[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 6285, ``ALASKA'S RIGHT TO
PRODUCE ACT OF 2023''
=======================================================================
LEGISLATIVE HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
MINERAL RESOURCES
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-79
__________
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
54-199 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
BRUCE WESTERMAN, AR, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Vice Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Tom McClintock, CA CNMI
Paul Gosar, AZ Jared Huffman, CA
Garret Graves, LA Ruben Gallego, AZ
Aumua Amata C. Radewagen, AS Joe Neguse, CO
Doug LaMalfa, CA Mike Levin, CA
Daniel Webster, FL Katie Porter, CA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR Teresa Leger Fernandez, NM
Russ Fulcher, ID Melanie A. Stansbury, NM
Pete Stauber, MN Mary Sattler Peltola, AK
John R. Curtis, UT Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, NY
Tom Tiffany, WI Kevin Mullin, CA
Jerry Carl, AL Val T. Hoyle, OR
Matt Rosendale, MT Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Lauren Boebert, CO Seth Magaziner, RI
Cliff Bentz, OR Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Jen Kiggans, VA Ed Case, HI
Jim Moylan, GU Debbie Dingell, MI
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Susie Lee, NV
Mike Collins, GA
Anna Paulina Luna, FL
John Duarte, CA
Harriet M. Hageman, WY
Vivian Moeglein, Staff Director
Tom Connally, Chief Counsel
Lora Snyder, Democratic Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
PETE STAUBER, MN, Chairman
WESLEY P. HUNT, TX, Vice Chair
ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, NY, Ranking Member
Doug Lamborn, CO Jared Huffman, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Kevin Mullin, CA
Paul Gosar, AZ Sydney Kamlager-Dove, CA
Garret Graves, LA Seth Magaziner, RI
Daniel Webster, FL Nydia M. Velazquez, NY
Russ Fulcher, ID Debbie Dingell, MI
John R. Curtis, UT Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
Tom Tiffany, WI Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Matt Rosendale, MT Susie Lee, NV
Lauren Boebert, CO Vacancy
Wesley P. Hunt, TX Vacancy
Mike Collins, GA
John Duarte, CA
Bruce Westerman, AR, ex officio
CONTENTS
Page
Hearing held on Wednesday, November 29, 2023..................... 1
Statement of Members:
Stauber, Hon. Pete, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Minnesota......................................... 1
Westerman, Hon. Bruce, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arkansas.......................................... 3
Ocasio-Cortez, Hon. Alexandria, a Representative in Congress
from the State of New York................................. 12
Statement of Witnesses:
Panel I:
Feldgus, Steve, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals
Management, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC..... 5
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Questions submitted for the record....................... 10
Panel II:
Boyle, John, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural
Resources, Anchorage, Alaska............................... 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Questions submitted for the record....................... 45
Leavitt, Doreen, Secretary, Inupiat Community of the Arctic
Slope, Utqiagvik, Alaska................................... 45
Prepared statement of.................................... 47
Questions submitted for the record....................... 52
Itchoak, Karlin, Alaska State Director, The Wilderness
Society, Anchorage, Alaska................................. 52
Prepared statement of.................................... 54
Lampe, Charles, President, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,
Kaktovik, Alaska........................................... 57
Prepared statement of.................................... 59
Questions submitted for the record....................... 64
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
Submissions for the Record by Representative Stauber
White House Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation, November 30, 2022........................ 36
Submissions for the Record by Representative Ocasio-Cortez
Environment America Research & Policy Center, Letter to
the Committee dated November 29, 2023.................. 78
Gwich'in Steering Committee, Statement for the Record.... 79
Submissions for the Record by Representative Kamlager-Dove
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, Former Mayer of Nuiqsut, Statement
for the Record......................................... 29
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 6285, TO RATIFY AND APPROVE ALL
AUTHORIZATIONS, PERMITS, VERIFICATIONS, EXTENSIONS, BIOLOGICAL
OPINIONS, INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENTS, AND ANY OTHER APPROVALS OR ORDERS
ISSUED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL LAW NECESSARY FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND
ADMINISTRATION OF THE COASTAL PLAIN OIL AND GAS LEASING PROGRAM, AND
FOR OTHER PURPOSES, ``ALASKA'S RIGHT TO PRODUCE ACT OF 2023''
----------
Wednesday, November 29, 2023
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:20 a.m. in
Room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Pete Stauber
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Stauber, Gosar, Graves, Fulcher,
Tiffany, Rosendale, Hunt, Duarte, Westerman; Ocasio-Cortez,
Huffman, and Kamlager-Dove.
Also present: Representative Peltola.
Mr. Stauber. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral
Resources will come to order.
Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority
Member.
I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Alaska,
Mrs. Peltola, be allowed to participate in today's hearing.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. PETE STAUBER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Mr. Stauber. Thank you all for being here today to discuss
this important piece of legislation.
I am proud to introduce the bipartisan Alaska's Right to
Produce Act of 2023, which reverses the Biden administration's
recent actions that seek to put an end to oil and gas
production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, and
the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Just 2\1/2\ months ago, this Administration announced its
plans to cancel awarded leases in the 1002 Area of ANWR, while
simultaneously announcing it would lock up 13 million acres in
the NPR-A. As we heard in the hearing in September, these
decisions were pushed forward without any consultation or
consideration for the people and communities on the North Slope
of Alaska who will be impacted the most.
Unfortunately, these communities are the latest victims of
this Administration's anywhere-but-America, any-worker-but-
American agenda. Republicans in Congress have continuously
fought to ensure that we produce energy here, instead of
relying on nations that are hostile towards the United States
and have weak environmental and labor standards, if at all.
North Slope communities have worked closely with energy
producers for decades to responsibly produce energy in a manner
that directly benefits Alaska Natives. We should be doing
everything we can to ensure that responsible production can
continue on the North Slope, rather than shutting down
production and relying on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, or Saudi
Arabia for increased oil and gas production.
Sadly, the Biden administration's actions that we will be
discussing today only do the opposite. The revocation of the
ANWR leases will slow development that is relied upon by
communities to fund essential services. Oil and natural gas
production in Alaska generated $3.1 billion in state and local
revenue in 2019, and supported over 77,000 direct and indirect
jobs, many of which benefit North Slope communities and Alaska
Natives throughout that great state.
Further, revoking these leases will have a chilling effect
on future investments in the area, especially since these
leases were issued through a lease sale that was mandated by
Congress.
Additionally, the NPR-A proposed rulemaking goes against
the long-standing statutory balance that the NPR-A be managed
for both energy production and wildlife resources. The proposed
rule creates a de facto wilderness area by creating impossible
hurdles for energy development across the reserve. This is an
area that was specifically set aside by Congress for its oil
and gas potential.
And I will read that again: This is an area that was
specifically set aside by Congress for its oil and gas
potential.
To make matters worse, both of these actions were rushed
forward without any consultation with elected leaders and
communities on the North Slope or the Alaska Natives that will
be most affected. In fact, both of these actions were announced
at the beginning of whaling season for these communities.
When pressed for more time to comment on the NPR-A
rulemaking, political appointees within the agency told
community members that they could not extend the comment period
due to Congressional Review Act timelines. Alaskans wishing to
comment on the actions in ANWR were greeted with a roughly
1,400-page draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
that they were given 60 days to look through, again, in the
middle of whaling season.
Simply put, my bill would right these wrongs. It would do
so by promptly reinstating the ANWR leases, while protecting
them from similar political attacks in the future and canceling
the Bureau of Land Management's ongoing rulemaking with respect
to the NPR-A.
I appreciate my colleagues on the dais who have co-
sponsored this legislation, including Representative Peltola,
who represents Alaska and these North Slope communities. And I
am proud to also have the support of both of Alaska's United
States Senators, who have introduced companion legislation in
the Senate.
I look forward to our discussion here today, and I am
particularly eager to hear from some of the elected leaders
from the North Slope, as their voices are crucial to this
conversation and have thus far been stifled by the Biden
administration.
With that, I normally would yield to the Ranking Member.
She is on her way here, but I am going to yield to the Chair of
the Full Committee, Representative Bruce Westerman.
Chair, you are up.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRUCE WESTERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank you
for your work on this important piece of legislation, along
with Representative Peltola from Alaska. It is a bipartisan
piece of legislation, just like the law that is, I think, being
broken by the Administration was a bipartisan piece of
legislation.
And as I think about this hearing, our witness today from
the Department of the Interior, if there is one thing you
should probably be thankful for is that Don Young is no longer
with us, because I would hate to sit in that chair and hear the
wrath of Don Young on the job that this Administration is
doing, and particularly the Department of the Interior. I will
try to say it how I think Don would say it, is this is
pathetic, you should be ashamed. The Administration should be
ashamed. This is unthinkable, what this Administration is doing
to the people of Alaska.
I have been fortunate enough to visit the North Slope of
Alaska, and to see firsthand the responsible energy production
occurring there, as well as the numerous positive effects it
has had on the surrounding communities.
This Administration's actions in Alaska, while devastating,
are actually not surprising. From the outset, the
Administration has done everything in its power to stop
domestic energy production both onshore and offshore, which
makes us more dependent on foreign energy production. We are
not using less energy in this country, we are just not
producing as much as we could be.
Meanwhile, President Biden and other members of his
Administration have openly begged from and offered concessions
to countries like Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuela to
produce more oil and gas. These efforts are nonsensical, as
domestic energy production in America is obviously much more
environmentally friendly than production overseas. We have
heard this statistic batted around many times, but Russian
natural gas to Europe has an emission profile 41 percent
greater than the U.S. LNG exported to Europe.
The production footprint in the Arctic National Refuge is
limited by law to 2,000 acres within the roughly 19-million-
acre refuge. That equates to 1/10,000 of ANWR's total acreage.
We know demand for oil and gas will continue to increase in the
foreseeable future, so why not produce these resources
responsibly in places like Alaska, where the environmental
footprint will be minimal, and communities will receive the
added benefits of revenues and jobs?
Nearly one in four jobs in Alaska depend on the oil and gas
industry, and roughly 40 percent of Alaska's general fund
revenue came from oil and gas production in Fiscal Year 2019.
Shutting down this revenue lifeline would be absolutely
devastating to all Alaskans, and would especially decimate
Native communities on the North Slope. Without jobs, people may
leave these communities, jeopardizing the culture and social
fabric of the North Slope. Even though that may be what the
Biden administration wants to happen, we just can't let this
happen.
Secretary Haaland would be aware of what is at stake if she
actually took the time to meet with local communities and
elected leaders from the North Slope. Unfortunately, she has
shunned these voices, refusing to meet with them on several
occasions while they have been in DC. Clearly, this
Administration is only interested in hearing the tribal voices
that agree with them.
This Administration enjoys ignoring the law when it is not
convenient for them. The Tax Cut and Jobs Act mandated that the
Secretary establish and administer a competitive oil and gas
program for the leasing, development, production, and
transportation of oil and gas, and it required two lease sales
in ANWR. Yet, the Biden administration simply canceled all of
the lease sales, all the leases that were issued in the first
lease sale, blocking production and associated revenues and
jobs for local communities along with it. This is many things,
but a competitive oil and gas program is not one of them.
Additionally, NEPA reforms in the Fiscal Responsibility
Act, which, again, was a bipartisan bill signed into law by
President Biden, established 150-page limits for environmental
impact statements and mandated that agencies consider a
reasonable range of alternatives that are ``technically and
economically feasible.'' So, how did the Department respond to
this language? They issued a 1,400-page draft SEIS in the
middle of whaling season, and told Alaska communities to
comment in 60 days.
Now, we are being forced to legislate on this issue again
because this Administration refuses to follow the law, and
refuses to listen to the people who will be impacted the most
by their actions. This is unacceptable.
I hope people are suing this Administration because they
are blatantly breaking the law, breaking a law that was passed
by Congress, a bipartisan law, and smiling all the way there
while they are doing it. This isn't how this country was
designed to be operated. It is certainly not going to work out
well for us if we can't hold administrations accountable for
the actions and the laws that are passed in Congress.
I want to thank Chairman Stauber again for introducing this
bill and for holding the hearing today. I look forward to
hearing the testimony.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Normally, we would go to
the Ranking Member, but I want to give her time to get set
here.
Dr. Feldgus, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Lands and
Minerals Management, we appreciate you being here, and you are
up for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVE FELDGUS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAND
AND MINERALS MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
WASHINGTON, DC
Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much, Chairman Stauber, Ranking
Member Ocasio-Cortez, Chairman Westerman, and members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Steve Feldgus, and I am the Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management at the
Department of the Interior, and I am here to provide testimony
on H.R. 6285, the Alaska's Right to Produce Act, concerning the
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge.
The North Slope of Alaska is a vast landscape of rich
cultural traditions and thriving ecological diversity that
sustains Indigenous people and cultures and a wide variety of
wildlife. It is one of the best intact ecosystems in the United
States, and home to communities that have lived and worked on
these lands for countless generations.
It is also one of the most climatically important
landscapes in the United States, preserving vast amounts of
carbon in its permafrost soils while simultaneously
experiencing some of the most rapid impacts due to climate of
any U.S. ecosystem.
Within that landscape, DOI agencies are entrusted with
unique management responsibilities, including that of the
Arctic Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The
19.3 million-acre Arctic Refuge is located on the traditional
homelands of the Inupiat and Gwich'in people, and managed by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All activities on the
Refuge are reviewed for compatibility with statutory purposes,
including conserving fish and wildlife populations and
habitats, international treaty obligations, subsistence
opportunities, and ensuring water quality.
In 2017, the passage of the Tax Act amended management of
the Arctic Refuge to provide for an oil and gas program on the
1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain, alongside the existing
statutory purposes.
Located approximately 100 miles to the west of the Arctic
Refuge, the NPR-A spans roughly 23 million acres of largely
intact Arctic landscapes. Over 40 communities continue to
harvest subsistence resources that rely on the Reserve,
including caribou, shore and waterbirds, and other fish and
wildlife species.
Under the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act, Congress
directed the BLM to balance oil and gas development with the
management and protection of sensitive landscapes, known as
special areas, and other surface resources across the reserve.
While the NPR-A provides important subsistence resources, it
also generates tens of millions of dollars in oil and gas
revenue each year, and will remain an important energy resource
for some time.
Turning to the subject of this hearing, H.R. 6285 would
impede the Department's effort to better balance the management
of these important landscapes, undermine ongoing public
processes, and threaten the health of those landscapes and the
subsistence resources they rely on.
Through the bill's management restrictions in the Arctic
Refuge, H.R. 6285 would undermine the public input and
evaluation required under the National Environmental Policy
Act, prohibit the Bureau of Land Management from addressing
identified deficiencies in the previous review regarding
potential leasing in the Coastal Plain, and cut out the public
from that process.
In addition, the bill would interfere with the Department's
ability to fulfill its obligation to manage the Arctic Refuge
for all of the purposes required by law, including the
protection of fish and wildlife habitats and subsistence
activities.
Similarly, by blocking the proposed NPR-A rule, the bill
prevents the Department's efforts to update the nearly 45-year-
old regulatory framework governing the NPR-A, and better align
management of the NPR-A with statutory obligations. That rule
will help BLM respond to the dramatically changing conditions
in the Arctic, while ensuring maximum protection of special
areas as required by statute, protecting subsistence
activities, and ensuring a balance for surface resources in
future oil and gas activities in the NPR-A.
The BLM remains committed to ensuring that the Federal oil
and gas program serves the best interests of the American
people by promoting the highest safety, labor, environmental,
and public engagement standards and securing a fair return for
the American taxpayer. The restrictions imposed by H.R. 6285
would undermine that work, preventing the BLM from implementing
existing congressional direction to balance oil and gas leasing
and development with explicit requirements to protect fish and
wildlife, recreation, and subsistence in the Arctic Refuge and
the NPR-A.
The BLM is working diligently to move the oil and gas
program in Alaska forward through the draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement and the NPR-A rule. H.R. 6285
reverts the BLM's oil and gas program in Alaska back to
standards that have been shown to be inadequate and, therefore,
the Department strongly opposes the bill.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today,
and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Feldgus follows:]
Prepared Statement of Steven H. Feldgus, Ph.D., Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Land and Minerals Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior
on H.R. 6285
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on
H.R. 6285, the Alaska's Right to Produce Act, concerning the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (Arctic Refuge).
The North Slope of Alaska includes lands that sustain people,
wildlife, and fish in northern Alaska and are part of a vast landscape
of rich cultural traditions and thriving ecological diversity. Both the
Arctic Refuge and the NPR-A are located on the North Slope. These lands
and waters are a critical home to migratory and resident wildlife and
have unique recreational values. The Arctic Refuge--approximately the
size of South Carolina--is located on the traditional homelands of the
Inupiat and Gwich'in peoples. These Tribes, among others, have co-
existed with these lands since time immemorial--their history, sacred
sites, and Indigenous Knowledge are written in the landscape. Over 40
communities continue to rely on the resources located in the NPR-A for
subsistence, including caribou, shore and waterbirds, and many other
plant, fish, and wildlife species. As directed by Congress, the Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) balances resource development with the
management and protection of sensitive landscapes--known as Special
Areas--and surface resources across the Reserve.
On September 8, 2023, the BLM published a proposed rule to update
its regulations for the management and protection of the NPR-A (NPR-A
rule). The proposed rule aims to update the nearly 45-year-old
regulatory framework to respond to the dramatically changing conditions
in the Arctic while ensuring that the BLM continues to meet the
statutory direction under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act
(NPRPA), Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA), and other
authorities. This proposed rule also protects long-standing subsistence
activities for Alaska Native communities and strengthens the role of
Tribal governments in the management of public lands.
H.R. 6285 would block the BLM from managing the NPR-A as the NPRPA
requires: to ensure maximum protection of Special Areas while also
protecting subsistence activities and ensuring a balance for surface
resources in future oil and gas activities in the NPR-A. The bill would
also reduce opportunities for meaningful public input and engagement on
that management.
Similarly, the bill would undermine the public input and evaluation
required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
prohibiting the BLM from addressing identified deficiencies in the
previous environmental review governing potential leasing in the
Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge and cutting out the public from that
process. In addition, the bill would interfere with the Department of
the Interior's (Department) ability to fulfill its obligation to manage
the Arctic Refuge for all of the purposes stated in the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which, like the NPRPA,
include protection of fish and wildlife habitats and subsistence
activities.
Given these concerns, the Department strongly opposes H.R. 6285.
BLM Overview
Since its inception in 1946, the BLM has served as a steward of our
nation's Federal public lands and resources. The passage of FLPMA
established the multiple use and sustained yield mandate that guides
all of the BLM's land management decisions. Driven by this mandate, the
BLM sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation's
public lands for multiple uses, such as conventional and renewable
energy development; livestock grazing; conservation; mining; watershed
protection; and hunting, fishing, and other forms of recreation. This
multiple use and sustained yield mandate enables the BLM to contribute
tremendously to economic growth, job creation, and domestic energy
production, while generating revenues for Federal and State treasuries
and local economies, and allowing for a thoughtful and balanced
approach to management of our public lands.
The BLM manages approximately 245 million surface acres across the
nation, located primarily in 12 western states, and is responsible for
managing 700 million subsurface acres of mineral estate, many of which
are overlain by properties managed by other Federal agencies, such as
the Department of Defense and the U.S. Forest Service. Further, of
these 700 million subsurface acres, approximately 57 million acres are
split-estate lands, where the surface estate is in private ownership
and the BLM manages the subsurface minerals.
The BLM carries out its management responsibilities in accordance
with other applicable legal authorities, such as NEPA. In Alaska, the
BLM implements ANILCA, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, and the
NPRPA as part of its management of public lands and minerals.
Alaska Oil & Gas Development
In Alaska, the BLM manages more surface and subsurface acres than
any other state with BLM-managed lands. This includes over 70 million
surface acres and 220 million subsurface acres in a state with a
landmass equivalent to about one-fifth of the entire contiguous United
States. In fiscal year 2022, the BLM's management of public lands in
Alaska supported more than 2,570 jobs, with a total economic impact of
more than $578.1 million.
As part of managing the Federal onshore oil and gas leasing program
in Alaska, the BLM issues permits for geophysical exploration, permits
to drill oil and gas wells, and authorizations to construct well pads
and install production facilities. Oil and gas leasing in Alaska is
concentrated in three regions: the Cook Inlet Region, the NPR-A, and
the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge, the latter two of which are
located on Alaska's North Slope. The State of Alaska receives 90
percent of the rents and royalties from Federal oil and gas leases in
the Cook Inlet Region and 50 percent of the bonus bids, rents, and
royalties from both the NPR-A and Coastal Plain.
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
The 19.3-million-acre Arctic Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), was originally established in 1960 to preserve
unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values and expanded in
1980 through ANILCA, which specified the purposes of the Refuge:
(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.
All activities on the Arctic Refuge are reviewed for compatibility
with these statutory purposes. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-
97,Tax Act) added another purpose to the Arctic Refuge--to provide for
an oil and gas program on the Arctic Coastal Plain--while retaining the
existing purposes.
The 1.56-million-acre Arctic Refuge oil and gas program area, also
referred to as the ``Coastal Plain,'' is located along the coast of the
Arctic Refuge on Alaska's North Slope. Specifically, the program area
is within the northwestern portion of the Refuge and immediately
adjacent to the Beaufort Sea (Arctic Ocean), which is located to the
north.
The Tax Act directed the BLM to conduct two oil and gas lease sales
in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge that offer at least 400,000
acres of lands for bid by December 2024. The leases are to be managed
in a manner similar to the administration of lease sales under the
NPRPA and its applicable regulations. The BLM conducted its first lease
sale in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge on January 6, 2021,
pursuant to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program August 2020
Record of Decision (ROD), with any future oil and gas development
actions requiring a separate detailed environmental analysis. Since
that sale, two of the three companies holding leases separately
requested to have their leases rescinded and to receive a refund. The
remaining seven leases were canceled by the Department earlier in 2023
following a review conducted pursuant to Executive Order 13990, as
further described below. As such, there are currently no leases in the
Coastal Plain.
President Biden, though Executive Order 13990, directed the
Department to review oil and gas leasing in the Arctic Refuge, ``[i]n
light of the alleged legal deficiencies underlying the program.'' In
June 2021, Secretarial Order 3401 suspended all activities related to
implementing the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program pending
completion of a comprehensive analysis under NEPA. Pursuant to the
order, the BLM and the FWS are preparing a supplemental environmental
impact statement (SEIS) addressing the deficiencies identified in the
Secretarial Order. The analysis in the Draft SEIS released on September
6, 2023, informed the Department's determination that the 2021 lease
sale was based on fundamental legal deficiencies, such as insufficient
analysis under NEPA, failure to adequately analyze a reasonable range
of alternatives, failure to properly quantify downstream greenhouse gas
emissions, and failure to properly interpret the Tax Act. Accordingly,
Secretary Haaland determined that the remaining seven oil and gas
leases in the Arctic Refuge that had not been rescinded at the request
of the lessees should be canceled. The public comment period for the
Draft SEIS closed on November 7, 2023, following ten public meetings,
four of which were virtual. Though the comment period is closed, the
BLM and FWS welcome the opportunity for further consultation with
Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations and can also meet with other
entities, such as local governments like the North Slope Borough,
seeking to continue discussions regarding the comments they have
submitted.
National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Located approximately 100 miles to the west of the Arctic Refuge,
the NPR-A is a vast area on Alaska's North Slope composed of
approximately 23 million acres. In 1923, President Harding set aside
this area as a potential source of oil for the U.S. Navy. In 1976, in
accordance with the NPRPA, administration of the reserve was
transferred to the BLM. Under the NPRPA, Congress directed the BLM to
balance oil and gas development with the management and protection of
sensitive landscapes--known as Special Areas--and surface resources
across the Reserve.
The NPR-A generates tens of millions of dollars in oil and gas
revenue each year and will remain an important energy resource for some
time, particularly in light of the recently approved Willow project,
which is expected to produce 180,000 barrels of oil per day at its peak
and could generate up to $17 billion in new revenue for the Federal
government, the State of Alaska, and North Slope Borough Native
communities. The authorizations for the Willow project require it to
mitigate impacts as much as possible with subsistence activities (such
as siting of facilities to allow for caribou migrations, avoidance
areas, etc.).
In September 2023, the BLM formally proposed the NPR-A rule to
guide implementation of its obligations for management of surface
resources and Special Areas in the NPR-A, consistent with the direction
in the NPRPA, as well as FLPMA and other authorities. The proposed rule
would revise the framework for designating and assuring maximum
protection of the significant resource values of Special Areas, as
directed in the NPRPA, and would protect and enhance access for
subsistence activities throughout the NPR-A. It would also incorporate
aspects of the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan that was approved in
April 2022 (such as prescriptions for management of oil and gas
activities in Special Areas).
Under the proposed rule, the BLM would follow a well-defined
process to inform the creation or expansion of additional Special Areas
in the NPR-A and the protection of access and resources for subsistence
and would continue to manage the Reserve subject to an Integrated
Activity Plan. The Integrated Activity Plan ensures transparency and
opportunities for Government-to-Government consultation and public
input. The proposed rule would apply to future leasing and oil and gas
activities, and it would not affect currently authorized oil and gas
operations or leases in the NPR-A.
The BLM recently announced that it would extend the public comment
period on the proposed rule through December 7, 2023, providing a full
90-day comment period. During the comment period, the BLM has held
public meetings, engaged in Tribal consultation, and met with multiple
Alaska Native organizations and local government entities, as well as
the NPR-A Working Group. The BLM continues to engage with communities,
Tribes, and Alaska Native Corporations to ensure that those potentially
affected by the proposed rule have ample opportunities to provide
robust and substantive comments.
As stated above, the BLM welcomes the opportunity for further
consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations after the
public comment period has closed and can also meet with other entities,
such as local governments like the North Slope Borough, seeking to
continue discussions regarding the comments they have submitted.
H.R. 6285, Alaska's Right to Produce Act
H.R. 6285 would prohibit the President or Secretary of the Interior
(Secretary) from placing any moratorium or other pause on oil and gas
leasing in the Coastal Plain. H.R. 6285 would also approve all
authorizations, permits, etc., as discussed in the ROD for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas
Leasing Program that was published on August 21, 2020. Additionally,
the bill would require the Secretary to reissue the canceled leases in
the Arctic Refuge within 30 days of enactment and withdraw the Draft
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program SEIS. The bill further
declares that no court shall have jurisdiction over the review of past
decisions regarding the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The
bill would also require the BLM to withdraw the proposed NPR-A rule and
would prohibit substantially similar rules from being proposed by the
BLM. Finally, H.R. 6285 would nullify Executive Order 13990 and
Secretarial Order 3401.
Analysis
The Department strongly opposes H.R. 6285. The Coastal Plain leases
were canceled after a careful review of all available information. As a
result of its review, the Department determined that the leases were
improperly issued due to significant pre-leasing legal defects, as well
as legal deficiencies in the environmental review for the leases. To
reinstate the leases and revert to the flawed analysis would undermine
potential future Federal actions related to those leases: having a
sound, legally defensible environmental analysis is a necessary
foundation for subsequent actions, such as development plans and
applications to drill.
