Defending the Arctic Refuge

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. VASQUEZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in defense of the frontier spirit that is core to the American identity.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 131, two proposals that would forever alter the Coastal Plain of the Arctic refuge and the special areas of the western Arctic in the great State of Alaska.

Let me tell you a little bit about this special place, a place in which I have had the privilege to spend time. The Arctic refuge, the homeland of Gwich'in and the Inupiat people, offers unmatched, truly wild fishing and hunting opportunities for all Americans.

It is the only national wildlife refuge that protects an entire Arctic ecosystem, and it stands as a profound source of pride for this Nation.

These lands, the birthing and calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd, have been at the center of national debate for more than a century, ever since Republican President Theodore Roosevelt established the National Wildlife Refuge System and dedicated himself to protecting wild places and the wildlife that depend on them.

These lands are where Americans hunt caribou, grizzly bear, and Dall sheep, where Americans trap wolverines, and where anglers can catch their first Arctic char.

Most importantly, these lands have provided sustenance to the Gwich'in and Inupiat peoples since time immemorial.

For the last century, bipartisan lawmakers, including both Republican and Democratic Presidents, have agreed to protect this place, safeguarding it from destructive development with a firm resolve and a desire to leave something behind for the next generation.

That same commitment to conservation has been carried on by bipartisan leaders in Congress for generations. Today, this tradition of conservation is being threatened by a careless proposal to roll back established protections for our wildlife, our waters, and our public lands, threatening indigenous livelihoods and sovereignty, the recreational and scientific value of these lands, and an iconic symbol of American wilderness.

I believe that, in this body, we must preach hope and possibility and that we must defend our values and the American way of life that has been meticulously built over centuries, and both parties must work together to protect the things we love.

These two proposals before you are misguided. This Chamber should not deepen the chaos it has already created. Instead, we should be working together to pass legislation that resolves land management conflicts and restores stability to our public lands planning system. We should also adequately fund our land management agencies.

That is why, as a hunter, an angler, and someone who cares deeply about our Nation's incomparable system of public lands and wildlife habitat, I can't support the reckless destruction of the Arctic tundra and the Coastal Plain.

For the many private interests that have sought to exploit these sacred lands, it would be much easier if these species and Tribes never existed. It would be much easier for them if the last remaining musk ox hadn't survived the Ice Age or if the Porcupine caribou herd simply went extinct, just to add a few dollars to their pockets today without giving a damn about tomorrow.

The truth is, in my district back home in New Mexico, the Permian Basin is a domestic energy powerhouse, fueling America's energy independence and bolstering New Mexico's economy, but there are some places that ought to be left alone because their quality, history, and identity to us as Americans is far too valuable to be measured on a balance sheet.

Now, much to my dismay, this administration has already issued an executive order to rescind the Coastal Plain leasing program, and the Department of the Interior has already done just that.

Given that the administration has already taken action to overturn responsible management plans, these bills only make it more challenging to manage these special lands. It will also expose any future decisions related to oil and gas in the refuge to significant legal uncertainty.

This is a losing proposal. Simply put, it is bad legislation, no matter what side of the issue you stand on.

If, like me, you still believe in bipartisanship and revere the greats like Teddy Roosevelt, who fought to protect special places like America's Arctic, and you dream that someday you or one of your children can hunt wild ptarmigan on the Coastal Plain, catch an Arctic char on the Canning River, or harvest caribou in the Brooks Range, you should vote against these bills and honor the voices of the indigenous communities and American citizens who depend on this land for survival.

From New Mexico to the Arctic, people who live in small communities take care of themselves, and they want to keep it that way. Surely, anyone who represents a rural district in this Congress can appreciate that.

I encourage my colleagues to look at this landscape and examine these bills and their impacts before voting, to see the value of the Arctic and its worth to all Americans, not to simply brush this off as a party-line vote.

I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on H.J. Res. 131.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source