[Senate Prints 115-20]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



115th Congress}                                            { S. Prt.                                 
 1st Session  }              COMMITTEE PRINT		   { 115-20

======================================================================
 
                     RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATIONS
                      PURSUANT TO H. CON. RES. 71

                               ----------                              

 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 
                      PURSUANT TO H. CON. RES. 71

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       Michael B. Enzi, Chairman

          
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 
        

                            December 2017

Prepared for the use of the Committee on the Budget. This document has 
 not been officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the 
                         views of its members.
                         
                         
                             __________
                                

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
27-718                      WASHINGTON : 2017                     
          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, 
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, 
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). 
E-mail, [email protected].                          
                         
                         
 
      

115th Congress}                                            { S. Prt.                                 
 1st Session  }              COMMITTEE PRINT		   { 115-20

======================================================================
   
                     RECONCILIATION RECOMMENDATIONS

                      PURSUANT TO H. CON. RES. 71

                               __________
 
 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AS SUBMITTED TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET 
                      PURSUANT TO H. CON. RES. 71

                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                       Michael B. Enzi, Chairman

          
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13
        

                            December 2017

Prepared for the use of the Committee on the Budget. This document has 
 not been officially approved by the Committee and may not reflect the 
                         views of its members.
                                     
                        COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET

                   MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming, Chairman
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa            BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RON WYDEN, Oregon
PATRICK TOOMEY, Pennsylvania         DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin               SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
BOB CORKER, Tennessee                MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
DAVID A. PERDUE, Georgia             JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
CORY GARDNER, Colorado               TIM KAINE, Virginia
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              KAMALA D. HARRIS, California
             Elizabeth McDonnell, Republican Staff Director
                Warren Gunnels, Minority Staff Director
                           
                           
                           C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
A. Foreword......................................................     1
B. Title-by-Title Analysis.......................................     2
    I. Committee on Finance......................................     3
        CBO Cost and Budgetary Considerations....................   430
    II. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources................   439
        CBO Cost and Budgetary Considerations....................   456
C. Rollcall Vote in Budget Committee.............................   462
D. Additional Views..............................................   463
                              
                              
                              A. FOREWORD

    On October 26, 2017, H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018, was adopted. The 
resolution included reconciliation instructions for the Senate 
Finance and Energy and Natural Resources committees, along with 
the House Ways and Means Committee. To facilitate pro-growth 
tax reform, the resolution instructed the Ways and Means and 
Finance Committees to report changes in laws within their 
jurisdiction that would increase the deficit by not more than 
$1.5 trillion on a static basis for the 10-year period of 
fiscal years 2018 through 2027. The Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee was instructed to report changes in laws 
within its jurisdiction that would reduce the deficit by not 
less than $1 billion over the same 10-year period.
    On November 15, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee 
reported recommendations to meet its instruction by opening the 
Coastal Plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
oil and gas exploration and development. This legislation will 
create jobs and further enhance America's energy independence. 
The Congressional Budget Office estimates this legislation will 
raise nearly $1.1 billion over the next decade.
    On November 16, the Finance Committee reported 
recommendations providing tax cuts for the American people. The 
legislation would reform the U.S. tax system to promote 
economic growth and job creation and to boost wages for 
American workers. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates 
this legislation will cost $1.4 trillion over the next decade.
    On November 28, the Senate Budget Committee reported the 
combined Finance and Energy and Natural Resources 
recommendations without revision, sending the bill to the 
Senate floor.
    This Budget Committee print contains descriptive materials 
for the legislative recommendations reported by the instructed 
Senate committees. The analyses and background materials of the 
respective committees appear without revision.

                       B. TITLE-BY-TITLE SUMMARY

    The following is a title-by-title analysis of the 
legislation. In each case, the analysis is that of the 
respective committee and is presented as it was submitted to 
the Budget Committee without revision.




                     Title I--Committee on Finance


                                contents

 
                                                                    Page
 
       I.    Explanation of the Bill.............................      5
      II.    Budget Effects of the Bill..........................    411
     III.    Votes of the Committee..............................    422
      IV.    Regulatory Impact and Other Matters.................    423
 
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                                                   
                 CBO Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of the costs of this measure has 
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                summary


    The Reconciliation Recommendations of the Senate Committee 
on Finance, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, would amend numerous 
provisions of U.S. tax law. Among other changes, the bill would 
reduce most income tax rates for individuals and modify the tax 
brackets for those taxpayers; increase the standard deduction 
and the child tax credit; and repeal deductions for personal 
exemptions, certain itemized deductions, and the alternative 
minimum tax (AMT). Those changes would take effect on January 
1, 2018, and would be scheduled to expire after December 31, 
2025. The bill also would permanently repeal the penalties 
associated with the requirement that most people obtain health 
insurance coverage (also known as the individual mandate).
    The legislation would permanently modify business taxation 
as well. Among other provisions, beginning in 2019, it would 
replace the structure of corporate income tax rates, which has 
a top rate of 35 percent under current law, with a single 20 
percent rate. The legislation also would substantially alter 
the current system under which the worldwide income of U.S. 
corporations is subject to taxation.
    The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) 
estimates that enacting the legislation would reduce revenues 
by about $1,633 billion and decrease outlays by $219 billion 
over the 2018-2027 period, leading to an increase in the 
deficit of $1,414 billion over the next 10 years. A portion of 
the changes in revenues would be from Social Security payroll 
taxes, which are off-budget. Excluding the estimated $27 
billion increase in off-budget revenues over the next 10 years, 
JCT estimates that the legislation would increase on-budget 
deficits by about $1,441 billion over the period from 2018 to 
2027. Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the 
legislation would affect direct spending and revenues.
    JCT estimates that enacting the legislation would not 
increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    Because of the magnitude of its estimated budgetary 
effects, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is considered major 
legislation as defined in section 4107 of H. Con. Res. 71, the 
Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018. It 
therefore triggers the requirement that the cost estimate, to 
the greatest extent practicable, include the budgetary impact 
of the bill's macroeconomic effects. The staff of the Joint 
Committee on Taxation is currently analyzing changes in 
economic output, employment, capital stock, and other 
macroeconomic variables resulting from the bill for purposes of 
determining these budgetary effects. However, JCT indicates 
that it is not practicable for a macroeconomic analysis to 
incorporate the full effects of all of the provisions in the 
bill, including interactions between these provisions, within 
the very short time available between completion of the bill 
and the filing of the committee report.
    CBO and JCT have determined that the tax provisions of the 
legislation contain no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).


                estimated cost to the federal government


    The estimated budgetary effects of the Tax Cuts and Jobs 
Act are shown in the table below.


