the greatest of the last century an astonishing twenty three percent greater than the previous record set in two thousand and five a recent study by scientists at the national center for atmospheric research projected that the arctic ocean could be devoid of ice by two thousand and forty furthermore doctor j zwally a leading nasa scientist recently reanalyzed sea ice data and projected that the arctic ocean could be ice free in summertime as early as two thousand and twelve just four short years from now the presence of arctic sea ice is essential for many forms of animal and plant life but particularly for the polar bear polar bears use these ice floes as a platform for nearly every aspect of their lives including hunting their primary food source the disappearance of sea ice as a result of global warming is leading to the very real possibility that polar bears will disappear as well the bush administration's own scientists project that the prospects for the polar bear's survival are bleak last year doctor steven amstrup who is with us today headed up a team of scientists charged with examining the impacts of sea ice loss on polar bear populations in a series of reports released last fall doctor amstrup's team concluded that by midcentury two thirds of all the world's polar bears could disappear and that polar bears could be gone entirely from alaska doctor amstrup's team also noted that based on recent observations this dire assessment could actually be conservative the actions of the bush administration  the coming months could very well determine the fate of this iconic animal the interior department is currently considering whether to list the polar bear under the endangered species act as a result of the impact global warming last week the fish and wildlife service announced that it was going to delay any decisions to beyond its statutorily required deadline meaning that legal protection for the polar bear would be put on ice while it s habitat continues to melt meanwhile the interior department is revving up its regulatory machine to allow new oil drilling in sensitive polar bear habitat earlier this month the minerals management service finalized its plans to move forward next month with an oil and gas lease sale of nearly thirty million acres in the chukchi sea an area that is essential habitat for polar bears in the united states the timing of these two decisions leaves the door open for the administration to give big oil the rights to this polar bear habitat the moment before the protections for the polar bear under the endangered species act go into effect rushing to allow drilling in polar bear habitat before protecting the bear would be the epitome of this administration's backward energy policy a policy of drill first and ask questions later in this situation as in many things in life order matters you don't put on your shoes before your socks you don't start driving before looking at a map you don't buy a patriots super bowl shirt before the game and we shouldn't be selling the drilling rights in this important polar bear habitat before deciding how we are going to protect them it seems that every time there is a choice between extraction and extinction in this administration extraction wins this must not be the case for the polar bear the chairman now i would like to turn and recognize the ranking member of the the polar bear is a majestic and fascinating creature that should be observed admired and protected and its habitat is declining the price of crude oil is reaching one hundred dollars a barrel the united states needs more and not less access to domestic oil and gas reserves i am afraid that this hearing of a select committee charged with examining the nexus of energy independence and global warming the polar bear simply is becoming a political tool and that is a shame there has been some cynical speculation in the media and among some others that the polar bear is just a few decades from extinction and the current administration is ready and willing to diminish the polar bear's plight in order to help the oil and gas industry i believe nothing could be further from the truth it is my hope that this hearing can help address some of these misconceptions currently the administration is looking at two decisions that while interrelated are decided under two separate distinct and different laws that support two different policy goals protection of the polar bear and progress on energy and security through the development of domestic oil and gas reserves for more than a year the department of the interior has been studying whether to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the endangered species act this is a complicated and nuanced question but one whose answer must be based solely and i emphasize solely on the best scientific and commercial information about the polar bear if the scientists and wildlife managers at the interior department determine that the polar bear should be listed as a threatened species then the united states should take all required steps under the endangered species act to protect the polar bear i note that regardless of whether the polar bear is listed under the endangered species act it is already protected under the marine mammal protection act the interior department's minerals management service has also decided to move forward with an oil and gas lease sale in alaska's chukchi sea which is a part of the polar bear's habitat should the polar bear be listed then oil and gas companies will have to take all appropriate efforts to ensure that their exploration and production are done in a manner required by the endangered species act the timing of these separate decisions is incidental to protecting the polar bear the hallmark of the endangered species act is that listing decisions need to be based solely on sound scientific and commercial information and not politics i worry that today's hearing will focus too much on the politics and not enough on the science and that certainly isn't good news for either the polar bears or for america's energy security i yield back the balance of my time  i appreciate his elaboration i am very much appreciative of this hearing i have a slight difference of opinion with my good friend from wisconsin however in terms of what the significance of this is i don't think it is incidental and just because they are tracking under different laws is no reason that they cannot be harmonized years ago i was involved with an effort that struck a raw chord in this country as we were trying to rescue polar bears from a circus environment in puerto rico where they were being abused it is fascinating to me to watch the outrage and the activity that this engendered people could sort of understand that now i look back and think of what is happening here today because it is not just an individual circus in puerto rico but we are talking about the federal government's action which actually might endanger and abuse not a handful of circus animals but threaten the existence of polar bears in the wild this administration is dealing with activities that could potentially threaten the habitat of this magnificent animal which is a critical part of a spectacular but fragile ecosystem it is stunning to think that the federal government before considering whether or not the polar bear is endangered would encroach upon almost half of its u s habitat now i personally think that we are smart enough to figure out how to harmonize these efforts and make a difference the notion that it is our country that wouldn't take that extra step does give me pause and frankly the notion that this is incidental  think in the course of the hearing it will be clear that it is not we have an administration that has a record of taking small steps and driving forward in effect we are watching now throughout the western united states where sportsmen are finding that the consequence of the drill and dig and as you were saying mister chairman ask questions later i think there is no excuse for not taking a few additional weeks and doing this right i deeply appreciate your scheduling this hearing the fact that i am not here for all of it is not a reflection on its importance but we have mister bernanke before the budget committee and i am obligated to be across the street but i will be with you i will be following up and i do appreciate it the  thank the gentleman very much the chairman the chair recognizes the gentleman from oregon mister walden mister walden mister chairman thank you i look forward to reading the testimony of the witnesses and hearing from them so i will keep my remarks brief we also have an energy and air quality subcommittee hearing with chairman connaughton on his testimony in bali that starts in about seventeen minutes so i will have to depart for that as well i know this is a serious issue and i look forward to hearing the scientific evidence involved here i also know that consumers are getting a little tired of four dollars gas or three dollars fifteen cents gas and natural gas is certainly going up in price the rise of fertilizer costs for the farmers i represent and drives industry offshore i want well this we know this is the last chance for the polar bear they will never get another chance and neither will we and i was thinking about why people feel so strongly about this issue  i was thinking about a woman named helen thayer who was the first woman ever to ski alone to the north pole she was stalked for two days by a polar bear she could have been an hors d'oeuvre for a polar bear i was thinking why do we have such admiration respect and love for this species when they at times could make us a snack and i think there is an obvious and an unobvious reason for that the obvious reason is because they are so beautiful and magnificent their ability to turn ultraviolet light into thermal energy they are just beautiful i think there is a deeper reason that americans feel so passionately about that and that is that they realize that the polar bear is the largest canary in the largest coal mine in the world and that it is not just the polar bear at risk from this threat of global warming but we are at risk of the threat of global warming when people think and i think the reason they care so much about this is they recognize that you don't cry for the bell tolling over the bear we can ask why is the bell tolling for us because that is what is happening here people recognize that that a polar bear without an ice cap is a fisherman without a boat and that is tough on the polar bear but a world without an ice cap is a world without a thermal regulator just hold up this poster here this shows the sea ice of two thousand the ice cap in the summer and  at the latest when it will disappear and be gone in two thousand and forty and the reason people care