so, that is where we are. we are going to do our best.ders this is what republican leaders say.s whture this is what the pictures look like on the ground and you knowo it is not on cnn every night an. people happening. but the fact of the matter is there are fires burning andere'i there are robles in town to look like this. par the water may have receded from this particular farm but the sur damage is still there.receed the water am sure has receded from this scene, but this familr still wandering around they are looking for food and things that might remind them of what they once had, and the republicans have decided for whateverlica j reason, to just throwus a wrencw in this big whole thing and make ave big fight when it was absolutely not necessary.ot .. what we can do to bring relief what we can do to bring relief

which part of the u.s. constitution is important to you?

that is a request and this year's student kim competition open to middle and high school students. - make a video documentary five to eight minutes long and tell us the part of the constitution that's important to you and why. be sure to include more than one point of view and video of cs and programming. entries are due by january 20, 2012. there's $50,000 in total prizes and a grand prize of $5,000. for all the details, go to studentcam.org. now a hearing on how drilling in the arctic wildlife refuge job creation. the house financial resources committee focused on whether the developing a small portion of the refuge for energy production but create jobs and provide for the government. this two hour and 40 minute hearing includes testimony from the government of alaska and the state's congressional delegation

>> the committee will come to order. the chairman notes the presence of a quorum, which under rolph three is to members. the committee on the natural resources is meeting today to hear testimony on an oversight hearing on an markham jobs, energy and deficit reduction. under the committee will opening statements are limited to the chairman and ranking member and the ranking member has a previous engagement. when he comes we will allow him to make his opening statement, but i would ask unanimous consent that any other members who want to have an opening statement that will be in the record as long as it is supported by the close of business today. without objection, so ordered. at this time i will make my opening statement, and then we will go to our distinguished panelists that are here and the remote governor parnell, thank you for taking the time. by the time our nation is in desperate need to create new job

creation and cutting the staggering national debt, this committee is uniquely positioned to advanced solutions to accomplish both of these priorities. response we harnessing americas's onshore and offshore energy resources will create millions of new jobs and generate billions of dollars of new revenue. and without a doubt, anwr is the single greatest opportunity for the new energy production on the federal land. no single energy project in america can produce more jobs and do more to reduce the debt. as i stated two weeks ago, i believe the joint select committee working to find $1.5 trillion in budget savings should embrace opening anwr. the joint committee should act on anwr and increase production of the tax payers energy resources across the board. there is bipartisan support for this in congress and now is the time to take full the advantage of this job creating, deficit reduction resources. section 1002 of anwr was

deliberately and intentionally reserved for the purpose of energy production in 1980 by the congress and by president jimmy carter. it is not wilderness and it contains 10.4 billion barrels of oil according to some conservative estimates. while anwr is 19 million acres total, a plan developed in less than 500,000 acres would provide access to the majority of anwr's energy resources. this means we can harness the potential of anwr by using less than 3% of its total acreage. producing this much would generate substantial revenue for the federal government releasing and relativity's. according to the congressional research service, it could generate between over the life of the project 150 billion to nearly $300 billion. i want to emphasize this revenue is just from leasing and royalties. it doesn't include the a cumulative impact from

harnessing their resources. for example the new energy project means new business spending and new jobs in the construction, transportation and manufacturing sector. new jobs mean there are more people contributing to the economy and paying taxes. it improves the health of the economy and government budgets of the local, state and federal level. all allowing energy production and anwr investment of the u.s. economy worth several hundred billion of dollars. we are here today to take an honest and fair look at anwr's resources and what to potentially hold for the country in terms of jobs, revenue and economic growth. we are searching for real solutions to the nation's problems. unfortunately, there are those who automatically say no, no to new job creation and deficit reduction no matter what the offense is in technology, and i think that's an important part when we look at anwr, or how small footprint operations at anwr would be. the witnesses called to testify

before the committee i think exemplify this point. the majority has invited real people who live and work in alaska. we have a truck driver that will testify, a tribal leader that will testify, a labor union representatives will testify, and of course we have the bipartisan alaska's congressional delegation. we have by remote the governor of alaska. on the other side unfortunately the minority has chosen the two witnesses that both left in washington, d.c.. malae just have to ask the rhetorical question which do you think more represents the wants and needs of those that are here because of this hearing? given the nation's high jobless rate and the debt and deficit as time to move forward and create thousands of jobs and generate billions of dollars in federal revenue the energy potential of anwr.

with that, as i said earlier, the ranking member, distinguished ranking member has another engagement that he just couldn't be here, and when he comes we will allow him to make his statement. so with that, i want to introduce the first panel of witnesses. we have two-thirds of it. we have the junior senator from alaska, senator begich. thank you for being here. of course our colleagues on the committee, senator don young. [laughter] that's right. boy, there was really a mistake to elevate him. i apologize for that, senator begich. [laughter] and i apologize to the governor parnell for giving you -- mabey senators would be a pretty good deal. >> that's a downgrade i can tell you right now. [laughter] >> i will be sure to tell senator murkowski that when she comes in. with that, thank you all for being here. and with that, governor parnell,

let me introduce you and allows you to meet your opening statement. thank you jury much for taking the time this early in the morning and alaska. so governor parnell, you're recognized. >> thank you, chairman hastings and honorable members for the opportunity to the alaska delegation i welcome this opportunity as well. for the record my name is sean parnell. i'm governor of the state of alaska. and you for allowing me the few moments to make the case for american energy production and why anwr is a good investment for our nation. one that we can no longer afford to ignore. i would first like to recognize german hastings. thank you for your efforts to remove unnecessary road blocks to the economic growth and for the time that you invested in coming to our state. alaska, we've set a goal to increase the throughput of the trans-alaska system to 1 million barrels a day from the current levels of about 550,000 barrels per day. i asked other governors to set

increasing production goals as well. this will help grow the nation's economy, make us more energy secure, and more energy independent. reaching this goal of a million barrels per day through the caps will take work between the federal government and the state of alaska. the force is to create jobs, it's to grow our economy, and to boil down to one simple truth colin code more american oil and gas production means jobs, and jobs translates into the stable communities and a strong nation. beyond the beltway americans believe that our nation faces an almost insurmountable debt burden, leading some to ask if it is even possible to pay it down. many thoughtful americans are alarmed at nearly $15 trillion in federal debt, and we are deeply concerned and not the future of our great nation. and yet, we can regain our economic footing through producing more american energy. america's work force winds, the

family's income and job creators when coming and the federal government lends more revenue. look at the states doing relatively well in this economic downturn. they are america's major energy producers. alaska is one of those states. yet we are held back from contributing more affordable energy to other americans by federal regulators who want to keep federal and off-limits to wheel and gas exploration. america is blessed with natural resources both renewable and non-renewable. we needed them all right now. the transition to the renewable cannot take place all at once. that's like going from first gear to fifth gear. you risk the engine of the economy by starting out of power. and some of our nation's richest oil reserves along the postal claim within anwr. if accessible, it's extractive will come in and the oil production and wildlife in the anwr are compatible. leal from anwr would help the u.s. demand for the next 25

years or longer. responsible development of anwr would create hundreds of thousands of jobs across the nation and in virtually every state because of secure supplies, petroleum could create demand for goods and services and lower the cost of doing business. as you know, the u.s. imports over 65% of the nation's annual petroleum needs. the imports cost more than $150 billion a year to our economy. that figure does not include the military cost and the human cost of imported oil which are truly incalculable. through the resource mccaul anwr the u.s. geological survey estimates that the amount of technically recoverable oil beneath the anwr's coastal plain ranges between 5.7 billion nearly 16 billion barrels. studies suggest the coastal plain could produce a ten year sustained rate of 1 million barrels per day. anwr is a 19 million-acre

national wildlife refuge. this is approximately the size of the state of south carolina. however, exploration and production can come from only a small part of anwr known as the coastal plain. the coastal plain was designated by congress as the chairman said in 1980 as requiring special study to determine its oil and gas potential and the effects of development on the environment. in 1987, the department of interior recommended development. today's technology insurers that the footprint for the development and anwr can be less than 2,000 acres. approximately half the size of the air force base. think about that, half the size of the andrews air force base in the land mass the size of south carolina. additionally, technology now allows for almost zero in pact exploration through the use of ice rhodes, vice hads and the like. protecting the environment is as important to alaska and as more important than to all americans. this great land is our home.

we have to be good stewards of the air, land and sea to live here. for most of the year the coastal plains is frozen. it has no biological activity. experience shows the seasonal restrictions and other environmental stipulations can be used to protect caribou during their six week have been season each summer. appropriate restrictions can also protect migratory birds and fish. our experience with other fields shows it can be done to read further, for example located 60 miles west of anwr has been operated for over 30 years and has produced more than 16 billion barrels of oil so far. the central arctic caribou herd has grown from 5,000 animals in 1975 to over 67,000 animals in 2008. the trans-alaska pipeline system is a world-class oil transportation system, and one of the nation's most significant and valuable assets.

everyday alaska oil moves through the taps to the refineries in washington state and california. the declining production from alaska's fields has taken its toll on the taps. the trans-alaska pipeline system is not designed to flow have low rates. 550,000 barrels per day the rest of the clogs and corrosion increase. the very real possibility of a mid winter shutdown is an urgent concern. bringing in new production from anwr and other alaska fields is critical to preserve this valuable piece of the nation's infrastructure. without increased production, the trans-alaska pipeline is at risk of our economy is at risk, as is our national security. with leal from anwr and the trans-alaska pipeline is also going to be feasible to develop other marginal fields that otherwise might not be economic. it's about a growing jobs in the economy and about keeping america safe. the coastal plain of anwr is

america's best bet for the discovery of significant oil and gas reserves in north america. many economic benefits would result, not the least of which the federal revenue that would be in the billions of dollars. federal reserve alaska oil are locked in the ground and makes no sense. americans need jobs, and our economy needs a jump-start that an important federal government cannot provide. if the federal government persists on blocking the oil development in alaska it could mean the dismantling of the alaska pipeline, and the stranding of every last bit of oil that exists in the arctic. for millions of americans out of work and struggling to meet in this neat, federal policy, blocking the oil development only deepens the wounds. in alaska the federal let administration has blocked exploration and anwr, blocked exploration and has delayed the exploration on the arctic offshore. when it comes to anwr, we have heard people say that it will not impact the price of fuel now because it will take too long to

bring on line. they've been saying that for 20 years and that is a disingenuous argument. it's time to reduce the dependence on oil from on a stable, and free and unfriendly regions of the world. let's bring anwr leal to america and decrease the trade deficit. bring anwr leal to america and increase american jobs. bring anwr to america and reduce the federal debt with revenues and texas for the more vibrant economy. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much, governor, and i note that its 6:00 and alaska and 10:00 here and i think you very much for being up this early and for your testimony coming in on a personal note, i very much enjoyed the trip i made to the north slope along with you and the congressman young. it certainly reaffirming what i thought was out there and it showed me if reemphasized to me what you said about the environmental concerns everybody has taken so think you very much for your testimony.