                           basis of estimate


Revenues and Direct Spending
    The Congressional Budget Act of 1974, as amended, 
stipulates that JCT's estimates of revenues will be the 
official estimates for all tax legislation considered by the 
Congress. Therefore, CBO incorporates JCT's estimates into its 
cost estimates of the effects of legislation. JCT provided 
virtually all estimates for the provisions of the bill, but JCT 
and CBO collaborated on the estimate of the provision that 
would eliminate the penalties associated with the requirement 
that most people obtain health insurance coverage.\1\ The date 
of enactment of the bill is generally assumed to be December 1, 
2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ See Joint Committee on Taxation, Estimated Revenue Effects of 
the ``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,'' as Ordered Reported by the Committee on 
Finance on November 16, 2017, JCX-59-17 (November 17, 2017), https://
go.usa.gov/xnKQv.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    JCT estimates that, together, the provisions contained in 
the legislation would decrease Federal revenues, on net, by 
about $38 billion in 2018, by $972 billion over the period from 
2018 to 2022, and by $1,633 billion over the period from 2018 
to 2027. Net outlays would be nearly unchanged in 2018, and 
would decrease by $46 billion from 2018 to 2022, and by $219 
billion over the period from 2018 to 2027. On net, deficits 
would increase by $38 billion in 2018, by $926 billion from 
2018 to 2022, and by $1,414 billion from 2018 to 2027. A 
portion of those effects reflect changes to revenues from 
Social Security taxes, which are off-budget. JCT estimates that 
over the 2018-2027 period, the bill would increase on-budget 
deficits by $1,441 billion and reduce off-budget deficits by 
$27 billion.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Tax Changes for Individuals.--The bill would make numerous 
changes to tax law pertaining to individuals.
    JCT estimates that the individual tax provisions would, on 
net, reduce revenues by $1,119 billion from 2018 to 2027. Those 
provisions also would decrease outlays by an estimated $233 
billion over the 2018-2027 period. Some provisions would 
increase off-budget revenues by $20 billion over the period 
from 2018 to 2027, JCT estimates. On-budget revenues would 
decrease by an estimated $1,139 billion.
    Revenue-Reducing Provisions.--Provisions that are estimated 
to reduce revenues over the 2018-2027 period include the 
following, which would take effect on January 1, 2018 and 
expire on December 31, 2025:
    --Modify the seven tax brackets in place under current law 
to create brackets with rates of 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 
percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 38.5 percent;
    --Increase the standard deduction;
    --Repeal the individual AMT;
    --Allow a 17.4 percent deduction, subject to certain 
limits, for qualified business income that individuals receive 
from pass-through entities, namely partnerships, S 
corporations, and sole proprietorships;
    --Increase the child tax credit to $2,000, and, among other 
related changes, provide a new $500 credit for certain other 
dependents; and
    --Double the exemption allowed under estate and gift taxes.
    According to JCT's estimates, the largest revenue 
reductions would result from the provision that would modify 
income tax rates and brackets: Revenues would fall by $1,165 
billion and outlays for refundable tax credits would increase 
by $9 billion over the 2018-2027 period. The increase in the 
standard deduction would reduce revenues by $654 billion and 
increase outlays for refundable tax credits by $83 billion over 
the same period, JCT estimates. Repealing the individual AMT 
would reduce revenues by $769 billion from 2018 to 2027.
    JCT also estimates that the bill's provisions that provide 
a deduction for qualifying income from pass-through entities 
would reduce revenues by $362 billion over the 2018-2027 period 
and that modifications to the child tax credit would, over the 
same period, reduce revenues by $431 billion and increase 
outlays for refundable tax credits by $154 billion. JCT 
estimates that additional revenue reductions, totaling $83 
billion from 2018 to 2027, would result from the modifications 
to estate and gift taxes.
    Revenue-Increasing Provisions.--Provisions that are 
estimated to increase revenues over the 2018-2027 period would:
    --Repeal deductions for personal exemptions through 2025;
    --Repeal certain itemized deductions, including those for 
State and local taxes and interest on home equity indebtedness, 
also through 2025;
    --Disallow immediate use of certain losses by active owners 
of pass-through entities; and
    --Permanently index tax parameters to the chained consumer 
price index instead of the traditional consumer price index.
    The largest revenue increases would result from the 
provision to repeal deductions for personal exemptions, which 
JCT estimates would increase revenues by $1,086 billion and 
reduce outlays for refundable credits by $134 billion over the 
2018-2027 period. JCT estimates that the repeal of certain 
itemized deductions also would increase revenues by $974 
billion and reduce outlays for refundable credits by $3 billion 
from 2018 to 2027.
    Substantial but smaller increases in revenues would result 
from two other provisions. First, disallowing certain losses by 
pass-through entities would increase revenues by an estimated 
$137 billion over the 2018-2027 period. Second, the change in 
the inflation measure used to index tax parameters would 
increase revenues by $115 billion and reduce outlays for 
refundable credits by $19 billion over the 2018-2027 period, 
according to JCT's estimates.
    Repealing the Individual Mandate.--The bill's most 
significant effects on outlays would occur as a result of the 
elimination, beginning in 2019, of the penalties associated 
with the individual mandate. CBO and JCT estimate the following 
effects of that provision:
    --Federal budget deficits would be reduced by about $318 
billion between 2018 and 2027, consisting of estimated 
reductions in outlays of $298 billion and increases in revenues 
of $21 billion over the period;
    --The number of people with health insurance would decrease 
by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027;
    --Nongroup insurance markets would continue to be stable in 
almost all areas of the country throughout the coming decade; 
and
    --Average premiums in the nongroup market would increase by 
about 10 percent in most years of the decade (with no changes 
in the ages of people purchasing insurance accounted for) 
relative to CBO's baseline projections. In other words, 
premiums in both 2019 and 2027 would be about 10 percent higher 
than is projected in the baseline.
    Those effects would occur mainly because healthier people 
would be less likely to obtain insurance and because, 
especially in the nongroup market, the resulting increases in 
premiums would cause more people to not purchase insurance. In 
this estimate for the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the estimated 
reduction in the deficit is different from a CBO and JCT 
estimate published on November 8, 2017.\2\ The differences 
occur because the provision of this legislation eliminates the 
penalties associated with the mandate but not the mandate 
itself and because of interactions with other provisions of the 
bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ See Congressional Budget Office, Repealing the Individual 
Health Insurance Mandate: An Updated Estimate (November 2017), 
www.cbo.gov/publication/53300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Business-Related Tax Changes.--The bill would make many 
permanent changes to business taxes. The provisions with the 
largest effects on revenues, as estimated by JCT, are those 
that would:
    --Replace, starting in 2019, the current graduated 
structure of corporate income tax rates, which has a top rate 
of 35 percent under current law, with a single 20 percent rate;
    --Limit the deduction for net interest expenses to the sum 
of business interest income and 30 percent of an adjusted 
measure of taxable income; and
    --Limit the deduction for past net operating losses to a 
portion of current taxable income, and generally repeal the 2-
year period over which losses may be carried back to previous 
tax years.
    JCT estimates that those tax provisions would, on net, 
reduce revenues by $669 billion from 2018 to 2027. In addition, 
those provisions would increase outlays for refundable tax 
credits by an estimated $14 billion over the 2018-2027 period.
    JCT estimates that the modifications to the rate structure, 
including reducing the top corporate tax rate from the 35 
percent that is assessed on most taxable income to a 20 percent 
rate that would apply to all amounts of taxable income, would 
reduce revenues by $1,329 billion over the 2018-2027 period. 
JCT also estimates that limiting the deductions for interest 
expenses would increase revenues by $308 billion and that 
limiting the use of net operating losses would raise revenues 
by $158 billion over the same period.
    Other changes to business taxes would increase revenues, on 
net, according to JCT. The largest of those estimated increases 
over the 2018-2027 period would come from repealing the 
deduction for income attributable to domestic production 
activities ($81 billion over the period) and from requiring 
that certain research or experimental expenditures be amortized 
over a period of 5 years or longer, starting in 2026 ($62 
billion over the period).
    The outlay effects from the business provisions would 
result from repealing the corporate alternative minimum tax. 
That change would reduce receipts by $26 billion and increase 
outlays by $14 billion over the period from 2018 to 2027, 
according to JCT's estimates.
    International Tax Changes.--The bill would substantially 
modify the current system of taxation of worldwide income of 
U.S. corporations, generally including foreign earnings in 
taxable income when paid to businesses as dividends by their 
foreign subsidiaries and with an allowance for tax credits for 
certain foreign taxes that businesses pay. Under the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act, the tax system would provide an exemption for 
dividends paid by a foreign corporation to its U.S. parent, and 
no foreign tax credits would be allowed for taxes paid on the 
amount of such dividends. Other changes also would be 
implemented. The international tax provisions with the largest 
estimated effects on revenues are those that would:
    --Provide a deduction for the foreign-source portion of 
dividends received by domestic corporations from certain 
foreign corporations;
    --Require that certain untaxed foreign income of U.S. 
corporations be deemed to be immediately paid to those 
corporations as dividends and included in taxable income, 
subject to taxation at a rate of 10 percent (or 5 percent for 
certain illiquid assets), and with an option to spread the 
resulting tax payments over an 8-year period with 60 percent 
paid in the final 3 years;
    --Impose on U.S. corporations a minimum tax of 10 percent 
(12.5 percent starting in 2026) on a tax base that excludes 
certain otherwise tax-deductible payments to foreign 
affiliates; and
    --Require that U.S. corporations immediately include in 
taxable income certain amounts earned from low-taxed 
investments by foreign subsidiaries.
    JCT estimates that the provisions related to international 
taxation would, on net, increase revenues by $155 billion from 
2018 to 2027. It also estimates that the deduction for 
dividends received from foreign corporations would reduce 
revenues by $216 billion over that period. JCT estimates that 
three other provisions would have large budgetary effects that 
would increase revenues from 2018 to 2027. Those provisions 
would require a deemed repatriation of untaxed foreign income 
($185 billion), impose a new minimum tax ($138 billion), and 
require the immediate inclusion in taxable income of certain 
amounts earned by foreign subsidiaries ($135 billion).
    Revenue-Dependent Repeals.--The bill would make parts of 
six business and international taxation provisions dependent on 
future revenue collections. The parts that would be affected 
generally begin in 2026, and would increase revenues in 2026 
and 2027. Those amounts are incorporated into the overall 
revenue effects shown in the estimate of this legislation. The 
provisions include those that would require that certain 
research or experimental expenditures be amortized, that would 
limit the deduction for net operating losses, and that would 
impose a minimum tax on a tax base that excludes certain 
otherwise tax-deductible payments to foreign affiliates.
    Under the legislation, the parts of those provisions 
beginning in 2026 would not take effect if an overall revenue 
target was reached. Specifically, if on-budget revenues for the 
period from 2018 to 2026 exceeded $28.387 trillion, then those 
revenue-raising provisions would be repealed starting in 2026. 
Under CBO's latest baseline revenue projections, adjusted to 
include the revenue effects of the bill (without incorporating 
any macroeconomic feedback), the on-budget revenue target would 
not be reached and therefore the revenue-raising modifications 
would occur. JCT has estimated that the revenue-dependent 
repeals would have a negligible effect on revenues. Given 
variations in inflation, economic output, and many other 
economic developments that affect revenues, including the 
response of overall economic activity to this legislation, 
there is some probability that the target would be reached and 
that the modifications to those provisions, and the resulting 
revenues, would not occur.


