Lisa Murkowski

We need to better handle, in terms of what is what the criteria is and, more importantly, avoiding any arbitrary definitions.

What we are faced with--we just had the--a project in the interior of the State be denied because of an ARNI designation on the Tanana River.

Are you considering conducting such an analysis?

I certainly understand the importance of Secure Rural Schools program and support it, but I'm also concerned that, with this restructuring, it's essentially going to compete against other important programs.

The EPA designation comes in and essentially circumvents that public input.

I want to gain a little more understanding about ARNI.

I think the common person would look at this and can't believe that we're having a conversation that we would be regulating milk as an oil product and need to have some kind of a response plan.

One of the things that came up in this process--and you referenced the litigation, that's one thing--but, there were some different standards that were in place initially for nitrogen dioxide and no requirement for GHG emissions.

I cannot understand how it can take so long for an agency to approve an air permit for a drilling rig.

The EPA shouldn't be using arbitrary designations, like ARNIs, to override statutes that are passed by the Congress.

Can you tell me how you determined the amount of these fees and if there are any circumstances under which they might be adjusted?

But, again, what we're asking you to do--and I said this in my statement--we're asking for the EPA to do its job, which is to issue the air-quality permit, not to make a determination as to whether or not exploration activity offshore…

I do not want to abolish the EPA. I simply want the EPA to do its job.

Lisa, you've got to rein in the EPA. They're out of control. They're going to put me out of business.

Well, and I appreciate the fact that you have just said that you don't believe that these that this will endanger human health, and that's what we're looking at in the issuance of these permits.

The budget cuts are draconian. They cut across the EPA and will, in my mind, result in more pollution in our air and in our water and on our land.

I recognize that today's hearing is about our fiscal year 2012 budget request, but most of the questions that I will direct to you this afternoon involve policy.

Let me ask you, though, because the initial comment period for the original SEIS had ended in October.

The BOEM announced that as part of its ongoing litigation in the lease sales up north, that it has revised its schedule for the completion of the supplemental EIS.

I think it is important when we look at the issue, and I ask you as subcommittee members when you look at the issue and ask yourself the question why now and why this kind of funding.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is preventing the company from developing its leases by not issuing necessary air permits.

I think one of the things that is important to recognize is that we both share a common interest in ensuring that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely, that the agencies under our jurisdiction are accountable to the Congress and to the public.

One more question before my time expires here, and this relates to an issue that was brought up in the Energy Committee hearing last week.

We have to find new sources of oil and we have to find it soon or we risk the possibility that that pipeline will be decommissioned.

One of my top priorities has been ensuring that we honor our commitments to Native Americans and Alaska Natives.