so much about the polar bear is they realize its demise is inextricably related with ours because this is a thermal regulator for the world's climate and when we lose that ice cap we lose a cap that radiates energy back into the earth and now the ocean starts to absorb six times more energy than the world did in northern climes which puts us at risk not just the polar bear so i am disturbed that this administration continues on a path of willful ignorance and habitual arrogance it is willfully ignorant to go forward with allowing the leasing in this area immediately adjacent to the habitat willfully ignoring science willfully refusing to ask these questions before these decisions are made and habitually being arrogant  surpasses all other forms of human value so i hope that this hearing will convince the administration to rethink its position on this ask the hard questions get the scientific answers before we take this le and just on one parting note and this is kind of how i feel about this if you look over at these kids sitting over here i don't know where they are from all i know about them is that they are beautiful and they look smart as a tack and what we are doing here today is basically saying when they are our age today and share their information we all know that the department of the interior is currently considering a plan to list polar bears as a threatened species under the endangered species act and a basic question needs to be answered before we take such an action and it is this are current polar bear populations sustainable are they even sustainable this committee has called this hearing because some scientists think that they have the answers to this question they say that the polar bear population is decreasing and global warming is causing the decline and that is going to lead to their extinction however could it be could it be that their conclusions are based on speculative and hypothetical conjecture that relies on climate modeling methods that have been shown to be statistically inaccurate in predicting past and present climate change is that a possibility for us to rely on these error prone models to predict the survival of a species forty or fifty years from now does not withstand the most basic scientific scrutiny so we need to think about this one studies done by the world wildlife fund canadian biologists and american climatologists are in direct contradiction to the claims of some of these scientists these studies found that almost all almost all of the arctic populations of polar bears are either stable  increasing and that changing wind patterns are the primary causes of changing sea ice distributions not global warming one of the most interesting findings in these studies is that data shows polar bear populations are increasing in warming areas and declining in cooling areas mister chairman the most available incredible information on the status of the polar bear population indicates that listing the species as threatened could possibly be unwise it might be misguided instead i think we need more studies to obtain precise and accurate measurements of population trends and ecosystem factors the data could then be used to determine what best practices of conservation and management should be applied to maintain a sustainable polar bear population i hope we will explore that issue plug in immediately for the new england patriots and i do think we will be wearing the silver and blue in celebrating but let me associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues specifically i am so pleased to see as well that we have so many young people in the audience today because as mister inslee has said this is about you it is about our  planet i think of teddy roosevelt that great robust president who cared deeply about this country its environment i think of the bald eagle as our national symbol that almost was extinct today we have discussion over the issue of polar bears who symbolically represent so much of vestige of the wild world in the north and so i think it is important that kids are here today because they not only get to hear the science and the facts but they get to see their democracy in action and they are stewards of the democracy of the future and so you get to weigh the discussions and the arguments and the data and information that you hear from our experts and then ultimately you get to decide as well that is how our democracy works it is interesting to see i am sure for you that there are differences of opinion when it comes to preserving our environment and making sure that we give the appropriate some resentment at those of you speaking about the super bowl in fact i think we need to have some congressional hearings just because the kansas city chiefs lost the last think most of the scientific community would agree that continuing to burn fossil fuel does in fact put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and if there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the temperature the earth will rise if the temperature the earth rises the ice will melt and so i think that even if you don't want to accept this as a current  problem just accepting the fact that fossil fuel creates greenhouse gas shows that there is a problem and i guess the delight for me today is that one of the polar bears came in and they think that it is wrong to drill existence but it is important to me and i think important to many of us and the children who are here today those with imagination and appreciation and love for the nature that  the creator left us in a position of responsibility to protect and to guard that species like the polar bear are allowed a chance to continue  to have a habitat and to live they are indeed part of the fabric of the ecological net that we also are a part of and that one by one as the species that  are threatened today are removed by continued excessive consumption and pollution that net becomes more and more fragile and fragile to humans yesterday we had a meeting about the tappan zee bridge with some of the representatives from new york and the new york state department of transportation commissioner and i asked her among other things because the bridge is probably going to be rebuilt because it is deficient and aging because of the bridge collapse in minnesota and everybody is thinking about other bridges that might be weak and need to be replaced i asked her are they planning on building it higher because of the possibility of sea level increase because the hudson river which splits my district is tidal all the way to troy which is north of albany new york in other words if the sea level increases the hudson river level will increase and that will affect things like the bridge things like the rail the freight rail line and the west shore of the hudson and the passenger rail line and east shore of the hudson that are only a few feet above sea level now and if we have a significant increase in sea level and more frequent and more strong storms as a result that these things will have a direct impact on people living in my district and on the economic life and investments that have already taken place in refurbishing waterfronts and building walkways and boardwalks and new restaurants and shops along these newly improved downtown waterfronts now that might seem like a long save the polar bear are the same changes we need to make to stop asthma and emphysema from being such an epidemic in our inner cities and among our children the same changes we need to make to save our balance and trade deficit from being worse the same changes we need to make to stop shipping billions of dollars to oil states and unstable parts of the world and borrowing the money from other countries including china to pay for it they are the same changes that are driving us into a loss of sovereignty and at the same  time destroying our environment and so that is a lose lose lose lose energy policy the policy that would change that and solve those problems is a win win win win policy in which we create new technologies new industries jobs here in this country keep our money at home keep our children and elderly from suffering the effects of asthma and emphysema cut back on oil spills acid rain and  members has expired so we turn to our panel our first witness is mister dale hall who is the director of the united states fish and wildlife service mister hall has spent the majority of his life in public service over the course of mister hall's three decades with the u s fish and wildlife service he has played an important role in developing our nation's fishery facilities we welcome you s objection it will be included in the record at the appropriate point mister hall thank you sir the service proposed to list the polar bear as threatened throughout its range on january th two thousand and seven after a scientific review of the species found that populations may be threatened by the receding sea ice polar bears use sea ice as a platform for many activities essential to their life cycle especially hunting for their main prey arctic  announced the proposal he directed us to work with the usgs the public and pertinent sectors of the scientific community to broaden our understanding of what factors affect the species to gather additional information to inform the final decision on whether the species warrants federal protection under the esa to assist in that effort we opened a three month public comment period and held public hearings in anchorage and barrow alaska and washington d c in june two thousand and seven we hosted a meeting that included official representatives from all of the countries within the polar bear's range the meeting provided a forum for the exchange of scientific management and technical information among the range nations in september two thousand and seven usgs scientists supplied their new research to the service updating population information on polar bears in the southern beaufort sea of alaska and providing new information on the status of two other polar bear populations usgs studies provided additional data on arctic climate and sea ice trends and projected effects to polar bear numbers throughout the species range as a result of the new usgs research findings we reopened and later extended a second comment period to allow the public time to review and respond to the usgs reports we received numerous comments on the usgs reports and have been working to analyze and respond to the information provided during the extended comment period we expect to provide a final recommendation to the secretary and finalize a decision on the proposal to list the polar bear in the very near future part of today's hearing focuses on the possible oil and gas development activities occurring in polar bear habitat as we noted in our january nine proposed