Additionally, the BLM is actively accepting comments on the
proposed NPR-A rule. The proposed NPR-A rule would establish a new
framework for balancing development with the protection of Special
Areas--lands that harbor significant subsistence, recreational, fish
and wildlife, historical, and scenic values, including areas identified
by Congress in the NPRPA--and the management of surface resources
throughout the NPR-A. This proposed framework does not mandate changes
to the current management of the area, but it provides the BLM with the
ability to better respond to changing conditions in the Arctic, while
also providing for greater transparency and stability in conservation
and development decisions. The proposed regulations would also enhance
protections for subsistence uses and resources throughout the NPR-A,
which are especially reliant on the Special Areas, including the
Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special Areas.
Conclusion
The BLM remains committed to ensuring that the Federal oil and gas
program serves the best interests of the American people by promoting
the highest safety, labor, environmental, and public engagement
standards and securing a fair return for the American taxpayer. The BLM
is further implementing the direction in the governing law to balance
oil and gas leasing and development with explicit requirements to
protect fish and wildlife, recreation, and subsistence in the Arctic
Refuge and the NPR-A. The BLM is working diligently to move the oil and
gas program in Alaska forward through the Draft SEIS and NPR-A rule.
H.R. 6285 reverts the BLM's oil and gas program in Alaska back to
standards that have been shown to be inadequate. Therefore, the
Department strongly opposes the bill.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Dr. Steve Feldgus, Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Land and Minerals Management, Department of the
Interior
Mr. Feldgus did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. What communities are located within the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?
1a) Did you meet with the communities within ANWR on the Draft
Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SEIS) prior to September 6, 2023?
1b) If so, on what dates did these meetings occur and who were the
attendees?
Question 2. What communities are located within the National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)?
2a) Did you meet with the communities within the NPR-A on the
proposed rule, Management and Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (43 CFR 2360) before September 6, 2023?
2b) If so, on what dates did these meetings occur and who were the
attendees?
Question 3. What dates did you conduct consultation with the tribes
and Alaska Native corporations (ANCs) in each of the communities
located within ANWR and NPRA?
Question 4. What dates did you conduct consultation with the
regional tribe and ANC for the Draft Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing
Program Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) and for the
proposed rule, Management and Protection of the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska (43 CFR 2360)?
Question 5. On a recent NPR-A working group call in October, the
request to extend the comment period was brought up. Katie Kovacs
responded for the Department ``I'm happy to regale you with the ins and
outs of the Congressional Review Act, but unfortunately we're on a
schedule with this one that we don't have any control over, so we just
don't have that kind of time for this rule.''
5a) Is it a higher priority for the Department to avoid the
Congressional Review Act deadlines than to provide adequate
consultation to tribes and ANCs?
5b) Do you stand by this statement?
Question 6. Consultations are defined as having both Department and
Tribal officials with decision-making authorities present at the
government-to-government consultation session(s)/ meeting(s) regarding
the proposed Departmental Action with Tribal Implications.
6a) Who are the decision makers for the NPR-A proposed rulemaking
and the ANWR Draft SEIS?
6b) Who developed the decision to pause the oil and gas leases in
ANWR in June 2021?
6c) Who made the decision that the NEPA was insufficient for those
leases?
6d) Will the decision makers engage with communities, tribes and
ANCs during consultation meetings?
Question 7. How is the proposed NPR-A rule, which is effectively a
rewrite of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act, merely a rule of
an ``administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural
nature''?
7a) This is a big policy shift--again, why would the government
want to invoke a categorical exemption from the NEPA process?
Question 8. The proposed NPR-A rule re-defines ``maximum
protection'' to be ``no or minimal adverse effects on significant
resource values.''
8a) Can you explain what this new definition means and give
examples?
8b) Can you explain how this new definition differs from the
existing rule definition examples?
Question 9. The proposed NPR-A rule requires that the BLM, in
evaluating proposals for leasing or surface infrastructure, ``document
its consideration of any uncertainty''.
9a) Please explain what that means and provide examples.
Question 10. A Louisiana federal court recently ruled that the
Rice's Whale vessel restrictions the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) included in the August 2023 Final Notice of Sale for Lease Sale
261 were arbitrary and capricious. NOAA also recently denied a petition
submitted by several NGOs to expand vessel restrictions for the Rice's
whale saying that NOAA needs to do more work before it even considers
vessel regulations. Given these recent actions, we would expect that
BOEM rescind the Notice to Lessees (NTL) published in August 2023 that
includes these recommended vessel mitigations for oil and gas service
vessels transiting the entire 100-400 meter isobath region across the
entire Gulf of Mexico. During the hearing, you stated that DOI has no
plans to rescind the ``voluntary'' NTL at this time. This ignores that
the NTL suffers from many of the same legal defects, and BOEM should
not leave in place recommendations that are arbitrary and capricious
and were developed as part of a ``sue and settle'' arrangement. When
can we expect the Department of Interior to rescind this NTL?
Questions Submitted by Representative Duarte
Question 1. Can you name one specific example of where an oil
developer in Alaska has robbed any individual of their subsistence
lifestyle?
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much, Dr. Feldgus. The Chair
now recognizes the Ranking Member, Representative Ocasio-
Cortez, for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Two landmark
reports this month, the 5th National Climate Assessment and the
UN's Emissions Gap Report, delivered what should be a wake-up
call to all of us. The climate crisis is not only here, but
will grow more catastrophic without rapid and deep cuts to
greenhouse gas pollution.
But as world leaders prepare to meet for COP28, none of the
G20 countries are reducing emissions at a pace consistent with
climate targets that we need to avoid catastrophe. Now should
be a time for America to step up and lead. But the bill we are
discussing today would take us in the wrong direction.
In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster
than the global average. Indigenous communities in northern
Alaska disproportionately feel the devastating impacts of the
climate crisis. Melting permafrost, erosion, and rising sea
levels are eating away at the ground underneath us, creating
some of our country's first climate refugees. Thawing sea ice
makes hunting and fishing hazardous and unpredictable. Species'
shifting migration patterns challenge food security and
cultural continuity. Oil and gas development exacerbates all of
these threats.
In Nuiqsut, the Alaska Native village nearest to the Willow
Project, 70 percent of households rely on subsistence resources
for more than half of their diet. Hunters are being forced to
travel further and further to find resources and to avoid
hunting grounds now dominated by industry.
In the Arctic Refuge in northeast Alaska, fossil fuel
development is a looming threat to the Gwich'in people. Their
way of life depends on the survival of the caribou herd that
reproduces in the region.
Of course, not all Alaskans, including Indigenous Alaskans,
share the same perspectives on oil and gas development. Revenue
from extraction can support local governments and Indigenous
corporations, but for many the trade-offs create unacceptable
impacts. And for many, the purported benefits of these projects
have been overblown.
Earlier this year, the Biden administration approved the
Willow Project, despite strong opposition from Nuiqsut and
climate advocates across the country. Proponents of the project
say it will be an economic boon to northern Alaska, and will
help us achieve ``energy dominance.'' But of the 2,500
construction and 300 permanent jobs ConocoPhillips says the
Willow Project would create, few are expected to actually go to
people from the community.
The project could create 600 million barrels of oil, but it
won't significantly change U.S. imports, and is unlikely to
impact oil prices anytime soon. It will also release nearly 9.2
million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere
each year, the equivalent of putting 2 million gas-powered cars
on the road.
While I strongly oppose the Administration's decision to
approve Willow, I am optimistic about the latest decisions to
cancel the remaining Arctic Refuge oil and gas leases to
promote conservation in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska,
or NPR-A.
Unfortunately, the legislation on the agenda today would
undermine that progress. This legislation would withdraw the
proposed rule promoting conservation in the NPR-A which would
create important protections for species, habitats, and
ecosystems that are essential for Indigenous communities' ways
of life. Rolling back these protections puts far too much at
risk.
H.R. 6285 would also automatically reinstate Trump-era
leases in the Arctic Refuge and force a second lease sale in
the region. There would be no public input, no judicial review,
and no requirements to comply with the Endangered Species Act,
among other waivers.
Some say this is necessary for domestic energy production
and energy security, but I remind my colleagues that the lease
sales were quite a disappointment compared to the original
estimates of revenue and industry interest when they were first
proposing them.
Drilling was banned in the Arctic Refuge until 2017, when
Republicans in Congress and then-President Trump authorized
extraction in the region to offset tax cuts for the wealthy.
The Trump administration said that lease sales in the Arctic
Refuge would bring in $1.8 billion over 10 years, but in the
end the lease sale was a paltry $15 million, less than 1
percent of initial projections.
So, instead of considering a bill that puts the interests
of oil companies over those of the planet and the people, I
wish we could be here discussing how we can lead, how we can
move to save our planet while prioritizing the lives of
Indigenous communities, workers, and ordinary Alaskans who
don't need to depend on fossil fuel profits.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I yield
back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Ocasio-Cortez, and
Dr. Feldgus, thanks for your testimony. We will now recognize
Members for 5 minutes of questioning, and I am going to
recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Feldgus, did the Department consult with Alaskan tribes
and Alaska Native Corporations prior to issuing the NPR-A
proposed rulemaking or revoking the ANWR leases?
Dr. Feldgus. Thank you very much for the question. The
Department engages in extensive amounts of consultation and
public meetings on all----
Mr. Stauber. Dr. Feldgus, because we only have 5 minutes,
did the Department consult with Alaskan tribes and Alaska
Native Corporations prior to issuing the NPR-A proposed
rulemaking or revoking the ANWR leases? Yes or no.
Dr. Feldgus. We are currently engaged in a public comment
period, and we are holding----
Mr. Stauber. So, what we are hearing, Dr. Feldgus, that is
not what I have heard.
And before I forget, Dr. Feldgus, I know you are a busy
individual. I am personally asking you to stay for the next
panel. And that is not what they told me from the North Slope.
They found out about this, these actions, from their local
newspaper.
Do you think that is a responsible way to notify tribal
members of actions that will directly impact their livelihoods?
By the newspaper?
Dr. Feldgus. We conduct extensive engagement with tribal
communities, tribal villages, Alaska Native Corporations
throughout the process. There is a lot of back and forth----
Mr. Stauber. Dr. Feldgus, I don't think that is a proper
way to notify a community, via a newspaper, on such an
important issue.
And with respect to the proposed NPR-A rule, are you aware
that it was rolled out during a time when many of the North
Slope residents, whose traditional lands include the NPR-A,
were engaged in subsistence hunting?
Dr. Feldgus. We are aware that subsistence season in the
fall is one of the big times for subsistence hunting.
Mr. Stauber. So, you were aware during whaling season.
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we were aware that the whaling season in
the fall is one of the big subsistence times.
Mr. Stauber. Do you believe that was a responsible time to
roll out the rule, during the whaling season?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, we have engaged in extensive outreach to
communities, to villages, to corporations before the whaling
season. We try to accommodate the whaling season schedule when
we schedule meetings and consultations. There is a constant
back-and-forth with the community, trying to schedule public
meetings, and we always try to accommodate.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Frankly, I think this rollout and
timeline was incredibly intentional by this Administration.
I know that many Native tribes and corporations urged the
Department to extend the comment period for the NPR-A rule. On
a recent NPR-A working group call, the request to extend the
comment period was brought up. In response, a Department
official responded with the following, and I quote, ``I am
happy to regale you with the ins and outs of the Congressional
Review Act, but unfortunately, we are on a schedule with this
one that we don't have any control over, so we just don't have
the kind of time for this rule.''
The Department's motives are clear. They are not interested
in sound policy informed by local voices. They are only
interested in rushing through the process to meet arbitrary
deadlines so that their actions may not be reviewed by
Congress. They would rather get the policy wrong in order to
have enough time to circumvent Congress, rather than doing
right by the people of Alaska.
Dr. Feldgus, what did the official mean when they said they
don't have any control over this deadline? Who is in control of
the deadline for this rulemaking?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, I can't speak to the official on the
call and what they said, I wasn't on that call. But I can say
that we recently extended the deadline an additional 20 days to
provide, overall, a 30-day extension of the original comment
period for the rule. So, we are still in the middle of that,
and----
Mr. Stauber. Who makes the ultimate call on the deadline?
Dr. Feldgus. The ultimate call on the decision for
extending the comment period?
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Dr. Feldgus. I believe that was a decision within the
Bureau of Land Management.
Mr. Stauber. Do you have a name?
Dr. Feldgus. I do not know who the specific official would
be. I think there was a Federal Register notice that was
indicating the extension of the comment period, and that would
have a name on that.
Mr. Stauber. Does the Biden administration have a policy
that agencies are expected to follow when conducting
consultation with Native tribal communities?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we have numerous policies, both at the
Administration level and at the Department level.
Mr. Stauber. Is the rollout of the policy changes relating
to ANWR and the NPR-A in line with the Biden administration's
stated policy on tribal consultations?
Dr. Feldgus. We are conducting extensive outreach with
tribal communities, and we are continuing tribal consultation
even beyond the end of the comment period. Government-to-
government consultation with tribes is not limited to times
during comment periods.
Mr. Stauber. Are you aware of, on November 30, 2022, a memo
to agency heads from the White House on the Biden
administration's Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, I am.
Mr. Stauber. Did the Department of the Interior receive a
copy of the memo?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, we did.
Mr. Stauber. Did you follow those recommendations and
rules?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, I don't have the text in front of us. We
certainly seek to follow those policies in all of our
consultation obligations, meeting those with Alaska Native
tribes.
Mr. Stauber. I appreciate, Dr. Feldgus, you being here. And
again, I really am asking you to stay for the next panel
because I think you are going to hear some things that you may
not have heard before in relation to tribal consultation. You
will hear the exact opposite of what you just stated.
My time is up, and I will now yield to the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes of questioning.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Feldgus, thank you for joining us here today. As you
know, the 2017 Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, under President
Trump, opened the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development and
mandated two lease sales on the Refuge's Coastal Plain, an area
known to the Gwich'in people as ``the sacred place where life
begins.''
The revenues from drilling in the Arctic Refuge were
included in that bill as an offset for slashing taxes for
corporations and high-wealth Americans. So, in order to ``pay
for'' all of these tax cuts for the rich, the then-Republican
Majority said, ``In order to pay for this and offset it, we
know exactly what we are going to do. We are going to sell oil
and gas leases on the Arctic Refuge,'' which has historically
always been protected land, ``and that will cover the bill.''
At the time, Senator Murkowski touted that opening the
refuge to the extraction will ``generate tens of billions of
dollars in revenue for the U.S. Government.'' Leave carbon
emissions aside, leave the destruction of this precious land
aside, this was going to be a moneymaker in terms of oil and
gas.
On January 6, 2021, in addition to other events that
happened that day, the Trump administration held the first-ever
lease sale on the Refuge's Coastal Plain, attracting bids on
only half of offered leases. Ultimately, only two small oil
companies and an Alaska state-owned corporation bid on and
received leases.
In 2022, the two oil companies asked for refunds on their
leases, leaving the state-owned company, Alaska Industrial
Development and Export Authority, or AIDEA, as the sole lease
holder in the refuge.
Dr. Feldgus, can you confirm how much revenue the Arctic
Refuge Oil and Gas Program has generated for the Federal
Government compared to the original estimates?
Dr. Feldgus. Sure. The lease sale itself on the day of the
lease sale brought in about $14 million in high bids. Two of
those bids were subsequently withdrawn by one of the bidders.
So, that brought in about $12 million. But the Federal
Government only receives 50 percent of the revenues, so the
Federal Government received about $6 million from that sale.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. About $6 million, even on the high end.
Even if you take 100 percent of that cut from that $14 to $15
million, that is still less than 1 percent of the CBO estimates
that the then-Republican Majority said would pay for all of
these tax cuts for the wealthy.
Can you briefly explain the rationale given by the two
companies when they requested cancellation and refunds on their
two leases?
Dr. Feldgus. Unfortunately, I cannot speak to their
motivations for that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Does the state development company AIDEA
have a history of successfully developing projects on their oil
and gas leases? Just yes or no.
Dr. Feldgus. I am not familiar with that.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. No, so they don't even successfully
develop projects on these leases.
And has the National Wildlife Refuge ever been managed for
oil and gas purposes before? Has there ever been such a case
since?
Dr. Feldgus. To my knowledge, this is the only example of a
refuge having an oil and gas purpose added to its statutory----
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. I think, in the context of today's
discussion, it is important for us to have this landscape here
of information. Because a couple of years ago, we had enormous
tax cuts for the wealthy, writing off private jets and yachts
and giveaways. And it was going to be paid for by oil and gas
leases that were supposed to be, as Senator Murkowski said, in
the tens of billions of dollars. And what we are hearing today
is about $6 million of that has been covered. I am correct in
putting those pieces of information----
Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. So, for all of our folks that have a lot
to say about fiscal responsibility, this is a debt that has
been left unpaid. And when we talk about having to take EBT
away, WIC away, people's health care away, perhaps the thing
that we should be taking away are a lot of these goodies and
giveaways to the wealthiest people in our society when we said
that these bills were going to be paid and 5 years on, 6 years
on, they have been left unpaid.
With that, I yield back to the Chair. Thank you, Dr.
Feldgus.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
the Full Committee Chair, Representative Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, and thank
goodness for that Tax Cut and Jobs Act, which said we were
supposed to be producing oil on the North Slope. And thank
goodness that that was done when it was done.
We had record revenue last year, $4.9 trillion of revenue.
But that wasn't enough to offset just the $6.3 trillion in
discretionary spending that the Democrat Majority in the House,
the Senate, and the Biden administration--you can't generate
enough revenue to pay for the spending that the Democrats in
Washington want to spend.
Dr. Feldgus, hopefully you understand how the Federal
Government profits from energy production. We have talked about
some lease sales, but where does the real revenue come from?
Dr. Feldgus. Most of the revenue from the Federal Mineral
Revenue Program is from royalties.
Mr. Westerman. From oil?
Dr. Feldgus. From oil and gas royalties.
Mr. Westerman. And how are those royalties generated?
Dr. Feldgus. Well----
Mr. Westerman. It is when you produce oil and gas, you pay
a royalty on what has been produced.
How much oil and gas has been produced on these lease sales
since the Tax Cut and Jobs Act was passed?
Dr. Feldgus. Currently----
Mr. Westerman. Zero. There haven't been any new wells
drilled. There is zero production. That is why there hasn't
been any revenue generated.
Plus, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act doesn't need revenue from
Alaskan oil to pay for the revenue that far exceeded what the
CBO and the Joint Tax Committee said it was going to cost. I
sat down with the CBO Director. He admitted they messed up like
they always do when it is a Republican piece of legislation.
Now, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska proposed
regulation constitutes a major change in policy. And as the
Department notes in the rulemaking, it relies on the Integrated
Activity Plan for the NPR-A. The Department didn't do NEPA for
the Integrated Activity Plan change last year, and it isn't
doing it for this rulemaking, either.
Dr. Feldgus, why is the Department refusing to go through
the NEPA process for these major changes?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, there was an extensive NEPA process that
went through for the NPR-A IAP that was finalized in 2020, and
we relied on that NEPA analysis.
Mr. Westerman. I am glad you mentioned that, because that
is very similar to what we are talking about down in the Gulf
of Mexico, Mr. Huffman, about using previous NEPA analyses.
But this seems like a similar situation to the migrant camp
in New York, where the Administration didn't do NEPA. Mr.
Feldgus, to me it seems like the Department only does NEPA when
it is convenient or when you want to delay things. You are
doing another round of NEPA in ANWR because you want to stop
energy production there. But over in the NPR-A you are skipping
the NEPA entirely to lock up millions of acres.
How long is the ANWR draft SEIS?
Dr. Feldgus. When we do NEPA we try to make sure that----
Mr. Westerman. It is 1,400 pages, 700, not counting
appendices. How many did the Fiscal Responsibility Act say this
document, how many pages could it be?
Dr. Feldgus. I believe that, isn't it 150 or 300 pages for
particularly complex----
Mr. Westerman. It is 150 for EISs, and not to exceed 300
pages. Why isn't the Department complying with the law?
Dr. Feldgus. Our focus is on making sure that our NEPA
analyses are legally defensible and robust, and can hold up
against every challenge----
Mr. Westerman. Well, my focus is on the Administration
following the laws that we pass in Congress.
How long did you give Alaskan Natives to comment on this? I
think it has already been talked about, but 60 days?
Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
Mr. Westerman. Yes, that is why we changed NEPA to mandate
those page limits, so that people can actually read the
documents, be able to understand them, and provide comment in
the comment period.
Once again, it seems like the Department only follows the
law when it is convenient to follow the law, and only follows
the law when it is convenient to the political ideologies of
the Department. What is your response to that?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, we think it is very important to make
sure that the NEPA analysis is legally robust, defensible, and
can stand up against future challenges----
Mr. Westerman. How can it be legally robust when it
violates the law that was passed by Congress?
Dr. Feldgus. Well----
Mr. Westerman. Does it mean it has to stand up to your
internal memos, and it has to stand up to your regulations that
you impose internally? It seems like the administrative state
has become the 4th branch of government, and you are more
focused on following some internal memo and processes and
political ideologues in the Department, rather than following
the law that Congress actually passed.
Dr. Feldgus. We have had----
Mr. Westerman. What would you like to tell the American
people about why the Department blatantly disobeys the laws
that Congress passed?
Dr. Feldgus. We have seen a lot of NEPA analyses that were
remanded by courts or vacated by courts because they weren't
robust, they were missing essential parts of analysis. So, when
we are doing NEPA, we are trying to make sure that we have an
analysis that can withstand future challenges.
Mr. Westerman. So, you just violate the laws that Congress
passed to try to appease your lawyers there at the Department
of the Interior, push your political agendas, delay. Your goal
is not to produce energy in Alaska. Delaying is your best
tactic.
Unfortunately, the country that needs energy, the Alaska
citizens who need a strong economy, it hurts them when you
delay. It also hurts America when inflation is going through
the roof, and it hurts our national security when this
Administration is begging foreign countries like Iran, Saudi
Arabia, and Venezuela to send more oil here, and it is doing
nothing for the environment. It fails on every level.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Huffman from California for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is always interesting to hear my friends across the
aisle articulate what a selective vision of NEPA and other
environmental laws that they have. If you are going to actually
try to protect the environment, protect some lands, they want
you to run through the most robust, rigorous, impenetrable
environmental process that anyone could conceive. If you want
to provide some emergency housing for migrants, same thing. But
if you want to drill, if you want to develop oil and gas, they
will write you a legislative hall pass like the bill that we
are considering today.
I do want to congratulate boosters of the fossil fuel
industry, because the weekend before we went home for
Thanksgiving with our families, the global climate surpassed 2
degrees Celsius. That threshold has now been passed for the
first time in recorded history. You could go back in time to
the Paleozoic era and other times, and probably find hotter
moments, but not with civilized human beings that have things
like agriculture. This is a very, very sobering moment for
anyone that cares about the planet and future generations.
Experts emphasize a 2-degree rise in global temperatures will
inarguably cause dangerous and cascading effects to humans and
our planet.
And there is more news for the boosters of fossil fuel. Two
days before Thanksgiving, the Coast Guard discovered yet
another major oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico caused by a leak
in an underwater pipeline, resulting in 1.1 million gallons of
crude oil spilled. That is part of the context whenever we have
a conversation like this today. Where you drill, you spill.
But here we are again, with an effort to expand our
nation's carbon footprint, expose our coastal communities to
future disasters. Not only does this bill grant access to one
of the most ecologically sensitive, unique, and, yes, difficult
regions to productively drill, but it reverses significant
strides by the Biden administration to protect lands that
Tribal Nations have occupied since time immemorial, another
fossil fuel sugar high, a promise of some short-term economic
benefits with terrible and irreversible long-term damage.
There are better ways to create energy independence, and we
can surely find better ways, better long-term bets for economic
development in Alaska and every other place than this. Part of
that needs to be supporting communities who have become reliant
and dependent on the fossil fuel industry to transition into
businesses that aren't wrecking the planet, and jobs that will
actually be there a few decades from now.
Dr. Feldgus, welcome back to the Committee. In addition to
the two leases on Federal lands relinquished by oil and gas
companies last year, two other companies, Chevron and Hilcorp,
have relinquished leases on Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
land. Correct?
Dr. Feldgus. That is my understanding, yes.
Mr. Huffman. And they were pretty motivated to get out from
under those leases, right?
Dr. Feldgus. It is hard for me to speak to their
motivations.
Mr. Huffman. Well, they did it at significant shareholder
cost, actually. They paid, essentially, to get out from under
those leases. Right?
Dr. Feldgus. I am not familiar with the details of that
transaction.
Mr. Huffman. Or wrote off costs; $10 million is my
understanding.
And it is not just Chevron and Hilcorp that recognize the
risk of drilling in the Refuge. Many of America's largest
financial institutions: Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Goldman
Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, they have
all pledged not to finance drilling operations in the Refuge.
Insurance companies like AIG and Chubb have pledged not to
underwrite them, either.
My colleagues across the aisle may mock this as an ESG
cartel and woke capitalism, but I think the rest of us should
recognize this as a pretty rational business decision based on
climate risks, based on well-founded opposition. Drilling in
this area is not going to get any easier, and the opposition to
it is not going away. I would quote Alaska's own Senator
Sullivan in his recent remarks, where he said, ``What investor
in their right mind would even consider spending millions of
dollars in ANWR?''
Dr. Feldgus, can you speak more about the complications,
barriers, and risks of drilling in the Refuge?
Dr. Feldgus. Sure. Drilling on the North Slope of Alaska,
any sort of infrastructure activity, oil production activity is
incredibly complex, difficult. It is a very challenging
environment.
I think the factors that you described help explain why the
lease sale only brought in a handful of bids and much less
revenue than expected. And also why it took nearly 100 years
before oil was produced from the NPR-A.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Dr. Feldgus.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Before we go to Representative Graves, I will say that I am
very proud that both U.S. Senators from Alaska and the only
Representative support my bill.
Representative Graves, you are up for 5 minutes.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you
pointing out the way our country works, and the way that the
people are allowed to elect Representatives of their own
community. And the Alaska Delegation unanimously supports the
legislation that we are discussing today. But I want to thank
my friend from California for his aggressive attempts to
represent areas outside of his state.
Dr. Feldgus, thanks for being here. One of your colleagues
a few years ago came and testified, a career civil servant came
and testified that every time you stop production, new
production in the United States, that it doesn't have an impact
on demand. All it does, as a result of decades of study that
the Department of the Interior has done, all it does is
increase our dependence upon foreign sources of energy.
So, I find it fascinating in this case that the Department,
the Secretary is attempting to exercise discretion. But let me
read the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, specifically the provision here.