>> you're welcome. thank you. >> now we will go to the distinguished panel, the congressional delegation from alaska and we will start with the junior senator since the senior senator is in here senator begich, you are recognized. >> thank you very much, german hastings for the opportunity to testify in front of the committee on an issue that you will find strong support from all the delegation in regards to the opening of anwr and most alaskans. i was born and raised in alaska and this is an issue i think it's been around all of my life and the fact is i'm very honored and proud to be here with my colleagues to talk about this issue. today's hearing is focused on a timely topic. with gasoline prices averaging $3.65 in the lower 48 and unemployment are not 9%, alaska is here to help. we can offer relief to consumers of the pump, provide low-paying jobs in alaska and held our 15 trillion-dollar deficit. the oil and gas resources of the coastal plain of the arctic

national wildlife refuge are enormous and conveniently located just 65 miles east of the reserves and infrastructure. the latest estimates from the usgs are for about 10 billion barrels of the tactically recoverable oil. of course any natural gas found only will help economics of the proposed alaska natural gas pipeline which could also be a huge job creator for the nation. over the years, there of than competing estimates of how many jobs and alaska and the lower 48, the supply chain that the development would create. needless to say, all of them are at least in the tens of thousands of jobs across the nation. i'm proud to co-sponsor senator murkowski's bills that would allow responsible wheel and gas development in the arctic refuge. today, extended reach drilling technology has shrunk in the drilling platforms that prince dramatically. the north slope from the 1970's that covered 65 acres now take

less than 10 acres. drilling the cuttings and mother are not disposed of bye injection wells and the development will always seven pacts we can do a good job today of the responsible producing more domestic oil which promotes both our economic and national security. i know today's hearing is about anwr, but i also want to make sure we don't lose sight of the tremendous potential elsewhere in alaska, that is a potentially believe that we are close to realizing. the usgs estimates 26 billion barrels of oil and more than 100 tce of natural gas technically recoverable. all of this means we are looking at a lot of jobs. the university of alaska institute for social economic research estimates estimates 54,000 jobs can be treated from alaska is working in the sea in putting all of the support and in factory jobs stretching from alaska to the lower 48.

over the 50 year life span of these fields, this means 154 billion, and let me say again, $154 billion in payroll, and 200 billion plus the federal treasury bus lines this summer alone include over 400 folks in the region. we finally have a sustained momentum on exploring these resources. i would hope that the first of the leaseholders in the exploration process will be drilling the wells off the alaskan arctic coast for the first time in nearly 20 years. conocophillips largest on the heels of the plans of the 2013 and 2014 season. shell received a approval of the plan a few weeks ago just yesterday shell received an air permit as the subject of this committee has worked on for one of their main shift some support for these. hopefully the plan will be

approved and the court accepts the supplemental leader in the month of october. finally, the national petroleum reserve allows the in pra can also play and then put into one keeping the poor and the trans-alaska pipeline to operate economically while development on the other resources proceed. the condition the administration to solve procedural issues with conocophillips, ct five to submit and the in pra. we're hopeful with a brick through the next year's with hundreds of direct jobs for several years to follow. mr. chairman, simply put, alaska has enormous resources, anwr come in pra to offer a nation hungry for affordable energy and good paying jobs. thank you for the opportunity to deal many opportunities that are in front of alaska and this country. thank you. >> thank you very much, senator begich for your testimony. and as i mentioned when i was up there certainly what you said was reaffirmed when i went up

there and made that trip. i am pleased to recognize the senior senator from alaska, senator murkowski. i should tell you that i inadvertently elevated the congressman to senator gib ki immediately disavowed that. [laughter] >> senator murkowski, you are recognized. >> thank you. to my colleagues and the members of the committee offer my apologies for being tardy. i was off-campus giving a speech and it did allow me the opportunity to hear the tener stifel's comments on the radio, and to hear doors, senator begich. i appreciate the level of detail that has been laid before the committee and alaskas great potential if not only of the resources, the revenue and jobs that are created. we know the story well and so the opportunity to be able to share that story with our

colleagues is important. search chairman, i appreciate your scheduling a hearing this morning. i appreciate your efforts to come north, see for yourself and help us advance this very important cause. and as much as i am happy to be here to get my thoughts, i would suggest to you that it is unfortunate that we are still having this discussion about whether to develop the 1002 area in alaska. i think it should be more appropriate that we discuss when and how to develop this incredible national resource. i want to say a few words about this issue of the wildlife service's so-called comprehensive conservation plan, or the ccp. as a threshold issue, i find it most misguided and as an alaskan somewhat insulting when the

federal agency continues to look for ways to lock up additional wilderness alaska when alaska doesn't want its and when the law places no more. it couldn't be more clear. three separate positions of the alaska national interest land conservation act made the congress intent on this matter very clear, and yet our federal agencies can help keep going down this same path towards more wilderness review and for what? the draft ccp sites come quote on the symbol -- >> can you put the microphone a little bit closer? thank you. >> how is that? the draft ccp cites the value of the refuge and states that, quote, millions who will never set foot in the refuge find satisfaction, inspiration, and even hope and just knowing it exists, and of quote. mr. truman, i would suggest to this committee that millions

more would do well to find jobs i'm not sure who is in charge of quantify in the value of satisfaction inspired by knowing that something exists somewhere especially against the hundreds of billions of dollars in federal revenue that we are consciously for the win by this exercise. the draft ccp seems very much at odds with itself beyond just that. after going through the legal gymnastics to try to skirt the no more calls for the considering the coastal plains and the review is back on the table also begrudgingly that the 1002 area contains almost 40,000 acres of land that are not suitable for designation even if such a designation were legal. to compare that number you've got 40,000 acres within the area which the administration can see it's not even eligible for the revenue protection. with a mere 2,000 acres which

the congressman young's legislation and my senate bill would authorize for development within that same area. keep in mind that the 1002 has also been subject to exploratory drilling and all of the motorized equipment that it tends to that activity in the past and yet somehow or another we are being asked to believe the irreconcilable argument the natural link now what caused the area to lose its character come even as technology has improved in ways that the congress couldn't have contemplated when writing the law. this year, we had a review that testimony in the senate energy committee which spoke to the truly amazing technology advancements in the seismic acquisition data, the directional drilling enhanced oil recovery, the specific application to the 1002 area all of which would land substantial reassurances of interest of development program with no lasting impact if we are only allowed to access. members of this committee come here we are with of the federal

government essentially broke, fighting all day every day over every scrap of revenue conceived when the symbol delivery on the decade-old promise could render literally hundreds of billions in federal revenue without so much as raising a tax or cutting a single program. but instead of looking for responsible paths forward towards accessing this resource, the fish and wildlife service looks for ways to block it out so i would suggest to this committee that we are witnessing a gross misappropriation of resources. benin agency's response to the nation's current debt and jobs crisis there's more ways to twist the law just to keep money buried in the ground. all priorities, mr. chairman, seem to have spun out of the realm of reality. as my colleagues have documented in the resources and the

revenues, alaska has so much to offer. we just need the ability to be able to contribute. thank you for the opportunity to be before the committee, and i want to pledge my support to words this effort working with you, congressman young and senator begich. >> thank you very much for your testimony. and last but certainly not least, we will go to other colleagues on the committee and a colleague on the house, the gentleman from alaska mr. young. you are recognized. >> thank you. i want to thank my colleagues. good testimony. excellent testimony. everything they've said is in my statement. i will submit it for the record. but i would like to just emphasize two things. this is long overdue. this committee has passed this bill 11 times and it's died in the senate. which of two senators that will help get it passed. the president will sign it, we don't know but it's been said about jobs and the dependency this wheel is 60 miles away from

the existing pipeline. we could probably deliver it if we had an emergency and do it and this in about three years. much better than anyplace else in an area that we've done before. we know what the challenges are. we know the results. the idea that now we have spent $333 billion overseas that's dollars from the working-class men. over the years, we've actually spent $3.4 trillion overseas to buy $3.4 trillion from the working men. this is unjust and uncalled for. anwr itself is just large. i've been there. but actually attract a lot of the areas of the area that 1002 is basically coming and you will hear from the witnesses today from people that work there and people that know have important it is as far as jobs go but this

is not the pristine area people talk about. this is an eerie yet explored before by other people, and i think if i can say one thing that i can think about is it's just not a loss for america. it's a loss for the people. we gave approximately 93,000 acres of land for the social and economic well-being which is right in the middle of anwr or on the edge of anwr. yet they can't develop it. they can't have a way to develop their oil on their land because they can't get out and that is the sort of twisted tonnes approach and that's wrong. for the environmental community you to lead this for many years but also have created a better way of drilling. it's very small from where it was when we first and prudhoe bay and by the way prudhoe bay is discovered and we developed it in 1973 actually 1973 passed the bill and we produced the first barrel of oil we did that

because we had in the emergency, they were shooting one another and by the way gas was 39 cents a gallon but there was no gas. now it's every $4 a gallon and if we want to boost the economy, ladies and gentlemen, members of the committee and the listening audience, just think about if we had our we'll we could control the price of the spikes and probably drop the price of oil. if we drop the price of oil 1 dollar that would be $3,000 per family ability to spend that money on something other than gasoline. now i know some of the environmentalists say we have to transform ourselves into another form of energy. that's well and good and i support all forms of energy. yes we have had a great finds in america and there's a chance that the americas could be i would say self-sufficient. i'm talking about brazil, venezuela, mexico, colombia. but their countries, too are under question. so how to have this oil

available with an infrastructure in place is dead wrong and i'm asking this committee and the president to pass lonely this bill but let's get our country on the move again. let's put our people to work and not be dependent on those people who are not friendly to us. it's time the congress acts to solve our problems and get the show on the road. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i very much appreciate your testimony and i might add your passion and i think i can see that for all of you from alaska. i know the history of what you've gone through and senator murkowski we shouldn't be arguing about this anymore we should be figuring out a way to get it done and senator begich, thank you very much for your testimony and coming from alaska's thank you very much, governor parnell for participating in this. i know from my perspective i

really believe that there is a national security aspect to energy production in this country, and we have the potential resources in one of the 50 states. it is in many respects that we don't utilize that. so thank you very much for your testimony and less dependent on the foreign energy resources. thank you very much for being here and i will discuss the date could dismiss the panel and think you very much for being here. >> thank you. >> we will call the next panel as soon as this one vacates the table. [inaudible conversations]

>> i want to thank the panel we have with us the council member from the city which i had the pleasure to participate in a town hall covering and i appreciated that. mr. too sharp the secretary treasurer of laborers local 492 out of fairbanks. mr. carey hall, the ice road trucker for the transportation system out of anchorage alaska and we have mr. david jenkins, vice president for the political affairs for republicans for environmental protection out of washington, d.c. and mr. gene karpinski, the legal conservation voters out of washington, d.c.. so, mr. rexford, i didn't say this with our distinguished

representatives from alaska because the time frame, but when the red light or when the green light comes on that means you have five minutes. when the yellow light comes on that means you have one minute and when the red light means five minutes have expired. you're full statement will appear in the record and i'd like you to try to confine your remarks to that five minutes so we can have time for questions and answers, and i know that the interest shown by this committee on the subject would have a lot of that. so, mr. rexford, you are recognized for five minutes and thank you for being here. >> thank you very much mr. chairman hastings and members of the committee. for the record, my name is fenton rexford. i'm of the trouble but minister for the native village and also the member of this council both of which i'm representing today. i also served previously as the president of the corporation of

the surface land owner of 92,000 acres of privately owned land since congressman yonah talked briefly about being refugees within the wild life. i was born and raised in the village and in tend to grow old there. it's the only community that is within the boundaries of the wildlife refuge and i can compare this prior to the development and the discovery of oil and gas of 1968 and my personal experiences as the days and years of listening to the people and the residence across the north slope and also the vast majority of the responsible development in the coastal plain of anwr known as 1002. i'm very happy this community is

proposing to open the coastal plain of anwr for oil and gas exploration and development and limit the activity to the 2,000 acres to the .1% of the size of anwr. we all know that the coastal plain in the entire national wildlife refuge remains extremely important not only to the people to the north but to the state and also the united states of america. and we would not favor the development on the coastal plain unless we were confident that development can occur without jeopardize in our way of life. the people of kaktovik used the land for many thousands of years, hundreds of years and considered it as an insult to our people because we have footprints, we have cabins, and yet i sellers, we have cash places that we store, and over

