[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 208 (Wednesday, December 20, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8178-S8179]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, in 2008, the Senate took up the question 
of whether to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I wasn't 
here at the time, but I remember the issue prompted a rigorous debate.
  The Senate spent months on the topic. Experts weighed in, and the 
American people had a chance to share their views in a fairly open 
process.
  It is worth pausing to recall the context for that discussion. In 
2008, America produced nearly 7 million barrels of oil a day and 
imported another 12 million. The price of oil was roughly $150 a 
barrel. There was talk about the world hitting ``peak oil.''
  In that context, one side claimed that drilling in the Arctic Refuge 
was needed to boost domestic production, reduce foreign imports, and 
lower prices at the pump. The other side countered that any economic 
benefit from drilling was far outweighed by the need to preserve the 
Arctic Refuge, a jewel of our public lands, a vital habitat for 
wildlife, and a sacred place for the Gwich'in people--a place so sacred 
they are reluctant to even enter it.
  In the end, after weighing the facts and considering the costs, 56 
Senators, included 6 Republicans, voted to protect the Arctic Refuge 
from drilling.
  That was 2008. Now fast forward to 2017. The Arctic Refuge remains a 
jewel of our public lands. It remains a vital habitat for so many flora 
and fauna. It remains a sacred place for local tribes, and one of 
America's most spectacular wild places. The case for preservation has 
not changed.
  By contrast, the case for drilling has never been weaker. Compared to 
2008, domestic oil production has nearly doubled. Oil imports are down 
22 percent. The price of oil has fallen 50 percent. Terminals we built 
to import oil and gas are now being used to export oil and gas.
  For all these reasons, unlike 2008, oil companies are not clamoring 
for more opportunities to drill. Just last week, oil companies had the 
chance to bid on 10.3 million acres open for drilling in Alaska. In the 
end, less than 1 percent of the land was leased.
  Think about that. We are not even using all of the land now available 
for drilling in Alaska. It defies reason that we would open up even 
more, especially in a place as treasured as the Arctic Refuge.
  All of this is to say that, if it made little sense to drill in 2008, 
it makes no sense to drill now.
  So it should surprise no one that the other side doesn't want a real 
debate. That is why they tucked this into their massive tax bill, 
hoping to sneak it in under the hood.
  Their justification? We need revenue from the oil to pay down the 
deficit that we are creating with this tax bill.
  There are two problems with that. First, the Congressional Budget 
Office found that, because of low demand, revenue from drilling would 
be far less than projected, potentially hundreds of millions less.
  Second, the only reason we are having this conversation is because 
the other side wants to spend $1.4 trillion on tax cuts for 
corporations and the wealthiest Americans.
  Consider this: Their plan spends $37 billion to give an average tax 
cut of $64,000 to those lucky enough to make over $1 million a year.
  To help pay for that, we are about to drill in one of the most 
stunning places in America.
  I am not opposed to oil and gas production. We need transition fuels 
as we move toward low-carbon, renewable energy. I also recognize that, 
for many small towns across America, the oil and gas sector is a rare 
source of steady, high-paying jobs.
  In Colorado, we have managed to increase energy production to meet 
our growing demand. But we have done so in a way that protects our 
public lands and creates jobs, for those in oil and gas and our 
thriving outdoor economy. We have found a way for all sides to win.
  If my colleagues from Alaska want to increase energy production, 
create jobs, and spur growth, I stand ready to help, but let's not 
pretend that drilling in the Arctic Refuge is the only way to do that.
  There are places in America where you can set up an oil rig, lay down

[[Page S8179]]

roads, and run pipelines in responsible way. The Arctic Refuge is not 
one of those places. It is a treasure we should leave for our children, 
not a place to drill for no good reason.
  Sadly, the Senate voted to allow drilling in the Arctic Refuge when 
it took up the broader tax bill.
  For every American who opposed this move, know that this isn't over.
  Senator Markey and I have authored a bill, which now has 41 
cosponsors, that would shield the Arctic Refuge from drilling.
  So I urge everyone to keep fighting, to keep speaking out for 
America's public lands, which are the envy of the world, to keep 
standing up for the beautiful places in America we must pass on to the 
next generation, as our parents and grandparents did for us.

                          ____________________