Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to "National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision".

Mr. President, what has always separated America from other nations around the world is the right to vote. It is a right that everybody in this body cherishes, as do the American people. Every person who approaches the ballot box generally has confidence that their votes are going to be counted and their voice will be heard.

But, as we stand here, this cherished right is coming under attack because, in 2026, we can expect a continuation of what is happening in these last 9 months: that the Trump administration is doing everything it can to undermine the confidence in elections and sow distrust in the election process.

It is like a spider weaving a web. The Trump administration has crafted multiple strands that, when combined together, attack and change the voting landscape in a way that America will not recognize.

Trump is attempting to strip power from the States, consolidate it for himself, and subvert the will of the people. It is systematic, it is strategic, and it is deeply and urgently serious.

Today, I am beginning an extended effort to elevate this issue and sound the alarm--because voters will go to the polls this Tuesday, and my fear is that it could be the last free and fair election, unless we rise up and we act. And this fear is not mine alone. I have heard it all around Connecticut and from my colleagues all around the country, and it is well founded.

President Trump's crusade of voter suppression and election subversion started on day one of the administration, when he pardoned the individuals who participated in the violent attack on the Capitol on January 6. That January 6 attack was not a protest or even just a riot. It was an assault on the very heart of our democracy. In attempting to stop Congress from certifying the results of the 2020 election,

the January 6 insurrectionists sought to nullify the votes and shatter the peaceful transfer of power that has characterized our democracy for nearly 250 years.

President Trump provided a blanket pardon to the January 6 attackers and thereby endorsed and placed the Presidential seal of approval on their actions and their direction and goal of seeking to overturn the will of the people. So it was no accident that these pardons were one of President Trump's very first acts in office. It was an unmistakable signal that his administration would be obsessed with suppressing votes and undermining free and fair elections.

And since that very first day in office, President Trump and his administration have been praising and hiring into leadership positions the very people who attempted to subvert our democracy. In fact, just this past month, the White House reportedly hired Kurt Olsen, a lawyer who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results, and he is working officially as a ``special government employee'' tasked with looking into the 2020 election and current voting machines.

But rewriting the history of January 6 was only the beginning of a relentless, purposeful campaign to stoke fear among voters and sow seeds of distrust in American elections. They have employed Federal Agencies to help do some of the dirty work. In fact, President Trump has weaponized several Federal Agencies against you, the voters. He is using these Agencies as instruments to suppress your vote.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice have both taken alarming actions in recent months targeting the vote. At DHS, a senior Department leader, Heather Honey, an election denier and conspiracy theorist in her own right, reportedly told State and local election officials that the administration could declare a ``national emergency'' based on the claim that the 2020 election was stolen to obtain ``additional powers that don't exist right now'' and act ``without Congress'' to ``mandate that States'' adopt her preferred, radical election rules.

In addition, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, known as CISA, a critical Agency within DHS that works with State and local officials to protect the security of our elections, has been gutted. CISA has been instrumental in protecting our elections from cyber attacks and threats by foreign and domestic actors. These attacks are growing, not diminishing.

I don't have to reveal any classified information for the American people to know that attacks by our adversaries on our election system are an increasing threat, but instead of bolstering CISA, President Trump has placed on administrative leave or reassigned nearly all of its election experts. In their place, President Trump has installed inexperienced political activists who sought to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

Marci McCarthy, named director of public affairs at CISA, was responsible for spreading false claims about faulty voting machines in Georgia.

This past July, Sean Plankey, the nominee to head CISA, refused to answer me when I asked him in a hearing if he believed that the 2020 election was stolen.

President Trump has also chosen to attack CISA officials. In April, President Trump issued an Executive order directing the Department of Justice and DHS to investigate Chris Krebs, the former head of CISA, calling him a ``bad-faith actor'' who ``weaponized and abused'' his authority--all because Krebs refused to lie and say Trump's 2020 election was rigged. And because Krebs said there was no evidence in 2020 that ``any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised,'' he was attacked, and that Executive order asked DHS to target him.

At the same time, President Trump has dismantled CISA's election security programs, including by terminating initiatives that monitor foreign disinformation and cutting the funding of systems that detect, deter, and alert States and localities about cyber and physical attacks on election infrastructure.

This dismantling of CISA is fundamental and deeply alarming, but at the Department of Justice, things are no better. President Trump took an ax to the Department of Justice's Voting Section within the Civil Rights Division, that historic section established to protect and uplift the vote.

First, he decimated the Voting Section staff. In January, it was estimated that the section had 30 attorneys on staff to enforce voting rights laws. Today, it is three. Then he decimated its mission, transforming the section from a bulwark against voting suppression into its opposite: a mechanism to suppress voters and stoke fears of voter fraud.

So instead of lifting up the work of voting rights and serving as a staunch defender of voters in the courts, the section has withdrawn its engagement in seven active voting cases. Where it does remain involved, in redistricting cases such as Louisiana v. Callais, it has taken a sudden and staunch anti-voter stance.

The Department of Justice has decided to make a mockery of poll monitoring as well. The Trump DOJ will now use poll monitoring--which began as an effort to secure minorities' votes when they were denied it following passage of the Voting Rights Act--to potentially intimidate and surveil voters and officials alike at polling sites in California and New Jersey. He is doing it at the request of the Republican Party officials in those States, ahead of the November 4 election.

Those anti-voter campaigns are coupled with efforts to distort the electoral maps. Since President Trump took office, he has pressured Republican State legislators to ignore the will of their voters and effectively elect representatives through extreme and unabashedly partisan gerrymandering. This flagrantly abusive redistricting occurred in States like Texas, representing a top-down campaign directed by President Trump to eradicate as many congressional districts as possible that could conceivably elect a Democrat.

For example, the new Texas redistricting seeks to gift Republicans 80 percent of its House seats in a State where Democrats routinely receive between 40 and 50 percent of the vote in congressional districts. It is plainly a move designed to target minority voters.

The same playbook follows in Missouri and North Carolina. These are the actions of desperate politicians--desperate because they know how deeply unpopular their policies are with voters, policies of stripping people of their healthcare, cutting taxes for the rich, and sending the military into American streets. Instead of changing those policies to win over voters, the Trump administration is seeking to disenfranchise the voters, suppress votes, and rig these elections by shamelessly moving voters to new districts.

President Trump and Republicans have started a tit-for-tat redistricting arms race where Democrats are forced to fight fire with fire and play catchup to undo Republicans' damage and restore balanced representation. And the ones who suffer are the voters. Their voices are ignored and often silenced by frightened partisan politicians.

