A joint resolution 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 "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision".

Mr. President, I am coming down on the Senate floor, once again, to talk about another Congressional Review Act resolution that I am encouraging all of my colleagues, Democrats, Republicans--by the way, our last one on the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, right here, was bipartisan. I want to thank Senator Fetterman for his support here.

This is a really big one, and some people are like: Geez, Senator Sullivan, Senator Murkowski, you are down here a lot on these CRAs. We are down here a lot on these Congressional Review Act resolutions because of this. All right? I have trotted out this chart a lot, but it bears repeating. The Biden administration decided, because the far- left, radical environmental groups say: Hey, when Democrats get in power--that will mean the minority leader, if he ever became majority leader, that would include him--when they get into power, what do they do? They want to make sure they shut down the great State of Alaska. I won't go into all of the reasons, but they do it, and they are aggressive on it.

So, as I have said before, during the 4 years of the Biden administration, we had this last frontier lockup. Here is the actual list. It is shocking. I don't think, in the history of America, the Federal Government, the White House, ever used its powers so much to try to crush one State. They did it during the 4 years of the Biden administration with the support of my friends on the other side of the aisle--70 Executive orders and Executive actions, singularly and exclusively focused on the great State of Alaska--by the way, 10 on day one.

So when Joe Biden got inaugurated, man, he was raring to go to crush Alaska, kill thousands of jobs--by the way, great union jobs, by the way. Nobody ever talks about that. These are all great union jobs to develop resources for the great State of Alaska. So that was it. Seventy--can you imagine any other State in America having their own Federal Government crush them? We got sanctioned more than Joe Biden sanctioned Iran and Venezuela, and they are terrorist states. But that is what we dealt with.

So the reason I am down here so often on these CRA, Congressional Review Act, resolutions is, it is our chance--it is the Republican Senate, with a Republican President and a Republican House--to say: Now, wait a minute. We don't think the power of the Federal Government should be used to crush any State like this, especially one with all these great resources and great Native people.

I am going to get to all of this, but the Democrats do that.

So I am asking my colleagues on one of these--I can't remember which one;

there are several dealing with ANWR--to rescind the Biden rule, get it over to the President, and sign it into law.

Now, I am going to talk about the ranking member from New Mexico who just came down and spoke against this. He is the No. 1 guy in the Senate who loves to crush Alaska. But I am going to go into a little bit about his State and maybe something--the word called ``hypocrisy'' that we are going to get to here in a minute.

But this one is really big. The CRA that the Biden administration did to lock up ANWR--because out of all of the CRAs, a lot of these were illegal. They are illegal. They go against what Congress says the law is, and the executive branch just wouldn't do. It wouldn't follow suit. But the ANWR one was particularly illegal.

So, in 2017, in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the Congress of the United States, after debating this topic for almost 40 years, said the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is going to be open for resource development--responsible resource development. We have the highest standards on resource development in the world in Alaska.

So the Congress, in a law, didn't ``suggest'' that we do it. The Congress mandated two lease sales--have to do it, Executive branch-- offering no fewer than 400,000 acres in this area, what we call the 1002 area. That is named after section 1002 of ANILCA. We finally got it done.

This is a hugely bipartisan issue in Alaska. We know how to develop our resources. By the way, the Native people, great, heroic Native people, Inupiat Natives who live on the North Slope of Alaska in NPR-A, in ANWR-I just did a townhall, by the way, with the great people, our North Slope Borough, and the one community actually lives here, just last night. They all, the leadership almost unanimously, wanted this resource development.

I am going to get into that in a minute.

So the law of the United States--the President signed the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Section 1 was about tax cuts and jobs. Section 2 was about opening ANWR. That is what it said: Shall do it, must do it. OK? That was the law.

So imagine when the Biden administration came in, and they started saying: Eh, we are not going to follow the law. As a matter of fact, the Secretary of the Interior of the Biden administration, she announced at a press conference that through a regulation--that we are going to rescind today--they were going to lock up and shut down ANWR. No lease sales. They were going to cancel the lease sales of the Trump administration.

This is blatantly illegal. None of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said: Wait a minute. You can't do that. You are violating the law.

They talk about a lot of administrations violating the law, but when it came to Alaska, Joe Biden violated the law every day almost.

So this is a quote from Secretary Haaland. Despite the law--she was a former Congresswoman--saying you have got to develop this--shall, must, Congress is telling you--she said that ``with today's action'' on an Executive order ``no one will have the rights to drill'' in this area.

Whoa. Well, that is pretty darn illegal when the Congress said: No, you have do that.

So it is not just me saying that. In 2025, after litigation by the State of Alaska against the Biden administration, one of our Federal judges in Alaska, Judge Gleason, wrote that the ``Federal Defendants'''--that is the Biden administration--``cancellation of the [ANWAR] leases,'' which they did illegally, ``was not in accordance with the law.'' I am quoting the judge. The Department of the Interior error is serious. The Department of the Interior canceled these leases without following congressionally mandated procedure.

So there you go. It is not just me, one Senator, saying that what Joe Biden did was illegal. It was a Federal judge.

This vote today is actually to vindicate the rule of law. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to talk about the rule of law a lot. So I certainly hope that we can do that.