rule the service determined that these activities do not threaten polar bears throughout all or a significant portion of their range after review of factors including the mitigation measures required under the marine mammal protection act historical information on development activities lack of direct quantifiable impacts to habitat from these activities noted to date the localized nature of the development activities or possible events such as oil spills in particular the incidental take provisions of the marine mammal protection act ensure that any impacts on the species will be negligible and will not have an unmitigable impact on the availability of the species for subsistence use by alaska natives i look forward to working with you as we move forward in this process and i look forward to working with all of the entities including the state of alaska other federal entities the congress management service in the department of interior mister luthi previously served as speaker of the wyoming house of representatives we welcome you sir whenever you are ready please  mister chairman and thank you members of the committee ranking member sensenbrenner it appears right now as i have listened to the opening statements what we all agree on is we are glad you had this hearing it will be interesting as we go through and listen to the various opinions that  agency the fish and wildlife service throughout this process this partnership is focused on protecting wildlife in the environment as we conduct an offshore energy program we believe that energy resource development can be achieved consistent with the stewardship responsibilities and believe me we take those stewardship responsibilities seriously the department of the interior and its agencies including the minerals management service are public stewards of our nation's natural resources we also play an extremely vital role in the domestic energy development one third of all energy produced in the united states comes from resources managed by the department of the interior both onshore and offshore our national security our economy and our quality of life are dependent upon energy last week we issued a record of decision to move forward with alternative energy development in the outer continental shelf which will help us as a nation expand our use of renewable energy resources this represents an important milestone in charting a course designed to increase our energy security through the development of a variety of resources and that is so important at this time in our lives have the first slide please and you have it up this just gives us an idea of what we are looking at this is a slide from the eia you will notice our u s consumption of energy is expected to continue to increase it appears that our u s production is also going to increase but at a lower rate what that means is we import energy we import energy most of that energy is going to be oil and gas that we import it is projected that we are going to see gasoline an average gasoline price of three dollars fifty cents by this spring it is unheard of a few years ago but we now flirt with one hundred dollars a barrel oil it is projected that our increase in our demand for energy will increase by twenty  four percent by the year two thousand and thirty and during that same total period of time as the chart indicates our domestic energy will not significantly increase currently the gap as i have mentioned in this import and our demand nine million barrels of oil and one six million cubic feet of gas per day is going to be above our current levels next slide please when we look at emerging economies and this next slide takes a look at the world consumption of energy is predicted to be and once again we are used to the idea that when we needed imports we could get them i think we are facing the possibility that that is going to be more and more difficult to do as you look at the great amount of energy the world is looking at we think it is important that as part of or energy resource portfolio that we continue to develop those natural resources in fact the eia once again predicts no matter what we do in the next generation the generation that we have talked about already this morning we are going to rely largely upon the traditional forms of energy that is coal oil and gas it is my belief that we need to work with those resources as well we estimate that this area contains approximately fifteen billion barrels of oil and seventy six trillion cubic feet of gas this process as we go through a sale includes consultations and conferences with the fish and wildlife service and the national marine fishery service under the endangered species act as well as the marine mammal protection act both of those agencies issued no jeopardy biological opinions these reviews went to the potential direct the indirect and the cumulative effects of the lease sale on marine mammals including polar bears as well as subsistence activities mister chairman to use your analogy we believe that we have put on our underwear first our t shirt our socks our shirt our pants and then our shoes and lastly the belt we think we have done a good job in making sure we understand the potential effects of this sale if you go back to the last slide please that gives you an idea of some of the things we have done on this slide the proposal as well as that pink what we did after consultations of the fish and wildlife service as well as the native groups we reduced the size of the sale back to the green line so that means at least twenty five to fift they would have additional restrictions regarding exploration and development in order to protect natural resources mms has an important role in providing information in the last thirty years we have provided nearly three hundred dollars million of funding to study natural resources in the offshore of alaska including the polar bear mister chairman i see that my statement goes on much longer than the stop light does and again having been somewhat in your seat at a smaller level i understand the importance the united states geological survey he is not going to deliver an opening statement but he will be here to answer questions from any member of the select committee he is  renowned wildlife biologist with the usgs at the alaska science center and one of the world's preeminent polar bear experts so we thank you for being here as well  that i don't like to miss due dates but i want to make sure that when we roll out a package to the public in the federal register that it clearly demonstrates the well thought out process that we went through moved forward expecting to have a decision that didn't have uncertainties with it we would never make a decision that is the world we live in and natural resource management we are constantly predicting what might happen in the future but not just what what do we expect what do the best data lead us to believe and taking this extra time i wanted to make sure that our staff and i had enough time to clearly understand be able to  explain both the reasons why we accepted the information that we accepted and relied upon and the reasons why we didn't the chairman i appreciate that director hall but we do need assurances that the public  listing decision will be made before the lease sale and so there is a real problem here and we have to do something about it so  i am going to introduce legislation later today with members of this committee that will ensure that the interior department makes these two decisions in the correct order my legislation will require that the final listing and critical habitat designation decisions for the polar bear be made before the chukchi lease sale can take place this will not prevent the chukchi sea leasing but simply require that the interior department the two of you sitting here make the decisions in the proper order to protect the polar bear it is one agency you have one secretary who runs your agency and this decision making process should occur in the proper sequence and i am going to introduce legislation to make sure that that is the way in  contributed to a body of information that already existed on polar bears that research suggested that within the next fifty years or so that the population of polar bears could decline by approximately two thirds because of changes in the sea ice habitat that are related to global warming these results were based on a variety of modeling  kempthorne he must do the right thing he must ensure that mister hall makes his decision before mister luthi makes his decision he must make sure that the polar bear has the proper legal protection before mister luthi makes his decision as to where and how drilling will take place for oil and natural gas we don't want to either lose a polar bear or our potential for more oil and gas in this country but we have to do both in a way that is sensitive to the role that each plays in our society and secretary has a big historical moment that he is going to be presented with and we are going to do everything that we can in order to ensure that the public understands how critical that decision is let me thank you congressman that is a good question because it is one that has come up repeatedly in the press and in the public historically our knowledge about polar bears goes back to about the mid s and it was at that time that people who were interested in arctic wildlife realized that polar bears pretty much worldwide were being harvested extensively we had aerial trophy hunting that was occurring in alaska there was ship borne trophy hunting that was occurring north of norway they were using set guns on the svalbard archipelago to kill polar bears basically a trap kind of a situation to get the furs and populations were recognized as being  s now what has happened to the polar bear population since the marine mammal protection act became effective has it gone up mister amstrup our research has shown that the populations have increased substantially not only in alaska but in many other been an examination of the impact on the polar bear habitat and the result was that if the exploration and the drilling occurred that there would be a negligible impact on the polar bear added to it did i hear you correctly when you said luthi that is correct and that was also i believe a statement by director hall under the marine mammal protection act we are also required to confer with the wildlife agencies and that is actually one of the stricter acts that is available  course of the discharge of his duties indicates that while there is perhaps a problem with polar bear population going ahead with the lease will not have a scientific background that is necessary to effect what he wants to do and that this process is going along fairly well even though it is a two track process