But it isn't just the voters who are undermined; it is our States as well. Under the Constitution, it is the States that have the power to oversee the time, place, and manner of their elections, subject only to legislation enacted by Congress. The President is given no role--zero-- in that process. States are not agents for the Federal Government, hamstrung to Presidential orders when it comes to elections. In this space of elections, they have their own independent, sovereign authority. Yet President Trump believes he can dictate the rules over our elections and seize power from the States for himself, and he has sought to do it in a number of important ways that ought to concern this body, especially because we represent our States.

Foremost among his tactics, he wants to supplant States in determining the means, methods, and mechanisms for placing our votes. Those mechanisms vary. For example, some States use more mail-in voting than others, and States don't always have the same approach to early voting. Rather than the States making those calls, he wants to be Big Brother himself, watching how elections must be run, dictating how it is done.

The DOJ has already unsuccessfully sought access to voting machines in

Missouri, sending a request to ``access, physically inspect and perhaps take physical custody of election equipment used in the 2020 November general election.''

In March 2025, President Trump issued an Executive order--another Executive order--that attempted to mandate that the independent, bipartisan Election Assistance Commission rescind all previous certifications of voting equipment and recertify systems under amended guidelines. That order is currently being challenged in court. It is plainly unlawful, it is reckless, it is unfair to the States, and it is a false solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist.

President Trump has called voting machines ``highly inaccurate, very expensive, and seriously controversial.'' There is zero evidence-- zero--to support these claims. It is all just a pretext to insert Federal control over States' rights. States do have rights, and President Trump is trying to override them roughshod.

His tactics are similar with mail-in ballots. In the 2024 election, nearly one-third of Americans voted by mail. Mail-in voting is instrumental in helping our troops and making sure that every voice is heard, even when they are overseas.

President Trump has stated that he wants to ``lead a movement'' to get rid of mail-in voting, and he posted this past week on social media: ``No mail-in or `Early' Voting.'' He has assigned lawyers to craft another Executive order to stop it.

The irony is not lost on anyone that President Trump himself voted by mail in the 2020 election when he cast his ballot in Florida.

In some States, such as Oregon and Washington, mail-in ballots are the primary mechanism used by voters. Attempting to illegally strip States of this right will decimate the way our citizens are heard and the foundational principle of States' rights.

By law, by tradition, by history, and sound public policy, States make this call, not the President, and attempting to strip States of these rights is flagrantly illegal and unconstitutional.

President Trump's lackeys have attempted to bully States into handing over sensitive and personal information contained within State voter rolls. DOJ has requested information or meetings about election administration from States and has demanded 40 States--40 States-- provide their full voter registration lists. In a private meeting, Michael Gates, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, disclosed that all 50 States will eventually receive these requests. The eight States that so far have refused to turn over that data are now being sued by the Department of Justice.

Trump is attempting to compile the largest list of voter roll data ever in our history in order to bolster unsubstantiated and false claims of illegal voting by noncitizens, despite the fact that noncitizen voting is essentially nonexistent.

This type of national voter roll collection is totally unprecedented in our history. Nothing like it has ever been done before. Nothing like this invasion of privacy and promises to voters would have been imaginable before January of this year.

The information he is requesting includes your driver's license number, your Social Security number, your name, your address, your political party, and your voting history. He wants to know who you are and potentially use that information however he pleases. He wants to use that information against States as well--more broadly, to be the judge and jury of whether States are effectively running their own elections, despite the fact that States--and I apologize for repeating it--States are tasked with administering elections under the Constitution.

In case Trump's DOJ can't dismantle elections using all of these maligned tactics, the administration is also targeting election officials who seek to run efficient, fair, honest elections and to calculate and certify election results in a nonpartisan way. They are at work in every election. Everybody in this body knows what they do and knows how important they are to free and fair elections.

President Trump's DOJ has a new weaponization working group with a focus on targeting election officials as a result of supposedly widespread voter fraud. It is the product of fever imagination.

The Department of Justice is also exploring whether they can bring criminal charges against State and local officials if they believe that those officials have not adequately safeguarded their computer systems from harm, despite gutting CISA--the very Agency tasked with assisting them in safeguarding their computers and software.

To instill fear in election workers, the administration is doing everything it can to signal that it will punish anyone who doesn't bow to them.

Since 2020, Trump has been posting on social media and publicly calling for prosecution against election officials he accuses of working against him. Prosecuting election officials won't make elections any safer or fairer; it is simply about creating fear and anxiety. It will lead to an exodus of individuals--it already has begun--that we need to rely on to run our elections.

The fearmongering seems to be having its effect ever since Trump began espousing false claims of stolen elections in 2020 and putting this kind of pressure on the dedicated men and women who show up for elections to help run them. Election officials have reported harassment, threats, and abuse locally.

Election officials with institutional knowledge of how local systems run and who are imperative to registering voters and maintaining voter processes are leaving their roles at an alarming rate. The turnover was especially pronounced in large jurisdictions where the Trump campaign focused its misinformation campaign around 2020 elections.

Now, each of these individual actions of anti-election assault is serious and significant, but each action needs to be seen together as something deeper and broader. It is the sum and substance of totalitarianism--not at some distant point in the future, not a vague storm cloud on the horizon, but the destruction of democracy here and now.

As we approach our democracy's 250th anniversary, we can't afford the luxury of defeatism or despair or complacency. We need to join together and sound the alarm across differences of political party, geography, financial interests, personal background, and all the rest. Join in this body--come together because we have a common interest in making sure that elections are free and fair.

More than words, we need action--your action as voters registering to vote and enabling others to do so, volunteering to work at the polls and supporting election officials and administrators, contributing to organizations that defend voting rights in court, demanding that public officials unite against the sabotage of our democracy, and uniting at rallies, townhalls, and every other forum available to make your voice known.

I will be reaching out to colleagues on both sides of the aisle and coming to the floor and reaching out to the American people. Just as we threw off the yoke of monarchy 2\1/2\ centuries ago, the American people still have the power to determine their own future. They still have the courage to make ``good trouble,'' as John Lewis, the historic voting champion, famously said. Most of all, the American people have the will and fortitude to stand up to this assault.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of our bipartisan resolution, which Senator Kaine and I lead, along with our colleagues Rand Paul, Mark Warner, and Leader Schumer.

Our resolution terminates the President's so-called emergency declaration related to the Canadian border and restores stability and common sense to our trade with our close ally and neighbor to the north, Canada.

The administration has used that declaration as a pretext to impose sweeping tariffs on a friend, on a neighbor, on an ally--which are taxes, paid by American consumers and businesses, on Canadian imports.

Back in April, this same resolution passed the Senate with bipartisan support. Under the National Emergencies Act, Congress must review and, if necessary, vote again every 6 months. Because the administration has refused to lift this so-called emergency and instead doubled down by raising tariffs on Canada to 35 percent as of August 1, with a threat of more, we are back on the floor today, and we will be back on the floor until this passes.