To Senator Heinrich, the senior Senator from New Mexico, and his colleague Secretary Haaland, I think they need special recognition on what I would just refer to as hypocrisy, because as soon as that 2017 law was passed saying, ``hey, you can now develop this area,'' the senior Senator from New Mexico led a letter with dozens of Democrat Senators, writing to all the investment banks and all the insurance companies, saying: We are a bunch of Senators. We have a lot of power. Don't invest in Alaska. Don't invest in ANWR--don't.

I mean, I could threaten businesses and stuff. We are a bunch of powerful Senators. Don't do it.

Could you imagine if every Senator in the Senate decided, ``hey, I am going to pick on New Mexico; I am going to make it my point in life to just go after New Mexico, shut down their economy, kill thousands of jobs''? This place wouldn't work at all.

But the senior Senator from New Mexico has made it a career of shutting down my great State. In one of those letters, he said: We have to do this. Shut down Alaska. Don't invest in Alaska.

He is down here on the floor arguing against voting for this CRA because he said we have to ``meet America's climate goals.'' So that is one of his arguments: Let's shut down the great State of Alaska so we can ``meet America's climate goals.''

So here is how I am talking a little bit about hypocrisy. During the time of the Biden administration and these 70 Executive orders--right there, to crush my State, kill thousands of jobs--what was going on with New Mexico, where the senior Senator is from and where Secretary Haaland is from? Well, the press never writes this story. I have given a speech on this many times. It was ``drill, baby, drill'' in New Mexico--``drill, baby, drill.''

You want to talk about climate goals? You want to talk about a climate bomb?

My State barely has 500,000 barrels a day of production. New Mexico, under Joe Biden and Secretary Haaland and the senior Senator from New Mexico, they went from a million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, all on Federal lands. Was that hypocrisy or what?

There were 9,366 applications for permits to drill during the first 2 years of the Biden administration. My State got zero from these guys. Over half of all permits to drill on Federal lands in the first years of the Biden administration went to what State? Oh, shoot, New Mexico. ``Drill, baby, drill.'' Climate bomb.

But the senior Senator is going to come down here and continue what he has done throughout his career, which is try to shut down my State. It is outrageous. It is outrageous.

Like I said, New Mexico has increased oil production since 2019 from 1.2 million barrels a day to 2 million barrels a day, all on Federal lands. They are the second most oil-producing and climate-producing State in the country. Last year, the New Mexico Legislative Finance Committee took the tax receipt from all its ``drill, baby, drill'' oil, and do you know what they are doing with the money? Free college, tax cuts, infrastructure, childcare, healthcare, you name it. Yet this guy wants to shut down my State--hypocrite, hypocrite.

Mr. President, let me end with one final point because I heard the senior Senator from New Mexico coming down to say: Well, the Native people really want to keep this area locked up.

That is so wrong. That is not correct at all. It is frustrating as can be when I hear another Senator try to speak on behalf of the Native people I have the privilege of representing. The vast, vast majority of the people who live on the North Slope of Alaska, the Inupiat Natives, they want to develop the resources. Why? For the same reason that New Mexico is giving healthcare and childcare and infrastructure from oil revenues to their people.

I find it very frustrating when I have Senate colleagues, particularly the senior Senator from New Mexico, come down on the floor and say: Well, we have to shut down Alaska. We have to keep them from developing. We will kill thousands of good union jobs. But, hey, don't look. It is ``drill, baby, drill'' in my State--which it is. It has been.

I will submit to the Record the Native voices of my State who want to develop their resources. There are a lot of reasons for that. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle love to talk about how there are poor people of

color, indigenous people, minority communities. But there is a big asterisk--not if it is Native Alaskans, no way. They love to keep them down, keep their economic prospects limited, and take away opportunity.

That is why, Mr. President, I would like to submit this letter for the Record in support of this CRA, in support of this Senate resolution. This is from the trilateral group of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope. This is the Tribe--all the Tribes on the North Slope of Alaska, right here. They are for it, the North Slope Borough.

I did a townhall and presentation in front of them. That is the borough here, the North Slope Borough. That is the elected officials. Almost all are Alaska Natives. Maybe all of them are Alaska Natives, including the mayor, including the president of the borough--good friends of mine. By the way, that borough, I think, is about the size of Montana. So it is pretty big. And there are the Alaska Native corporations too. This is the trilateral. They say this is a really important Senate resolution.

These are the Native people of my State who live where this action that we are taking here on the Senate floor is going to take place. They are saying this is absolutely critical to their sovereignty, to their economic development, to their cultural heritage. It is a very powerful letter.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

There is also what we call the VOICE of the Inupiat, another group similarly situated--all Alaska Natives, all from this area. They were established to speak with a unified voice for the Native people on the North Slope, to preserve the advancement of the Inupiat culture and economic self-determination. All of the members of the board of directors of this organization unanimously support this resolution.

I ask unanimous consent to have this letter printed in the Record.

Finally, Mr. President, it is important to know that the Trump administration is also fully supportive of our Senate resolution in terms of this CRA. This is a statement of administrative policy, where it States:

The Administration strongly supports passage of H.J. Res.

131.

I ask unanimous consent to have that statement printed in the Record.

Why do our Alaska Native people so strongly support this CRA and the one that we did on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska a couple of weeks ago? Why? I talked about this many times, but I am going to do it again because it is really important. Yes, it is jobs. Yes, it is economic self-determination. All of those are really important. It is having the Federal Government actually work with them and listen to them.