25 miles before the education was mandated to growth of allegis we have 25 miles there were people in the cabins and that's how long it took for the talks to travel. so with that we do not favor the development that would jeopardize our way of life because we live there and worked there and lived that way. but the people of kaktovik use the land in anwr to support the traditional white stock which i stated and the beaufort sea and we respect them and could not support the development of the coastal plain and that way of life. responsible development of anwr's coastal plain is a matter of self-determination of our people come and we would like

the congress to open up anwr and so that we are private land owners and we should have the opportunity like any private land owner to make development and use the land for benefit and it will enable our region continued access to the central services taken for granted by many people in the lower 48. for nearly 40 years we watched the world of development in approved and people know that the industry and wildlife, excessed. based on their experience, we have strong confidence the ability to protect our natural wildlife and include the wildlife department and resources from adverse impacts and permitting agencies and the department that takes care of the planning and zoning. particularly if the decisions are made after considering the locally but regarding the

resources such as the caribou and the polar bear. responsible landmark development means more people will continue to have access to the running water and just happening 11 years ago in the year 2000 we were able in the village to have running water and to be able to flush the toilet, so that's a real benefit for people for their health, the responsible development also means access to local schools, health care facilities and professionals, fire stations, the police department, and for many of my generation from our only option for school was not a great and the lower 48. i know i don't have much time, but i will support the development and i think you, mr. chairman, for allowing me the opportunity, chairman hastings, and i think you very much for listening to the points

and you can find the rest of this testimony that is written before you. >> thank you. like i said, you're full statement will appear in the record and i very much appreciate your oral testimony. mr. tim sharp, the treasury you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, chairman hastings. thank you for both in fighting and allow me to testify on a subject that's important and timely not only to the people i represent and the people of alaska, but most of all americans as well. in my oral testimony will be the same as my written remarks. my name is tim sharp, in the business manager of the alaska district council of labour and i represent approximately 5,000 alaskan union members involved in the construction of roads, bridges, buildings, pipelines, processing facilities, pump stations, gathering centers, as well as workers in the public sector, tourism, manufacturing, maintenance and other miscellaneous industry. i began working on the north

slope in 1975 at the age of 20 different and the trans-alaska pipeline, prudhoe bay and other satellite fields. i stayed active on the issues that surround development in the infrastructure expansion of both the industry and the workers that i represent in the field today. i come here today not to be used as a political foil against the president and wish to avoid the appearance of any type of political posturing that seems prevalent during the election in both houses. i am also not a supporter of the natural baby churl mentality or similarly the empty platitudes as all oil and gas development on alaska should be measured, plant, fought out with projects to pencil out our sustainable and aggressive environmental using the cutting edge science and technology. we live there. it's our home. that being said, i firmly believe that the development of the arctic national wildlife refuge to meet these criteria. i don't want to engage or argue on the weight or the lack of weight of the merit of the

voluminous mountains of floss and rhetoric on both sides of the charged issue. whether you choose to believe it to be the serengeti plain of america or the desolate of godforsaken mosquito interested waste land there is no all encompassing absolute that can describe anwr. the trick is it is neither of the two and falls in the middle. the picture of the anwr debate is not really changed in 20 years however the free and surrounding the picture has. we are at a time out for economy needs in employment john starks and energy costs continue to escalate and foreign dependence on oil seems to make the economy and business is vulnerable in a way that i am personally not comfortable with. we seem to be caught up in contemplating our process, permitting in politics at that time that it is obvious to most that we have oil in alaska, development would generate thousands of needed jobs and the leveraging impact of the foreign producers could have what lesson. instead, an action trump's common sense and legitimate

need. balance those considerations against the possible environmental and that the development could have on anwr. i personally witnessed caribou calving drug pipelines and modules in prudhoe bay to enjoy the only shade in hundreds of miles or just to rub up against the piatt to shake the miscued of sandflies surrounding them. the would be no doubt even with the improved directional drilling and using all tools available to them, there would be some small impact. the minimal acreage needed for different in anwr would be a great opportunity for the environmental community, and the oil industry to work closely together to show with american technology and ingenuity could do. we are better than anwr to create an environmental standard for the oil and gas development. i also know the opinions of some of the eskimo people and respect the opinions of some of their leaders. but some of the members are am i members as well and many of them don't believe that responsible development of anwr will be detrimental in any way to the culture with a lifestyle they enjoy. there's been numerous geological

studies over the years in regards to the amount of oil and gas anwr holds and the speak for themselves. using the most conservative estimates on the amount of the reserves, the amount of energy that it would take and produce for the country for the tens of thousands of good paying jobs would generate on alaska, washington, oregon and many other states it is time to take another look at both the environmental risk versus the economic reward. i strong proponent of alternative energy but also a realist in terms of the time lines associated with the development to the point of adequately of sitting of the energy needed by most of our petrochemical based industries. i am addressing today the need for political action to offset our dwindling energy reserves in the next five to ten years but equally important the need for jobs today. another study will simply not equate to the leadership we need to see on this issue. please act and think you for your time. >> thank you very much for your testimony. and now i am pleased to

introduce mr. carey hall who is an ice road trucker and we will leave it at that. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. my name is carey hall. i live and work in alaska. i am a truck driver by occupation. i work on ice roads and on the freight to and from the north slope of alaska. i'm an employee of the carlyle transportation and it's an alaskan based company. we have more than 600 employees and we've been in business more than 30 years. we live free or for the united states and specialize in movements and goods and equipments for the oil and gas industry. i'm not a gas expert, i truckdriver. truckdrivers literally and figuratively drive the nation's economy. i see the good and management of

product and services the industry creates. i've been asked to be here to get you my view on the impact of the opening of anwr and i would like to explain why i think the development is so essential to my well-being and to my family and the nation. the oil and gas industry represents the cornerstone of our business the vendors such as the trucking companies but to all of our citizens the state of alaska and as a nation. it produces jobs, lots of jobs and we need jobs. prudhoe bay has operated above and beyond what they predicted. moreover the lord generation of the periods of recovery due to technology has continued to keep these hearings productive. there's been a huge gold mine from for jobs, relief and economic development in every

state in the nation as well farepak. the need for contracts and the services purchased by the alaska shore is without a doubt touching every single corner of the nation. every state in the nation has drawn. this has been a benefit, economically to every state. i know because i work it. incredible lessons of environmental stewardship is also realized it is a heavily utilized and then they disappear. they would never know that they were even there. the creation of the infrastructure has allowed new fields to be developed and ultimately supplying the nation with all sustainable in the gulf beyond the early. however we are seeing less and less oil than the pipelines.

we don't have the freight we once had and it's not just for repair and maintenance what is already there. a new development must be brought on line elsewhere. anwr is crucial to keeping oil in the pipeline. the pipeline needs to run at a certain output to even operate. anwr must be brought on line. alaska has more oil than any other spot of north america. importing oil the united states is this the largest contributor to the national debt. opening anwr is a right step and responsible management of our national debt. no money comes from federal government to develop anwr. yet the rewards would be plentiful. the nation needs the energy and we have the ability to make that happen. they've done alaska a huge favor. it's not about me or about the company that i work for, it's

about their energy to pride the most. all companies pay for the ice redds and the basis for my job. the long time high-paying jobs america needs more of these and we can have them but anwr isn't a brand name for our debt solution. anwr is about careful planning and environmental stewardship and looking to the future it will be done right and overwhelming to support calls. thank you for inviting me to speak and i will answer any questions you may have. >> thank you very much, mr. hall for your testimony and i am pleased to recognize mr. david jenkins, vice president for the political affairs for the environmental protections. you are recognized for five minutes. >> good morning. >> turn on the microphone if you would. thank you. >> good morning. as you said i'm david jenkins,

vice president of the political affairs for the republicans for environmental protection. i appreciate the opportunity to testify today. we are a national grassroots organization based on the idea that conservation as conservative. our members recognize the natural resources to reduce it requires a balanced approach to the sea oil drilling and prudhoe bay and other parts of alaska's north slope and come to the same conclusion the eisenhower administration came to 50 years ago they are predicting the balance. with 95% of the north slope plan available for the development it is hard to argue stripping away protections for the last 5% more prisons and approach. the fewer arrest russell kirk challenge conservatives toward what remains a natural well against the fierce appetites of modern life. the purpose of the hearing today is to export claims opening up the refuge to the oil and gas development would create tens of

thousands of jobs and generate hundreds of billions in federal revenue. one source of these projections is a recent study commissioned by the american petroleum institute conducted by mackenzie. protecting jobs and revenue from developing and proven oil and gas reserves is highly suspect deutsch of the stick of this nature of such reserves. for example, the u.s. geological survey recently revised its estimates downward by over 90%. beyond the amount of oil, there are other unknowable factors such as the future price of oil and the availability of the feels less costly to develop. even under the assumptions the job protections seen outside of the bounds of reality. the projection should jests in alaska alone after have been an additional 60,000 jobs within five years, nearly four times the number of oil and gas jobs that exists the wide today. are we to believe that drilling

the last 5% of the coastal plan would produce 92 more oil and gas workers than the industry is employing and all the rest of the state come by and? equally problematic are the revenue projections being tossed around to the revenue projection range site on the committees of sight of 150 billion to 296 million assumes the discovery of oil and announced that the lower end of the probability. it is not fiscal the responsible to remove such speculative revenue as an answer to the deficit problem. the projections appear based on the 2008 report that assumes a corporate tax rate of 33%. i hope this doesn't mean the members of the committee are committed to such a high corporate tax rate. the crs and the mckinsey report also assume the oil prices will be around $125 a barrel. this $40 more than today. but without any resulting impact on the demand. the odds of all of this meeting the jobs and revenue projections

are probably about the same as the winning the lottery. there is however a kernel of truth in the high estimates. even assuming the highest resource estimates arctic refuge projection wouldn't simply impact the crisis. the administrator of the cia made that point before the committee in march. it is also worth noting increases and alaskan oil production do not have to come at the expense of the arctic refuge. more than 5 billion barrels of proven oil reserves on the north slope available for the production. 30 billion of the heavy oil prudhoe bay. millions of acres of land not yet developed and significant shell oil formation. these undermine any claim the future of the trans-alaska pipeline would be in it jeopardy without the refuge drilling but ultimately this is a discussion that should be more about value than numbers. there are places across the nation the possess unique ecological spiritual and

societal values. if the coal were found to mauro in the yosemite national park, what we blasted to summer means or what we pass it around to future generations unimpaired. the laconic natural resources were protected by the eisenhower administration has an impact landscape that stretches from the beaufort sea. the refuge coastal plain is its biological heart and it is disingenuous to claim the exploration can be done with minimal impact. as i conclude, i would ask you to keep in mind traditionally conservative values such as prince, referenced and stewardship. kirk, who president reagan described as a profit of american conservatism warren of the modern spectacle of the vanished forest and eroded land is wasted petroleum and the mining is evidence of what an age without a generation does to itself and its successors to be

already have enough reminders that we live in an age without federation. we shouldn't let the exploitation of the arctic refuge become just another one. thank you. >> thank you very much for your testimony, mr. jenkins, and last we will recognize mr. gene karpinski of the league of conservation voters. mr. karpinski. >> thank you mr. chairman for your time and it the opportunity to testify before the panel. i'm the president of the league of conservation voters and i am proud to say by the way the organization is an organization with a number of prominent republicans on the board including our vice chairman of who used to serve on this great body and the honorary chairman teddy roosevelt who used to be the chair of the board and people like rockefeller as well and all of those folks on the board and many others in our organization for years and years and years opposed to drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge. something senator mikulski said

earlier having this conversation yet again today and mr. chairman, i agree with something you said which is, quote, reducing the debt will require the creative thinking and new approaches. this is neither, it's not the same old. i'm working on these issues more than 30 years in virginia not d.c. but life in working in this town for three years more than 30 years on my main goal to make sure quite frankly that we do not drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge. it's a special place with a special duty some places make no sense. i've been there. it's an incredible place. we should keep our hands off. we need creative thinking and new approaches. this is not that. my testimony put some detail on some of these points and i want to make a few points. there's a number of plans being from about which many of our government reports and many are baseless reports. there's a lot of comment today but the report by mckinsey.

one of the footnotes mr. trances, and i quote, we do not guarantee the fairness, completeness or accuracy of the opinions in this report. that is the footnote to their report. then we were in that it is funded by the tero industry, funded by the industry with the facts that even as they and their footnotes say we don't guarantee the accuracy. that is not the way to make the decision on policy. so sadly, the base was unsubstantiated by their own data. coupled with the specifics of land claims about let's be clear we need more jobs in this country. we need more money to reduce the deficit. but there is a better way. in a call credit claims of how much money would be raised the base on false assumptions of how much oil double-dip conservative estimates, the price per barrel, the tax rate that they assume for the oil companies doesn't square the facts and they assume it would be a split with the feds and the state which is not the way that it is today. so a number of facts that they

say doesn't square with the reality. they also claim a huge number of jobs. there's no doubt that some jobs would be created by the strong guest place. we are against that. if you look at the number of jobs they claim in accordance with the department of labour, just under 17,000 jobs created for the entire 95% of the north slope it's already been developed. so this suggests again to make no sense. finally mr. chairman, there is a better way. we need more jobs, we need to cut the deficit. there's a lot of good proposals out their careers mr. markey has led an effort to increase the royalties for drilling offshore to it that would bring in tens of billions of dollars, 53 billion of the next 25 years. there's many proposals on the table to cut legal subsidies which would bring over $40 billion over the next ten years. if you want to raise revenue that is revenue at a time the oil companies are making a record-breaking profits, nearly a trillion dollars in the last ten years from the private oil

companies. that's where the money is. that's where we should take it from. .. in yosemite or in rocky mountain national park or in zion or a whole set of places, but we hope you and we would say no, that makes no sense to drill in those kinds of places. some places are too special, too serious and we should not drill there. we propose joining the arctic national wildlife refuge for all

the time we have been around and we can change oppose that and we hope with bipartisan support on our side we will continue to win that battle. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you mr. president scanned indymac all very much for your testimony. we will now begin the round of questioning and i recognize myself for five minutes. i want to make an observation because we sometimes can't see the forest because of the trees. when we talk about american energy. i am very much, and i think probably most people, at least on my side of the aisle are in favor of and all of the above energy approach. i think the more diversified our portfolio is of energy production, it is best for the consumers. recognizing always set at the end of the day, that the market will determine what the consumer is going to buy. now, having said that, in my district by the way, my district is a big hydropower producer.