Just this past week, the President announced, as I noted, yet another 10 percent tariff hike on Canada--this time in retaliation for an Ontario ad--Ontario, one province. This would be as if the Governor of Texas put out an ad or if the Governor of California put out an ad. But President Trump used this as a pretext for another threat. And that ad accurately used President Ronald Reagan's 1987 remarks criticizing tariffs.

So that is a good way to begin: with President Reagan's remarks. He said, in 1987, though there are economic and national security circumstances during which tariffs are necessary, that, generally, ``high tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. Then the worst happens: Markets shrink and collapse; businesses and industries shut down; and millions of people lose their jobs.''

This new tariff hike isn't about security. It isn't even about our economy. It is just about the President's personal grievances, and Americans are the ones paying the price.

Since these chaotic, on-again, off-again tariffs began in March, cross-border travel and trade have both fallen precipitously. In Minnesota, we say we can see Canada from our porch. Our people go back and forth all the time--sometimes for jobs, sometimes to visit relatives and friends, and sometimes, of course, for vacations. We welcome Canadians all the time.

I was, in fact, at the Minnesota Frost game in which they played the Charge, a Canadian team, a women's professional hockey team. It was a joyous event with our Canadian neighbors.

You see, we know now, the World Series, one of the most exciting World Series between the Toronto Blue Jays and the Los Angeles Dodgers.

This isn't just some faraway place to us. These are our friends and neighbors. But yet, despite all of this incredible history of friendship and booming economic gains because of all the back-and-forth and travel, trips from Canada to the United States are down roughly 20 percent from last year. Towns in the United States are having to put up signs that say ``We love you, Canadians'' because they feel so dissed by this administration.

They are saying: What is happening? We were the first ones on the ground after 9/11 from another country.

The Canadians were there.

We were the ones that stood by your side in so many foreign wars. We are the one that, for so many of our States, is the No. 1 trading partner. How can this be happening?

And, frankly, it pisses them off, and so individual families are making decisions--are deciding: Well, we are not going to go to America. Maybe we will go to Mexico. Maybe we will go to another country. Maybe we will stay in Canada. But we are not going to travel there.

The average foreign visitor spends about $4,000 when they come to America.

We are not going to eat their food. We are not going to go to their restaurants. We are not going to stay at their hotels. We are not going to fish in their lakes.

You name it, that is what the people in my State are seeing. And everything from manufactured parts to whiskey have dropped sharply. And small businesses, farmers, and manufacturers are losing business.

This is not how our economy was supposed to work, if you believe in capitalism, if you believe in trade, if you believe you just can't put your head in the sand and think, ``Well, we are just going to be on our own,'' when 95 percent of our potential customers, particularly in the agriculture area, are outside of our borders. We should be exporting more goods, and we should be encouraging more trade.

The President shouldn't be able to just wake up one day and see an ad he

doesn't like on TV featuring a Republican President by a province in Canada and decide, ``I am just going to hike up another 10 percent''-- or something happened in Brazil--and I congratulate Senator Kaine and Senator Paul on their recent overturning from this body--finally, enough is enough; we are asserting our power. You are not going to be able to just put a 40-percent tariff on Brazil, a country with which we have a trade surplus, simply because the guy is facing a trial there, and the President doesn't like it. No, this is not how this works. It is not how it works under the Constitution. It is not how it works under the law.

This resolution is about drawing a line in the sand and saying you cannot abuse your emergency powers to start an unjustified trade war; you cannot abuse your emergency powers to hurt one of the finest relationships in the world; and you cannot drive up prices, eliminate jobs, and put in place a national sales tax that experts now predict will altogether--the tariff tax--cost the average family nearly $2,000 per year.

And they are seeing it every day in their grocery bills. They are seeing it when they want to go out and buy tools. They see it when they are going out to buy audio equipment.

Minnesota's No. 1 trading partner, one of our country's top 2 trading partners, and one of our most trusted allies--that is Canada. We export more goods to Canada than we do--in Minnesota--to our second, third, and fourth largest markets combined. In 2024, Minnesota's goods trade with Canada, including ag products, machinery, and medical devices, amounted to roughly $22 billion--$22 billion. That is more than a quarter of all the goods that we export, a major hit for our State.

I chair the Canadian-American Interparliamentary Group. I frequently meet with our partners in Canada. A number of Senators, including Senator Kaine and Senator Shaheen and Senator Welch and Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota, a Republican--we went up there together to Ottawa a few months back, met with Prime Minister Carney. And as the Prime Minister said recently, the U.S.-Canada relationship has become ``mostly transactional.''

That is not the story of our friendship with Canada. Canada, as I mentioned, fought alongside us in two World Wars. They are our partners in NORAD and NATO. They helped us get our supply chain back in order after the pandemic--and, yes, we helped them. Canada is setting historic new goals to contribute to our collective defense, planning to triple defense spending over the next decade--new equipment, new infrastructure, new technology--to strengthen our NATO alliance, which means strengthening our own national security.

But rather than supporting a thriving Canadian economy that would enable the government to fulfill those goals, the tariffs that the President keeps slapping on this great ally will hinder our potential and Canada's. These tariffs also undercut the very trade deal the President himself once called the most ``modern and balanced agreement in history''--that is, the USMCA, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.

I supported that agreement. I was one of the first Democrats--in fact, the first one during that election, the 2020 election--that actually came out and said I supported that trade agreement on the debate stage because I felt it was so important.

So why would the President take this jewel of a trade agreement--that albeit needs to be changed as we go forward and reviewed, which is mandatory this coming year, for things like dairy and other things-- that has been acknowledged. We would like to see some changes to it. But why would he take this incredibly important agreement and just say it doesn't matter?

The kind of uncertainty that we are seeing with these tariffs shakes business confidence across North America. These tariffs are paid by families: groceries, clothes, housing. Homebuilders say higher material costs from tariffs are adding as much as $10,000 to the cost of a new home. Americans looking for a new car are paying more than $3,000 more for an American-made vehicle. And of course it is increasing the cost of cars made in America because parts come from Canada.

And this is an important point: The tariffs are not just about raising the prices on the goods that we import; they are also driving up prices across the board on all types of goods and services-- electricity costs. If we continue down this path, as I noted, the average family will likely see a $2,000 increase per year.

This might not mean a lot to some of the President's friends and family members, billionaires on his Cabinet. They are not going to care about this $2,000 a year. That is true. They are not going to care. But people right now, that are already faced with all these problems with healthcare, which is a fight that is raging right now, about this budget, they can't handle it.