By the way, on the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, Biden shut down. The Native people from the Tribe, from the ANC, from the Bureau came to Washington, DC, eight times. They flew 4,000 miles, eight times, to meet with Secretary Haaland to say to her: Don't do this. We are the people of the region. We are the Native people of the region. Don't issue this regulation that is going to lock up opportunities for us, going to lock up healthcare, going to lock up healthier living.

And you know what? She never even met with them. She never met with them. They flew here eight times, and she never even met with them. Talk about canceling Native voices.

But why does it matter? Well, I think this chart explains a lot. I have brought it on the Senate floors many times, but it bears repeating. I want my colleagues--I want the senior Senator from New Mexico, as his State spends billions of dollars from their ``drill, baby, drill'' oil revenues, climate bomb revenues--that is fine for them, right? I have nothing against that. But I do when that State is doing it, and then they try to shut down my State. He leads the charge, by the way, almost every time, which really frustrates me.

Here is a really important study from the American Medical Association, from 1980 to 2014--so a 25-year period. It said: Let's look at America, and where are people's lives increasing, and where are people's lives decreasing?

That is horrible. We don't want that as Americans.

So when you look at this chart and you see a kind of yellow, orange, and red, those are actually places where the life expectancy of American citizens went down. That is very unusual for us. We don't want that. Unfortunately, that has been in places like West Virginia, Southern Ohio. That is primarily opioid epidemic stuff, which is horrible.

Then, where has life expectancy increased? You see the green, blue, and then purple. The increases are dramatic. It is 13 years where the purple places are. Well, guess which State increased life expectancy the most over that period, from 1980 to 2014: Alaska. Guess which parts of Alaska: the parts with predominantly Native populations--the North Slope Borough, Northwest Arctic Borough, Aleutian Islands chain, some here in southeastern Alaska. Life expectancy went up by 13 years.

I have said this many times when I am debating my Democratic colleagues. Give me an indicator of policy success more important than that the people you are representing are living longer. There isn't one. No one ever came to me and said: Here is better. We are putting out less emissions.

That is not a better indicator of policy success.

So the people of my State, particularly in the North Slope Borough region, Northwest Arctic Borough region, Aleutian Islands chain region--they are living longer. That is great. Everybody should applaud that.

Why do you think they are living longer? Here is why they are living longer. It is responsible resource development. On the North Slope, starting around 1980, we discovered and started developing the largest oil field in North America, Prudhoe Bay. In the Northwest Arctic Borough, they discovered and started developing the biggest lead-zinc mine on the planet.

By the way, this is all great for America. It makes us stronger. But it is really great for the people of the region.

In the Aleutian Islands chain, because of Federal law, the Magnuson- Stevens Act, we started developing our own fisheries--American fisheries--out to the 200-mile limit. In all of these areas, people started living longer. Why? They got good jobs. They got revenues for schools, for health clinics, for running water and flushed toilets. A lot of these places don't even have running water and flushed toilets. Yet my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are going to block this kind of development.

For the senior Senator from New Mexico, his State is ``drill, baby, drill,''--2 million barrels a day. They are now using that oil money for everything under the Sun--infrastructure, childcare, healthcare-- but for Alaska, no way. We are going to shut you down.

Do you know what? You are going to actually make the people I represent not live as long.

So that is why I come down to the Senate floor. I get a little bit hot under the collar because I just see this blatant hypocrisy on the other side. I just need one Democrat beyond Senator Fetterman to vote with the people of Alaska, the Native people--for their livelihoods, for an increase in how long they live. That would be a courageous vote. That would be the right thing to do.

I hope that all of my Republican colleagues will stand strong with us on voting yes on this important resolution, and I hope that maybe one or two of my Democratic colleagues will. By the way, they know it is the right thing to do. This resolution will help people live longer. It will help our country be stronger in terms of American energy. It will vindicate the rule of law after Joe Biden and Secretary Haaland blatantly violated it.

I hope all of my colleagues will join me in supporting ``yes'' on this important resolution for the Native people of Alaska, for my State, and for our great Nation.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to reject the Biden administration's unlawful attempt to stifle Alaska's congressionally mandated oil and gas leasing program in the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I urge my colleagues to support the Alaska congressional delegation's joint resolution of disapproval, H.J. Res. 131 and S.J. Res. 91, to reject unlawful regulatory overreach.

The implementation of the Biden administration's 2024 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision, ROD, locked away nearly 75 percent of the Coastal Plain, also known as the 1002 Area, including lands that are projected to have substantial resources beneath them, from responsible oil and gas leasing--completely undermining the explicit and express will of Congress and ignoring the needs and input of local residents. Passing this joint resolution will disapprove this Record of Decision and prevent this circumvention of Federal law from happening again.

Alaska has a strong record of responsible resource development. The footprint of drilling pads on the North Slope has declined by 80 percent since the 1970s, while new and safer technology has expanded the reach of underground drilling by a significant margin. The result is that less land is being used to develop resources than ever before, as many modern sites cover just a few acres and are miles apart. These technological advancements have played a significant role in reducing impact to surrounding ecosystems. For example, the Central Arctic Caribou herd, which ranges throughout Prudhoe Bay, has seen its population grow for sustained periods alongside responsible development on the North Slope.

