismic
                      survey application proposed to BLM.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

        \10\ Denning females >65 meters from transect also may be
    disturbed. Dens within the doughnut holes, therefore, are not protected
    from disturbance, but may experience a reduced likelihood of
    disturbance.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Negative Impacts

        Direct Polar Bear/Human Conflicts--Polar bear/human conflicts often
    result in direct mortalities of polar bears, and they always result in
    disruptions of normal bear activities. Any exertion bears make that
    would not normally be required means bears will incur additional energy
    costs. Arctic wide, polar bear/human conflicts have increased as sea
    ice has declined (Towns et al. 2009, Atwood et al. 2017), and further
    increases are virtually assured as temperatures continue to warm and
    sea ice extent declines even farther. During the past 15 years, the
    numbers of bears spending summer on land in Alaska has tripled (Atwood
    et al. 2016). A majority of bears stuck on land during summer in Alaska
    spend much of their time on and adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain. There always have been higher numbers of mother bears seeking to
    den on the Refuge Coastal Plain than in other parts of Alaska's Arctic,
    and we expect that number to grow, increasing potential conflict
    between humans and pregnant bears seeking den sites. Climate change is
    bringing more bears to shore for longer periods (hence reducing food
    available to those bears). If development proceeds, interactions
    between polar bears and oil-field workers will be more frequent, and
    more severe. Greater numbers of emaciated bears are likely to threaten
    workers, and such interactions are more likely to lead to the killing
    of bears in defense of life and property. These higher numbers of polar
    bears combined with intensive human activities related to hydrocarbon
    development could only increase the number of bear/human conflicts.
    With this population already in severe decline, additional mortalities,
    and additional stressors experienced by bears, can only add to
    declining numbers.

        Habitat fragmentation and cumulative effects--Currently oil and gas
    developments extend across approximately 185 kilometers of Alaska's
    North Slope--from the Colville Delta to Pt. Thompson. Development of
    the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain would extend that development corridor
    another approximately 90 kilometers to the vicinity of Barter Island.
    This expansion would mean that essentially half of the northern coast
    of Alaska has some form of industrial development. Assessing cumulative
    impacts is difficult and studies have not been done to estimate whether
    the expansion of oil-field activity in Alaska may have contributed to
    declining trends in polar bear welfare. We do know, however, that polar
    bears and all animals operate on an energy budget. We also know that
    unnatural and hence unnecessary movements and activities add to the
    energy costs that animals normally face. The greater the number of
    novel and unnecessary energy expenditures a polar bear needs to make,
    the greater the likelihood of going into a negative energy balance.
    Polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea are increasingly in negative
    energy balance, as reflected by declining survival rate of cubs and
    reduced population size. Although these negative trends can largely be
    attributed to warming temperatures and declining sea ice availability,
    they also have coincided with major expansion of the oil and gas
    development footprint along the coast of Northern Alaska. Currently,
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is truly a refuge from the
    structures and disruptions present in coastal areas to the west.
    Preventing the fragmentation that has occurred along much of the
    Northern Alaska coast from reaching this refuge is critical to
    supporting persistence of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears. This
    legislation will prevent further fragmentation of vital Arctic Refuge
    polar bear habitats.

                                  Conclusions

        Evidence suggests activities and structures related to exploration
    and development of oil and gas reserves on the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain will negatively affect the polar bear's use of their designated
    critical denning habitat and are virtually assured of impacting denning
    females with likely fatal consequences (see my March 8, 2019 analysis
    of the DEIS: http://polarbearsinternational.org//media/3383/amstrup-
    comments-on-the-anwr-deis.pdf). Polar bear/human conflict situations
    are only likely to increase in frequency and severity as intensive
    human activities overlap with an increasing number of bears spending
    summer and autumn on and adjacent to the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain.
    These conflict situations will exacerbate the ongoing decline in the
    Southern Beaufort Sea population. Simultaneously, greenhouse gas
    emissions from extraction and combustion of the oil and gas that may
    lie under the Coastal Plain will contribute to additional sea ice loss
    compounding risks to Alaska's polar bears and accelerating polar bear
    declines worldwide. An oil and gas program on the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain is in direct conflict and incompatible with current scientific
    understandings of actions needed to assure a future for polar bears in
    Alaska and elsewhere. In the current administrative planning process
    for potential oil development in the Arctic Refuge, the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM) should strive to eliminate all possible negative
    impacts on polar bears and meet the objectives of the Conservation
    Management Plan for polar bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 2016). Congress
    should not allow BLM to implement an oil and gas leasing program that
    its own DEIS admits will compromise those protections.
        Action by Congress and this Subcommittee is essential to protecting
    the polar bears on the Coastal Plain. As my testimony makes clear,
    protecting the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge from oil and gas
    development is vital to the conservation of the imperiled polar bear.
    For this reason, I support passage of the Arctic Cultural and Coastal
    Plain Protection Act (H.R. 1146).

                                Literature Cited

    Amstrup, S.C. 1993. Human disturbances of denning polar bears in
    Alaska. Arctic 46:246-50.

    Amstrup, S.C. 1995. Movements, Distribution, and Population Dynamics of
    Polar Bears in the Beaufort Sea. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
    Alaska, Fairbanks. 299 pp.

    Amstrup, S.C. 2003. Polar bear, Ursus maritimus. Chapter 27 In Wild
    mammals of North America: biology, management, and conservation. Edited
    by G.A. Feldhamer, B.C. Thompson, and J.A. Chapman. John Hopkins
    University Press, Baltimore. pp. 587-610.

    Amstrup, S.C., et al. 2010. Greenhouse gas mitigation can reduce sea-
    ice loss and increase polar bear persistence. Nature. 468: 955-958.

    Amstrup, S.C., McDonald, T.L., and Durner, G.M. 2004. Using satellite
    radiotelemetry data to delineate and manage wildlife populations.
    Wildlife Society Bulletin. 32(3):661-679.

    Amstrup, S.C., and C. Gardner. 1994. Polar bear maternity denning in
    the Beaufort Sea. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:1-10.

    Amstrup, S.C., I. Stirling, and J.W. Lentfer. 1986. Past and present
    status of polar bears in Alaska. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:241-54.

    Amstrup, S.C., et al. 2006. Recent observations of intraspecific
    predation and cannibalism among polar bears in the Southern Beaufort
    Sea. Polar Biology 29(11):997-1002.

    Amstrup, S.C., et al. 2004b. Detecting denning polar bears with forward
    looking infra-red (FLIR) imagery. BioScience 54(4):337-344.

    Atwood, T.C., et al. (2016) Rapid Environmental Change Drives Increased
    Land Use by an Arctic Marine Predator. PLoS ONE 11(6):e0155932.
    doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0155932.

    Atwood, T.C., et al. 2017. Human-polar bear interactions in a changing
    Arctic: existing and emerging concerns. Pages 397-418 in A.
    Butterworth, editor. Marine mammal welfare: Human induced change in the
    marine environment and its impacts on marine mammal welfare. Springer
    International Publishing.

    Bromaghin, J.F., S.C. Amstrup, et al. 2015. Polar bear population
    dynamics in the Southern Beaufort Sea during a period of sea ice
    decline. Ecological Applications, 25(3), 2015, pp. 634-651.

    Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and K.J. Ambrosius. 2001. Remote
    identification of polar bear maternal den habitat in northern Alaska.
    Arctic 54:115-21.

    Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and A.S. Fischbach. 2003. Habitat
    characteristics of polar bear terrestrial maternal den sites in
    northern Alaska. Arctic 56(1):55-62.

    Durner, G.M., S.C. Amstrup, and K. Ambrosius. 2006. Polar bear maternal
    den habitat on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Arctic Vol.
    59, No. 1. P. 31-36.

    Durner, G.M., Fischbach, A.S., Amstrup, S.C., and Douglas, D.C. 2010,
    Catalogue of polar bear (Ursus maritimus) maternal den locations in the
    Beaufort Sea and neighboring regions, Alaska, 1910-2010: U.S.
    Geological Survey Data Series 568, 14 p.

    Hansen, J., M. Sato, G. Russell, and P. Kharecha. 2013. Climate
    sensitivity, sea level and atmospheric carbon dioxide. Phil. Trans. R.
    Soc. A 2013 371, 20120294, published 16 September 2013.

    Ingolfsson, O., and O. Wiig 2008. Late Pleistocene fossil find in
    Svalbard: the oldest remains of a polar bear (Ursus maritimus Phipps,
    1744) ever discovered. Polar Research 28:455-462. doi:10.1111/j.1751-
    8369.2008.00087.x.

    Lehner, F., C. Deser, and B.M. Sanderson. 2016. Future risk of record-
    breaking summer temperatures and its mitigation. Climate Change DOI
    10.1007/s10584-016-1616-2.

    Lunn, N.J., et al. 2016. Demography of an apex predator at the edge of
    its range: impacts of changing sea ice on polar bears in Hudson Bay.
    Ecological Applications 26(5): 1302-1320.

    Marcott, S.A., J.D. Shakun, P.U. Clark, and A.C. Mix. 2013. A
    Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300
    Years. Science 339 1198 (2013); DOI: 10.1126/science.1228026.

    Meehl, G.A., et al. (2009), Relative increase of record high maximum
    temperatures compared to record low minimum temperatures in the U.S.
    Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L23701, doi:10.1029/2009GL040736.

    Obbard, M.E., S. Stapleton, G. Szor, K.R. Middel, C. Jutras, and M.
    Dyck. 2018. Reassessing abundance of Southern Hudson Bay polar bears by
    aerial survey: effects of climate change at the southern edge of the
    range. Arctic Science 4: 634-655 (2018) dx.doi.org/10.1139/as-2018-
    0004.

    Robinson, R., T.S. Smith, R.T. Larsen, and B.J. Kirschhoffer. 2014.
    Factors influencing the efficacy of forward-looking infrared in polar
    bear den detection. BioScience 64(8):735-742.

    Rode, K. D., et al. 2018. Den phenology and reproductive success of
    polar bears in a changing climate. J. Mammal. 99(1):16-26.

    Rode, K.D., C.T. Robbins, L. Nelson, and S.C. Amstrup. 2015. Can polar
    bears use terrestrial foods to offset lost ice-based hunting
    opportunities? Front. Ecol. Environ. 2015: 13(3): 138-145.

    Schneider, S.H. 1989. The greenhouse effect: Science and Policy.
    Science 243: 771-781.

    Smith, T.S., G. York, and S.C. Amstrup. In preparation. How effective
    is forward-looking infrared for polar bear detection in northern
    Alaska? A critical review and synthesis of research findings.

    Towns, L., et al. 2009. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Problem Polar
    Bears in Churchill, Manitoba. Polar Biology 32:1529-1537.

    U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 2016. Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Conservation
    Management Plan, Final. U.S. Fish and Wildlife, Region 7, Anchorage,
    Alaska. 104 pp.

    Walker, D.A., et al. 2019. Likely impacts of proposed 3D-seismic
    surveys to the terrain, permafrost, hydrology, and vegetation in the
    1002 Area, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. Alaska Geobotany
    Center Publication AGC 19-01. University of Alaska Fairbanks,
    Fairbanks, Alaska, USA.

    Whiteman, J.P., S.C. Amstrup, et al. 2018. Phenotypic plasticity and
    climate change: can polar bears respond to longer Arctic summers with
    an adaptive fast? Oecologia 186:369-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/
    s00442-017-4023-0.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Dr. Amstrup.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Brown for 5 minutes of
    testimony.

      STATEMENT OF CHAD BROWN, FOUNDER, SOUL RIVER, INCORPORATED,
                            PORTLAND, OREGON

        Mr. Brown. Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, thank
    you for the opportunity to serve my country in a new way, as I
    testify before you in support of protecting the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge from the destruction of oil and gas and
    drilling.
        My name is Chad Brown. I urge Congress to pass H.R. 1146,
    the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, recently
    introduced by Chairman Jared Huffman.
        Thank you, sir.
        I appear before you today as the Founder and President of
    Soul River Inc., a non-profit organization that aims to share
    the healing power of rivers with veterans and inner-city youth.
    Wild areas, literally, have saved my life. And now my life
    mission is to share the love and passion of the outdoor world,
    specifically for untouched pristine places like the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge, with other veterans and under-served
    youth.
        But to truly understand why the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge means so much to me, I have to share my story. I am a
    U.S. Navy veteran, served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield,
    served at Guantanamo Bay, and I saw daily combat in Operation
    Restore Hope in Somalia. To say I have seen a thing or two is
    an understatement. I believe in the strength, power, and
    goodness of the United States with every breath of my being.
    But after serving in traumatic situations, I, like so many
    fellow veterans, found myself battling demons long after my
    tours were complete. I suffer from post-traumatic stress
    syndrome, or PTSD. And nature has been my lifeline.
        For a while, after I finished my service, my life was good,
    but PTSD affects different people in different ways and at
    different times. Beneath my feet sits my battle buddy, Axe, who
    helps me every day, my service dog.
        Over a span of several months, I hit rock bottom. I lost my
    job, became homeless, and I was selling my blood in order to
    survive for $20 a pint. I contemplated suicide, and I spent
    time at a Veterans Affairs psychiatric ward, where I received
    help, but mainly in the form of drugs. I learned I had PTSD and
    I tried to cope, and it wasn't working.
        Finally, one day a friend took me fishing. I hooked a fish,
    lost it, but then I was hooked. I had smiled for the first time
    in what seemed like a lifetime, and I knew that fishing could
    help other veterans fight PTSD, and it could also help you
    conquer your own challenges and issues. This was the birth of
    Soul River, Inc.
        At Soul River we do deployments. We deploy into areas that
    are under threat, places like the Arctic Refuge, as an
    education leadership experience where a veteran steps up to
    teach youth how to protect the environment and become leaders
    of tomorrow, while youth gives us a simple purpose, to push
    forward.
        These deployments are challenging and require everyone to
    work together and rely on one another. Everyone involved knows
    what it means to be under threat.
        Soul River began doing deployments to the Arctic Refuge in
    2016. We have deployed to the Arctic Refuge four times and are
    going back this summer. Veterans and under-served youth find
    meaning, purpose, life, and, most importantly, healing. These
    qualities make up the soul of the Arctic Refuge.
        When you arrive in the Arctic Refuge, your senses are
    heightened: sight, smell, hearing. You are aware of the
    surroundings in ways you never knew were possible. Someone
    recently asked me what I felt when my feet hit the ground in
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All I can say is ``home.''
    It is more than I feel at home; it is simply home.
        A few weeks after the 2018 Arctic deployment, I was
    speaking to one of my friends, a veteran from several of the
    Arctic deployments named Matthew. He said, ``Chad, you know
    where I am at? I am sitting on the floor in my bedroom with my
    camp stove, making myself a cup of coffee. I need to go back
    home. When are we going back?''
        I fought for my country so that places like this would
    exist, and I am here today as a way to continue to serve my
    country.
        In closing, I urge Congress to pass H.R. 1146, and protect
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge forever for present and
    future generations of the Gwich'in and all Americans. Don't
    reduce our opportunities of healing for veterans, and
    particularly for youth. They are the leaders for tomorrow.
    Mashhi' cho. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Chad Brown, Founder and President of Soul River
                             Inc., Portland, Oregon
        Dear Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and members of the
    Subcommittee, my name is Chad Brown and I thank you for the opportunity
    to testify in support of protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
    from destruction through oil and gas extraction. Specifically, I wish
    to support H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection
    Act, recently introduced by your colleague, Congressman Jared Huffman
    of California, along with over 115 Members of Congress. I appear before
    you today as the founder and president of Soul River Inc, a non-profit
    organization that aims to share the healing power of rivers with
    veterans and inner-city youth. I am also a board member of the National
    Wildlife Refuge Association and they endorse this testimony.
        Natural and wild areas literally saved my life, and now my life's
    mission is to share this love and passion of the outdoor world--
    specifically for untouched pristine places like the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge--with other veterans and underserved youth. But to
    truly understand why the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge means so much
    to me, I have to share my story.
                                military service
        I am a U.S. Navy veteran who served in Desert Storm and Desert
    Shield, served at Guantanamo Bay, and saw daily combat during Operation
    Restore Hope in Somalia. I even served at a NASA research station in
    Antarctica. To say I've seen a thing or two is an understatement.
        The military wasn't always my path, but after 2 years of art school
    in Dallas, financial times forced me to look at the military--as it
    does for so many of America's youth. I joined the Navy because my
    father was a Navy man and it was really the only branch I knew. I loved
    serving my country. I believe in the strength, power, and goodness of
    the United States with every breadth of my being. But after serving in
    traumatic situations, I, like so many of my fellow veterans, found
    myself battling demons long after my tours were complete. But more on
    that in a bit.
        Military service taught me that life is fragile and can be taken
    from you in a heartbeat. It made me value friendship and human
    interaction. It made me hunger for a world where life is simple and
    untouched--places like wilderness where man and nature are one.
                      life and near death after my service
        For a time after I left the Service, things were good. I finished
    my undergraduate work and got my Masters degree in photography,
    communications, and design. I worked in New York City's fast-paced
    advertising and design world. I found myself pitching ideas to people
    like hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons, and doing work for Phat Farm,
    Simmons' fashion line. I was so busy that I didn't notice the chinks
    that were developing in my proverbial armor. Meaning, I didn't notice
    the clear and unmistakable signs of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
    (PTSD).
        I carried these signs with me from New York to Portland, where the
    world moves at a slower pace than the craziness of the city that never
    sleeps. Fortunately, this pace allowed me to breathe. Unfortunately, it
    also allowed my mind the time to reflect upon what it had experienced
    years before and for the PTSD to take hold. Over a span of several
    months, I lost everything.
        I lost my job, became homeless, and hit rock bottom. I was selling
    my blood in order to survive. Do you know how much you get selling your
    blood? $20. Twenty dollars doesn't go far--and I was one of many
    veterans in that line every week. One day as I contemplated suicide, I
    called my mother, knowing I needed help. I was checked into a Veterans
    Affairs psychiatric ward where I received help--but mainly in the form
    of drugs. I learned I had PTSD and I tried to cope. It wasn't working.
        Finally, one day a friend took me fishing. I hooked a fish--lost
    it--but then I was hooked. I had smiled for the first time in what
    seemed like a lifetime.
                                     eureka
        Growing up, the men in my family had been hunters and farmers and
    my father was an avid camper. My father also spoke extensively about
    Matthew Henson, one of the first African-American explorers who may
    have been the first person, black or white, to reach the North Pole.
    All these men had an influence on my life, which began to be apparent
    as I became more engrossed in fly fishing.
        One day in 2011, as I stood in the middle of a river fishing, it
    hit me--I needed to share this ``medication'' with other veterans and
    with underserved youth. I KNEW that fishing could help other veterans
    experiencing PTSD and it could also help youth conquer their own
    challenging issues.
        I created a non-profit, Soul River Inc. We connect inner city youth
    and U.S. military veterans to the outdoors through incredible outdoor
    educational transformation experiences. By engaging veterans as mentors
    for inner city youth, we believe that rich, powerful opportunities of
    healing authentically happen in the midst of Mother Nature. We believe
    that by connecting youth and veterans to our public lands, wild rivers,
    fresh waters, and beyond through genuine community, we will ultimately
    establish and inspire a new generation of outdoor leader Ambassadors
    that will advocate for Mother Nature and conservation.
        We conduct ``deployments'' every year where youth are partnered
    with veterans. These deployments are challenging and require everyone
    to work together and rely on one another. Everyone involved knows what
    it means to be ``under threat''--which is one of the reasons we also
    deploy to places under threat--like the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge.
                the soul of the arctic national wildlife refuge
        Soul River began doing deployments to the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge in 2016. We have deployed to the Arctic Refuge five times and
    are going back this summer. Veterans and underserved youth find
    meaning, purpose, life, and, most importantly, healing. These qualities
    make up the soul of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
        When you arrive in the Arctic Refuge, your senses are heightened--
    sight, smell, hearing. You are aware of your surroundings in ways you
    never knew were possible.
        Someone recently asked me what I felt when my feet touch down on
    the earth of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All I can say is
    ``home.'' It's more than I feel at home, it simply is home. It is a
    place where I am me. I am not a soldier, yet I am. I am not an artist,
    yet I am. I am all, but I am not. I exist. I am nature and nature is
    me.
        The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge must be protected for current
    and future generations of Americans. I fought for my country so that
    places like this would exist. So that there would be places where I and
    my fellow veterans and challenged youth can find solace, peace, and
    healing. A place where man is just a visitor and where natural
    processes reign. A place where one can find oneself and find the
    nurturing healing of being in nature and with friends.
        The value of nature is far more valuable than any dollars our
    country may receive from drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge. In fact, there is no comparison. Our nation is the wealthiest
    nation our world has ever known--yet we could be so poor that we might
    despoil this sacred place forever? Wealth is not always money and I
    hope that Congress will try to understand that. You must repeal the
    portion of the 2017 Tax Law that allowed for drilling in America's
    truly Last Frontier. You must do absolutely everything in your power to
    stop this travesty. I beg you--as an American who fought for the
    freedom of our country--protect our natural resources as you would
    protect the life of your child. For it is one and the same.
                   ``medication'' stories from the ``healed''
        A few weeks after our 2018 Arctic deployment, I was speaking to one
    of my friends, a veteran from several of our Arctic deployments named
    Matthew. He said, ``Chad, you know where I am? I'm sitting on the floor
    of my bedroom with my camp stove making myself a cup of coffee. I need
    to go back. When are we going back?''
        ``Soon,'' I said, ``Very soon.'' And we will.
        Upon returning from a deployment to the Arctic Refuge, I received
    phone calls from a few parents. Their kids were not sleeping in their
    beds--and this was several weeks after returning. They didn't know how
    to address what was going on. Even though I knew the parents couldn't
    completely understand what their children were going through without
    having been to the Arctic Refuge themselves, I tried to explain. I
    explained that what their children had experienced in the Arctic was
    extreme--a deep, soul-catching environmental engulfment. Where nature
    revealed her beauty in the rawest form to their children, and in so
    doing, opened their minds and souls to what nature is all about. I told
    the parents to not worry. Eventually they will likely sleep in their
    beds again but each child is different and each will see the world
    through a different lens after their experience. What they saw and
    experienced was special and sleeping on the floor in their bedroom was
    a way of keeping the Arctic alive in their souls.
        I also want to share with you the story of Kolby, a young lady who
    was one of Soul River's Senior Leaders. She's been to the Arctic Refuge
    twice and those trips literally changed her life--and that of her
    family. She got her African American mother, who is in her mid-50s and
    never thought about conservation, to care about what Kolby cares
    about--to recycle and be a good steward of the Earth. Kolby is teaching
    her elders, but she doesn't stop there, she is passionate about
    teaching new generations as well.
        Kolby speaks to classes about her experiences at the Arctic Refuge
    and invited me to attend one of her talks. I was blown away! She spoke
    about how important the Arctic Refuge is--for wildlife and for the
    Gwich'in people. She talked about the wildlife she saw and the fish she
    caught, but what stayed with Kolby was the Gwich'in. How they depend
    upon the caribou for survival and how rich and vibrant their culture
    is. Today, Kolby has joined the U.S. Army and is in the officer program
    studying to become a surgeon. Kolby wants to find a way in her career
    path to bring medicine and health to the tribes in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge.
        In closing, I urge Congress to pass H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural
    and Coastal Plain Protection Act and protect the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge forever for present and future generations of the
    Gwich'in and all Americans.