Tariffs, as I noted, can be an important tool for countering other countries' unfair trade practices. I supported some of the steel tariffs that were more narrow from the former Trump administration and the Obama administration and the Biden administration in order to make sure that our iron ore--very key to my past and our future--mined in northern Minnesota--my grandpa was an iron ore miner--that that continue.

But that is not what we are talking about with the President's action here. The broad emergency power statute enacted from 1977 that the President has used to justify these across-the-board tariffs didn't even mention the word ``tariff.''

My colleagues and I have filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court. That case is going to be heard next week. But it is not the only answer. The answer should be that Congress asserts its power, even though I believe that the use of the statute is clearly illegal and I believe, as the underlying court--which was made up of the initial trade court: a Trump judge, an Obama judge, and a Reagan judge--yes, they still exist. They unanimously, the three of them, said that this was an illegal use of the statute.

But this, today, is about something else. It is about us asserting our own power, stopping the chaos with changes over 100 times in these tariffs: small brewers paying for aluminum cans that can't afford them, furniture makers paying more for lumber, and family-owned tourism businesses in my State suffering.

If the Trump administration wants to address trade disputes with Canada--and the Prime Minister is clearly open to that--it should work in good faith with our neighbors to strengthen the USMCA trade agreement that the President himself originally negotiated.

Our bipartisan group of cosponsors understands this. This isn't about politics. It is about jobs, economic stability, and respect for the successful agreement that we committed to in the past. It is why this resolution has support from the United Steelworkers, the International Association of Machinists, North America's Building Trades Unions, and the AFL-CIO. The Chamber of Commerce, the National Taxpayers Union, and the National Retail Federation have all endorsed this resolution.

These are voices from every corner of the political spectrum, every part of our economy. Maybe we should be listening to them and not be a rubberstamp, I say to my colleagues. It is time to stand up. Otherwise, why are you here?

I yield the floor, and I see that my friend from Virginia, who has been such a leader on this, is here.

Mr. President, in conclusion, I want to say this: One, thank you to Senator Kaine and Senator Warner, the two Senators from Virginia, for their leadership on this important resolution; Senator Wyden for all of his work; Senator Rand Paul and others who have stood with us, who have stood with capitalism, who have stood with this idea that trade matters and that our country is stronger when we do business and sell our goods across the seas and to our friendly neighbors like Canada.

Let me start with Canada. As the head of the Inter-Parliamentary Group with Canada, I spent a lot of time working with the Canadians. It was one Embassy, years ago, when America was disliked by a lot of countries, that displayed on their Embassy huge banners that said: ``Friend, Ally, Partner.''

For so many of our States, they are our biggest trading partner. They fought alongside us in two World Wars. They are our partners in NORAD and in NATO. They worked with us together on supply chains and getting them back working after the pandemic. They are setting new historic goals, Canada is, to contribute to our collective defense, planning to triple defense spending over the next decade.

So what does this administration do? Slap them with a 35-percent tariff. And then, just because the President woke up in the morning and didn't like an ad that quoted a beloved Republican President, Ronald Reagan, didn't like it, he said: Well, I am going to give them 10 percent more.

Yet this is a country with which we share a trade agreement that this President negotiated with Mexico and Canada. If you want to make changes, like for dairy or other things, do it in the review of that agreement. Don't do it like this to a neighbor and friend.

Secondly, what do these tariffs mean to America? mean to the people in our country? Combined, they have been changed over 100 times--total chaos. Inflation is up. Manufacturing jobs are down. Small farm bankruptcies are at their highest levels in 5 years, and every Senator in this Chamber has heard from their beef producers or heard from their soybean farmers. What is happening right now, as one of my farmers called it, is a ``perfect storm of ugly.''

For an individual family right now, these tariffs mean a $2,000 tax per family. Tools are up. Audio equipment costs more. This is the effect of this tariff policy on individual families in America.

So we can have high-ended debates here, but at home, they are looking at their grocery prices. They are looking at their markets, their family farms--that they spent a century there, they are next in line to take it over--drying up. That is what these tariffs are about.

Then, finally, this President cannot keep abusing his power like this. There is a reason, when you look at the numbers, who supports this resolution: United Steelworkers, International Association of Machinists, North America's Building Trades Unions, the AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Taxpayers Union, the National Retail Federation have all endorsed this resolution.

But, unfortunately, with a few exceptions, our friends on the other side of the aisle are just rubberstamping what this President wants.

Well, it is time for us to stand up. This vote is about reasserting Congress's constitutional role, article I, section 8, of the Constitution gives Congress--not the President--the power to impose tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. We must stand up for American workers, businesses, and consumers and remind our allies and ourselves that America keeps its word.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject the Biden administration's sweeping plan to lock down nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to responsible oil and gas development in contradiction to congressional mandates. I urge my colleagues to support the Alaska delegation's joint resolution of disapproval, S.J. Res. 80, to protect Alaska's rights and future.

The implementation of the Biden administration's National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, NPR-A, Integrated Activity Plan, IAP, Record of Decision, ROD, locks away more than 6 million acres previously made available for responsible oil and gas leasing and restricts infrastructure across 8 million acres--completely undermining the intent of Congress and ignoring the needs and input of local residents. Passing this joint resolution will disapprove this Record of Decision and revert management of the NPR-A back to the previously approved Integrated Activity Plan promulgated during the first Trump administration.

I have long said that Alaskans are some of the foremost conservationists in the world, with a long-standing record of balancing conservation with responsible resource and infrastructure development. Our oil fields on Alaska's North Slope offer a world-class example of what it means to responsibly produce energy in a harsh and demanding environment. The environmentally conscious way in which Alaskans have applied cutting-edge technology is second to none, utilizing ice roads and a winter construction season to minimize impact on Alaska's tundra.

Because of the opportunities provided by oil and gas operations, this industry has provided thousands of good-paying jobs to Alaskans. It has become the primary driver of my State's economy. Oil and gas revenues fund education, essential infrastructure, and community services across the State, making responsible resource development truly a matter of life or death for Alaskans. In 1954, the Interior Department, with the help of the University of Pittsburgh, conducted a study of the health of Alaska Natives. Many of our communities in rural Alaska all had some of the lowest levels of life expectancy in the entire world. Between 1980 and 2014, the average lifespan increased by 13 years across the region, largely due to oil and gas revenue providing the opportunity to install what we consider to be basic and essential community infrastructure. To say these operations have had a positive impact on the local communities is a gross understatement.