The prospect of oil and gas development within ANWR has a long history that dates back to before Alaska joined the Union as a State in 1959. In 1943, the Federal Government withdrew all the lands on the North Slope by Public Land Order, PLO 82, to prevent certain types of development. In 1960, the Department of the Interior, DOI, issued PLO 2214, setting aside 8.9 million acres to establish the Arctic National Wildlife Range for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreation values, withdrawing the lands from ``all forms of appropriation . . . including mining but not the mineral leasing laws.'' PLO 2214 intentionally left open the possibility of the development of certain resources, including oil and gas.

Under the landmark 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the Range was expanded to its present size of 19.3 million acres--an area nearly as large as South Carolina--and renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Section 1002 of ANILCA directed the Department of the Interior to study the oil and gas potential of the 1.57-million-acre Coastal Plain, a designated area of ANWR that held great promise of oil and gas resources. However, section 1003 prohibited oil and gas production or leasing in ANWR unless authorized by an Act of Congress.

Over the following years, DOI completed assessments of the area's oil and gas potential and recommended that Congress lease the Coastal Plain area. The Coastal Plain showed remarkable prospects for oil development. The U.S. Geological Survey concluded in 1998 that the Coastal Plain held at least 4.3 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil, reporting: ``Technically recoverable oil within the ANWR 1002 area (excluding State and Native areas) is estimated to be between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels (95- and 5-percent probability range), with a mean value of 7.7 billion barrels.'' In 2005, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that over 3 billion barrels were technically and economically recoverable in the Coastal Plain. Based on estimates such as these, DOI projected in 2024 that ANWR drilling would generate around $29 billion in revenue for the Federal Government through 2050.

Despite numerous efforts by Congress and the leadership of Alaska's congressional delegation to realize this potential, it was not until the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, TCJA, that the groundwork for authorizing drilling in ANWR was laid. Within this budget reconciliation bill, Congress directed the creation of the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the express purpose of generating revenue and offsetting the tax cuts included in the Act.

That was why, when Congress passed the TCJA, it included very clear and specific terms to make the lease sales successful and the exploration and development program economically feasible. Section 20001 of the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, TCJA, expressly mandates that the Department of the Interior, DOI, shall issue a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain. It amended ANILCA to add this purpose for ANWR, set specific royalty rates for leases, and directed that 50 percent of receipts for the oil and gas program and operations on Federal land be deposited in the U.S. Treasury with the State of Alaska receiving the remainder. The bill further directed at least two Coastal Plain lease sales within 10 years of enactment, the first by December 2021 and the second by December 2024, offering the areas with the highest hydrocarbon potential, with lease offerings of not fewer than 400,000 acres.

Congress left little discretion to DOI. DOI's role was only to establish and administer a competitive program and incorporate TCJA requirements to instill success and economic feasibility, including granting any easements or rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain for exploration, development, production, and transportation in the Coastal Plain that were necessary to carry out the terms of section 20001.

To implement Congress' directive, DOI conducted a National Environmental Policy Act process and issued a Final Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Environmental Impact Statement, Final EIS, in September 2019 that closely followed congressional intent. In 2020, the Bureau of Land Management, BLM, under the first Trump administration, issued its ``Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision,'' based on Alternative B from the 2019 Final EIS that made all of the approximately 1.6 million acres of the program area available for oil and gas leasing. In January of 2021, a competitive lease sale was held and multiple bids were received by prospective developers as intended under the TCJA, raising millions of dollars for the United States. Congress had set out terms and conditions of the program, to give it a sound opportunity to succeed, and DOI followed its statutory directive.

However, following the election of President Biden, DOI reversed direction in 2021. On June 1, 2021, DOI issued a Secretarial Order temporarily halting all activities in the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. In August 2023, DOI issued a new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program and selected a much more restrictive plan for development, Alternative D. The new alternative's restrictive terms were contrary to the lease sale requirements set out in the TCJA and Congress' intent that DOI establish a competitive program designed for success and economic feasibility. In a Secretarial Order issued in September 2023, DOI imposed a blanket moratorium on development and canceled the lawfully purchased oil and gas leases in the Coastal Plain, an action the Alaska District Court subsequently found to be unlawful.

Then, in November 2024, BLM issued a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement, Final SEIS, that moved even further away from the TCJA. DOI selected a new preferred Alternative D2, which was so draconian that it was effectively a ``No Development'' plan and made nearly 1.2 million acres unavailable for leasing or exploration. On December 9, 2024, DOI issued its 2024 ROD selecting Alternative D2's terms and conditions for the oil and gas program. The December 2024 ROD's terms were so limiting that they would make leasing, exploration, and development on the Coastal Plain economically infeasible. Much of the Alternative D2 highest hydrocarbon potential area would essentially be off limits, as it would be subject to No Surface Occupancy or Controlled Surface Use stipulations. DOI offered only 995 acres of Surface Disturbance Area, less than half of the maximum 2,000 Surface Acres of Federal Land for Production and Support Facilities that the TCJA allowed. Alternative D2 contained so many limitations, restrictive stipulations, and Required Operating Procedures that it made leasing and development economically infeasible. As a result of this blatant attempt to undermine and disregard Congress' direction for a competitive oil and gas leasing program within the Coastal Plain, the DOI received zero bids and never truly held a competitive oil and gas lease sale. As I said at the time, January 20, 2025, and the inauguration of President Trump could not come soon enough.