        Thank you.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Brown.
        And now the Chair recognizes Mr. Glenn for 5 minutes.

    STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL
       AFFAIRS, ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION, BARROW, ALASKA

        Mr. Glenn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard
    Glenn and I am an Inupiat tribal member. I currently serve as
    Vice President for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC).
    ASRC and 12 other regional corporations like it in Alaska were
    created by Congress in 1971. ASRC owns the subsurface rights to
    92,000 acres on the Coastal Plain of ANWR, along with the
    Native Village Corporation for the people of Kaktovik.
        We are here today to provide an insight into Arctic culture
    this resolution claims to protect. It is our region. Our region
    includes the eight Inupiat villages scattered across the Arctic
    Slope, roughly the size of Montana. We are not here to debate
    the sacredness of land. What we contest is that the people
    nearest to this issue, the people who live within ANWR, are not
    being given proportionate consideration--in fact, any
    consideration--in this bill.
        When you occupy someone's house, do you give more attention
    to the neighbors down the street than you do to the residents
    themselves? As Congress Members, do you give more attention to
    the voters who live 150 miles south of your own district than
    you do to your own constituents?
        Running water, reliable power, local education, improved
    health care, they can and have been provided in our region, but
    only if there is a tax base in our region for our local
    government. Today's Arctic oil and gas exploration and
    development is that tax base. We hunt and we have a warm home
    to go home to. The quality of life in our villages has improved
    dramatically due, in large part, to resource development.
        In the Journal of the American Medical Association,
    Internal Medicine, there is an article entitled, ``Inequalities
    in Life Expectancy Among U.S. Counties, 1980 to 2014.'' The
    study examined the changes in life expectancy in all U.S.
    counties. The average life expectancy of people living in my
    region, the Arctic Slope, increased by 8 to 13 years over this
    34-year interval. No other area in the United States
    experienced a higher increase in life expectancy.
        The factors explaining this? Declining poverty, increasing
    high school education and graduation, increasing employment,
    improved access to health care, the very things that have been
    fostered in our region due to resource development. This
    resource development, initially centered around Prudhoe Bay and
    in progress for more than 50 years, is a part of our region.
    But it is the nature of oil fields that production declines.
    And with time, new fields are developed.
        The 1002 Area of ANWR, which includes our land, land that
    people have lived on for thousands of years, is now the focus
    of exploration to offset decades of decline. It is not a
    pristine area. In addition to thousands of years of land use,
    the 1002 Area has hosted military and radar communications
    since 1947. There is a ring of these facilities all around the
    Arctic. I brought a map that shows their distribution, and I
    ask that it be accepted into the record.
        At its peak, there was a station every 50 miles consisting
    of aircraft runways, tank farms, camp facilities, radar and
    communication towers. They would close over time, many of them,
    because of the advent of satellite communications. Even that
    was an effort, putting workers and equipment into our area. And
    during all those many years, people continued to hunt caribou.
        To this very day there is a long-range radar station
    operating in the Village of Kaktovik. With all that
    infrastructure, it makes the point: caribou are largely
    indifferent to infrastructure. I myself have successfully
    hunted caribou in summer and winter months in and around
    producing fields, as well as near radar facilities and on the
    open tundra. The health and abundance of caribou herd is most
    affected by its naturally occurring cyclical population swings,
    a process that is well documented.
        We respect the rights of the Gwich'in. I believe we have
    more in common than most people understand. Our people have
    been indigenous neighbors since before recorded history. I am
    asking that this Committee respect the indigenous landowners
    within the Coastal Plain, and their rights to improve the
    quality of their lives.
        Closing Arctic development will damage the viability of
    Arctic communities without altering the global climate at all.
    Our Arctic culture needs no additional protection.
        I find it disturbing that the sponsors of this legislation
    and the leadership of this Committee conveniently neglected
    that there are tribal members here that disagree with their
    position. They look right through them, as if the tribes--they
    were not tribal members. Where is their recognition? Why do you
    not recognize the tribe that is in front of you now?
        For these reasons, Mr. Chairman and Committee members, I
    strongly urge action against this resolution.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]
     Prepared Statement of Richard Glenn, Executive Vice-President, Arctic
                   Slope Regional Corporation, Barrow, Alaska
        My name is Richard Glenn and I am a resident of Alaska. I am a
    tribal member of the Native Village of Barrow and the like Matthew and
    Fenton, a tribal member of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope.
    I've lived, hunted and explored across our entire North Slope. I am a
    geologist by training and currently serve as a Vice President for
    Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which is headquartered on
    Alaska's Arctic Slope.
        ASRC is 1 of 12 land-owning Alaska Native regional corporations
    created by Congress in 1971. The three of us Inupiat people presenting
    to you today are all shareholders of ASRC. ASRC owns approximately 5
    million acres of land on the Arctic Slope, including the subsurface
    rights to 92,000 acres on the Coastal Plain of ANWR. ASRC and the
    Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, the Alaska Native village corporation for
    the people of Kaktovik, own the 92,000 acres.
        This hearing is being held to review a piece of legislation that
    deems to protect the ``Arctic Culture'' of the Coastal Plain. While we,
    the people of the Arctic Slope, and the only residents that reside in
    the 1002 of ANWR and the entire Coastal Plain of the U.S. Arctic, were
    not consulted on this legislation. We are here today to provide an
    insight to the ``Arctic Culture'' this resolution claims to protect.
        Our region includes the villages of Point Hope, Point Lay,
    Wainwright, Atqasuk, Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass.
    Arctic Slope village residents have always depended on subsistence
    resources from the land, rivers and ocean.
        Running water, reliable power, local education, improved health
    care--things that most people take for granted, can be furnished in our
    region, but only if there is a tax base for our local government, the
    North Slope Borough.
        Resource development, initially centered around Prudhoe Bay and now
    in progress for more than 50 years, is that tax base. It is the nature
    of oil fields that production declines with time and new fields are
    developed. The 1002 Area of ANWR, which includes our land--land that
    our people have lived on for thousands of years--is now the focus of
    exploration to offset decades of decline.

        Wildlife surveys show that the Central Arctic Caribou herd, which
    calves in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay and ongoing development today,
    migrates southward over the Brooks Range and into the Arctic Village
    area, where the Gwich'in people live. The caribou are hunted there by
    the Gwich'in people, and that is OK.

        Caribou are in general indifferent to oil and gas infrastructure. I
    myself have successfully hunted caribou, in summer and winter months,
    in and around producing fields as well as in the open tundra. Canadian
    Gwich'in people hunt the Porcupine Caribou herd with the assistance of
    a gravel highway which goes through the migration route. The health of
    a caribou herd is most affected by its own naturally occurring swings
    in population, a process that is well documented.

        While on the subject of wildlife, there is some discussion of risk
    to polar bears due to seismic exploration on Coastal Plain of the 1002
    Area. The topography of the 1002 Area is kind of like that of the Great
    Plains--with flat lands, undulating slopes, and gentle foothills.
    Pregnant female polar bears den in snowdrifts that are adjacent to
    steep coastal bluffs or large pressure ridges on the sea ice. I have
    seen polar bear dens on coastal bluffs when traveling by snow machine.
    And I have crossed many seismic line trails by snow machine as well.
    There is zero chance that a surveyed seismic line will be located on
    top of denning polar bears. The seismic line will conform to the gentle
    rolling topography and only cross features like bluffs and rivers only
    where the topography allows. Much of the Coastal Plain is windswept so
    that you can see the tops of grasses, willows and other plants where
    there are no snowdrifts. If there is no snow, there is no seismic line,
    and if there is snow, the seismic line will be located on gentle
    topography where denning would be impossible.

        The 1002 Area itself is no stranger to infrastructure. Beginning in
    1947 and continuing to this very day, the U.S. and Canadian military
    set up defense stations all across the Arctic. I have brought a figure
    with me that shows the distribution of these facilities and ask that it
    be accepted into the record (see Attachment). At its peak, there was a
    station every 50 miles or so that consisted of aircraft runways, tank
    farms, camp facilities, and radar and communications towers--covering
    thousands of acres. In these facilities were dozens to hundreds of men
    at a time.

        These radar and communications facilities crossed the 1002 Area of
    ANWR. Over the years with the advent of satellite communications many
    intermediate communication stations were abandoned and de-mobilized.
    This itself was an intensive effort putting workers and equipment once
    again into the area that some deem as pristine. To this very day there
    is an operating Long Range Radar station located right in the village
    of Kaktovik. And you can see the footprints of the other stations in
    the 1002 Area in satellite imagery. With all those runways, radars, and
    towers, and people in transit, from the 1940s through today, the
    Gwich'in people and our people continued to hunt caribou.

        Frequently, in the national discourse, our region is pitted against
    some of the Gwich'in people who live south of ANWR because we advocate
    for the development of our own lands. Congressman Huffman, you have
    introduced legislation that speaks about the human rights of the
    Gwich'in. What about the human rights of the Inupiat? We, too, respect
    the rights of the Gwich'in. I believe we have more in common than most
    people understand. Our people behaved as indigenous neighbors
    throughout mankind. We traded, traveled and even made wars at one time
    or another where our boundaries met.

        We have this in common as well, we fought side by side with the
    Gwich'in for the claims of aboriginal title to lands. Like the
    Gwich'in, we found some fault with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act. Our region--the Arctic Slope region--was the only region to vote
    against it. Yet it passed Congress and we have since abided by its
    terms. Congress created these Alaska Native corporations, and conveyed
    to them the last vestige of lands that once covered almost all of
    Alaska-lands claimed by aboriginal title. In the Arctic Slope we
    received legal title to less than 10 percent of that which we claimed
    by aboriginal title. With lands ceded to them by Congress, the Gwich'in
    leased their lands for oil and gas exploration in the 1980s, seeking no
    input from us to the north. That's OK; they exercised their rights, and
    today we seek to exercise ours.
        Your legislation fails even to recognize the existence of
    Kaktovikmiut--the only people who live within ANWR, never mind their
    rights as Americans. Your bill fails to recognize our region, our
    people, and to recognize the 1002 Area as our homeland.

        We are not here to debate sacredness of land. All land is sacred.
    What we contest is that the people nearest to this issue, the people
    who live within ANWR, are not being given proportionate consideration,
    in fact any consideration, in this bill. When you occupy someone's
    house, you do not give more attention to the neighbors down the street
    than you do to the residents themselves. As Members, do you give more
    attention to the voters who live 150 miles south of your district than
    you do to your own constituents?

        We have been yelled at in hearings, and belittled by Members of
    Congress for operating the Alaska Native corporations which you, the
    U.S. Congress, created. We are shamed for exploring, developing and
    producing resources in our own region. The same resources which allowed
    all of us to fly by jet and attend today's hearing. The same resources
    that jet you to and from your districts.

        You have the heard voices of the Kaktovikmiut in front of you.
    Their voices are full of wisdom, sincerity and self-determination. I
    hope they aren't overlooked. We stand with them.

        The fact is that quality of life has improved dramatically in our
    region, thanks in large part to resource development. A study published
    in the Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine
    titled, ``Inequalities in Life Expectancy Among U.S. Counties 1980-2014
    Temporal Trends and Key Drivers'' examined the life expectancy in all
    U.S. counties. The average life expectancy of people living in the
    North Slope Borough over this 34-year interval increased by 8-13 years.
    No other area in the United States experienced a higher increase in
    life expectancy. The factors explaining this increase: declining
    poverty, increasing high school graduation, and increasing employment
    opportunities, and improved access to health care. The very things that
    have been fostered in our region due to oil and gas development.

        On the Arctic Slope, the facts of our life are that development and
    wildlife populations co-exist; and development and our people also co-
    exist. The survival of our region and the development of our
    communities today depend on continued development. Industry has
    explored in our region and we have been there at their side every step
    of the way. This our freedom. This is what allows us to hunt and then
    have a warm house to come home to.

        I encourage you to work with and listen to the village of Kaktovik
    and the North Slope Borough. ANWR, especially the 1002 Area, is the
    ancestral and continuing homeland of the Inupiat people. In trying to
    listen to the will of the American people regarding ANWR, extra
    attention should be given to Alaskans, especially those in Kaktovik and
    the North Slope Borough.

        ASRC understands that there is a public lands/public comment aspect
    to all of the ANWR, and that the American people have a role to play in
    its management. We understand it is easy to be angry about the impacts
    of climate change. We are on the front lines and live it every day. But
    it's harder to reconcile the fact that you are still consuming oil, and
    we are your fellow Americans who can provide that oil and a responsible
    way that benefits our people until you stop consuming. When the day
    comes and we have to change our economies, we will hold hands with the
    rest of the world and do so.

        Until then, closing Arctic development will damage the viability of
    Arctic communities without altering the global climate at all. Our
    ``Arctic Culture'' needs no protection, rather the continued freedom of
    economic self determination to provide for our people--is what needs
    protection.