under the thank you i just want to comment on some of the things said on opening statement about the problem that we face people suggesting that there is no clear science about what is happening in the arctic and it is unbelievable to me that people are still adopting the attitude of the ostrich in this situation one million square miles of the arctic disappeared this summer that is the size of six californias disappeared stunning the scientific community the news that probably about forty percent of the depth of the arctic has gone awol in the last couple of decades and people who refuse to ignore this plain visual evidence i don't know how we are going to solve our problems as a country if they refuse to recognize th visual evidence it is not hypothetical it is not theoretical it is gone i just want to make that comment i want to ask mister luthi about the risk of oil spills with polar bears some people suggested essentially no risk but i am reading from the environmental impact statement of may two thousand and seven it says we estimate the chance of a large spill greater than or equal to one thousand bbl occurring in offshore waters is within a range of thirty three to fifty one percent for purposes of analysis we model one large spill of either whenever there is development the history shows us differently the reality is particularly in the alaska area industry has been very careful and we require that they be responsible for also having clean up equipment by a bus in the next year i think you would think that was significant and you would want to know that before you made decisions you have concluded there is a thirty three to fifty one percent chance of a spill which in your own words and i will quote from your own agency final environmental impact statement says our overall finding is that due to the magnitude of potential mortality as a result of a large oil spill the proposed action would likely result in significant impacts to polar bears if a large spill occurred close quote despite that own finding of your own agency nonetheless you have decided unless something changes to go ahead with the lease of these extreme number of quoted the eis certainly accurately and i would point out to you the word if a large spill occurs the purpose of an impact statement is to evaluate those potentials we then are left to the agency some discretion of how to overcome and mitigate that potential impact which we have now in addition you mentioned the second part of your statement deals with before the endangered species act kicks in or if it does frankly as i said in my opening statement we have worked with fish and wildlife service very carefully about consultation not only with the polar bear but also all marine mammals we believe that adequate protections exist should the fish and wildlife service list  believe that but i tell you what my constituents do not believe that my constituents believe the six hundred and fifty thousand people believe that you are acting in willful ignorance of known science by making this decision before the taxpayer money is used adequately to evaluate this science and when your own agency recognizes this threat it is i believe negligent in the extreme to make this decision without having the declaration by the other agency one other question i sense from your testimony reading your testimony and what the agency has said that it treats a declaration of endangered or threatened species as sort of a nullity kind of no big deal we kind of do the same thing whether or not there is  designation and i find that totally disrespectful of the law and i can't understand how you take that position tell us what would be different about your leasing decision if there had been a designation before  if i understood your question correctly it would be what would change if the polar bear had been listed as we went through the sale process is that correct mister inslee yes mister luthi what would be different would be one more layer of consultation and it would be an official consultation under the endangered species  ct however and let me underline however what i believe you are not pointing out particularly is the protections under the current act the marine mammal protection act which in many senses is actually more strict what the consultation would result in  well we don't know what it would result in but what the purpose would be is to make sure any activities that we authorize do not jeopardize the existence of whatever creature or critter happens to be listed the chairman the gentleman's time has expired process the sale of the lease is only the first the second step comes in when the company develops an exploration plan that plan has to be approved by us it has to be reviewed by the fish and wildlife service agency it has also to be consistent  with basically the state plans as well so that would be probably the first time that additional layer of consultation would take place is when they actually had a development plan that would occur again should they have a production plan and at least one more time in the me the historic activities that have occurred after those leases have been let and the species have been listed have you seen spills have you seen threats to these species have you seen loss of life mis contained they are more diesel in the preparation as opposed to actual crude oil and we have not had to my knowledge there has not been a take or harassment of the endangered species mister walden now talk to me a bit about you mentioned in response to m question but you didn't get into any detail that you would have to overcome and mitigate if there were a spill i mean your environmental planning process says here's the range of options here's the worst thing that could happen and then don't you go to the next step and say and here's how we would mitigate to make sure that didn't happen so i am concerned mister inslee is saying you have a thirty three to fifty percent chance of is it a one zero barrel spill mister luthi i believe that is what he quoted mister walden and is that your worst case scenario minerals management services office in anchorage alaska and with regard to we review basically two types of information when we evaluate a sale one is what we reasonably expect that is activity that we know will happen the activity in the water and such and for example when an operator goes under there in alaska they have gotten authorization from either the national m fisheries service or the fish and wildlife service for the marine mammal protection act authorization so that is where the protection comes in the companies do apply for that and they are required then under those acts to follow going to run out of time here i want to go back to this issue that there is an anticipation of a thirty three to fifty one percent likelihood of a one zero barrel spill if these leases are let is that accurate mister goll that is what our statistics show mister walden and you have no way to mitigate since there are many redundancies with regard to the drilling programs the technology today is much better the statistics we have used go back in time so you are including a lot of past records mister walden so in the thirty thank you mister chairman and let me continue with this line of questioning because i think it is informative mister markey has made a proposal that seems to me just on the face of it to be logical and pragmatic would you object to the legislation as proposed or do you think that that is sound policy and practice well it is probably a question that i can't answer because i don't make the decision for the administration on what they support or don't support that comes through the statement of administration first mister larson well let me ask you personally personally the activities what director luthi has been saying is true we don't have any substantial records that the oil and gas exploration have created an issue for the polar in his questioning says that by your own statement you recognize that should a catastrophe occur there is a risk here of thirty three to fifty one percent which you both said earlier this would have negligible impact does it not make sense to follow what mister markey has laid out so that we can or is it because you don't want to encounter the consultation that you will have to go hall we will proceed and quite frankly if i hadn't made the decision that i made to give us more time it would have worked that way anyway and i apologize for doing that but i just felt like we ice this year what are you doing to understand the impact on polar bears and what could you tell us about the future impact of global warming and this melting with regard to already been observed to have occurred are having a negative impact on polar bears across different reaches of their range and we expect that those negative impacts will continue what we are planning to do about  is in terms of understanding what our projections how accurate our projections are and whether or not we need to adjust our projections in the future is we do plan to continue the monitoring that we have been doing for  years we are trying to get work done in the chukchi sea which we don't have much recent research ongoing or haven't had recent research ongoing in the chukchi sea we do plan to continue the research in the beaufort sea where we have got a long term data set we don't really have any data that would address what the effects of a spill of that size might be in that environment we did do an analysis of an oil spill in the beaufort sea on an offshore proposal that  was made some years ago and what our research showed there is that spills that escape the shoreline that is when the oil moved offshore there was a  substantial risk of a large number of bears encountering the oil in the chukchi sea the situation is very different than it was in the beaufort sea and it would require additional work like that to get quantitative information on what those risks might be with regard to the risks of polar bears if they encounter oil the data that are available are few but pretty clear polar bears do not do well when they get into oil they tend to groom themselves they to read it in detail however as i would say again we wouldn't be proceeding with this sale if we weren't comfortable that we had enough knowledge enough data to say that we can adequately see that the polar bear protected as well as other endangered species if let me underline if if the department makes a decision to list the polar bear we take it i am very serious about seeing that we do this right and i believe we are doing it right it is interesting we talk a lot about data and science and the information that is out there and one of the reasons the data that has been collected so far is in anticipation of sales that is one of the reasons