Permit terms can undermine the program's economic feasibility in indirect ways, such as limiting the location of future drill pads and other infrastructure. As an example, one stipulation prevented use of areas near the shore, which would usually be used as a critical staging area for loading and unloading barges. The stipulation preventing use of that area requires staging to be pushed further inland, which in turn requires construction of ice or gravel roads to reach the barges-- a higher economic, logistic, and environmental impact. Other stipulations are redundant with existing State requirements. These are just some of the many examples of 2024 ROD terms that make the program economically infeasible. These terms and conditions in the 2024 ROD are part of why the Senate should pass this joint resolution to prohibit similar restrictions in the future.

The clear intent of Congress in the TCJA was that the Coastal Plain would produce billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas which Alaska and the Nation need for energy security and revenue. Not only is it impossible for a competitive oil and gas leasing program to be administered through piecemeal offerings of land tracts which exclude areas known to have proven potential for significant hydrocarbon reserves, but in doing so, the 2024 ROD ignored explicit instructions put forth by Congress in the TCJA. Congress clearly stated the Secretary ``shall establish and administer a competitive oil and gas program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas in and from the Coastal Plain,'' that the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Program ``shall'' be supported by lease offerings of ``not fewer'' than 400,000 acres, and the 400,000 acres ``shall'' consist of ``those areas that have the highest potential for the discovery of hydrocarbons.'' The Biden DOI's sabotage of the program went directly against the policy and purposes of the TCJA.

When an agency fails to follow mandates from Congress, Congress has the tool of the Congressional Review Act, CRA, to correct those actions. DOI must follow the statutory mandates from Congress and allow meaningful and reasonable economic development of the Coastal Plain. No other law or detailed terms and conditions imposed by DOI can destroy the clear statutory direction given by Congress in the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act. If the Biden administration's onerous terms and conditions were allowed to stand, there would not be any ``program for the leasing, development, production, and transportation of oil and gas'' from any of the most prospective leases in the Coastal Plain.

In its selection of Alternative D2, the Biden administration claimed to be listening to the concerns of indigenous voices when this could not be further from the truth. In practice, the Biden administration deliberately ignored the only communities who live near and within the boundaries of ANWR and was instead beholden to radical environmental interests which, in contrast to local communities, supported a moratorium on ANWR development and led to the creation of the 2024 ROD. Fortunately, elections have consequences, and on January 20, 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 Biden's illegal cancellation of the ANWR leases and the 2024 SEIS, review of the 2024 ROD, and a reinstatement of the 2020 Final EIS and 2020 ROD issued during the first Trump administration.

This past summer, Secretary of the Interior and Chairman of the National Energy Dominance Council 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. During the townhall, the Secretary heard the testimony of Charles Lampe, a resident of Kaktovik--the only community located fully within ANWR--and the President of Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, KIC. KIC is a village corporation established by the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. KIC owns approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands, but is completely enveloped within ANWR and hampered from developing these acres to their fullest potential. Mr. Lampe shared the continuous efforts undertaken by KIC in order to open ANWR to oil and gas operations. He highlighted the fact that pursuing oil and gas endeavors in ANWR is essential to realizing self-determination within Kaktovik. In testimony on Coastal Plain oil and gas development delivered to the House Committee on Natural Resources in 2023, Mr. Lampe objected to radical environmental interests that support turning the community and its surrounding land into a giant national park, claiming such an action ``literally guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced subsistence, and no hope for the future of our people.'' In front of those gathered, Secretary Burgum committed to rectifying this injustice.

Because of the opportunities provided by oil and gas operations, this industry has provided thousands of good-paying jobs to Alaskans, become the primary driver of my State's economy, and transformed many of our rural communities. 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, an ideal that is reflected in the testimony of Mr. Lampe.

This Congress has already taken decisive steps to reassert its authority over the Coastal Plain. In the ``Working Families Tax Cut Act,'' P.L. 119-21,

Congress mandated lease sales to be offered under the same terms and conditions set forth in the August 2020 ROD for the FEIS of the original Coastal Plain leasing program. In October, Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum made good on his commitments to the people of Kaktovik and issued a new Coastal Plain Leasing Program based on the 2020 ROD. Passage of this joint resolution would durably protect against another rogue administration promulgating a substantially similar anti-development leasing program for the Coastal Plain as contained in the 2024 ROD. It will prevent actions that aim to inhibit the self-determination of the people of Kaktovik and other North Slope communities by attempting to turn Alaska into one giant national park while denying access to the abundance of readily available natural resources needed to advance energy security, economic opportunity, and community development.

Congress' direction that DOI establish and administer a competitive lease program was nondiscretionary and much more limited than the action DOI took in the 2024 ROD. To the extent DOI, or any other Agency, imposes permit terms or operational requirements that impede the economic feasibility of the program, they undermine the primary purpose of the TCJA: to establish a competitive program that will actually generate the billion dollars in revenue anticipated. The Act specifically states that DOI must grant easements or rights-of-way across the Coastal Plain that are necessary for exploration, development, production, and transportation in the Coastal Plain to carry out the terms of section 20001, and DOI's permit operating procedure terms must be consistent with Congress' intent in the same way to be consistent with law. Those permit and operational terms can be identified, revised, and readopted to conform to the TCJA intent.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a Statement of Administration Policy from the Office of Management and Budget, dated November 17, 2025; a letter of support from Charles Lampe, President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, dated December 3, 2025; and a briefing sheet from the Bureau of Land Management on the explaining the differences between the 2024 Biden administration Record of Decision for the ANWR Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program and the 2020 ROD issued during the first Trump administration and the implications of using the Congressional Review Act.