                      pay-as-you-go considerations


    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays and 
revenues that are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are 
shown in the following table. Only on-budget changes to outlays 
or revenues are subject to pay-as-you-go procedures.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          allocation of budgetary effects across income groups


    Section 4107 of H. Con. Res. 71 requires that CBO and JCT's 
estimates of budgetary effects for major legislation include, 
to the extent practicable, the legislation's distributional 
effects across income categories.
    JCT has published a distributional analysis of the Tax Cuts 
and Jobs Act that includes the effects of the bill on revenues 
and on the portion of refundable tax credits recorded as 
outlays.\3\ That analysis included effects on outlays for 
premium tax credits stemming from eliminating the penalty 
associated with the requirement that most people obtain health 
insurance coverage. However, other spending related to 
eliminating that penalty was not included, specifically changes 
in spending for Medicaid, cost-sharing reduction payments, the 
Basic Health Program, and Medicare.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ See Joint Committee on Taxation, Distributional Effects of the 
``Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,'' as Ordered Reported by the Committee on 
Finance on November 16, 2017, JCX-60-17 (November 24, 2017), https://
www.jct.gov/publications.html?func=startdown&id=5044.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CBO has separately allocated across income groups the 
budgetary effects of those other changes for an earlier version 
of the legislation, under consideration by the Senate Finance 
Committee; those estimates also apply to the bill as ordered 
reported.\4\ In making those estimates, CBO did not attempt to 
estimate the value that people place on such spending, which 
may be different from the actual cost to the government of 
providing the benefits. CBO also did not attempt to make any 
distributional allocations for people who would choose to 
obtain unsubsidized health insurance in the nongroup market and 
who face higher premiums there compared with what would occur 
otherwise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ For the estimates and associated methodology, see Congressional 
Budget Office, letter to Honorable Ron Wyden on the distributional 
effects of changes in spending under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act as of 
November 15, 2017 (November 17, 2017), www.cbo.gov/publication/53333.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The combined distributional effect of the provisions 
estimated by JCT and CBO, thus representing the total 
distributional effect of the bill, was calculated by 
subtracting the estimated change in Federal spending from the 
change in Federal revenues allocated to each income group. The 
resulting changes in the Federal deficit allocated to each 
income group are reflected in the following table.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


    Overall, the combined effect of the change in net Federal 
revenues and spending is to decrease deficits (primarily 
stemming from reductions in spending) allocated to lower-income 
tax filing units and to increase deficits (primarily stemming 
from reductions in taxes) allocated to higher-income tax filing 
units. Those effects do not incorporate any estimates of the 
budgetary effects of any macroeconomic changes that would stem 
from the proposal.


                increase in long-term on-budget deficits


    JCT estimates that enacting the legislation would not 
increase on-budget deficits by more than $5 billion in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.


                                mandates


    CBO and JCT have determined that the legislation contains 
no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined by 
UMRA.
    Estimate prepared by: Staff of the Joint Committee on 
Taxation and Cecilia Pastrone of the Congressional Budget 
Office.
    Estimate approved by: John McClelland Assistant Director 
for Tax Analysis and Theresa Gullo Assistant Director for 
Budget Analysis.MOVE THIS TO THE MIDDLE OF HUGE 
FINANCE INSERT
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Title II--Committee on Energy and Natural Resources


                                contents

 
                                                                    Page
 
       I.    Amendment...........................................    440
      II.    Purpose.............................................    440
     III.    Background and Need.................................    441
      IV.    Legislative History.................................    445
       V.    Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Votes....    445
      VI.    Committee Amendment.................................    446
     VII.    Section-by-Section Analysis.........................    446
    VIII.    Regulatory Impact Evaluation........................    447
      IX.    Congressionally Directed Spending...................    448
       X.    Executive Communications............................    448
      XI.    Dissenting Views of Senators Cantwell, Wyden,           449
              Sanders, Stabenow, Franken, Heinrich, Hirono,
              Duckworth, and Cortez Masto........................
     XII.    Changes in Existing Law.............................    452
 

                              I. Amendment

    The amendment [stated in terms of the page and line numbers 
of the introduced bill] is as follows:

  On page 4, after line 20, add the following:

SEC.----. LIMITATIONS ON AMOUNT OF DISTRIBUTED QUALIFIED OUTER 
                    CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES.

  Section 105(f)(1) of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 
(43 U.S.C. 1331 note; Public Law 109-434) is amended by striking 
``exceed $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2055.'' And 
inserting the following: ``exceed--
                    ``(A) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 
                through 2019;
                    ``(B) $650,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 
                through 2021; and
                    ``(C) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2022 
                through 2055.''.

SEC.----. STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE DRAWDOWN AND SALE.

    (a) Drawdown and Sale.--
            (1) In general.--Notwithstanding section 161 of the Energy 
        Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241), except as 
        provided in subsections (b) and (c), the Secretary of Energy 
        shall draw down and sell from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve 
        5,000,000 barrels of crude oil during the period of fiscal 
        years 2026 through 2027.
            (2) Deposit of amounts received from sale.--Amounts 
        received from a sale under paragraph (1) shall be deposited in 
        the general fund of the Treasury during the fiscal year in 
        which the sale occurs.
    (b) Emergency Protection.--The Secretary of Energy shall not draw 
down and sell crude oil under subsection (a) in a quantity that would 
limit the authority to sell petroleum products under subsection (h) of 
section 161 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) 
in the full quantity authorized by that section.
    (c) Limitation.--The Secretary of Energy shall not drawdown or 
conduct sales of crude oil under subsection (a) after the date on which 
a total of $325,000,000 has been deposited in the general fund of the 
Treasury from sales authorized under that subsection.

                              II. Purpose

    The purpose of Title II is to direct the Secretary of the 
Interior to establish and administer a competitive oil and gas 
program in the non-wilderness portion of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), known as the ``1002 Area'' or Coastal 
Plain, and for other purposes.

                        III. Background and Need

    H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
for Fiscal Year 2018, directs the Senate Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee to report legislation within its 
jurisdiction to the Senate Budget Committee to reduce the 
deficit by not less than $1 billion for the 10-year period of 
fiscal year 2018 through fiscal year 2027. In accordance with 
that instruction, the Committee is reporting reconciliation 
legislation to establish and administer a competitive oil and 
gas program for the leasing, development, production, and 
transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain of 
ANWR; to increase revenue sharing for Alabama, Louisiana, 
Mississippi, and Texas, all of which produce energy from the 
Gulf of Mexico; and to sell 5 million barrels of oil from the 
Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). The Congressional Budget 
Office (CBO) estimates that this legislation will generate net 
Federal receipts of $1.107 billion over the specified time 
period.