it is one of the largest when producers in the country. it has no clear power plants. so i am familiar with alternative sources of energy. but to ignore the vast potential resources that we have of oil, natural gas and coal doesn't make sense from the standpoint of what is affordable energy. and that is really where the debate ought to be, because alaska is sitting on the potential resources of huge resources that we ought to take advantage. i lose at the end of my opening statement about a national security issue. the world as we haven't noticed, is not getting what i would say more and more peaceful but yet most of the energy is controlled by those that are antagonistic to us. so at some point, and i painfully remember the 70s when opec turned off this bigot.

i don't think we want to get ourselves in that situation again and by the way we are only importing one third of our crude in the 70s and now we are importing close to 60 to 65%. it is just the opposite. so when we talk about, when we talk about studies and who is right and who is wrong, mr. karpinski you alluded to the fact that the study you alluded to us by the oil industry. if you are talking a about a hyperbole you made a statement in her opening statement that we are about to destroy this place. nobody is talking about destroying anwr and any stretch of imagination. in fact mr. rex rhodes said i think he lives up there for goodness sakes and if anybody should know he would be the one. so with that mr. rexford you had to i guess shorten your oral statement and let me give you an opportunity, a minute or so, you wouldn't mind, to say what you

think would be the benefits to your community up there in kaktovik. >> i appreciate the opportunity again mr. chairman. the benefits that i wanted to elaborate more about is that we all know that the infrastructure in prudhoe bay is depreciating and the oil that is going through the pipeline is getting less and less. when the north slope a row which formed in 1972, our founding fathers were very creative in the state legislature. he wrote the laws for making the whole rule of government and we were able to tax these tax dollars were able to provide us schools. many of us had to go to oklahoma near norman. many of us had to go to oregon, five miles north of salem.

so many thousands of miles and being away at home when you are the age of 16, 15 years old, you know, today -- in 1982, our first graduate from high school was in 1982 in kaktovik so we were able to build schools and able to build clinics, roads, streets, lights. these are just fairly recently. many of our villages still need new infrastructure for services. providing services, picking up garbage, you know, paving the streets are making runways. those kind of things are taken for granted in the lower 48. the best benefit is to have for the north slope earl -- borough would be protecting the wildlife with the wildlife department. >> i only have 25 seconds here

and i want to ask the other two witnesses a very quick question. mr. sharp and mr. hall. i want to ask you one question. you do not work for the oil companies i correct? >> no i don't work. >> no sir, don't. >> i think that is an important point here because the oil industry is a robust industry that has to have in order to survive, a robust support industry in which you represent with your testimony is that support industry that is not factored in many times with the job creation. i just want to emphasize that point in thank you for being here. with that i will recognize the gentleman from new jersey for five minutes. >> mr. fairley elma gave -- daily ama vega for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman. i want to thank you for calling this hearing. it is very important and timely

and to suggest that this has been almost a broken record for the last 20 years that we have been dealing with this issue and a very important issue at that. i am very happy that we have mr. rexford here testifying. i just wanted to know what is the sentiment of our alaska native tribes towards the idea of drilling in anwr? >> could you repeat that? >> this may not be fair because you are only representing your tribe. what are the sentiments of the other tribes in alaska concerning the issue of anwr? >> yes we have heard a lot from the ones that are over the continental divide and we respect, we respect their opinion. we have lived and worked -- we are neighbors and i wish they would do the same with respect to our opinion and have the opportunity to gain the private glance up 92,000 acres. we are locked in.

we cannot develop or even touch our land without congress approval and so the vast majority of us on the north slope support opening anwr. 70% of alaskans also support the opening of anwr and the development. >> thank you. i will consult further with the young conservative issue. do you know what percentage of oil that the american consumer gets from alaska each year? 's the total amount of oil that we get, how much comes from alaska? >> 20% and it was as high as 35% about time that the pipeline is way down now. that is her biggest problem and that is also why people are being taxed. they are being paid $4 a gallon for gas and set up $2. >> is my understanding we import well over $700 billion worth of oil from other countries. i understand we recently held a

hearing from in this way let alone we purchase over $42 billion a year of oil coming from venezuela alone. a very interesting in terms of that. the alaska pipeline was built in the 1970s. what is the status of the technology from that time until now? has it been proven that the technology was very unsafe for the transportation and the extraction of oil from prudhoe bay to this timer has it been proven that the technology has served very well? does anybody care to comment on that? maybe i'm asking the wrong panel. go ahead. >> i can try. one thing that strikes me is all the problems that have been there in the north slope with respect to the pipelines. the usgs when it talks about oil

and the arctic refuge that says those oil lockets are being scattered throughout the entire coastal plain so in order to access that you would have to have quite a spider web of pipelines going across there. back in 2006 we had the big spill up there with the corrosion in the pipeline and there had been a lot of corrosion problems in the pipeline since. at the time of that to thou's and six senator murkowski was exasperated at the senate hearing and she said you know, for years we have been saying that all production in alaska is the gold standard that our faith has been shattered. she said shattered. so here we are a few years later and everybody is claiming that somehow we will be a will also developed the arctic national wildlife refuge somehow with absolutely no impacts. i don't think the facts bear that out. >> senator murkowski is not here to comment on this but i just as a matter of, has the technology

improved from 30 years ago when we started extracting and transporting the oil coming from alaska? that is my question. >> but i would like to answer that. first of all i would like to also add a little comment. it would be a great thing for all of you to come up and see what this gentleman has referred to as the big spill. you would look up and you would say, this is all there is? we represent the people that cleaned up the big spill. there was a number of weeks of work. the corrosion that is talked about on the pipeline has more to do with deferred maintenance than engineering which is a whole separate issue. >> sir i have 13 seconds left. >> the correctional drilling for anwr has made an impact. >> the biggest importer of oil we get also comes from canada and the way they extract the oil and the way they have provided the oil to supply us, i really wonder if their technology is the same in terms of how we are

applying the standards in our country. mr. chairman my time is up and i thank you. >> i thank you and may i compliment the panel? thank you for coming down. you live there and you say you have 92,000 acres? i thought it was 96. >> it is over 90,000 acres. spin to the settlement act you are allowed to develop that under social economic well-being but you can't do it unless you have the ability to to me that the oil. >> it has to be an act of congress but the house and senate. >> i don't think it has to be an act of congress on you. it has to have a right to move the oil and we will talk about that later but i will go back to that. mr. hall how much do you weigh? [laughter] 280 pounds. the reason i ask him i want to stress this again. if mr. hall was to pluck one

hair, i don't think he has that much on his head as he did have it on its head, one hair, that is the size of of the 1002 area. that is how much i'm we are talking about. mr. jenkins have you been to anwr? >> several people on her our staff and our members have. >> have you been there? >> i have not been there. >> how can you say it is a sacred area when mr. fenton, he lives there. that is his area. why is it sacred to you and he wants to drill? >> it is a and intact ecosystem. >> is not an intact ecosystem. the new line was there. it was developed. do you realize that? there have actually been wells drilled there. are you aware of that? >> there were a couple of wells drilled in and there are tracks that still remain today from the seismic activity. >> so how do you sit there and

say this is a sacred area for you? do you believe in the first americans? >> i believe -- . >> you believe in the first americans? >> i know they exist. >> you know they exist. do you believe they have a right? wyatt don't you let him develop his field? >> the congress that those boundaries the way they set them. >> and they left 1002 out under carter to be developed. >> they for bid congress from developing it. >> no they did not. >> until an act of congress. >> reacher laws carefully. that is the way they were set out and you are now -- we gave these people and. you know i would be very happy if we could just allow the people to develop their own lands in the 1002 area. do you support that? >> well you would have to look and see what the impacts would

be for the area surrounding that. >> no, no, would you support their right? >> the right per se? look, the public lands, the public lands -- -- >> their lands. they are there lance. >> but it is surrounded by public land. >> public takes priority over private lands. is that your believe? >> no. >> then let them develop their lance. >> the whole property rights ethic is the conservative ethic is worn out of the notion of stewardship. the believe that people who own their own property will take better care of it. >> stop, stop. in you think the government takes better care of the land by locking it up? >> public lands are not locked up. >> everybody says 95% of the land is native alaskan in the coastal plain is open for drilling. do you know where the oil is? i have said this many time and i've been arguing this over the years, you don't hunt rabbits on

the pool table just because -- and that is what you are saying. >> what about the leases on the north slope? >> where are the other leases? we want to see what is happened. we can't get anything done because the administration while to administer the permits correctly and we are talking about anwr. we are talking about 1002, 2000 acres of land to put mr. sharp's people to work and allow tac toe it to do their job and mr. hall and opportunity for his son to finish his education hits can kids go to school and provide a living for his family and you are sitting in washington d.c. you and your friends who have made a fortune out of this job. he is more moored a fortune, yes i happen to know where you are, washington d.c.. you are sitting around they're not letting those people do as they should and i think you ought to be ashamed of yourself. i am not answering you. just keep quiet. i'm suggesting one thing right

up front. mr. hall needs that job. mr. sharpe is to put his people to work and after all mr. rexford ought to have the right to develop the lens we gave him. with that, my time is up. [laughter] >> i thank the chair. [laughter] >> much has been said this morning about the composition of the panel, and the chair of the committee made a point that there were various representatives from alaska elected and otherwise hear. and he said that some other witnesses have come from outside of alaska. i just wanted to remind the members that the title of today's hearing is anwr, jobs, energy and deficit reduction. there was talk about the national economy. the national energy picture and

the title is about the alaskan national wildlife refuge. so, i think it is indeed appropriate. another point was made of the fact that the majority invited a witness from the tv show ice road truckers. but given some of the claims we have seen this morning, maybe the better show with be myth busters. let me raise a couple of points. the most recent.. mr. jenkins and mr. karpinski we have heard a lot that only 2000 acres would be disturbed by the drilling. there was an analogy made some years back in this committee when a similar claim was made. this is like saying the area of the table is the area of its legs.

is it in fact the case that only 2008 here's what he disturbed? is there no impact for example from the ice roads? mr. jenkins and mr. karpinski do either of you have anything to say on that? >> let me go back to one point because different people can see the same place and say different things. i just wanted to quote from the people. the people who call the arctic refuge quote the sacred place where life begins. that is how they describe it. >> if i may come, if i may. that is my home. >> let the witness finish and as time allows i would be happy to yield to the chair. the witness was in mid-statement. >> clearly the extent to which there is oil there is not in one central place deposited throughout the plane and therefore you have to connect

the roads and your analysis of the table makes total sense. the impact on the place will be much more -- clearly much more than the 2000 a claims. he has this great visual of the spider work that would have to connect all of these places and in fact we ever went there and let's hope we don't. >> before yielding -- >> i will yield my own time. >> okay, thank you. much has been made of how this will help ring down the deficit, the money that will come to the u.s. treasury. if it is a 50/50 split over the next 10 years, which is what we are talking about in all of the deficit discussions here in washington, it appears to me that it is on the order of $3 billion. if it is not a 50/b. split, if it is a 90/10 split it is

$600 million. i think we are walking into an alaskan fiscal bear trap here. let's turn to mr. karpinski, the other point that has been made this morning about how important this is for gas prices. would you care to give us an estimate in the minute that remains? what effect this might have on gas prices in the next say 10 years, or the next 20 years? >> no, the data you suggest that it might have an impact of pennies a gallon 15 years from now, so basically no impact in the short term and an incredibly nominal impact of the long-term. there are ways to have an impact on gas prices by reducing our dependence on oil but that would

mean for example talking about technologies. we will have a new automobile in the next 10 to 15 years that reduces our dependence on oil and saved us money at the pump. those are the technologies that we should be investing in rather than -- >> i think it is worth pointing out that opec for example could completely wipe out any of those pennies savings with one days flooding of the market or withholding of oil. my time has expired. i thank the chair. >> i just wanted comments on that question. which is 400 miles away from this field? which people that are small minority group that say they are against the drilling? in fact they're developing some of their own oil then so when you say the quick chin, that is my tribe. i lived there, you don't. 80% of those people supported. you have one or two that don't and that is too everybody

listens to and that is the sad parts of don't give me this sacred area. that is not their area. there there's a great deal difference. they work together, but i can tell you the group, they supported so don't get into my backyard and start messing around in my backyard. mr. costa. >> fleming. >> i'm sorry, sir. >> yes, mr. karpinski, i heard you make some statements, really discrediting statements to this wood-mackenzie study here. actually i think a couple of our panelists -- of course it is very detail. it is that tremendous amount of data and it must have taken a lot of time and a lot of people to do this. the title of it says, your discredit was that it couldn't

guarantee the accuracy which results. i'm paraphrasing. >> i quoted their footnote. we could not guarantee the fairness, completeness or or their fitness of the wood-mackenzie study. >> the u.s. supply forecasts, 2012 to 2030. sir, when a weatherman forecast the weather can he be 100% accurate every time without? >> of course not. >> did you hear me? i didn't hear you. >> i said, of course not. >> okay, thank you. the truth of the matter is, this is simply a forecast. the outcome, fairness or whatever, can never be guaranteed because it is a forecast. that is all it is. but i've been looking around on the dais here and then i can find your data. where's your data, sir? >> can i go back to the data report? >> just answer my question. where's your data, sir? >> the department of labor.