I urge my colleagues to reject this blatant contravention of congressional directives and unlawful regulatory overreach, reinforce American energy dominance, 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. President, I have come to the floor this morning as we begin debate on two identical disapproval resolutions. This is S.J. Res. 91--I filed it with Senator Sullivan--and then H.J. Res. 131, which is a companion measure filed by our delegation colleague Representative Begich. These resolutions would nullify the Biden administration's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. This was unilaterally rewritten and finalized over our objections back in November of 2024.

We are going to have an opportunity to vote later on a motion to proceed to my Senate resolution. Then, if that succeeds, our final vote tomorrow will be on the House resolution because it can then go directly to the President's desk.

Those of us in the Alaska delegation filed these resolutions because we are again seeking to overturn the Biden administration's effort to effectively shut down resource production across Alaska. We opposed their Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, their integrated activity plan for our National Petroleum Reserve, and their decision to shut down any potential development on a very small part of the Coastal Plain.

So for those who have not followed this, the Coastal Plain is a 1.56 million-acre tract of land. This is on the eastern part of Alaska's North Slope. So if you look at the overlay here of Alaska, across the lower 48 States, the ANWR region is up here in the upper eastern corner. The refuge itself is about 19 million acres. This is approximately the size of South Carolina. The nonwilderness area--this is the 1002 area--is 1.5 million acres, which is approximately the size of Delaware. Again, you see this in that section of the map there.

The Coastal Plain is part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but in designating that as a refuge, Congress specifically reserved this area up at the top, on the slope there, for energy exploration and potential future development. Congress did this through what was known as section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call it ANILCA. So when we refer to the 1002 area, it is this Coastal Plain here within the ANWR region.

Section 1002 of ANILCA starts with a purpose that explicitly authorizes ``exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources.''

So I think it is important that people understand this purpose, this distinction. The 1002 area--this area here, the purple area--is not Federal wilderness. By law--by law--it is a Federal set-aside. This area here is wilderness. This is the refuge area. The 1002 area, again, was specifically set aside to authorize exploratory activity.

Then Congress left the decision on development to be determined later. It was years--it was decades, actually--it was in 2017 that we in Congress agreed as to what should be allowed. I was chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the time, and we added a title II to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It drew bipartisan support, but we effectively put an end to a 40-year battle. We opened up a small fraction of the Coastal Plain to responsible development. And under the terms of that act, we required at least two area-wide lease sales over the course of 7 years.

But we provided balance to all that. It wasn't just ``open the whole thing for exploration.'' We limited surface development to just 2,000 acres.

So, keep in mind, in this area that is the size of Delaware, we limited surface development to 2,000 acres, which is one one-hundredth of 1 percent--one one-hundredth of 1 percent--or one ten-thousandth of all of ANWR. That is what we included within that measure in that 2017 act.

We did not shortcut or truncate the environmental review process. The Department of the Interior effectively spent 3 years designing a sound, environmentally protective program, and the result, then, was a record of decision in August 2020 that would have allowed us to safely develop the area's anticipated resources while fully protecting the fish, the wildlife, and the subsistence uses.

We have talked a lot on this floor and in other areas about the resources that we project to be in the ANWR area--prolific resources-- an estimated 7.7 billion barrels of oil, which would be enough to add a half million barrels a day to our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for perhaps the next 40 years and help to fill up our pipeline.

I am one who has been engaged in this battle for decades, and I absolutely understand the concern about whether or not limited development makes sense in the area. And like so much of Alaska, the Coastal Plain is a special place. None of us wants to see it harmed, and that is why we went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that energy development and environmental protection could coexist. We didn't trade one for the other. We didn't put energy above the environment.

We had a lot of confidence in the program that was finalized in 2020, but, unfortunately, we never got the chance to, once again, demonstrate how Alaska leads the world when it comes to balanced, environmentally responsible development.

We held our first lease sale in early 2021, but after that, everything seems to have just kind of gone in reverse, because on his first day in office, President Biden suspended the Coastal Plain Program. His Department of the Interior paused all leasing and development activities before arbitrarily canceling every lease in the area.

And the Biden administration didn't stop there, either. They next decided to rewrite the Coastal Plain Program to make leasing unattractive and development impossible. And they claimed deficiencies in the original process, between 2017 and 2020, that they had to somehow go back and remedy, but they never really cited anything specific. Now, keep in mind, the Biden administration in their political agenda did not include energy from Alaska. So they were trying to move forward and address what they said were flaws, but their process was also fatally flawed.

For starters, the Biden administration failed to meaningfully consult with the people who actually live on the North Slope, including those who live in Kaktovik, which is the only community within ANWR's boundaries. When I say ``failed,'' I mean they refused--they flatout refused. I added report language to my Interior appropriations bill directing them to do the consultation, and still they refused.

The Biden administration issued a record of decision for a new Coastal Plain Program in November of 2024. And if you spend time looking at it, you will understand why we are here, because it clearly and repeatedly contradicts Federal law, because the Tax Cut and Jobs Act opened the 1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain to potential development, subject to the 2,000-acre surface limit.