            COMPETITIVE OIL AND GAS PROGRAM IN THE 1002 AREA

History of ANWR

    The issue of development of the roughly 135 miles of the 
Arctic Coastal Plain between Alaska's border with Canada and 
the Canning River traces back to at least 1923, when 23.7 
million acres were ``withdrawn'' from some public land and 
mineral laws to establish the National Petroleum Reserve No. 4 
(now the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Withdrawals by Executive Order 3797-A, Feb. 23, 1923, as 
reported in the Department of the Interior's ``Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan,'' Apr. 3, 2015; pg. 4-
1, www.fws.gov/home/arctic-ccp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 1943, the Federal Government modified that land 
withdrawal and during World War II issued a new public land 
order (PLO) that withdrew more than 500 miles of Arctic 
coastline and coastal plain, about 49 million acres of land in 
total, from entrance for ``use in connection with the 
prosecution of the war.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ PLO 82, issued, Jan. 22, 1943.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Soon after Alaska attained Statehood in 1959, the 
Eisenhower administration, through Interior Secretary Fred 
Seaton, formally designated 8.83 million acres of the coastal 
plain and uplands as the Arctic National Wildlife Range on 
December 6, 1960.\3\ The designation permitted oil and gas 
development to occur as the Range designation withdrew the 
acreage from mining, but not from mineral leasing laws.\4\ The 
twin PLOs that lifted the 1943 land order reduced the size of 
the withdrawals substantially and effectively allowed the new 
State of Alaska to select roughly 4 million acres near Prudhoe 
Bay for State ownership. In December 1968, the Nation's largest 
single oil discovery was made at Prudhoe Bay--a field that is 
still in production today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ PLO 2214, signed Dec. 6, 1960, and PLO 2215, signed the same 
day, revoked PLO 82; DOI ``Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Revised 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Apr. 3, 2015, pg. 4-1.
    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act and Alaska Land Use Issues

    With the discovery of oil in northern Alaska, Congress 
turned its attention to resolving a host of land issues in the 
State that might have affected efforts to move the oil to 
market, including the issue of aboriginal land claims. In 1971, 
Congress approved the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA; Public Law 92-203), which provided Alaska Natives 
$962.5 million and a total of 44 million acres of land in 
return for settlement of all aboriginal land claims.\5\ ANCSA 
also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to withdraw ``up 
to, but not to exceed, 80 million acres of unreserved public 
lands, including previously classified lands, which the 
Secretary deems are suitable for addition to or creation as 
units of the National Park, Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild 
and Scenic River Systems,'' \6\ and required Congress to make a 
land use decision within 7 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Public Law 92-203.
    \6\ Id. Section 17(d)(2)(A) of ANSCA further provided that ``such 
withdrawals shall not affect the authority of the State and the 
Regional and Village Corporations to make selections and obtain patents 
within the areas withdrawn pursuant to section 11.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Throughout the 1970s, Congress attempted to develop a 
public land use agreement for Alaska. After compromise 
legislation failed in 1978, Secretary of the Interior Cecil 
Andrus used section 204(e) the Federal Land Policy and 
Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-579) to withdraw roughly 
110 million acres of Alaska from development for a 3-year 
period.\7\ Later that month, Secretary of Agriculture Robert 
Bergland withdrew an additional 11 million acres from mining 
for 2 years under section 204(b) of the same Act.\8\ On 
December 1, 1978, President Carter designated 56 million acres 
as national monuments under the 1906 Antiquities Act (54 U.S.C. 
320301-320303).\9\ Finally, in February 1980, Secretary Andrus 
extended the withdrawal on 40 million acres for another 20 
years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Department of the Interior, ``Andrus Commends Alaska Governor 
Hammond; Exercises 204e,'' Nov. 16, 1978, https://www.fws.gov/news/
Historic/NewsReleases/1978/19781116b.pdf.
    \8\ Letter from Secretary Berglund to President Carter, Nov. 28, 
1978, https://www.jimmycarterlibrary.gov/digital_library/sso/148878/99/
SSO_148878_099_04.pdf
    \9\ Presidential Proclamations 4611-4627. Dec. 1, 1978.
    \10\ Department of the Interior, ``Andrus Extends Withdrawals on 40 
Million Acres of Federal Lands In Alaska to 20 Years; Cites Senate 
Inaction,'' Feb. 12, 1980, https://www.fws.gov/news/Historic/
NewsReleases/1980/19800212a.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Antiquities Act withdrawals and associated PLOs stopped 
the State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations from making 
land selections under the Alaska Statehood Act and under ANCSA. 
The withdrawals encouraged Representative Mo Udall of Arizona 
to reintroduce legislation calling for 127 million acres of 
conservation system units in Alaska. Negotiations in the 96th 
Congress resulted in a compromise Alaska lands bill,\11\ the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA; Public 
Law 96-487), signed by President Carter on December 2, 1980.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ On Feb. 29, 1980, about 9 months before final passage of 
ANILCA, the Arctic National Wildlife Range was renamed as the William 
O. Douglas Arctic Wildlife Range by Presidential Proclamation 4729 to 
honor the former Supreme Court Justice. The designation was repealed by 
ANILCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

    ANILCA is the largest land withdrawal ever undertaken in 
the United States. Through it, more than 104 million acres were 
withdrawn or conserved in the form of 13 new or expanded parks, 
16 wildlife refuges, 26 wild and scenic rivers, the two largest 
national forests in the Nation, and two national monuments. 
More than half of those acres (57 million acres, an area of 
land nearly the size of Oregon) were designated as Federal 
Wilderness. ANILCA single-handedly doubled the size of the 
National Park System and significantly expanded the National 
Wildlife Refuge System, as well.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Congressional Research Service, ``Federal Land Ownership: 
Overview and Data,'' C. Hardy Vincent, Mar. 2, 2017, (R42346).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

    Section 303(2) of ANILCA expanded the Arctic National 
Wildlife Range to the south and west by 9.2 million acres of 
public domain lands and renamed the 19.64 million acres the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.\13\ ANILCA also designated 
7.16 million acres of the refuge, including the foothills and 
45 miles of the eastern-most coastline bordering Canada, as 
wilderness under the Wilderness Act of 1964.\14\ The remainder 
of the land in ANWR, including all of the 1.57 million acre 
Coastal Plain, or the so-called ``1002 Area,'' was not included 
in the wilderness designation. Section 1002 of ANILCA 
specifically set aside the 1002 Area for further study and 
exploration of its oil and gas potential. Pursuant to section 
1003 of the Act, oil and gas production was prohibited and no 
``leasing or other development leading to production of oil and 
gas'' could take place until authorized by Congress.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ ``Acreages . . . are derived from many sources and may not 
agree with previously published values,'' according to a disclaimer 
(pg. S-9) in the Executive Summary for the 2015 Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge Revised Comprehensive Conservation Plan (Jan. 2015).
    \14\ This is usually referred to as about 8 million acres because 
in 1980 GIS technology was not as precise.
    \15\ Public Law 96-497; 16 U.S.C. 3143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 1002 of ANILCA further directed the Secretary of 
the Interior to study the Coastal Plain's biological and 
geological resources and provide recommendations for future 
management decisions by Congress. The Department produced the 
report in 1987 after 5 years of biological baseline studies and 
geological studies; two seasons of seismic exploration 
activities; public hearings; and the receipt of 11,000 public 
comments. The report contained five management alternatives, 
ranging from opening all of the 1002 Area to designating it as 
wilderness. The Secretary recommended that Congress pass 
legislation to open the entire 1002 Area to responsible oil and 
gas development, stating that, ``[the] coastal plain is rated 
by geologists as the most promising onshore oil and gas 
exploration area in the United States.'' \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Department of the Interior, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
Alaska, Coastal Plain Assessment, Apr. 1987, https://pubs.usgs.gov/
fedgov/70039559/report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Projected Resources in the 1002 Area

    Estimates of the 1002 Area's resource potential stem from a 
variety of historical data. There are three known oil seeps 
inside the Coastal Plain. Additional data comes from 
evaluations of the geology after the discovery of oil at nearby 
Prudhoe Bay; from seismic testing conducted in the winter of 
1984-1985 as part of the Interior Department's study of the 
area (as directed by section 1002 of ANILCA); and from 
proprietary data from an exploratory test well drilled on 
Alaska Native-owned lands southeast of the Village of Kaktovik 
in 1985-1986.
    According to the U.S. Geologic Survey's (USGS) most recent 
re-evaluation of the 1002 Area's potential, there is a 95 
percent probability that the area contains 5.72 billion barrels 
of oil, a mean (50 percent) chance that it contains 10.36 
billion barrels, and a 5 percent chance that it contains 15.95 
billion barrels of oil.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Department of the Interior, USGS, 1999 Open File Report 98-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Importance of Production in the 1002 Area