The North Slope of Alaska contains some of the greatest hydrocarbon potential of any place on the planet. It is home to the Prudhoe Bay oil field, the largest conventional oil field in North America, which has produced over 13 billion barrels of oil since production began in 1977. On either side of Prudhoe Bay are two Federal areas, one being the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the other being the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, the subject of today's legislation. The U.S. Geological Survey this year reported that half of the estimated undiscovered technically recoverable oil lying below Federal lands was in Alaska, 14 billion barrels of it being on the North Slope of Alaska. Importantly, the North Slope of Alaska is also the ancestral lands of the Inupiat people, who have lived, subsisted, and called the Arctic home for thousands of years. This is an area the size of Minnesota, wholly above the Arctic Circle, with none of the communities connected by a permanent road system, necessitating all supplies needing to be flown or barged in. Like much of rural Alaska, it has some of the highest costs of living anywhere in the Nation.

The discovery of Prudhoe Bay in 1968 could not have come at a more crucial time for the United States, which was right at the height of the Arab Oil Embargo. The barrels of crude oil from Prudhoe and subsequent North Slope discoveries have helped ensure the American people are not held hostage by adversarial powers seeking to use energy as a tool of coercion. The discovery of Prudhoe Bay did not come in a vacuum. In fact, it was long known that the North Slope of Alaska had oil potential. In the early 1900s, as the U.S. Navy began transitioning from coal to oil-burning engines, the Federal Government became increasingly concerned about the supply of oil reserves in the event of war or national emergency. In response, the Federal Government made multiple withdrawals of public land to ensure a stockpile of fuel supplies for the Navy remained available. The largest of these reserves was on the Alaska North Slope and was designated by President Warren G. Harding in 1923 as the Naval Petroleum Reserve Numbered 4, Alaska.

Following the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay and the ongoing oil embargo, Congress passed the 1976 Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act, NPRPA, transferring jurisdiction of the Reserve from the Navy to the Department of the Interior and redesignating the area as the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, a 23-million-acre area roughly the size of Indiana. A 1980 amendment to the NPRPA directed the Secretary of the Interior to undertake ``an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas'' in the NPR-A and also set up revenue sharing provision between the Federal Government and the State of Alaska that prioritized the subdivisions of the State most directly severely impacted by oil and gas development, ensuring the people who live in Alaska could provide for essential services.

While initial interest in the NPR-A was tepid, new oil finds closer to the NPR-A boundaries led to a number of successful lease sales generating millions of dollars in Federal revenues. Among the most successful was the 2016 lease sale, which came following the discovery of the Willow field. The Bureau of Land Management, BLM, estimates the Willow Project will produce 576 million barrels of oil and non-gas liquids over 30 years and generate $5.9 billion in revenue for the Federal Government through 2053.

In 2012, the Obama administration, issued the first integrated activity plan, IAP, addressing management for the entire NPR-A, but only made available 11.8 million acres of the Reserve for oil and gas leasing. Beginning in 2017, during the first Trump administration, the Department of the Interior took steps to revise the IAP and Environmental Impact Statement, EIS, that would strike an appropriate balance of promoting development while protecting surface resources as was required in the NPRPA. In December 2020, BLM released the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision, the culmination of thousands of comments, over a dozen public meetings, and the continuous involvement of the North Slope Borough, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the State of Alaska, and relevant Federal Agencies. The Record of Decision selected an alternative that made available an additional 6.8 million acres, for a total of 18.6 million acres or 82 percent of the NPR-A's subsurface estate, available for oil and gas leasing while ensuring lands were made available for pipelines and other essential oil and gas infrastructure and community infrastructure. The 2020 plan also provided important protections for surface resources, particularly subsistence uses by providing adequate protection for sensitive bird populations and the Teshekpuk and Western Arctic Caribou Herds. All in all, it was a phenomenal achievement by some very dedicated BLM employees and an example of Federal Agencies working hand-in-hand with Alaskans to understand our unique conditions, producing results that protect both our environment and our way of life.

However, following the 2020 election, President Biden announced plans to immediately review all Agency actions taken during President Trump's term, and the Department of the Interior identified the 2020 IAP/EIS as warranting review, one of the 70 Executive actions the Biden administration took targeting Alaska. BLM determined that the existing 2020 IAP/EIS and associated evaluations were adequate, and no additional analysis was necessary for the Department to select a different alternative from the range analyzed. In April 2022, BLM released a new record of decision that selected the No Action Alternative identified in the 2020 IAP that effectively reverted management of the NPR-A back to the Obama administration's 2013 IAP ROD. The Biden IAP greatly expanded special areas within the Reserve, prohibiting leasing on 11 million acres or 48 percent of the Reserve, and prohibited infrastructure on approximately 8.3 million acres. The ROD altered and expanded the Special Areas designated under the NPRPA and established performance-based required operating procedures and lease stipulations that applied to oil and gas leasing and development and to some non-oil and gas activities within the Reserve. It is this sweeping plan by the Biden administration that the passage of this joint resolution would invalidate.

I have long said that when we shut down production in Alaska, we weaken America's hand on the global stage. Every time the Federal Government curtails the production of oil and gas in Alaska, it strengthens the position of OPEC and our adversaries while undermining America's geostrategic leverage, the very outcome Congress sought to prevent by opening up the NPR-A in the first place.

The issuance of Biden's new highly restrictive IAP was widely condemned as egregious by Alaskans. Our entire Alaska congressional delegation slammed the decision as contrary to good science, in contravention of congressional directives in Federal law, and foolish, as the Biden administration implored OPEC+ members to produce more oil. Alaska Governor Mike Dunleavy said the plan ``is another sign of the federal government turning its back on Alaska and hampering domestic energy production.'' The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, one of the 12 land-owning Alaska Native corporations created under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, ANCSA, and representing the interests of more than 13,000 Inupiat shareholders, echoed those concerns. In testimony before the Alaska Legislature, ASRC Vice President of External Affairs Bridget Anderson explained, ``despite our sustained efforts and our willingness to work with the federal government, our perspectives are often drowned out by entities who have no ties to our region nor have any understanding of the nuances of the ANCSA model of indigenous representation. The choice by members of Congress and the administration to overlook our voices is not only frustrating, it is insulting.'' The Alaska Legislature passed a resolution unopposed, sponsored by the legislator representing the North Slope, an Inupiat himself, urging BLM to maximize the area available for oil and gas leasing and development in the NPR-A and to take into account the long history of safe and responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope. All these Alaskan voices were ignored.