It says, ``The Secretary shall offer for lease under the oil
and gas program under this section not fewer than 400,000 acres
area-wide in each lease sale. The Secretary shall offer the
initial lease sale under the oil and gas program under this
section not later than 4 years after the date of enactment of
this act. A second lease sale under the oil and gas program
under this section not later than 7 years after the date of
enactment of this act.''
So, I am trying to understand where in the world you think
you have discretion.
Dr. Feldgus. Sure. We are complying with the law, and we
will be holding the second lease sale before the deadline in
that Tax Act. And the discretion belongs to the Secretary for
rescinding leases that were issued in violation of a legal or
regulatory requirement.
Mr. Graves. And I have heard you sit here and spit out your
NEPA thing a bit, do you think that Don Young wasn't aware of,
and Don Young, of course, who authored this language, do you
think he wasn't aware that NEPA existed? Do you think that this
Committee wasn't aware that NEPA existed, and that these dates
weren't doable? Is that what you are suggesting?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, I know the first lease sale was held
after only about 3 years, while the legislation provided 4
years. When we reviewed the environmental basis for that lease
sale, we found it to be deficient in a number of ways.
Our philosophy is that we take a little extra time, and
make sure that the analysis is robust and legally defensible.
Mr. Graves. And thank you, Dr. Feldgus, I appreciate that,
and robust and legally defensible. And I have heard you use the
term ``subsistence'' to talk about Native communities, yet in
your EIS, your supplemental, you didn't even engage the local
communities. Because the bottom line is you all don't care what
the local communities think. You don't care what the Delegation
thinks, the people that are actually elected to represent the
state. You don't.
You have a clear history. And despite my good friend Mr.
Huffman's repeated allegations about who the friends of the oil
and gas industry are, the reality is that my friends across the
aisle, including you, Dr. Feldgus, you all are the best
friends, you all are the best allies of Big Oil because every
time you all are in charge, they make more money. They make
more money under you all's policies.
And I heard the Ranking Member, and I want to be clear,
Ranking Member, I share your concerns about emissions. I share
your concerns about emissions. The problem is the policies that
are being carried out are resulting in higher global emissions,
not lower. Under the previous administration, emissions were
going down. Under your administration, they are going up. They
are going up.
And I heard this raised previously. Do you know who is
profiting as a result of exactly what your colleague told this
Committee years ago? Do you know who is profiting? Iran, $60
billion in additional profits; Venezuela, $65 billion in
additional profits, not to mention both countries have higher
emissions than those from the exact same volumes or barrels of
energy coming out of the United States, specifically coming
from the Gulf of Mexico.
And this isn't limited to the ANWR. And I heard you use the
acronym earlier, the ``NPR-A.'' Remind me what that P stands
for.
Dr. Feldgus. Petroleum.
Mr. Graves. That is right, petroleum. The National
Petroleum Reserve. And folks act like they are shocked that we
are actually going to produce energy there. What in the hell do
you think Congress intended when they established the area, the
1002 set-aside area? It intentionally was distinguished for
energy production because of the reserves that were there.
But let me come back to home where I represent in the Gulf
of Mexico. This isn't limited to just Alaska or up in the 1002
Area. This is exactly what you are doing in the Gulf of Mexico,
as well. You had an appeals court that came in and told you to
rescind the notice to lessees. Have you done that on Lease Sale
261?
Dr. Feldgus. We have announced the new sale date for that.
Mr. Graves. Have you complied with the court's direction to
rescind?
Dr. Feldgus. We have not rescinded.
Mr. Graves. You have not. That is exactly right.
This is a trend, Mr. Chairman. This isn't limited to
Alaska. They do whatever the hell they want. It has forced
higher prices, higher emissions, and more dependence on other
countries. Iran, China, and Venezuela love it. Americans don't.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Gosar for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, thank you very much for coming.
[Audio malfunction.] percent deduction just hiring people
from overseas unlimitedly.
So, you want to talk about tax breaks? Let's go. Let's get
after it. I would love to do that.
We talk about communities of interest. How did that work
for the Navajos? And when I specifically talk about, now we
have no NGS. That was a supplemental, where a lot of that
tribe, 90 percent of them, were hired to actually work that
aspect.
Then what we do is we go to Chaco Canyon, and the now-
Senator Lujan had an amendment to allow the Navajos and anybody
that had those leaseholds to be able to have access to those
leaseholds. Now we wiped that away from them.
So, when you talk about talking of communities of interest,
be careful. And then you come to my state, the Navajo
withdrawal in northeastern Arizona. What do these all have in
common? Energy, energy, energy. And we take that away from
communities of interest.
So, when I hear this about Alaska, I understand that Alaska
has the same problem that Arizona does, that New Mexico does.
And what I found very interesting was the gentlelady from New
Mexico that sits on the whole Committee. When the Navajos
brought this up to them, she said, ``Don't worry, we will have
a check for you,'' making them dependent on the Federal
Government instead of autonomous from the Federal Government.
That is sick. That is really, really sick.
I am going to go to a different line of questioning. What
kind of citations are you utilizing for this type of a land
grab?
Dr. Feldgus. I am sorry, I am not sure I understand the
question.
Dr. Gosar. Are you familiar with the Taylor Grazing Act?
Dr. Feldgus. Basically familiar, yes.
Dr. Gosar. When did it come about?
Dr. Feldgus. I think it was 1932, 1933.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, about the same time we did start Public
Lands Trust. Right? So, let me ask you a question. Is
conservation one of the acceptable uses in the Taylor Grazing
Act?
Dr. Feldgus. I don't have the Taylor Grazing Act in front
of me.
Dr. Gosar. No, not at all. The Taylor Grazing Act requires
that those lands be utilized for the maximum profit. It does
specifically cite conservation as not being one of those.
I believe in conservation, but I think there is an easy way
to go about this where we get the maximum benefit from both
sides. With that, it said you have to work with the maximum
usage for that with the intent of sharing that with the state,
right? Revenues are shared with the states of interest?
Dr. Feldgus. I am not sure. Are you referring to the Taylor
Grazing Act?
Dr. Gosar. Yes.
Dr. Feldgus. I am not familiar with the specifics.
Dr. Gosar. Well, it is a public land document. This came
about, and I am going to ask you another question. Has the
Taylor Grazing Act been amended?
Dr. Feldgus. I am not sure.
Dr. Gosar. I don't think so. I don't think so at all. And I
think that we are missing the whole boat here.
I think Representative Graves brought it up very, very
appropriately. When we take away the prospects of local
communities, we actually embellish those groups like the Big
Oil and Big Gas because they are making record profits. The
reason they are making record profits is scarcity. We are
seeing less and less coming down the forecast. And as private-
sector people are starting to make money, they base it off
those prospects of where those oil and gases are going to be
there.
Going back to his comment, are we better off getting
Venezuelan and Iranian oil or United States oil? Which one
would be better?
Dr. Feldgus. I will say right now U.S. oil production is at
a record high, also at a record high on public lands.
Dr. Gosar. But my question was are we better off having us
produce it or Iran or Venezuela?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, the Administration supports domestic
energy production of all forms. And I will just point to the
record oil production that we have just set in August.
Dr. Gosar. Well, I will tell you I find it very interesting
that you elude the question, because I think we are better off,
and I think everybody understands that we have better criteria
through NEPA and all those other things, but the process still
exists, and I think we do it better than anybody. And in fact,
I don't think, I know we do it better than anybody else in the
world. And we ought to take that place and extol us into new
opportunities.
That is my last question. Are you familiar with the
entrepreneurial aspect of the American spirit, new innovations?
Dr. Feldgus. Sorry. I am not sure if I do know----
Dr. Gosar. My question is do you feel comfortable with
particularly this American ingenuity of doing things better? Do
you believe in that?
Dr. Feldgus. I believe Americans do things exceptionally
well.
Dr. Gosar. I think that would be a great substitute for
what we are doing right now. I would thank the witness, and I
yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Representative Gosar. We will now
recognize Representative Tiffany from the great state of
Wisconsin.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Do you believe there was adequate consultation from the
Federal Government with the Alaska Natives in the
Administration's decision regarding ANWR?
Dr. Feldgus. Which specific decision?
Mr. Tiffany. The one that is the discussion in regards to
ANWR that we are talking about today.
Dr. Feldgus. Well, certainly, there has been a lot of
engagement with tribal communities, local villages, Alaska
Native Corporations in the development of the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain.
Mr. Tiffany. Do you believe there was adequate
consultation?
Dr. Feldgus. I can't speak to adequate. I can just speak to
the number of meetings and number of engagements that we have
held.
Mr. Tiffany. Is that how you measure adequate, is how many
meetings you have?
Dr. Feldgus. No, I can just speak to the extensive efforts
that we make at outreach, the number of meetings, public
meetings, government-to-government consultations, continued
invitations to consult on these issues, as well. We are always
trying to do better when it comes to our consultation
responsibilities.
Mr. Tiffany. What is your doctorate in? I see it is Dr.
Feldgus.
Dr. Feldgus. Physical chemistry.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. Will you be staying after this? The
Chairman of the Subcommittee asked you to stay for the next
witnesses. In particular, I think it is in regards to the whole
consultation question.
Dr. Feldgus. Unfortunately, I will not be able to stay due
to other meetings that I need to be at. But I will be reviewing
the testimony, and we will be watching the archive on the
website afterwards.
Mr. Tiffany. You are saying ``we'' will be doing that. Will
you view the testimony from the people on the next panel? Will
you be viewing it yourself?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, absolutely.
Mr. Tiffany. Will you also be watching the questions that
are going to be asked of them?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, I will.
Mr. Tiffany. You will.
How many acres encompass ANWR?
Dr. Feldgus. It is about 19.3 million.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes, 19.3 million. How many acres are actually
utilized for these oil projects, the oil and gas projects?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, currently, there are no leases in the
Refuge, so there are no acres being used for oil and gas at
this point.
Mr. Tiffany. Under the proposal in the Tax Cut and Jobs
Act, how many acres were they proposing to utilize for actually
producing oil and gas? Wasn't it 10.4 billion barrels? Wasn't
that the amount that they estimated could be taken as a result
of that?
Dr. Feldgus. I am not sure about that. I do know that the
law required that the lease sales offer at least 400,000 acres.
Mr. Tiffany. The lease sale. How much would actually be
utilized for the footprint of drilling rigs, roads, the
infrastructure to be able to complete these projects?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, in the law there was the restriction of
up to 2,000 acres. That, however, can be a number of very
linear acres. The roads create a network that ends up causing a
much larger footprint than just, say, a 2,000-acre square in a
single spot.
Mr. Tiffany. OK, so about how many acres would be utilized
under that proposal, under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, about how
many acres would the footprint be, would you guess?
Dr. Feldgus. I don't have that number on me right now.
Mr. Tiffany. In the context of 19.3 million acres, wouldn't
it be a very small part?
Dr. Feldgus. It all depends on which acres you are talking
about, the importance of those acres for subsistence resources
and other surface values. It is hard to say exactly.
Mr. Tiffany. Because subsistence resources, that wouldn't
be included, would it? Because we are talking about the actual
footprint for drilling for oil and gas. Subsistence, I am
assuming you are referring to whaling and things like that.
Dr. Feldgus. Also caribou.
Mr. Tiffany. Yes.
Dr. Feldgus. Onshore.
Mr. Tiffany. By the way, how are the wildlife populations
doing up on the North Slope?
Dr. Feldgus. I don't have that data in front of me right
now.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. Can you get that data?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. That would be great.
Dr. Feldgus. Sure.
Mr. Tiffany. Because everything I understand since the
Alaska Pipeline was built a few decades ago, the caribou
population has exploded. Is that accurate?
Dr. Feldgus. I said I don't have that data, but I also know
there are different caribou herds that can exhibit different
population effects.
Mr. Tiffany. Let's have a little economic discussion in
regards to what the Ranking Member said about who benefits from
this. Who benefits from us producing more energy? Americans.
You can talk about all the rich people and all the rest. Do
you know who the rich people are benefiting from right now? It
is the tax credits they get for intermittent wind and solar,
where you have places like California, where you pay twice as
much for your electricity, and it is maybe on half the time.
OK, that is a little bit of hyperbole in regards to on half the
time, but that is basically what has been happening in states
and countries that have went to intermittent sources of power
that can only survive with tax credits. Who buys those tax
credits? Warren Buffett, people like that. I mean, it is the
ultra-wealthy that buy those tax credits that are set up by
United States of America.
Who benefits from affordable energy? The American people
benefit from affordable energy, and I hope we will drill for
more oil and gas here in America so that we can have
prosperity. America is only prosperous when we have affordable
energy.
I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Well said. Next up, Representative Rosendale
for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Stauber. Representative Duarte, I am sorry.
Mr. Duarte. Hello, Jared. Good to see you. I hope you had a
happy Thanksgiving.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Dr. Feldgus, for coming in today. Seventy
percent of the residents in the very north end of Alaska are
subsistence communities, where they live off the land, live off
the caribou, live off the whales. We have discussed that. Have
you ever been to Alaska, rural Alaska?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
Mr. Duarte. Did you stay long?
Dr. Feldgus. I have been on the North Slope for probably a
couple of days, combined.
Mr. Duarte. Did you buy any consumer goods there?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes.
Mr. Duarte. How was the price?
Dr. Feldgus. The prices are extremely high.
Mr. Duarte. Yes, I was up there on a trip with my son,
fishing, and a bar of soap was five bucks. Five bucks.
I don't know if hunting your own food or subsisting up
there as much as you can is a function of a preferred
lifestyle, or if it is just a function of the economics of
living in an incredibly remote place without a thriving
economy, a thriving economy that could be produced by energy
development, the freedom to produce a thriving economy based on
the land resources was implicit in the Corporations Act in the
1970s, was it not?
When we gave the Native peoples of Alaska their
corporations rights, and they formed corporations in the 1970s
and were told that they could take the land, develop it, and
produce income, revenue, and maybe not have to hunt caribou for
most things they ate?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, my understanding is it is a combination
of cultural and historical, very important for the----
Mr. Duarte. Yes, I am sure in my cultural, historical
history my family at one point were subsistence hunters. I am
sure that they were living off the land at some point in my
history, maybe a few hundred years ago, maybe even more than
that. But I think we have all been blessed with a modern
economy based on wise use of our natural resources, based on
our innovation, our enterprise. And I believe that you are
robbing these local people of the same advantages that we
enjoy, on your side of the aisle fairly arrogantly and
exclusively and elitistly, that we are not letting the Native
peoples of Alaska enjoy the same benefits we have enjoyed. And
I think it is mean, I think it is cruel.
I think the left uses words like ``social license'' on many
of their policy decisions. Where is the social license in
robbing the Native peoples of Alaska of the same economic
development opportunities that we have enjoyed that support our
lifestyles here? I am sure your ancestors and mine both used to
hunt something.
Do you recognize a right of the Native peoples of Alaska to
enjoy the same economic development opportunities that we have
had, that we enjoy here, these beautiful rooms?
Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely, yes.
Mr. Duarte. Or should they just be locked in to the level
of technology and economic development that historically many
of us have lived in?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, we hear from a lot of Alaska Natives
from the North Slope, from all over Alaska as part of
corporations, from individual villages, from every community
that we can reach----
Mr. Duarte. Can you produce some corporations' leaders that
are in support of your policy? Is there anyone sitting next to
you?
Is there anyone in our testimony who is in the next panel
who is going to tell us, as a corporation leader, they support
your policy to tell them to keep hunting whales and hunting
caribou, and give up on any kind of modern economic development
because you think better?
Do you think that you can relitigate the 2017 Tax Cut and
Jobs Act?
Do you think you can drain the National Petroleum Reserve?
Do you think you can find every fascist country in the
world to buy oil from, Iran, Venezuela, Russia, and exclude
their opportunity to have the economic development so they can
buy a few consumer goods?
Do we have a climate exodus, or do we simply have a human
capital exodus because your management of these resources and
restriction of these resources isn't allowing the financial
capital to be invested up there? It is not allowing the human
capital to remain invested up there because you are excluding
these people from the economy that they have deserved, that
they have negotiated, and that we have negotiated several
times.
In the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, again in the Fiscal
Responsibility Act, these were all compromises that we made in
government, in our constitutional government, to give these
people an opportunity, not even give it to them, to simply
allow them and get out of their way, and you obstruct it. And
here we are again, trying through our constitutional democracy
to deliver these people the same opportunities that all our
families have enjoyed for centuries. And you think better. And
I think it is mean.
Dr. Feldgus. Well, I will say we do hear a very wide
diversity of voices from the North Slope, and many of those
voices describe the incredible importance of a subsistence
lifestyle for them, not simply economically to just----
Mr. Duarte. Can you point to one example of where oil
development in Alaska has robbed any individuals of their
subsistence lifestyles? I mean, it is two-and-a half Texases.
Dr. Feldgus. I cannot point to a specific example. I
believe there are. We will get back to you----
Mr. Duarte. So, you have regulation by imagination here.
You just imagine there might be some obstructions, and you want
to regulate these folks out of the economic development that
they could have?
Dr. Feldgus. We are mandated and asked to protect
subsistence resources on the North Slope and throughout Alaska,
and we strive to----
Mr. Duarte. You are actually mandated through several
pieces of legislation referenced here today to promote and
allow the development of these oil resources up here for the
Native peoples, the local corporations of Alaska, and you are
not doing it.
I am a freshman Congressman. Maybe you can inform me. It
sounds like you have been in government a while. Do we have a
constitutional democracy, where we can sit down and make a
deal, or don't we?
Dr. Feldgus. I will say we strive to achieve balance in
what we are doing on the North Slope, and that includes energy
development, which is ongoing and----
Mr. Duarte. Balances defined by our legislative and
executive compromises or balances defined by your imagination?
Dr. Feldgus. Balances defined by the law.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Representative Kamlager-Dove, you are up for 5 minutes.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to
our witness for showing up today.
A few weeks ago, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak, and apologies if I
mispronounced your last name, Rosemary, the former mayor of
Nuiqsut, the town closest to fossil fuel development in the
NPR-A, met with my office to express grave concerns about any
future development in the area.
I ask that her written testimony be submitted for the
record of which I would like to highlight here.
Mr. Stauber. Without objection, so ordered.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Statement for the Record
Rosemary Ahtuangaruak
Executive Director, Grandmothers Growing Goodness
Former Mayor, City of Nuiqsut
My name is Rosemary Ahtuangaruak. I am Inupiaq, former mayor of
Nuiqsut, health aide, community leader, and grandmother. I am the
Executive Director of Grandmothers Growing Goodness. We are dedicated
to elevating the understanding and protection of Inupiat culture and
people in the face of rampant oil and gas development and climate
change. Our core purpose is to educate locals and non-locals about
Arctic issues, provide mentoring for the next generation of North Slope
leaders, and influence local, state, and federal policy to protect the
health, culture, and wellbeing of North Slope communities.
The Inupiat have inhabited the region now known as the National
Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, for thousands of years. Today, the Western
Arctic provides food for more than 40 communities. Six communities--
Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk, Nuiqsut, Point Lay, Utqiagvik, and
Wainwright--harvest all or nearly all of their subsistence resources
from the Reserve.
In Nuiqsut, over 70% of our households rely on subsistence
resources for more than half of our diet. And we face severe food
insecurity. A third of households are unable to get enough healthy food
to meet their needs, half of households are unable to get enough
subsistence foods, and a quarter of our households have reported that
at times they do not have enough food to eat. Recently, we were
threatened with a proposal by the Alaska State government to limit our
hunt of caribou to only five per year. This would lead to starvation in
my community--maintaining our ability to hunt is key to our survival.
But subsistence is not only about the number of harvested animals
and total number of pounds of meat produced. It involves our cultural
identity, the sharing of traditional knowledge and values, time
together on the land, and the sharing of food within our own community
as well as with other villages.
Nuiqsut is at ground zero for the industrialization of the Arctic.
The people in my village have experienced serious mental and physical
health impacts from industrial development. We are experiencing
dramatic changes to our land and waters, from development and from
climate change.
Flaring is a serious concern, and it happens far more than it is
supposed to. This is a significant source of various contaminants that
are linked to lung disease and lung cancer. Studies show that residents
near flares suffer from a statistically significant increase in preterm
births. Flaring can cause and exacerbate asthma, a problem which our
community is seriously burdened by. As a health aide in Nuiqsut from
1986-2000, I saw the number of asthma cases in our village go from 1 to
75. Now, industry proposes venting gas which is much worse.
The risk of accidents is also a constant concern. On March 4, 2022,
ConocoPhillips had a gas blowout at its Alpine CD1 pad, only a few
miles from our village. Despite evacuating its own employees,
ConocoPhillips insisted that no one in our village was at risk. This
did not make much sense to my people, and around 20 families fled the
village in fear for their health and safety. Many had experienced
lasting impacts from the Repsol blowout a decade earlier and did not
want to go through a similar experience again.
Impacts to subsistence, pollution, and emergencies--these are all
reasons why we must have stronger regulations for oil and gas
development.
The power and influence of oil and gas companies on the North Slope
make it difficult to achieve better protections for our people, but our
City and Tribal governments have worked hard to advocate for better
regulation of this activity. It is not easy standing up to the oil
companies. But it has to be done. Nuiqsut has long asked for mitigation
measures that could better protect our air quality and for stronger
measures to protect our subsistence use of the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd.
The proposed regulations for the Reserve will not solve all the
problems we face from oil and gas development, but there are many
provisions that are an improvement. The regulations require
consultation with Tribes and the prioritization of subsistence uses.
They require consideration of Indigenous Knowledge and open the door
for opportunities for co-stewardship. And the process to create new
Special Areas could be used to create a Nuiqsut subsistence use Special
Area.
My organization appreciates the efforts the Bureau of Land
Management has gone through to recognize the importance of subsistence
in these regulations. We look forward to continuing to support the
agency's efforts to ensure that our life, health, safety, culture, and
traditions are protected.
The government has an obligation to protect our community from the
harms of the oil industry and must stop expecting us to sacrifice our
own lives ``in the national interest.'' Our communities have been asked
to do so for too long, and environmental justice requires a new
approach.
______
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. She is one of these communities that is
relying on subsistence resources, and she says, ``Nuiqsut is at
ground zero for the industrialization of the Arctic. The people
in my village have experienced serious mental and physical
health impacts from industrial development. We are experiencing
dramatic changes to our land and waters from development and
from climate change.''
She describes an incident of a ConocoPhillips gas leak in
March 2022. ``Despite evacuating its own employees,
ConocoPhillips insisted that no one in our village was at risk.
This did not make much sense to my people, and around 20
families fled the village in fear for their health and
safety.'' Many had experienced lasting impacts from the Repsol
blowout a decade earlier, and did not want to go through a
similar experience again.
She says, ``The power and influence of oil and gas
companies on the North Slope make it difficult to achieve
better protections for our people. But our city and tribal
governments have worked hard to advocate for better regulations
of this activity. It is not easy, standing up to the oil
companies, but it has to be done. Nuiqsut has long asked for
mitigation measures that could better protect our air quality,
and for stronger measures to protect our substance use of the
Teshekpuk caribou herd.''
So, the Administration's proposed regulations, and I am so
glad I came in when I did, to share that in response to the
earlier questions, the Administration's proposed regulations in
the western Arctic are a welcome step in the right direction
for Rosemary and many in her community. By comparison, this
bill is an industry wish list, I guess we are close to
Christmas, that could rush through more fossil fuel projects
near a community that is already bearing the brunt of negative
health and environmental impacts from existing developments.
So, Doctor, can you briefly outline efforts taken by BLM to
ensure that the agency's proposed regulations protect the
health, safety, and culture of Alaska Native communities on
Alaska's North Slope?
Dr. Feldgus. Absolutely, and thank you for the question.
We have been focused on meeting the obligations that we
have in the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act to provide
the maximum protection to the surface values in special areas.
And many of those special areas are designated particularly for
their importance to subsistence resources such as caribou and
other fish and wildlife species.
So, we have been very much focused on making sure that we
create a structure that provides that balance and that maximum
protection for those areas going forward.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you for that, and tribal
sovereignty is also an incredibly important issue. I know it is
one that is being uplifted by Secretary Haaland, who is the
first Native American Interior Secretary.
How is the Administration elevating these objectives in the
management of Federal land in northern Alaska?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, one of the things we are doing is
putting a very strong emphasis on co-stewardship and potential
opportunities for co-management. That is actually a fundamental
piece of the proposed rule, is that the BLM is encouraged to
look for as many opportunities to bring tribal communities into
the management of these lands and resources alongside the BLM.
Ms. Kamlager-Dove. Thank you. I came here from another
hearing on the natural preservation of land, Indigenous land,
specifically, and what has struck me still are some of the
comments by one of the panelists who said we are not in the
business of stopping projects, we are in the business of
protecting cultural resources, and this land is considered a
cultural resource for so many tribes and Indigenous
communities.
And they also said, don't do it to us, do it with us, in
consultation with us. And try not to find a token group to just
come in and say, hey, it is OK to continue to erase me. So, I
just wanted to share that, and hope that that will also inform
the remaining questions and discussions that are brought before
you today.
Thank you, and with that, Mr. Chair, I yield.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you. Next up, Representative Hunt for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, sir, for being here. Thank you for your
time.
American energy is needed now more than ever to heat
households, fuel the economy, and power our nation, our allies,
and the entire world. This is my humble opinion, sir, that
President Trump knew that better than any other President in my
lifetime. And I say that because he established an oil and
leasing program in the ANWR, which is estimated to produce 10.4
billion barrels of oil. And that is the real number that is
needed not just for us, but for the entire world.
Sir, yes or no, are you familiar with the Tax Cut and Jobs
Act?
Dr. Feldgus. Yes, I am.
Mr. Hunt. OK. Then you should be familiar with the two
lease sales mandated by the TCJA, one lease sale by December
2021 and the other by December 2024.
You should also be familiar with your Department holding
the first of those two mandated lease sales in January 2021.
Within that same month, Joe Biden delivered on his campaign
promises by ending oil and gas production with Executive Order
13990. I am sure you are familiar with that, as well. The
Executive Order abruptly placed a moratorium on oil and gas
leases and production in the ANWR, thus placing America's way
of life in the hands of our adversaries. During a nationally
televised debate, Joe Biden said, and I quote, ``No more
drilling on Federal lands. No more drilling, including
offshore. No more ability for the oil industry to drill.''
Promises made, promises kept. He is now the President, and now
I believe him if he said just that.
America produces the cleanest barrel of oil and gas in the
entire world. And rather than keeping jobs here, Joe Biden
would rather choose to buy dirtier oil and gas from Iran, Saudi
Arabia, where I spent 2 years deployed as a combat veteran,
Russia, and Venezuela. When we freeze our production in the
Arctic, Russia, over the course of the past few years, has
tripled their production in our region. Again, we are going to
get our oil from the region. The world is going to. The issue
is are we going to do it, or are we going to let our
adversaries do it?