    Responsible development of up to 2,000 Federal acres of the 
1002 Area is projected to yield significant long-term benefits 
for the United States.
    Deficit Reduction.--While bonus bids from lease sales are 
projected to raise more than $1 billion for the Federal 
Treasury between fiscal year 2018 and fiscal year 2027, the 
largest share of revenues will accrue outside the 10-year 
window as leases enter commercial production. Federal taxes are 
likely to raise even greater revenues, further reducing Federal 
deficits.
    Energy Security.--Production from the 1002 Area will help 
restore throughput to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which 
is currently operating at just one-quarter of its capacity.\18\ 
This is expected to provide a needed supply of domestic oil to 
West Coast refineries in Washington and California, which have 
become significantly more dependent on foreign suppliers in 
recent years.\19\ Despite some suggestions that U.S. oil 
exports have obviated the need for new production, the Federal 
Energy Information Administration projects the United States 
will remain a significant net importer through at least 2050, 
with net import levels beginning to rise again after 2030.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Alyeska Pipeline Company, Throughput, available online at 
http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/TAPS/PipelineOperations/Throughput
    \19\ California Energy Commission, ``Oil Supply Sources to 
California Refineries,'' available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/
almanac/petroleum_data/statistics/crude_oil_receipts.html
    \20\ Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2017, 
Appendix Table A11, ``Petroleum and other liquids supply and 
disposition,'' available online at https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
pdf/appa.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Global Stability.--Production from the 1002 Area will 
likely add a measure of stability to oil markets, which are at 
considerable risk of tightening. Global oil prices reached a 2-
year high the week before the committee's business meeting,\21\ 
with artificial supply restrictions or supply disruptions 
possible or underway in a range of major exporting nations. In 
its new World Energy Outlook 2017, the International Energy 
Agency notes that, ``[o]nce U.S. tight oil plateaus in the late 
2020s and non-OPEC production as a whole falls back, the market 
becomes increasingly reliant on the Middle East to balance the 
market. There is a continued large-scale need for investment to 
develop a total of 670 billion barrels of new resources to 
2040, mostly to make up for declines at existing fields rather 
than to meet the increase in demand.'' \22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ CNBC, ``Oil hits 2 year high and the path of `least resistance 
is higher,' '' Nov. 6, 2017, available online at https://www.cnbc.com/
2017/11/06/oil-hits-two-year-high-and-the-path-of-least-resistance-is-
higher.html.
    \22\ International Energy Agency, ``World Energy Outlook 2017,'' 
available online at https://www.iea.org/weo2017/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Job Creation.--Responsible development in the 1002 Area 
will also create thousands of jobs throughout the United 
States, while indirectly supporting the creation of many 
thousands more. This is particularly important in Alaska, which 
had the highest unemployment rate of any State at 7.2 percent 
in October 2017, as compared to the national average of 4.1 
percent.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Bureau of Labor Statistics, State-by-State Unemployment 
Levels, Nov. 2017, available online at https://www.bls.gov/
news.release/laus.t01.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        IV. Legislative History

    The Senate passed H. Con. Res. 71, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget for fiscal year 8, on October 19, 
2017, by a vote of 51-49. The Senate amendment to H. Con. Res. 
71 was agreed to in the House of Representatives on October 26, 
2017, by a vote of 216-212.
    Pursuant to H. Con. Res. 71, the Senate Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources was directed to achieve $1 billion in 
outlay reductions in the period of fiscal year through fiscal 
year 2027. On November 2, 2017, the Committee held a hearing 
``to receive testimony on the potential for oil and gas 
exploration and development in the non-wilderness portion of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as the `1002 Area' 
or Coastal Plain, to raise sufficient revenue pursuant to the 
Senate reconciliation instructions included in H. Con. Res 
71.''
    The Committee adopted amendment 16, sponsored by Senators 
Cassidy, Strange, and King, at its business meeting on November 
15, 2017, on a roll call vote of 13-10.
    At the business meeting on November 15, 2017, the Committee 
ordered reconciliation legislation, Title II, favorably 
reported as amended, in accordance with its reconciliation 
instruction, by a vote of 13-10.

          V. Committee Recommendation and Tabulation of Votes

    The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, in 
open business session on November 15, 2017, by majority vote of 
a quorum present, recommends that the Senate pass Title II, if 
amended as described herein.
    The roll call vote on reporting the measure was 13 yeas and 
10 nays, as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Yea     Nay    Present     State      Yea    Nay    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MURKOWSKI     X                       CANTWELL             X
 (AK)                                  (WA)
 (Chairma                              (Ranking
 n)                                    )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BARRASSO      X                       WYDEN                X
 (WY)                                  (OR) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RISCH         X                       SANDERS              X
 (ID)                                  (VT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEE (UT)      X                       STABENOW             X
                                       (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FLAKE         X                       FRANKEN              X
 (AZ)                                  (MN) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAINES        X                       MANCHIN       X
 (MT)                                  (WV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARDNER       X                       HEINRICH             X
 (CO)                                  (NM)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER     X                        HIRONO              X
 (TN)                                  (HI) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOEVEN        X                       KING (ME)            X
 (ND)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CASSIDY       X                       DUCKWORTH            X
 (LA)                                  (IL) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PORTMAN       X                        CORTEZ              X
 (OH)                                  MASTO
                                       (NV)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRANGE       X
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Indicates vote by proxy.

                        VI. Committee Amendment

    During the Committee's consideration of this legislation, 
one amendment was adopted.
    The first section of the amendment increases the annual 
limitation on offshore revenue sharing under section 105(f)(1) 
of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA, 
Public Law 109-432) for the Gulf producing States of Alabama, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, from $500 million annually 
for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2055, to $500 million 
annually for fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2019, $650 
million annually for fiscal year 2020 through fiscal year 2021, 
and $500 million annually for fiscal year 2022 through fiscal 
year 2055.
    The second section of the amendment directs the Secretary 
of Energy to draw down and sell 5 million barrels of crude oil 
from the SPR during fiscal year 2026 and fiscal year 2027. The 
Secretary is prohibited from taking action that would limit the 
authority to sell petroleum products pursuant to the national 
energy security provision in section 161(h) the Energy Policy 
and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241). The Secretary is further 
directed to stop the drawdown or sale of crude oil after the 
date on which a total of $325 million has been deposited in the 
general fund of the Federal Treasury.

                    VII. Section-by-Section Analysis

    Section 20001(a) sets forth definitions for use in this 
section.
    Subsection (a)(1) defines the term ``Coastal Plain'' by 
referencing a map prepared by the USGS entitled ``ANWR Map--
Plate 1'' and ``ANWR Map--Plate 2'' and dated October 24, 2017. 
This map is attached to this Report in Appendix A.
    Subsection (a)(2) defines the term ``Secretary'' as the 
Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Land 
Management.
    Subsection (b)(1) repeals section 1003 of the ANILCA (16 
U.S.C. 3143).
    Subsection (b)(2)(A) directs the Secretary to establish and 
administer a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, 
development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in 
and from the Coastal Plain.
    Subsection (b)(2)(B) amends section 303(2)(B) of ANILCA by 
adding ``to provide for an oil and gas program on the Coastal 
Plain'' as an additional purpose for ANWR.
    Subsection (b)(3) directs the Secretary to manage the oil 
and gas program in accordance with the Naval Petroleum Reserves 
Production Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) and associated 
regulations.
    Subsection (b)(4) sets the royalty rate for leases issued 
pursuant to this section at 16.67 percent.
    Subsection (b)(5) specifies that of the amount of adjusted 
bonus, rental, and royalty receipts derived from Federal oil 
and gas leasing and operations in the Coastal Plain, 50 percent 
shall be paid to the State of Alaska and the remaining 50 
percent shall be deposited into the Federal Treasury as 
miscellaneous receipts.
    Subsection (c)(1)(A) directs the Secretary to conduct not 
fewer than two area-wide lease sales within 10 years after the 
Act's enactment.
    Subsection (c)(1)(B) directs the Secretary to make 
available not fewer than 400,000 acres of land in each lease 
sale and to include the areas with the highest hydrocarbon 
potential. This subsection further directs the Secretary to 
conduct the first lease sale within 4 years of enactment of 
this Act, and the second lease sale within 7 years of 
enactment.
    Subsection (c)(2) directs the Secretary to issue any 
rights-of-way or easements across the Coastal Plain necessary 
for the exploration, development, production, or transportation 
associated with the oil and gas program.
    Subsection (c)(3) directs the Secretary to authorize up to 
2,000 surface acres of Federal land on the Coastal Plain to be 
covered by production and support facilities. Such facilities 
include airstrips and any area covered by gravel berms or piers 
for support of pipelines.
    Section 20002 amends section 105(f)(1) of GOMESA to 
increase the revenue sharing limits on the disbursement of 
qualified revenues to Gulf producing States from $500 million 
to $650 million in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year 2021. The 
current limitation of $500 million per year would remain from 
fiscal year 2016 through fiscal year 2019 and from fiscal year 
2022 through fiscal year 2055.
    Section 20003(a) requires the Secretary of Energy to sell 5 
million barrels of crude oil from the SPR from fiscal year 2026 
through fiscal year 2027 and to deposit the revenue into the 
general fund of the Federal Treasury.
    Subsection (b) provides emergency protection by prohibiting 
the Secretary from taking action that would limit the authority 
to sell petroleum products pursuant to the national energy 
security provision in section 161(h) the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6241).
    Subsection (c) directs the Secretary to stop the drawdown 
or sale of crude oil after the date on which a total of $325 
million has been deposited in the general fund of the Federal 
Treasury.