We were very clear in what that law was. The Biden administration took that, flipped it on its head, and finalized the program that allowed leasing on just 400,000 acres--so, gone, immediately. Gone was potential leasing on 74 percent of the 1002 area. And the 400,000 acres that was left available, which is--I question the availability there-- but it amounted to less than was bid on at the 2021 lease sale. And even there, 231,700 acres were subject to no surface occupancy, another 84,300 were subject to controlled surface use, and 3,100 acres were subject to timing limitation. So only about 5 percent--only about 5 percent--of the overall Coastal Plain was subject to standard

lease terms and conditions under the Biden plan. So think about that-- just 5 percent now.

The Biden administration also restricted seismic surveying--the best way to understand the Coastal Plains resources. They restricted the surveying of the lands that were now theoretically available for leasing. They even reinterpreted the 2,000-acre limit to not be a ``saleable feature'' of leases. We had discussed this with the Parliamentarians during the budget reconciliation back in 2017, but it was a matter of secretarial discretion to allow development of anywhere between 0 and 2,000 acres. So, again, they flipped that on their head.

So it wouldn't surprise you to learn that the 2024 program contemplates development on a maximum of 995 surface acres. Again, what we had statutorily prescribed--what the law says--was 2,000 acres.

Finally, the Biden administration expanded and created new lease stipulations and required operating procedures to further dissuade leasing interests and clamp down on any potential for development. The goal wasn't hard to understand. It is evident in the 2024 record of decision.

Interior acknowledged that, under their preferred alternative, future oil production from the Coastal Plain would decline nearly 80 percent. They knew it. That was the plan. I think they were probably trying to shoot for closer to 100 percent.

Under the 2024 plan, there would be no leasing, as we clearly saw in a lease sale that was designed to fail and then did fail late last year. There would be no development on the Coastal Plain, regardless of congressional action, support from Alaskans who live on the North Slope and within the Coastal Plain, or our national need for responsibly produced energy.

Bear in mind, this is all taking place right as the Biden administration was relaxing sanctions on countries like Iran, like Venezuela, allowing them to produce more and financially benefit from the development. And it also happened right as California, which is a traditional market for Alaska's oil, was importing more oil from the Middle East, which is a long way from California, but also from other countries in South America, actively deforesting the Amazon rain forests. So if you want to talk about a massive geopolitical and environmental failure, that was it--that was it--happening under that administration.

Less oil from Alaska means a Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that is running mostly empty. It means a west coast that increasingly turns to imports instead of domestic energy, regardless of the terror that that breeds or the devastation that it causes.

It also means fewer jobs for hard-working Alaskans, less opportunity in our communities for the folks who support and benefit from energy development, less revenue for the State of Alaska, and, in turn, less infrastructure and services. To me, that just makes no sense.

The people of the North Slope, the Alaska delegation, and the State of Alaska were ignored as the Biden administration put its 2024 program into place. From the start, this was a fait accompli. There was no question in my mind what they planned to do, and there was nothing unfortunately that we were able to do to change their minds.

It really didn't matter what Alaskans wanted. It didn't matter what the law required. It didn't matter that they wound up in court and lost--and lost badly--as they did when a Federal judge ruled that their cancellation of the Coastal Plain leases was blatantly illegal.

All of that was their choice, and this is ours. This is our choice-- to disapprove and permanently nullify their actions so that they never come back in substantially similar form. So if you care about the rule of law, if you care about our domestic energy security or the consequences of sending our dollars abroad for energy that we have here at home, then I would ask you to join us in supporting this resolution.

I think if you acknowledge that no one cares more about Alaska than Alaskans, you should be with the full Alaskan delegation on this. We can restore the rule of law. We can require Federal Agencies to follow congressional direction. We can return to balanced management on the Coastal Plain, while still protecting 99.99 percent of ANWR's surface acreage. I think the choice is pretty clear.

I would urge colleagues to support the motion to proceed later and the underlying resolution when we vote on it tomorrow.

Mr. President, I would ask, as I wrap here, that unanimous consent be provided for letters of support from those who live on the North Slope, as well as letters from the Resource Development Council and the NFIB, to be printed in the Record.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, nestled in the far northeast corner of Alaska is one of the wildest and most untouched places left in North America: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

I have been blessed to see this refuge with my own eyes. I have seen its towering peaks; I have seen the critical habitat on the Coastal Plain where caribou drop their calves; and I have seen its polar bears.

Over the course of a year in the Arctic Refuge, you might also see one of the last great spectacles of migrating caribou, dueling musk ox straight out of the Pleistocene, or rare spectacled eiders nesting on the Coastal Plain.

In fact, the Arctic Refuge is home to hundreds of iconic wildlife species, including 200 species of birds that have called this landscape home since long before humans stepped on this continent.

Simply put, the Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of the American National Wildlife Refuge System, and it has been ever since it was set aside in 1960 by President Eisenhower to protect its wildlife and habitat values.

But that is only part of its story.

The Arctic Refuge is also deeply connected to the traditions and daily life of the people who have lived there for thousands of years-- longer than this building, this city, this country have existed-- because the refuge is not just land.

For wildlife, it is essential habitat. For many people who live there and are sustained by its caribou, this place is literally their grocery store. It is not just a reminder of the past, it is hope for the future. But that future is at stake.

The Arctic Refuge is under threat from the Trump administration's relentless attacks on public lands, attacks that put so-called energy dominance above every other use, every other value.

Today, the Senate will vote on a congressional resolution of disapproval to overturn the management plan for the Arctic Refuge. And instead of a targeted approached that emphasizes things like subsistence hunting, wildlife conservation, and a focus on Tribal consultation, a vote for this resolution will--redundantly--open up the entire Coastal Plain of the refuge to be leased for oil drilling without local input.