>> where is it? i don't see it. >> the department of labor. >> before you come in and dispute something that has been presented to us, shouldn't you bring your data and your facts? >> frankly sir i did not bring the copies of the government reports with me. they energy and information administration. i didn't realize -- >> i would admit mr. chairman that if we asked the members of the panel to submit that information into the record and to underline the part that you feel is accurate and where it disagrees with this. let me go on. let me go on. >> let me answer your question. >> i only have limited time. i only have limited time. this was paid for you say by the evil oil money. >> i didn't use the word evil. i said the oil industry. you said ivo, i did not.

>> what is your point in saying that it is paid for by the oil industry? >> the oil industry has a clear interest, economic interest in doing this drilling in there for the numbers when they produce that document and they paid for that document that is important public information but i did not use the word evil. >> that is fair. that was my word. >> to be clear on the assumptions they made in the terms of the price-per-barrel for oil, to make the assumptions do not square with the facts. >> that is not my question. we will get to that later. all i'm saying is you are prepared. next time bring your data. if you want to dispute something that has been presented to us wring your data. >> idoni to have them physically with me. >> now, who supplies the funding for the land and water conservation? >> a lot of it is from the federal government. >> land and water conservation.

where does that money come from? >> in part a dedicated fund. >> from where? >> offshore and oil gas drilling. >> okay, comes from the oil and gas, the same evil people that supply this document here for us. i thank you for that. let's see, how much time do i have? let me get down to some statements here about what we are talking about. it comes from the wood-mackenzie. in their analysis they found that u.s. policies, which encourage the development of new and existing sources could by 2030 increase domestic oil and natural -- national gas production are going believe that should be natural. says national. a natural gas production by over 10 million support an additional 1.4 million jobs in a time when we are stuck above 9% of unemployment and the president can't seem to get it down and raise over 800 billion in

additional government revenue. now this takes into consideration a number of administrative holdups including the gulf of mexico production, keystone pipeline and additional bureaucracy, natural gas and natural gas is big in my district which is shell. we are continually fighting back against the efforts to slow that down. even if, even f. the results were 50% in terms of revenue and jobs, we would still be close to a million jobs if not more and $400 billion of revenue. so this study is even close to being accurate, we are still talking about tons of jobs and lots of money, sir. so i guess my point here today is, why quibble over the accuracy of this report? it is obvious, it is obvious that development of anwr would

produce a tremendous amount of jobs and at this time sure that we need jobs and in a time we need the revenue. i believe my time is up. i yield back. >> the good lady from hawaii. who is next? i keep track of who came in here first. you are up for the want to be or not. >> thank you. thank you mr. chair. mr. rexford i would like to understand the history of -- bear with me. first of all, you are the past president of the kaktovik -- am i saying that right? what i'm trying to understand is, before the settlement act, your tribe was able to select

land -- i am also correct on that? .. the subsurface mineral if congress approves it or is it the regional corporation that has that right? >> the subsurface belongs to the regional corporation. the undersurface --

>> can you tell me what the relationship between the regional corporation is to the corporation that you were the president of? >> the regional corporation is like all of the other corporations that take care of all of our shareholders and just the shareholders we have 110 are the 4,000 or more or may be 10,000 that asrc looks after or helps. >> can you tell me whether the regional corporation has any kind of, quote, rights over your rights on the land that you own the surface rights to? >> i'm not an expert with the corporation to the we just take care of our surface rights, and i would defer that to the work

that they do for us. islamic what is the name of your regional corporation? >> arctic regional corporation. >> i saw in your testimony. you are running for the mayor of some kind of north slope. is that related to this? >> yes, it is the north slope, 89,000 square miles, a little larger than the size of minnesota. >> bear with me because i'm really very interested in the relationship between the regional house allows the tribe itself. so, you said the regional corporation is the one that has to say as to whether the subsurface mineral rights would be developed, and not the surface corporation? not that has the surface rights? >> the regional corporation from my understanding is they would have to get permission or talk

with the surface landowner before anything can happen and we've come to an agreement to help develop that land. >> that is my next question. so the regional corporation has said okay. 92,000-acre service corporation should be felt the subsurface, then that's been taken care of. >> yes. >> okay. so the only thing now standing in your way of doing it is whether or not, quote, congress is going to prove it; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. so everybody that has a say is on the same page, and that's what i wanted to establish. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> i thank the good leedy and we are going to have a little discussion about this later and we checked the law. they've worked together well, and i still say because of the

land claims act itself, the land was selected for this oil was ever developed of developing the land for the cicione and economic well-being been the subsurface or the surface and i don't think it takes an act of the congress to take the bill but they have been to be here and here is the rest of the anwr area. so if they had a way to get the pipeline across the rest of the refuge we could probably developed without an act of congress, but you can't do that because of the other status of the compatibility test doesn't hold up. >> thank you ranch, mr. chairman. i didn't know i was going to be called on at this time. i've mentioned here before i represent the great part of the smoky mountains national park, and that is about not quite

500,000 acres. anwr is 19.8 million acres. 35 times the size of the great smokeys. we get about nine to 10 million visitors a year and they come there and they think it's huge and yet anwr is 35 times the size, and i guess i'm one of the few members who has been to prudhoe bay twice. i've been to kaktovik twice and it's amazing. the first, went to alaska i have a man in anchorage airport tommy if you see anything at their taller than 2 feet it was put there yesterday by a man. for many, many miles you don't see anything at all, and to control on a two or 3,000 acres is minuscule people can't even

comprehend it, and we were told in the mid 90's that would mean a million barrels a day coming down here. president clinton vetoed it. the main argument introduced at that time as a would take seven or eight years to get that to market, and i really believe we can do it much faster, but they have the argument but just think if we had gone ahead and done that at that time we would have that or you coming in right on the gas prices were hitting many places in the country four or $5 a gallon to refine the we have a secretary of energy that said that we should be paying the same price for gas they pay in europe eight or $9 a gallon but if you want to talk about footing the final nail in the coffin of the small towns and rural areas, drive the gas prices up to eight or $9 a gallon because people in those small towns have to drive even further distances on the average to get to work. and the thing that concerns me the most i have noticed over the

years that almost all of these environmental radicals come from very wealthy or up come families but i tell you who they end up hurting the end up hurting the poor and the lower income by destroying jobs and driving up prices and that is exactly what would happen if we let the gas prices go way up and then to save it it would only mean a few pennies difference. i really question that. i think we don't have to produce all of our oil if we started producing a little bit more think that some of these other oil-producing nations would get so concerned they would start bringing the prices down and that is what we need to do is try to bring the prices down against of driving them up several more dollars a gallon so that people want to read as much and in addition to that even if it brought it down by just a little bit, at least if we started producing more we

wouldn't see the gas prices go to 547 or $8 a gallon as they might if we limit production. we have groups in every part of the country, the groups don't want you to cut any trees or dig for coal or any we'll they don't want you to do anything and the for about solar and wind. i wish some of these people that want us to limit our energy to solar and wind that they would limit the energy production in their own congressional districts to solar and wind and their whole economy would shut down from eight in all probability. but i'm told now the estimates are we could produce as much as 1.45 million barrels per day coming down to this country. i think it would make a significant difference and it would help a lot of lower income people in this country and help the economy tremendously.

i.e. yield back the balance of my time. >> mr. costa. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. council member fenton, what's the population of kaktovik these days? >> it's a little bit under 200 -- 300, i'm sorry. estimate hasn't probably changed to much in the last couple of decades, has it? >> population is increasing. we have housing shortages, families are doubling and tripling so the population is growing, yes. >> i was in your community in 1992, and i was enjoying having the opportunity to spend some time in the kind of the conversation up anwr interesting to read all of the politics that have been discussed here today, but the fact of the matter is what's the distance from anwr,

which is the proposed site for drilling, the footprint that some describe as the size of andrew speed bavier for space. i've heard it described the size of the los angeles international airport from the pipeline that prudhoe bay. >> the main pipeline is from kaktovik 90 miles but when you look at the border where the field is dawning and that exxon owns from the state from the border may be 10 miles, 15 miles from the arctic national wildlife. >> you would have to draw from the proposed site to connect the pipeline would be within

60 miles or less. >> would be less than that, yes. >> the would be your transmission to send the oil from prudhoe bay all the way down to valdez. >> i think the central part of the tenneco to or the national wildlife refuge he is about 40 miles. >> obviously people want to make a point. i guess i will make mine. first i think we need to use all of the energy tools on our energy toolbox. we have a bipartisan bill that would do that devotee talks about a robust renewable portfolio but the same time takes a advantage of our oil and gas that exists within the united states both onshore and offshore.

i guess there is a lot of myth busting to take place. and interested to hear mr. is a karpinski? karpinski. and mr. jenkins, the analogy used about if kohl were determined to be found. i used to represent somebody the national park and i can assure you if there was coal found under we wouldn't be going after that it's an unfair comparison should talk about that and anwr. anwr is the poster child then you bring out all the time and i know it's been a good a successful fund-raiser for several decades is the beautiful brooks buying with the der and the elkus and the grizzly bear and the salmon and that should

be protected. it is i think correspondingly the other parts of alaska that are protected under the law. that's not anwr. it's an arctic plan. i don't need you to make the point. i was there. you have not been there. >> i have been there and i was on that plane and it was one of the amazing experiences. >> we can agree to disagree. if you cannot drill safely, and this is where the math of comparison analysis gets lost because we are talking about jeweling at 6,000 feet of ocean depths where the costs are much greater and the risks are much higher and that's the comparative analysis we ought to be using. if you can't cope safely in the foot print that is being

proposed you can't go safely anywhere america. you just want to stop and try to forget that. it is a whole different agenda. i disagree with the agenda on with that area disturbed. let's be frank about it, we've created this mess of that in fact you're going into the brooks range. we are not. we created this myth that we are going to change that area anymore that we've changed prudhoe bay. i represent kern county, a production area in california. we have 25 platforms off the coast of california that kids ignored -- that gets ignored. people without a political agenda ought to be able to come to some conclusion if you cannot natural safely to cannot drill anywhere in america safely. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you for going to alaska and visiting. mr. duncan of south carolina. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for traveling back east to be a part of this. i would ask how much you weigh but i want to say that i enjoy the show. be careful out there. you all have some challenges and i appreciate you coming today to talk with us. mr. karpinski, what do you think is a fair price for americans to pay for a gallon of gasoline? i excuse me, a fair price. what do you think america should pay for a gallon of gasoline. it's a simple question. >> i think the current price -- i don't know that it's a fair price depending on all of the technologies to get there and who pays for what. frankly we would like to see the prices lower and the technology better -- >> what do you think personally is the particular number. >> i used to pay 33 cents a

gallon. as a commodity we are going to have less and less. the solution to our energy problem is reduce our were dependents of. we all agree. when you have a newer technology to go further on a gallon of gas that's how we solve the problem, not by drilling in a special beautiful places. >> i wanted to see what you thought in relation to what secretary chu mac said before he was elected and appointed to the department of energy he thought we ought to pay the european prices and said seven or $8 a gallon of gasoline was fair for america. my wife send a text message last night saying every gas station in south carolina was $3.11! she was excited, $3.11. i send her back saying omg, please fill up. she said this, isn't that pathetic that we think that that is cheap?