that we actually start spending money to try and get more and more data about the chukchi sea about natural resources so it is actually a help and to some degree with our scientific  a decision to list a species as endangered or threatened in the context of global warming seen wetlands developed we know exactly the point sources of where we are losing them all the different aspects associated with it we have better population estimates in a lot of cases  so in the case of global warming where the impacts are coming literally from everywhere it has been pretty difficult however the responsibility to answer the from but for the purposes of the listing of the endangered species act it is what is happening to the habitat that is the question that we are answering mister shadegg would any of the other of you like to comment on that potential that someone could on the basis that the sea was rising allege that some country was an island country could allege that the species on their habitat were threatened as a result of what is happening and try to affect any decision you make based on a remote effect and you said depending on the country it is coming from effects very remote from where for example you were looking  that could impact a listed species if it has any kind of federal connection would require section seven consultation and under coal fired plant then energy or whomever would have to consult the question would then be  do we have the science do we have the technology do we have the capability of making the linkage to take because the endangered species act is pretty specific in what we have to establish and the that we were wrong that we couldn't speculate that we had to have a direct cause leading to take before we could say that take was occurring and that the attorneys that have really interpreted that t but for clause but for this action would this take have occurred and the burden is on us and the science to be able to make that very direct linkage to the take and to the diminish of the population of the species because the endangered species act listing is for the species habitat is a measurement of damage or positive impacts if we can improve it to the species  act has us analyze take and then leading to jeopardy or no jeopardy and the science as it is today even the ipcc information would not allow us to segment out to my question would be yes mister hall yes they would have to consult if they believed that they may contribute to the effects but then the next question is is it likely to adversely affect and that is really the part i was answering there that would be extremely oddly oil is bubbling up out of the arizona every single day sixty years later sixty years later you can see ideological issues as it looks at fish and wildlife issues any of you mister luthi mister chairman congressman cleaver this is one i think i really should defer to hall over my twenty nine years with the fish and wildlife service i think i can speak with some confidence that our employees approach work from number one trying to be a professional and number two trying to be honest about what we know and don't know and as i spoke earlier in all science there is a lot we don't know but we have to deal with it but as far as being ideological i believe vast majority of our employees and i am one of those believes that we should be advocates for truth whatever that is and if the truth means that there is an impact we need to say that and if the truth means there isn't we need to say that i mean when we begin to discuss this issue global warming endangered species quite often we get into an ideological discussion that has to do with  of the science based on ideology and not science but dealing with the whole issue of receiving the facts and dealing with them honestly is there any doubt in your mind at this point that the habitat of the polar bear has been damaged oh i think there is a difference between has been we certainly lost twenty percent but the decision that we are trying to make and will make will be over the foreseeable future which actually would take us out to mid century as well this and perhaps i am not being clear it is not just making a decision that is important it is making it clear and why because we had over six hundred thousand comments come in and there were people that didn't  agree that the issue you have described is there there are people that believe that it was our responsibility is to answer for everyone that when we have uncertainty that we accept because we accept some risk  everything was clear that this is a clear problem because twenty percent looks clear to me i mean if i had one hundred dollars and lost twenty percent of it i clearly lost twenty dollars mister hall okay maybe i might owe you an apology i thought you were talking about the listing decision versus a decision that we need to do something about climate change we need to do something about climate change starting yesterday and it needs to be a serious effort to try and control greenhouse gases which is probably the only thing we actually can control if the asked you a question about bear population he cut you off when you were still talking i was curious if you were going to say anything further about recent years of population mister amstrup thank you congressman i was going to add a couple of comments so the trend from the time that the over exploitation was recognized in the late s and early s was a period of growth in many areas of the polar bear's range and unfortunately we don't have data from all areas of the polar bear's distribution but to the extent that we have data it suggested a period of population growth but that was in a period of stable environment stable sea ice and it has changed in recent years we have seen the loss of ice that congressm cleaver was just referring to and it is projected to continue to decline at a rapid rate and in fact the declines that are predicted actually haven't been as fast as what we have actually observed so it is clear that we are losing an increasing amount of polar bear habitat the habitat losses in a couple of areas have already been shown to have negative effects on polar bear populations mister hall of new york can we quantify this or do we just know that as we lose overflow crowds to find out what they can do to ask what they can do and a lot of them are doing something as i am buying wind power every month in my home burning twenty percent biodiesel in my home heating oil driving a hybrid vehicle et cetera and we just passed a substantial it is not a perfect energy bill but it does some things it puts billions of new dollars into renewables and into conservation and carbon sequestration and  systems being set up in the northeast and the western states as well as the european union and other parts of the world my question is whether your projection of the increase and your statement that no matter what we do i chairman congressman hall that slide comes from the energy information agency and that is what they are saying that even with the increased emphasis on renewables which i support absolutely one of the reasons i am so thrilled to be director mms is that we are starting an alternative energy program in offshore but that is what that slide says that is what they tell us that no matter what we do it is not going to move fast enough to make a significant decrease through at least the next generation of coal o excuse me i want to get through a couple more questions before it goes red you are aware i am sure that california's electricity demand has been flat the last twenty years it has gone up and down a little bit it basically has been flat even as the rest of the country has been on an increasing curve  and that is because we presume the regulatory climate in california being stricter air resources board and other regulations that they have adapted to and california is not a developing nation with no high technology they have big screen tvs and video games and lots of industry and so it seems to me that there are examples that we can look at to show that energy consumption can be limited without limiting our way of life and our productivity so i don't understand here is where you get into the question i think that congressman cleaver was mentioning about ideology you can draw a graph that projects i have seen graphs that project different outcomes depending on what policies this government adopts and what lifestyle you know do we choose to fight literally and give billions of our dollars and the lives of our men and women in not as dangerous but do require us to develop new technologies let me just ask you as a follow up because i know my time did just run out i am curious the lease total in your testimony your written testimony for the chukch thank you and i will have regional director john goll deal with that technical question because i think we do have a value i know we have a value on the amount mister goll the issue is until you inventory and we really find out what is there we don't know sale with regard to the bids we don't know that until the sale happens mister hall of new york well some of us believe that these offshore leases and leases on public lands have been given away too cheaply to the oil companies is there any possibility i would invite you to come to our offices and see how we conduct our sales particularly in the gulf of mexico where we have some more experience as well after a lease sale is offered we actually go through a process once the bids are in and we evaluate are america's leading expert on the polar bear what is your judgment as to the impact of an oil spill on their habitat mister amstrup the impact of an oil spill on polar bears would depend on the size of the spill the currents the winds that would distribute the oil after the spill all of those things would have to be taken into account and we don't have data on those things but what we do have data on is that the  effect of oil on polar bears is in a wild environment where they don't have access to strong medical veterinary care is likely to be fatal so the chairman so it could be a disaster something happens that once again keeps the order in place that had been decided upon which is that mister hall would decide first on the polar bear and the protections needed for the mister hall mentioned earlier that he was somewhat uncomfortable as a biologist trying to make a political decision but the problem is just the opposite we have political players confronting a scientific decision and the chief decision maker is the secretary of the interior mister kempthorne who could turn this upside down decision right side up in a nanosecond if he wanted to all he has to do is say let us use common sense let us ensure that we understand that extinction is forever and we must make that