                                     *****

                                   ATTACHMENT

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     __

     Supplemental Testimony from Richard Glenn, Executive Vice-President,
                       Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
        In the Subcommittee hearing on March 26, my position with Arctic
    Slope Regional Corporation, or ``ASRC,'' seemed to be a point of
    confusion with some members of the Subcommittee which I wish to
    clarify.
        ASRC is not an oil lobbyist. It is the Regional Alaska Native
    Corporation established by Congress through the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act (ANCSA) in 1971. Alaska Native Corporations were
    designed by Congress as a way of settling aboriginal land title after
    oil was discovered on the North Slope--at the time, unresolved
    aboriginal land rights were an obstacle to development. As a solution,
    Congress decided to establish Alaska Native Corporations to empower
    Alaska Natives self-determination and ability to use their lands and
    natural resources to provide for their shareholders, the Alaska Native
    tribal members in their respective regions. I believe the intent of
    Congress was to avoid the same fate of Indian Reservations in the Lower
    48.
        Prior to the establishment of ASRC, Arctic Slope Native
    Association, as it was called, rejected the proposal by Congress and
    was the only regional association in Alaska to do so. Our elders voted
    against ANCSA because we felt it was an unfair compromise by Congress.
    Congress proposed allotting Native Corporations with a fraction of our
    traditional use areas, based only on population at the time of ANCSA,
    that would be conveyed after the Federal Government and State selected
    their lands--essentially, we would be entitled to the areas left over
    and only a shameful portion at that. Today what this looks like is
    sprinklings of Native-owned land across the entire region I call home.
        ASNA was outnumbered, ANCSA passed, and ASRC was created, as was
    the North Slope Borough as the home rule municipality. The North Slope
    Borough region encompasses approximately 60 million acres--an area
    larger than 39 states; the Federal Government owns a collective 41
    million acres, the state of Alaska owns 11 million acres, and ASRC owns
    5 million acres. The remaining lands are owned by the North Slope
    Borough, the U.S. Military, Native Allotment holders, and Native
    village corporations. The Federal Government owns the majority of land
    in my region, not the Inupiat whom have lived here since time
    immemorial.
        The Federal Government laid claim to the highly prospective NPRA
    and to the 1002 Area, and put Gates of the Arctic and the rest of
    Alaska National Wildlife Refuge off-limits--even to Alaska Natives whom
    have lived here for many generations trying to access their ancestral
    lands. The state of Alaska swooped up Prudhoe Bay, and we were left
    with a fractured selection of the remnants and attempted to knit our
    communities back together.
        Despite this taking of aboriginal land, ASRC has become a thriving
    company and the most successful company in Alaska. In fact, ASRC is the
    largest indigenous owned company in the world. We are not ashamed of
    this, but proud. The very design of our corporation is to use our
    resources--including oil--to provide for our shareholders. Because of
    the resources in our region and the foresight of our elders, our
    corporation, communities, shareholders, and culture are thriving. We
    have more opportunities than ever before: our communities have the
    benefit of first world amenities the rest of America enjoys--luxuries
    like running water, sanitary waste disposal, search and rescue, and
    emergency services; our children get to attend schools in their home
    communities and are not shipped off to boarding schools to be
    gentrified; and our corporation is blessed with financial success that
    we can then invest back into our shareholders and our communities.
        Arctic Slope Regional Corporation distributes quarterly dividends
    to our shareholders whom are Alaska Native tribal members, including
    the residents of Kaktovik living in the heart of the Coastal Plain. For
    some of our shareholders, these dividends can be a significant portion
    of their annual income, and can be a saving grace in the long winters
    if you were not able to fill your ice cellar. ASRC also distributes 70
    percent of its revenue from development of our lands to the 12 other
    regional corporations--Since ANCSA, ASRC has distributed over $1
    billion dollars to the other region corporations, buoying indigenous
    peoples across Alaska. Our shareholder dividends and distributions to
    other Native Corporations are generated almost entirely from oil and
    gas development on our lands. And yet, we are vilified for our success
    and prosecuted for our efforts to provide a better life for future
    generations of Alaska Natives.
        I mention this complex history of indigenous land claims in Alaska
    because I feel the integrity of ASRC was called into question during
    the Subcommittee hearing on March 26. We are not motivated by greed, we
    are motivated by elevating the lives of our shareholders and our
    communities. We are not a tribe, but made up of tribal members. We are
    not a shill, but simply a business operating in the best interest of
    our shareholders, the Inupiat people of the North Slope.
        The birthplace of our business is our lands and their natural
    resources. Congress instructed us to use our lands and natural
    resources to provide for our shareholders--we have done this, yet are
    browbeaten by the same body for developing our natural resources. We
    are shamed for being successful in this congressional experiment.
    Beyond being a landowner, as a corporation, we can operate anywhere,
    and we do. We have diversified our business interest and own a
    multitude of companies across the United States--we've grown so far
    today that we even do work for NASA. However, our shareholders and
    region is still the North Slope. We care what happens in our region and
    deeply support the longevity of our communities; without continued
    North Slope development our communities will not succeed.
        With respect to the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge, ASRC has advocated for the opening of the 1002 Area and owns
    92,000 acres of subsurface rights within the Coastal Plain. We have
    consulted with Kaktovik--something the authors of this legislation did
    not do--and support the self-determination of the Indian Tribe, the
    Native Village of Kaktovik, and the Native landowner, Kaktovik Inupiat
    Corporation in their requests to open ANWR. In our consultations with
    the Native Village of Kaktovik and our shareholders in Kaktovik, they
    overwhelmingly told ASRC that they did not want to be ``Wilderness
    Refugees''--so we listened. This legislation proposes exactly that
    without even of a mention of the people who live there. The authors and
    sponsors of this bill have put more stock in people who live hundreds
    of miles away and the specter of a threat to 1 of Alaska's 32 herds of
    migrating caribou which sometimes calve in the 1002 Area than the
    people who actually live there. This Committee should be doing
    everything in its power to consult with the federally recognized tribe
    that represents the people who live, hunt, raise their children, and
    die here--not the people who visit once or twice in their life to check
    their bucket list.
        It is shameful to see Members of Congress pick and choose whether
    or not they acknowledge the human rights or even existence of
    indigenous peoples depending on their own political agenda. But, it is
    not unheard of. The Kaktovikmiut have been at the whims of the Federal
    Government for far too long. Yes, ASRC has lobbied for the opening of
    the Coastal Plain. We respect the autonomy of the Kaktovikmiut and we
    joined them, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, and the majority of tribes
    across the North Slope (where the 1002 Area is located) in taking this
    message to Congress. We have the resources to support our shareholders
    and local tribe, and we will do so.
        I do not expect that all Members of Congress will understand why I,
    ASRC, or the people of Kaktovik support the opening of the Coastal
    Plain for oil and gas development. Just as I may not be familiar with
    the on-the-ground efforts of Californians to reduce their dependence on
    fossil fuels, members of this body must also accept that you may not
    understand how ASRC and the North Slope Borough have worked to create
    balanced and environmentally responsible resource development in our
    region for the sole purpose of elevating the lives of the people who
    live there--as is our right. When I was invited to testify to the
    Subcommittee, I assumed there was a lack of knowledge or understanding
    by the authors and supporters of the legislation, but I did not expect
    we would be side-stepped completely in the debate, omitted entirely in
    the proposed legislation, or chastised for utilizing our lands and
    resources to empower our own lives.
        ASRC does own 92,000 acres of subsurface in the Coastal Plain.
    However, we have been unable to develop our land since the Alaska
    National Interest Lands Conservation Act--which also expanded Federal
    lands in my region to be the behemoth it is today. For emphasis, ASRC--
    a private, indigenous landowner--cannot develop our own private land
    within the 1002 Area without express consent from the Federal
    Government. This is another blot in the history of the Federal
    Government's obliteration of indigenous rights and sovereignty, and the
    authors and sponsors of this legislation are on the wrong side of
    history. To add insult to injury, the surface owner, Kaktovik Inupiat
    Corporation, suffers 10-fold. ASRC has other opportunities across the
    North Slope and Nation, KIC only owns land in Kaktovik. Yet, they are
    ignored. It saddens me that this taking of indigenous land or
    disparaging of our self-determination does not seem to meet the
    threshold of a human rights issue to the authors of this legislation.
        Representative Huffman asked if we are going to honor the
    indigenous people who rely on this land. I encourage you to do just
    that by listening to the actual indigenous landowners, the tribe within
    the Coastal Plain--the Native Village of Kaktovik, or the Inupiat who
    actually live here and rely on this land. Representative Huffman said
    this was a choice between big oil or indigenous peoples. It is not, and
    you are wrong. It may be inconvenient for supporters of this
    legislation to acknowledge that indigenous people do not fit neatly in
    a box, but here we are.

        In closing, I would like to address a few of the other
    inconsistencies raised during the hearing.

         My testimony in a Senate hearing on the opening of ANWR
                was represented incorrectly in order to drive further
                wedges between the Inupiat and Gwich'in people.
                Environmental groups have long frequented our communities
                promising Alaska Natives trips and money to advocate their
                agendas. The Arctic has become a posterchild of fundraising
                campaigns regardless of the people who live here or the
                economy needed to survive here. This does indeed happen. I
                think Congresswoman Degette clarified this best with the
                evidence she submitted to the hearing record of Nation-wide
                meetings hosted by Defenders of Wildlife and The Wilderness
                Society that my fellow panelist attended, spoke, and toured
                the Nation hosting these meetings to advocate against the
                opening of ANWR.

         The 2,000-acre limit on surface disruption of the Coastal
                Plain is a thoughtful way Congress provided for balanced
                development of the Coastal Plain. It is also a testament to
                the advancements in modern technology which make that limit
                even possible. To put this in perspective, the city of
                Kaktovik itself is approximately 640 square acres, or 1
                square mile, of roads, homes, a school, and an airport in
                the Coastal Plain. The maximum footprint of resource
                development in the program area will be about three times
                the city of Kaktovik--or about 3 square miles in a 2,344
                million square mile area.

         The Coastal Plain of ANWR is not a wilderness area. While
                the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service previously managed this
                area as wilderness, the reality is that their management in
                this manner did nothing to encourage the Porcupine Caribou
                Herd to calve here and in fact prohibited Alaska Natives
                from accessing their own ancestral lands. There is evidence
                of human presence and infrastructure across the Coastal
                Plain that negates this area being classified as
                wilderness.

         The Environmental Impact Statement prepared by the Bureau
                of Land Management is a robust document, and the BLM has
                taken seriously their obligation to consult with indigenous
                peoples inside the Program Area and even indigenous peoples
                hundreds of miles away.
         The Porcupine Caribou Herd are not naive to development.
                In fact, within their migratory range is the Dempster
                Highway, the Dalton Highway, several towns and villages,
                and the oil rich Mackenzie River Basin and Eagle Plains in
                Canada. The Dempster Highway provides an important
                subsistence thoroughfare for indigenous people in Canada to
                hunt the Porcupine Caribou herd as they cross this road on
                their way to calve. The Porcupine Caribou Herd already
                encounter infrastructure with no negative impact to their
                migration.

         The Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
                represents a small portion, approximately 17 percent, of
                the Porcupine Caribou Herds massive 8.9 million acre
                calving habitat. Traditional Knowledge and western science
                both tell us that the herd does not calve exclusively in
                the Coastal Plain, and in recent years the herd has calved
                outside of the Coastal Plain to the east in Canada. Still,
                BLM has taken the calving habitat into account by putting
                layers of protection in their Leasing Program for calving
                caribou.

         The State of Alaska Department of Fish & Game actively
                monitors all 32 caribou herds in Alaska, including the
                Porcupine Caribou Herd. The herds have demonstrated to be
                resilient and somewhat indifferent to infrastructure--
                Traditional Knowledge also supports this. The Inupiat are
                experienced in managing this resource as demonstrated by
                the condition of herds which frequent more developed areas
                of the region.

         Infrastructure can impact wildlife if designed improperly
                or mitigation measures are neglected; however, the Inupiat
                people have learned a lot from overseeing resource
                development across the North Slope and have tools in place
                to guard against impacts. We understand these impacts and
                how to minimize them. Design features like slopes of roads,
                height of roads, separation between pipelines and roads,
                and a winter construction season are examples of
                requirements we have worked hard to imbed in resource
                development activities in our region--and they are
                successful in preserving balance between resource
                development and the environment and our culture.

         There has never been a reported fatality or injury from
                seismic exploration on polar bears ever on the North Slope.
                The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issues permits for oil and
                gas activity, including seismic, which require robust
                mitigation measures designed to protect even behavioral
                disruptions to polar bears, like the turning of their head.
                This process works. As Dr. Amstrup stated: ``we already
                know what needs to be done to protect polar bears.'' Yes,
                we do.

         The polar bears which use the Coastal Plain are the same
                bears that roam throughout Prudhoe Bay, are hunted
                commercially in Canada, and which are known to den near
                industrial areas.

         ASRC has lobbied for the opening of the Coastal Plain for
                oil and gas development, but Congressman Huffman is
                incorrect in his prosecution of ASRC's advocacy efforts.
                The $500,000 spent in lobbying which Congressman Huffman
                berated me on is over a 5-year period and covers a
                multitude of issues. In contrast, NRDC, Congressman
                Huffman's former employer, spent close to $1 million just
                in 2018 alone lobbying against leasing in the 1002 Area. We
                do not enjoy these long trips to DC or spending money to
                use protecting our own land rights, but this is the system
                Congress has designed. It seems hypocritical that the
                author of this bill can work for an environmental lobbying
                firm, use a misleading map created by an environmental
                lobbying firm during this hearing, and collaborate with
                environmental lobbyist on this legislation without pause,
                yet ASRC's advocacy to access and use our lands and support
                our companies is somehow unacceptable.

         It is not hyperbole that H.R. 1146 would reverse quality
                of life gains. These may not be undone tomorrow, but if
                passed it will absolutely take future opportunities off the
                table that will sustain our communities and undermine the
                means to provide the same (or better) quality of life to
                future generations. At the very least it would be
                demoralizing to the Kaktovikmiut and to our Alaska Native
                self-determination. We do not wish to go back to the times
                of using seal oil for heat and light, we want progress and
                a better life for our children too. Why would you deny us
                the same privileges you enjoy in San Rafael?

                                     ______

    Questions Submitted for the Record by Rep. Lowenthal to Richard Glenn,
          Executive Vice President, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
        Question 1. Mr. Glenn, if Alaska Governor Dunleavy is able to pass
    legislation that removes the authority of the North Slope Borough to
    collect property taxes on oil and gas infrastructure, most of the
    financial benefits of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge to the North Slope Borough would go away. Since only 0.5 percent
    of North Slope workers live in the Borough, would the Borough's lack of
    tax revenues alter your view on oil development in the 1002 area in any
    way?

        Answer. Congressman Lowenthal, thank you for your question. ASRC
    does not support Governor Dunleavy's proposed legislation or H.R. 1146
    proposed by Congressman Huffman and sponsored by you for the exact same
    reason: We do not find it fair or just for rural residents like our
    shareholders, the Inupiat people, to bear the burden of political
    agendas.
        I support oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain because I have
    listened to the residents of Kaktovik and respect what they have told
    me are their needs and concerns. While the benefits of resource
    development to the North Slope Borough are well documented and
    significant, my support for oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain
    has always been founded on empowering the self-determination of the
    Kaktovikmiut. So, no, if Governor Dunleavy's legislation is enacted, it
    does not change my mind on what the Kaktovikmiut have communicated are
    their concerns, needs, and dreams for their community.
        Since 2016, the state of Alaska has struggled to address a budget
    deficit caused by the rapid decline in the price of oil over that same
    time. It is very obvious to anyone who lives in Alaska or who is
    familiar with Alaskan affairs that oil literally powers our state--it
    is one of our most fundamental resources to the North Slope region and
    the state, and has sustained our economy since Prudhoe Bay was
    discovered. Less oil, by taking the 1002 Area off the table as the
    legislation you support proposes, does nothing to help my state or
    region.
        You stated that only 0.5 percent of industry workers are North
    Slope residents. I am not sure the origin of this figure, but
    nonetheless it does not adequately portray the widespread economic
    impacts the presence of industry has on the North Slope region.
    Industry is quite literally the basis of our economy on the North
    Slope, even if the residents of the North Slope do not represent a
    significant portion of the direct work force, there are many indirect
    impacts, including employment opportunities spurred by industry's
    presence here. As you imply in your question, the North Slope Borough
    receives virtually all of its income from taxes levied on industry; the
    NSB is the Number 1 employer in the region, employing nearly 63 percent
    of the work force. Many of the NSB's employees are closely involved in
    the regulation of oil and gas resources on the North Slope, including
    through the execution of a permitting regime that ensures responsible
    development, the development and management of utilities and other
    infrastructure utilized by industry, and the management of fish and
    wildlife populations to ensure industry activities are fully compatible
    with the protection and preservation of those natural resources and the
    subsistence needs of North Slope residents. Between the North Slope
    Borough and Alaska Native Corporations, resource development across the
    North Slope provides for the majority of job opportunities here.
        Hypothetically, if the financial benefits to the North Slope
    Borough were taken off the table, there would still be many indirect
    benefits from resource development in the Coastal Plain which would
    continue to ripple across the region, but more directly benefit
    Kaktovik. The benefits are undeniable; jobs, contracting opportunities
    for Alaska Native owned businesses, new and improved infrastructure,
    funding for STEM programs for North Slope children--just to name a few.
    The presence of industry in our region has created much growth. I will
    leave you with two examples to consider. Utqiagvik and Nuiqsut are
    powered by local natural gas made possible by industry. If leasing
    proceeds in the Coastal Plain, natural gas could be discovered near
    Kaktovik which could power the community for generations and reduce
    emissions by replacing the existing diesel-fired plant. Natural gas is
    a cleaner source of energy and, if discovered, would have enormous
    economic benefit in reducing local families' cost of energy and
    relieving the cost to subsistence users fueling their boats and
    snowmachines. Second, the Kaktovikmiut have been essentially walled in
    by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife's management of the Coastal Plain and even
    prohibited from accessing their Native Allotments and ancestral
    traditional use areas in the summer months. Industry access and new
    infrastructure may inadvertently address this taking of indigenous land
    use and alleviate decades of entrapment from the USFWS inappropriate
    management of the non-wilderness, Coastal Plain as a wilderness.

        Question 2. Mr. Glenn, you mentioned that the ASRC subsurface
    rights in the 1002 Area had been leased in the past. Are the subsurface
    rights to any of those acres still under lease? If so, who is leasing
    them?

        Answer. Thank you for your question. Arctic Slope Regional
    Corporation was tasked by Congress to use our natural resources to
    provide for our Alaska Native shareholders, the Inupiat people of the
    North Slope. Since the establishment of ASRC by Congress, we have taken
    this mantle and attempt to better the lives of our shareholders in a
    variety of ways, one of which is leasing our subsurface minerals. ASRC
    issued leases to subsurface acreage in the 1980s during a time the
    Coastal Plain was being considered for oil and gas development and its
    potential being explored; these leases are still held by Chevron and
    BP.

        Question 3. Mr. Glenn, the opportunity to conduct seismic testing
    this season in order to establish the probable value of oil and gas
    reserves in the Section 1002 of the Arctic Refuge has now passed. Do
    you think it makes sense for the Department of the Interior to move
    forward with a lease sale--from a revenue standpoint--before there is
    any seismic done? Are you concerned that leases won't be offered at
    their Fair Market Value as a result?

        Answer. Thank you for your question. Seismic testing is an
    important element of oil and gas exploration and must be permitted by
    the Department of the Interior. Seismic undeniably provides valuable
    information, but it is not essential before a lease sale. Seismic was
    collected across the Coastal Plain in the 1980s that can provide
    valuable information to interested parties. It is my understanding that
    the U.S. Geological Service is currently re-evaluating the existing
    seismic. From exploration previously conducted in the Coastal Plain,
    the USGS concluded that the Coastal Plain is ``the most promising
    onshore oil and gas exploration area in the United States.'' \1\ I feel
    it is the duty of the Department of the Interior to uphold the law and
    manage a leasing program for the 1002 Area of ANWR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource
    Assessment. April 1987.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Glenn.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Rexford for 5 minutes.

      STATEMENT OF MATTHEW REXFORD, TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIVE
                 VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA

        Mr. Rexford. My name is Matthew Rexford. Thank you,
    Chairman Lowenthal, Ranking Member Gosar, and members of the
    Subcommittee for the opportunity to speak to you about H.R.
    1146.
        I am Tribal Administrator of the Native Village of
    Kaktovik, a federally recognized tribe. I am here to tell you
    that I exist. We exist. The 200-plus residents of Kaktovik, my
    Uncle Fenton, who was on the previous panel, we all exist.
        Collectively, we are the Kaktovikmiut, residents of the
    only village within the so-called 1002 Area, and the only
    community within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. H.R. 1146
    is a continuation of the pattern of injustice we have
    experienced since the formation of ANWR under ANILCA, in that
    it erases our 11,000 years of existence on our land.
        You speak about human rights. Certainly, our human rights
    need to be acknowledged in any legislation that would undo the
    self-determination and opportunities my uncle and current and
    past leaders in Kaktovik have worked to secure.
        You say you are concerned about Arctic culture. You have
    ignored our culture. You completely disregarded us.
        The North Slope has the highest per-capita harvest of
    subsistence food in Alaska. These resources are ours, and we
    will protect them. Our local and state government already
    protects our cultural sites and keeps a robust inventory of
    traditional land use sites, cultural sites, and burial grounds
    that have been, and continue to be protected from any
    development.
        This bill gives the false perception these lands are
    wilderness, when they are not and never have been. We follow in
    the footsteps of our ancestors who have traversed these lands
    for thousands of years. The entire Coastal Plain of this Refuge
    has been continuously inhabited and used by the Inupiaq. The
    Western definition of wilderness, to us, implies desolation, a
    land without people.
        You are concerned about the caribou. Here is what the
    Kaktovikmiut know to be true: the Porcupine caribou herd's
    migration changes every year. In the last 10 to 15 years, we
    have seen their migration change to the far southeastern
    portion of the Coastal Plain and into Canada. Scientific data
    collected by Federal and state scientists support our
    traditional knowledge. According to data presented in the
    Arctic Refuge CCP, the entire Coastal Plain makes up a mere 17
    percent of the entire Porcupine calving area.
        You are concerned about polar bear; so are we. When polar
    bear were listed as threatened, the United States was mandated
    to study the health of the bear population. The Service
    conducted an unprecedented and highly invasive study. Their
    study took place at sensitive times of the year, when bears
    were emerging from their dens and when they were looking to
    make dens. We observed bears with collars so tight their fur
    had rubbed off and their necks gangrened. I believe the
    continued invasive studies of the Service, through their
    contractors, the authorized bear harassers, caused more harm to
    the polar bear than anything else they face.
        You seem to be concerned about climate change. We are on
    the front lines of it. We experience longer ice-free seasons,
    melting permafrost, and more coastal erosion, among other
    things. We bear this burden, though we contribute minimally to
    climate change. This 9,000-mile round trip will be my largest
    contribution to carbon emissions this year. Potential
    development could increase emissions by an average of 44,000
    metric tons per year. For perspective, the 53 Representatives
    from California produce over 200,000 metric tons of
    CO2 traveling between DC and California every year.
        Kaktovik is asking for a chance to see what gifts God has
    bestowed upon our land, the same chance that the Gwich'in
    people asked for two decades ago. It is easy for you to take
    ANWR off the table, but remember it is our table.
        In the Arctic, science is political. We know these lands
    and wildlife better than any scientist, agency, guide,
    ecotourist, or lawmaker. If you have concerns, ask the experts,
    us.
        We already had this conversation 50 years ago when
    discoveries were made in Prudhoe. We were told the caribou
    would be decimated, our lands ruined, our subsistence and
    culture wiped out. None of that happened. The central Arctic
    herd, which calves near Prudhoe, had a 14-fold increase from
    when development began to their peak in 2008.
        We Inupiat have a dual economic system, a cash economy and
    a robust subsistence economy, which are interwoven and
    interdependent, through which our culture adapts and
    perpetuates itself.
        We will not become conservation refugees, and we do not
    approve of your efforts to turn our homeland into one giant
    national park to the benefit of the environmental corporations
    at our expense. This literally guarantees us a fate of no
    economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the
    future of our people.
        We, as Inupiat people, have every right to pursue economic,
    social, and cultural self-determination. The laws of the United
    States should support indigenous populations, not interfere
    with these basic human rights.
        I submit this testimony for the record, along with a letter
    from the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of Mr. Rexford follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Matthew Rexford, Tribal Administrator, Native
                     Village of Kaktovik, Kaktovik, Alaska
        My name is Matthew Rexford. I am here today as Tribal Administrator
    of the Native Village of Kaktovik, a federally recognized tribe. I am
    here to tell you that I exist! We exist! The 200-plus residents of
    Kaktovik, my uncle Fenton sitting next to me, we all exist!
    Collectively, we are the Kaktovikmiut, residents of the only village
    within the so-called 1002 Area, and the only community within the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Your legislation erases our 11,000
    years of existence on our land and follows a predictable pattern for
    the Federal Government. We thought you had learned from past mistakes.
    We thought we were fortunate in Alaska to hold on to our lands because
    we hadn't ceded them through treaty or hostile occupation, but here we
    are. It is 2019 and you have eliminated us.
        You speak about human rights. Certainly, it is our human right to
    at least be acknowledged in any legislation that with the sweep of a
    pen would undo the self-determination and opportunity that my uncle and
    other leaders in Kaktovik, people who are now elders, have worked
    tirelessly to secure.
        My community does exist, on the northeastern coast of Alaska along
    the shores of the Beaufort Sea. In the past, our tribe traveled freely
    over 23 million acres of land. Now, we are severely restricted in our
    travel into what you call ANWR. In the summer months, we are only
    permitted to travel up river corridors and drainages, forbidden to use
    modern modes of transportation like all-terrain vehicles that
    indigenous peoples across North America have adopted to facilitate
    travel across vast swaths of lands that are their homelands and
    birthright. I myself have traveled to almost every part of our
    traditional lands, visiting relatives in Canada by boat, snow machining
    to important hunting and campsites throughout the Coastal Plain and
    even beyond the foothills of the Brooks Range into the greater Refuge.
    Your bill gives the false perception that these lands are a
    ``wilderness,'' when they are not and never have been. I follow in the
    footsteps of my ancestors who have traversed these lands for thousands
    of years. The entire Coastal Plain of this Refuge has been continuously
    inhabited and used by the Inupiaq. It was never ``wild'' until we
    became a part of America. Tribal members from the Native Village of
    Kaktovik have proven our existence in many historical documents should
    you care to do more research.
        You are concerned about the caribou. Here is what the Kaktovikmiut
    know to be true. The Porcupine Caribou Herd's migration changes every
    year. In the last 10-15 years, we have seen their migration change to
    be in the far southeastern portion of the Coastal Plain and more into
    Canada. The scientific data collected by both Federal and state
    scientists supports our Traditional Knowledge in this. According to the
    data presented in the Fish and Wildlife Service's Arctic Refuge CCP
    released in 2015, the entire Coastal Plain makes up a mere 17 percent
    of the entire Porcupine calving area.
        You are concerned about the polar bears. So are we. When Polar
    Bears were listed as a threatened species, the USA was mandated to
    gather scientific data on the bears to study the health of the
    population in Alaska. The Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an
    unprecedented and highly invasive study of the entire polar bear
    population in Alaska.
        The study took place at sensitive times of the year for polar bear,
    as they were first emerging from their dens and then again, when they
    were looking for their dens. In Kaktovik, we saw bears with collars so
    tight their fur had rubbed off and their necks gangrened. I believe
    that the continued invasive scientific studies of the Fish and Wildlife
    Service, through their contractors, their authorized bear harassers,
    are causing more harm to the polar bear than almost anything else they
    face.
        You are concerned about the Arctic culture. Studies show that the
    North Slope region has the highest per capita harvest of subsistence
    food in Alaska. We have the greatest stake in protecting our
    traditional ways of life. We have been working diligently with the BLM,
    through their NEPA analysis and our role as a Cooperating Agency, to
    identify those places. Our local government keeps a robust inventory of
    traditional land use sites, cultural sites, campsites, and burial
    grounds. North Slope standards The North Slope Borough Inupiat
    Heritage, Language, and Culture Department has continuously updated
    their robust inventory of traditional land use sites, cultural sites,
    campsites, and burial grounds; those places have been and will continue
    to be protected. These are standards on the North Slope.
        You are concerned about climate change; so are we. We are on the
    front lines of climate change. We are experiencing longer ice-free
    seasons, melting permafrost, and more coastal erosion, among other
    things. We bear this burden though we, as indigenous people with a
    heavy reliance on subsistence, contribute minimally to emissions.
    Traveling 4,500 miles from Kaktovik to Washington to prove our
    existence and advocate for my people is certainly one of the larger
    emissions that I produce all year. The draft EIS for leasing in the
    Coastal Plain concludes that ANWR development would increase global
    emissions by an average of 44 thousand metric tons per year. To put
    this into perspective, the 53 Representatives from California, in
    total, produce over 200,000 metric tons of CO2 in travel between
    Washington, DC and the state of California every year, orders of
    magnitude greater than the total emissions from developing ANWR. And
    that's assuming that we ever even get to the development stage, which
    is years in the future! We are only asking for a chance to see what
    gifts God has bestowed upon our land. The same chance that the Gwich'in
    people asked for two decades ago. I can't help but think that if they
    had found oil in their lands, we would not be having this conversation
    today.
        Perhaps the Representatives from California would prefer to travel
    on oil imported from foreign countries with less strict environmental
    standards, but we would like a piece of the pie. You consume. The
    average American consumes. And yet you ask us to bear the burden of
    mitigation so that you don't have to. It's easy for you to take ANWR
    off the table. It checks a lot of boxes for your constituents, to be
    sure: it checks the environmental box, it gives the illusion of
    supporting Indigenous peoples, cherished wilderness--check. It
    certainly checks the public perception box that environmental
    corporations and the outdoor industry have spent so much money to
    create.
        If you are concerned about the balance we have been working to
    cultivate on the North Slope between protecting our environment,
    wildlife, and subsistence while our economy relies heavily on
    responsible resource development; you should ask the experts--us. The
    Kaktovikmiut know these lands and the wildlife that rely on them better
    than any scientist, agency, hunting guide, eco-tourist, or lawmaker
    ever can. We heard the same concerns 50 years ago when oil discoveries
    were made in Prudhoe. We were told the caribou would be decimated, our
    lands ruined, our subsistence and culture wiped out. As it happens,
    none of this came to fruition. In fact, the population of the Central
    Arctic Herd, which calves near Prudhoe Bay, marked a 14-fold increase
    from when development began in Prudhoe to their peak population in
    2008. Our communities on the North Slope have developed a dual economic
    system in which a modern cash economy and traditional subsistence are
    interwoven and interdependent, and through which our culture adapts and
    perpetuates itself. In the Arctic, even science is political.
        We will NOT become conservation refugees. We do NOT approve of your
    efforts to turn our homeland into one giant national park, which would
    literally guarantee us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced
    subsistence, and no hope for the future of our people. We, as Inupiat
    people, have every right to pursue economic, social, and cultural self-
    determination. The laws of the United States should support Indigenous
    populations, not interfere with these basic rights. Quyanaq for this
    opportunity to testify.
                                     notes
    Rationale for 200,000 metric tons
        It is 2,442 miles as the crow flies from Washington, DC to San
    Francisco. According to the Emission Inventory Guidebook, a Boeing 737
    aircraft produces 11 metric tons of CO2 for a 575 mile flight; about a
    quarter of the total distance to California. One Representative from
    California traveling one way produces almost 50 tons of CO2. The
    congressional Management Foundation states that the typical House
    Member returns to their district 40 or more times a year. 100 tons of
    CO2 round trip x 40 trips per year x 53 California Representatives =
    about 212,000 metric tons of CO2 per year.
    Caribou
        Caribou inhabit the 1002 Area and are an important subsistence
    resource for the Inupiat people and our Gwich'in neighbors in both
    Canada and Alaska. Potential impacts of leasing on caribou are well
    analyzed. While the Coastal Plain is an important area for the
    Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH), it is important to consider the
    following:

      (1)  the Gwich'in and Kaktovikmiut harvest both the Central Arctic
                Herd (CAH) and PCH;

      (2)  the Coastal Plain is a small portion of the PCH total calving
                area;

      (3) the PCH interacts with development in their migratory range
                outside of the Coastal Plain; and

      (4) Caribou are resilient to industry areas.

        First, the PCH is an important resource to both Inupiat and
    Gwich'in, however according to the 2010 Harvest Management Plan for the
    Porcupine Caribou Herd in Canada, ``Alaska makes up about 15 percent of
    the total reported harvest of the Porcupine Caribou herd . . .'' \1\ It
    should be noted that the PCH are primarily harvested by indigenous and
    non-indigenous peoples of Canada. Instead, in addition to the PCH, both
    people of Kaktovik \2\ and the Gwich'in of Arctic Village and Venetie
    \3\ harvest from the Central Arctic Herd (CAH) which calve in Prudhoe
    Bay area and the PCH. This is in part due to the fact that ``[T]here is
    a lot of mixing between the Teshekpuk, Central Arctic, and Porcupine
    herds.'' \4\ The mixing of the herds is an important detail that
    showcases the intersectionality of the herds that may lead to members
    of the PCH calving in industrialized areas and members of other herds
    being harvested by both the Inupiat and Gwich'in. It should be noted
    that although the PCH is an important resource for both the Gwich'in
    and Inupiat people, it is not the only herd that is harvested by Alaska
    Natives in and around ANWR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Harvest Management Plan for the Porcupine Caribou Herd in
    Canada March 2010 Page 33.
        \2\ ADF&G Porcupine Caribou Bulletin Summer 2017, ``. . . because
    the Porcupine caribou herd does not have a set migratory route they
    follow every year, the community cannot always rely on them for food.
    Although community members harvest Porcupine caribou when they are
    available, they relied much more heavily on the Central Arctic herd in
    recent years.''
        \3\ Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan. USFWS. January 2015. Page 4-105.
        \4\ ADF&G Porcupine Caribou Bulletin Summer 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Second, the PCH are versatile in their calving and migration
    patterns across Northern Alaska and Northwest Canada. Within the past
    20 years there was a decade when the PCH did not even calve in the
    Coastal Plain, and in recent years when the PCH did use the Coastal
    Plain for calving, it did not use the Coastal Plain exclusively. From
    the 2015 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation
    Plan (CCP), ``Between 2002 and 2009, no estimates of abundance were
    available. During this period, caribou left the coastal plain and the
    northern foothills of the Arctic Refuge earlier and did not form large
    post-calving aggregation . . .'' \5\ And again, ``In 7 of 11 years
    during 2004-2014, calving occurred on the coastal plain, primarily in
    the Yukon between the Alaska-Canada border and the Babbage River. In
    the other 4 years, calving occurred both in Alaska and Canada, and some
    calving occurred in the 1002 area during 3 of those years'' \6\
    [Emphasis added]. The PCH do not reliably calve in the coastal plain
    each year and that the entire coastal plain is a very small portion of
    their entire calving region. For perspective, data in the Fish and
    Wildlife CCP shows that the entire coastal plain makes up a mere 16.8
    percent of the entire PCH calving area. In other words, roughly 83
    percent of the PCH calving habitat is entirely outside of the coastal
    plain.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive
    Conservation Plan. USFWS. January 2015. Page 4-99.
        \6\ Species Management Report: Caribou Management Report. ADF&G,
    Division of Wildlife Conservation. June 2014. Page 15-8.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Third, it is important to consider that the PCH has been exposed to
    development and infrastructure during their migration. In the course of
    their migration, the PCH travel through Canada's oil rich Mackenzie
    River Basin and Eagle Plain Basin and cross the Dempster Highway.\7\ In
    fact, as the Harvest Management Plan for the Porcupine Caribou Herd in
    Canada details, the Dempster Highway is an important area for hunters
    and subsistence users to harvest from the PCH.\8\ The Dalton Highway is
    also within the range of the PCH. It should be noted that while
    development in the Coastal Plain would be new, because of the exposure
    to development throughout its migration, the PCH may be more habituated
    to infrastructure and development which could lessen the degree at
    which caribou are impacted from the oil and gas leasing program. As the
    EIS for the nearby Point Thomson development reported:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Species Management Report: Caribou Management Report. ADF&G,
    Division of Wildlife Conservation. June 2014.
        \8\ Harvest Management Plan for the Porcupine Caribou Herd in
    Canada March 2010 Page 28.

            ``Studies of interactions between caribou and traffic within
            the North Slope oil fields have occurred in oil field areas
            that are closed to hunting and show that caribou, including
            cows with calves, become tolerant of traffic disturbances
            during the course of each summer season (Haskell et al. 2006,
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Haskell and Ballard 2008)'' (Page 5-286).

        Fourth, It is important to highlight that despite concerns over the
    decimation of the caribou population, caribou do continue to inhabit
    areas where industry is present. From the ANWR Leasing Program DEIS
    ANILCA 810 Analysis: ``Caribou could still forage within the total
    footprint of a Central Processing Facility and its associated satellite
    well pads, for example.'' \9\ The Central Arctic Herd (CAH) which
    frequent the Coastal Plain and ANWR calve in Prudhoe Bay area, one of
    the most prolific onshore oil and gas developments in the United
    States. Both the PCH and CAH also experience a degree of ``mixing,''
    \10\ in other words, it is likely that members of the PCH may calve and
    migrate through Prudhoe Bay with the CAH and vice versa. Despite the
    presence of oil and gas infrastructure and development, the populations
    of all three herds are at higher levels than when development first
    began.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ ANWR EIS, Appendix E: ANILCA 810 Analysis. Page E-6.
        \10\ Porcupine Caribou Summer News. Available at: http://
    www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/wildlife/
    porcupine_caribou_news/porcupine_caribou_news_summer_2017.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Public Health
        The Journal of the American Medical Association published a study
    in 2017 comparing life longevity in United States counties from 1980 to
    2014 titled ``Inequalities in Life Expectancy among U.S. Counties 1980-
    2014: Temporal Trends and Key Drivers.'' \11\ The study concludes that
    life expectancy on the North Slope has increased by 13 years over the
    34 years analyzed. The factors identified as having the most impact on
    the variation in life expectancy between geographic regions were
    poverty rate, high school graduation, unemployment, and access to
    health care. Production began in Prudhoe Bay in 1977 and provided the
    North Slope Borough with the economic base to provide jobs, education,
    and health care to our region, which has drastically increased our life
    expectancy over a relatively short amount of time.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Dwyer-Lindgren L, Bertozzi-Villa A, Stubbs RW, et al.
    Inequalities in life expectancy among U.S. counties 1980 to 2014. JAMA
    Intern Med. Doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.0918. Published online May
    8, 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Alaska Department of Health and Social Services has identified
    poverty as a critical health concern, as it is associated with: food
    insecurity, inadequate and unhealthy housing, low levels of educational
    attainment, unemployment, poor access to health care, reduced life
    span, and increased mortality. Health conditions and risk factors
    associated with poverty include disability status, poor general health,
    poor mental health, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic lung
    disease, asthma, obesity, binge drinking, and cigarette smoking.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Alaska Department of Health and Social Services: Income and
    Poverty.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Arctic Culture
        We have the greatest stake in protecting our resources. According
    to the Baseline Community Health Analysis Report, the North Slope
    Borough has among the highest per capita harvests of subsistence food
    in Alaska.\13\ Data from the 2003 census shows that virtually all
    Inupiat households reported relying on subsistence resources to some
    extent. Further, studies show income opportunities in Northern Alaska
    do not appear to substantially affect participation in subsistence
    activities, and residents state that they would prefer to participate
    in a combination of wage-based and traditional subsistence
    activities.\14\ Even household heads with full-time employment relied
    heavily on traditional food sources.\15\ What exists in the communities
    on the North Slope is a dual economic system in which a modern cash
    economy and traditional subsistence are interwoven and interdependent,
    and through which our culture adapts and perpetuates itself.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Wolfe, R.J.: ``Subsistence Food Harvests in Rural Alaska, and
    Food Safety Issues,'' Paper presented to the Institute of Medicine,
    National Academies of Sciences Committee on Environmental Justice,
    Spokane, Washington, August 13, 1996. Accessed online at http://
    www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/download/food962.pdf.
        \14\ Poppel, B., J. Kruse, G. Duhaime, and L. Abryutina. 2007.
    Survey of Living Conditions in the Arctic (SLiCA)
    www.arcticlivingconditions.org.
        \15\ Baseline Community Health Analysis Report. North Slope Borough
    Department of Health and Social Services, July 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fact, in many cases, income and employment levels support
    subsistence activities in our communities. People continue to hunt and
    fish, but aluminum boats, outboards, all-terrain vehicles now help
    blend these pursuits with wage work. These things cost money and
    require income and employment to support them.
    Oil & Gas in Gwich'in Lands
        It is important not to mistakenly view the Gwich'in culture as
    ``anti-development,'' when in fact Gwich'in communities have also
    pursued resource development interests in their own lands. In the 1980s
    the village of Venetie sought to lease all of their lands to oil and
    gas companies to spur economic development and jobs for their people.
    In the Senate Congressional Record for March 8, 2000, a letter from the
    Native Village of Venetie ``giving formal notice of intention to offer
    lands for competitive oil and gas lease. This request for proposals
    involves any or all of the lands and waters of the Venetie Indian
    Reservation . . . which aggregates 1.8 million acres . . .'' \16\ Exxon
    completed seismic in the 1980s and drilled core samples in the Yukon
    Flats Basin.\17\ More recently, Doyon Limited, according to their oil
    and gas ``Acquisition Opportunity'' flyer,\18\ completed 52 square
    miles of 3D seismic in the Stevens Village sub-basin of the Yukon Flats
    in 2013 and is actively seeking lessee's to explore ``prospectivity''
    of its entire 1.48 million acres of ``underexplored but highly
    prospective oil/gas bearing sub-basins'' surrounding the Gwich'in
    villages of Fort Yukon, Stevens Village, Beaver, Birch Creek, and
    Chalkyitsik.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Congressional Record--Senate, March 8, 2000 pg. 2242.
        \17\ Yukon Flats Basin, Alaska: Reservoir Characterization Study.
    State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Geological
    & Geophysical Surveys 2006. Accessed online: http://dggs.alaska.gov/
    webpubs/dggs/ri/text/ri2006_001.pdf.
        \18\ Acquisition Opportunity--Yukon Flats Basin Central Alaska.
    http://doyonoil.com/Content/pdfs/YukonFlats.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In Canada, development has occurred in the Eagle Plains and current
    projects for the Peel Plateau watershed are in the planning process.
    Both areas lie within the Porcupine Caribou herd's winter range. In May
    2018, the Vuntut Gwitchin Government published their Oil and Gas
    Engagement Policy outlining a policy to ``establish a respectful,
    transparent, and meaningful framework to guide the engagements of the
    Vuntut Gwitchin Government in relation to Oil and Gas Activities and
    Oil and Gas Dispositions in a manner that supports and upholds the
    objective of Sustainable Development.'' The document further defines
    Sustainable Development as ``beneficial socio-economic change that does
    not undermine the ecological and social systems upon which communities
    and societies are dependent.'' We agree with their policies and would
    like the opportunity to explore the same opportunities on our own
    lands.
    Polar Bears
        While the Southern Beaufort Stock (SBS) of polar bears do utilize
    the 1002 Area, their habitat expands beyond the coastal plain and the
    ``species is widely distributed at low densities . . .'' \19\ The SBS
    stock of polar bears have a large range from Point Hope to south of
    Banks Island and east of the Ballie Islands, Canada.\20\ The same stock
    of polar bears utilizing the coastal plain also move through the areas
    of industry activity seasonally, this suggests that industry activities
    in the geographical area will have relatively few interactions with
    polar bears.\21\ Further, SBS polar bears do not use the coastal plain
    exclusively as the SBS spends the majority of the year near the coast,
    moving further offshore in the summer to the pack ice \22\ and also
    frequent industrial areas like Pt Thomson, Badami, Prudhoe Bay,
    Kuparuk, Alpine, and developed areas east in Canada.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \19\ NPRA IAP EIS pg 346.
        \20\ Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service. 2017.
        \21\ FWS ITR FR 52304.
        \22\ The Use of Sea Ice Habitat by Female Polar Bears in the
    Beaufort Sea. OCS Study, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center,
    Anchorage, AK. 2004.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As distinguished in the NPRA IAP EIS, polar bears do have a certain
    degree of fidelity to their denning areas but there is a significant
    alteration in specific denning sites. Studies show that 46 dens have
    been documented in the Coastal Plain over a 40-year period. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted a Forward Looking Infrared Radar
    (FLIR) survey in the Coastal Plain in the winter of 2018. The
    preliminary results, according to FWS, were that FWS detected five
    dens. Of that total, one had been abandoned prior to use, two were
    confirmed polar bears dens, and two were fox dens. These results
    provide clear insight into how polar bears are using the Coastal Plain
    for denning, and gives a degree of confidence on the efficacy of FLIR
    Surveys as they were successful in identifying even fox dens.
        Through Traditional Knowledge, we understand that polar bears and
    terrestrial mammals like caribou are inherently mobile and their use of
    their habitat can vary widely. Through the robust mitigation measures
    established by the North Slope Borough, Fish and Wildlife Service, and
    the Bureau of Land Management, impacts to polar bears have been
    negligible from resource development activities for decades. The FWS
    Incidental Take Regulation have successfully minimized impacts to polar
    bears from oil and gas activities on and offshore:

            ``Since 1993, the documented impacts of incidental take by
            Industry activity in the Beaufort Sea ITR region affected only
            small numbers of bears, were primarily short-term changes to
            behavior, and had no long-term impacts on individuals and no
            impacts on the SBS polar bear population, or the global
            population.''

        While the FWS Beaufort Sea ITR do not include the 1002 Area, the
    monitoring and permitting encompasses a much larger geographic area,
    manages the same stock of polar bears, and oversees a larger industry
    footprint than what is allowed under the 2,000 acre limit set by
    Congress.
    Potential for Local Energy
        Future leasing and subsequent activities could benefit the local
    community of Kaktovik directly. Specifically, local energy development
    is a potential outcome of prospective leasing and development. In
    Utqiagvik, the discovery of natural gas resource near the community led
    to natural gas being available and affordable to its residents, despite
    being uneconomical for industry to pursue. The community of Nuiqsut
    also benefits from natural gas as an outcome of development at Alpine.
    As seen with Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik, local natural gas can significantly
    offset high fuel costs and is a meaningful, long term benefit to the
    local people and environment.
    Land Issues
        Since ANILCA, the Kaktovikmiut have been limited in their access to
    their Native allotments, traditional subsistence areas, campsites, and
    generally throughout the Coastal Plain and greater ANWR. Residents of
    Kaktovik are restricted to traverse the 1002 Area only in the winter
    time and cannot utilize All-Terrain Vehicles (ATVs) to access their
    allotments within or outside of the 1002 Area. These limitations are
    culturally insensitive and go against the nomadic lifestyle of the
    Kaktovikmiut. Ironically, potential roads to facilitate development may
    dramatically increase the local people's access to the Coastal Plain
    and help create throughways subsistence users can use year-round.
        The prolific resource discovered in the 1002 Area is in a region
    that has demonstrated environmental stewardship, cultural preservation
    and growth, and a vibrant oil and gas industry can and do co-exist. The
    precedent setting efforts by Alaska Natives, industry, and agencies to
    reduce the environmental footprint of development, promote technical
    advancements, and install mitigation measures to protect wildlife,
    subsistence, and the environmental have changed the nature and scope of
    resource development on the North Slope and the world. Although the
    1002 Area has been off limits to resource development activities since
    the 1980s, development occurs adjacent to the Coastal Plain in both
    Alaska and in nearby Canada. The Point Thomson facility is mere miles
    away from the 1002 Area.
    History of Development
        Alaska Natives have worked tirelessly to shape development in our
    region and the same tools we have put in place in Prudhoe Bay, Alpine,
    Kuparuk, Point Thomson, and offshore will be incorporated into any
    future activity in the 1002 Area. We emphasize this long history to
    showcase not only the pivotal role Alaska Natives have played in
    setting the standards for responsible development in our region, but to
    stress that resource development activities in the 1002 Area will not
    occur haphazardly, but will be the outcome of decades of diligence to
    reduce the environmental footprint, preserve our Inupiat culture, and
    to secure a benefit in local development for the local people. While to
    some, development in the Arctic may be a novel concept, it is not to
    the people who live here.
        Carefully designed mitigation measures by Alaska Natives, industry,
    and the NSB, which are incorporated into resource development in our
    region can be credited for the negligible impact that development has
    had on our environment and traditional ways of life. Through the use of
    science and Traditional Knowledge, best practices have been implemented
    to reduce or avoid impacts such as: adequate pipeline height to not
    impede migrating caribou; sufficient distance between pipeline and road
    to avoid deterring crossing caribou; specifications on road height and
    slope; thoughtful design on road placement to avoid funneling migrating
    caribou; aircraft altitude guidelines; time-are closures; and other
    restrictions on operations. These safeguards have worked to protect
    caribou across the North Slope and we are confident that through
    coordination with the people of Kaktovik, these mechanisms can be
    successfully applied to oil and gas programs the Coastal Plain.

                                     *****

                                   ATTACHMENT

                            VOICE of the Arctic Inupiat
                                             Point Hope, Alaska

                                                         March 20, 2019

    Hon. Jared Huffman,
    1527 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: H.R. 1146--Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act

        Dear Representative Huffman:

        Voice of the Arctic Inupiat (VOICE) strongly opposes H.R. 1146
    amending Public Law 115-97 to repeal the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge (ANWR) oil and gas leasing program. Beyond the fact that your
    bill would repeal an opportunity that the Inupiat people have fought
    for decades to achieve, we are struck by the lack of knowledge
    displayed in this legislation, which completely ignores the existence
    of the Inupiat people, and especially the people of Kaktovik. The
    Native Village of Kaktovik is a federally recognized tribe and the
    Kaktovikmiut have occupied the Coastal Plain for at least 11,000 years.
        The Coastal Plain is home to more than just caribou and none of the
    Coastal Plain is wilderness. It is not a place without people; it never
    has been--it has been continuously occupied by the Inupiat people and
    our ancestors for millennia, and we find it insulting that you fail to
    acknowledge this history. Currently, the Coastal Plain is the home of a
    community of over 200 people. People who live, hunt, fish, raise their
    families, and hope for a secure economic future for their children.
    People who walk in the footsteps of their ancestors all over the land
    that Congress, without our permission, designated as the 1002 Area of
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. People that you have completely
    disregarded because they generally do not agree with you. In light of
    this, Congressman, your concern about human rights seems a bit pale.
        When we, Indigenous peoples, use terms like self-determination,
    sovereignty, economic equality, cultural survival, and traditional
    lands, they are more than just buzzwords. These are objectives that
    have long been denied us and for which we have had to fight for
    generations. It is not for you to ignore those ideas, nor the people
    fighting for them, in favor of those who are more aligned with your
    political agenda. To us, this issue goes beyond politics to the very
    sustainability of our communities, culture, and economy.
        The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act undermines the
    wishes of those of us living closest to ANWR and negates years of work
    by local stakeholders toward ensuring a sustainable economy for the
    people and communities of our region. We hope this letter might help
    you better understand the realities of life in the Arctic. H.R. 1146
    preaches a ``moral responsibility to protect this wilderness heritage
    as an enduring resource to bequeath undisturbed to future generations
    of Americans,'' but fails to acknowledge the basic needs of future
    generations of Arctic Inupiat. Our regional government, the North Slope
    Borough (NSB), is responsible for more territory than any other local
    government in the nation. The NSB receives over 96% of its revenue from
    property taxes levied on industry infrastructure on the North Slope,
    which enables them to provide services that were never accessible
    before in the Arctic. The Borough School District provides vocational
    and academic education for people of all ages; NSB health clinics
    provide modern medical services to residents in even the smallest and
    most remote of villages. The Municipal Services Department operates
    water, sewage, and electric utilities, plows roads and runways, and
    maintains landfills. Other NSB departments provide housing, police and
    fire protection, search and rescue, and other critical services to our
    communities. Altogether, the NSB is the single largest local employer
    on the North Slope, employing over 63% of the work force. These
    benefits of modern American civilization, common in the rest of the
    nation, have been built on the foundation of the North Slope oil
    industry.
        It is hypocritical of you, Congressman, to stifle the efforts of
    Kaktovik to secure jobs, a local economy, and income for their
    community while your state makes billions of dollars off the
    development of its own oil and gas resources. If you are concerned
    about the impacts of resource development, we suggest that you focus on
    your own state of California, which despite its green image, produces
    the dirtiest crude in America and has some of the largest refineries on
    the West Coast, which in addition to refining much cleaner Alaska North
    Slope Crude, also imports and refines oil from foreign countries like
    Saudi Arabia and Angola. The message this bill sends is that you
    prioritize the leisure whims of your California constituents above the
    needs of the Native people of Kaktovik.
        H.R. 1146 cites climate change as one of the main drivers of the
    bill. In reality, climate change--and the world's response to it--add
    additional layers to existing burdens that we, the Arctic's Indigenous
    people, are facing. We agree that climate change has deeply affected
    our traditional Inupiat ways of life. We do not agree that the solution
    to that problem is to create more wilderness that hinders our ability
    to provide for our people and respond to the impacts that we are
    facing. It is unfair for you to ask that we, as Indigenous peoples,
    carry the burden of climate change and the burden of mitigation so that
    you can fly back and forth to your home district with an easy
    conscience.
        Even with the services our local government provides, many of the
    people in the Arctic live in conditions that fall below acceptable
    standards of living, despite being citizens of one of the richest
    countries in the world. We are concerned and puzzled, then, by your
    focus on protecting eco-tourism and this idea of pristine, unspoiled
    wilderness--at the expense of an economy to sustain our children--that
    rich elites across America ``cherish.'' While we are certainly used to
    this harmful narrative by now, it does not seem in line with your
    democratic values. For our part, we do not see any contradiction
    between developing our resources and at the same time protecting our
    environment and wildlife. These are not diverging priorities but an
    integral piece to balance in the Arctic.
        The bill as introduced further ignores the historical and cultural
    trauma that is a part of this land and the Kaktovikmiut who inhabit it.
    The people of Kaktovik, in recent memory, have suffered through three
    forced relocations at the hands of the American military. Then, in
    1980, the federal government took 23 million acres of land--without
    consent, consultation, nor a treaty between parties--and gave the
    people of Kaktovik back 92,000 acres of land immediately surrounding
    their village. A mere fraction of their traditional and ancestral
    lands. The ``deal'' was that this land was locked up, the Kaktovikmiut
    were unable to access Native allotments, cultural sites, and
    subsistence areas in the newly expanded Refuge in the summer months.
    No, they now live with extreme restrictions on how they can use their
    own lands as a result of the changes made by the federal government in
    how the land is designated, lands that the Inupiat people have been
    stewards over for thousands of years. Do you consider these human
    rights violations, Representative Huffman? We hope, at the very least,
    that this does not diminish ``the integrity of the National Wildlife
    Refuge System,'' which in itself operates on the mistaken Western idea
    that Indigenous peoples are incompetent at managing their own lands.
        The views of the Inupiat who call ANWR home are frequently ignored,
    and your bill reinforces the perception that the wishes of people who
    live in and around the Coastal Plain are less important than those who
    live hundreds and thousands of miles away. Mr. Huffman, you do not have
    to tell the Inupiat people, who have lived on this land for
    generations, the importance of our homelands--we see it, we know it, we
    depend on it, we are a part of it. We have something very important in
    common, that often gets lost in this debate--this false dichotomy of
    ``for'' vs. ``against,'' republican vs. democrat, economy vs.
    environment--we all share a commitment to protecting this land and we
    would welcome the opportunity to work collaboratively with you and the
    Gwich'in people, to whom we have extended many invitations for
    discussion, to protect this balance between responsible development and
    environmental protections that is integral to our way of life and the
    long-term sustainability of our culture.
        The Inupiat people have existed, and even flourished, in one of the
    most severe climates in the world for generations. We understand the
    balance needed to sustain our way of life and our communities; this
    priority is currently dependent on successful and safe oil and gas
    developments. We are confident that the health of the Porcupine Caribou
    Herd can be maintained given our success in maintaining the health of
    three other caribou herds that migrate within our region. We
    respectfully request that you remove your bill from consideration and
    come visit our communities to better understand the needs of our people
    and our communities. We would welcome the opportunity.

                Taikuu,

                                              Sayers Tuzroyluk,
                                                             President.

                                               Rex A. Rock Sr.,
                                                               Chairman

                                               John Hopson Jr.,
                                                          Vice Chairman

                                     ______

      Supplemental Testimony from Matthew Rexford, Tribal Administrator,
                           Native Village of Kaktovik
        Chairman Lowenthal and Ranking Member Gosar, Quyanaq (thank you)
    for the opportunity to represent my community and the Native Village of
    Kaktovik at the recent hearing ``The Need to Protect the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain'' on House Bill 1146, ``The
    Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act'' introduced by
    Representative Huffman. I realize that it is difficult to cover this
    complicated issue in a 3-hour hearing and I am grateful for this
    opportunity to provide some additional insight.
        The Native Village of Kaktovik is the only federally recognized
    tribe in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the only federally
    recognized tribe in the 1002 Area of the Coastal Plain; as such, it is
    strange that Members of Congress did not seem interested in hearing our
    input and avoided asking us questions in the hearing. In this
    supplemental testimony, I hope to answer some of the questions that
    were presented to the Majority witnesses from Kaktovik's point of view
    so that you have an equitable and fair understanding of these issues
    before you make your final decision on this bill. I will also expand on
    some of the answers that were asked of myself and my fellow Inupiaq
    witnesses. I hope that you will honestly consider the views of the
    local tribal government on this issue.
        This hearing was mainly about caribou: their importance to the
    Gwich'in people and their reliance on the Coastal Plain for calving and
    insect relief. I hope it will come as a relief to you, as it did to the
    Native Village of Kaktovik, the federally recognized tribe for our
    village, that the recently released Draft Environmental Impact
    Statement has extensive protections for the critical calving area of
    the Porcupine caribou herd, and I hope you will have a chance to review
    that document, which clearly takes into account the concerns of
    Gwich'in communities south of the Refuge and in Canada.
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has been diligent in their
    consultation requirements and the Native Village of Kaktovik and the
    North Slope Borough were both included as Cooperating Agencies along
    with the Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government, Venetie Village
    Council, and Arctic Village Council. These conversations between the
    BLM and the Gwich'in Tribal Governments have led to draft Alternatives
    that are very thorough in their protections of the Porcupine caribou
    herd. Even the most aggressive draft Alternative for leasing would
    impose Timing Limitations prohibiting activity in the area identified
    as primary calving habitat between May 20 and June 20 each year on
    721,200 acres--or almost half the entire Program Area. The goal of the
    Timing Limitation is to ``minimize disturbance and hindrance of caribou
    or alteration of their movement in the south-southeast portion of the
    Coastal Plain, which has been identified as important caribou habitat
    during calving.'' A further 359,400 acres of the Coastal Plain, this
    again in the most aggressive leasing alternative, are subject to No
    Surface Occupancy limitations.
        The NEPA process is working. We hope that you will applaud the
    success of these efforts rather than undermine the hard work of the BLM
    and the Cooperating Agencies (including the Gwich'in and Inupiaq
    Tribes) who have taken time, effort, and expense to work with them.
    H.R. 1146, which clearly lacks perspective and nuance, flies in the
    face of the critical principles of understanding and compromise, which
    are so desperately needed in this country--now more than ever.

    QUESTIONS:

    Ranking Member Gosar: How will the development of oil resources impact
    your village?

        Oil and Gas has the opportunity to bring great benefits to the
    community through advancements that the North Slope Borough provides,
    as Fenton Rexford mentioned in the hearing, but also through the
    opportunities that it could provide to our village Alaska Native
    Corporation (ANC) set up through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
    Act--Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC)--as well as local jobs to
    community members. Our village corporation is the only ANC in Alaska
    that has been prevented from developing their own lands and is,
    therefore, unable to provide jobs for local community members. The role
    of ANCs, as set forth through Congress, is to provide an economic base
    to their community--how can they feasibly do this when they are not
    able to develop on their lands? Residents of all other communities on
    the North Slope are shareholders of their respective ANCs and are able
    to get a dividend to help them fuel their All-Terrain Vehicles and snow
    machines to participate in subsistence, supplement their Native foods
    with milk and vegetables from the local store, and buy clothes and
    other necessities for their families. They serve an important role in
    our communities and KIC should have those same rights.
        Further, I believe strongly that development near Kaktovik would
    provide stable, long-term jobs for community members. It is true that
    traditionally, local people are not employed in industry at the same
    rate that people from outside the region are. This is not due to a lack
    of willingness of industry to employ local people, rather the fact that
    it is difficult and expensive to get the training, skills, and
    experience necessary to work those jobs. Our tribal college in
    Utqiagvik, Ilisagvik College, which is also funded through the North
    Slope Borough and their tax base of industry infrastructure, has
    increased the breadth and availability of technical training courses
    specific to employment in the oil and gas industry. Tuition costs for
    students wishing to study for a degree or technical training at the
    college are highly subsidized by the North Slope Borough, and our
    regional corporation and local village corporations all provide
    continuing education funding for North Slope students.
        Wages that members of my community earn and bring back to Kaktovik
    only serve to strengthen our local economy. So far, there has been no
    other viable option for a stable industry in our region that would
    provide long-term employment. Every Arctic nation on Earth relies on
    the development of their natural resources as a central part of its
    economy. Norway, a country whose Number 1 industry is oil and gas, is
    one of the happiest, healthiest countries in the world. A thriving oil
    and gas industry allows their government to provide health care, elder
    care, higher education, advanced technology, and affordable housing
    specific to Arctic environments, among many other benefits. For many in
    Congress, Norway provides a shining example in terms of standard of
    living and model of government, but these things are not without cost;
    Norway has built this because of the responsible development of their
    natural resources. Until an alternative is put forth, we support
    responsible resource development.
    Ranking Member Gosar: Were you consulted during the creation of H.R.
            1146?