I want to follow up on a question from Representative
Garret Graves earlier, and the question was about a notice to
lessees published in August 2023 that included a recommended
Rice's whale vessel mitigation, which you said the DOI has not
rescinded. And my question is this: Will DOI rescind the notice
to the lessees and, if so, sir, when?
Dr. Feldgus. Well, first of all, thank you for your
service.
Mr. Hunt. Thank you.
Dr. Feldgus. I would also like to just mention that we are
producing record amounts of oil right now, 13.1 million barrels
a day in August. That is the most ever, and that is more than
Saudi Arabia is producing.
We are also exporting 4 million barrels a day, so we are
providing quite a bit of oil to the rest of the world. I think
we are about the third largest exporter right now.
Mr. Hunt. But we were the first. And by the way, we should
be the first. And this is not addition by subtraction. I mean,
we can literally produce 10.4 barrels of oil more safer and
cleaner than any of our adversaries. I understand maybe being
leaders in certain categories right now, but sir, I am talking
about American excellence. We can do way better, and we need to
do way better.
And for the record, for the next few years, as the global
population increases, we are going to need more oil, not less.
And I am not talking about the champagne problems that we have
in this country. I am talking about the world. I am talking
about Africa, I am talking about Asia.
So, while I hear your point about us being leaders,
whenever we have policies like this that are reducing the
number of barrels of oil by 10.3 billion that we could produce
with our own producers here, with our own workers, cleaner,
better, and safer, that is just unacceptable. It is just not
going to work. We should not be capping our own best interest,
especially if we could fuel our allies and the world.
And if we are not paying attention to what is happening
right now with Russia and with the Ukraine, I am telling you
right now that Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping and these leaders
and these dictators can really care less about how they feel
about climate. They are trying to grab land from our allies.
They are trying to usurp the United States as being the
monopole. That is what is happening, and this Administration is
letting them do that with these failed policies.
I would implore you, sir, we have to continue to push the
envelope, innovate our way out of this, and the best way for us
to do that is for America to lead in energy and oil and gas
production.
I yield back the rest of my time. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
Before I make a closing statement on the first panel, Dr.
Feldgus, you said that we are producing more oil than ever
before.
Dr. Feldgus. That is correct.
Mr. Stauber. Are these on the leases that this
Administration gave or prior administrations?
Dr. Feldgus. I don't have the breakdown.
Mr. Stauber. I can answer that. Prior administrations.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, on whose time are we right now?
Mr. Stauber. I am taking the privilege as a Chair.
Mr. Huffman. I just wasn't aware that the rules afforded
such a privilege.
Mr. Stauber. As the Chairman, I am affording this
privilege. And if you were the Chair, I would give you the
privilege.
Mr. Huffman. Well, you might, but would the rules?
Mr. Stauber. I am affording myself this privilege as the
Chair.
Mr. Huffman. Well, I want to note my objection.
Mr. Stauber. Will DOI rescind the NTL?
Dr. Feldgus. There are currently no plans to rescind the
NTL, the voluntary NTL, I should add.
Mr. Stauber. I didn't hear you.
Dr. Feldgus. Oh, sorry. The notice to lessees?
Mr. Stauber. Yes.
Dr. Feldgus. That is a set of voluntary measures. There are
currently no plans to rescind.
Mr. Stauber. OK. Mr. Rosendale, I am giving you one last
opportunity if you want to question or not.
Mr. Rosendale. No. I can make a statement.
Mr. Stauber. Go ahead, make your statement. You are up for
5 minutes, but I know your statement is going to be short.
Mr. Rosendale. It is going to be much shorter than that,
Mr. Chair, thank you so much. Mr. Chair, thank you very much
for conducting this hearing. We are very glad to see H.R. 6285
brought forward, the hearing on Alaska's Right to Produce Act
of 2023.
The issues in Alaska surrounding the Coastal Plain oil and
gas leasing program parallel the challenges faced by my home
state of Montana and our energy industry. I think it is crucial
to preserve our domestic energy production across the country,
whether it is in Alaska or the Lower 48.
There will be catastrophic, nationwide repercussions if we
do not oppose the environmentalist policies of the Biden
administration. We continue to hear about climate change,
catastrophes, the temperature changes, and the water sea level
changes, but I find it absolutely fascinating, with all of
those things that could take place, that we see our former
President, Barack Obama, buying waterfront property.
Apparently, he is not concerned about it.
The decisions made by the Biden administration in Alaska
reveal a troubling pattern prioritizing a climate extremist
agenda over the well-being of Alaskans and our nation's energy
independence. This echoes challenges in Montana, where the
Administration's emphasis on curtailing the coal industry
through overbearing regulation has hurt our economy and our
security. The impact of Biden's war on domestic energy
production in Montana is felt throughout the country.
We must resist Biden's ongoing assault on traditional
baseload energy sources. We must strike a balance that
preserves conventional forms of energy production, be it coal,
oil, or liquid natural gas. This is crucial for expanding our
energy grid and for our national security.
We have seen the power grid across the country compromised
because of the reliance on renewable yet undependable renewable
energy sources. Relying on foreign adversaries for our
resources abundant in our nation is counter-productive, and
American livelihoods should not be sacrificed due to misguided
climate policies, especially when our adversaries gain from our
reluctance to produce domestically, and we have heard
circumstance after circumstance of this.
States like Alaska and Montana heavily depend on revenue
from resource and mineral production to fund essential public
infrastructure, schools, and emergency services. Without these
funds, these states will face severe consequences, including
shortages and disruption of vital services.
The Alaska's Right to Produce Act of 2023 aims to address
these challenges by ratifying and approving the necessary
authorizations, permits, and other approvals for the Coastal
Plain oil and gas leasing program. We must acknowledge that
these issues extend well beyond Alaska, and are felt in Montana
and other states across the nation's energy landscape. We must
protect our domestic energy industries, preserve American jobs,
preserve state and tribal rights, and ensure the continued
prosperity of our communities.
Mr. Chair, if you need additional time to address your
issues, I would be more than glad to yield the balance of my
time to you.
Mr. Stauber. I appreciate that, and I knew you had
something to say.
With that, I am going to just end with my closing
statement. Dr. Feldgus, I appreciate you being here. I want to
end by reading a quote from Secretary Haaland: ``Tribes deserve
a seat at the decision-making table before policies are made
that impact their communities. Our ongoing efforts to evolve
and strengthen consultation policies and procedures will ensure
that Tribal Nations can engage at the highest levels of the
Federal Government on the issues that matter most to their
people.''
Dr. Feldgus, the Department didn't consult or even make an
attempt to meaningfully engage with tribes, Alaska Native
Corporations, or the only communities located within ANWR and
the NPR-A before making either of these decisions. Dr. Feldgus,
you didn't give them a proper heads up before taking either of
these actions. You dropped a 1,400-page supplemental EIS on
them, and asked them to consult on it within 2 days. You
ignored requests by local elected leadership for reasonable
comment periods because of an arbitrary timeline. Zero meetings
took place in the region on the ANWR supplemental EIS, and the
Secretary herself has refused to meet with these folks at least
eight times, even when they have traveled over 4,000 miles to
come to our nation's capital. This shows that this
Administration does not care about tribal voices if they are in
disagreement with them.
Dr. Feldgus, I really hope you would reconsider and listen
to the testimony of the next panel. And the reason I say that,
as we were asking you questions about tribal consultation and
you were saying in fact this Administration did, you didn't see
this, but they were shaking their heads, the elected leaders on
the North Slope and others.
That the Administration has failed to consult Alaska
Natives in the affected areas is an understatement. The
outreach by this Administration has been atrocious, and I
sincerely hope the Department actually listens to these voices
and walks away from these terrible proposals. The absolute
least you can do is show them some respect today by staying
here.
And before we move to our second panel of witnesses, I am
going to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a
November 30, 2022, White House Memorandum of Uniform Standards
for Tribal Consultation.
Mr. Huffman. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to that
unanimous consent request, but I have to register my opposition
and concern on the record.
I have been on the Natural Resource Committee for 11 years
now. I have never seen this practice of a Chair, simply by
fiat, giving himself the prerogative of an extra round of
questions and a closing statement after one panel. This does
not exist, to my knowledge, in the rules. This is not a
precedent that I think is good to establish. The time allocated
to Republican Members is already quite lopsided by virtue of
your numbers on the Committee. There are ways to find time to
get anything you want in the record. But just seizing time by
fiat and flouting the rules is not something that we can
accept.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Huffman, I don't agree with you, and I
am----
Mr. Huffman. Well, then show me in the rules where you get
the extra round of questioning just because you want it and no
one else does.
Mr. Stauber. This isn't----
Mr. Huffman. And you get a closing statement after one
panel.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Huffman----
Mr. Huffman. I don't think that is in the rules, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Stauber. This Committee will come to order. Mr.
Huffman, I don't agree with you. I am----
Mr. Huffman. Well, show me the rules.
Mr. Stauber. I am giving my closing statement.
Mr. Huffman. And you are out of order. You are out of
order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stauber. I disagree. I want to finish my closing
statement.
Before we move to our second panel of witnesses, I ask
unanimous consent to enter into the record a November 30, 2022,
White House Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
November 30, 2022
Memorandum on Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation
Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies
SUBJECT: Uniform Standards for Tribal Consultation
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution
and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby
ordered as follows:
Section 1. Background. The United States has a unique, legally
affirmed Nation-to-Nation relationship with American Indian and
Alaska Native Tribal Nations, which is recognized under the
Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes,
Executive Orders, and court decisions. The United States
recognizes the right of Tribal governments to self-govern and
supports Tribal sovereignty and self-determination. The United
States also has a unique trust relationship with and
responsibility to protect and support Tribal Nations. In
recognition of this unique legal relationship, and to
strengthen the government-to-government relationship, Executive
Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 (Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments), charges all executive
departments and agencies (agencies) with engaging in regular,
meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials in
the development of Federal policies that have Tribal
implications. Executive Order 13175 also sets forth fundamental
principles and policymaking criteria.
The Presidential Memorandum of January 26, 2021 (Tribal
Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships),
requires agencies to submit detailed plans of action to
implement the policies and directives of Executive Order 13175.
In response, all agencies subject to Executive Order 13175
submitted plans of action, including over 50 agencies that
submitted a consultation plan of action for the first time.
Agencies also conducted more than 90 national-level Tribal
consultations, focusing specifically on agency Tribal
consultation policies. The purpose of this memorandum is to
establish uniform minimum standards to be implemented across
all agencies regarding how Tribal consultations are to be
conducted. This memorandum is designed to respond to the input
received from Tribal Nations regarding Tribal consultation,
improve and streamline the consultation process for both Tribes
and Federal participants, and ensure more consistency in how
agencies initiate, provide notice for, conduct, record, and
report on Tribal consultations. These are baseline standards;
agencies are encouraged to build upon these standards to
fulfill the goals and purposes of Executive Order 13175
consistent with their unique missions and engagement with
Tribal Nations on agency-specific issues.
Sec. 2. Consultation Principles. Tribal consultation is a two-
way, Nation-to-Nation exchange of information and dialogue
between official representatives of the United States and of
Tribal Nations regarding Federal policies that have Tribal
implications. Consultation recognizes Tribal sovereignty and
the Nation-to-Nation relationship between the United States and
Tribal Nations, and acknowledges that the United States
maintains certain treaty and trust responsibilities to Tribal
Nations. Consultation requires that information obtained from
Tribes be given meaningful consideration, and agencies should
strive for consensus with Tribes or a mutually desired outcome.
Consultation should generally include both Federal and Tribal
officials with decision-making authority regarding the proposed
policy that has Tribal implications. Consultation will ensure
that applicable information is readily available to all
parties, that Federal and Tribal officials have adequate time
to communicate, and that after the Federal decision, consulting
Tribal Nations are advised as to how their input influenced
that decision-making. All of these principles should be applied
to the extent practicable and permitted by law.
Sec. 3. Designating an Agency Point of Contact for Tribal
Consultation. (a) The head of each agency shall designate a
primary point of contact for Tribal consultation matters who is
responsible for advising agency staff on all matters pertaining
to Tribal consultation and serving as the primary point of
contact for Tribal officials seeking to consult with the
agency.
(b) The head of each agency shall consider designating
additional points of contact as necessary to facilitate
consultation on varied subject matter areas within the agency.
(c) Each agency shall provide the names and contact information
of the designated agency points of contact for Tribal
consultation on its website, as well as to the White House
Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and the White House Council
on Native American Affairs.
(d) The designated agency points of contact may delegate
consultation responsibilities to other decision-making agency
officials within their agency as necessary and appropriate.
Sec. 4. Determining Whether Consultation Is Appropriate. The
head of each agency shall ensure that agency staff undertake an
analysis as early as possible to determine whether Tribal
consultation is required or appropriate consistent with
Executive Order 13175. This analysis should occur regardless of
whether a Tribal government requests consultation. When a
Tribal government requests consultation, the agency--to the
extent that it has not yet performed the analysis to determine
whether consultation is appropriate--shall conduct that
analysis as soon as possible and respond to the Tribe within a
reasonable time period. If there is a reasonable basis to
believe that a policy may have Tribal implications, consistent
with the definition in Executive Order 13175, the agency shall
follow the applicable requirements for consultation. Agencies
may still engage in Tribal consultation even if they determine
that a policy will not have Tribal implications, and should
consider doing so if they determine that a policy is of
interest to a Tribe or Tribes.
Sec. 5. Notice of Consultation. (a) When inviting a Tribe or
Tribes to consult, the head of each agency should:
(i) develop a notice of consultation, which includes:
(A) sufficient information on the topic to be discussed, in an
accessible language and format, and context for the
consultation topic, to facilitate meaningful consultation;
(B) the date, time, and location of the consultation, as
requested by the agency or as developed in consultation with
the Tribe or Tribes;
(C) if consulting virtually or by telephone, links to join or
register in advance;
(D) an explanation of any time constraints known to the agency
at that time, such as statutory deadlines;
(E) deadlines for any written comments on the topic; and
(F) names and contact information for agency staff who can
provide more information;
(ii) transmit the notice of consultation, using the agency's
standard method of communication, to each affected Tribal
government and consider posting it to the agency's website or
any centralized Federal Government site for providing notice of
or coordinating Tribal consultations;
(iii) provide notice of at least 30 days to the Tribe or Tribes
of any planned consultations, except as provided in subsection
(c) of this section;
(iv) provide appropriate, available information on the subject
of consultation including, where consistent with applicable
law, a proposed agenda, framing paper, and other relevant
documents to assist in the consultation process; and
(v) allow for a written comment period following the
consultation of at least 30 days, except as provided in
subsection (c) of this section.
(b) The head of each agency shall ensure that agency officials
responsible for sending invitations to consult to interested or
potentially affected Tribal governments use available tools,
databases, and agency documentation, as well as communicate
with agency representatives who may be knowledgeable about
those Tribes and the location(s) affected by the policy with
Tribal implications, to ensure their invitation efforts are
appropriately inclusive. Such efforts should account for the
fact that Tribes may have connections or legally protected
rights to locations and resources beyond their current Tribal
lands and Tribal government offices such as off-reservation
fishing, hunting, gathering, or other rights.
(c) If there are time constraints such that 30 days' notice of
consultation is not possible, or that the post-consultation
written comment period described in subsection (a)(v) of this
section must be shorter than 30 days, the notice of
consultation should include information as to why the standard
notice or written comment period cannot be provided. Upon the
request of a Tribe, or where it would serve Tribal interests or
fulfill certain trust obligations to Tribal Nations, agencies
should consider adjusting deadlines for notice of consultations
and for accepting written comments.
Sec. 6. Conducting the Consultation. Throughout a consultation,
the head of each agency, or appropriate representatives, shall
recognize and respect Tribal self-government and sovereignty;
identify and consider Tribal treaty rights, reserved rights,
and other rights; respect and elevate Indigenous Knowledge,
including cultural norms and practices relevant to such
consultations; and meet the responsibilities that arise from
the unique legal relationship between the Federal Government
and Tribal governments. The head of each agency should ensure
that agency representatives with appropriate expertise and, to
the extent practicable, decision-making authority regarding the
proposed policy are present at the Nation-to-Nation
consultation. The head of each agency should consider
conducting the consultation in a manner that prioritizes
participation of official Tribal government leaders.
Sec. 7. Record of the Consultation. (a) The head of each agency
shall maintain a record of the consultation process that
includes:
(i) a summary of Tribal input received;
(ii) a general explanation of how Tribal input influenced or
was incorporated into the agency action; and
(iii) if relevant, the general reasoning for why Tribal
suggestions were not incorporated into the agency action or why
consensus could not be attained.
(b) The head of each agency shall timely disclose to the
affected Tribe or Tribes the outcome of the consultation and
decisions made as a result of the consultation. To the extent
permitted by applicable law, the head of each agency shall seek
to ensure that information designated as sensitive by a Tribal
government is not publicly disclosed. Agencies should obtain
advance informed consent from Tribal communities for the use of
sensitive information provided by the Tribe, and should inform
Tribal representatives that certain Federal laws, including the
Freedom of Information Act, may require disclosure of such
information.
(c) For national and regional consultations, or if otherwise
appropriate, the head of each agency should also consider
publicly posting the record of consultation to foster ease of
reference and use by other agencies, employees, and processes,
and to minimize burdens on Tribes to provide similar input in
multiple consultations. Decisions regarding whether to publicly
post a record of consultation should be made with Tribal input.
(d) The record of consultation does not waive any privilege or
other exception to disclosure pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act or its implementing regulations.
Sec. 8. Training. (a) The head of each agency shall require
annual training regarding Tribal consultation for agency
employees who work with Tribal Nations or on policies with
Tribal implications. This training shall include, at minimum,
review of Executive Order 13175, this memorandum, and any
applicable Tribal consultation policy of the agency.
(b) In addition, the Secretary of the Interior and the Director
of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in consultation
with Tribal Nations, shall establish training modules regarding
Tribal consultation to be available for agency employees who
work with Tribal Nations or on policies with Tribal
implications. These training modules should explain the
concepts of Tribal consultation, the Nation-to-Nation
relationship, and Tribal sovereignty. Agencies may use these
training modules to satisfy the annual training requirement set
forth in subsection (a) of this section.
(c) Within 180 days of the date of this memorandum, the
Director of OPM, in consultation with the Secretary of the
Interior, shall report to the President on progress toward
establishing training modules regarding Tribal consultation and
shall identify additional resources or other support necessary
to implement this training.
Sec. 9. Definitions. The terms ``Tribal officials,'' ``policies
that have Tribal implications,'' and ``agency'' as used in this
memorandum are as defined in Executive Order 13175. The terms
``Tribes'' and ``Tribal Nations'' as used in this memorandum
have the same definition as the term ``Indian Tribe'' as
defined in Executive Order 13175.
Sec. 10. Scope. Nothing in this memorandum shall be construed
to impair or otherwise affect the ability of heads of agencies
to set more specific or more stringent standards, or to
incorporate other best practices, for conducting Tribal
consultation.
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this memorandum
shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or
agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management
and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or
legislative proposals.
(b) This memorandum shall be implemented consistent with
applicable law and subject to the availability of
appropriations.
(c) This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at
law or in equity by any party against the United States, its
departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or
agents, or any other person.
(d) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with
the provisions of this memorandum.
(e) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget is
authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the
Federal Register.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
______
Mr. Stauber. The Clerk will now reset the table. We are
going to take a 3-minute recess, and we are going to get the
next panel in.
And Dr. Feldgus, again, thank you very much. We are
recessed for 3 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Stauber. OK, the Committee will come out of recess and
continue. But before we go, I want to address an issue that Mr.
Huffman rightfully brought forward in our last panel.
And Mr. Huffman, I want to apologize publicly to you. You
were right on the issue. So, when we know better, we do better.
And I do appreciate you and the dialogue we have.
Mr. Huffman. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. All right. We will now move to introduce our
second panel of witnesses.
Our first witness on Panel II is Mr. John Boyle. He is the
Commissioner for the Alaska Department of Natural Resources
located in Anchorage, Alaska.
Commissioner Boyle, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOHN BOYLE, COMMISSIONER, ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Boyle. Thank you, and good morning, Chairman Stauber,
Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of the Committee. I
am grateful for the opportunity today to testify on behalf of
the state of Alaska and Governor Mike Dunleavy.
The state of Alaska strongly supports H.R. 6285, and
appreciates this Committee's attention to the Biden
administration's relentless assault on Alaska that is
unquestionably contrary to existing Federal law and the
national and energy security of the United States. No other
state in this union has borne the onus of the climate-based
millenarianism meted out by President Biden and Secretary
Haaland more than the 49th state. I come before you today to
plead on behalf of all Alaskans for relief from the inimical
policies imposed by the current Administration that threaten
the future of our state and the well-being of our citizens.
One remedy for this abuse is to make the letter of the law
unmistakably clear, and we believe that the legislation before
the Committee today accomplishes that feat. We want to thank
Representative Stauber for bringing forward this bill.
We see the Biden administration utilizing every
bureaucratic device at its disposal in its quixotic quest to
forestall natural resource development across Alaska. This
includes the weaponization of the National Environmental Policy
Act process to interminably delay projects and open avenues of
litigation that cast a pall of uncertainty that is an anathema
to any business faced with making an investment decision. This
legislation today calls out the Biden administration's multi-
year effort to patently ignore and flout congressional intent
expressed in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and it would also
reverse this proposed rulemaking in the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska that is incongruous with the Naval Petroleum
Reserves Production Act.
Congress authorized the leasing and development program
within the 1002 Area of ANWR not on a whim, but after decades
of robust debate and demonstrated environmental protection.
Nearly all of the arguments that have been raised by those
opposed to development within ANWR mirror those that were
raised prior to the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System in the 1970s. Predictions of widespread or irreversible
harm to wildlife, subsistence culture, and the environment have
been definitively refuted.
The reality is that caribou populations along the pipeline
route increased. Alaska's economy flourished, and North Slope
communities prospered, all while improving U.S. energy
security. This is why the overwhelming majority of Alaskans
support an oil and gas leasing program within the 1002 Area.
We have learned firsthand that resource development and
protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive goals.
We also know that there are few, if any, other viable economic
activities within the state that have the same potential to
deliver billions of dollars to state coffers that provide for
all of the state services that we provide our citizens. For
these reasons, the state of Alaska stepped forward through the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority to
participate in the 1002 Area lease sale.
Our efforts, however, have been continuously thwarted by
President Biden, who signaled that stopping development in ANWR
was amongst his top priorities, and the President has been true
to his word. As recognized in H.R. 6285, Secretarial Order 3401
and Executive Order 13990 are the root of repeated efforts by
the Biden administration to sabotage the leasing program in the
Coastal Plain. They are the original source of the yet-to-be-
identified defects in the Comprehensive Environmental Impact
Statement and Record of Decision that authorized the first
lease sale in the 1002 Area.
Unsurprisingly, we see a process that seems to be pre-
ordained to justify selecting highly-restrictive management
approaches that have no basis in the statutory language, and
that will likely make any future development impossible.
Pivoting now to the NPR-A proposed rulemaking, the over-
riding concern shared by the state, local stakeholders, and
community members necessitate legislative repeal. The process
to date has been confusingly deficient, as I think has been
brought up on the record today. We have already heard about the
overlap with the subsistence hunting season on the North Slope
and the lack of opportunity and notice provided to the most
impacted communities.
So, assertions that this rule is administrative or of
limited economic consequence are also patently false. At its
core, the rule attempts to institute a presumption against
development activities across millions of acres in a
statutorily-designated petroleum reserve. This, of course, will
result in billions of dollars in lost revenue to the state and
to the local communities, which is incredibly problematic to
us.
Fundamentally, what we are asking for here, we are asking
to enjoy the same standard of living that is employed by those
that want to foist this brand of environmental imperialism upon
our state. We want to have roads, and good schools, and police,
and fire protection. All of these things are provided by the
petroleum revenue that our state collects. So, our ability to
continue to engage in these activities is fundamental to the
survival and the well-being of the citizens of our state, which
is why we traveled all this way to testify so passionately
before you today. We really appreciate the Committee's time.
I just want to point out, as well, that Alaska has really
borne the brunt of every conceivable effort by this
Administration to stop development: 16.7 million acres of the
Tongass National Forest are off limits to logging; one of the
largest known copper deposits in the world in western Alaska,
off limits to mining; the Ambler Mining Road, which would
provide access to rare earths and critical minerals essential
for national and energy security, again forestalled by the BLM
and their permitting processes.
So, Alaska has just seen repeated efforts by this
Administration to stop these development opportunities, so we
call on Congress and this good Committee today to help us turn
back the tide on these egregious actions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of John C. Boyle III, Commissioner, Department of
Natural Resources, State of Alaska
on H.R. 6285
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the
State of Alaska and Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy.
The State of Alaska strongly supports H.R. 6285 and appreciates the
Committee's attention to the Biden Administration's relentless assault
on Alaska that is unquestionably contrary to existing federal law and
the national and energy security of the United States. No other state
in this union has borne the onus of the climate-based millenarianism
meted out by President Biden and Secretary Haaland more than the 49th
state. I come before you today to plead-on behalf of all Alaskans-for
relief from the inimical policies imposed by the current administration
that threaten the future of our state and the wellbeing of our
citizens.
Put simply, Alaska is a resource state. And without the ability to
responsibly monetize its rich endowment of resources, Alaska economy
will decline and its citizens will suffer.
One remedy for this abuse is to make the letter of the law
unmistakably clear, and we believe that the legislation before the
committee today accomplishes that feat. Thank you Representative
Stauber for putting forward this bill, and I would encourage all
members of the committee to pay careful attention to the testimony of
my friends from Alaska's Arctic who desire nothing more than to enjoy
the same standard of living taken for granted by those foisting their
brand of environmental imperialism on Alaska's Indigenous and non-
Indigenous people alike.
We see the Biden Administration utilizing every bureaucratic devise
at its disposal in its quixotic quest to forestall natural resource
development across Alaska to appease the powerful environmental lobby.
This includes the weaponization of the National Environmental Policy
Act process to interminably delay projects and open avenues of
litigation to cast a pall of uncertainty anathema to any business faced
with making an investment decision. The legislation today calls out the
Biden Administration's multi-year effort to patently ignore and flout
Congressional intent expressed in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act through the
unilateral termination of leases in the Coastal Plain or 1002 Area of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Department of the
Interior's intransigence in administering an oil and gas leasing
program that is mandated to occur. This legislation would also reverse
a proposed rulemaking in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
that is incongruous with the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act,
which governs development in the Petroleum Reserve today.
Sadly, the NPR-A and ANWR aren't the only active fronts in this
administration's climate crusade. Last month my colleague Jerry Moses
testified to this Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lands
Act and the Interior Department's refusal to offer lease sales across
OCS areas in Alaska despite the critical need for those resources to
meet in-state demand for heating and electricity. If we were dependent
on the federal government for our energy needs, Alaskans would
literally be left to freeze.