decision first before we send the oil and gas industry out into the critical habitat to break up the polar bear ice and so while i appreciate the testimony that both of you have presented to us today in the end if this is not fixed it  that has not been dealt with by the department of interior in the end man can adapt but the bear cannot we can act to prevent global warming but the bear cannot we can develop alternatives to oil the bear cannot when the ice is gone man cheers about new commercial opportunities for oil and gas drilling the bear starves and drowns i have been hoping for common sense from the department of interior and from secretary kempthorne but i have heard that all too common abandonment of common sense here today we are going to have to redouble our efforts on this committee and in this congress to head off the extinction of the polar bear if this decision is delayed in making a determination as to drilling in the chukchi sea we will still be years from the first barrel of oil ever coming from the ocean but if we get this sequence wrong in terms of the protection the more i listen to this the more i understand that this is a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing before they act that could result in a suicide squeeze play for the polar bear and this is a big deal i come from seattle area where doctor cecelia bitses who has predicted the demise of the ice cap where george devoshe is who has been studying the arctic for twenty five years now and is starting for the first time to see star polar bears wash up on the beaches  been studying for twenty five years where he has seen very significant changes in migratory bird habits so it is a big deal in the country i come from and i want to focus on the fact that this left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing is very important it is clear isn't it mister luthi that if you do this leasing and then there is a designation of a status by the agency it will be too late for you to do what the agency may want you to do isn't that right inslee taking some liberty with what you mean should we go ahead with the leasing sale and offer the leases for sale and some are purchased then the decision is made by the department on the status of the bear we have lost something is what i believe you are indicating correct mister inslee you have lost the ability to do what the federal government is charged by the taxpayers to do which is to protect the polar bear now if they make the designation before this they might compel you to reduce the sale by ten percent for instance and you could reduce the sale lost the ability to prevent drilling in certain areas isn't that correct mister luthi we have not lost the ability to protect the bear under the marine mammal protection act at this time mister inslee i know you don't like the answer to this question but i think you answered it once you issue the leases it is too late to go back and terminate them you will not have the ability to take back the leases that the other federal agency have told you that it would have been unduly dangerous to the bear isn't that me es four of your document over the life of the hypothetical development and production that could follow from the lease sale other effects are possible for events such as a large accidental oil spill or natural gas release we estimate the chance of a large spill greater than or equal to one thousand bbl occurring and entering offshore waters is within a range of thirty three fifty one percent that is a direct quote now i have heard some suggest well no that is really not considering all the whiz bang technology we have but i can't believe that an agency of the federal government would issue this document and say there is a thirty three to fifty one percent chance of a mortal oil spill not taking into consideration existing technology not taking into consideration existing geological information not tak into consideration existing information of the bear and mister luthi it is true isn't it that your agency reached a conclusion that there is a thirty three to fifty one percent chance of these type of spills considering existing technology respond he seems to want to be able to tackle this one thank you mister goll we update the statistics with regard to the probability on a periodic basis and then that rolls in new technology so the data there again reflected what the past history has been mister inslee i am sorry but this should be really really simple you used the best information about the technology you have that is available to you when you reached the assessment isn't that correct you didn't just ignore what you knew today this is the beginning of what i think is going to be one of the most historic environmental decisions in our country's history and this committee intends on being a part of that process from this moment  climate air and energy program for the center for biological diversity she is focusing her work on the impacts of heat trapping pollution and protection of plants and animals threatened by global warming she is one of the leading experts on the polar bear and the endangered species act we welcome you ms siegel whenever you are ready please thank you mister chairman and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify and thank you so much for your leadership on energy independence and global warming i have some slides which i think will come up in a moment and as you know the polar bear is completely dependent on sea ice for all of its essential behaviors including travel and mating and hunting its primary prey of ice dependent seals polar bears can't hunt seals from land and so tied to the ice are they that some mother polar bears even give birth to their clubs in snow dens like this one we can see if we can advance the slides advance please just to there thank you the future of the polar bear in a rapidly warming arctic is grim next slide polar bears are drowning next slide resorting to cannibalism when they don't have access to their usual food sources and starving next sli please this photo was taken in september two thousand and seven in northern quebec canada this bear is in the final stages of starvation and while we can't say for sure that this bear died as a direct result of global warming we know that global warming is and will continue to increase the number of bears that suffer this fate but we also know that it is not too late to do something about it and that is why the center for biological diversity submitted the petition to list the polar bear in february two thousand and five the listing process has already benefited the species by raising awareness of its plight and leading to new information which we would not otherwise have had most importantly the usgs completed a study on the future status of polar bears next sli to do this they divided the world's polar bear populations into four ecological regions shown here and they modeled the future population size of polar bears based on the ipcc's ab scenario often called the business as usual emission scenario the results of the usgs study are profoundly disturbing under business as usual emissions polar bears will be completely gone from the divergent ice ecoregion shown here in the purple and the seasonable i ecoregion shown here in the green by two thousand and fifty the good news is that polar bears may hang on a bit longer here in the convergent ice ecoregion in blue and the archipelago region in orange but the risk of extinction by the end of the century in these areas is still unacceptably large over seventy five percent in the blue area and over forty percent in the orange area most disturbingly the usgs study may underestimate the risk to polar bears this is because the arctic ice is melting faster than forecast by any of the world's leading climate models next slide please you have seen the arctic ice pack in september one thousand nine hundred and seventy nine next slide and again in two thousand and seven this next please shows graphically actual observed minimum sea ice extent in the heavy red line compared to model projections in the dash colored lines next slide please yes good you can see that not one single model projected the record new minimum low sea ice extent in two thousand and seven and further that there was less ice in the arctic this past year than more than half of the models projected for tw situation in the arctic has reached a critical threshold but there is still time to save the polar bear if we act immediately a critically important first step is to list the polar bear under the endangered species act next slide our nation's strongest and most successful law has a critically important role to play in saving this species and we also need to rapidly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions including of course carbon dioxide but also other pollutants including methane and black carbon that have shorter atmospheric lifetimes for a very high warming impact on the arctic and we also need to protect the arctic in the species most at risk from further direct impacts such as oil and gas activities and the oil spills that come with them but right now the opposite is happening and the only thing that is keeping pace with the melting of the sea ice is the breakneck speed with which the department of interior is rushing to improve new oil and gas development in polar bear habitat and now the fish and wildlife service has illegally delayed the polar bear listing as well it has been over three years since we submitted the petition to list the polar bear and we have already had to go to court once the polar bear shouldn't have to wait any longer there are many reasons the chukchi lease sale one hundred and ninety three should not proceed at a minimum this sale and other oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat should not go forward until the polar bear is listed until its critical habitat is designated until  recovery plan is in place and then only if these agencies can affirmatively demonstrate that these activities would truly be compatible with polar bear conservation chukchi sale one hundred and ninety three cannot possibly meet this standard and therefore it years to conservation and sustainable community issues in alaska and for her work ms williams received a presidential appointment as special assistant to the secretary of interior for alaska we thank you and whenever you are ready please begin ms williams mister chairman and members of the committee polar bears are indeed on thin ice thank you so much for holding this critical hearing to help focus the nation's attention on the very serious plight of our country's polar bears whose survival is jeopardized by global warming and proposed offshore lease sales polar bears are bellwethers for the nation and the world their fate