this is real life with the dialogue between my wife and i about $3.11 a gallon gasoline in this country and we are thinking that's cheap. >> with the gentleman yield? i appreciate it because we are paying $8 a gallon and 40, alaska. believe me, you can't even drive a snow machine for that price. >> that's amazing, mr. chairman. we are blessed in this country with the energy resources, and i firmly believe that energy is is a great job creation and that's what the hearing is about, it's about jobs. increased u.s. domestic energy production means jobs. there's no doubt about it. look at the economies where there is energy driven state economies. texas, north dakota in alaska. unemployment is low. revenues are high. more americans working mean fewer americans rely on the government services, and the less burden on the state

communities, state governments, energy is definitely a segue to the job creation. alaska is doing well, as you guys can see. mr. karpinski, are you a member of ducks unlimited? >> national federal wildlife federation. >> quail unlimited? rocky mountains region? >> nope, nope. >> management solution? >> no. >> conservationists have given more money, hunters, fishermen, others, have given more money to set aside land for conservation than a lot of other organizations that are out there that hold themselves up as conservation. i want to make that point very, very clear. the anwr area was set aside in 1980 by jimmy carter.

president carter then in congress set aside a real 1,002 for oil and natural gas development. around the same time in 1970 to 1980, the department of energy was created to look for the dependence on foreign oil. the new that we needed to have a domestic energy production to lessen our dependence on the countries who may not be friendly to the united states. we've got the resources here in this country. we recognize that area as an area that had oil and natural gas resources at that time. we heard the governor say that this capacity in the pipeline and it's just a drill oil, durrell the natural gas, let's reach those resources, send them to 40 get to be refined where the refineries are, and i will ask mr. rexford, interesting in your comment that you said the benefits that you would receive in your area, water and flush toilets from having the revenue

from these areas would benefit your community. thank you for saying that. you don't understand the revenues, are there. the oil and natural gas resources are there. thank you for bringing your perspective to this committee to really bring it home on what it means to the livelihood of the native alaskans. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> i would like to recognize the representative from california, mr. garamendi. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this issue has been kept around for near on 50 years, and during that period what time, the american people, through their representatives, have recognized an extraordinary value in wilderness. there are indeed sacred places and there are indeed in this planet on which we live places that may have resource potential

but they also have the potential of simply being what they are, underdeveloped, natural, the place for wildlife and mosquitos, but not a place that we would extract resources. anwr is such a place. it's unique. there is no other place on the planet like anwr. it doesn't exist. this is eight. this is the last that there is. is it worth a few days of oil supply for the nation? i think not. this far the american people have said let's leave it the way it is. the way that it came to us. natural and undisturbed. that's something very, very special that the american people have decided over the years not just here but other places

including the smoky mountains to say let's leave it the way it is. let's let it be there for all of the future generations in its natural state for those creatures that have been there for years including the ducks. let's leave it there. and yes there are people that live there in your community is one of them. oil development is taking place in this region. we know that shell is exploring offshore and will soon be exploring offshore and that will have a dramatic effect on all that we discuss your. there may be transportation facilities as a result of that exploration in this region. there may be offshore oil development in this region. we know that exxon has just cut a deal with the russian oil company to explore not so far

away. many things are happening in the arctic. and there is one place where things should not happen, and that anwr. now, will this we'll be made available for the american public? meek, but maybe not. it was 1995 at the original law was changed that allows the oil that flows through the trans-alaska pipeline to be exported, and in fact it is exported. how much is going to be exported? we don't know. not too much today. but you add another 500 million barrels or 500,000 barrels a day, and you are going to see more exports available to the american public, not if it is exported. the oil industry is in international markets, and the

crisis determined on the international market. and we pay accordingly. china, india, other countries are increasing their demand. as a figure that into the question. some places are sacred. some places should not be developed. i'm understand the desire of those who live in the area for jobs. but in the long run, there are jobs that could be available and certainly will be just in the west of the anwr is the prudhoe bay development and just to the west of that is an heriot, much larger than anwr that was set aside more than a century ago, nearly a century ago for the oil development exploration and that is under way today.

so why anwr? karpinski fight an unending battle in the special part of this planet? for what? leave it. leave it alone. let it be what it has always been a natural, undisturbed. i yield back. >> we represent the representative of texas for five minutes. >> gentlemen of the panel i think you today. before i get to the questions i would like to give you my makarov because i have some understanding of what each of you did i think i'm a former oil and gas entrepreneur and executive. i'm also an investor in a biofuel technology and an investor in the fuel cell technology and i want to clarify that none of those use guaranteed government loans. when i did that time the largest residential producer of solar

power, so i think i have an understanding of both conventional energy resources and also alternative energy resources. i have driven the bolten highway and i've been behind some large trucks trying to get around them. but i've been there, i've been to the north slope, i've been to prudhoe bay. i've seen firsthand the peaceful coexistence of wild life with oil and gas exploration activities in the prudhoe bay area. i've seen and abundant wildlife population that exists in that area, and i've seen also firsthand the dramatic impact of improved technology to reduce the environmental as well as real-estate footprint that has happened with oil and gas exploration and prudhoe bay and that is one of the things that makes drilling in anwr worth looking at today. early on in one of our hearings, one of the speakers said

something about the parallel universe, and you know, we do have parallel universes. i'm hearing today. on the one hand the universe we've got the production of safe, secure, sufficient supplies of domestic energy and we can produce good paying american jobs. we can help balance the federal budget. we can grow a robust economy and strengthen the national security as part of that process. on the other hand, in the universe we can rip off the taxpayers while picking winners and losers with projects like cylinder and a ripoff the taxpayer by freezing their assets that they own under the ground in anwr and other public land and off our shores. we can also ripoff the future generations with continuing huge deficits and federal budget and we can resolve all americans today by not giving them the chance to have good middle class jobs. here's the current status in the united states of the national wildlife reserve. there's 150 plus wildlife reserves in the united states and the of 4400 oil and gas

wells and there's been no significant environmental impact on any of those and closer to home in texas, the area not an area that i represent but my neighbor to the southwest have the substantial wildlife reserve that is the home of over 100 plus wells and growing population in the endangered species called the whooping crane. for those of you that want to hypothecate of gasoline prices at me say that you are way off base. when i exited the drilling business to go into this job to try to improve the future for my children and grandchildren, natural gas was selling about $5. today it's about 80 and that is because of technology and abundant drilling for this resource in this country. it's not just a few pennies. it's a significant change because supply and demand economics work. for those who think the taxes

are the solution to balance the budget why don't we go to apple and say we are going to raise your taxes and in return for raising your taxes, we want you to produce more of eds and atty lower-cost. the same thing the president said on monday. we want to raise taxes on the job creators and have their produce more jobs, more good middle class jobs. folks, those jobs on pond and we know that. mr. rexford, my question is for you. you said something and i'm going to just take part of this, you said you're familiar with this issue and you've been fighting the misrepresentation of the opposition for over 15 years. why don't you walk us through quickly those misrepresentations ..

the fish and wildlife service within not only the arctic national wildlife refuge that that gentleman talked about, and pra, the state. the u.s. fish and wildlife service designated polar bear habitat protection that is 20 miles. means light from the state of washington all the way down to california from the coastline to 20 miles inland. you know, that's going to be a big hindrance our people, but i would rather, you know, i have been born and raised by my folks

not to put any people down and respect their opinion. you know, that is just the kind of person that we are in the arctic slope. i could say i wish i was born as congressman leon when he was asking questions, but the myth, porcupine, the porcupine, mangos. went through arctic national one of life refuge but eight years ago. that is near point barrow. becoming ill with the porcupine caribou herd. so saying that the porcupine and caribou herd is going to reduce our decline, millions of other caribou, in love with each other with the porcupine. caribou herd. so porcupine caribou herd is not in that area.

it also goes to central come over near barrow. that is over 300 miles away. >> thank you, mr. sharp. your present union personnel rights. i think i have to cut you short. now i would like to recognize the ranking member of the full committee for his opening statements, mr. markey. >> thank you very much, and i apologize for being late to this hearing. senator kennedy's daughter passed away. the funeral was this morning. it was an absolutely beautiful service. arrester as quickly as occurred after the completion of that. the super committee has been charged with reducing our deficit by at least $15 trillion of the last in years in order to

begin getting our nation's budget back on track. this committee has the authority and the responsibility to make recommendations to the super committee for ways to reduce the deficit. in response to this enormous challenge, the republican majority is once again looking to drill in the pristine arctic national wildlife refuge in alaska under the guise of reducing the deficit they're proposing to open up the cudgel of the wildlife refuge system to drilling. unfortunately drilling in the arctic refuge would do very little to reduce our deficit is next in years. according to the problem of managing well production from the arctic refuge would not even begin for seniors. as a result the congressional budget office has said that drilling in the refuge would only generate $3 billion during

the first ten years from initial lease sales which would be a drop in the bucket below overall reductions. in contrast to democratic proposals to ensure oil companies pay their fair share which generate nearly $60 billion over that same ten year time frame, 20 times as much money to reduce the deficit the oil and gas industry is coming in profits while our country is coming in debt. the top five oil companies have made $71 billion in just the first six months of this year. the republican majority has opposed repealing unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and gas industry that would generate more than 43 billion over the next ten years. the republican majority has also

opposed royalty free drilling on public lands offshore in the gulf of mexico, closing that loophole to raise over nine and a half billion dollars of the next ten years. incentivizing companies to drill on the millions of acres of public lands which they already hold would generate nearly $1 billion. in fact, oil companies are just sitting on more oil than we could ever get out of the arctic refuge, according to the department of interior more oil under the leases that abuse already have from the american people that not being used offshore than there ever likely to find in the arctic refuge. repealing the royalty giveaway to the gulf states would generate an additional almost $2 billion of the next ten years

, increase in inspection fees for the oil industry as the bp commission has recommended a generate another 500 million of the next decade, increasing the royalty rates will company's patent on public land to generate an additional 900 million. all told of the next ten years these democratic ideas would reduce our deficit 20 times as much as opening up the arctic refuge to drilling. to put it in perspective if these democratic ideas with a height of the empire state building, the republican plan to drill in the refuge would occupy the first five floors in terms of solving the deficit problem. we need a plan to begin reducing our deficit in the short term, not short-sighted giveaways of our most pristine areas.

the republican plan to open up the arctic national wildlife refuse to drilling would not offer us any refuge from red ink but amounts to little more than an opportunistic giveaway to the oil industry and is a distraction from the real solution, which this committee should be pursuing in order to reduce the federal deficit, and we await those hearings that we have in this committee of the subject. the yield back the balance of my time. >> thank you. i now recognize representative landry for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. you know, it is amazing because for the amount of money that they want to take away from oil and gas industry, the oil and gas industry has opposed to spin and invest in america five times that amount the time when we want to create jobs.

mr. hall, i no -- >> finish for a second. >> as this one testy. of what to know, u.s. tired as i am of hearing, turning its tv and in hearing how washington really wants to create jobs? i yes tired of hearing that song and dance is i am? >> this, i am. >> me too. i am tired. in bats, during the president's speech on how he wants to create jobs i had a little sign of the said drilling equals jobs. would you disagree that chilling equals jobs? >> it would equal other jobs. >> i should have held up that said anwar it was jobs could stub will be the ticket. >> and we are in need of a lot of jobs today, is that correct.