Importantly, my joint resolution is supported by the North Slope Regional Trilateral, which is made up of the elected leaders of the North Slope Borough, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, which is the regional tribe, and ASRC. The members of the North Slope Regional Trilateral voiced their opposition to the Biden administration's overbearing restrictions during his 4 years in office. Yet, despite their opposition, they were ignored--a repeated offense of the Biden administration, who repeatedly disregarded Alaska Native voices. In fact, North Slope leaders from my State flew thousands of miles eight separate times to DC to request a meeting with Secretary of the Interior Haaland to oppose her lock-up of the North Slope. Eight times, she refused to meet with them. The Trilateral's letter of support for the disapproval resolution notes that the 2022 IAP put in place by the Biden administration imposes ``sweeping restrictions that curtail responsible development, undermine congressional intent, and disregard the well-being of the people who depend on these lands for both subsistence and livelihoods'' and ``disregards the economic needs of North Slope communities, and creates unnecessary obstacles to infrastructure, energy, and community health across the North Slope of Alaska.''

Fortunately, elections have consequences, and on his first day in office of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14153, ``Unleashing Alaska's Extraordinary Resource Potential,'' which called for the rescission of the 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision and a reimplementation of the IAP issued by the first Trump administration in 2020. This past summer, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum flew to Alaska and held a townhall on the North Slope with regional leaders and listened to their concerns, showing respect for the Alaska Native people who live there. Under his leadership, he has already advanced steps to rescind Biden's other disastrous restriction on the NPR-A: the 2024 Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska final rule.

In March of this year, Alaska's congressional delegation requested that

the Government Accountability Office, GAO, determine whether the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD constituted a ``rule'' under the Congressional Review Act, CRA. GAO issued its legal opinion in July, concluding that the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD is a rule under the Administrative Procedures Act and subject to the CRA and congressional disapproval, the action we are taking with S.J. Res. 80.

Further, this Congress has already taken decisive steps to unlock the NPR-A. In the ``One Big Beautiful Bill Act,'' P.L. 119-21, Congress mandated lease sales to be offered under the same terms and conditions set forth in the 2020 IAP. Passage of S.J. Res. 80 would durably protect against another rogue administration promulgating a substantially similar anti-development management plan for the NPR-A as contained in the 2022 IAP ROD.

In addition to the Trilateral, this resolution of disapproval is supported by the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the Resource Development Council for Alaska, Citizens for Responsible Energy Solutions, the American Exploration and Production Council, the National Federation of Independent Business, the American Petroleum Institute, Americans for Prosperity, the Alaska Chamber, as well as by the Trump administration.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a letter from the Resource Development Council for Alaska, dated October 30, 2025, expressing strong support for S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 124.

I urge my colleagues to reject unlawful regulatory overreach, reinforce American energy dominance, uphold Federal law, and listen to Alaska Native voices by supporting the Alaska congressional delegation and voting for this joint resolution of disapproval and rescinding this Record of Decision.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 879, I call up the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 80) providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'', and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on S.J. Res. 80.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S.J. Res. 80, which repeals the Biden administration's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan, or IAP, for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, also known as the NPR-A.

Under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976, the approximately 23-million-acre NPR-A was designated by Congress due to its vast energy resources. In 1980, Congress amended the act and directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct ``an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.''

In 2020, in President Trump's first administration, the Bureau of Land Management released its IAP for the NPR-A. The 2020 IAP listened to local voices and opened up access to over 18.5 million acres of the NPR-A for oil and gas leasing. Over 13 million acres were made available for new infrastructure development.

Nagruk Harcharek, president of the Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, stated in a September 2023 Natural Resources Committee hearing that: ``We also felt heard when BLM released an NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) in June 2020 that considered the interests of our communities, including future community infrastructure needs.''

The IAP outlining management activities for natural resources throughout the NPR-A was thoughtfully crafted by the first Trump administration, taking into account the voices of local indigenous Tribal communities.

Regrettably, in 2022, the Biden administration replaced the 2020 IAP with a new one, reducing the available acreage for oil and gas leasing by 37 percent and reducing areas available to new infrastructure by over 2.3 million acres.

In November 2023, during another hearing on the matter, we heard from Commissioner John Boyle of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, who expressed concerns about the Biden administration's NPR-A rulemaking process. ``The process to date has been confusingly deficient as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has scheduled and canceled public meetings on short notice, avoided consultation obligations, and attempted to avoid procedural safeguards that are meant to keep rulemakings of enormous public cost and consequence from being hastily and arbitrarily implemented. Neither comprehensive environmental nor economic reviews have been completed for a proposal that will dramatically change environmental and economic management in what may be the largest Federal petroleum asset in the country.''

In that same hearing, Mr. Harcharek shared:

``This decision, coupled with further `protections' for NPR-A, will undoubtedly shrink the economic opportunities available to the North Slope. It virtually guarantees to set us back on our journey toward self-determination by requiring further reliance on the Federal and State government to provide for the basic needs of the people on the North Slope.''

Ultimately, the Biden administration stymied energy production within the NPR-A and failed to offer leases in a manner that would boost revenue and provide economic stability to the region and the State.

The most recent lease sale in the NPR-A took place in 2019, when the BLM leased over 1 million acres, generating more than $11 million, including roughly $5.6 million for the State of Alaska.

Revenue from developing these resources is essential to the livelihoods of all Alaskans. For example, in fiscal year 2022, Alaskan oil and natural gas production, largely driven by the consequences of the pro-energy policies of the first Trump administration, generated $4.5 billion in State and local revenue and supported over 69,250 direct and indirect jobs.

Alaska's role as a leader in unleashing American energy dominance will continue. In the Working Families Tax Cut Act, Congress highlighted the importance of the NPR-A and required five lease sales to be held in the area over the next 10 years.

To ensure our energy independence, we must unleash American energy and ensure access to our own resources here at home. This legislation is an important step in doing just that.

I thank Representative Begich and Senator Sullivan for their work to bring S.J. Res. 80 to the House floor so that we can nullify yet another misguided Biden-era action and take another step to put our Nation's energy policy back on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I point out that, while the current administration did recently rescind the 2024 rule this month, passage of a CRA is still necessary to prevent a future administration from, again, weaponizing IAPs similar to this one that ignore congressional intent. By replacing the 2022 IAP, BLM wouldn't be left in limbo. They would revert back to the initial IAP finalized under the first Trump administration, which did take into account Native Tribal voices, and it is consistent with the requirements included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Begich), the lead sponsor of the House companion to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, ICAS, the North Slope Borough, and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, ASRC, that specifically states BLM failed to engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation with ASRC, the Borough, and ICAS.

This admission contradicts Federal consultation requirements and disregards the voices of the very communities most affected. Our leadership has consistently raised concerns about this process and its outcome, yet those concerns were ignored.

October 3, 2025.

Re Support for S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 124--Congressional

Review Act Disapproval of the BLM NPR-A Integrated

Activity Plan (IAP) Record of Decision (ROD).