This same approach by Interior in the 1002 Area and the National
Petroleum Reserve also harms Alaskans and will leave our national
energy security out in the cold. We urge the committee to pass H.R.
6285, and to continue vigorous oversight over all aspects of
development on federal lands in Alaska that are already mandated by
federal law.
Alaskans Need and Want Development--and are Confident in our
Capabilities to Develop Responsibly
We take these positions because the Biden Administration's policy
in Alaska is deleterious to our economy; adverse to the rights, needs,
and expressed desires of the residents of the areas affected by
development; and directly contrary to existing federal law.
Congress authorized the leasing and development program within the
1002 Area of ANWR, not on a whim, but after decades of robust debate
and demonstrated environmental protection. Nearly all the arguments
raised by those opposed to development within ANWR mirror those that
were raised prior to the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline
System in the 1970s. Predictions of widespread or irreversible harm to
wildlife, subsistence culture, and the environment are now definitively
refuted. The reality was caribou populations increased, Alaska's
economy flourished, and North Slope communities prospered-all while
improving U.S. energy security.
This is why the overwhelming majority of Alaskans support an oil
and gas leasing program within the 1002 Area. We've learned firsthand
that resource development and protection of the environment are not
mutually exclusive goals. We also know that are few, if any, other
viable economic activities within the state that have the same
potential to deliver billions of dollars to state coffers that will
support public services across Alaska as oil and gas production.
For these reasons, the State of Alaska stepped forward through the
Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA), to
participate in the 1002 Area lease sale to ensure these resources were
made available for further exploration. Our efforts, however, have been
continuously thwarted by President Biden, who signaled that stopping
development in ANWR was amongst his top priorities. And the President
has been true to his word.
His administration has been indefatigable in frustrating the oil
and gas program within the 1002 Area at every turn. The Executive Order
and Secretarial Order that would be repealed by H.R. 6285 laid out the
framework for this stonewalling strategy, as authorizations to explore
on leases that had been validly acquired have been withheld and
unfounded assertions of unidentified legal gaps in the analyses
carrying out the lease sale used to justify suspensions of operations.
More egregiously, Interior has canceled the leases obtained by AIDEA,
without a basis in process or authority under law to do so. This
legislation rightfully would put a stop to the panoply of hurdles
employed by this administration to frustrate the intent of the Tax Cuts
and Jobs Act.
The Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program has Been Repeatedly and
Severely Undermined
As recognized in H.R. 6285, SO 3401 and EO 13990 are the root of
repeated efforts by the Biden Administration to sabotage the oil and
gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain. They are the original source
of yet-to-be-identified ``defects'' in the comprehensive environmental
impact statement and record of decision that authorized the first lease
sale in the 1002 Area. Instead, the Department of the Interior has
spent two years re-creating those analyses while functionally excluding
the State from its long-standing role as a cooperating agency.
Unsurprisingly, the process seems to be pre-ordained to justify
selecting highly restrictive management approaches that have no basis
in the statutory language authorizing the oil and gas leasing program
and will likely make any development impossible. Interior has also
refused to authorize activities on the leases that were issued under
the program, or general exploration activities, both of which are
needed to fulfill its statutory mandate to make the most prospective
areas available for future leasing.
We would note that H.R. 6285 keeps the Department from being faced
with a question for which they currently have no conceivable answer--if
current federal law mandates that two lease sales occur in the Coastal
Plain prior to 2024, and if, arguendo, that the first lease sale was so
legally defective it was of no consequence (despite the absence of a
basis in law or fact that has been specifically identified for
canceling the leases that resulted), is the Department now out of
compliance with the law and thus obligated to conduct two sales of at
least 400,000 acres each in the next year?
There are Major Flaws in the Substance and Process Underlying the NPR-A
Proposed Rulemaking
Pivoting now to the NPR-A Proposed Rulemaking, the overriding
concerns shared by the State, local stakeholders, and community members
necessitate legislative repeal. The process-to-date has been
confusingly deficient, as The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
scheduled and canceled public meetings on short notice, avoided
consultation obligations, and attempted to avoid procedural safeguards
that are meant to keep rulemakings of enormous public cost and
consequence from being hastily and arbitrarily implemented. Neither
comprehensive environmental nor economic reviews have been completed
for a proposal that will dramatically change environmental and economic
management in what may be the largest federal petroleum asset in the
country.
Assertions that the rule is ``administrative'' or of limited
economic consequence are patently false. At its core, the rule attempts
to instate a presumption against development activities across millions
of acres, in a statutorily designated petroleum reserve, where the
resource potential has been assessed in the billions of barrels. As
revenues from potential NPR-A developments are a cornerstone for the
state and local governments, this rule threatens to preclude billions
of dollars of public revenue--most of which is earmarked for the Alaska
Native villages that are located within the NPR-A. We believe these
impacts have not been explained in good faith to the impacted local
communities and are inconsistent with both the Naval Petroleum Reserve
Production Act and the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act.
In just one example of defective process, the Department of the
Interior's own NPR-A Working Group--established by the Department to
consult on exactly this kind of highly-consequential management
activity--learned about the proposal after it was publicly noticed
without any input, or any information from BLM about how their concerns
will be considered in the proposed rulemaking.
Development on the North Slope of Alaska is a National Asset--at a Time
When Diverse Domestic Sources of Energy are More Important than
Ever
Alaskans, like all Americans, are threatened by these kinds of
actions that restrict our domestic energy production opportunities and
make our entire country less energy secure. In this time of increasing
geopolitical turmoil, we should be doing everything within our power to
grow our national economy and boost development of our nation's energy
resources today so we can continue to enjoy energy abundance tomorrow.
I don't need to detail for the Committee how sharply the last
several years have brought energy security into focus on the world
stage. Robust U.S. energy production has been the bulwark against what
would otherwise a near monopoly of the oil and gas market by the OPEC
Plus consortium. Efforts to resolve the Ukrainian conflict, to support
Israel as an ally in the Middle East, or to deter China from
aggressive, expansionist aims are all underpinned by U.S. energy
independence.
Development of the oil and gas resources within the 1002 Area and
the NPR-A is a key element of our country's energy security. It is also
critical to our country's national security as all of the significant
infrastructure found in Alaska's Arctic--roads, airports,
telecommunications, and ports are all attributable to the oil and gas
industry or the revenue it provides to governments. The Biden
Administration's dogmatic adherence to a conservation-above-all-else
approach to Alaska is inapposite with preparing the U.S. to assert its
sovereignty in the region.
This is not to say that the State of Alaska does not see and
support a future where our energy security comes through diverse
sources of energy in addition to hydrocarbon development. Governor
Dunleavy is focused on utilizing all of our state's abundant resources
such as solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other kinds of renewable
power. We are also aggressively pursuing carbon capture, utilization,
and storage technologies as a tool to lessen the carbon intensity of
existing energy production and to potentially serve as a global
warehouse of CO2 for our Asian allies.
And we shouldn't lose sight that some hydrocarbon production,
particularly natural gas, is key to a sustainable and just energy
transition. Increased U.S. natural gas production has enabled our
country to lower its CO2 emissions more than any other
industrialized nation on earth. We see the same opportunity with the
proposed Alaska LNG project to help reduce worldwide emissions by
offsetting more carbon intense alternatives. These goals and objectives
will only be furthered by allowing responsible development within ANWR
or the NPR-A.
Anti-Alaskan, Anti-Energy Policies are Unfortunately the Biden
Administration's Default
While this legislation before you is critical to fixing two major
obstructionist actions by the Biden Administration, it does not
ameliorate all of the harm inflicted upon the state over the past few
years. Our fragile timber industry and Southeast Alaska communities
continue to suffer due to the misguided policies that forestall nearly
any logging across the 16.7 million acres of the Tongass National
Forest. One of the largest known deposits of copper and other essential
minerals in Western Alaska remains undeveloped thanks to the pre-
emptive veto exercised by this administration's Environmental
Protection Agency. Besides the policies already discussed, the
Department of the Interior has neglected to hold any lease sales within
the NPR-A and continues to obstruct progress on the Ambler access route
which would facilitate the development of myriad critical mineral and
rare earth resources.
In short, the State of Alaska has not seen a natural resource
development prospect that this administration won't oppose to one
degree or another. This leaves us with little recourse but to petition
the courts or Congress for relief.
Conclusion
Thank you again for bringing forward this legislation. Alaska was
admitted to the Union premised on our ability to utilize our natural
resources for the collective benefit of the state. Without that
development, we have no economy and no ability to provide for the
700,000 hardy souls that call Alaska home. We cannot sit idly by as a
sacrifice on the altar of climate change and environmental idealism.
Our state, our country, and the world need the resources that we have
to offer. Our hope is to see a government in Washington D.C. that
recognizes that reality.
We ask the Committee to listen to Alaskans, listen to the community
members who are here today, and listen to current law--all supporting
H.R. 6285.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to John Boyle, Commissioner, Alaska
Department of Natural Resources
Mr. Boyle did not submit responses to the Committee by the appropriate
deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. How important to the State of Alaska has energy
production in the NPR-A been and how important is it to the State that
responsible energy production in the 1002 Area of ANWR be allowed?
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Commissioner Boyle. Our next
witness is Ms. Doreen Leavitt. She is the Secretary of the
Inupiat community of the Arctic Slope located in Utqiagvik,
Alaska.
Ms. Leavitt, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DOREEN LEAVITT, SECRETARY, INUPIAT COMMUNITY OF
THE ARCTIC SLOPE, UTQIAGVIK, ALASKA
Ms. Leavitt. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning,
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and members of
the Committee. Thank you for having me here today to discuss
the bipartisan H.R. 6285, or Alaska's Right to Produce Act.
This legislation will restore Inupiat self-determination
within our ancestral homelands in the National Petroleum
Reserve in Alaska, or NPR-A, and the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, or ANWR.
The North Slope Inupiat are the only Indigenous people that
have continually inhabited these lands, yet our voices have
been continuously dismissed. My name is Doreen Leavitt, and I
am honored to serve my people as a Director of Natural
Resources for the Inupiat community of the Arctic Slope known
as ICAS. I also serve in an elected capacity on the Tribal
Council, and I am a resident of the North Slope Borough.
ICAS is a federally recognized regional Alaska Native Tribe
that defends the aboriginal rights of our 13,000 Inupiaq
members across eight different villages. We do this by
providing critical governmental, social, and cultural services
to our communities. The Tribe also oversees roughly 58 million
acres, an area the size of the state of Minnesota, and 15
percent of Alaska's total land mass. This includes much of ANWR
and NPR-A.
Our Tribe was created and governed by the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934 and the ICAS Constitution. Under
this Act, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior is obligated to
honor a government-to-government relationship with a federally
recognized tribe like ICAS on policies and substantial direct
effects on our land and our people. This legal obligation was
created to strengthen Indigenous self-rule, and is vital to
furthering Inupiat self-determination. Yet, this legal
obligation and our right to self-determination has historically
been shamefully ignored by the Federal Government, a
disgraceful trend this Administration seems intent on
continuing with its September 6 mandates affecting our
homelands and NPR-A and ANWR.
Over the past 150 years, large tracts of our ancestral
homelands have been cleaved away from the North Slope Inupiat
by the Federal Government. Among the 44 million acres of our
land seized by the Federal and state governments are 23 million
acres for NPR-A, 9 million acres for ANWR, 12 million acres
conveyed to the state of Alaska after statehood. Despite the
plainly-stated legal obligations outlined by the IRA defined as
government-to-government dialogue between official
representatives of tribes and Federal agencies to discuss
Federal proposals, Washington carelessly discarded our rights
while it carved up our ancestral homelands.
This Administration's September 6 announcements show that
those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
These actions will have a tremendous detrimental impact on our
regional economy, the viability of our communities, and the
future of our Inupiat culture.
Our Tribe was not consulted in advance of the Federal
Government's decisions, nor were our region's elected Native
representatives, including the tribes, the Alaska Native
Corporations, and local governments. Instead, we learned of it
through the press.
Even more disgraceful has been the lack of engagement by
the Federal Government with the five communities most affected
by these announcements. To date, there have been zero meetings
on the North Slope to discuss the Administration's draft SEIS
for ANWR. Not even Kaktovik, the only Alaska Native community
located with ANWR. You will be hearing more from my colleague
from Kaktovik, Charles Lampe, here in a few minutes. We support
the people of Kaktovik and their right to be heard.
From our perspective as the regional tribal government, the
Federal Government has grossly mismanaged community engagements
around the Section 1002 Area of ANWR. BLM hastily organized a
public meeting in Utqiagvik on September 25 to discuss the
draft SEIS affecting the 1002 Area in the midst of our fall
subsistence activities. Despite multiple requests by our Tribe
and other elected North Slope Inupiat leaders to reschedule,
BLM refused to move the meeting, citing the attendance of a
single foreign reporter as grounds of continuing on with that
meeting. The Federal Government should not prioritize the media
over the voices of Alaska Native communities who will be
directly affected by its policies.
Similarly, when pressed for an NPR-A public comment period
extension by North Slope Inupiat leaders, BLM officials refused
and noted on the record that their timeline was designed
explicitly to avoid the Congressional Review Act. The Federal
Government is seeking to not only subvert the legal rights of
the North Slope Inupiat people, but oversight of this
Committee, as well. This dereliction of duty and disregard for
the rule of law cannot continue.
I am grateful to Chairman Stauber and Representative Mary
Sattler Peltola for introducing H.R. 6285. I am also thankful
to Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan for introducing the
companion bill in the Senate.
It is unfortunate that this bill is necessary, but by
supporting this legislation you are supporting our Inupiat
rights to self-determination. ICAS strongly supports your
efforts to address this bipartisan issue.
[Speaking Native language.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Leavitt follows:]
Prepared Statement of Doreen Leavitt, Director of Natural Resources &
Tribal Council Secretary, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope
on H.R. 6285
Good morning, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and
members of the Committee. Quyanaqpak, or ``thank you very much'' in
Inupiaq, for welcoming me today to discuss the bipartisan H.R. 6285,
``Alaska's Right to Produce Act.'' Thank you to Chairman Stauber,
Alaska's Representative Mary Sattler Peltola, and Representatives Kevin
Hern and August Pfluger for introducing the bill earlier this month.
Thank you as well to Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan of Alaska
for introducing the companion bill in the Senate.
H.R. 6285 addresses both land rights and usage on the North Slope,
both of which are essential to the self-determination of the Indigenous
communities represented by the federally recognized tribe I am here to
represent today. This proposed legislation is central to restoring
access and benefits for local communities to two different tracts of
federal land located within the North Slope region: The National
Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) and the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR).
I am Doreen Leavitt, Director of Natural Resources for the Inupiat
Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS). I also serve in an elected
capacity as Secretary for the Tribal Council. I am a tribal citizen of
ICAS and the Native Village of Barrow; a shareholder of Ukpeagvik
Inupiat Corporation, the Alaska Native village corporation of
Utqiagvik, and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the North Slope's
regional Alaska Native corporation; and a resident of the North Slope
Borough. I state these affiliations and memberships because some folks
do not understand the complicated nature of Alaska Native governance
and representation--nor the fact that it was this body, Congress, who
fractured our representation with the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act of 1971 (ANCSA).
Established in 1971, ICAS is one of two federally recognized
regional Alaska Native tribes. Our tribal government was formed to
defend the aboriginal rights of our 13,000 Inupiaq tribal citizens, who
reside across eight different villages. We do this by establishing and
carrying out justice systems pursuant to Inupiaq tribal law and custom,
increasing the variety and quality of services provided to current
tribal members and for our future generations, and conserving and
retaining tribal resources, especially as they relate to subsistence
and environmental issues.
In addition to the governmental, social, and cultural functions
served by ICAS on the North Slope, we also oversee our North Slope
ancestral homelands across in an area encompassing 89,000 square
miles--15 percent of Alaska's total land mass. This area includes much
of ANWR and encompasses almost the entirety of the NPR-A. Among our
eight communities is Kaktovik, the only community located within ANWR's
boundaries; as well as Utqiagvik, Wainwright, Nuiqsut, and Atqasuk,
which are the only communities located within the NPR-A.
ICAS was created and is governed by the Indian Reorganization Act
of 1934 and the ICAS Constitution; our leadership represents and is
elected by the Inupiat of the North Slope region. Under the Indian
Reorganization Act of 1934, we have a legally mandated government-to-
government relationship with the federal government, entitling us to
consultation on policy proposals with substantial, direct effects on
our lands and people. The Indian Reorganization Act included this legal
obligation to strengthen Indigenous self-rule, and as such, it is a
critical tool for furthering Inupiaq self-determination.
We talk about self-determination for several reasons. For one, the
North Slope Inupiat live in one of the most remote areas of the
country, with none of our communities connected by a permanent road
system to each other or to other municipalities in the state. This
makes private and public investment very costly, so it is up to our
people to seek out opportunities and partners to strengthen our
regional economy. Without the foresight, courage, and advocacy of our
leaders in the 1960s and 1970s, our people would not even have
ownership over the lands our ancestors have called home for millennia;
the lands on which we subsist and support development projects to
sustain our families and our communities.
Before ANCSA was signed into law in 1971, our people faced a life
expectancy of just 34 years. With the ability to tax oil and gas
infrastructure, with access to modern amenities afforded to most other
US citizens such as running water, and with the shareholder benefits
from our new Alaska Native corporations created by Congress through
ANCSA, life expectancy in the North Slope Borough soared to 65 by 1980.
We have since forged a life of economic and social gains as a direct
result of the revenues from resource development projects, and these
revenues are being reinvested into our communities.
Today, it is now impossible to separate our traditional subsistence
practices, which have sustained our people and forged the backbone of
our culture for millennia, from the modern economy. We must avoid
dichotomies that falsely state our subsistence traditions cannot co-
exist with responsible resource development in our homelands. It is not
a choice of one or the other, as they have co-existed to great effect
for our people for the past 50 years.
We have gained much in the last half century thanks to this balance
as well as the formalization of ICAS and other tribal representation
entities dedicated to the advancement of Inupiaq self-determination.
Nevertheless, our self-determination is something to be fought for
still to this day. This includes continuously reminding Washington
about our legal rights--including calling out the administration for
shirking its government-to-government consultative responsibilities to
the North Slope Inupiat.
One only needs to look to this administration's recent,
unprecedented actions affecting our lands and people in NPR-A and ANWR
as an example of Washington's backpedaling. The unilateral actions that
took place on September 6, without prior consultation with the only
Indigenous group who calls the affected lands home, is not just a
dereliction of duty, an issue of mere miscommunication, or disrespect
for Indigenous voices--it is a violation of the rule of law.
Under the Indian Reorganization Act, the U.S. Secretary of the
Interior is obligated to honor a government-to-government relationship
with our federally recognized tribes, like the Inupiat Community of the
Arctic Slope. And the current administration's January 2021 Memorandum
on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships
made further commitments to Alaska Native Tribal Nations as sovereign
governments--building upon Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000
(Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments) which
directs ``all executive departments and agencies with engaging in
regular, meaningful, and robust consultation with Tribal officials in
the development of Federal policies that have Tribal implications.''
It's time for Washington to make good on not only its rhetoric but
also its obligations. Policies crafted in our nation's capital, without
the input of those that will be most impacted--like those announced by
the Department of the Interior (DOI) on September 6 affecting NPR-A and
ANWR--have direct, profound impacts on the North Slope Inupiat and our
communities. The federal government must uphold its legal commitments
to the North Slope Inupiat by creating a space for our voices at the
policymaking table, starting now.
Brief North Slope History
The Inupiat have lived on Alaska's North Slope, one of America's
harshest, most remote environments, for millennia. We have stewarded
our lands since well before the creation of the State of Alaska, the
DOI, or even the very idea of American independence. Our people are
inseparable from these lands and the bounty they provide.
Yet over the past 150 years, large tracts of our ancestral
homelands have been cleaved away from the North Slope Inupiat by the
federal government, who gave little thought or care to the significant
cultural value of our lands, the impact of their decisions on Alaska
Native communities, or our self-determination. To begin, the Alaska
Purchase in 1867 transferred possession of Alaska from the Russian
Empire to the United States. The U.S. government paid $7.2 million for
the purchase of roughly 400 million acres of land, but Washington did
not address aboriginal land rights as part of the purchase--it would
take another 100 years.
Federal land grabs in our region began in earnest in 1923, when
President Harding designated approximately 23 million acres of Inupiaq
land to create the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, now known as the
National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska. In 1959, President Eisenhower
conveyed 104 million acres of land to the State of Alaska, 12 million
acres of which were on the North Slope. A year later in 1960, President
Eisenhower, at the behest of outside groups like the Sierra Club and
the Wilderness Society, appropriated 8.9 million acres of our lands to
create the Arctic National Wildlife Range.
Over 75 percent of the North Slope was claimed by the federal or
state government before legitimate aboriginal land claims were
resolved. For context, that 75 percent adds up to 44 million acres of
land solely on the North Slope that had been claimed by the state and
federal governments prior to the passage of ANCSA, including the
extremely lucrative oil and gas fields of Prudhoe Bay. Yet 44 million
acres also adds up to the total acreage returned to all Alaska Native
people through ANCSA. The North Slope Inupiat, through Arctic Slope
Regional Corporation, would be conveyed just under five million acres
of this total amount.
Seizure of Inupiaq land by the state and federal governments did
not stop there. When President Carter signed the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) into law in 1980, the Arctic
National Wildlife Range became the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and
was more than doubled in size. ANILCA included a provision, Section
1002, that set aside 1.5 million acres of the Coastal Plain to be
assessed for development potential. In 1987, DOI recommended that this
area, which represented only 7.8 percent of ANWR's total land area, be
opened to exploration and potential responsible development projects.
Each of these decisions are connected by a sordid throughline: At
no point did Washington consult with the North Slope Inupiat or
consider the impact of its policy proposals on our communities. The
federal government neither cared for the governmental authority of
organizations like ICAS nor did it respect the obvious ``public
interest'' in the lands of ANWR of communities like the Inupiat village
of Kaktovik, the sole community located in the Section 1002 area and
the over 19 million acres of ANWR.
These actions directly contravened the Indian Reorganization Act,
which demands tribal consultation, defined as ``government-to-
government dialogue between official representatives of Tribes and
Federal agencies to discuss Federal proposals,'' any time a proposed
agency action could have substantial direct effects on a federally
recognized tribe. The law also notes that it is sometimes necessary to
communicate with tribal governments in advance of policy decisions to
determine whether or not it will have a substantial, direct effect on
our lands and people. Yet Washington shamefully ignored its legal
obligations while it carved up our ancestral homelands.
Inadequate Consultation with the North Slope Inupiat
This brings us to today and the federal government's September 6
announcements about ANWR and NPR-A, both of which will profoundly
affect the North Slope Inupiat and our five communities located within
the boundaries of these federal tracts located on our ancestral
homelands.
If those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it,
then the federal government has clearly learned nothing from its
dealings with the North Slope Inupiat over the past 150 years. As ICAS
and other North Slope organizations and elected leadership have
highlighted before this committee earlier this year, this
administration developed its new policies on ANWR and NPR-A without
first consulting with Alaska Native communities about their potential
impacts, positive or negative.
Just as throughout history, the administration's actions are an
affront to the rule of law as outlined in the Indian Reorganization Act
and described above. The federal government's rulings on our ancestral
homelands will have a tremendous impact on our regional economy, the
viability of our communities, and the future of our Inupiaq culture, as
there is no daylight between the three: economy, community, and
culture. Yet ICAS was not consulted in advance of DOI's sweeping
September 6 mandates. Instead, like many others on the North Slope, we
found out through the press.
According to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, tribal consultations are
required to include at least 30 days' notice, a discussion between the
tribal government and relevant federal agencies, and a federal response
to tribes highlighting how their feedback was incorporated into a final
decision. To date, the federal government has not followed through on
all of these steps on decisions concerning Inupiat lands affected by
the ANWR and NPR-A announcements. Making matters worse, ICAS has sent
multiple entreaties and invitations to Secretary Deb Haaland for formal
consultation to which we have never received a written response. The
Secretary and DOI are seemingly intent on ignoring or avoiding their
government-to-government obligations to ICAS.
Even more disgraceful has been the lack of engagement by the
federal government with the five communities targeted by these two
separate announcements. To date, there have been zero public meetings
on the North Slope, not even in Kaktovik, to discuss the
administration's draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for
ANWR and the Section 1002 area. There have been only two public
meetings on the North Slope with regard to the proposed NPR-A rule.
This negligent approach not only defies the law but disagrees with
Secretary Haaland's highly publicized recent comments at the Alaska
Federation of Natives 2023 Conference as well as White House policy
memorandums, Executive Order 13175, and the White House National
Strategy for the Arctic.
Had the administration acted according to the Indian Reorganization
Act or its own orders, its leadership and staff would have made
allowance for the fact that ICAS, alongside many other North Slope
tribes and entities like the Native Village of Kaktovik, Voice of the
Arctic Inupiat, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and more, have a
long history of supporting responsible resource development projects in
ANWR. The Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, of which ICAS Is a member, has a
standing resolution supporting the responsible exploration and
development of the 1002 area of ANWR.
It is equally important that DOI engage directly with Kaktovik, the
only Alaska Native community located within ANWR. ICAS supports
Kaktovik and its efforts, without reservation, to engage DOI on the
sweeping September 6 mandates, and we are grateful that the people most
affected are represented today in this hearing by Charles Lampe,
President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation. We have traveled here
from our communities located within ANWR and NPR-A to speak before this
committee and other groups in Washington to ensure that the federal
government hears our message and that past mistakes do not continue to
be repeated.
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A)
ICAS would also like to voice deep concern with the federal
government's historic approach to NPR-A, which covers 23 million acres
and has been home to the North Slope Inupiat for more than 10,000
years.
Following the discovery of oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968, Congress
passed the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA) in 1976 to
authorize full commercial development of America's strategic fuel
reserves. This included the Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, which was
renamed as NPR-A and transferred from the Navy to the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM). The NPRPA defined how NPR-A would be managed,
including the establishment of five Special Areas within NPR-A, but it
gave little thought to the North Slope Inupiat who have called these
lands home for millennia.
Today, four of the eight villages represented by ICAS are within
NPR-A, including Nuiqsut, Atqasuk, Utqiagvik, and Wainwright. Two other
North Slope Inupiat communities, Point Lay and Anaktuvuk Pass, are
adjacent and use NPR-A for subsistence purposes. And a 1977 study
identified 119 traditional Inupiat land use sites in the area.
All eight North Slope communities depend on the taxation of
infrastructure for services that everyone here in Washington, DC. and
in your home districts expect as the baseline for first-world
conditions, such as running water, flush toilets, schools, power, and
heat.
Despite the governmental authority of ICAS, codified by the Indian
Reorganization Act, as well as our historic claims to the land,
Washington has failed to observe its government-to-government
obligations or consider the possibility of co-management of our lands.
In 2013, the BLM released an Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) to prohibit
development on 11 million acres in NPR-A--nearly 50% of its total land
area, further limiting the ability of the North Slope Inupiat to
determine our future in our ancestral homelands.