>> desperately. >> okay. would you agree with that as well? >> we are ready to go to work. >> and so the priority of this country, not what we would like. there are differences. u.s. for louisiana. i know that your mama taught you to do -- the difference between once in need. >> caller: going to give you what you want to. we will give you what you need. if there is some leftover we will give you what you want. >> that is the way it was enough, grope bond. >> i can tell you that what we need in this country is jobs. what we want is a utopian world where everything seis dislike it was when the catcher was founded that is nice. i appreciate that, but i think we have come a long way in being a will to balance the industry

with the environment. i really do. and so i think that if our number one priority in this country is creating jobs, let's get to drilling, let's get to reducing the cost of our energy, which brings me up to the -- i can see. you mentioned that drilling is not going to lower-cost at the pump. >> that is based on energy information administration study >> you agree with that study. >> is. >> prudhoe bay. did you support the president tapping into the strategic petroleum reserve? >> at the organization was mitchell on that at the time, quite frankly. >> it was initialled. well, if you don't want to tap into a natural reserve why would you in using the fact that it does in a reduced the cost at the pump, why would tapping into

an artificial reserve reduced the cost? isn't that a bit hypocritical? >> i think i just love we didn't take a position on that. >> but he took a position on this. >> of stating the government thanks. >> but you're using it to support your argument. is that not correct? >> a government study. >> huckabee taken interposition on whether a president should top end to the fdr buddies the fact, which i dispute, let me just put that on the fact -- >> i understand. why would tapping into this to deasy petroleum reserves be any different? why? >> i did make that case. you can ask someone who supported that. i'm not making the case. >> i would you oppose it. >> i'm making a case -- the reason you don't go in the arctic, the reason -- and the reason proper is somehow a lower

the price of gasoline. we know that this is not true. >> this would you stay in the statistics. but the president when on their and said that when you increase supply, okay, when you increase the supply you affect the market. that is basic. and not going to dispute that. i just think there is a natural deserved over there in in what, the gulf of mexico. i am with congressman markey in that there is a lot of reserves in the gulf of mexico. we just need to start permitting. >> i wish you would talk to him on where we should find revenues. the revenues from the oil and gas companies at this moment i there. that is where we should be tapping and makes much more sense. it does not destroy a beautiful place, and that is where we should go. we support that, and that is the

solution we believe in. >> thank you, and now represent -- recognize the ranking member of the full committee for five minutes of questions. >> thank you so, so much. and one of the answers could have been that mr. landry did not support using these judges the petroleum reserve. so perhaps he does not agree with weather are not that infusion of well actually does lower prices which would then support your argument if you wanted to make that, but i guess the real case, the real cases -- the real cases that all of the evidence that was pointing toward speculated that that one moment time, driving up the price artificially to the energy efficiency, a long time in determining that there is a marginal impact, which the arctic refuge to oil would play

on the price of well. let me go back to you. in terms of this issue of the over the next ten years, which is what we are tasked to do, to reduce the federal deficit, is it worth it to drill in the arctic wildlife refuse to find $3 billion worth of revenue? given the pristine nature of the arctic wildlife refuge in the infant is only a small amount of money that would be raised as a result. >> well, obviously we certainly did not. we dispute the estimates that people are throwing around in terms of what kind of revenue in job creation would come from developing the refuge. you know, it seems like these numbers, you know, they are based on -- there are not based

on reserves that we know are, in fact, there. they're based on speculative reserves. you're talking about something as serious as reducing our deficit, you need to hang your hat on something a little more solid than a proven oil reserves that may or may not be in the arctic national wildlife refuge. to your point, yes, this is a special place. it was set aside by president eisenhower, not jimmy carter, as an intact ecosystems. implicitly in that was, you know, the eisenhower administration knew that they were going to allow more will explanation in the prudhoe bay area, and they saw putting aside the arctic refuge as representing balance. that refuge included the area which is the coastal plain, which is the refuge biological heart. >> mr. penske, the big five oil companies make $36 billion in profits of molesting months of the year, april, may, in june,

but they spend 10 billion of their profits buying back shares of their own stock in order to artificially raise the price. they spent 7 billion a suing dividends to their investors. over the next decade repealing the tax breaks for the oil and gas industry would generate more than ten times the revenue that we would get by drilling in the arctic refuge. do you think that the super committee should repeal the tax breaks for the oil industry? >> absolutely. we have stated that on the record many times. clearly we do need new revenue, and we do want to create more jobs. sterling in the arctic is not a solution to either one of those, but in terms of raising new revenue, those five oil companies made nearly a jillion dollars in lost in years. this is to remove the subsidies and tax breaks for oil and gas industries and makes a lot of sense. twenty times as much money from

those sources at the time when they're making record-breaking profits, guts and consumers of the pump. this is the time to take that kind of action, to be serious about deficit reduction, and to the -- the other part of the way we do, yes, technology is important. the technology in the long run we need to get -- reduce our reliance on oil. the way to do that is with the new technology in the automotive industry. president obama when he announced a plan for the next 15 years to have cars go further on a gallon of gas. many, many years, but that is the vision for the future. we are going to run out of oil. we need to get off of oil, and new technology can do that. all ten of the companies were there on that podium. this is the way to create jobs. as of the new energy jobs. >> thank you. as you know, the budget control act of 2011 provides that violated the rights of our 14th 2011 each committee

allows representatives in the senate may transmit for the joint committee its recommendations for changes in law to reduce the deficit consistent with the goal of reducing the deficit by at least one half trillion by 20 to one. given the enormity of our nation's future, and it is imperative that the natural resources committee exercise its authority thoughtfully and in an expeditious and transparent manner. the democratic staff has requested information regarding the process, but it's a mess of recommendations to the joint select committee that has received no response. i wrote to the chairman on monday to formally request that he scheduled. given one additional minute, let mr. flores. >> we have to keep moving. we have to keep moving. >> well, a parliamentary inquiry in double.

[inaudible] >> to you want to submit subbing for the record? >> i have had my staff give an inquiry. >> i have not had a chance to answer questions that. the 19 member has been in and out. i would be more than happy to yield at the end of my questioning. i appreciate that perry much. it is only that mr. flores was just given and the so many as 50 seconds, and i only need an extra 20 seconds to finish. >> when i was listening to the majority members, as long as there is a good line of thought going i don't stop people on the minute. >> well, then, i was letting the witness finish the question. mr. flores was not going on. many started to go on a gamble and down.

>> well, i am not even a witness. i am basing my thought that i had begun before my time has expired. >> csi ten minutes so far. >> again. i guess i can wait until the end of -- >> i think that would be the best way to handle it. >> fine. >> okay. >> and now i would like to recognize myself for five minutes for questions. by the way, thank you all for your patience. we are in the homestretch it will be there in a few minutes. can you tell me how many hotels there are for tourists coming in to visit and more? are there any hotels in your town? >> we have one brand new one in one smaller. >> how many rooms? >> ten. >> thank you. >> moving done, do you think

that the 2,000 acres that this bill refers to could be developed out of anwar without injuring the wildlife in this national wildlife area? >> yes. >> in do you believe that two dozen acre-foot spread of 19 million acres would destroy this place? in the put quotes around destroy this place as one of the other witnesses said earlier. >> no, i don't. >> okay. thank you. mr. jenkins, do you seriously think -- weight. first, let me preface by some information that the expert added earlier in his written testimony. the central arctic caribou herd was around 3,000 in the 60's and now it is up to 65,000,

about a 22 fold increase. the porcupine caribou herd is now about 169,000 strong. there are other herds, and do you think, do you seriously think given we are talking about the wildlife refuge, alaska national wildlife refuge that 80,000-acre foot print would damage the caribou herds or other wildlife in the refuge? >> qaeda. >> guest: thousand acre foot print part. i don't know if you were here earlier, with the whole analysis of the table was used. you know, the oasis. if you're going taxes that oil you have to have pipelines to

connect at back to wherever you're taking it to. there is no way that you can access all of that and bring it to market and actually be within a 2,000-acre foot print. physically impossible. now, with respect to the herds the central arctic herd, it occupies an area where the coastal plain is much larger than the arctic refuge. the porcupine caribou herd does a migration from canada over to the small part of the coastal plains. it is a different situation, and it is also different situation because the refuge on the eastern side of the north slope is more arid. a different type of the garment and over on the central and western part to a certain

degree. i would refer you to a letter that a dozen scientists sent to president bush some years back all arguing and including the national academy of sciences that oil drilling on the coastal plains of the arctic refuge, which is the refuge biological heart would, indeed, adversely impact of life. those are the experts. i'm not an expert, but i chose their opinion. thank you. >> i would now yield one now recognize mr. harris for five minutes. >> thank you very much, and the more than happy to yield to the ranking member, but i don't think he is available. if he is coming back and i have time at the end i will be more than happy to yield. let me just ask a question because the testimony from mr. penske was that this is not going to create jobs are raise revenue. how many jobs do you think -- >> does not correct. >> i believe you said a full we

want to do is create jobs and raise revenue that is up the way to do it. >> actually, it will create jobs. that is up the way to do it. >> and i will get to you when the second, leave me. see, that is the problem. that is the hyperbole that the chairman talked-about. that is why we are told the stimulus created jobs and know objectively it did not and we know that all the republicans are out to push granny off the cliff because of viper believe that your side engages in. how many jobs to you think we could create? the range of jobs if we opened up without exception under current -- if we allow this to proceed, what do you think? i mean local jobs, domaine de taos chin effect. there are a lot of those. >> i appreciate that. there is a seasonal approach, and then there is a legacy job approach depending upon how you look at it.

maintaining the operations of the field over time, assuming it opens up. i think it was ms. reported above the 19,000 jobs and alaska right now. the whole oil and gas industry has 30 to 14,000 jobs by state department of labor figures. that being said, the construction of the huge and put a lot of people to work, hundreds of thousands. that would include the downstream side also. from my local loan in fairbanks alaska we had a 11,000 people on our books. we are one of four pipeline unions, one of 14 building trade unions. if you were to exponentially multiplied that out depending upon the engineering in the time marty needed to do the construction of that oil field* x amount of years, it would be huge. >> thank you. the bottom line is there are people of work who would have jobs. you know, at some point that is important to both sides of the

aisle. now, the league of conservation voters, decreasing consumption. >> no. not involved in that conversation. >> good. i bet you haven't. the use the word got through with the euro companies use. the tax on a gallon of gases far greater than the profit. its credit and the profit. you are aware of that. >> i have seen some data suggest that. >> some data. okay. profits are 8% on the dollar. a gallon of gas is $3.50. if you do the math tela that -- deal also agree that government does consumers? >> @booktv the same. >> a very simple question. >> okay. private companies.

>> $1 trillion sell last ten years. question i ask the question a question. >> i get to answer. >> is my time, not yours. so when the government does it it is like gouging. when a private company does it is gouging. i fully understand exactly where your side comes from. >> mr. harris poll would you like to yell the last minute. >> i still have about eight seconds here. i guess you should ask mr. gene karpinski to your back some of that time. zero companies, the corporations in america that have the largest profit margin. >> profit margin. >> sure. do you know what the profit margin is. you are not. yes we are nonprofit. christie no profit margin is. >> yes. i do not think they are the largest profit margin.

the record-breaking profits. >> do you know what the largest companies profit was? do you know who aren't born in chevron last year, last. >> reporter: apple computer. in fact, the largest profit margin. now, this order talking about the gods and that goes on with the electron step is to back it is a rhetorical question. >> i now recognize the representative. >> i yield the balance of my time. >> representative mickey and talk. he will wrap up. if you have a minute for the ranking member. it is important to rectify have a minute left will be happy to. the arguments we seem to have heard by the majority against the notion of a drilling.

as he pointed out, that jobs are immediate, but in that line of reasoning it reminds me of the story of general to all who ordered up trees planted in his provisional headquarters. well, general, is going to take a century for those of trees to grow to maturity. his response was, well, then you better not waste any more time. the other argument that we hear is that the supply that is going to be produced is minimal on a global scale. it is not really worth looking at, and this is the one place we were told by would this -- by a member, the one place on the planet that we should not be drilling. the problem, of course, is if you ask them, how about joy of the gulf coast, the answer is no. drilling offshore generally, the answer is no oaks. drilling onshore generally, the answer is no. how about developing our vast

shale oil reserves that are three times the size of the pri from reserves in saudi arabia, the answer is no. how about running a pipeline from canada that is developing its share of oil reserves and the answer is no. so what they are actually arguing is to shut down while production in the united states. perhaps you can help me. how do we lessen our dependence on foreign oil by prohibiting the development of our domestic supplies to back. >> i have no idea how that would happen. >> i have no idea either. the sad thing is needed today. we talked about the drilling footprints. how much land would be, the footprint for drilling compared with the size of the total

expense. i have been told that proportionally is a postage stamp on the football field. is that accurate? >> that sounds about accurate. >> that is what we are talking about. proportionally the drilling footprint would be as a postage stamp is to an entire football field. that is the one place we should not be drilling, we are told. i find that amazing. what is your alternative? >> a couple of things. the oil and gas, 38 -- >> no. what is yours. >> in my answer is? >> oh yes. what is the alternative. >> 38 million acres. 22 million not being exploited. number one in terms of drilling, not against drilling, that would be silly. first among go to the leases that already have over half of the ones that they are not using. >> pardon me, they are not using because they are being blocked by permitting the ladies that are endless.

