POLISCOPE
Back to feed
FEDERALhearing transcript
High Impact

Hearing on the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act (H.R. 1146)

Original title: H.R. 1146, "Arctic Culture and Coastal Plain Protection Act"

January 1, 2019

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing concerns the legislative debate over whether to allow or prohibit oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which directly impacts federal land management policy and the traditional lands of the Gwich'in and Iñupiat peoples.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Gwich'in Nation

The Gwich'in people maintain that the coastal plain is critical to their culture and subsistence, and they advocate for its protection from development.

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation

The corporation represents Iñupiat interests and provides perspectives on the economic and resource development potential of the region.

Native Village of Kaktovik

As the community located within the refuge, they are directly impacted by federal land management decisions regarding the coastal plain.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2019.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources held a hearing on March 26, 2019, to discuss H.R. 1146, a bill aimed at protecting the of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The hearing featured testimony from tribal leaders, scientists, and regional corporation representatives regarding the potential impacts of development in the region.

Key Facts

  • The hearing was held on March 26, 2019, by the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  • The subject of the hearing was H.R. 1146, the Arctic Cultural and Coastal Plain Protection Act.
  • Testimony was provided by 11 witnesses, including tribal leaders, scientists, and representatives from regional corporations.
  • The hearing record includes supplemental testimony and questions submitted for the record by Richard Glenn and Matthew Rexford.
  • The Gwich'in Steering Committee and various tribal chiefs provided testimony regarding the cultural and environmental significance of the coastal plain.
  • Representatives from the North Slope Borough and the Native Village of Kaktovik provided testimony regarding local perspectives on development.

Why It Matters

This hearing concerns the legislative debate over whether to allow or prohibit oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which directly impacts federal land management policy and the traditional lands of the Gwich'in and Iñupiat peoples.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the purpose of H.R. 1146?
The bill is titled the 'Arctic Cultural and Protection Act' and is intended to provide protections for the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Who testified at this hearing?
Witnesses included leaders from the Gwich'in Steering Committee, the Arctic Village Council, the Tanana Chiefs Conference, the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation, the Native Village of Kaktovik, as well as scientists and representatives from the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Sponsors

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Indigenous Perspectives Diversity

The hearing highlights that indigenous groups in Alaska hold differing views on development, with the Gwich'in Steering Committee opposing development and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation providing a different perspective.

Connected Entities

organizationArctic Slope Regional CorporationRepresented by Richard GlennMap →
organizationGwich'in Steering CommitteeRepresented by Bernadette Demientieff and Sam AlexanderMap →
personPaul A. GosarRanking Republican Member of the SubcommitteeMap →
personAlan S. LowenthalChair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral ResourcesMap →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100
  • Significance85
    How much this matters to a regular citizen
  • Controversy80
    Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
  • Entertainment20
    Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
  • Buzz30
    Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools

Share or embed this record

POLISCOPE publisher tools

Share or embed this record