                   VIII. Regulatory Impact Evaluation

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact which would be incurred in 
carrying out this legislation.
    The bill is not a regulatory measure in the sense of 
imposing Government-established standards or significant 
economic responsibilities on private individuals and 
businesses.
    No personal information would be collected in administering 
the program. Therefore, there would be no impact on personal 
privacy.
    Little, if any, additional paperwork would result from the 
enactment of this measure, as ordered reported.

                 IX. Congressionally Directed Spending

    This measure, as ordered reported, does not contain any 
congressionally directed spending items, limited tax benefits, 
or limited tariff benefits as defined in Rule XLIV of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate.

                      X. Executive Communications

    The testimony provided by the Department of the Interior on 
November 2, 2017, which addresses development in the 1002 Area, 
follows:
  Statement of Greg Sheehan, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish and 
   Wildlife Service, Before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 
  Committee, on Oil and Gas Exploration and Development in the Arctic 
                             Coastal Plain
    Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to 
testify on behalf of the Department of Interior (Department) regarding 
resource development in the 1002 area of the coastal plain of Alaska's 
North Slope. I am Greg Sheehan, Principal Deputy Director of the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service.
                  the arctic national wildlife refuge
    The original 8.9 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range was 
established on December 6, 1960 to protect the wildlife, wilderness, 
and recreational values of the range. It was later expanded through the 
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) on December 2, 
1980 to 19.3 million acres and renamed the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. ANILCA also designated 8 million acres of the original Range as 
Wilderness, requiring this area to be managed in accordance with the 
Wilderness Act, and added new Refuge purposes. These purposes include 
conservation of fish and wildlife populations; fulfillment of 
international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to 
fish and wildlife and their habitats; providing the opportunity for 
continued subsistence uses by rural residents; and ensuring water 
quality and quantity within the refuge.
                             the 1002 area
    In section 1002 of ANILCA, Congress and President Carter deferred a 
decision regarding future management of the 1.5-million-acre coastal 
plain--now referred to as the 1002 area--in recognition of the area's 
natural resource potential. Section 1002 of ANILCA provides for the 
comprehensive and continuing inventory and assessment of the fish and 
wildlife resources of the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge; an 
analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and 
production, and authorization of exploratory activity within the 
coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on 
the fish and wildlife and other resources.
    Due to its unique purpose and potential, Congress did not include 
the 1002 area in the refuge's designated wilderness when ANILCA was 
enacted in 1980. Since then, no Congress has designated the 1002 area 
as wilderness.
    The 1002 area is currently managed as a Minimal Management Area in 
the National Wildlife Refuge System. As such, Service activities are 
directed at maintaining the existing conditions of areas that have high 
fish and wildlife values or other resource values. Opportunities for 
public use and access are available for subsistence purposes and for a 
variety of recreational activities, including hunting, fishing, 
trapping, backpacking, and camping. Traditional motorized access via 
aircraft and motorboats is allowed. The Service focuses its efforts in 
the 1002 area primarily on conducting studies and survey/inventory 
programs. Section 1003 stipulates that production of oil and gas from 
the Arctic Refuge is prohibited and no leasing or other development 
leading to production of oil and gas shall be undertaken until 
authorized by an Act of Congress.
    In an assessment completed and sent to Congress in 1987, the 
Secretary recommended that Congress consider leasing the 1002 area for 
oil and gas. In 1988, the Arctic Refuge's initial Comprehensive 
Conservation Plan (CCP) recognized the coastal plain as a critical 
calving area for the Porcupine caribou herd, which is an important 
subsistence resource for Alaska Native people. In 2009, the U.S. 
Geological Survey determined in its most recent economic analysis the 
area had a mean estimate of 10.35 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 
with 80 to 90 percent of that volume being economically recoverable at 
$42 per barrel.
    Since the 1987 assessment was completed, the Service has continued 
to inventory, monitor, and assess the fish and wildlife resources 
within the 1002 area so that current data is available to inform future 
activity.
    Last spring, Secretary Zinke visited the North Slope with Chairman 
Murkowski and a bipartisan Senate delegation. After seeing it first 
hand, he signed a secretarial order in Anchorage that requires the USGS 
to update its resource assessments for the 1002 area. The plan includes 
consideration of new geological and geophysical data, as well as 
potential for reprocessing existing geological and geophysical data. 
The secretarial order does not reduce, eliminate, or modify any 
environmental or regulatory requirements for energy development. This 
evaluation is consistent with the intent of ANILCA and will improve the 
Department's understanding of the 1002 area.
                         administration support
    The administration's fiscal year 2018 budget proposes oil and gas 
leasing in the 1002 area. If production is authorized by Congress, the 
administration believes this will bolster our Nation's energy 
independence and national security, provide economic opportunity for 
Alaskans and provide much-needed revenue to both the State of Alaska 
and Federal Government. With passage of the budget reconciliation 
provisions in H. Con. Res. 71, and its revenue-raising instructions to 
your Committee, the Department stands ready to assist Congress as it 
considers legislation, consistent with ANILCA, to authorize the 
potential development of the resources contained in this area.
    Chairman Murkowski, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on 
behalf of the Department on this issue and look forward to answering 
any questions you might have. Thank you.

 XI. Dissenting Views of Senators Cantwell, Wyden, Sanders, Stabenow, 
         Franken, Heinrich, Hirono, Duckworth, and Cortez Masto