>> does not correct. number two is reducing reliance on oil by reducing the demand. most of the oil is used in our transportation system. we need a new vision of a new future respect to senator kind of automobile, which is exactly. >> and this new kind of automobile, do you have it in production? >> the simplest version right now, hybrids on the road are much more efficient. place the of the company's standing at the table saying in the next 15 years they're going to go from low of 30 mpg to 55 mpg. >> and how are we to generate the electricity for all of this? will we try to put in a conventional power plants we are told now. and we try to put in nuclear power plants we're told no. we are told the answer is new technology. is that your response? >> first of all, the best way to reduce demand both in terms of electricity and oil is called

deficiency. the efficiency. reducing our use in building efficiency, automobile efficiency and appliances. that is the single cheapest mclucas, safest way to reduce demand for electricity and oil. try to get it done. >> reclaiming my tiresias to be with any commodity when something is scarce it becomes expensive and when it is possible it is cheap. we have been embarked upon a policy of making -- prohibiting development of our energy reserves to the point where they have become scarce. we are told it will disappear anyway. welcome move were told as 60's that are all supplies of these us by the 80's. we were told in the 70's it would be by the 90's. now we're being told it will be some time 20 years and now. the point is wendy look for more oil we find it. the problem is that we have been prohibited even from exploring vast tracks, let alone developing the reserves that we know have. that is the issue, and a new generation is coming along

looking at this saying, what in the world of you people think. record unemployment, record increases in energy prices. why don't you develop the vast reserves of the half. >> thank you. before we wrap up with like to recognize the ranking member to conclude his earlier statements. >> thank you. mr. chairman tom very much. we are tasked with the job of making a recommendation from this committee in terms of where deficit reduction could come from from this committee's jurisdiction. we are going out of session again on friday in taking often more days and will be back in on october 3rd. we only have 11 days after that to make our recommendation. i continue to errors that the committee employed vigorous transparent process to consider any recommendations to join a select committee. in the meantime to focus on opening of the pristine arctic national wildlife press it --

refuges misplaced particularly because there are alternatives which would raise much more revenue. their fair share of joint. i therefore wish to inform you, mr. chairman, that the minority interest to exercise its rights under rule 11 of the house to call an additional day of hearings with witnesses chosen by the minority so that this committee can explore how opening of drilling in the arctic refuge compares with other alternatives that the committee to pursue to heck -- help reduce our nation's federal deficit. >> okay. thank you. we have concluded our questions. members may have additional questions for the record, and i would ask each of the witnesses to response to those in writing.

and before we recess i would like to ask unanimous consent to include to documents in the record, one being a letter from the national construction alliance which is composed of the united brotherhood of carpenters and joiners as well as the international union of operating engineers, both of whom support opening and war to production. a second document which is a letter from state representative sillies millet. i hope i have that's correct. i can't read the writing. also supporting the opening. no objection, those documents will be included in the record. >> mr. chairman, no objection. >> thanks you. and if there is no further business the committee will stand in recess. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> in a few moments in discussion of why the joint deficit reduction committee should get the deficit by up to $4 trillion. in about an hour another panel on deficit reduction that includes the former head of the federal reserve, alan greenspan. and then we will be aired a hearing on how drilling in the arctic national wildlife refuge would affect job creation. several live events to tell you about an hour companion network, c-span three. at 10:00 a.m. eastern the joint deficit reduction committee will focus on revenue options and changing the tax code. president obama will be in cincinnati talking about his jobs plan and the u.s. economy. that is a 2:30 p.m. eastern. then at 5:30 p.m. eastern live

coverage of british prime minister david camerons speech to the committee -- canadian parliament. >> watch our live coverage of the national book festival this weekend on book tv, saturday's highlights include eugene robinson on black america, abraham lincoln and slavery, and isabel was in on african-american migration north and west and sunday douglas waller on americans wild bill donovan, christine miller on woodrow wilson's first ladies, and david mccullough on the credit journey americans in paris. live for our entire festival, including collins booktv.org. >> in my opinion i think that the, you know, the bounds of academic freedom have just been pushed too far. >> in the faculty lounges ten years job for life entitlement mentality needs to go. >> basically professors of

cooking who now have, professors of the social studies who have tenure. when pressed someone at a up or a professor who is telling the party line we will say, oh, well, when the someone with tenure and security study said that they can talk about immigration, even though it is controversial, and someone in the tissue most of these cities to be able to say something controversial about obesity. >> that and other reasons why you won't get the college is case you paid for sunday night c-span q&a. >> of form and u.s. debt and deficit reduction looking at what the joint deficit reduction committee should cut the deficit by up to $4 trillion. one of the panel's focused on the politics of making large cuts to the deficit. this is an hour.

>> while the second panelist coming up with but the lights down and see the next video. >> the site from doing a deal you have to do an education campaign. you have to have a president in particular who is willing to go on tv with charts and so what the facts out. >> i do think the american people would be behind the principle plan. i think they need to be educated. i think they need to be a part of the discussion, and that think they need to know just how severe the problems are and why this super committee and the congress and the president are going to ask to come up to something -- frankly painful solutions, but i think when they know the facts they will have. they will be behind it. the average american is very principal demand we're going to

have to have principal plans to deal with this problem. >> tight now baltimore but sometimes i think the american public understands that we have a tough challenge confronting us, and they want to see that we are tough enough to do so in a productive and successful weight. >> if you tell people really what you're doing and why you're doing estimates when it to them, the process of how you got to the members of the decisions that you're making, even though they may not like them, they will respect that process and you. >> i think our political system will ultimately have to arrange a comprehensive fiscal plan. the question is, will we do it in a pre-emptive and prudent manner in before we have a debt crisis or will washington typically wait until a crisis is at our doorstep and we have to take dramatic and draconian action in order to us stabilize the markets and restore

stability. >> anyone on the party. americans, is now at about us coming together as a community. isn't it about doing what you need to do to make sure that the future that our children and grandchildren have is going to be better than the one that we had? >> i think the american people are hungry for something big. we can come together. discipline ourselves. address these problems aggressively. you know, africa and companies like to have to mislead many times that consumers don't know exactly what they want. the american people have not yet been shown the common sense persuasive program that will deliver fiscal solvency, and

economic health, and a better future for our children. i look forward to the day when people on both parties summon the courage to look past these temporary polls. the american program that has that sort of promise. >> a big approach is easier. if you're going to just nickel-and-dimed things, when interest versus another. one interests strongly committed. if you go big then you have all the interests competing against each other. paradoxically it is easier for members of congress to resist the cries of a million angry interest groups as opposed to the cries of one really angry interest group. and if you go baked with marshal public opinion, you basically

went over the people who want simplicity in our tax code and our budget. if people are willing to say everyone is taking a hit, there are going to be a lot more willing to go along with you that if they say i'm taking a hit. he's not going to. the american people get it. we are ahead of their elected leaders. they know we are living beyond our means. they know we can't j-lo way out to mike and i wake up, tax our way out, but we need to put everything on the table. everything is to be at the table, and we need comprehensive and transformation reforms to our budget processes and controls. medicare and medicaid, health care spending to defense and other spending. while a comprehensive tax reform. we need it soon. the clock is ticking, and time is not working in our favor.

>> i would say to members of both parties, you have to make tough decisions, elected to provide leaders for this country in tough times. we're coming to a point that you will be put to the test. it is critically important that you work together, and this should not have become so political that it is not a solvable problem. >> the congress and their country. the country to the press of this of defaults. that undermines confidence here at home. large and small. the success of the debt reduction committee is critical if we're going to have confidence that americans will manage its finances. the people and our economy will

grow. the fiscal stability and responsibility. >> okay. we will now turn to our second panel as the first panel was not filled with super also is enough. this one certainly is. i will quickly go down. we have in the stern, who is right now senior research fellow senator pete. bill the valley, former head of the aarp, former member of commerce and presidency of american gas association. former chairman of the house budget committee and we thought we would discuss in this panel bringing in the different kinds of special interests helping to move this issue forward and

sometimes standing in the way protecting different areas, which make it harder to have a big budget deal and how we might move that forward. as well what the public responses, so many of these people have been out there talking with people hearing how they respond to different approaches and proposals. so that is what we hope to get out of this. if you want to toss out the first couple questions. >> let's go back first of all with our group in terms of the public. given the debate we have seen over the proposal the president and the proposals from the house side, the american public is ready for this kind of deal, whether it is with the deficit commission and a separate committee or perhaps the one half trillion dollar deficit reduction or the idea on the table a lot going big. also is the public ready for this in the sacrifices will be required a different groups to back. [inaudible]

>> over. they're tired of it. it goes on too long and does not like incense. at the same time when you get to the issues that are aboard their somewhat concerned about their particular area. i think there are as ready as there ever going to be. that's nothing more information matters. maybe the tough choices. >> is the public ready? >> well, i am kind of love to. i will let the part that i think is more realistic answer. i don't think they are because of one major thing. the base special interests believe the not is the senior citizen and the aarp. that is the biggest lobbying group without question. some people say that is not fair

they are lobbying group, and there are very difficult and tough if they are dead set against you. now, where are they? well, from my standpoint we have more education to do. it is very targeted. they have a lot of information in the past six months, but with the door understand that the programs there going to be displayed in or are participating in, they don't understand that there is something basically going wrong with the program. there are still of the opinion, the majority of them, when you say we're going to change the program to save money they say why. it is my program and i pay for

it. until we have far more say we understand it is our program, but america's update for a yet, and we're going to listen to how you might fix it, so we get there with a few more millions of people we're going to have a difficult time getting around the biggest and most powerful lobbying group of around which is our seniors and retirees. >> that accuse us of. some thoughts, we just heard in their own thoughts about the public puts the public is not ready at the moment. there are several reasons. number one, the public is too busy being worried and scared. this whole business about jobs, underemployment, people moving back in with their relatives, all of the different things that we see going on with our faltering economy is really what is grabbing the public right now. secondly, these issues. the first panel said this, these

issues are so complicated and so difficult for the policy makers to grass that it is hard for the average citizen to figure out what's going on. the third thing is they see this food fight in washington and they want to wash their hands of it. impact, they probably want to take a shower. finally, we are coming into election season, already basically in it. getting all this conflicting information kamal the sound bites. if you and all this up, what you have is a public that is not ready. this is all the more reason to go big. we can't do this in tiny kilobytes in increments and keep coming back to the trough. we need to really get the public in gates to. we need to get them on misinformation, and we need to lead. that is a policy makers and people in washington and people in the state capitals have to do. the public can be supportive if we can do a good job of bringing

them along. we have to take advantage. not run away. >> to former members of congress to people who have seen the food fighting here in washington for stand. a different perspective. your take. >> i think we have to go big because i don't think there is an alternative. to do that i think the salty things. you provide an economic certainty. you provide a road maps to the future. you also have a chance to restore some confidence in the political system which there is absolutely none in today. the irony in that, i think, there is maybe a better of rigidity to go big in a more comprehensive than there is small because everyone has to

be, has been in the game and has to be seen as being part of the solution. in our experience that is the only way you can actually have big moves like this. you know, the business sector was predictability, sir become a level playing field. but they also want to see congress and the administration provides solutions. problem solved. changed a lot in this town. probably because digital technology. we are losing our capacity for strategic thinking and action. if we don't start addressing that, and that is what leaders have to do, step up and move beyond the horizon. the short term we are in the fight. if it is long term i think we all understand that it is of their process and we will have an opporunity.

>> when you take on the tax code in the spending cut entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security and defense, and i hope you will see the special interests on capitol hill. extremely important that as we move forward the company, the country moves with us, and we have yet to do the job to explain to them what is a stake and what it's going to mean to the average american taxpayer. we need not just to inform the to galvanize. a lot of sentiment in the country that is strongly concerned where our comforts. he will tell you the same thing. people are concerned about that. they can compare their own debt with the government's debt.

what is happening to each of them is of great concern. no question they have a great deal of concern begin not ready yet. that connection is well worth remembering. it took us four different multi-year budget plans. the burnt out budget agreement of 1997 to bring the balance. it is just an education where we had a much more tractable deficit than we do today. it still took us four sittings, for plans to resolve. we probably should be. i am for the $4 billion goal. we should be thinking about getting certain things done one step after another. >> the one thing that you will know. when we are in the congress we talked about billions. we did not talk about trillions. that is a difference.

it is a different dynamic. >> only three years. >> thank you. >> normally i am an optimist. this time i have to answer the question. i don't think the public is ready, and i also want to say, not sure the congress is ready, and alex when that in the second. everywhere you look in this country uc a people addicted to short terms. dca reflected in the obesity epidemic we can't make a decision right when it comes to finances or the food we. we over consume calories and don't exercise enough. we have a short-term problem with the american people, and we don't have the leaders to help turn this around. now, with regard to the congress of want to make a point that i don't think is, it today, and that is i think it is going to be very difficult for us to fix this system until we take a hard look at the way money comes into

our political system. it is the campaign finance reform issue that i want to mention. just look what happened the last time this interest rule came out on the chopping block. the special interests came after that issue within seconds. i think if we're serious about this and the congress is serious in the country is serious we have to take a look at how money is coming into the system. it's a lot worse now in the wake of the citizens united case. twenty-eight years ago and went to work at the federal government, and the first cabinet member of a portrait is sitting right here in the front row. director alan b. when dave left the government, he wrote a book called the triumph of politics. i hope is still available. hope is still in print because i think everyone should read it. it is the basis of the comments