A few years later, then-Interior Secretary Bernhardt issued a new
IAP in June 2020 that increased the total land area for development
within NPR-A from 11.8 million acres to 18.6 million acres. Further,
the 2020 IAP allowed community infrastructure to be considered anywhere
in the NPR-A. Community infrastructure is defined as an infrastructure
project that responds to community needs, such as roads, power lines,
fuel pipelines, and communications systems, and is owned and maintained
by or on behalf of the North Slope Borough (NSB), city government, the
State of Alaska, a tribe, or an ANCSA corporation. This provision
applies across the NPR-A unless otherwise noted in specific areas. It
is difficult to predict what infrastructure needs North Slope
communities may have in the next 20 plus years as their demographics
shift and they respond to a changing climate, and this decision ensures
the BLM will have the flexibility to be responsive to local needs.
Our voice, it seemed, was finally being heard in Washington.
Inconsistent Engagement
Yet when President Biden was sworn into office, he immediately
issued an executive order suspending all drilling leases in ANWR,
including those in the Section 1002 area. One and a half years later,
in January 2022, the Biden administration's BLM announced that it would
stop using the 2020 Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) for NPR-A and would
revert back to the 2013 IAP restricting development, including
community infrastructure such as utility lines or roads, to only 11.8
million acres within NPR-A.
Naturally, the Biden administration's decisions were deeply
concerning for ICAS as a tribal government and the North Slope Inupiaq
communities it represents. Responsible resource development projects
that proceed with the engagement and inclusion of the North Slope
Inupiat are the cornerstone of our regional economy, our health, and
our social well-being. By curtailing land available for these projects,
the federal government was also foreclosing any economic opportunities
that would provide stability for our communities and culture.
When the Biden administration re-approved the Willow Project
earlier this year, it seemed as if our voices were finally breaking
through to this administration. We were grateful to be consulted by
Washington throughout the re-approval process, with our voices clearly
heard, and we looked forward to engaging with BLM to develop practical
protections in other areas of our ancestral homelands.
This further consultation never materialized. On September 6, ICAS
and all other North Slope tribes, cities, ANCSA corporations, non-
profits, schools, and the collective regional elected leadership were
blindsided by this administration's decision to ban development in
ANWR, cancel all existing leases in the area, and further restrict
development in NPR-A to more than 13 million acres.
Despite ICAS' legal right to tribal consultation and its
government-to-government relationship with federal agencies in
Washington, we received no advanced warning of these decisions. Nor did
the administration consider its unprecedented impact on villages we
represent within and adjacent to NPR-A and ANWR.
Instead, DOI hastily scheduled a ``public meeting'' to discuss the
proposed rules affecting ANWR with only a few days' notice and in the
midst of our fall subsistence season. Despite numerous requests from
ICAS and other North Slope elected leaders, this meeting went ahead and
yielded insufficient public engagement. DOI since promised to
reschedule, though it never held another public meeting on the North
Slope for the draft ANWR Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
(SEIS) and DOI cannot call for another public meeting because the
comment period closed on November 7.
In response, ICAS and other North Slope entities repeatedly pressed
BLM for a 120-day extension of the comment period to allow the public
to review the 1,400-page Draft SEIS for governing the area. We received
a 15-day extension--a fraction of our requested delay. ICAS and other
North Slope leaders traveled to Washington to meet directly with the
White House and other federal agencies about the issue and to also
request an extension for the ANWR Draft SEIS--of which none was
granted.
These comment periods do not allow enough time for our communities
to meaningfully review or provide feedback on the administration's
proposed rule for NPR-A or the Draft SEIS for ANWR. It also
fundamentally ignores our requests--and Washington's legal
obligations--for greater consultation by leading officials like
Secretary Haaland, who has ignored or denied at least eight meeting
requests from ICAS and other North Slope entities since taking office.
Alaska's Right to Produce Act of 2023
Despite our struggles with the federal government, we are thankful
that members of Congress are championing our cause. In September,
Nagruk Harcharek, President of Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, testified
before this committee about the administration's disregard for North
Slope Inupiat voices and disinterest in including us at the
policymaking table. At the time, Chairman Pete Stauber commented that,
``as long as I am privileged to be chair of this committee, your
community will be represented.''
Earlier this month, he and Congresswoman Mary Sattler Peltola put
these words into action by introducing the bipartisan Alaska's Right to
Produce Act of 2023. Senators Dan Sullivan and Lisa Murkowski have
introduced its companion bill in the Senate.
This legislation would reverse this administration's sweeping
September 6 announcements that restrict development on 13 million acres
in NPR-A and reinstate resource development leases in the ANWR. ICAS
strongly supports this legislation and thanks you for working to
address this bipartisan issue.
As mentioned earlier, ICAS supports responsible resource
development in our region. We have a 50-year relationship with
industry. Why? Because it was the federal government that wanted access
to the resources within our ancestral homelands. We have forced a seat
at the table to ensure our communities would not be left behind.
Our tribes, Alaska Native corporations, and municipal governments
are engaged in the planning processes of projects and support those
projects that take into account the needs of our people and our
communities. Without an economy, our communities are not sustainable;
without our communities, our culture begins to die as more and more of
our people are forced to leave to find economic opportunity elsewhere.
Thank you, Chairman Stauber and Representative Peltola for your
continued support and advocacy on behalf the North Slope Inupiat,
including the introduction of H.R. 6285 and the chance to testify in
support of the bill here today in front of the committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments today.
Quyanaqpak.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Doreen Leavitt, Secretary,
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope
Ms. Leavitt did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. You made mention in your testimony that you were handed
the 1,400 page, ANWR draft SEIS in-person on September 25th then asked
to consult on it the next day.
1a) Can you expand upon that story? Why do you think DOI was in
such a hurry?
1b) Has the public meeting from September 25th been rescheduled?
1c) Have there been any legitimate public meetings in region on the
ANWR Draft SEIS?
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Mr.
Karlin Itchoak. He is the Alaska Director for the Wilderness
Society located in Anchorage, Alaska.
Mr. Itchoak, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KARLIN ITCHOAK, ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR, THE
WILDERNESS SOCIETY, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA
Mr. Itchoak. Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member
Ocasio-Cortez, and also my Congressman, Representative Peltola,
and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for your invitation
to testify today. My name is Karlin Itchoak. I was born and
raised in Nome, Alaska, and currently live and work in
Anchorage, Alaska.
I would like to acknowledge that we are currently on the
unceded lands of the Piscataway Conoy Tribal Nations and the
Nacotchtank peoples.
I join you today both as a proud Alaskan and in my capacity
as the Alaska State Regional Director for the Wilderness
Society. The Wilderness Society unites people to protect
America's wild places. We see a future where people and wild
nature flourish together, meeting the challenges of a rapidly
changing planet. Protecting Alaska's Arctic is critical to
achieving this vision.
Together, the Arctic Refuge and Western Arctic Reserve
represent one of the most ecologically and culturally
significant undeveloped landscapes in North America. The
Wilderness Society has a long history of working to protect
these fragile ecosystems. This work is a matter of basic human
rights, because the Indigenous Gwich'in and Inupiaq peoples
have relied on these lands for their cultural, spiritual, and
physical survival for countless generations.
This work is also a climate imperative. With the Arctic
warming at four times the rate of the rest of the planet,
villages eroding into the sea, permafrost thaw threatening
infrastructure, and subsistence food resources disappearing,
these landscapes are global treasures, and we have a moral
obligation to protect them, which is why the Wilderness Society
opposes H.R. 6285.
This bill mandates the Federal Government prioritize
resource extraction over all else in the landscapes, including
conservation, protection of wildlife habitats, stewardship of
sacred cultural resources, the public health of nearby
communities, and climate.
H.R. 6285 would leave no space for IMAGO and Indigenous-led
conservation goals. It fails to honor the traditional
knowledge, practices, and ways of life of the Alaska Native
communities who have lived in relationship with these lands and
waters for millennia, and preserve space for future Indigenous-
led conservation and co-stewardship.
More broadly, this bill is a dangerous end-run around
bedrock environmental laws and the authority of our executive
and judicial branches to perform constitutionally distinct
governmental functions, raising grave questions about
separation of powers.
Finally, this bill pushes the false premise that
unmitigated oil and gas development is the only path to
economic stability for Alaska. Instead, the Wilderness Society
has helped shaping a vision for the future of Alaska's Arctic
through what I already mentioned, our IMAGO initiative.
IMAGO is a transformative movement that recognizes the
relationships between the Arctic landscape and its Indigenous
communities. By bringing together Inupiaq and Gwich'in peoples,
sparking dialogue, fostering trust, and healing historical
wounds inflicted by the dispossession of land and culture,
IMAGO seeks pathways for Indigenous-led protection and
management of Alaska's Arctic.
IMAGO seeks a just transition from a fossil-fuel-based
economy to a more sustainable rural development. It is a
platform to co-create and advance strategies to support
Indigenous management, access, stewardship, and conservation on
the land in perpetuity.
I have already said this, but I will say it again. H.R.
6285 would leave no space for IMAGO and Indigenous-led
conservation goals. It fails to honor the traditional
knowledge, practices, and ways of life of the Alaska Native
communities who have lived in relationship with these lands and
waters for millennia, and preserve space for future Indigenous-
led conservation and co-stewardship.
Generations of Indigenous people have stewarded these lands
since time immemorial, and generations of Americans have
opposed drilling these lands. Now, we must continue protecting
them against H.R. 6285.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Itchoak follows:]
Prepared Statement of Karlin Itchoak, Senior Regional Director, Alaska
Region, The Wilderness Society
on H.R. 6285
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for your invitation for me to testify today.
Pagalagivsi, Inupiaqsinigaa Nageak Itchuagaq, Sitnasuaqmun, akagaa
Cora Itchuagaq, assii apagaa Wilbur Itchuagaaq Utqiagvikmun assii
akagaa Margaret Irvin assii Norman Irvin, Schenectady, New Yorkmun.
My name is Karlin Itchoak, I am from Nome, Alaska and my
grandparents are Wilbur and Cora Itchuagaq from Utqiagvik and Norman
and Maragret Irvin from Schenectady, NY. I am pleased to join you today
both as a proud Alaskan and in my capacity as Alaska Senior Regional
Director for The Wilderness Society (TWS).
I was born and raised in Nome, Alaska and am a registered member of
the federally recognized tribal government, the Nome Eskimo Community.
I currently live and work in Anchorage, Alaska.
I joined TWS in June 2019 as the Alaska State Director. I
previously worked for the Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC) as Chief
Administrative and Legal Officer. Before joining UIC, I was the
Director of the Alaska Rural and Indigenous program at the Institute of
the North. I have a Bachelor of Arts in both Alaska Native Studies and
Political Science from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and a Juris
Doctorate from Gonzaga University School of Law.
Since our founding in 1935, TWS has worked to unite people to
protect America's wild places. On behalf of our over one million
members and supporters nationwide, we see a future where people and
wild nature flourish together, meeting the challenges of a rapidly
changing planet. Protecting Alaska's Arctic is critical to achieving
this vision.
Together, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and Western Arctic's
National Petroleum Reserve represent one of the largest, wildest, and
most ecologically and culturally significant undeveloped landscapes in
North America. TWS has worked for decades to protect these pristine and
fragile ecosystems.
We view this work as a matter of basic human rights because the
Indigenous Gwich'in and Inupiat peoples have relied on the Arctic
Refuge and the Western Arctic for their cultural, spiritual, and
physical survival for countless generations. We also see it as a
climate imperative, with the Arctic warming at four times the rate of
the rest of the planet, villages eroding into the sea, permafrost thaw
threatening infrastructure, and subsistence food sources disappearing.
At 19.3 million acres, the Arctic Refuge is America's largest
wildlife refuge. It provides habitat for caribou, polar bear and
migrating birds from across the globe and contains a diverse range of
wilderness lands. The Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain--stretching north
from the Brooks Range to the Arctic Ocean--provides vital denning
habitat for endangered polar bears and is the calving ground of the
Porcupine Caribou Herd, which contains more than 200,000 animals.
Oil and gas drilling would have devastating impacts on this
sensitive ecosystem, caused by the massive infrastructure needed to
extract and transport these fossil fuels. Drilling the Arctic is risky,
would fragment vital habitat, and chronic spills of oil and other toxic
substances onto the fragile tundra would forever scar this landscape
and disrupt its wildlife.
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands in the Western Arctic, at
approximately 23 million acres, make up the largest single remaining
unit of wild public land in America--bigger than 10 Yellowstone
National Parks, and nearly the size of the state of Indiana. The area's
Integrated Activity Plan sets aside nearly half of the Reserve's lands
for special protection in designated Special Areas.
The Reserve is the cultural homeland and subsistence area for
Alaska Native communities and supports robust, wild ecosystems and
resources on which those communities depend: caribou, geese, loons,
salmon, polar bears and bowhead whales.
These Arctic landscapes are global treasures, and we have a moral
obligation to protect them. This is why The Wilderness Society
adamantly opposes H.R. 6285, the so-called Alaska's Right to Produce
Act.
H.R. 6285 would reverse several critical actions undertaken by the
Biden administration to protect the Arctic Refuge and the Western
Arctic Reserve from unmitigated oil drilling--actions supported by The
Wilderness Society and our members. H.R. 6285 directs the U.S.
government to prioritize resource extraction over all else--including
conservation, protection of species habitats, stewardship of sacred
cultural resources, the public health of nearby communities, and
climate.
H.R. 6285 would reinstate the unlawful 2020 Record of Decision for
the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain Leasing Program and approve by
legislative fiat all authorizations and permits, short-circuiting a
range of applicable laws and prohibiting judicial review of those
authorizations.
Likewise, this bill would require the Biden administration to
reinstate the seven canceled leases that were issued hastily and
unlawfully by the Trump administration in its waning days. And it would
halt the ongoing supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS)
process, which is intended to provide a holistic review of the range of
significant impacts associated with drilling in the Refuge--impacts to
Gwich'in and Inupiat communities, impacts to wildlife populations,
impacts to the character and vitality of the land itself, as well as
global emissions and climate impacts. Because those impacts were not
accounted for, the Trump-era Record of Decision and associated lease
sale were unlawful.
In contrast, the Biden administration's draft SEIS recognizes
conservation needs and Indigenous rights in the region and presents a
strong opportunity to go further to protect the Refuge and the plants,
animals, and people who have relied on it since time immemorial. It is
vitally important that a new record of decision implementing the
congressionally mandated leasing program center Indigenous people's
rights, species vitality, and conservation going forward. We urge this
Congress to reject attempts to legislate the opposite outcome, as the
bill before you today would do.
The Biden administration's recent announcements targeted by this
bill represent a strong step forward in protecting these sacred lands,
and The Wilderness Society strongly supports them. So do many of the
people whose lives and livelihoods are inextricably tied to the Refuge.
Three federally recognized Gwich'in tribal governments--Native Village
of Venetie Tribal Government, Arctic Village Council, and Venetie
Village Council--have to date supported these announcements. The
Gwich'in Steering Committee--an organization representing the Gwich'in
people who live in and near the Refuge--likewise supports the
announcements and the need for permanent protection of the coastal
plain from oil and gas development.
The Gwich'in have considered themselves ``caribou people'' for
millennia, with the Porcupine Caribou Herd and its health being
fundamental to their very existence. To the Gwich'in, the coastal plain
is the ``Sacred Place Where Life Begins'' because it is the place where
the Porcupine Caribou Herd migrates each year to calve and raise their
young. Oil and gas development there would have devastating impacts for
the Gwich'in. The cancellation of the unlawfully issued leases and
issuance of a draft SEIS mark important--albeit incomplete--steps in
restoring necessary and legally required protections for the coastal
plain. We oppose H.R. 6285 for reversing these protections.
Finally, H.R. 6285 would reverse an important proposed management
rule intended to protect surface resources and the 13 million acres of
designated Special Area lands in the Western Arctic--in the largest
unit of federal public land in the country, the National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska. These are long overdue, commonsense reforms.
In the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, which governs the
Reserve, Congress explicitly directed the Interior Department to
promulgate such regulations to protect ``environmental, fish and
wildlife, and historical or scenic values.'' When Congress passed the
Energy Policy Act of 2005, it carefully crafted the law to require the
Interior Department to ``provide for such conditions, restrictions, and
prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to
mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on
the surface resources of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.''
The proposed regulations reasonably and thoughtfully reflect Congress's
intent in the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act.
Additionally, The Wilderness Society has other substantial concerns
about this legislation beyond the misdirected provisions to repeal
these administrative actions.
The bill represents a dangerous end-run around bedrock
environmental laws and the authority of our executive and judicial
branches to perform their critical and constitutionally distinct
governmental functions. H.R. 6285 would simply waive application and
enforcement of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered
Species Act, and provisions of the Alaska National Interest
Conservation Lands Act to critical decisions for how our public lands
are managed. It then purports to close the courthouse doors, stripping
all courts of jurisdiction to hear legal challenges to agency decisions
that may violate the law, raising grave questions about constitutional
separation of powers. And it effectively strips the Secretary of the
Interior's long-standing authority to suspend or cancel unlawfully
issued oil and gas leases.
Finally, H.R. 6285 pushes the false premise that green-lighting
unmitigated oil and gas development is the only way to ensure economic
stability for Alaska and its Indigenous communities. Instead, TWS
supports H.R. 724, the Arctic Refuge Protection Act, and is working to
realize a different vision for the future of Alaska's Arctic through
our Imago Initiative.
The Arctic Refuge Protection Act (H.R. 724) would designate the
coastal plain as wilderness under the National Wilderness Preservation
System, thereby restoring vital protections and halting any new oil and
gas leasing, exploration, development or drilling in the calving
grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. This would safeguard the
subsistence rights of the Arctic Indigenous Peoples who depend upon the
unique ecosystem within the Arctic Refuge, and it would enshrine the
protections sought by President Biden on his first day in office.
The Imago Initiative is a transformative movement launched by TWS
in 2019. Recognizing the integral relationship between the indomitable
Arctic landscape and its Indigenous communities, the initiative seeks
to envision pathways for Indigenous-led protection and management of
these ancient ancestral Indigenous homelands. The initiative brings
together the Inupiat and Gwich'in peoples, sparking dialogues and
fostering trust. Through this ground-breaking endeavor, we aim to
protect the Arctic Refuge and heal historical wounds inflicted by the
dispossession of land and culture and the rapid implementation of
termination laws and policies.
Imago is vital in leading a paradigm shift and symbolizes a new
approach to land protection and management designations that is
grounded in Indigenous leadership and engagement. It strives to
decouple local economies from the dependence on fossil fuels, fostering
sustainable rural economies that harmoniously co-exist with one of the
Earth's last sizable intact landscapes. The Imago Initiative is
constructed by a group of people who collaboratively understand the
Arctic landscape's complexities, its vibrant Indigenous cultures, its
role in climate regulation, and the deep-seated interconnectedness of
its land, waters and cryosphere.
The Imago Initiative is a movement for change, providing a platform
for Indigenous Peoples to express their voices, promote their ideas,
and take action to protect the landscapes they depend upon. In
conceptualizing and implementing Imago, TWS has remained committed to
advancing the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples in Alaska, while
defending existing conservation successes. The initiative is not just
about protection, but about fostering a just transition from a fossil
fuel-based economy to sustainable rural development. This
transformative shift hopes to culminate in new Indigenous-led
strategies that support Indigenous management, access, guardianship,
stewardship and ownership of the land in perpetuity.
The Imago Initiative, in practice, takes on a transformative and
holistic Indigenous approach to community healing, individual growth
and reconnection to the Nuna (land). Central to the initiative are four
key components: a task force, on-the-land place-based dialogues,
movement building, and informing law and policy.
The Imago Task Force represents a collaborative team of diverse
community members, ranging from elders to youth, from the local
Indigenous groups living in or adjacent to the Arctic Refuge,
conservationists, and law and policymakers that come together to engage
in problem-solving and decision-making at both the grassroots level and
up to the policy enactment level. The task force's role is to identify
local issues, develop tailored solutions and implement these actions
effectively.
The place-based dialogues are immersive experiences designed to
reconnect individuals with the Nuna and create new connections with the
cohort they are attending with to foster a profound sense of belonging.
Conducted in the Arctic Refuge, these dialogues are framed using
Indigenous facilitation methodologies to hold ceremony and a safe space
for open conversations and stimulate the sharing of wisdom, cultural
practices and personal narratives, promoting collective healing and the
beginning of trust bond relationships.
Movement building focuses on creating a sustainable wave of
positive change that resonates beyond the individual and permeates the
entire nation. This involves empowering individuals to become change
agents, facilitating community workshops to share knowledge and tools,
and mobilizing collective efforts to build a healthier, stronger
community. Through these combined efforts, the Imago Initiative
cultivates an environment of understanding, acceptance and growth,
guiding the path toward a sustainable, healthy future.
H.R. 6285 would leave no space for Imago and Indigenous-led
conservation goals. It fails to honor the traditional knowledge,
practices and ways of life of the Alaska Native communities who have
lived in relationship with the lands and waters that now comprise the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Western Arctic Reserve for
millennia, and it does not adequately preserve space for future
Indigenous-led conservation and co-stewardship. It fails to recognize
and account for past Indigenous land ownership, past and current
Indigenous land stewardship, and historical and present injustices
toward Indigenous peoples. It would legislate one view of the future
for Alaska's Arctic, locking in decades of industrial development and
climate-disruptive emissions that we simply cannot afford.
Instead, we need to do more healing, have more dialogue and co-
create solutions that recognize the full range of spiritual, physical,
cultural and historical connections of Alaska Native peoples to the
land, wildlife and waters that have sustained their ways of life since
time immemorial and honor those connections through meaningful and
mutually beneficial co-stewardship of the land, waters and wildlife.
Meanwhile, the Arctic and its people are bearing the brunt of the
climate crisis. Put simply, business-as-usual dependence on oil and gas
is not sustainable. We have a choice--proactively plan and prepare now
to forge a path toward a bright and resilient future for the Arctic,
including a fair and just transition to clean energy, or wait until
we're over the cliff's edge.
Climate warming is already having severe effects across the Arctic.
Future oil projects pose a real and substantial near-term danger to
sensitive biological, cultural and subsistence resources and values.
Damage to the region and its communities from climate change will be--
and, in fact, is already becoming--irreparable.
To avoid falling over the cliff, the time to act is now. The
government must capitalize on the opportunity for meaningful action to
address climate threats in the Arctic. This includes undertaking a
Climate Impacts Assessment specifically for the Arctic, which should
analyze climate impacts in light of the existing oil and gas
infrastructure and potential massive oil and gas buildout in the future
unless a course correction is taken. This Assessment would lay the
groundwork for a mechanism to manage the risk posed by oil and gas
development over the next several years and, in particular, set the
stage for visionary action aimed at better protecting the millions of
acres of sensitive habitat already under lease in the Western Arctic.
The Arctic Refuge and Special Areas in the Western Arctic were
rightfully set aside for protection decades ago because of the critical
ecological and socio-cultural values they hold. The refuge and the vast
majority of Reserve Special Areas have always been off limits to oil
and gas development and should remain that way permanently.
Rejecting H.R. 6285 is essential to saving America's vast, intact
Arctic landscapes that are home to Indigenous Peoples and iconic
wildlife species such as polar bears, wolves and caribou. Generations
of Americans have opposed drilling these lands and generations of
Indigenous Peoples have stewarded these lands since time immemorial.
Now we must protect them for generations to come and with the Alaska
Native people at the forefront, co-creating meaningful Indigenous-led
conservation.
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much. Our final witness is Mr.
Charles Lampe, who is the President of the Kaktovik Inupiat
Corporation located in Kaktovik, Alaska.
Mr. Lampe, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES LAMPE, PRESIDENT, KAKTOVIK INUPIAT
CORPORATION, KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Lampe. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Westerman,
Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez, and to the
awesome Mrs. Peltola. Thank you for being here.
My name is Charles Lampe, and I represent the Native
village of Kaktovik, where my relatives live, and I live, and
have lived for many generations. I am a whaling captain and
subsistence hunter, and I am here to show that we, the Inupiat
of Kaktovik, exist.
I am here to continue the legacy of our past leaders to
fight for what is rightfully ours. Congress created the Inupiat
Corporation to provide economic opportunities from our land.
Yet, for Kaktovik, that was counter legislation of ANILCA that
locked us inside a National Wildlife Refuge in 1980. It has
taken 37 years to finally open the area to oil and gas leasing.
We thought we finally won our battle in 2017 through section
20001 with the TCJ Act, which was enacted with the support of
our community. Yet, here I am again today to continue the
fight.
The Coastal Plain draft SEIS and Secretary Haaland's abrupt
notice to cancel the AIDEA leases occurred on the same day,
September 6. This was the day our community began our whaling
season and caught our first whale of the season. The notice was
issued without any consultation with our Tribe. For an
administration that touts the importance of tribal
consultation, it does not appear to follow its own guidelines.
To us, this reflects the tone-deaf nature of this Department to
the people who live on the Coastal Plain.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Alaska Representative
Peltola for introducing H.R. 6285, Alaska's Right to Produce
Act of 2023. This means that we are being heard. We, of course,
support your bill.
H.R. 6285 should not be necessary, but we are experiencing
the same patterns of discrimination we have suffered since 1980
after ANILCA. The 2017 tax bill gave us hope. This bill
restores a sense of hope for our community.
In Kaktovik, we know how we have come to this moment and
needing additional legislation to implement Section 20001. The
Department is currently filled with the same people who in 2017
opposed us. We know because then-Representative Haaland
testified before this very Subcommittee on H.R. 1146 in
September 2019, and voted against our inclusion into the bill's
language. We know because Executive Order 13990, section 4,
states there are alleged legal deficiencies, and accused the
BLM of performing an inadequate NEPA review.
All this ignores our Tribe's and the North Slope's
participation in the 2020 EIS process. It ignores that BLM has
performed more NEPA on the North Slope of Alaska than any other
Interior agency, and ignores us as the residents of the Coastal
Plain.
My community unapologetically supports the leasing program.
Many people try to steer the debate to caribou. For
Kaktovik, it is about our people and having an economy to
survive. We also depend on the caribou. They are an important
subsistence resource. We worked hard on the 2020 EIS to provide
critical protection for the calving and insect relief areas. We
agreed to withdraw several leases from the first lease sale
deemed important to calving. We are good stewards of our lands
and resources, and we have been for millennia.
To carry out our culture and heritage into future
generations we need to embrace change like our forefathers to
realize self-determination, something this Administration
strongly advocates but fails to provide if you disagree with
it.
The elected leadership of Kaktovik, including those of the
Native village of Kaktovik, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,
the City of Kaktovik firmly stand behind the 2020 EIS
alternative. We were engaged and involved in its development.
We feel that it went through a robust NEPA process with a wide
range of alternatives.