I say ``redundantly'' because the Trump administration has already overturned this management plan. The Republicans in Congress have already

passed legislation requiring this area--a national wildlife refuge-- requiring it to be drilled for oil, despite a complete lack of interest by legitimate industry players.

Now, we could be discussing ways to lower electricity costs, which are spiraling out of control or doing something about the skyrocketing healthcare costs in this country right now. But instead, we are talking about industrial oil and gas development in the beating heart of our greatest wildlife refuge, literally developing the place where the porcupine caribou herd drops their calves every year.

Now, when Congress first debated whether to allow oil development in the Arctic, America's energy landscape looked very different. We were importing significant amounts of oil, much of it from our political adversaries. Oil prices were rising, and U.S. energy could not meet demand.

Yet, even in that context, in those challenging years, for decades and across both political parties, Congress recognized the irreplaceable, ecological, and cultural importance of the Arctic Refuge.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle understood that some places are sacred, some places are simply too unique and important to sacrifice, and together they kept these lands closed to industrial development.

In fact, it was not until 2017 that a Republican majority reversed that longstanding commitment and opened this refuge to exploitation. They turned their backs on the American people who own this refuge and embraced the development-anywhere-and-at-any-cost approach, doing so despite the fact that the United States was already experiencing record oil production and was on its way to being a net energy exporter.

And now they have done it again in their ``Big Bad Bill.'' But this time they want more and more. To what end? We know this hasn't worked before. We know previous efforts to offer leases here have actually been a failure.

Now, they told us that development of the Arctic Refuge would bring in a billion--billion with a ``b''--a billion dollars to the Treasury to pay off the tax cuts that were in the 2017 bill for billionaires. But as we all remember, that came up a little short. In fact, it came up $993 million short to be exact. And it is because development in the refuge is so complicated and so expensive.

It is costly in time. Seasons are short. Days can be even shorter. There is not a lot of time to break new ground. There are no roads, no infrastructure even remotely close to this part of the Coastal Plain.

That is why it is estimated that oil prices would have to be at least $75 a barrel just to break even on oil from the refuge. Compare that to today's average cost for a barrel, which is hovering around $60. Legitimate investors knew these pitfalls.

In 2023, the six largest banks in the United States, the five largest banks in Canada, and 29 other international banks all issued policies against financing drilling in the Arctic Refuge. The banks, insurers, too, followed suit, which is why the second justification that they are using to do this just doesn't make sense--that producing oil in the refuge will make gas cheaper for everyday Americans.

You can see from the map that this is not remotely true. If construction and drilling costs are so high that a barrel of oil has to be almost $20 more expensive just to break even, what do you think that does to the prices at the gas station when you fill up your car? It doesn't mean cheaper gas. The last thing that they will tell you is that we have to drill everywhere in America because we are ``in an energy emergency.'' But the truth is, the only energy crisis in America is the one that President Trump has created himself.

It is the skyrocketing utility bills that Americans are facing because of the Republicans' relentless attacks on affordable American- made clean energy.

Opening precious wilderness to industrial development is not going to fix that, especially when it is to drill for oil that costs so much to produce. Drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not going to make energy more affordable, and it seems to me, as I stand up here to speak about yet another attack on our public lands, that no place is sacred from this extract-at-all-costs playbook--not even wildlife refuges.

So what is next? Are we going to develop geothermal energy in Yellowstone? Maybe more uranium mining in the Grand Canyon. I think Teddy Roosevelt must be tired from rolling over in his grave.

The bottom line is that the Arctic Refuge is too unique, too globally important to develop. It is a wildlife refuge for a reason.

Now, proponents love to hide the fact that this is, in fact, a national wildlife refuge. They call it all kinds of things so that they don't have to use the phrase ``wildlife refuge.'' They will call it the 1002 area. They will call it ANWR. It sounds like someplace in the Middle East that you would expect oil and gas production.

They don't want us to pay attention to how crazy a prospect developing one of our last remaining untouched landscapes is.

The Arctic Refuge provides subsistence fish and game for people who live in the region. It serves as a seasonal home to species you might see in your own State, species like Arctic terns and all sorts of waterfowl. And it is a remarkable, vast, and breathtaking wilderness that should inspire us to be better stewards of our wildlife heritage.

The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System, and it belongs to every single American and deserves our protection.

So I would urge colleagues to vote no on the CRA today.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m., Wednesday, December 3; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Orso nomination; further, that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture motions filed during Monday's session of the Senate ripen at 11:15 a.m. tomorrow; and if cloture is invoked on the Orso nomination, the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at 2:15 p.m. tomorrow; and if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action. I further ask that following disposition of the Orso nomination, the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each and Senator Murkowski or her designee be recognized to make a motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 91; further, that if the motion to proceed is agreed to, all debate time be expired and the Senate vote on passage of the joint resolution at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday, December 4; I further ask that following the vote on the motion to proceed to S.J. Res. 91, the Senate resume executive session to consider the Rodriguez nomination and the Senate vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Rodriguez nomination at 4:30 p.m. tomorrow; finally, that if cloture is invoked on the Rodriguez nomination, the postcloture time be expired and the Senate vote on confirmation of the nomination at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Democratic leader, on Thursday, December 4, notwithstanding rule XXII.