    Section 2001(b) of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget 
for Fiscal Year 2001, H. Con. Res. 71, instructs the Committee 
on Energy and Natural Resources to report changes in laws 
within its jurisdiction to reduce the deficit by not less than 
$1 billion for the period of fiscal years 2018 through 2027. 
The majority has chosen to meet this instruction by turning the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field. We strongly 
oppose this action.
    The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is considered ``the 
Last Great Wilderness.'' It exemplifies the idea of wilderness. 
It preserves arctic and subarctic ecosystems in their natural 
and unaltered state. It provides critical habitat for 
threatened polar bears, and it serves as the calving ground for 
caribou and the breeding ground for more than 200 species of 
migratory birds. It was first protected by the Eisenhower 
administration in 1960 to preserve the area's ``unique 
wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.'' It was 
established as a national wildlife refuge by Congress in 1980 
``to conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in 
their natural diversity. . . .''
    Congress acted in 1980 to preserve the lands ``for the 
benefit, use, education and inspiration of present and future 
generations.'' It declared the protection of these lands to be 
in ``the national interest'' because of the ``unrivaled . . . 
natural landscapes,'' the ``inestimable value'' of the area's 
wildlife to the Nation, and the opportunities its unaltered 
ecosystems provide for scientific research. We should not now 
permit this priceless patrimony to be auctioned off to oil 
companies in order to fund tax cuts for the wealthiest among 
us.
    To begin with, we do not need to sacrifice the Arctic 
Refuge to balance the budget. According to the Congressional 
Budget Office, the proposal will reduce the deficit by, at 
most, less than $1.1 billion. At the same time, the Concurrent 
Resolution on the Budget has instructed the Finance Committee 
to increase the deficit by up to $15 trillion in order to 
provide tax cuts to the wealthy. Auctioning off the Nation's 
premier wildlife refuge to the oil companies to plunder will 
only reduce the deficit created by tax cuts for the wealthy by 
less than 0.067 percent.
    Nor does the Nation need the oil. Oil imports and oil 
prices have fallen. Domestic oil production is at historic 
highs. The Trump administration has declared that we have a 
``domestic surplus of oil.'' We now export significant amounts 
of the oil we produce in this country. Much of the oil produced 
in the Refuge will likely be exported. We are selling off much 
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, which once provided an 
emergency reserve of oil to see us through supply disruptions. 
Indeed, at the same time the majority approved auctioning off 
the Arctic Refuge to the oil companies, it adopted an amendment 
to sell off another 5 million barrels of the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve.
    The majority bases this ill-advised legislation on a fabric 
of false premises. First, it asserts that the oil and gas 
leasing program it authorizes would not significantly affect 
the 19.6 million-acre Refuge because it would only permit 
leasing on a 1.5 million-acre area of the coastal plain. But 
the coastal plain is the ``biological heart'' of the Refuge. It 
has been designated as critical habitat for threatened polar 
bears. It is where the Porcupine Caribou Herd calves and most 
of the migratory birds nest and breed.
    Second, the majority contends that Congress intended the 
coastal plain to be leased for oil and gas development when it 
established the Refuge. It did not. The Congress that 
established the Refuge expressly prohibited oil and gas 
production, leasing, or any other development leading to oil 
and gas production on the coastal plain without further 
statutory authorization. It withdrew the coastal plain from the 
operation of the mineral leasing laws. Although it did 
authorize temporary, limited exploratory activities on the 
coastal plain, it did so only in the context of an 
environmental assessment of the coastal plain's fish and 
wildlife resources and the impacts of any oil and gas 
development on those fish and wildlife resources. It did not 
promise that oil and gas development would ever be permitted on 
the coastal plain.
    Third, the majority argues that the oil and gas development 
that its proposal authorizes would occupy no more than 2,000 
acres of the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain. But it counts only 
the area ``covered by production and support facilities'' 
toward the 2,000-acre limit. It excludes from its calculation 
the many miles of roads, causeways, and pipelines (other than 
the support piers) that will be needed to connect the 
production and support facilities, and which will destroy fish 
and wildlife habitat and disrupt migration patterns. Nor does 
it count that vast areas that may be affected by seismic 
testing and other exploration activities.
    Moreover, the majority neglects to mention that if Congress 
authorizes any leasing or other development leading to 
production on the coastal plain, the Arctic Slope Regional 
Corporation, will be entitled to lease all 100,000 acres in the 
northeast corner of the Refuge pursuant to a 1983 contractual 
agreement with the Department of the Interior.
    Finally, the majority asserts that its proposed oil and gas 
development program will be compatible with fish and wildlife 
protection and that the legislation will not waive any 
environmental laws or regulations. While it is true that the 
proposal does not expressly waive any environmental laws, it 
fundamentally alters the purpose of the Refuge and dramatically 
diminishes the legal protections currently afforded to the 
Refuge. By mandating the oil and gas program, the legislation 
will have the effect of waiving many of the protections of 
these environmental laws.
    Under current law, oil and gas development is prohibited in 
a national wildlife refuge unless the Secretary of the Interior 
determines it is ``compatible'' with the purpose for which the 
refuge was established. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was 
established ``to conserve fish and wildlife populations and 
habitats.'' Oil and gas development is not compatible with 
conserving fish and wildlife populations and habitats. That is 
why prior legislative proposals to authorize oil and gas 
development in the Refuge have ``deemed'' it to be 
``compatible.'' Rather than deeming oil and gas development to 
be compatible with wildlife conservation, the majority simply 
makes oil and gas development a purpose of the Refuge.
    The proposal then gives responsibility for managing the oil 
and gas program to the Bureau of Land Management and directs 
the Bureau to manage the program in accordance with the 
National Petroleum Reserve Production Act. Under current 
regulations, no oil and gas development can occur within a 
national wildlife refuge except ``with the concurrence of the 
Fish and Wildlife Service as to the time, place and nature of 
such operations in order to give complete protection to 
wildlife populations and wildlife habitat on the areas leased. 
. . .'' The Fish and Wildlife Service cannot concur unless it 
determines that the operations, ``based on sound professional 
judgment, will not materially interfere with or detract from'' 
the wildlife protection purposes of the refuge.
    The majority's proposal fundamentally alters that 
environmental protection standard. By directing the Bureau of 
Land Management to conduct an oil and gas development program 
in the Arctic Refuge in accordance the National Petroleum 
Reserve Production Act, the proposal makes oil and gas 
development, rather than wildlife protection, its principal 
purpose. The Production Act affords wildlife protection only to 
the extent consistent with the requirements . . . for the 
exploration'' for oil and gas, and it only requires the 
Department of the Interior to ``mitigate,'' not avoid or 
prevent, ``reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse 
effects'' on fish and wildlife and their habitats.
    By mandating that the Bureau of Land Management to 
establish an oil and gas leasing program and to conduct at 
least two lease sales, offering at least 400,000 acres in each 
lease sale, the proposal will statutorily require the Bureau to 
grant leases in the Refuge regardless of the harmful 
environmental impacts the program will inevitably have on fish 
and wildlife and their habitats.
    Simply put, the proposal, if enacted, will turn the 
Nation's premier national wildlife refuge into another national 
petroleum reserve, in which oil and gas development will have 
priority over the protection of the Refuge's wildlife. Doing so 
will violate our trust responsibility, as stewards of our 
public lands, to preserve and protect this priceless piece of 
our national heritage for the benefit of present and future 
generations.
    We strongly dissent.

                                   Maria Cantwell,
                                   Ron Wyden,
                                   Bernard Sanders,
                                   Debbie Stabenow,
                                   Al Franken,
                                   Martin Heinrich,
                                   Mazie K. Hirono,
                                   Tammy Duckworth,
                                   Catherine Cortez Masto,
                                     U.S. Senators.

                      XII. Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes to existing law made by 
the legislation, as ordered reported to the Committee on the 
Budget, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 
roman):

            ALASKA NATIONAL INTEREST LANDS CONSERVATION ACT


PUBLIC LAW 96-487, AS AMENDED

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 303. ADDITIONS TO EXISTING REFUGES. * * *

          (2) Arctic national wildlife refuge. * * *
          (B) The purposes for which the Arctic National 
        Wildlife Refuge is established and shall be managed 
        include--
                  (i) to conserve fish and wildlife populations 
                and habitats in their natural diversity 
                including, but not limited to, the Porcupine 
                caribou herd (including participation in 
                coordinated ecological studies and management 
                of this herd and the Western Arctic caribou 
                herd), polar bears, grizzly bears, muskox, Dall 
                sheep, wolves, wolverines, snow geese, 
                peregrine falcons and other migratory birds and 
                Arctic char and grayling;
                  (ii) to fulfill the international treaty 
                obligations of the United States with respect 
                to fish and wildlife and their habitats;
                  (iii) to provide, in a manner consistent with 
                the purposes set forth in subparagraphs (i) and 
                (ii), the opportunity for continued subsistence 
                uses by local residents; [and]
                  (iv) to ensure, to the maximum extent 
                practicable and in a manner consistent with the 
                purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water 
                quality and necessary water quantity within the 
                refuge[.]; and
                  (v) to provide for an oil and gas program on 
                the Coastal Plain.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

[Sec. 1003. Prohibition on development. Production of oil and 
gas from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is prohibited and 
no leasing or other development leading to production of oil 
and gas from the range shall be undertaken until authorized by 
an Act of Congress.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   GULF OF MEXICO ENERGY SECURITY ACT


PUBLIC LAW 109-432, AS AMENDED

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 105. DISPOSITION OF QUALIFIED OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF REVENUES 
                    FROM 181 AREA, 191 SOUTH AREA, AND 2002-2007 
                    PLANNING AREAS OF GULF OF MEXICO. * * *

    (f) Limitations on Amount of Distributed Qualified Outer 
Continental Shelf Revenues.--
            (1)  In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), the 
        total amount of qualified outer Continental Shelf 
        revenues made available under subsection (a)(2) shall 
        not [exceed $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2016 
        through 2055.] exceed--
                    (A) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2016 through 2019;
                    (B) $650,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2020 through 2021; and
                    (C) $500,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
                2022 through 2055.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           Appendix A--ANWR Map Plate 1 and ANWR Map Plate 2

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                 CBO Cost and Budgetary Considerations

    The following estimate of the costs of this measure has 
been provided by the Congressional Budget Office:
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                SUMMARY

    The legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior 
(DOI) to implement an oil and gas leasing program for the 
coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). It 
also would authorize DOI to spend $300 million from proceeds 
from oil and gas leasing on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
over the 2018-2027 period. Finally, the legislation would 
direct the Department of Energy (DOE) to sell a portion of the 
petroleum stored in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). On 
the basis of information provided by DOI, DOE, and individuals 
working in the oil and gas industry, CBO estimates that 
implementing the legislation would increase net offsetting 
receipts, which are treated as reductions in direct spending, 
by about $1.1 billion over the 2018-2027 period.
    Because enacting the legislation would affect direct 
spending pay-as-you-go procedures apply. Enacting the 
legislation would not affect revenues.
    CBO estimates that enacting legislation would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.
    The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
(UMRA).

                ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

    The estimated budgetary impact of the legislation is shown 
in the following table. The costs of this legislation fall 
within budget functions 270 (energy), 300 (natural resources 
and environment), 800 (general government), and 950 
(undistributed offsetting receipts).
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]>

                           BASIS OF ESTIMATE

    For this estimate, CBO assumes that the legislation will be 
enacted near the end of 2017 and that the appropriated funds 
necessary to implement the legislation would be available.

Description of the Legislation

    The legislation would direct the Secretary of the Interior 
to implement an oil and gas leasing program for lands located 
within the coastal plain of ANWR, which includes about 1.5 
million acres of Federal land on the northeast coast of Alaska. 
Under current law, activities related to oil and gas leasing in 
ANWR are prohibited.
    The legislation would require the Secretary to hold two 
lease sales over a 7-year period following enactment and to 
offer at least 400,000 acres of land in ANWR for lease at each 
sale. Any lease sales in ANWR would be carried out in 
accordance with procedures used to conduct oil and gas leasing 
within the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. For each lease 
awarded, lessees would pay the Federal Government bonus bids to 
acquire the leases, annual rent to retain the leases, and 
royalties based on the value of any oil or gas production from 
the leases. The legislation would establish a 16.67 percent 
royalty on oil and gas produced in ANWR. (Under current law, 
the Federal Government charges royalties of 12.5 percent for 
oil and gas produced onshore and 18.75 percent for oil and gas 
produced in the Outer Continental Shelf.) Under the 
legislation, Alaska would receive one-half of the gross 
proceeds generated from this leasing program.
    The legislation would authorize DOI to spend $300 million 
over the 2018-2027 period without further appropriation from 
receipts from oil and gas leases on the Outer Continental 
Shelf. In addition, the legislation would direct the Department 
of Energy to sell 5 million barrels of oil from the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve over the 2026-2027 period, subject to certain 
conditions.

Direct Spending

    CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would 
increase net offsetting receipts, and thus reduce direct 
spending, by about $1.1 billion over the 2018-2027 period.
    Oil and Gas Leasing in ANWR.--CBO estimates that gross 
proceeds from bonus bids paid for the right to develop leases 
in ANWR would total $2.2 billion over the 2018-2027 period. 
That estimate is based on historical information about oil and 
gas leasing in the United States and on information from DOI, 
the Energy Information Administration (EIA), and individuals 
working in the oil and gas industry about factors that affect 
the amounts that companies are willing to pay to acquire oil 
and gas leases. In addition, CBO relied on estimates prepared 
by the U.S. Geological Survey of the amount of oil that might 
be produced from the coastal plain of ANWR. As specified in the 
legislation, one-half of all receipts from leases in ANWR would 
be paid to Alaska, leaving net Federal receipts totaling $1.1 
billion over the 2018-2027 period.
    Estimates of bonus bids for leases in ANWR are uncertain. 
Potential bidders might make assumptions that are different 
from CBO's, including assumptions about long-term oil prices, 
production costs, the amount of oil and gas resources in ANWR, 
and alternative investment opportunities. In particular, oil 
companies have other domestic and overseas investment options 
that they would evaluate and compare with potential investments 
in ANWR. The potential profitability for a wide range of such 
global investment options would probably be a significant 
factor in prospective bidders' ultimate choices of how much to 
bid for ANWR leases. The number of factors that affect 
companies' investment decisions result in a wide range of 
estimates for bonus bids. CBO's estimate reflects our best 
estimate of the midpoint of that range.
    In addition to receipts from bonus bids, CBO estimates that 
the Federal Government would collect net receipts from rental 
payments totaling about $2 million over the 2022-2027 period. 
(Lease holders make an annual rental payment until production 
begins.) CBO also estimates that the Federal Government would 
receive royalty payments on oil produced from ANWR leases; 
however, based on information from EIA regarding the typical 
amount of time necessary to drill exploratory wells, complete 
production plans, and build the necessary infrastructure to 
produce and transport any oil produced in ANWR, CBO expects 
that no significant royalty payments would be made until after 
2027.
    Spending of OCS Receipts.--Section 20002 would authorize 
DOI to spend an additional $300 million over the 2018-2027 
period without further appropriation from receipts collected 
from certain OCS leases. Under current law, DOI is directed to 
pay a portion of the receipts from leases issued after 2006 in 
the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico to four States--Alabama, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas--and to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. Current law caps those payments at $500 
million a year through 2055. This legislation would raise that 
cap to $650 million in 2020 and 2021. CBO estimates that 
enacting that change would increase spending by $150 million in 
each of the fiscal years 2021 and 2022, reflecting the 1-year 
lag between the time receipts are collected and spent.
    SPR Drawdown..--Section 20003 would direct DOE to sell 5 
million barrels of oil from the SPR over the 2026-2027 period, 
subject to certain conditions. Under the legislation, the 
proceeds from such sales would be deposited in the general fund 
of the Treasury by the end of each fiscal year and could not be 
spent for other purposes. The legislation would limit the cash 
proceeds resulting from those sales by prohibiting DOE from 
offering oil for sale under this section after it has deposited 
$325 million in the Treasury.
    CBO estimates that enacting this section would increase 
offsetting receipts by $315 million over the 2018-2027 period. 
That estimate is based on the projection of oil prices in CBO's 
June 2017 baseline forecast, adjusted for the technical 
characteristics of the oil being sold from the SPR, and 
reflects the net effect of the legislation's limit on total 
proceeds from the sales.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

    CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would cost 
$10 million over the 2018-2022 period for environmental reviews 
and administrative costs associated with the leasing program, 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds. Based on 
information provided by the Government Accountability Office, 
we estimate that completing the environmental reviews required 
under the National Environmental Policy Act would cost $2 
million. In addition, CBO estimates that other implementation 
costs would total between $1 million and $2 million per year 
over that period.

                      PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS

    The Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010 establishes budget-
reporting and enforcement procedures for legislation affecting 
direct spending or revenues. The net changes in outlays that 
are subject to those pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the 
following table.

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                MANDATES

    The legislation contains no intergovernmental or private-
sector mandates as defined in UMRA, and would benefit the State 
of Alaska by increasing the generation of royalties from oil 
and gas production on public lands in ANWR. Portions of the 
royalties would be shared with the State under formulas 
specified by the legislation and under Federal laws governing 
oil and gas production. Over the 2018-2027 period, CBO 
estimates that Alaska would receive a total of about $1.1 
billion in royalties.

           INCREASE IN LONG-TERM DIRECT SPENDING AND DEFICITS

    CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would not 
increase net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of 
the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2028.

                           PREVIOUS ESTIMATE

    On November 8, 2017, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for a 
legislative proposal related to the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, as posted on the Web site of the Senate Committee on 
Energy and Natural Resources on November 2, 2017. CBO's 
estimates of the budgetary effects for the provisions related 
to oil and gas leasing in ANWR are the same for each piece of 
legislation.
    Estimate prepared by: Jeff LaFave (Federal Costs) and 
Zachary Bynum (Mandates).
    Estimate approved by: H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                C. ROLLCALL VOTE IN THE BUDGET COMMITTEE

    Rollcall vote on the Enzi motion to report the 
reconciliation measure to the Senate was 12 yeas and 11 nays, 
as follows:

 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name &                     Answer     Name &                   Answer
  State      Yea     Nay    Present     State      Yea    Nay    Present
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENZI (WY)     X                       SANDERS              X
 (Chairma                              (VT)
 n)                                    (Ranking
                                       )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRASSLEY      X                       MURRAY               X
 (IA)                                  (WA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CRAPO         X                       WYDEN                X
 (ID)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRAHAM        X                       STABENOW             X
 (SC)                                  (MI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOOMEY        X                       WHITEHOUS            X
 (PA)                                  E (RI)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNSON       X                       WARNER               X
 (WI)                                  (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORKER        X                       MERKLEY              X
 (TN)                                  (OR)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERDUE        X                       KAINE                X
 (GA)                                  (VA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GARDNER       X                       KING (ME)            X
 (CO)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KENNEDY       X                       VAN                  X
 (LA)                                  HOLLEN
                                       (MD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOOZMAN       X                       HARRIS               X
 (AR)                                  (CA)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRANGE       X
 (AL)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          D. ADDITIONAL VIEWS

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

 
                                  [all]