        No, we were not. We have not been consulted by the Federal
    Government in any of the harmful decisions that have been made that
    have negatively affected us. As a young man, I have lived my entire
    life under the stifling restrictions placed on our lands due to their
    status as a Refuge. There are cultural sites, burial grounds, and
    traditional subsistence areas that we cannot access in the summer
    months. These are our homelands and birthright. Indigenous peoples are
    a part of their land and ecosystem in a way that it is difficult for
    western civilization to understand, but I can tell you that this loss
    of access to our lands is like a hole in the heart of our people.
    Before you take anything further from our people, you should focus on
    correcting the wrongs that Congress has already committed.

    Representative Huffman: It's nice to see the Minority care about
    indigenous peoples. However, it seems they only care about Native
    peoples when the issue involves Native corporations. Consider the
    impact of 2,000 acres of oil and gas infrastructure, 100 miles of road
    only covers 750 acres; 2,000 acres of pipelines, drilling pads, and
    roads would greatly harm the environment. How would oil and gas impact
    your communities?

        First of all, as we have stated ad nauseam, Kaktovik is the only
    community within the bounds of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
    the only community in the 1002 Area. The idea that oil and gas
    development would directly affect communities a mountain range, and 382
    and 201 miles away, respectively, for Ms. Demientieff and Mr. Tizya-
    Tramm to whom this question was asked, is far-fetched at best.
        Second, Mr. Huffman, does it make you any better than the Minority
    that you only seem to care about Native peoples when the issue involves
    the environment? You completely ignored us in the creation of this
    bill, attacked the representative of our congressionally created
    regional Native Corporation, and generally spoke down to us the entire
    hearing--do you feel that you have the moral high ground that allows
    you to speak to indigenous peoples about how they live in and manage
    their own homelands in this manner? Would you encourage your children
    to speak to those who disagree with them in such a disrespectful and
    dehumanizing manner that bars any opportunity for constructive
    dialogue? Or, perhaps you are uncomfortable with the Inupiat people
    because we have been successful against all odds; that we have broken
    out of the confining box that western society has placed us in to
    create a place for ourselves outside the system of complete reliance on
    the Federal Government. It seems you and members of your Subcommittee
    would prefer we do nothing but live in the image you've romanticized of
    how Native people in the Arctic should live.
        We reject the false dichotomy implied here of Democrat vs.
    Republican and ask for respect from all parties. The two party system
    is an American creation in which the Inupiat people do not wish to
    participate. Candidates for the highest elected position in our region,
    the Mayor of the North Slope Borough, do not run as members of any
    party; candidates representing our district in the Alaska Senate and
    House of Representatives rarely declare as Republican or Democrat, and
    if anything, generally represent the Democratic Party. We ask that you
    leave politics out of this and not work to exacerbate this manufactured
    division on this issue, which to us is about the cultural and economic
    sustainability of our community. We believe that there is a clear path
    toward compromise on this issue and we welcome the opportunity to work
    with any and all parties that would endeavor to help us reach this
    goal.
        I would like to clarify here that all pre-development activities
    such as seismic, exploration, and construction occur in the winter
    months when the ground is frozen and no caribou occupy the Coastal
    Plain. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement doubles down on
    mitigation measures through extensive, detailed, and comprehensive
    protections for caribou and all wildlife on the Coastal Plain. In the
    most aggressive draft alternative for leasing, operations of heavy
    machinery are forbidden in the area used as calving grounds for caribou
    during the summer months, even though there would never be any
    machinery operated in the summer months during exploration, as
    companies are required to be off the tundra by mid-April. Further, when
    the caribou do use the Coastal Plain, they generally only remain for a
    week or two, and the lease stipulations have outlined an entire month
    of no activity in order to protect the caribou. Additionally, the
    caribou generally use the southeasterly portion of the Coastal Plain
    for calving and the United States Geological Survey has outlined the
    northwesterly portion to have the highest hydrocarbon potential. Based
    on this, there is a low probability of overlap between caribou and
    infrastructure. Timing Limitations, No Surface Occupancies, and lease
    stipulations to protect caribou are designed to be a failsafe and
    provide redundant protections; they are a testament to the work that
    the BLM is putting in to protect this resource.
        Both Ms. Demientieff, who lives in the urban community of Fairbanks
    but has roots in Fort Yukon, and Mr. Tizya-Tramm, from the Old Crow
    area of the Yukon, Canada--to whom this question was asked, have reaped
    the benefits of oil and gas development in their respective homelands.
        Doyon Ltd., the regional corporation representing interior
    villages, from which Ms. Demientieff receives a dividend, is actively
    pursuing lessees for the Yukon Flats Basin--which, it is important to
    note, is adjacent to the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge.
        On the Vuntut Gwitchin Government website, of which Mr. Tizya-Tramm
    is Chief, there is a document called the ``Oil and Gas Engagement
    Policy,'' published in May 2018.
        Thirty-four wells have been drilled in the Eagle Plain Basin in the
    Yukon, the most recent in 2005. Leases were issued to Chance Oil and
    Gas Ltd. in the Eagle Plain Basin in 2007. In 2012, the Yukon
    Geological Survey awarded a contract to Petrel-Robertson Consulting
    Ltd., to initiate a conventional reservoir petrophysical property
    assessment for a further 31 oil and gas exploration wells in the Eagle
    Plain exploration region in the northern Yukon Territory, well within
    the bounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd migration. All of this
    information is available online is obviously relevant to the stated
    interests of H.R. 1146's co-sponsors. I question the truth of the
    statements provided by the Majority witnesses, who answered that
    irreparable damage would be done to their communities and that they
    would not survive when they have been active in pursuing the same
    opportunities within their own communities.

    Representative Don Young: We should consider the people directly
    affected by the legislation, not people who live hundreds of miles
    away. Mr. Rexford, do you live in a wilderness area?

        These lands are not, and never have been wilderness; to us,
    wilderness implies desolation, a place without people. The entire
    Coastal Plain of the Refuge has been continuously inhabited and used by
    the Inupiaq for thousands of years. In fact, the Alaska National
    Interest Land Claims Act (ANILCA) specifically did not make the ``1002
    Area'' wilderness, and this bill is selective in its quotation of that
    Act. While the bill correctly references the purposes of the greater
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, it ignores the specific purposes of
    the Coastal Plain as set forth in Section 1002 of ANILCA. Section 1002
    states the purpose is ``to provide for a comprehensive and continuing
    inventory and assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the
    Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; an analysis of
    the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production,
    and to authorize exploratory activity within the Coastal Plain in a
    manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife
    and other resources.''
        While there are a few people in my community who have a steady
    income and are hesitant about leasing in the Coastal Plain, there is
    not a single person in my community who would like to see the 1002
    Area--the Coastal Plain--become a designated wilderness.

    Representative Don Young: H.R. 1146 makes a wilderness out of an area
    that is not a wilderness. How long have you lived in the area, and have
    you taken care of it?

        Archaeological records show our ancestral occupation of the Coastal
    Plain dates back 14,000 years. We have been incredible stewards of our
    lands and we challenge anyone who would suggest otherwise. I do take
    offense to the notion that this is a wilderness ecosystem. H.R. 1146
    speaks more to the interests of animals who use the land seasonally
    while failing to so much as mention the people who live here and have
    lived here continuously for generation upon generation. As Fenton
    Rexford mentioned in his testimony, this bill--ironically--whitewashes
    the decades of harm that the U.S. Congress and other arms of the
    Federal Government have inflicted on our people. My uncle, a highly
    respected Elder in my community, and I are from two different
    generations of Kaktovikmiut. He witnessed the indifference of the
    military in the 1940s and 1950s as they bulldozed our homes and ice
    cellars, and watched as the Federal Government slowly but surely took
    our subsistence and cultural areas, and boxed in our community--took
    our lands and resources for their own benefit--however they might
    characterize their intentions. We are still fighting to this day for
    the military to clean up the messes that they left in our homelands.
    The Fish and Wildlife Service's regulations move only in one direction,
    a ratchet that advances slowly but surely in the name of public
    interest, one rule at a time, slowly strangling our community. Put
    yourself in our position: what would you call this if not colonialism?
    What about H.R. 1146, which writes our people out of the congressional
    ``findings;'' was the Congressman who wrote these findings unable to
    find us? Was our status as a federally recognized tribal government not
    enough? In Fenton Rexford's words, ``these actions amount to nothing
    more than green colonialism. A political occupation of our lands in the
    name of the environment. Exploitation of the idea of Wilderness for
    economic gain.''
        Mr. Huffman would know better than anybody, as a former attorney of
    the Natural Resources Defense Council, the scale of the Green economy
    at work here. The literal Goliath that we find ourselves fighting. I
    find it ironic that the multi-billion dollar outdoor clothing industry,
    that underwrites multi-million dollar anti-ANWR campaigns, can make
    products out of carbon, manufactured in China--the largest emitter of
    greenhouse gases in the world and are applauded by Members of Congress,
    but the Inupiat people--the first peoples--dare not contemplate
    development in their own homelands.
        For my part, as a young man, there are places that my ancestors
    stood on the tundra that I cannot follow. Places they tracked and
    harvested caribou that I cannot go. This is wrong and rather than make
    reparations for past wrongs, this bill doubles down on them.

    Representative Mike Levin: Climate change is affecting the Arctic
    greatly. Please consider the climate impacts of oil and gas exploration
    in a wilderness. How is climate change impacting you?

        Again, the Coastal Plain is not a wilderness. In her response, Ms.
    Demientieff stated that Arctic villages are falling into the sea. Ms.
    Demientieff does not live in the Arctic, nor do any of Alaska's
    Gwich'in communities live next to the sea, but she is correct that we
    are facing increased erosion from longer ice-free seasons. Newtok, a
    village of 400 people in Western Alaska, is facing imminent relocation
    due to the combination of erosion and permafrost thaw. It has taken
    them over two decades to secure enough funds to begin the relocation
    process; the total project is estimated to cost well over $100 million.
    The Federal Government has provided $15 million of that. On the North
    Slope, we have five coastal communities, one of which has almost 5,000
    people. Two more communities lie on the banks of large rivers. Is the
    Federal Government going to provide the well over $500 million dollars
    to relocate our villages when there are numerous other communities
    facing the same threats, not just in Alaska but also across America?
    No, the burden almost inevitably will be on our local government. How
    do you expect us to bear these burdens of adaptation--because in the
    Arctic we are well beyond the point of mitigation--if you erode our
    ability to fund these projects ourselves? Even assuming the Federal
    Government was willing to provide meaningful aid in our struggle with
    climate change, it is absolutely ludicrous that Members of Congress
    would use that aid or interest in aid as an excuse to railroad our
    efforts to pursue economic self-determination.

    Representative Mike Levin: The Administration is rushing an
    environmental impact statement on an oil and gas leasing program: is
    the impact statement correct in its findings?

        Chief Joseph of Arctic Village states that the Gwich'in people were
    not consulted in the preparation of an EIS. This is blatantly false.
    The Arctic Village Council is a Cooperating Agency on the project and
    is also afforded government-to-government consultation as an Indian
    Tribe. The Gwich'in communities of Arctic Village, Venetie, and Fort
    Yukon are further represented through the Native American Rights Fund
    (NARF), which increases their capacity to effectively engage in the
    process and advocates to the BLM on their behalf. As a fellow
    Cooperating Agency, we have witnessed the participation of the Gwich'in
    people firsthand. The BLM has also held two public meetings over the
    past year in each of the communities of Fort Yukon, Arctic Village, and
    Venetie. The Department of the Interior has worked to include the
    International Porcupine Caribou Board (IPCB) in consultation and has
    held one formal meeting with the IPCB on a leasing program in the
    Coastal Plain, the first meeting of the group since December 2016. The
    Native Village of Kaktovik and the Gwich'in from both the United States
    and Canada all participate in that group.
        The Native Village of Kaktovik has a staff of three people: Tribal
    Administrator, Accountant, and a Homemaker for Elders Services. We have
    less capacity to participate in this process, which is extremely
    rigorous and demands a lot from Tribal Governments, than the Gwich'in
    communities of Arctic Village, Venetie, and Fort Yukon, due to their
    representation through NARF lawyers. Contrary to popular belief, we do
    not receive support from any oil and gas company, trade association, or
    lobbyist to participate and advocate for ourselves in this process. And
    yet, we have been extremely pleased with the BLM, and especially the
    Project Manager on this project, in how they have made themselves
    available for meetings and to answer our questions, comments, and
    concerns on this process, just as they have done for the Gwich'in
    communities participating in this process. As an agency of the Federal
    Government, you should be proud of their work on this EIS. If you read
    the document, I think that you will find that it is robust in its
    analysis and answers all of the questions put forth in this hearing.
    Ranking Member Gosar: Have pipelines affected herds?

        I would like to address Mr. Alexander's response to this statement
    that ``the size of the Porcupine Herd is increasing because it is
    commingling with the Central Herd which is leaving its polluted
    homeland.'' While it is true there is crossover between herds, the idea
    that this intermixing is the sole reason for the population increase of
    the Porcupine Caribou Herd is ridiculous. Science shows that the herd
    is healthy. Further, extensive studies have been conducted on the
    Central Arctic Herd by both Federal and state agencies as well as
    private studies by those working within the region and there is no
    evidence of any sort of pollution of the caribou. The Alaska Department
    of Fish and Games states that oil infrastructure largely has no effect
    on caribou populations as the Central Arctic herd grew substantially--a
    14-fold increase--during peak oil development. Our homelands are not
    polluted. Our people are not polluted. Our animals are not polluted.

    Representative Diana Degette: The size of the caribou herds has
    increased under Obama administration protections, the lands have been
    managed as wilderness because of concerns over caribou herds. What
    would be the impact of infrastructure on the tundra?

        First, caribou are unaware of the political administration in
    office and politics really has little impact on herd size and health.
    While it is true the Porcupine Caribou Herd grew while Mr. Obama was in
    office, it also grew in the Bush administration and continues to grow
    in the Trump administration. The Central Arctic Herd declined under the
    Obama administration, which the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has
    stated is a natural part of their population fluctuation. In other
    areas of the North Slope, the Western Arctic herd grew under President
    Bush, then experienced a decline beginning in 2005, stabilized in 2015
    under Obama, and has recently started an upward trend in the Trump
    administration. Herd size is not dependent on politics, but rather
    where they are at in their natural cycle.
        These lands have arbitrarily been managed as wilderness, despite
    having no wilderness designation, for decades. This was not an Obama
    administration policy and we saw little change in the Trump
    administration management of our homelands from the Obama
    administration, just as we saw no change between the Obama and Bush
    administrations. Again, this issue is not political. There are very
    real impacts to indigenous peoples due to the management of the Coastal
    Plain as wilderness. It is unjust and unfair that we constantly have to
    advocate for our worth in relation to a caribou herd. I am beginning to
    suspect that some Members of Congress think that we are less important
    than caribou. The Coastal Plain is not just the birthing grounds of
    caribou; it is the birthplace of people. As for our own interest in the
    caribou, we subsist on these caribou just as the Gwich'in people do. We
    have and will always protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd, and our
    advocacy will be grounded in truth, Traditional Knowledge, and science.
        Second, Ms. Degette asked this question of Mr. Alexander, who lives
    in Fairbanks and is not even from a community that has tundra. Tundra
    is a very specific biome native above specific latitudes of the
    Northern Hemisphere. Most post-lease activities occur in the winter
    months on ice roads and pads, which have a minimal, if any, impact on
    the tundra. Modern day technologies and stipulations require very
    strict remediation; gravel pads and roads can barely be seen in the
    tundra following development activities. Even wells drilled from
    decades ago with outdated machinery and technology can barely be seen
    in the tundra.
    Chairman Lowenthal asked a series of questions about polar bears.

        The Inupiat witnesses were not asked about polar bears, but as we
    cohabitate these lands with the bears, the Inupiat have extensive
    knowledge on the behavior of polar bears. Polar bears, though the term
    ``stock'' is thrown around a lot in scientific communities and implies
    different sub-species, are all part of one population and are very
    mobile, capable of walking and swimming incredibly long distances.
    Polar bears in Alaska are the same as polar bears in Russia, are the
    same as polar bears in Greenland, etc. We do not believe there is an
    accurate method for counting and monitoring polar bears due to their
    extensive ranges and the extreme distances that they are able to
    travel. It also seems strange that Alaska populations of polar bears
    are so at risk when in Canada; just over the border from Alaska, they
    are commercially hunted.
        In the Coastal Plain, the Fish and Wildlife Service permits
    commercial polar bear viewing for people to see bears in Kaktovik using
    motorboats and vehicles. Industry is held to much higher standards and
    makes every effort possible to avoid interaction with bears. If bears
    were so concerned with industrialization, these tours would not be
    possible, as the polar bears would stay far away from our village.
    There are plenty of other places for them to be since the rest of the
    Coastal Plain is, according to the bill, wilderness. I would also
    recommend that the Subcommittee refer back to the Draft Environmental
    Impact Statement, which makes all coastal areas and lagoons--critical
    polar bear habitat--subject to No Surface Occupancy stipulations.

    Representative Jared Huffman: I believe it is hyperbole to say that
    H.R. 1146 would reverse quality of life gains. It would not undo
    progress that has already been made. Mr. Glenn described his position
    as respecting human rights, but I believe it mostly respects ASRC's
    interests.

        It is absolutely not hyperbole to say that H.R. 1146 would reverse
    quality of life gains. H.R. 1146 would take away our self-determination
    and remove all hope that we will regain access to our ancestral lands.
    We have been working for 40 years toward this goal; it is the single
    most important issue to the people of Kaktovik. Folks from the
    community of Arctic Village on the southern bounds of the Refuge have
    access into the Refuge on motorized vehicles in the summer months, but
    the people of Kaktovik do not; it is an injustice. If human rights were
    as important to the sponsor as this bill implies, you would ensure that
    rights were equal across the board.
        Our local village corporation, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, owns
    the surface of 92,000 acres of the Coastal Plain and has been hamstrung
    in their efforts to create a for-profit business in our community, as
    they have been unable to do anything with their own land since the
    expansion of the Refuge. Congress created Alaska Native Corporations in
    order to create an economic base in even the smallest and most remote
    of communities. Kaktovik never had the chance to create that base. If
    you think that making the whole area a wilderness would not affect
    Kaktovik, you are sadly mistaken or worse, not listening.
        Our region is unique in that our local government, the North Slope
    Borough (NSB), carries out public services that are normally a function
    of the state or Federal Government. The NSB exceeds every other local
    government in the scale and scope of these services, even bearing in
    mind the smaller population of our region. We are talking about the
    largest borough in the Nation, more than half the size of California.
    The NSB has more search-and-rescue assets in our region than the entire
    Federal Government--will the Federal Government pick these up if the
    NSB can no longer afford to operate them? The borough services its own
    police and fire departments, without them the state of Alaska, which is
    experiencing a budget deficit, would have to fund them. The NSB invests
    twice as much as the state does into our regional school district--who
    will pick up these costs if you eliminate their tax base? Will our
    children once again be shipped off to boarding schools? Our Borough is
    the only local government in the Nation with its own Wildlife
    Department that is actively researching and protecting subsistence
    resources. These things can only be sustained through a long-term tax
    base for the North Slope Borough. Without them, our lives and culture
    would surely suffer.

    Given that neither Fenton Rexford nor myself--the only two people who
    testified from the community of Kaktovik--received any additional
    questions from the Subcommittee, it does not seem that this group of
    Representatives is interested in hearing and considering equally the
    views of both indigenous groups with a stake in this issue. Members
    made only a cursory effort to interact with us, the federally
    recognized tribe most impacted, to understand more clearly our point of
    view. In the hearing, you heard from three tribal members and dismissed
    all of them. All of this aside, I hope that you will reach out to the
    Native Village of Kaktovik should members of the Subcommittee need
    further conversations with the people within the proposed wilderness
    area to understand how this bill would affect us, our subsistence
    values, our relationship with our lands and wildlife, or our spiritual
    connection to the Coastal Plain. Again, thank you for your
    consideration.