Hon. Lisa Murkowski,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Dan Sullivan,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nicholas Begich III,

U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Senators Murkowski, Sullivan, and Representative

Begich: On behalf of the North Slope Inupiaq leadership--

including Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), the North

Slope Borough (Borough), and the Inupiat Community of the

Arctic Slope (ICAS)--we write in strong support of S.J. Res.

80, introduced by Senators Sullivan and Murkowski, and H.J.

Res. 124 in the House, each providing for congressional

disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code,

of the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management

relating to the ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska

Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision.''

Background

The North Slope Inupiat have called the Arctic home for

over 10,000 years. We are proud of our self-determination

efforts to ensure future generations of Inupiat continue to

reside in our communities and have access to essential

services. Without a stable economy, our communities will

suffer, along with our ability to fully engage in and sustain

our Inupiaq cultural traditions, including our vital

subsistence way of life.

The North Slope of Alaska spans an area nearly the size of

the state of Minnesota and, within that expansive area, there

are eight Inupiaq communities--Anaktuvuk Pass, Atqasuk,

Kaktovik, Nuiqsut, Point Hope, Point Lay, Utqiagvik, and

Wainwright. None of our communities are connected by a

permanent road system; all supplies must be flown or barged

in, making the cost of living extremely high and economic

opportunities generally low.

Over fifty years ago, the Federal Government directed

Alaska Native people to organize into a new structure of

indigenous representation. The Alaska Native Claims

Settlement Act of 1971 (ANCSA) was a dramatically different

and transformative approach by the Federal Government to

federal Indian policy. The fact that our ancestral lands were

claimed by the Federal Government before our people had a

right to settle aboriginal land claims should inform every

decision the Federal Government makes in managing those

lands.

Unlike the Lower 48 model of indigenous representation

where tribal governments typically administer the delivery of

services such as healthcare, public safety, education, land

management, and economic development, the passage of ANCSA

created a shared system of Alaska Native representation and

delivery of services. Our region has a multitude of Alaska

Native entities that work together to effectively serve,

provide for, and enrich the lives of the North Slope Inupiat

we represent. Our three regional entities, the ICAS, the

Borough, and ASRC are three of those entities. While our

roles differ, our constituencies overlap, which is why we

work closely together to protect the cultural and economic

interests of the North Slope Inupiat.

While our leaders over fifty years ago were initially wary

of any development on our lands, our Inupiaq leaders have

spent decades prioritizing open communication and

transparency in planning with industry. We have exercised

true self-determination through a unique framework of Alaska

Native governance--a framework that relies on our tribal

governments, municipal governments, and Alaska Native

corporations established by Congress to serve our indigenous

constituents. For millennia, Inupiaq ingenuity has

transformed our relationship with industry into a partnership

that has both protected our environment and our way of life

and has brought significant economic benefits to the region

that would have otherwise been absent. Our North Slope

residents are keenly aware that advances in our communities--

running water, local schools, health care, public safety,

electricity, and more--have come because of the coordination

and cooperation of Alaska Native leaders and entities across

the region.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit that a recipe for disaster is when an administration goes out on their own, goes around the laws that Congress passed, and implements bad rules on their way out the door and expects no repercussions from that.

I would say a recipe for good governance is when Congress acts within their power to disapprove of these rules, and that is exactly what we are doing with the CRA to make sure that these rules are followed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time. I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it has been stated that gas and energy prices won't be reduced by passing this CRA, and I contend that they will because overturning these rules would incentivize much-needed investment throughout the State or the entire North Slope.

The regional impacts of increased energy production in Alaska cannot be overstated. Refineries in the region, including California and Washington, are equipped to handle Alaskan oil, and the refinery in Kenai produces most of the State of Alaska's gasoline. The North Pole refinery provides jet fuel for our military, amongst other aviation fuels. Two other refineries located in Valdez and near Fairbanks also produce diesel and heating fuels.

Let me point out that 3 out of 10 State households in Alaska rely on fuel oil, kerosene, or propane for home heating. You may ask why they would rely on these fuels that are traditionally more expensive when Alaska has trillions of cubic feet of natural gas. That is because that natural gas is on the North Slope, and even in the city of Anchorage, they are running out of natural gas because they can't move the gas from the North Slope and can't develop infrastructure. Not only can they not meet their own needs with that gas, they certainly can't export it to our allies.

As many have shared, the NPR-A is essential to unleashing American energy dominance and sustaining economies throughout Alaska.

Congress must also act to undo the harm that the previous administration imposed, and we must work to unlock the estimated 8.7 billion barrels of oil and 25 trillion cubic feet of natural gas the NPR-A holds.

By repealing this decision, we can help uphold Tribal voices and revert to the 2020 IAP that considered their meaningful input.

Letting these plans to shut down energy production in the NPR-A linger would be devastating to Alaskans, especially the Native communities on the North Slope. Without jobs, people may leave these communities, jeopardizing the culture and social fabric of the region. We cannot afford to let this happen. We must pass S.J. Res. 80.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I oppose S.J. Res. 80, which would overturn the BLM's 2022 Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision for the National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska, more commonly referred to as ``NPR-A.''

Now the name National Petroleum Reserve is more than a little misleading. This is not some industrial sacrifice zone. It is not some untapped oil field just waiting to be developed. On the contrary, the NPR-A is the largest contiguous unit of public lands in the United States. It spans 23 million acres, and this area of the western Arctic is home to a diverse ecosystem, where iconic species like wolves, polar bears, and caribou roam. Beluga and bowhead whales shelter in its coastal waters. Millions of migratory birds rely on this intact landscape and the critical waters and wetlands that are the NPR-A.

The legislation before us today would withdraw a smart and well- thought-out plan to balance conservation and development in the NPR-A. The 2022 NPR-A plan was developed over more than a decade of engagement with a variety of stakeholders: scientists, experts, indigenous communities, NGOs, and industry.

It aimed to limit the disruption and ecological harm from existing oil and gas development while also designating special areas to protect habitat for the many species that call this amazing place home.

I respect that there are a variety of views on how to manage our Nation's public lands, but it won't be possible for future administrations to incorporate feedback and comments on proposed actions in the NPR-A if Congress approves the resolution before us today.

The CRA, as we have said several times in the course of this debate, is a blunt instrument. It would prevent BLM from ever issuing a substantially similar replacement, and so this path would strip local land managers of the ability to respond to on-the-ground changes and needs for the future of the NPR-A.

My friends across the aisle don't need to do this. There are already processes in place for administrations to propose new management decisions if they don't like this plan. The Trump administration is doing just that already: pursuing updates to the land management plans that we have been debating here using the standard, inclusive mechanisms that allow for public input.

Interior Secretary Burgum withdrew conservation protections for the NPR-A in July. Just last week, the Interior Department finalized a new rule that overturned the previous plan.