reflects our fate the good news is that there is still time to act but unquestionably the time to act is now there are three actions that we can and must take to protect polar bears all of these actions will be beneficial to our nation's future first as has been well described we must postpone the chukchi lease sale until adequate information regarding polar bears and other key species is available and certainly we cannot hold this lease sale until polar bears are listed under the endangered species act and their critical habitat designated secondly we must provide critically needed funding for polar bear research and management especially for the chukchi population and third we must of course pass comprehensive legislation substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions next sli we go as shown in red and in fact the arctic ocean is the warmest ever recorded in some locations five degrees centigrade above normal next slide sea ice has reduced dramatically in arctic water especially committe members you can see where the chukchi sea is that is where the dramatic reduction has occurred as doctor steven amstrup has stated our results have demonstrated that as the sea ice goes so goes the polar bear next sli as evidenced by cannibalism and these are slides of the brutal bloody fingerprints of global warming as it relates to polar bears as evidenced by cannibalism starvation drownings decreased cub survival small skull size and more the evidence is compelling alaska polar bears are suffering from the effects of global warming right now given the above it doesn't make sense to add a substantial additional risk to the survival of polar bears from the chukchi lease sale that is scheduled to take place in less than a month absolutely not the sale must be postponed next slide the chukchi is an amazing part of our national heritage and home to the chukchi bearing population of polar bears overall this extraordinary sea nourishes humans and a myriad of other very valuable species this slide shows the vast extent of the proposed chukchi lease sale which is in red and how it overlaps with the american now three critical points we do not know enough about the chukchi sea population of polar bears or the biology of the chukchi sea to make an informed decision about this sale we simply do not know how many polar bears there are in the chukchi sea we don't know where they are distributed every federal agency admits one of the following that a reliable population estimate for the chukchi sea currently does not exist quote unquote that existing population estimates quote are to be considered of little value for management unquote and that the population quote is already declining in addition the polar bear's numerous valuable species of whales walruses seals birds and fish exist in the chukchi sea but this is next slide what i think and the next slide is one of the most important statements made by a federal agency and that is looking at the chukchi area as a whole the national marine fishery service has said quote the information necessary to properly assess the biological effects of sale one hundred and ninety three is not available closed quote congress would never make a decision with this little information it is irresponsible this kind of ignorance is not bliss to polar bears or the other denizens of the chukchi especially when this ignorance is serving as the basis for proceeding with a very risky lease sale next slide we do however know that there have been major impact oil development in alaska for example there is an average of over five hundred spills from the north slope oil industry each year and as the exxon valdez oil spill underscores human error can cause massive devastating oil spill oil when it is in broken ice and that is what the chukchi has this is a lethal combination for polar bears next slide as has been repeatedly stated there is a thirty three to fifty one percent chance or an average of forty percent chance of an oil spill so bottom line what does this mean as you have stated mister chairman even mms says that quote due to the magnitude of potential mortality as a result of an oil spill sale one hundred and ninety three could result in significant adverse impact to polar bears as special assistant i supported several oil and gas lease sales but i do not support leasing in chukchi at this time it is irresponsible before closing i do want to emphasize the need for congress to fund necessary research and management efforts for the protection of the chukchi and our nation's other population of polar bears and of course the final comment is first and foremost in addition to these actions we must dramatically reduce our emissions last statement we are a compassionate country filled with innovation and renewable energy resources we do not need to write a death sentence for polar bears from premature ill advised offshore leasing and recklessly high emissions of greenhouse gases we can do better and for the sake of polar bears ourselves and future generations we must the chairman we thank you so much ms williams and our final witness is ms jamie rappaport clark the executive vice president of defenders of wildlife she has spent twenty years in government service primarily with the u s fish and wildlife service where she served as director today highlights the conflicted and misguided priorities of this current administration on the one hand the bush administration continues to drag its feet protecting polar bears under the endangered species act on the other hand it is rushing allowing politics to trump science and endangered species decision making as the chair mentioned as a long term career biologist with the federal government before becoming director of the fish and wildlife service i know firsthand the challenges faced by the dedicated professionals implementing the endangered species act and consequently i am certainly reluctant to criticize them however i cannot ignore what this administration's political appointees have done to the administration of esa and our other conservation laws this administration has repeatedly engaged in political manipulation of science and conservation the interior department's own inspector general exposed cases of inappropriate political interference with the professional assessments and recommendations of the department's biologists scientists and wildlife managers in endangered species listings and critical habitat determinations decisions which the department has now been forced to is once again putting political interest before conservation there are numerous factors that support listing polar bears under the endangered species act above all known threats however is the unequiv the polar bear's arctic sea ice is literally melting away as my colleagues just demonstrated interior's own scientists have concluded that if we continue business as usual there will be no wild polar bears left in the united and fifty clearly there is no scientific rationale for further delay polar bears should be listed immediately once the interior department proposed to list polar bears the minerals management service and fish  obligated by law to determine whether oil and gas leasing in the chukchi sea is likely to jeopardize polar bears and if so to confer on the leasing and its impact after polar bears are listed the agencies must consult under the esa to ensure that the listing is not likely to jeopardize their continued existence it would fly in the face of the precautionary approach to the endangered species act if the interior department were able to take advantage of its own delay its own delay in making a listing decision in order to expedite oil and gas leasing in the chukchi sea without fully evaluating the potential harm to polar bears at a minimum the administration should delay any leasing in the chukchi or any other polar bear habitat until the listing decision has been made and consultation requirements are fully met ms clark the potential harm to polar bears from oil and gas leasing in the chukchi sea is substantial such development is highly risky and detrimental to polar bears and other arctic wildlife and most disturbing there is no technology to respond to and clean up spilled oil at sea in conditions that are prevalent in the arctic the impact of promoting additional burning of fossil add further pressure to an already stressed polar bear population we cannot continue business as usual the plight of the polar bears is a warning to all of us that we need to act now to reduce our use of fossil fuels in conclusion the polar  further leasing in polar bear habitat until adequate measures are in place to protect the polar bears in their habitat from the harmful effects of such development most importantly the administration should stop their foot dragging and work with the congress to develop an energy policy that would reduce our use of fossil fuels and our production of greenhouse gas pollution if we act now there is hope for the polar bears the arctic ecosystem ourselves and our children thank you mister chairman for the opportunity to testify and i delaying the decision on the leasing in the chukchi sea until there is a decision made on the listing of the polar bear ms clark absolutely mister chairman it just makes common sense the chairman now when you had the job of running the fish and wildlife service would you have made a recommendation to the secretary of interior to make that decision ms clark unequivocally yes the chairman you would have and would it be appropriate for you to make a recommendation to the secretary here does he have it within his power to rectify this problem ms clark yes he does mister chairman on the one hand he has an obvious statutory responsibility to make a decision based on the best science available whether or hole as i had mentioned we don't know how many polar bears there are there we don't know their condition we don't know their distribution we don't know how the recent melting which you saw so dramatic in this area is affecting them we do not know other than we believe from previous research that a spill would be lethal but we don't know the precise traveling of that spill and so forth and so we do know though that we have no thank you mister chairman i believe that there are many reasons that chukchi sea lease sale one hundred and ninety three should not go forward but the fact that the polar bear has not yet been listed and that the process has now dragged on for nearly three years when it  supposed to be completed within two years is reason enough to halt this sale the chairman i think that is absolutely all we really have to know that there is a year delay already in protection of survive so that is the equation and we have to ensure that the secretary of interior makes the right decision or the if i could