The Department needs to rescind its cancellation of the
leases and allow exploration. This will decide what happens
next. Congress needs to fulfill its promises made to us over 40
years ago. We will not succumb to eco-colonialism and become
conservation refugees on our own land. The 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
and political rights.
Thank you for listening to me today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lampe follows:]
Prepared Statement of Charles Lampe, President,
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation
on H.R. 6285
Thank you, Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocacio-Cortez, Members
of this Subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting me to speak and represent my community of
Kaktovik, Alaska. My name is Charles Lampe and I come to you from the
native village of Qaaktugvik where I was born and raised and continue
to raise my family--I am a whaling captain, and subsistence hunter. But
most importantly, I am Inupiaq and I am here to show that we exist!
Qaaktugvik is located 280 miles southeast of Utqiagvik, the seat of our
municipal government, the North Slope Borough, however we are only 90
miles west of the Canadian border. Our village borders the Beaufort Sea
and is situated on Barter Island along the coast of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
I am President of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC), I am a member
of the Native Village of Kaktovik (NVK) and a resident and voter in the
City of Kaktovik (City). We are a community locked inside the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge--not at our doing but through the various acts
of Congress.
KIC owns approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands in and around
our community that we received pursuant to the 1971 Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). Nine years after the passage of ANCSA
Congress passed the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation
Act (ANILCA) which expanded the Arctic National Wildlife Range to
include federal land around the KIC lands--since then we have been
surrounded by the federal lands of ANWR. We are an island in the middle
of the largest wildlife refuge in America. Spanning more than 19
million acres, ANWR's lands cover an area larger than 10 States.
We have been given many promises through these various
congressional actions and because we are Inupiaq we are always hopeful
is that we will realize those promises--yet here we are again fighting
for the rights that Congress promised us both in 1971 and then again in
1980. The debate over opening ANWR to oil drilling gained national
attention in 1980, when the Congress set aside less than 8 percent of
the newly formed Refuge for potential oil and gas development. This
section of ANWR became known as the 1002 Area, after Section 1002 of
ANILCA. Unstated in ANILCA is that these lands are home to the
Kaktovikmiut.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Alaska's Representative
Peltola for introducing H.R. 6285--``Alaska's Right to Produce Act of
2023''. This is meaningful to us, and it means that we are being
heard--we support your bill. I am here to continue the legacy of our
past leaders to fight for what is rightfully ours--these are our
homelands. We fought to have the Coastal Plain open for oil and gas
leasing many times in the past and we continue that fight today.
Since 1980, we have fought to open the 1002 Area, also known as the
Coastal Plain to oil drilling to pursue the economic freedom provided
to us under ANCSA. Since the passage of ANILCA, some Lower 48 lawmakers
and special interest groups across the country have waged war on the
idea of oil drilling within our homelands, citing the disruption of
wildlife and the pristine Arctic environment. Through these efforts,
over time, several misconceptions have been generated about caribou and
development. We were finally successful in getting the 1002 Area open
under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA). This took us almost 40
years after the passage of ANILCA.
We do not approve of these efforts to turn our homeland into one
giant national park, which literally guarantees us a fate with no
economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the future of
our people. We are already being impacted by restrictions of access to
the federal lands for subsistence purposes--this is really disturbing
to us since we have lived here long before there ever was a refuge
designated.
Since all these federal actions we have been subjected to eco-
colonialism--we are treated as colonists on our own lands and are
subject to federal approvals for almost everything we need. Forty years
after ANILCA there are several provisions not related to oil and gas
that we are still fighting to be implemented: Sections 811 related to
our traditional access to the lands before 1980, 1110(b) this is the
promise of rights of access across the Refuge to our KIC lands, and
1307 related to commercial activities within our region such as
tourism.
Our experience is that living inside the Refuge is one of
paternalist behavior by the federal agencies. Yet, as Al Gore would say
we are an `inconvenient truth' because we are here, and we will not
give up on our rights as Indigenous people and the federal government
has an obligation to us through the laws of ANCSA and ANILCA.
KIC along with NVK and the City all submitted letters with our
comments during the October 2021 Public Scoping for the Supplement
Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) opposing the actions of the
Secretary. Our community had already participated in a long and arduous
EIS process that we considered fair in its protection of the natural
habitat that we belong to. This turn-around by the Secretary again
displays the tone-deaf nature of the Administration despite all their
focus on strengthening ties with Indigenous Americans.
At the time we stated the following ``KIC is opposed to conducting
a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) for the Leasing
Program. We feel that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) performed a
full-scale review as required under the National Environmental
Protection Act (NEPA) of a wide range of potential impacts from leasing
in the 1002 Area and gave special attention to the impacts to the local
village of Kaktovik and the people of Kaktovik, the Kaktovikmiut. To
perform a Supplemental EIS, undermines our participation throughout the
NEPA process for the 2019 FEIS and 2020 ROD. We are extremely
frustrated that our small corporation--the only private landowner in
the Coastal Plain must again expend our limited resources to
participate in this effort with no acknowledgement of the burdens the
Notice of Intent places on our community. With the Biden
Administrations focus on tribal and Indigenous rights and shoring up
underserved communities by providing them with economic opportunities,
we are perplexed by this decision.'' Nothing has changed in our opinion
of the process--the current draft SEIS is set up to dissuade any
serious company from attending the lease sale.
The Coastal Plain Draft SEIS (DSEIS) and the Secretary Haaland's
abrupt notice of the cancellation of the Alaska Industrial Development
Export Authority's (AIDEA) leases occurred on the same day, September
6, 2023. This was the same day that our community began whaling and
caught our first whale of the season. To us this reflects the tone-deaf
nature of this Department to the people who live in the Coastal Plain.
On September 19, 2023, KIC, NVK, and the City submitted a single letter
to this Committee to show unity within our community expressing our
frustration of the Departments continuing avoidance of us as a people.
The AIDEA leases were obtained under the 2020 Coastal Plain Oil and
Gas lease sale. These are valid contracts with the federal government,
and they were canceled with no explanation! My corporation was in
discussions with AIDEA pre- and post-moratorium on contracting
opportunities. Due to the cancellation, we are without the means to
develop our economic freedoms as spelled out under ANSCA. KIC was
financially impacted in a meaningful way by the Secretary's actions.
Our question is ``Did the first lease sale really happen?'' The
TCJA requires the Secretary to hold two lease sales on not less than
400,000 acres each. The first sale was to have happened within four
years of enactment of the Act--the AIDEA leases were acquired within
that timeframe but it has now passed. The cancellation of the leases
based on the Secretary's arguments begs the question of whether it
actually occurred. If not, then the Secretary has missed the schedule
and the 400,000 acre requirement. The second lease sale is also
required to have 400,000 acres and needs to occur no later than
December 2024.
Our review of the new Alternatives in the DSEIS indicates that the
only Alternative that can meet the 400,000 acre requirement (is this
now 400,000 acres times two?) is Alternative B which was the Preferred
Alternative in the 2020 Record of Decision. Alternative B was our
preferred Alternative and remains so despite all the additional work,
time, cost, and effort the SEIS has created.
H.R. 6285 should not be necessary but what we are experiencing
under this Administration is a continuation of the pattern of injustice
we have suffered since the formation of ANWR under the ANILCA, in that
it erases our hundreds of years of existence on our land. Section 20001
of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is written in plain English--it is
only four-pages long. To some it may seem tough to understand why
Secretary Haaland and her staff are having such a difficult time
interpreting those four-pages.
To us it is very clear how we have come to this moment of needing a
second piece of legislation to direct the Department of Interior to
implement the Coastal Plain leasing program. The Department is filled
with the same people who opposed Section 20001 from Secretary Haaland
to many others currently imbedded inside the Department. We know this
because these are the very people who opposed us back in 2017! We know
because then-Representative Haaland was very clear in her comments
about my community when she testified before this very Committee on
H.R. 1146 on September 12, 2019, and voted against our inclusion. We
know because Executive Order 13990--``Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate Crisis'' was
issued on January 20, 2021, and Section 4 mentioned ``alleged legal
deficiencies'' and accused the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) of
performing an inadequate NEPA review with respect to the Coastal Plain.
The BLM has performed more NEPA on the North Slope of Alaska than
any other Interior agency and has built trust amongst the Inupiat
across the region--we were stunned by this finding and yet when we
asked multiple times following the Executive Order and subsequent
Secretarial Orders 3395 and 3401, what the ``alleged legal
deficiencies'' were we could not get a definitive answer. Now after two
years it appears that it is mostly about the ``up to 2,000 acres of
gravel'' that was allowed under the 2017 TCJA. This seems to be much
ado about nothing because this is gravel that may never be used to
develop production infrastructure. Plus, the leases require the
operator to submit a Plan of Development (POD) for production
facilities should there be a commercial discovery made in the Coastal
Plain. This POD would require its own Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to fill wetlands. What is needed is sufficient exploration
through low-impact seismic and winter exploratory drilling.
There is a lot of fear about seismic in the general public but on
the North Slope of Alaska it is conducted during the winter months
using low impact equipment that essentially leaves no trace following
`green-up' of the tundra. KIC has been involved in several attempts to
permit seismic in the Coastal Plain and feel its is important for this
Committee to understand what low-impact seismic really means. This is
satellite imagery over the same location at two different times the
same summer. This location of this image is approximately 60 miles west
of my community and was taken following a seismic program in 2018.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4199.001
.epsWe Inupiat understand this because we have been instrumental in
gravel reduction across the North Slope since the discovery of Prudhoe
Bay through our municipal government, the North Slope Borough, and the
State of Alaska. In fact, our region can access more resource from the
smallest gravel footprint compared to any other State in the country,
including New Mexico. The gravel footprint continues to shrink and as
an example the Nanushuk Development Project, on State lands, plans to
access 700 million barrels of recoverable oil with a gravel footprint
of 254 acres of gravel. Gravel is not the issue.
As an example of the area of drainage from minimal gravel one just
needs to look at development in the Colville River Delta. This is an
image that shows the development wells from less than 500 acres of
gravel with respect to Washington DC, Alexandria, and Arlington
superimposed with the white box. The green is Kuukpik Corporation
Lands. The red lines are development wells in the Alpine Field
Development. The image shows that with less than 500 acres of gravel
and three pad, a location the size of all three cities can safely be
developed.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T4199.002
.epsThe issue and goal of this Administration seems to be to erase
us from the landscape! We will not become conservation refugees at the
behest of the environmental corporations from the lower-48 states that
are trying to ``protect us from ourselves''.
It was Congress that created my corporation under the 1971 Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) with the intent to stimulate
economic development and opportunities for Alaska Native communities.
Yet for Kaktovik, at every turn, there is counter-legislation like the
1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) that
locked us inside a National Wildlife Refuge. It took 37 years following
ANILCA to finally open the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing. This
is our right and it implements the intent of ANCSA! This is our destiny
and our economic freedoms that were promised by Congress. For our
survival we need these economic opportunities--does anyone here know
how much a gallon of milk costs in my community? First, we don't sell
milk in gallons because it's too expensive but a quart of milk costs
$6.25 and the math says that one-gallon costs $25! Due to the
cancellation of the AIDEA leases, we are without the means to develop
our economic freedoms as spelled out under ANSCA--this creates not only
economic hardship for KIC as a corporation but for our people who need
a paycheck.
Until exploration occurs, we will never know if there is even a
need for gravel or what the extent of gravel volumes required for
development and production may be. KIC needs the contracts, and our
community needs the jobs that come with exploration. The operators of
the leases need subsistence representatives, polar bear guards,
cultural resource experts--this is what we can provide. These are
important opportunities for our people.
We understand that without a significant discovery these jobs could
be ephemeral but people in Kaktovik need these opportunities to build
resumes and to work with outside companies to grow their capabilities
and capacities. Why does this Administration insist on shutting us
down?
This decision to cancel the leases was made without any
consultation with the Native Village of Kaktovik despite what was
represented in your September 19, 2023 hearing. They were involved in
the 2020 EIS and are currently engaged in government-to-government
consultation on the draft SEIS. For an Administration that touts the
importance of tribal consultation it seems to pick and choose when to
do so at its convenience and does not follow any of its own guidelines
for doing so.
My community UNAPOLOGETICALLY supports the oil and gas leasing
program in the Coastal Plain. Many people try to steer the debate about
caribou, specifically the Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH). I am here to
tell you it is about PEOPLE and having an ECOMONY to survive. My people
also utilize the caribou and it's an important subsistence resource--we
were instrumental in the 2020 EIS to provide critical protections for
their calving and insect relief areas, we agreed to BLM withdrawing
several leases from the 2020 lease sale that have historically been
important to calving. We are good stewards of our lands and resources.
The PCH are a migratory mammal and as such they do not always calve
in the same area year-to-year. Sometimes they calve in the United
States north of the Brooks Range, however in the last several years
they have been calving in Canada--sometimes in and around Canadian oil
development and infrastructure--but that is not generally discussed.
After 50 years of observations our people can tell you that caribou
like gravel and infrastructure. They use it for insect relief because
it is off the tundra, and they use it for calf protection because where
there is infrastructure it provides predator abatement. Caribou have
now been living with gravel and infrastructure through many generations
and it has become a natural part of their annual movements.
If you studied Indigenous knowledge, you would know that the phase
``The Sacred Place Where Life Begins'' only became popular post-ANILCA!
It was not a phrase that was used prior to that--because there was no
Section 1002 and no potential for oil and gas leasing in the 1002 Area
to be alarmed about. This phrase is not about people--it's about
caribou--a point that is probably lost on the general public. We find
it ironic that the phrase is only applied to the 1002 Area which
indicates to us that it was politically driven. We won't argue that
caribou are not important for ours and other cultures and we have been
involved in protections for them as already mentioned--however this
phrase is offensive to our people because we are the ones who live
here.
Our ancestors settled in the area hundreds of years ago. They
settled here because the land provides for us through its plants,
animals, birds, and abundance. We now want to pursue continued use of
our land. We will not apologize for our presence, existence, or
desires. It is our ancestors who are buried here, our children are born
here, and to carry our culture and heritage into future generations we
need to realize the SELF-DETERMINATION that this Secretary so strongly
advocates for but refuses to provide it if you disagree with her.
Ironically, this Administration applauds its progressive policies
in all things, but it is the North Slope of Alaska that is THE MOST
PROGRESSIVE region in the country through our regional municipal
government, the North Slope Borough. We are not a region that is
dependent on federal or state transfers. Our founders saw the
opportunity to tax the infrastructure at Prudhoe Bay and through that
revenue source moved our communities from 3rd world conditions to 1st
world conditions. This has increased our peoples' life spans by more
than 13 years over the last 40 years. WHY SHOULD WE BE OSTRACIZED FOR
OUR OWN SELF-DETERMINATION.
We openly admit that oil is critical to our region. It is the tool
that we used to bring us into modern society. We have had many
environmental corporations, yes corporations, challenge our advocacy of
oil development in our region. Our response over the years has been to
provide us with some of your multimillion-dollar revenue--enough that
can pay for the infrastructure we need to live in the Arctic then maybe
we would change our position. We ask what ideas they have to replace
our economy, or should we become wards of the federal government for
all our needs? We have suggested that the outdoor clothing companies
develop a ``Qaaktugvik'' product that we could financially benefit from
but to no avail. We never get a solution on how we can fix their
problem.
It is ironic to us that November is National Native American
Heritage Month and that the 2023 theme is `Celebrating Tribal
Sovereignty and Identity'--stating that ``Tribal sovereignty ensures
that any decisions about Tribes with regard to their property and
citizens are made with their participation and consent.'' The federal
trust responsibility is a legal obligation under which the United
States ``has charged itself with moral obligations of the highest
responsibility and trust toward Indian tribes''. We find this to be
almost satirical because this year's theme is exactly the opposite of
what the current Administration is doing to our people and community.
Instead of lifting us up, we are being ``stepped on'' yet again from
the Department that is supposed to find ways to support us.
KIC, NVK and the City firmly stand behind the 2020 EIS. We were
engaged and involved in its development. We feel that it went through a
robust NEPA process with a wide range of Alternatives. We supported
Alternative B in the 2020 EIS and we continue to support it today. The
Department needs to rescind its cancellation of the AIDEA leases to
allow our community the opportunities promised to us over the last 50
years.
Lastly, I want to comment briefly on the Proposed Rule on the
Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
We, in Kaktovik, are concerned about the implications of the proposed
rule--it seems--at its surface to provide the Secretary of Interior
more authority to designate `Special Areas' which are essentially
conservation units. The deal that Congress made with Alaska through
ANILCA, was a `No More' clause which means no more conservation units
in Alaska. Kaktovik's concern is that this Administration wants to use
this as a vehicle for more conservation not only in the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A) but also in the Coastal Plain area of
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge since the Department is to manage
the Coastal Plain in a manner ``similar to'' the NPR-A.
This would double down on conservation within our homelands and is
unacceptable to us as the only people who live there.
We Inupiat, have every right to pursue economic, social, and
cultural self-determination. The laws of the U.S. should support
Indigenous populations, not interfere with these basic human rights.
Thank you for listening to me today. I submit this testimony for
the record.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Charles Lampe, President,
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation
Questions Submitted by Representative Stauber
Question 1. In 2016, the North Slope Borough received $373 million
in oil and gas property taxes, accounting for 97% of the $386 million
in total property taxes collected by the borough that year. In 2017,
that number was 95%.
1a) How will the Department's decision to cancel the leases issued
in ANWR impact KIC and North Slope communities as a whole?
Answer. While it is important to note that we cannot speak on
behalf of the North Slope Borough, it is crucial to highlight the
significant role that oil and gas tax revenue plays in sustaining
public services and tribal initiatives in our region.
The decision to cancel leases in ANWR has direct implications for
Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and the North Slope community we serve. In
Kaktovik, we rely on these oil and gas tax revenues to maintain
essential public services and support tribal initiatives. These funds
play a crucial role in providing essential infrastructure, healthcare,
education, and other vital services that contribute to the well-being
of our community.
Furthermore, the cancellation of leases jeopardized potential
business opportunities for our corporation, impacting our ability to
engage in sustainable, long-term ventures. The delay in realizing tax
revenue from development is of major concern. It underscores the
importance of a stable and predictable economic environment for local
businesses and Alaska Native Corporations like ours, which benefits not
only our local community but also shareholders worldwide.
In conclusion, the decision to cancel ANWR leases has immediate and
long-term ramifications for Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and the North
Slope community's ability to sustain long-term self- governance. We
urge thoughtful consideration of the broader implications and emphasize
the critical role that oil and gas tax revenue plays in sustaining our
local community and fostering opportunities for our shareholders and
residents of the only inhabited Indigenous village in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
Quyanaq (Thank you).
______
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much for your testimony. I want
to thank all the witnesses for their testimony, and we
appreciate all of you being here today.
The Chair will now recognize Members for 5 minutes of
questions. And at the Chair's prerogative I am going to allow
Representative Huffman from the great state of California for 5
minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for graciously
allowing me to go because I have another commitment. I want to
welcome all the witnesses from Alaska, especially the
Indigenous voices, and I appreciate hearing from the gentleman
from Kaktovik.
The Native community in Alaska is certainly not a monolith.
It is a complex, diverse set of Indigenous communities with all
sorts of different perspectives. And in the NPR-A alone we have
40 Indigenous communities depending on subsistence activities.
We hear all sorts of different views and perspectives when we
engage with Alaska Natives on these issues.
And today, we are hearing a lot of criticism from my
friends across the aisle and some of the witnesses for the
Biden administration not doing enough consultation with Native
voices in reaching decisions that conserved lands. But I think
we have to recognize that this Native consultation issue cuts
both ways.
We are in this conversation talking about a piece of
legislation that would call for zero Native consultation, that
would just legislatively greenlight all sorts of oil and gas
development, would do so without any environmental review
whatsoever. It would just rubber-stamp all the different
permits and approvals necessary, and off we go to develop
fossil fuels without any Native consultation at all.
And let's think also about how we got here with the 2017
leasing mandate in the Republican tax scam legislation. There
was no Native consultation. It was a deeply unpopular policy to
open up ANWR after decades of debate and impasse, to just slip
it into a tax cut bill without any process, without any
consultation with Natives. So, it is a little rich, I think, to
suggest that this Native consultation issue favors one side or
the other. There is no high ground here for my friends across
the aisle or for the fossil fuel enthusiasts who are behind
this legislation.
But it is important to remember that we are talking about a
really unique, pristine, and special place that would be
despoiled by oil and gas development. So, I want to bring us
back to that.
Mr. Itchoak, most of us sitting in this room will never set
foot north of the Arctic Circle. I am fortunate to have been
able to do that, and to travel to most of the places that we
are talking about here today. It is an incredibly special
landscape, and I wonder if you could just take a moment to
remind us why protecting America's Arctic is so important to
you.
Mr. Itchoak. Thank you, Representative Huffman. I am here
representing the Wilderness Society, but I too am also of
Inupiaq descent. My grandfather and grandmother, Wilbur and
Cora Itchuagoq, are from the Colville River. My father, Tommy
Itchuagoq, was from Utqiugvik. I was born and raised in Nome. I
have been going back to the Arctic every year for many years.
When I was younger, I was part of a whaling crew, and probably
the only person in the conservation movement that has harpooned
a whale. And this place is special to me because of my family
ties.
It is also important because my daughter, Cedar Rose, I
want her to have this place to go to when she gets older.
And I don't live in the Arctic; I live in Anchorage. But
this place is so pristine, not only because of its ecological
value and the biodiversity that it has, but because of the
people that live there. These people next to me, they are
families, and we have to protect the land and the resources for
our next seven generations.
There is never going to be another place like the Arctic.
And the way that we are moving forward with the exacerbation of
the climate crisis, we are not going to have the Arctic for
much longer. The climate crisis is only a small part of the
things that are impacting the Arctic. We have to take care of
what we have. It doesn't belong to us, we belong to the land.
We have a reciprocal relationship to take care of all of the
animals in the nuna, the land, and it will take care of us. And
the people next to me will tell you that better than I can and
that is why we need to protect it.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. And that is why I am proud to have
led for the last several Congresses the legislative effort to
permanently protect the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and I will continue to do that.
In just a few seconds, Mr. Itchoak, could you just also
explain how climate change is creating impacts that you are
seeing right now in the Arctic, and how fossil fuel development
would compound that problem?
Mr. Itchoak. Yes, Representative Huffman. I think the
climate crisis, we have been seeing it. The science is there.
The loss of sea ice extent is happening. We are warming at four
times anywhere else in the world. We see it with the tundra,
where the moss and the lichen that the caribou rely on is being
overtaken by shrubs. We see it by the increased CO2
levels since they have been monitoring the levels in the 1970s.
We see it with the soil thermal degradation and the permafrost
issues that we have.
Over 50 communities are looking at forced relocation
because the permafrost is melting. The cryosphere is being
impacted. The rain on snow events, even when I left Alaska, we
were having rain. And these issues are just getting worse. And
when our house is on fire, it doesn't make sense to set another
fire on the other side.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you very much, and Mr. Chairman, thank
you for your indulgence. I yield back.
Mr. Stauber. You are welcome. I will now recognize myself
for 5 minutes.
Commissioner Boyle, the draft NPR-A rule says that, ``In
the NPR-A, Congress sought to strike a balance between
exploration and the protection of environmental values.'' Do
you believe that this proposed rule strikes this balance for
the National Petroleum Reserve?
Mr. Boyle. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do not. We
believe that this rule, in fact, values conservation above all
other uses.
As it is, the NPR-A is already being managed to where well
over 50 percent of the Petroleum Reserve is off limits to
either oil and gas development or infrastructure development.
This rule just continues to exacerbate that by pretty much
preventing any additional oil and gas development beyond the
limited amount that has been currently permitted.
Mr. Stauber. So, in a follow-up, how will this rule prevent
production at NPR-A? Will it be reduced?
Mr. Boyle. This rule generally sets aside most of the areas
that are most prospective to oil and gas development. The
limitations that it puts into place, I think, for any
prospective development would pretty much make it
technologically infeasible for any company to put together a
development plan that would comply with some of the
requirements of this rule.
Mr. Stauber. What will this decline in production to
Alaska's economy, to your state budget, how will it affect your
state budget, schools, et cetera?
Mr. Boyle. Well, it has a huge impact on our state economy.
Oil and gas revenue comprise the largest component of tax
revenue that the state derives. So, any decline in oil and gas
revenue has an immediate impact because Alaska, unlike other
states, we own our mineral resource collectively. The state
owns the resources that is comprised in our state land.
Of course, in instances like the NPR-A, that split is
broken up between a share for the Federal Government and a
share for the NPR-A impacted communities. So, as you talk about
decreasing production or decreasing activity, what you are
really saying is you are taking money away from the public
coffers. So, this directly ties to school, this directly ties
to----
Mr. Stauber. In other words, this will directly affect
schools, law enforcement, the roads and bridges from Fairbanks
to Anchorage to Nome to the North Slope. Is that correct?
Mr. Boyle. Unquestionably.
Mr. Stauber. Ms. Leavitt, how will decreased energy
production in the NPR-A impact Alaska Natives and your local
communities?
Ms. Leavitt. Thank you, sir. So, 95 percent of the
borough's tax revenue comes from infrastructure development
projects in the region. So, just like with the state, we fund
our own schools, search and rescue, ambulance, hospital,
clinics in every single village. We won't be able to sustain
that.
And also, Alaska's only tribal college in the state is
funded directly through that income.
Mr. Stauber. It will have a devastating effect. And in the
case of a whaling captain who had a mishap out in the seas,
that individual would probably not have received the attention
that he deserved when he needed it without the local hospitals,
the air ambulance, and the flights, et cetera. Would that be
correct?
Ms. Leavitt. Correct.
Mr. Stauber. He is probably alive today because of that.
Ms. Leavitt, Dr. Feldgus said that tribes were consulted
prior to these actions. Do you agree with that statement?
Ms. Leavitt. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Stauber. Mr. Lampe, Dr. Feldgus said that Alaska Native
Corporations were consulted prior to these actions. Do you
agree with that statement?
Mr. Lampe. No, I do not.
Mr. Stauber. And that is one of the reasons I wanted Dr.
Feldgus to stay here and listen, because the first panel, he is
facing us, I saw you folks shaking your head no when he was
asked whether there was appropriate consultation. And I also
spoke to you earlier about the eight times that you requested
the Secretary of the Interior to meet with you with no
response. And I think that is unacceptable.
Mr. Lampe, recognizing that you are not here to officially
testify on behalf of the Native Village of Kaktovik, are you
aware if the Village of Kaktovik has been consulted with
respect to the ANWR draft Supplemental EIS?
Mr. Lampe. To my knowledge, no. I am a tribal member, but I
am not here on behalf of the Native Village of Kaktovik. I am
representing KIC, the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation.
Mr. Stauber. The lack of consultation, to me, is a real
shame. And I truly believe that this Administration owes each
of you and the communities you represented an apology.
