Providing for Congressional Disapproval of the Rule Submitted By the Bureau of Land Management Relating to ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision''

Floor Speech

Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose H.J. Res. 131. The Congressional Review Act resolution here would overturn BLM's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision.

My Republican colleagues are, once again, pursuing policies that expand our Nation's carbon pollution and expose our communities to future disasters. Not only would this legislation grant access to one of the most ecologically sensitive and, yes, incredibly difficult regions to drill but it would reverse significant strides that Democrats have made to protect lands that Tribal Nations have occupied since time immemorial.

This misguided bill would lock in oil and gas development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area known to the Gwich'in people as the sacred place where life begins. The Coastal Plain is the heart of the Porcupine caribou's calving grounds. It hosts nearly 200 migratory bird species annually, connecting the rest of the United States and also the world to this cradle of our natural heritage.

Equally vital, the 9,000-strong Gwich'in Nation, whose subsistence and culture depend on the caribou herd, reside along the herd's migratory route, making any disruption not only a threat to biodiversity but also an assault on indigenous livelihoods and traditions.

Let me read a quote from the Executive Director of the Gwich'in Steering Committee, Kristen Moreland. She says: ``It is unthinkable that our congressional decisionmakers continue to push to exploit the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge for oil and gas drilling.''

She continues: ``We rely on the caribou, not only spiritually and culturally, but for our survival and subsistence. This action from D.C. is an insult to the Gwich'in people and ignores those realities.''

Sovereign Inupiat for a Living Arctic also oppose this proposal. They said:

Many Alaska Native communities are already facing negative health impacts from oil and gas development on their lands and are struggling to provide for their families due to impacts on the local fish and wildlife populations.

Mr. Speaker, these words remind us that the climate crisis is here, it is real, and it is exacerbated by this administration's relentless push toward fossil fuels.

In the Arctic, temperatures are rising four times faster than the global average.

It is the indigenous communities in northern Alaska and in the refuge that are disproportionately feeling the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. Melting permafrost and changing species migration patterns are threatening food security, cultural traditions, and their ways of life.

Mr. Speaker, you will hear my Republican colleagues argue that increased oil and gas development in the Arctic will be good for America's bottom line, but that is patently false. Let me take you back to 2017 when Republicans cut a backroom deal to help pay for Trump's billionaire tax cuts the first time around by drilling in the Arctic Refuge.

Two Arctic Refuge lease sales were included, in part, to offset the cost of those tax giveaways for the wealthy. Republicans in Congress and the Trump administration promised that these lease sales would bring in $1.8 billion in revenue for the Federal Government and the State of Alaska.

Well, when the first lease sale finally took place in 2021, guess what happened, Mr. Speaker?

It generated less than $15 million, that is around 2 percent, of what the CBO had estimated. In 2022, two of those lessees actually asked BLM to cancel and refund their leases.

Separately, in 2021, two development companies actually paid $10 million to walk away from their legacy leases in the Arctic Refuge. That is about the only revenue we have been able to generate in this spectacularly difficult place to drill.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a nonpartisan group focused on deficit reduction, recently said that drilling in the refuge has never be a credible revenue offset, and it isn't now. They even found that new leasing in the area would only raise, at most, $30 million. That is a drop in the bucket, Mr. Speaker, when you consider my Republican colleagues' big, ugly bill will cost American taxpayers $3.4 trillion.

This resolution is the latest attack from my Republican colleagues to undercut our public lands, to prop up fossil fuel polluters, and the expensive energy sources that they peddle and leave people out of the decisionmaking process, all while driving up energy prices for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in the longstanding, bipartisan support for protecting the Arctic Refuge by opposing H.J. Res.

In closing, I strongly oppose this resolution. It would open up ecologically sensitive, culturally important, and incredibly remote regions of the Arctic to oil and gas drilling.

Drilling proponents have grossly overstated how much oil industry interest there is in drilling in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge. The Arctic is an extremely remote and harsh environment requiring specialized equipment and infrastructure, making it one of the costliest places to drill in the entire world.

There have been multiple lease sales held in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which I want to emphasize is a wildlife refuge, and still no legitimate oil and gas company currently holds a lease there.

Even during President Trump's first term, no oil and gas company kept their leases. In fact, a recent report from Taxpayers for Common Sense outlined the lack of economic viability for any oil and gas development there, citing astronomically high costs in this remote region.

Let me be clear. House Republicans' actions today will do absolutely nothing to lower your energy bills, but it will allow for the sell-off of some of our most special and sacred public lands. That is why I oppose H.J. Res. 131 and all the CRA resolutions on the floor today.

I urge my colleagues to join me in voting no, and I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source