add i think in listening to the testimony one of the most significant revelations as i was listening to it relates to what the decision is that has to be made the decision by the secretary and the director regarding the polar bear needs to be made based on the best scientific information available they seem to be trying to solve the cause of endangerment before making the call that its endangered the endangered species act does not call for that it calls for a decision to be made on the biological status of the species at this time  clear answers with the previous panel i am interested ms clark if you could give us a picture of how the machinery of the in the next millennium is i was interested in whether or not there is political interference and number one is it the normal process that the professional staff the experts the scientists collect information make recommendations then to the director and then those recommendations are acted on is that the normal clark i can share with you how it used to work i was a long time endangered species biologist before accepting the presidential appointment as director during that time  you are right in that as director i relied very heavily on the professional staff they are highly competent incredibly dedicated and very capable and they would conduct all the science and  the kind of analytics they are closest to the ground closest to the species and certainly the most knowledgeable about the scientific effects they would then make a recommendation that would be moved through the regional office and into washington the responsibility of those of us in washington were to review the science and ensure that it complied with the policy and statutory requirements of in this case the endangered species act while certainly there is the opportunity for the policy makers political appointees to come up with a result with a different conclusion than the recommendation of the scientists and biologists it was absolutely unheard of that the policy makers would change the underlying science congressman cleaver if i might elaborate a little bit over the past seven years the bush administration has essentially shutdown the listing program for endangered species this administration has listed fewer species than any administration in history and it is not because of a lack of worthy candidates overall there are two hundred and seventy nine species that are official candidates and have been waiting an average of nineteen years for protection secretary has gone six hundred and seventeen days without listing a single species under the endangered species act the second longest delay in history was in one thousand nine hundred and eighty one when then secretary of the interior james watt went one hundred and eighty two days without listing a species in that situation congress quickly amended the act to include the strict statutory deadlines for listing species that we now have we have repeatedly seen political appointees in this administration use delays such as the current delay with the polar bear listing to interfere with the conclusions of service biologists one example from a similar situation concerns a species called the california tiger salamander the service was under a court order to issue a final listing decision for this species and asked the court for more time this time was then used by the political appointee to overrule the judgment of agency scientists the court later ruled that  request or a delay had been used to illegally reduce protection for that species under investigation by congress and the inspector general the service has admitted to political interference in seven listing decisions which involved former assistant secretary julie macdonald but has it not actually committed to correcting this interference and the center for biological diversity has found evidence of political interference an additional fifty five endangered species act listing decisions that the agency has refused to address and this is why we are so concerned with the current delay in the listing decision for the polar bear mister cleaver i think there government over the past few years and so it will not be a shock to see it happen here  s williams my final question how far can polar bears swim ms williams they can swim long distances part of it depends on the conditions but it is important to note that when polar bears swim they use a lot of energy they are really designed to swim from iceberg to iceberg or short distances where there is no ice they are not designed to swim five hundred miles which some of the projections show the ice will be five hundred miles offshore and polar bears will have the great challenge of swimming five hundred miles from the edge of the ice to come on land to den what we found and it was actually mms scientists have found that with diminished ice several years ago there was a storm and they found more and more polar bears in the water as opposed on ice because there is less ice and it was those mms scientists who found the drowned polar bears and polar bears were drowned after that storm because they didn't have enough  to rest on and to seek refuge on so polar bears can drown when they have too far to swim they can use too much energy when they have too far to swim it can affect their denning activities and other activities so polar bears again were designed  be on ice not swimming in water except for short distances so the more the ice retreats the worse it is for polar bears and of course polar bears swimming through oil as we know from a study that was done by oil bubbling up ms williams mister cleaver if i may respond to that one of my jobs when i was special assistant was to serve on the exxon valdez trustee council and as you know the exxon valdez oil spill occurred almost nineteen years ago there is still dramatic oil residues and release from that spill today we also know from exxon valdez the spill cleanup process failed when you combine what we see from spills throughout the nation in the world and the failure of spill cleanup to begin with the long residual life of oil spills and when you combine that with the chukchi sea which is the worst possible conditions for even trying to spill ice imagine that you just have this big tub filled with ice cubes and you pour oil in there how are you going to get the oil out between the ice cubes various demonstration projects have been tried and they have failed and even under the best of circumstances to clean up that oil in those conditions so we have a triple i thank you before i forget i want to enter into the record the environmental impact statement that i was referring to in my previous questions this planned sequence of events to allow this leasing before this designation makes me you about hunting issues hunting of polar bears now is prohibited by the marine mammal protection act but it is allowed for people who go out and hunt in canada and bring them back as trophies i am told there is some significant decline going on  hudson bay polar bear population if there is a designation how would it effect that loophole could the agency close that loophole or would it require statutory action inslee when a species is listed as threatened or endangered under the endangered species act it is automatically designated as depleted under the marine mammal protection act under normal circumstances species that are designated a depleted under the marine mammal protection act are not eligible for the approval of sport hunted trophies from canada so it is possible that if the polar bear is listed under the endangered species act that importation of sport hunted polar bear trophies from canada will no longer be possible i would note however that director hall at the press conference last week when he announced a delay on the listing decision did also note that it might be possible to scientists have attributed the decline of the western hudson bay population to global warming and also to the harvest of approximately forty bears each year from that population which at some point during this kind of species ceased to be sustainable great going back to this listing decision and how it affects the leasing we have talked a lot about the danger of oil spills and the thirty three to fifty one percent likelihood of a spill and  potential mortality but there is another huge sort of elephant in the room if you will and that is the co associated with burning the oil that we drill and that is really the ultimate  potential mortality of the species of co coming out of the oil we burn and we drill going in the atmosphere heating the atmosphere melting the ice cap by the way someone said it is only a twenty percent reduction that is way way off could you explain thousand and seven was twenty three percent less than the previous minimum but it was essentially forty percent less than the average between the s and currently but it has been ten percent per year since the s mister inslee do i understand there is both a reduction in the area covered to the extent that in a very short period of time either a decade or shortly thereafter there will be no summer ice by area but there is also about a forty percent reduction on the average depth of the ice it is pretty much across its ra an average person and said how thick do you think the arctic ice cap is over the north pole they would say one hundred feet two hundred feet right it is only three feet and that has diminished by forty to fifty percent in the last several decades and so we talking about a very fragile habitat ice that is on average only three feet thick that is why global warming has had such a profound effect on it mister inslee so if the polar bear is listed would it be consultation provision that the administration seemingly is trying to escape would require the evaluation the analysis of not only the direct and indirect effects of the proposed actions but the interrelated  interdependent effects and so in that light there would be a much more comprehensive review and analysis of the impacts of the threats affecting the polar bears than would ever occur under the marine mammal protection act or any inner agency conferencing under a proposed species listing mister inslee very well our time has expired and i want to thank the witnesses all of the witness both panels been very educational we are at least many of us on this panel are hopeful that this will help inspire the administration and the secretary to take another look at this issue and i will be joining mister markey in introducing legislation today should that not take place by revisiting by the administration to do this by legislature or otherwise and i have of course been joined by two dozen of my colleagues in a letter to the secretary urging him to revisit this what we believe to be a very ill considered decision