                                     ______

        Dr. Lowenthal. That concludes the testimony. Now we are
    going to turn to the panel, for Members to begin their
    questioning.
        I remind each Member that you have 5 minutes of time. I
    will start, recognize myself first. I am going to start with
    Dr. Amstrup.
        Dr. Amstrup, in Richard Glenn's written testimony he
    writes, ``There is zero chance that a surveyed seismic line
    will be located on top of denning polar bears.''
        First, do you agree with that? And do you believe there is
    no risk to polar bears if a seismic line doesn't run right over
    the top of a den?
        Dr. Amstrup. My studies have shown that female polar bears
    in dens react in two basic ways. There are some females that
    will respond and move away from their den, come out of their
    den when disturbances are at some distance. In my written
    comments, I use 65 meters as kind of what the data available
    suggest. Other females are much more inclined to just stay in
    the den until the last minute. So, we have a combination of
    both.
        When we see a female emerge from her den early, we don't
    know what the impact of that is. But what we do know is that,
    on average, females that stay in their dens longer, their cubs
    have a higher success rate of surviving. So, to the extent that
    we can minimize the early disruption of denning, it is a good
    thing.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I want to follow up, Dr. Amstrup,
    if you are familiar with the 19 Fish and Wildlife Service memos
    that Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility released
    a couple of weeks ago.
        Dr. Amstrup. Yes.
        Dr. Lowenthal. You are. The cover memo includes discussion
    of polar bears' information needs in the 1002 Area. It says
    there are lots of data gaps, and lists about 24 steps that need
    to be taken, including hiring new biologists, developing better
    den detection tools, studying the response of polar bears to
    infrastructure, and so on, and so on.
        The memo estimates that it would cost approximately $2.7
    million the first year, and about $5 million in future years to
    take these steps. Does this sound reasonable, based on what we
    know and don't know about polar bears?
        Dr. Amstrup. First I would say that, for the kinds of
    studies that were being proposed by the USGS and Fish and
    Wildlife Service personnel that were interviewed for that, I
    think the cost is probably accurate. It is very expensive to
    work up there. A lot of things still need to be tested, so I
    think that that is reasonable.
        But I would also add that we already know what we need to
    know to save polar bears from extinction. We need to stop
    climate change, and we need to protect them on the ground,
    wherever possible, so as many as possible survive until we
    stabilize the climate.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Let's talk about those two things.
        It is our responsibility to deal with climate change, and I
    think that, in part, your testimony has indicated that one of
    the things we need to deal with in all this is the impact of
    climate change.
        But the other point that you have raised is what the
    impacts of development and industrialization of the North
    Slope--how that actual industrialization impacts polar bears.
        We are talking about industrialization of the Arctic Refuge
    Coastal Plain, hundreds of miles of roads, dozens of drill
    pads. Do you believe that this, once this is fully developed,
    is going to impact the polar bear?
        Dr. Amstrup. Yes, I do. The decline that we started to see
    in the late 1990s in the polar bear population in the southern
    Beaufort Sea corresponded with the dramatic expansion of oil
    and gas activity across the North Slope.
        The major driver of that, we are pretty convinced, is the
    loss of the sea ice. But we can't overlook the possibility of
    cumulative effects.
        Right now, 185 kilometers of the coast, if you are a
    pregnant female polar bear coming in to look for a place to
    den, you have 185 kilometers of Northern Alaska that are
    already fragmented by roads, pipeline corridors, et cetera.
    Developing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would add
    another 90-plus kilometers of that. That is one more obstacle,
    a very long obstacle, for polar bears to encounter when they
    are coming in to find a secure place to den.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, and I recognize Representative
    Westerman for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you to the
    witnesses for your testimony today.
        Reverend Lattime, your testimony implied to me that your
    position is that oil and gas production and a personal
    relationship with God are incompatible. You even referenced
    perpetuating the sins of our forefathers.
        My question to you is, is that your position?
        Rev. Lattime. No, I am not here to vilify the oil and gas
    industry. I am a consumer, as all of us are, a consumer. I
    believe, however, that because of climate change, that the
    injury that is happening to our world because of the use of
    petroleum products, we need to now begin to transition to a
    more sustainable way. And that is going to be hard work, it is
    going to take cooperation.
        But, yes, I think it is important that we do that. And, in
    fact, it would probably be a sin for us not to begin using our
    American ingenuity to develop new ways of producing energy than
    sticking to old ways that we now know are clearly, clearly
    destroying our climate.
        Mr. Westerman. And I think our American ingenuity is coming
    up with new energy sources and new ways to use and be stewards
    of what we have.
        Mr. Rexford, in 2018, California imported nearly 400
    million barrels of crude oil from foreign countries, including
    Saudi Arabia, Colombia, and Venezuela. Would the reversal that
    would happen with this bill increase our dependence on foreign
    oil?
        Mr. Rexford. I believe so.
        Mr. Westerman. So, I think the question we should be asking
    is, given that Californians are consuming nearly 700 million
    barrels of crude oil a year, why are we so keen on ensuring
    that it comes from foreign countries with worse environmental
    standards?
        And I have some charts up here that I would like to submit
    for the record.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Westerman. This first chart shows the crude oil supply
    to California refineries. The blue is the supply from Alaska.
    The yellow is the supply from foreign countries. And you can
    see, as the supply from Alaska went down, the supply from
    foreign countries went up.
        [Slide.]
        Mr. Westerman. The second slide just shows the breakdown
    with 37 percent of those supplies coming from Saudi Arabia.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this to the record.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Without objection, they will be submitted
    into the record.

        [The information follows:]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                    __

        Mr. Westerman. Mr. Glenn, in your written testimony you
    mention that over the past few decades, life expectancy, high
    school graduate rates, and overall economic prosperity have all
    increased along the Arctic Slope. Would H.R. 1146 reverse this
    trend?
        Mr. Glenn. Definitely. We come from a real rapid change in
    quality of life over the last few decades. In my mother's young
    years growing up on the Arctic Coastal Plain, house fires were
    common that killed whole families because fire engines couldn't
    get to the homes because the snow drifts blocked the roads in
    the winter months. Just clearing snow is a life-saving effort,
    as anyone knows who lives in a cold place.
        Disease is rampant, people using what would be considered
    third-world conditions for treating their human waste. And that
    has all changed. It has only changed because of one thing,
    because of the presence of an industry in our region that
    enabled us to improve our own quality of life.
        Mr. Westerman. And this bill claims to be about protecting
    human rights. But, Mr. Glenn and Mr. Rexford, what about your
    rights, the rights of the people who live in ANWR?
        Mr. Glenn. In an almost jaw-dropping way, the Inupiat
    people have been left out of this bill. The Inupiat Tribes have
    been left out of this bill. The Inupiat residents have been
    left out of this bill. And I can't, in clear conscience, let
    that go by without recognition. I don't understand it.
        So, yes, I think that this bill is not recognizing--if it
    is about human rights, let's be fair, open it up to everybody.
        Mr. Rexford. I would have to reiterate, or reaffirm, what
    Mr. Glenn was saying. Even our basic rights are being impeded
    upon by the restrictions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
    and their wilderness managed lands, or the Coastal Plain, they
    are managing it as if it is designated as wilderness.
        Those restrictions, I believe, since the creation of the
    Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, created the avenue to create
    more designated wilderness areas in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge, because they were stopping our people from
    getting to their private Native allotments.
        Mr. Westerman. My time, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I now recognize Mr. Huffman for 5
    minutes of questions.
        Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sure you and I
    would love to spend an entire hearing educating some of our
    colleagues about what California is doing to actually
    accelerate the transition away from fossil fuel, although you
    would never know it, from the selective narrative that we have
    heard a little bit about today.
        And Mr. Glenn, I just want to urge you to be careful when
    we talk about these subjects. You were just invited to engage
    in some hyperbole, I believe, by my colleague from Arkansas. We
    are glad that the quality of life has improved in the
    communities that you are from, and that there has been an
    improvement in life expectancy and other health metrics.
        But you just said that this bill would reverse that. I
    think that is a dangerous exaggeration. There is nothing in
    this bill that would undo any of the progress that you have
    made. It would keep you from doing more drilling in the Arctic
    Refuge, but there is certainly nothing that would undo the very
    laudable progress that you have made. So, I want to urge that
    we be careful to stick to the actual truth and the facts.
        Now, sir, you have described your position on this issue,
    in part, as one for respecting human rights. The Inupiat, some
    of them want to see this land developed. So, I want to ask you
    a little bit about ASRC and its interest in this issue, because
    I think it is important that we understand that, as we consider
    your testimony.
        First, is ASRC a tribe? Yes or no.
        Mr. Glenn. No.
        Mr. Huffman. It is a corporation, correct?
        Mr. Glenn. Correct, created by Congress.
        Mr. Huffman. ASRC is, in fact, a multi-billion-dollar oil
    and gas corporation. The last time I checked--although a narrow
    majority of the Supreme Court would disagree with me, and a lot
    of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle would disagree
    with me--but the last time I checked I don't think corporations
    had human rights.
        How much money did ASRC spend lobbying in 2017 to open the
    Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge?
        Mr. Glenn. I don't have that information at hand.
        Mr. Huffman. Let me help you out. According to public
    records, ASRC spent $590,000 lobbying on oil and gas issues in
    2017. In fact, you have been described by the Center for
    American Progress as the most powerful Arctic oil lobby group.
    So, I think it is important that we not couch your interests
    here and your testimony in terms of human rights. This is about
    perhaps an age-old human quality: greed. But it is not about
    human rights.
        And I want to congratulate you, sir, because it looks like
    you are in a great position to make a lot more money. You have
    already made a lot. My understanding is that your corporation
    owns 92,000 acres of subsurface area in the Coastal Plain
    through a land exchange in 1983, correct?
        Mr. Glenn. Correct.
        Mr. Huffman. And you have been leasing that out to Chevron,
    Texaco, and BP, correct?
        Mr. Glenn. It was leased, yes.
        Mr. Huffman. Right. About how much money have you gotten
    from those big oil companies?
        Mr. Glenn. Transactions of leasing are private. The
    corporation keeps those records private.
        Mr. Huffman. Yes, but the GAO has helped us understand that
    a little bit, at least as of 1989, when they looked at this.
    They said you had received, in 1989, over $30 million from
    those big oil companies for leasing those subsurface rights. I
    would love to know what you have made since 1989, but I think
    we can all stipulate that it is probably a lot more.
        By the way, that same GAO report found that your original
    land exchange that gave you those subsurface rights was in
    violation of the public interest.
        But at any rate, during this time you have had, as a result
    of those rights, the only exploratory test well in the Coastal
    Plain, correct?
        Mr. Glenn. Correct.
        Mr. Huffman. And you have maintained the data from that
    exploration as strictly private, proprietary information. You
    are not sharing it with anyone, right?
        Mr. Glenn. That is----
        Mr. Huffman. The government doesn't know it.
        Mr. Glenn. The government knows it. All exploration is
    proprietary.
        Mr. Huffman. The Department of the Interior does not have
    your exploration----
        Mr. Glenn. I am not talking about the state government----
        Mr. Huffman. Right. And as we go forward--and we know that
    the Trump administration is in a red hot hurry to do a lease
    sale at the end of this year--they are completely blind on
    where the oil actually is. But you know where it is, because
    you have those exclusive rights and that exclusive data that
    you are not sharing with anyone. Correct?
        Mr. Glenn. You are talking about one well drilled in over a
    million acres?
        Mr. Huffman. Yes.
        Mr. Glenn. No, you can't determine the quality of any
    single basin by one well in over a million acres.
        Mr. Huffman. Well, you are the only one with any data up
    there. The rest of the world is blind, yet we are rushing
    forward to give this away to big oil. So, I do want to
    congratulate you. You have an Administration right now with the
    Acting Secretary of the Interior, a former oil lobbyist, very
    excited to help you get even richer.
        With that, I yield back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you.
        I am going to take this opportunity to ask a few more
    questions. If Mr. Westerman or Mr. Huffman wants to follow me,
    that is certainly OK also.
        Mr. Brown, first of all, thank you for your moving
    testimony about the impact, and your own personal impact, in
    terms of fishing and what it has meant to you.
        The question I have is why do you think that, of all
    places, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is such a healing
    place for you and other veterans and other under-served youth?
    Why this one place on earth?
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, sir. The Arctic Refuge has impacted
    many lives, youth and veterans, from the experience that I have
    been able to witness and follow through.
        One of the lives that I remembered I will just share with
    you of a young lady by the name of Kolby. She comes from a
    broken home, disconnected background. And she has been with me
    for a little bit close to 3 years. She has grown into a youth
    leader at Soul River.
        She has been to the Arctic twice. Since she has come back,
    she has brought back the learnings and the teachings that
    veterans have been able to educate her about conservation and
    the issues and the sensitivity of what is happening up in the
    Arctic. She has brought that back into her community, and she
    has shared that with her mother and father, down to the basics
    of where her mom and her father, around the ages of 60-plus
    years of age, have never practiced conservation. The basics she
    shared with them was the basics of how to recycle.
        From there on, Kolby has written her own presentation and
    presented this in front of her home high school of her
    experience in the Arctic, and why it is that important.
        But the impact of Kolby doesn't stop there. She has
    actually aged out, and she has left the organization. And then
    one day she comes back in her dress blues, in the officer's
    program, studying to be a doctor, and thinking about how to
    straddle medicine and conservation.
        The impact is great, and it is a domino effect that has
    started from the Arctic down into urban neighborhoods. And
    these are youth that are coming in, and they are getting
    educated, and they are becoming tomorrow's leaders for our
    sensitive environments.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I want to ask you a follow-up question to
    that answer--and that was very helpful to the Committee. You
    describe people who have visited the Arctic National Wildlife
    Refuge and the Coastal Plain, and what that has meant to their
    lives in coming down. Why should other Americans who will
    likely never visit the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--why
    should they care?
        Mr. Brown. My first deployment into the Arctic was a total
    of 23 participants. Sixteen of the participants were youth.
    When they all came back, they slept on the floor almost a
    month. Parents gave me a call and were wondering what was going
    on with their children, why they are not in bed. And I told
    them that they are still trying to hold on to these special
    moments, embrace what they experience, because it is just that
    special.
        Now, what is happening is that domino effect--what I was
    saying earlier, that these parents are now becoming
    cheerleaders of the organization, they are becoming advocates
    of the Arctic, even though they haven't stepped foot in the
    Arctic. They see the domino effect within their kids of what
    has happened, how they have changed. They are a witness. They
    are actually becoming a witness of their children that I have
    not even seen, other than what I am hearing from the parents.
    Parents are now advocating to other parents, telling their
    children, ``You have to join Soul River, Inc. You have to get
    on that deployment and go to the Arctic.''
        So, parents in urban neighborhoods who have never been are
    becoming advocates of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even
    though they have not been, but they believe in the change, in
    what they are seeing in their own children.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you. I am going to yield back, and I
    am going to offer the same opportunity to my colleague,
    Representative Gosar, the Ranking Member, for any----
        Dr. Gosar. I am sorry I finally got back.
        Dr. Lowenthal. Just at the right time to ask some
    questions, if you have any.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Glenn, I am very familiar with the Native
    tribe consortiums. Are they any less tribal?
        Mr. Glenn. No, they are----
        Dr. Gosar. It is just a different way of configuring them,
    right?
        Mr. Glenn. At the creation of Congress, we have been frayed
    into three organizations: the federally recognized tribes; the
    municipalities that take care of municipal services; and the
    Native corporations that settled aboriginal title by an Act of
    Congress. This was not by our design, this was Congress'
    design.
        And I resent the fact that the author of this bill seems to
    think that somehow we are less than human beings because of
    that. We didn't create this. We are trying to abide by the Act
    of Congress in the best way we can.
        Dr. Gosar. I am glad you brought that up, because in
    configuring this, and kind of, I'll be honest with you, forcing
    your hand into this consortium, have they been responsive to
    the individual tribal members more effectively, do you think?
    Because I know in my state of Arizona a number of the tribes
    are actually looking to the consortiums for reorganization,
    because of some of the benefits it has helped them with. Is
    that true?
        Mr. Glenn. By consortiums, I think you mean these Native
    corporations. I think that the Native corporations have brought
    increased benefits back to their membership, their shareholders
    who are tribal members. And by doing so, they have improved the
    quality of life.
        Remember how it all started. It started with the taking of
    aboriginal land that was never lost by any battle, never ceded
    away by any treaty. It took the land and gave us a portion of
    it back as partial compensation for the taking. With this land
    base, we were directed to form these profit-making corporations
    to improve the lives of our shareholders. And that has been our
    goal, that is in our mission, it is still our mission.
        And the fact that we advocate for development on the North
    Slope is less about any single corporate opportunity. As the
    previous person who was questioning me noted, we are a
    successful company. We are all over the place. It is advocating
    for local development in our region to support our local
    government. It is the borough that depends on these tax
    revenues that improves the quality of life with things like
    roads, running water, reliable power.
        Dr. Gosar. So, once again highlight for me, you are no less
    diligent in doing your due diligence about the land. Are you?
        Mr. Glenn. No, we are no less diligent.
        Dr. Gosar. You actually take that into consideration,
    right?
        Mr. Glenn. Yes. If this is about how we treat the land,
    everything, from where we build a road, a water/sewer plant, or
    explore for oil of gas, it is on the land of our ancestors. The
    bones are still in the ground there. We come from a time where
    people weren't even buried within human memory. So, we treat
    all land with respect.
        Yet, we know our communities have to survive. Today's
    modern village communities have a footprint. You can't deny it.
        Dr. Gosar. So, I guess I want to hear it again. You are
    responsive to the whole membership. This is not just a
    corporation. This is a corporation of all peoples within that
    area. Is that true?
        Mr. Glenn. True. The Native corporations are owned by now
    more than 13,000 Inupiat shareholders in our region, and this
    is true for all the regions of the state, probably 100,000
    people.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Rexford, would you agree with the assessment
    that we have just had, this colloquy back and forth?
        Mr. Rexford. What do you mean by that, Mr. Gosar?
        Dr. Gosar. Well, we had a discussion, Mr. Glenn and I, in
    regards to the corporation.
        Mr. Rexford. Oh, yes.
        Dr. Gosar. It is just a title, right? There is no
    difference in how you take care of the land.
        Mr. Rexford. Yes, I agree.
        Dr. Gosar. And being much more responsive to people, right?
        Mr. Rexford. Oh, yes. We are responsive to people, as well.
    When any kind of development occurs in our lands and regions,
    we very much care about the environment and the wildlife. We do
    not want to see them decimated.
        It is unfortunate that we have political science that is
    here to just make things harder for us, is how we see it in
    Kaktovik.
        Dr. Gosar. I brought up earlier, I actually got a chance to
    come up to the North Slope. It was phenomenal to be able to see
    that. When we left Fairbanks, to give you an example, it was 64
    degrees, and it was a blizzard on the North Slope.
        So, I guess one more last thing that I would like to know,
    Mr. Rexford--is the caribou herd going down, or growing?
        Mr. Rexford. It changes every year. If you see a map of the
    migration route of the caribou herd, even we question the
    science behind that. What has happened was historical data
    where the migration of the caribou is not the same as it used
    to be when people started gathering the science. It changes
    every year. You can't put a boundary for caribou. You can't say
    where they are going to migrate or calve at any given year.
        Dr. Gosar. Yes. So, Mr. Glenn and then Mr. Rexford on the
    same question. I was told that once you build a road, it is
    forever changed. I have a very different profile of that.
        Could you address that, Mr. Glenn?
        Mr. Glenn. Thank you.
        Dr. Gosar. And then Mr. Rexford.
        Mr. Glenn. First of all, the trails used for seismic
    exploration are on compressed snow, so there are no roads for
    seismic acquisition. After a brief period of time, there is no
    trace of the seismic exploration on the ground at all.
        Second issue regarding roads is there is a credibility
    question here. There are 457 miles of road that comprises the
    Dempster Highway in Canada that crosses right through the upper
    Eagle Plains where the Gwich'in people hunt caribou off the
    road. So, if the roads are so damaging in one part of the
    caribou's migration route, what about the other part of the
    caribou's route?
        And I don't besmirch them for that, I am proud of them.
    Some of the people get to hunt caribou from the road. That is a
    good thing. What I am trying to say is caribou are relatively
    indifferent to infrastructure.
        And if you are talking about the effect of a road on the
    environment, the gravel road forms an insulating blanket over
    the tundra. If the tundra is changing, it is going to change
    less underneath a well-built road.
        Dr. Gosar. Mr. Rexford, do you have anything to add?
        Mr. Rexford. Thank you. I almost didn't have a chance to
    get here. I was trying to get from my community to Anchorage,
    Alaska to make a flight to here, to DC, from Monday through
    Thursday. And the weather was looking bad all the way past the
    weekend. I am from Kaktovik. We are on Barter Island. We are
    off the highway system. There are no roads coming in and coming
    out of our community. The only way to travel is by air or by
    snow machine or boat.
        Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
        Dr. Lowenthal. I want to thank the witnesses for their
    testimony and the Members for their questioning.
        The members of the Committee may have some additional
    questions for the witnesses from both panels, and we are going
    to ask you, members of the panel and the first panel, to
    respond in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the
    Committee must submit their witness questions within 3 business
    days following this hearing. And the hearing record will be
    open for 10 business days following that for these responses.
        If there is no further business, without objection, the
    Committee stands adjourned.

