[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]