The Congressional Review Act is simply the wrong tool to address any changes to management of these lands, and it is not even necessary.

Why do my Republican colleagues need to take up our valuable floor time here debating a rule that their friends in the administration have already rescinded? They just returned from a 53-day, taxpayer-funded vacation, canceled 5 weeks of votes, and still have a long to-do list before the end of the year. That list, I hope, includes figuring out how to avoid another government shutdown in January.

You may wonder if my colleagues are spending time on polluter giveaways to maybe distract from something; maybe something like the fact that President Trump has been mentioned more than 1,000 times in the Epstein emails.

President Trump and House Republicans continue to push their drill, baby, drill agenda even though it makes no sense for people, for the planet, or for our pocketbooks.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this distraction, this S.J. Res. 80, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, again, the plan that this resolution targets for disapproval is not in place. It has been rescinded by the Trump administration. If ever there is a case for a misapplication of the CRA, it would be this right here.

I think, Mr. Speaker, it is an important time for us to step back and consider why using a CRA for any, frankly, public land management plan, but certainly for one that has already been rescinded, is just a recipe for uncertainty and conflict and litigation.

Nearly a third of our Nation's land mass, 640 million acres, is managed by the Federal Government. The Forest Service manages 193 million acres. BLM manages 244 million in addition to 713 million acres of Federal minerals.

For nearly 50 years, BLM and the Forest Service have managed these lands under management plans required by the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and the National Forest Management Act. These plans, known as resource management plans, or RMPs, establish safeguards for watersheds and recreation areas. They facilitate energy development and grazing and logging and other commercial activities and provide a mechanism for harmonizing the needs of local communities with our national goals and perspectives.

Now, just a few months ago, we debated some other CRA resolutions targeting management plans, and we explained at that time how unprecedented that was. We still don't know the extent of chaos that is going to result from these actions that have already been taken, but we do know this: Under the CRA rules and ``rules'' is a technical term of art here, normally cannot go into effect unless they are submitted for congressional review.

Here is the problem, BLM and the Forest Service have never considered RMPs to be rules that they would submit to Congress. They have just never done that, and that has long been the case under both Democratic and Republican Presidents with precedence being set by those Presidents.

Now that Congress has decided apparently to disapprove of individual RMPs, what does that mean for every other plan that is in place that wasn't submitted to Congress? What does that mean for the small businesses, the local communities, and other public land stakeholders who depend on a stable and predictable land use planning process? If the validity of these land use plans is challenged, then leases, permits, and other authorizations that depend on those plans could be called into question.

This is already creating uncertainty and delays, making it nearly impossible for new projects to proceed on time.

Here are a couple of examples for consideration. What would happen to the White River oil and gas resource management plan in Colorado, which authorizes 15,000 oil and gas wells? What about the Rosemont Copper plan amendment for Forest Service lands in Arizona, approving a 5,000- acre open pit mine in the Coronado National Forest? What about the TransWest Express and Gateway South RMP amendments for three transmission lines through Wyoming, Idaho, Nevada, and Utah?

Does Interior now need to go back and submit all of those RMP amendments to Congress for approval under this new Republican interpretation of the CRA? Is Congress prepared to take on day-to-day management of public lands and minerals, thousands of miles from Washington, D.C.?

I don't think so, but I am not the only one who has concerns about this treadmill of litigation and conflict and uncertainty that is being created here.

Let me read a quote from Kathleen Sgamma, President Trump's first nominee for director of BLM. She said: ``There are some additional legal risks that can arise from the CRA. It's uncharted ground, and if not used wisely, there could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent.''

Just a few months ago, the House passed several other CRA resolutions, overturning land management plans. As we said at the time, that was unprecedented. These resolutions before us continue to chart unprecedented ground, and I don't think anyone, including my colleagues across the aisle, have thought a heck of a lot about where it leads.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I will point out that we have heard a number of times now that more drilling is necessary in the name of energy independence. I want to remind my colleagues that the United States is already the number one producer of oil in the world and the number one producer and exporter of gas in the world, but you would sure never know it when you look at the energy bills that are facing families all over this country.

It is abundantly clear that the drill, baby, drill agenda is not working for everyday Americans. As long as we are dependent on the fossil fuel roller coaster, American consumers will be at the whim of the global oil and gas market, but if we want energy independence and if we want lower utility bills, we need to get back on track with the transition to clean energy.

It is cheaper. It is safer. It is generated entirely here at home instead of being at the mercy of global price shocks like oil and gas just inherently are. Instead, this legislation would make us more reliant on fossil fuels and more entangled with the price effects of this fossil fuel roller coaster. Plus, oil from America's Arctic will not come online for many, many years.

The Willow project, for example, won't start until 2029. Meanwhile, the Arctic is warming four times faster than the rest of the world. Even at the Willow project, developer ConocoPhillips will use artificial chillers to freeze melting permafrost before drilling for oil. That is the kind of complexity and additional cost that is inherent in drilling in these remote pristine parts of the Arctic.

The project itself will release nearly 300 million metric tons of carbon pollution into the atmosphere over its lifetime, the equivalent of at least 66 coal-fired power plants.

Again, Mr. Speaker, if we want true energy independence and security, we need to combat the climate crisis and transition to clean, renewable energy.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, in closing, I strongly oppose this resolution.

The three Congressional Review Act resolutions that we have been considering here today are going to strip local land managers of the ability to respond to future challenges, changes,

and needs in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the NPR-A, and the Powder River Basin. If these reckless resolutions pass, these places will be locked into outdated plans that fail to account for changes in community needs, industry needs, and, yes, climate-driven impacts.

These CRA resolutions are completely unnecessary because the Trump administration has already acted on their own to replace these plans.

Even oil and gas industry experts across the political spectrum agree that the use of the CRA on land use plans creates regulatory and legal ambiguity. In fact, Kathleen Sgamma, as I just told you, President Trump's former nominee to lead the BLM, recently said--and it is a quote worth repeating--``There could be some legal risks introduced and some bad legal precedent'' when using CRAs in this manner. Yet, apparently, my friends across the aisle are just going to do it anyway.

Sgamma led the Western Energy Alliance, an oil and gas industry trade association. She has testified for the House Committee on Natural Resources majority many times.

This misuse of the CRA will create regulatory chaos for everyone, including the industry, so I ask my colleagues across the aisle: Why pursue it?

House Republicans are continuing to lock the American people into higher energy costs by pushing their fossil fuel playbook and sabotaging clean, renewable energy.

Our constituents deserve better. They deserve a future with clean and affordable energy, where utility bills aren't skyrocketing and where we know our lands and waters won't suffer as a result.

That is why I oppose this resolution and urge all of my colleagues to join me in voting ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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