        [Whereupon, at 5:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                [ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman

                       Slide Presented During the Hearing

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     __

                       Testimony Submitted for the Record
      from Friends of Animals, Wildlife Law Program, Centennial, Colorado
                        by Michael Ray Harris, Director

    Re: The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act
        Dear Committee Members:

        Friends of Animals (FoA) \1\ submits this testimony in support of
    H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act, and
    the repeal of section 20001 of Public Law 115-97. FoA represents a
    broad and diverse constituency that deeply believes that the Arctic
    National Wildlife Refuge deserves protection and that the oil and gas
    activities on the Coastal Plain will cause irreparable harm to the
    crown jewel of our nation's Refuge system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Friends of Animals is a non-profit international advocacy
    organization incorporated in the state of New York since 1957. FoA has
    nearly 200,000 members worldwide. FoA and its members seek to free
    animals from cruelty and exploitation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Arctic Refuge is home to some of the most stunning populations
    of wildlife in the world. In addition to the Porcupine Caribou herd,
    polar bears, and musk oxen, hundreds of species of migratory birds make
    their way to the Coastal Plain for its rich and varied ecosystems and
    excellent denning, nesting, and forage grounds.
        The Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is one of
    our nation's most iconic wild areas and it deserves the most stringent
    levels of protection. H.R. 1146 is an important step toward protecting
    the Refuge from adverse impacts caused by oil and gas development.
        Climate change intensely impacts the Arctic because the Arctic is
    warming at more than double the rate of the rest of the country. The
    Refuge supports the highest density of land denning for polar bears, as
    melting sea ice forces bears inland. In his testimony at the
    subcommittee hearing, Dr. Steven C. Amstrup, the chief scientist of
    Polar Bears International, explained that oil and gas development on
    the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain would accelerate the
    decline of the region's already imperiled polar bear population. Polar
    bears depend on sea ice for catching their prey and sea ice extent is
    directly related to global mean temperature. Allowing oil and gas
    extraction of the Coastal Plain will directly impact the polar bear
    because it perpetuates unsustainable dependence on fossil fuel and
    would remove protections of critically important onshore polar bear
    habitat. In addition, oil and gas development will increase risks to
    maternal denning polar bears and cause fragmentation of vital Arctic
    Refuge polar bear habitats.
        In addition, oil and gas development in the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain would negatively impact the Porcupine
    Caribou herd. Drilling would cause lower birth rates and threaten
    migrations. Pregnant females reside in the Coastal Plain when they give
    birth because the food on the Coastal Plain helps the mother provide
    rich milk and nutrition for the new calves. The breeze on the Coastal
    Plain protects the calves from mosquitoes, which can kill a newborn
    calf. If the caribou were forced to leave their habitat due to oil and
    gas development, it would cause significant risk to the calves because
    the Coastal Plain has fewer predators than other areas.
        Oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development would further
    damage the quality and health of important natural resources like
    wildlife, air, water, and land. These resources have intrinsic value
    and oil and gas development would cause irreversible damage that will
    be felt by many generations to come. Repealing section 20001 of Public
    Law 115-97, H.R. 1146 will help protect our natural world and move
    toward a sustainable future.
        In conclusion, we believe that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
    should remain a symbol of America's purity. Moreover, informed people
    recognize that the 19.6 million-acre Refuge is a national treasure. Its
    abundant wildlife is worth protecting from oil and gas companies for
    oil we don't need. Thus, FoA supports passage of the Arctic Cultural
    and Coastal Plains Protection Act (H.R. 1146).

                                     ______

    Submission for the Record by Rep. Gosar

                      Slides Presented During the Hearing

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   *****
    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             [MISCELLANEOUS MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

                                                          April 8, 2019

    Hon. Alan Lowenthal, Chairman,
    House Subcommittee on Energy Mineral Resources,
    Committee on Natural Resources,
    1324 Longworth House Office Building,
    Washington, DC 20515.

    Re: Correction of Representative Don Young's misleading statements on
            the Gwich'in Nation

        Dear Chairman Lowenthal:

        We write today on behalf of the Gwich'in Nation to request you
    submit this letter to the official record for the U.S. House of
    Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals hearing on H.R.
    1146, The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act,'' that took
    place on March 26, 2019.
        The Gwich'in Steering Committee was created by the Gwich'in Nation
    to speak with a unified voice on behalf of our tribes across the United
    States and Canada to protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd. During the
    hearing, Representative Don Young (R, AK) misrepresented himself as
    Gwich'in and disrespected the Gwich'in representatives who were invited
    to testify at the hearing. Representative Young made several incorrect
    and inappropriate remarks, including the following:

         Representative Young stated ``My tribe is Gwich'in.'' This
                is false. Representative Young is not Gwich'in, and is in
                fact originally from California, not Alaska. Having a
                native spouse does not confer tribal membership, nor does
                it provide an inherent understanding of native issues or a
                right to speak on behalf of tribes. Representative Young is
                not an appointed member of the Gwich'in Steering Committee,
                nor is he a member of any Alaska Native tribe.
                Representative Young does not speak for or represent the
                Gwich'in.

         Representative Young stated the Gwich'in are
                ``foreigners'' and do not live in the Refuge. For millennia
                the Gwich'in have lived within the boundary of the
                Porcupine Caribou Herd's range, including in what is now
                known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and have
                relied on the herd for sustenance and our way of life. The
                Gwich'in live in fifteen villages spread across a vast area
                extending from northeast Alaska to the northern Yukon and
                Northwest Territories in Canada. The ancestral homeland of
                the Gwich'in follows the migratory route of the caribou.
                The Gwich'in call the Coastal Plain area under
                consideration in H.R. 1146 ``Izhit gwat'san gwandaii
                goodlit,'' ``the sacred place life begins.'' The Gwich'in
                view this area as too sensitive and sacred to visit, as it
                serves as the calving ground for the Porcupine Caribou
                Herd. Oil and gas activities on the Coastal Plain would
                inflict devastating impacts on the Porcupine Caribou Herd,
                and negatively affect Gwich'in subsistence and cultural
                practices. Development in this sacred area is an affront to
                our human rights and way of life.

         There have been assertions that the Gwich'in
                representatives are engaged in the fight to protect the
                Refuge because of ``free trips'' outside of Alaska,
                suggesting Gwich'in representatives are engaging in
                tourism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Gwich'in
                representatives make the arduous journey from Alaska and
                Canada to DC, which requires a minimum of two flights and
                14 plus hours of travel time, to defend the traditional
                calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou herd in front of
                US officials and leadership. This means spending time away
                from families and taking unpaid leave to fight to protect
                the refuge. We do this because of the importance of the
                Porcupine Caribou Herd and its birthing grounds to our
                identity and way of life, and the need to protect the herd
                for future generations. Our very survival depends on its
                protection.
        Representative Young does not speak on behalf of the Gwich'in
    Nation.

        Thank you for considering these comments and submitting them to the
    official record.

                Sincerely,

            Bernadette Demientieff, Ex.
            Director,                     Galen Gilbert, First Chief,
            Gwich'in Steering Committee   Arctic Village

            Dana Tizya-Tramm, First
            Chief,                        Sam Alexander,
            Old Crow Yukon Territory      Gwich'in Leader

                                     ______

                       Testimony Submitted for the Record
                              from Allen E. Smith
                              Olympia, Washington

    Re: H.R. 1146, The Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act

    To: The Honorable Alan Lowenthal, Chairman and Members of the
    Subcommittee:

        Thank you for the opportunity to present my written testimony to be
    included in the hearing record in support of H.R. 1146, the Arctic
    Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act of 2019, an ACT to amend P.L.
    115-97 to repeal Section 20001, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge oil
    and gas program. My name is Allen E. Smith and I reside in Olympia,
    Washington. I am an environmental consultant and writer with over 45
    years-experience with Alaska wildlife and wilderness conservation
    issues. I served The Wilderness Society for 20 years as Vice President,
    Alaska Regional Director and Senior Policy Analyst, and Arctic
    Consultant. I previously served as President/CEO of Defenders of
    Wildlife, Executive Officer of the Land & Natural Resources Division,
    USDOJ, and as Chief Financial Officer of the Sierra Club. I served in
    the U.S. Marine Corps and graduated from the University of NH in
    Business and Engineering.
        Over the past 30 years I have been deeply privileged to visit and
    experience the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain
    professionally and recreationally at least a dozen times and have
    witnessed in awe its extraordinary wildlife and wilderness values. I
    have also visited Arctic Village, Venetie, and Kaktovik and witnessed
    the reliance that the Gwich'in and Inupiat indigenous Native
    communities place on the subsistence values the wildlife of the Coastal
    Plain provide for their historic and cultural subsistence lifeways. The
    current administration has failed to recognize the significant negative
    impacts proposed oil and gas development would have on the Arctic
    Refuge Coastal Plain and those indigenous Native communities, forcing
    them from their historical and cultural subsistence way of life and
    from their homelands. I have also witnessed the increasingly
    significant impacts of climate change rapidly taking place at an
    alarming rate in the Arctic that will be exacerbated by oil and gas
    development on the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain and prevent the
    continuation of development as permafrost melts.
        Congress erred in passing Section 20001 of P.L. 115-97, the 2017
    Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Besides creating an unrealistic tax revenue
    expectation from coastal plain development, the unintended consequence
    of Congress' action is ``termination legislation'' because it will
    certainly force the Gwich'in to leave their way of life because of the
    irreparable harm development will cause to their subsistence lifeways.
    It is equally wrong to allow the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDI)
    to rush ahead with leasing plans that exceed the limits of P.L. 115-97
    and would destroy the extraordinary wild natural values found there
    that those communities rely on for their very lifeway. Further, the
    administration has not considered that development would hasten climate
    change on the Coastal Plain, is inadequate in its analysis of these
    negative outcomes, and does not meet the requirements of the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). There is ample evidence that we cannot
    burn all the hydrocarbons on Earth and overcome the ravages of climate
    change. If we are to arrest climate change, it does not matter what oil
    and gas may or may not be in the Arctic Refuge--we should let it be and
    not develop it. Congress should repeal Section 20001 of P.L. 115-97
    now.
        Congress passed the landmark Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act P.L. 96-487 (ANILCA) in 1980, which proscribed the
    inter-related purposes of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in law to
    protect it as follows:

            ANILCA Sec. 303. (2)(B) The purposes for which the Arctic
            National Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be managed
            include--

            (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in
            their natural diversity including, but not limited to, the
            Porcupine caribou herd (including participation in coordinated
            ecological studies and management of this herd and the Western
            Arctic caribou herd), polar bears, grizzly bears muskox, Dall
            sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, peregrine falcons and
            other migratory birds and Arctic char and grayling;

            (ii) to fulfill the international treaty obligations of the
            United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their
            habitats;

            (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with the purposes set
            forth in subparagraphs (i) and (ii), the opportunity for
            continued subsistence uses by local residents; and

            (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a
            manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i),
            water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge.

        In enacting Section 20001 of P.L. 115-97, the 2017 Tax Cuts and
    Jobs Act, Congress mistakenly added another purpose to the Arctic
    Refuge--to provide for an oil and gas program on the Coastal Plain.
    This additional purpose is totally inconsistent and incompatible with
    the legally established ANILCA purposes of the Refuge listed above
    because it will contravene those ANILCA purposes to cause lasting
    damage to animal and plant diversity, disrupt subsistence activities,
    upset water quality and quantity, and disregard international wildlife
    protection treaty obligations legally demanded by those ANILCA
    purposes. USDI has failed to analyze how oil and gas development will
    interfere with the originally stated purposes of the Refuge.
        Since the passage of P.L. 115-97, USDI has ignored the legal
    requirements to first establish and evaluate an oil and gas program
    under NEPA review before making plans for lease sales, and has instead
    rushed ahead with a plan and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) that
    makes wholesale allowances for major oil and gas support infrastructure
    to be built outside of the 2,000 acre development footprint legally
    allowed under P.L. 115-97, Section 20001 in order to fast-track lease
    sales as soon as possible. These brazen steps resulted in limited
    public access and participation in the process while USDI continued to
    work behind the scenes during the recent government shutdown. USDI's
    compressed EIS scoping, inadequate Draft EIS (DEIS), omission of
    science reviews, disregard of the 2,000 acre footprint limitation,
    disregard for indigenous Native knowledge, lack of thorough analysis,
    and short public comment period has created a development disaster
    waiting to happen. USDI has totally failed to meet its legal
    obligations for development in the Arctic Refuge and should not be
    allowed to proceed with it.
        There are internationally significant wildlife species and
    populations protected by the ANILCA purposes for the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge and international treaties that rely on the coastal
    plain for critical habitat and food that would be irreparably harmed by
    oil and gas development there, as would water resources.
        The 200,000 animal Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) annually migrates
    from Canada onto the Coastal Plain and fully occupies its entire area
    moving back and forth across the plain like a giant wave of life for
    calving, replenishing nutrition, predator avoidance, and insect relief.
        Polar bears are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
    Act and 77 percent of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is designated
    polar bear Critical Habitat. The Southern Beaufort Sea population of
    polar bears has lost about half its population since 1980, about one-
    third of these bears increasingly depend on the Coastal Plain to den
    and give birth to their cubs as sea ice retreats, and this area of the
    Arctic Refuge is now one of the world's largest land based polar bear
    denning sites.
        Over 200 species of birds from every U.S. state and six continents
    nest on the Arctic Refuge coastal plain which provides essential
    nesting, foraging, and migratory stop-over for millions of birds each
    year.
        The Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is one of the world's most
    extraordinary intact wilderness and wildlife areas by any measure of
    ecological value or wilderness character as officially reported through
    decades of detailed studies of it and by those who have traveled there
    and bear witness to those internationally unique values. As an
    undisturbed ecosystem, it is also a benchmark standard to measure the
    health of the planet against.
        Imagine a place so vast and wild that you see something new every
    time you visit it and yet each time you see unique ecological patterns
    shaped by millennia of repeated annual cycles on a grand scale as old
    as time. A place where bands of white Dall sheep peer down on you from
    the cliffs above as you float north through the Brooks Range toward the
    Coastal Plain; where millions of birds come from all over the world to
    sing, feed, breed and fledge their young; where tens of thousands of
    caribou move back and forth across the Coastal Plain between the
    Beaufort Sea and the Brooks Range like a sea of life to feed, give
    birth, and avoid predators and mosquitoes; where wolves and grizzly
    bears chase caribou, where Grizzly bears boldly come into your camp;
    where you can see 88 muskox in the course of one day as you float down
    the Canning River; where polar bears den and have their cubs in winter
    and line the gravel crest of Icy Reef on the coast with their post-hole
    tracks in summer for miles and miles; and a place where a large lone
    wolf trots past your rest stop along the Hulahula River under the pale
    yellow light of a late summer evening briefly pausing to look you over.
    Having personally witnessed all of that in this great wilderness is an
    unforgettable privilege, in a place so vibrant that wildness runs
    through it like the blood of life. It is the gold standard for all
    Wilderness Areas, a magical place.
        The relatively narrow coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge cannot be
    developed without destroying those ecological and wilderness values.
    The density and intensity of wildlife use there is too great and
    geographically concentrated to absorb any industrial development. The
    vast network of seismic survey lines, hundreds of miles of permanent
    roads and pipelines, airstrips, and associated infrastructure that
    would be brought by development would be like a coarsely woven giant
    fish-net thrown across the Coastal Plain ensnaring that wildlife and
    displacing it from its historic migrations and natural patterns of use.
    One has to look no farther than west to Prudhoe Bay to see what the
    result would be--a densely developed industrial zone visible from space
    where climate change is already taking its toll with rising
    temperatures, melting permafrost, collapsing oil wells, and shorter
    frozen ground seasons for mechanized over tundra access.
        By contrast, a national investment in an energy policy that
    emphasizes Conservation, Alternatives, Renewables, and Efficiencies to
    reduce our dependence on all oil would be environmentally,
    economically, and nationally more secure and would eliminate the need
    to sacrifice this and other ecological treasures for whatever oil may
    or may not be there--Call it the C.A.R.E. energy policy. We cannot
    survive if we continue to pursue energy policies that would have us
    burn all of Earth's hydrocarbons. In the face of rapidly increasing
    impacts of climate change can we afford not to make that investment in
    a C.A.R.E. energy policy?
        The human rights of indigenous Native Athabaskan Gwich'in Indians
    living in villages south and east of the Brooks Range in Alaska and
    Canada would be compromised and their reliance on the Porcupine Caribou
    Herd for their cultural and traditional subsistence way of life would
    be destroyed by oil and gas development on the Arctic Refuge Coastal
    Plain. That would be an environmental racial injustice of monumental
    proportions.
        As a non-Native, I cannot speak for the Gwich'in, but from visiting
    their villages and working with them I can make value based
    observations about their needs and human rights. They are indigenous
    Natives who were here first and have a legal right to exist and prosper
    in their cultural and traditional way of life as they have for
    millennia. Examining the purposes of ANILCA and the Arctic Refuge and
    the history of Native law shows that Congress has guaranteed those
    rights. Any claims that have been made by proponents of oil and gas
    development that the Gwich'in must adapt in the face of our perceived
    need for oil are condescending and unfounded. To the Gwich'in, the
    Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain is ``the sacred place where life begins.''
    Must we destroy them and their culture that others might have the last
    drop of oil? No. Morally, that cannot be justified. We are the ones who
    must adapt.
        Oil and gas development cannot take place on the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain without contravening the legal purposes
    of the Arctic Refuge established by Congress under ANILCA and cannot be
    undertaken there without destroying the wildlife and wilderness values
    protected in law causing irreparable harm to the subsistence
    communities that rely on those values. No amount of analysis can
    honestly escape the devastating realities of what that development
    would do to the internationally significant wildlife values and
    subsistence communities that rely on that extraordinary wilderness.
    Whatever oil and gas may or may not be there, we should leave it there.

        The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain is wild and free,
    let it be.

        I oppose any oil and gas development on the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge Coastal Plain and strongly recommend that Congress pass
    H.R. 1146 to amend P.L. 115-97, the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act to
    repeal Section 20001.

        Again, thank you for the opportunity to submit my written testimony
    to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to be included in
    the hearing record on H.R. 1146.

                                     ______

    [LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
                                OFFICIAL FILES]

    Submission for the Record by Rep. DeGette

        --  Community Hearing to Defend the Arctic National
                Wildlife Refuge, held March 7, 2019 at The Alliance
                Center, Denver, Colorado.

                                     [all]