Yet again, we are seeing the blatant hypocrisy of this
Administration. This Administration claims to be the most
tribal-friendly administration in history, but in reality, they
only listen to Native communities when it fits their anti-
mining, anti-oil and gas, and anti-energy agenda.
I will now yield to Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez for 5
minutes.
You are recognized.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
On leases in the Arctic Refuge, it is well established that
the Secretary of the Interior has authority to cancel leases
that were issued in violation of statute or regulation. And as
mentioned previously, the Interior Department recently found
that the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority's
leases were issued with serious legal deficiencies in the
underlying analyses.
Mr. Itchoak, can you talk about what impacts that flawed or
faulty analyses might have on communities that would experience
the impacts of oil and gas development? What is at stake here?
Mr. Itchoak. Thank you, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez. I
think I could talk about this all day, but I will offer two
examples.
First, the failure to fully account for climate emissions
associated with Arctic drilling is having and will continue to
have very real impacts on Arctic communities. We know the
Arctic is warming, as I said earlier, four times faster than
the rest of the planet. Changing weather patterns are
threatening traditional food sources. For instance, rain and
ice events have caused caribou die-offs from ingesting ice
shards. Thawing permafrost is threatening infrastructure and
the ability to safely store traditional food sources.
Secondly and relatedly, the failure to fully analyze the
impacts of development on access to traditional food sources
has very real consequences on the physical health and cultural
well-being of communities whose very existence depends on the
healthy porcupine herd, and all of the animals and wildlife
within the Refuge.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. And as you had alluded to, many of these
communities that bear the burden of both the development and
the impacts of climate change too often become sacrifice zones
for the rest of the country. Some of our most vulnerable
communities are also the ones that are at shorelines or exposed
to very vulnerable habitats, as well.
In the context of fossil fuel development, we often hear
the argument that these communities must allow the development
of their oil and gas resources in order to thrive, that there
is simply no other way. Do you agree with that general argument
or assessment? And if not, why?
Mr. Itchoak. No, I don't believe with that general
assessment. And I need to disclose that I am a shareholder of
the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. I am a shareholder of
the Doyon Corporation. I referenced earlier that I am of
Inupiaq descent. I am not here representing the Inupiaq people
or the people of the North Slope. I am here representing the
conservation communities and the Wilderness Society.
But to answer your question, as a person that grew up in
Alaska and have been involved with subsistence hunting for
walrus, seals, caribou, and whales, and also have worked for a
Native Corporation, I do believe that those resources are not
needed for us to survive. We have some of the highest rates of
suicide, heart disease per capita. We have all these other
ailments that our current systems are failing to provide
adequate resources.
I don't see how more drilling and more money is going to
improve those services, considering that we are already at the
peak performance and leading the production of oil and gas, and
our people have been living in the Arctic and are adaptive and
resilient, and have shown by living there since time immemorial
that we can survive without these resources. Thank you.
Ms. Ocasio-Cortez. Thank you. I yield back to the Chair.
Mr. Fulcher [presiding]. Thank you to the Ranking Member
and Mr. Itchoak for that.
And just for the record here, I wanted to thank the panel
but also communicate that if some of these questions are
repeats because some of us are doing the Committee hop,
bouncing between different Committees. I am going to recognize
myself for 5 minutes. I need to follow up with the commentary
and the questioning that Chairman Stauber was doing with Mr.
Lampe.
And he had asked you, were you consulted adequately for the
2020 EIS, and I believe your response to that was no. Is that
correct?
Mr. Lampe. Actually, I may have misheard him. On the 2020
EIS, we were consulted, and there was an extensive consultation
on the first draft EIS, and we had the Native Village of
Kaktovik, Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, and the city and the
community actually worked extensively with consultation with
that draft EIS. And we totally supported that draft EIS.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. Then do you believe that in that 2020 EIS,
that the Department of the Interior was sufficient in
protecting wildlife?
Mr. Lampe. Yes, I do, because they actually engaged with
our community for that first draft EIS. This current draft EIS
now, they are trying to, we have had no consultation
whatsoever. So, we----
Mr. Fulcher. OK. Is that the supplemental? Because there--
--
Mr. Lampe. Yes, yes.
Mr. Fulcher. I think there is a supplemental.
Mr. Lampe. Yes.
Mr. Fulcher. So, speak to that for a second.
Mr. Lampe. We just have had no consultation on that, on the
current draft EIS or supplemental EIS.
Mr. Fulcher. OK. I am going to just go on the record here.
The other questions that I was going to ask you have been
asked, and you clarified that. But I just want to go on the
record with a statement on this, and I want to recognize the
Chairman Stauber for just, frankly, putting the voice of sanity
into this.
H.R. 6285 is, of course, the bill that we are talking about
here. And in this nation, we have been blessed with a
tremendous amount of abundance when it comes to energy, and
also the technology to harvest it cleanly. Yet, so much of the
time what we battle here on this Committee with a lot of our
colleagues in the White House is a policy or policy ideas that
are bent on facilitating a bankrupt philosophy that is neither
economically viable or environmentally sensible, when you
consider the end-to-end production and generation of some of
these energy sources.
So, I just want to go on the record of stating that H.R.
6285 very rightfully puts some sanity back into the energy
policy in Alaska, and empowers some of our locals. So, that is
just a statement for the record.
With that, I yield and recognize Mrs. Peltola for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Peltola. Thank you, Chairman Fulcher.
I am so thankful that each of you flew the 4,000 miles to
come here today. John, Doreen, Karlin, Charlie, making sure
that Alaskans are heard about issues that directly affect each
and every one of us, I think, is critical. So often we are left
out of those conversations, either by distance or unintentional
acts or intentional acts.
There have been a lot of accusations levied in all
directions. I think we can always do better on consultation.
And I do want to say that I have not been 100 percent pleased
with all interactions with the Administration, but I think that
this Administration has shown Alaskans some deference in terms
of Willow, the largest oil project that our state, our nation
has seen in decades. We felt like this was a step in the right
direction, and I think it is unfortunate that people of the
North Slope were not invited to have a discussion, or no
responses were given when overtures were made.
But in order to get back on track, I think that it would be
good to hear some constructive thoughts, and I would love to
hear from each of you on how we can do a better job, as
Alaskans, making sure that industry, Native people, and
environmental folks can collaborate and work together. And that
is the only way we are going to get anywhere. No one is coming
to save us.
And we do have a lot of concerns. And Alaska really does
see firsthand concerning environmental issues. And it is
warming, but it is also marine debris, marine traffic. I mean,
we are really seeing a new level of encroachment that we
haven't felt this firsthand before in any generation in Alaska.
So, Commissioner, if you would like to start. And I don't
mean to put anybody on the spot, but this is really a longer
conversation I think we all need to be having on how we can
work better together.
Mr. Boyle. Yes. Thank you, Congresswoman Peltola. It is
great to see a friendly and a familiar face behind the dais.
As you know, Alaska is all about working together. I mean,
all of us here at this table, we might disagree on particular
policy points, but if we see somebody stuck in the snow or we
know somebody's freezer isn't full of enough salmon, or
caribou, or whale meat, I can't provide that, but we are happy
to share amongst ourselves, right? We want to make sure that we
have enough.
And I think Alaska has demonstrated a track record of
working together. As you look at focusing on development on the
North Slope, I look at the relationships that we have seen
exist between our local communities and the companies
interested in developing the resources.
Santos, for instance, is developing the Pikka Project. Part
of that project involves them upgrading the wastewater
treatment plant for Nuiqsut so they don't have to take honey
buckets and dump them in a sewage lagoon.
They are also improving subsistence access through
improving a boat ramp on both the east and west side of the
Colville River, so that the residents of Nuiqsut have the
opportunity to get out and conduct more subsistence hunting
activities.
That is just one area where you see that level of
cooperation between a developer and the local communities. And
I believe that all of us feel that way when it comes to these
Federal or state decision-making, that it should be done in
consultations to where the local communities can see the
benefit from those activities, and that any concerns that the
local communities have, or mitigation measures that need to be
taken into place can be considered and implemented so that,
again, we all benefit from the underlying activity.
Mr. Itchoak. Thank you, Representative Peltola. I think
this is the reason why I joined the conservation movement is
because, as an Indigenous person, I know that
environmentalists, conservationists, and Indigenous people have
more in common than not. We all care about the land. We all
want to protect the land.
And I wanted to see the conservation movements make a
paradigm shift, rather than looking at protected areas as
exclusively uninhabited areas, why can't we do better? Why
can't we sit down on the land with the people, with the
Inupiaq, the Gwich'in, all of the Indigenous people, bring our
conservation partners, our agencies, our industry leaders, all
of us come together on the land to have place-based dialogues
to come up with a new way of protecting the land.
We did a comparative analysis of over 34 Indigenous
protected conserved areas around the world. There are a lot of
best practices out there. They have created Indigenous
subsistence and conservation economies. Canada put in over $28
million to pay the Indigenous people as frontline observers, to
co-steward the land. You have heard about guardianship
programs, sentinel programs. Why can't we do that in the North
Slope? Why can't the experts who live there, the Indigenous
people, be compensated and be at the table for making these co-
stewardship decisions?
But we all need to come together on the land and to
brainstorm new ways of looking at land protections through an
Indigenous worldview, because this Western worldview is not
getting us anywhere.
And on December 17, 1971, Indigenous people held aboriginal
title to over 325 million acres of land; 24 hours later, on
December 18, we had 44 million acres.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Itchoak, the time has expired. If you
could wrap, please.
Mr. Itchoak. Thank you. That dispossession of the land has
built a trust issue. We have to rebuild that trust. Thank you.
Mrs. Peltola. Mr. Chairman, thank you for letting the panel
go over a little bit. And I apologize to Doreen and Charlie,
but this is a longer conversation. Thank you.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you to my colleague from Alaska, and the
Chair recognizes my friend from Montana, Mr. Rosendale, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
it.
Thank you all, panel, for traveling so far to get here. I
travel about half of that distance every week or so, so I have
a great appreciation for the 4,000 miles. I am at about 2,000 a
week.
Mr. Boyle, during your tenure as commissioner, have there
been any incidents related to the production of natural
resources that posed a threat to or had a serious impact on the
natural habitat surrounding ANWR, particularly the Coastal
Plain?
Mr. Boyle. No.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much. That is the most direct
answer we have had all day.
In regards to the leases that we have been hearing about
for NPR-A, while my colleagues act as if this lack of interest
that was demonstrated is simply a natural market condition,
would you agree that the lease sale was impacted by the
anticipation of the regulatory change, by the change of
leadership at that time to one which is openly hostile to the
development of domestic energy?
Mr. Boyle. Absolutely. I mean, I think when you hear the
President of the United States saying that one of the first
things I am going to do as soon as I get into office is stop
development in this region and I am going to appoint people
that have a particular worldview that is very contrary to the
nature of resource development, companies take note of that.
Mr. Rosendale. Exactly. I really appreciate that because we
hear time and time again, whether it is in coal production,
where it has been reduced by 900,000 tons in Montana, or the
oil production in Alaska or other states, that this is just
simply a market condition. And my colleagues seem to ignore the
fact that the demand is still there, it is just that the risk
and reward problems and ratios become very big, which is what I
am going to go to.
Markets are pretty simple, OK? As a businessman, you have
supply and demand, risk and reward, and profit and loss. Supply
and demand are very predictable. We can go out and look at a
resource and see what the demand in the marketplace is. Very,
very predictable. Risk and reward changes with administrations
and the politics that go along with them. And then profit and
loss become impacted directly because of that administration,
because of the risk and reward. These are all directly related.
So, when my colleagues start talking about the risk
management, and this is why people did not come out and
participate in these leases, well, they are correct. There is
risk management, but not because of the unknowns from
developing that resource. It is the unknowns from the political
risk and the ESG standards that are a true and real impact on
the ability for them to get the resources they need, the
financial resources, to develop those other in-the-ground
resources.
The SEC and other agencies are absolutely abusing their
regulatory authority to dramatically increase risk by imposing
higher risk levels on products and resources that simply don't
comply with their vision of the world, and this chokes out
investment. It makes it very difficult for the folks that are
drilling for these resources to get the financial need of
resources that they need. So, you don't have to prohibit
development of resources. All you have to do is eliminate the
ability for them to access funding or to delay, to delay, and
to delay the development of it.
Could you quantify or provide a rough estimate to the total
economic impact to your state resulting from the obstruction or
the production on these lands?
Mr. Boyle. Well, if we look at ANWR, the USGS estimate for
resource potential in ANWR is roughly over 10 billion barrels.
If you take a conservative approach in terms of what is likely
to be technologically or economically recoverable, you have 95
percent confidence that at least 4 billion barrels could be
produced economically, right?
So, we are talking billions and tens of billions of dollars
of revenue to both the state and Federal Government, just
looking at ANWR alone. When you look at NPR-A, if you model out
development similar in size to Willow, continuing each one of
those types of projects again will net the state from $2 to $4
billion in revenue over a 20- or 30-year life span. So, there
are a lot of those types of opportunities that are available
within the National Petroleum Reserve.
Mr. Rosendale. Thank you very much, Mr. Boyle. And clearly,
that is going to impact not only your local schools, hospitals,
law enforcement, roads, but it also affects every taxpayer
across the nation because those are Federal revenues that are
lost, as well.
Thank you so much, all of you, again for coming out.
Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, and the Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from California, Mr. Duarte, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the panel
for being here today.
Some question of voices being heard and who gets to
participate in these kinds of democratic processes on the
local, state, and Federal level. Mr. Lampe, you are a
corporation leader. Is there a democratic process for you to
become such a leader of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation? I
apologize if I didn't pronounce that correctly.
Mr. Lampe. Oh, no problem. Yes, there actually is, because
our corporation was comprised by a group of shareholders when
the corporation was incorporated and then the shares were
passed down. So, yes, there is an elected process where I was
elected to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation Board of Directors,
and then the Board of Directors appointed me as President CEO
just recently to the corporation.
Mr. Duarte. Excellent, thank you. Congratulations.
Mr. Lampe. Thank you.
Mr. Duarte. Ms. Leavitt, you are from the Inupiat community
of the Arctic Slope. I assume you are in a political leadership
position.
Ms. Leavitt. Yes, I am. I was elected by our tribal
citizens to be on the Council and act as a Tribal Secretary, as
well.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you. That is excellent. Congratulations
there.
And Mr. Boyle, you are the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources. How did you come about your position in government?
Mr. Boyle. I was appointed by our Governor, Michael
Dunleavy, and then I was confirmed by the entirety of our
legislature.
Mr. Duarte. Excellent. Congratulations.
Mr. Itchoak, you are the Alaska representative for the
Wilderness Society. By what, if any, democratic process did you
become the Alaska representative for the Wilderness Society?
And why should we attribute your voice to be one that is
reflective of the political voice of those concerned in these
matters?
Mr. Itchoak. I don't think I am here in the capacity for my
voice to be reflective politically at all. I was hired by an
NGO through their internal democratic process, and I won out
over 100 candidates, and that is how I got here.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you. It is as I suspected.
And is it true also that the entire Federal delegation in
Senate and Congress, Mr. Boyle, supports these gas leases and
the ability of your local communities to issue these gas leases
and develop these resources?
Mr. Boyle. That is correct.
Mr. Duarte. Do any of the democratically-elected leaders,
community leaders or state leaders who were appointed by
democratically-elected Governor and legislature sense of
political will or interest on the part of the Northern Alaskan
communities to bear the burdens of global warming, and not
develop your resources such that others outside your
communities can perhaps enjoy a cooler planet? Do you want a
cooler planet up there?
Go ahead, please, Mr. Lampe.
Mr. Lampe. I am actually kind of liking this warmer
weather. We, as Inupiat, especially in Alaska and the Arctic, I
mean, we, the Kaktovik Inupiat, are the only people that live
in the area known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And
yes, I like the warmer weather, but we adapt to it.
Mr. Duarte. Sorry. I just heard the caribou can't eat, or
there is not enough moss lichen on the rocks anymore.
Mr. Lampe. No, that is not what we see, and that is, for
being there as a hunter and our family hunters, that is not
what we see. And we adapt to change. We have done it for
millennia, and we will keep on doing that. The animals have
done it since they have been up there. I mean, it is what
happens.
Mr. Duarte. Ms. Leavitt, are you getting a sense of the
community being concerned with global warming and disturbing
the natural resources and abundance of your lands?
Ms. Leavitt. Thank you for that question, sir. Yes, I think
we are all concerned about it. But development within our
region is not the cause of climate change. There are other
reasons, as well. And like I said, our rights to self-
determination and access to our resources is what I am here
for. Thank you.
Mr. Duarte. As a subsistence economy to some extent,
perhaps more than you wish at this point, what is the
availability of, I mean, we talked about health and welfare of
the people. What is the availability of a diverse diet?
Produce, protein, leafy greens. How is that going up in the
northern slope of Alaska?
Mr. Lampe. I can speak to that. It is like I said, we are a
subsistence-based people. We have done it for millennia. There
is nothing that is going to stop us from traditionally hunting
our caribou and living off the resources. I myself, like I
said, I am a whaling captain.
And Mr. Stauber kind of touched on something that he said
there was a whaling captain that got hurt. And that may be
because if we didn't have the infrastructure that we have
because of a tax-based infrastructure, that maybe that person
wouldn't survive. That person was actually me. Two months ago,
when we were out hunting, a pusher shell went through my hand
and blew out the back of my hand. Fortunately, we had the means
provided by our local North Slope borough to have a health care
system to where I was able to get on shore safely, get on a
flight to Anchorage, and it pretty much just saved my life.
And along the lines as food, the cost of living up there is
so high that, I mean, we rather prefer our natural foods,
anyway. But it did cost a lot. And without the infrastructure
to provide jobs and an economy for us, and then with the
stopping of the development of our natural resources to provide
a future economy, it affects our people greatly.
Mr. Duarte. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to my friend from
Wisconsin, Mr. Tiffany, for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I asked a question
earlier. You were here and heard it. I will ask this to Ms.
Leavitt.
Is there still an abundance of wildlife up in ANWR and the
North Slope and up in the region where you live?
Ms. Leavitt. Yes, sir, there is. And our Tribe actually has
a hunter-gatherers program, where we provide caribou, fish,
whatever foods we can provide to our elders and our disabled
across the North Slope.
Mr. Tiffany. What was the first year that oil was produced
up in Alaska? Do you remember that?
Maybe I can ask Mr. Boyle that. Do you know what the first
year was? Was it the 1970s?
Mr. Boyle. Mr. Boyle should know that right off the top of
his head, but yes, I believe the 1970s is correct.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Leavitt, have you seen a diminishment in
wildlife since the 1970s up in your region?
Ms. Leavitt. Thank you, Mr. Tiffany. Well, I was born in
the 1970s, so I don't know if I saw it all the way, but we
still have an abundance, and we have a great science program
within the North Slope borough that is funded by tax base to do
our own wildlife studies, as well with scientists, and not
seeing a decrease. Thank you.
Mr. Tiffany. Am I saying your name correctly, Mr. Lampe? Is
that correct?
You talked about the injury that you had?
Mr. Lampe. Yes.
Mr. Tiffany. And that was how long ago?
Mr. Lampe. It was a little over 2 months ago.
Mr. Tiffany. A little over 2 months ago. Was the health
care system in place 40 to 50 years ago to be able to, what I
heard from you is that it saved your life?
Mr. Lampe. No, definitely not. I believe that without the
current health system that we have right now and the ability to
have medivac flights and stuff, and then the health clinic that
we have locally with the ambulance system and the training that
our people get to provide such great health care, all that is
provided by tax income from the borough, or from infrastructure
from the oil industry going to the borough. And they provide
schools, health care, and I honestly believe that, I mean, I
was truly lucky to still have my life.
And I wanted to be here 3 weeks ago to be with the rest of
the group on the trip that they took here. But, unfortunately,
I was still in the hospital. I am still recovering. It is going
to take 1 to 2 years to recover, but it is not going to stop me
from going out and whaling and providing for my community,
because that is what we are as Inupiat people, we take care of
our people.
Mr. Tiffany. So, the wealth that was created from the
production of oil is in part, or mostly, what has helped a
health care system be in place that may have saved your life?
Mr. Lampe. Yes, I definitely think so. And then since the
incorporation of the borough, I mean, the Inupiat people, our
life span has increased by 12 years. So, we live longer because
of the better health care system.
Mr. Tiffany. So, that meeting that you missed, they said 13
years, which is right, 12 or 13?
Mr. Lampe. Oh, 13, I am sorry, yes. I think it is, well, 12
or 13. So, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Mr. Chairman, I just hope everyone on this
Committee fully understands an increase in life expectancy
since 1980 of 13 years. I don't think we can repeat that
enough. This is what happens when you have prosperity in a
community.
So, to either one of you, Ms. Leavitt or Mr. Lampe, I asked
Dr. Feldgus the question, ``Do you believe that there was
adequate consultation from the Federal Government with Alaska
Natives in this Administration's decision regarding ANWR?'' He
said yes. Do you agree with that answer?
Mr. Lampe. No, I definitely do not agree with that. The
consultation before on the 2020 EIS, yes, I agree that there
was adequate consultation with the Tribe and the community of
Kaktovik.
Like I said, the only Indigenous Inupiat people of the
Coastal Plain and the only community located inside the area
that is always talked about as the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, our families and our community have lived in this area
and thrived in this area for thousands of years, and will
continue to do so.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Leavitt, do you agree with that
characterization that they did not adequately consult with you?
Ms. Leavitt. They did not adequately consult with us. And
in fact, in my testimony, BLM hosted a public meeting on
September 25, and handed me that 1,400-page document, and then
asked me to consult 2 days later. And I am a department of one
person.
Mr. Tiffany. So, clearly, the Biden administration failed
in consulting with you folks, right?
Ms. Leavitt. In my opinion, yes.
Mr. Tiffany. Final question, Mr. Chairman.
Who worked better with you on these issues, this
administration or the previous administration in terms of
consultation?
Mr. Lampe. I think 100 percent the previous administration.
Mr. Tiffany. Ms. Leavitt?
Ms. Leavitt. I wasn't in this position at that time, so I
wasn't involved in the 2020 consultation.
Mr. Tiffany. OK. But you say, Mr. Lampe, it was clearly the
previous administration.
Mr. Lampe. Yes, definitely. I was a Board Member at that
time and Vice President, and yes, definitely.
Mr. Tiffany. Good information to have, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Stauber [presiding]. Thank you, Representative Tiffany.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your valuable
testimony, and all the Members for their questions, as well.
The members of the Subcommittee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond in
writing.
Under Committee Rule 3, members of the Committee must
submit questions to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5 p.m. on Monday,
December 4. The hearing record will be held open for 10
business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:03 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
ENVIRONMENT AMERICA
Research & Policy Center
November 29, 2023
Hon. Pete Stauber, Chairman
Hon. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ranking Member
House Natural Resources Committee
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources
1324 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Stauber, Ranking Member Ocasio-Cortez and members of
the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources:
The Arctic region of Alaska boasts vast landscapes that are home to
thousands of species of wildlife. Indigenous people have lived on this
land for centuries, relying on caribou and other animals for food,
clothing and spiritual connection. Arctic wildlife are already
struggling with climate change and needing to adjust to warmer,
changing habitats. To give them a fighting chance at long-term
survival, we need to safeguard what's left of their home. That requires
no leasing and no drilling.
The Biden administration has taken important steps toward
protecting this critical region including canceling the Alaska
Industrial Development and Export Authority's (AIDEA) leases in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and kicking off a rulemaking process to
protect more than 13 million acres of critical habitat in the Western
Arctic Reserve. We are writing to oppose the ``Alaska's Right to
Produce Act of 2023'' (H.R. 6285) which would reverse this progress and
take us in the wrong direction. As our nation and the world transition
toward clean energy sources, millions of acres set aside for nature
will be a gift to future generations. We must not destroy it by
drilling for the last drops of oil.
Sincerely,
Lisa Frank, Executive
Director, Ellen Montgomery,
Washington Legislative
Office Public Lands Campaign Director
______
Statement for the Record
Bernadette Demientieff
Executive Director, Gwich'in Steering Committee
My name is Bernadette Demientieff, I am the Executive Director of
the Gwich'in Steering Committee, an organization founded in 1988, by
the Elders and Chiefs of the Gwich'in Nation. I work tirelessly to
protect the calving grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, and the Gwich'in way of life. This work is
very personal to me: it is about our cultural and spiritual connection
that we have with our land, water, and animals. It is about our
children and our future generations. I have 5 children and 7 beautiful
grandchildren who deserve the assurance from the US government that our
culture, traditions, and connections to our sacred land and its animals
will not be infringed on. They deserve to live and thrive off the land
that the Creator blessed us with.
The Gwich'in Nation has been unified in our voice against oil
development in the sacred lands of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
for decades--in 1988 we signed a formal resolution, the Gwich'in
Niintsyaa, to protect the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. Our
Elders recognized that oil development in caribou calving grounds was a
threat to the very heart of our people. Since that time, as a people we
have presented testimony in front of the US Congress, the United
Nations Special Rapporteur on Indigenous Peoples, and public hearings
to protect our sacred lands and use our voices not just for ourselves
but for the caribou.
That is why when the Biden administration canceled the last
remaining lease in the Arctic Refuge, the Gwich'in people had tears of
joy and relief. We understand that there is a lot of work that still
needs to happen but with the weight of uncertainty lifted around
imminent development, if only for a while, we received a reprieve from
the single-minded pursuit of profit at the expense of nature and our
culture. We have celebrated the administration's actions and a
temporary break from the relentless threat to the Porcupine Caribou
Herd and the Gwich'in way of life.
The Gwich'in and other Indigenous Peoples have been stewards of the
Arctic for millennia. The push to sell our sacred lands for corporate
profit disregards this legacy of stewardship. The Biden
administration's decision to cancel oil and gas leases in the Arctic
Refuge was a crucial first step, but legislation like this bill that
seeks to undo those actions make it clear that we must continue to
fight for permanent protections for the Arctic Refuge. It is also no
secret that our homelands are warming at four times the rate of the
rest of the planet, and the Gwich'in people are among the first to feel
its effects. Our once-fertile lands are eroding into the ocean. Warming
waters threaten our fish, and the arrival of ticks, a previously
unknown phenomenon, underscores the profound changes we face. Oil and
gas development would only exacerbate the effects of climate change in
the Arctic and the world over.
We extend our gratitude to President Biden, Secretary Haaland, and
the federal and state legislators who have stood by us. We also
acknowledge the American public, the majority of which stand with the
Gwich'in to protect this sacred land. Dozens of banks and insurance
companies have now committed to not underwrite oil and gas development
in the Arctic. The international community has repeatedly called on the
United States to address our concerns. These show pathways towards
permanent protection. I, along with the Gwich'in Nation, will continue
to protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd, the Gwich'in Way Of Life and the
Sacred Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for our future generations. And
the generations to come.
Mahsi Choo
[all]