[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 194 (Tuesday, November 18, 2025)]
[House]
[Pages H4753-H4757]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISAPPROVAL OF THE RULE SUBMITTED BY THE
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT RELATING TO ``NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE IN
ALASKA INTEGRATED ACTIVITY PLAN RECORD OF DECISION''
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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.
The Clerk read the title of the joint resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the joint
resolution is considered read.
The text of the joint resolution is as follows:
S.J. Res. 80
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That Congress
disapproves the rule submitted by the Bureau of Land
Management relating to ``National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska
Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision'' (issued April
25, 2022, as a record of decision, and a letter of opinion
from the Government Accountability Office dated July 24,
2025, printed in the Congressional Record on July 28, 2025,
on pages S4768-S4770, concluding that such record of decision
is a rule under the Congressional Review Act), and such rule
shall have no force or effect.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The joint resolution shall be debatable for
1 hour, equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Natural Resources or their
respective designees.
The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman) and the gentleman from
California (Mr. Huffman) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Westerman).
General Leave
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Arkansas?
There was no objection.
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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.''
{time} 1750
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. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
[[Page H4754]]
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. WESTERMAN. 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. BEGICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of S.J. Res.
80, legislation to disapprove of the Bureau of Land Management's 2022
Integrated Activity Plan for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.
Let me be very clear. This is not an abstract policy debate for the
people of Alaska. This is about whether the Federal Government will
honor both the law and its commitments to the people who call Alaska
home and whether America will choose energy independence over energy
uncertainty.
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, an area the size of
Indiana, was set aside more than a century ago to ensure that the
United States had a strategic domestic energy supply. Congress
reaffirmed that purpose in the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act,
directing the Secretary of the Interior to conduct an ``expeditious
program of competitive leasing'' in the NPR-A, but the 2022 Integrated
Activity Plan issued in the final stretch of the last administration
turned that congressional mandate on its head.
It shut the door on 48 percent of the reserve, reducing available
acreage from 18.6 million acres to just 11.8 million acres, and
restricted infrastructure corridors across millions more. In effect,
the plan attempted to create a wilderness area in a petroleum reserve,
and it did so without listening to the people who actually live there.
Alaska is asking us to act.
The Inupiat people who live in the area have spoken, and they could
not have been clearer. Through the North Slope Regional Trilateral--the
Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope, the North Slope Borough, and the
Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, we have heard that the Biden
administration's 2022 plan imposed ``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.''
These communities are located in an area nearly the size of Minnesota
with no highway connections, extreme transportation costs, and a cost
of living among the highest in the Nation. Oil and gas development
funds their schools, their public safety, their utilities, their
clinics, basic services that most Americans assume that their local
government can provide. On the North Slope, that stability exists
because responsible development exists, and we have a duty to ensure
that it continues.
Alaska's business community stands with them. The Alaska Support
Industry Alliance, representing 547 companies and 35,000 Alaskan
workers, warned that the 2022 plan jeopardizes the jobs and investment
that their families depend on. National organizations from the National
Federation of Independent Businesses to the American Exploration &
Production Council to the American Petroleum Institute have also voiced
their support for reversing this restrictive rule, and the
administration itself has made clear that restoring access to the NPR-A
is a priority.
President Trump's Executive Order No. 14153, Unleashing Alaska's
Extraordinary Resource Potential, directs the Secretary of the Interior
to review and rescind the 2022 decision and reestablish a balanced
framework consistent with the 2020 plan.
{time} 1800
This statement of administration policy strongly supports this
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, Alaska is ready to power America. We are ready to help
lower energy costs for families and small businesses. We are ready to
strengthen national security by reducing our reliance on foreign
nations. The people who live in Alaska's Far North, the people whose
ancestors have called the region home for 10,000 years, are asking us
to restore the balanced, lawful management framework that they helped
shape.
S.J. Res. 80 does exactly that. It restores congressional intent. It
restores certainty for Alaska's communities. It restores America's
strategic energy reserve.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting S.J. Res.
80, and
[[Page H4755]]
to stand with Alaska, with energy workers, with the Inupiat people of
the North Slope, and with an American future grounded in abundant,
affordable, secure energy.
Mr. WESTERMAN. 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.
ICAS
Established in 1971, the Inupiat Community of the Arctic
Slope is the federally recognized regional tribal government
for the North Slope and represents over 14,000 Inupiaq tribal
members. The mission of ICAS is to exercise its sovereign
rights and powers for the benefit of tribal members, to
conserve and retain tribal lands and resources including
subsistence. 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.
Borough
The Borough is a home rule government located above the
Arctic Circle that represents roughly 10,000 residents. The
Borough's jurisdiction includes the entire National Petroleum
Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) and the eight villages within it. In
1972, the North Slope Inupiat formed the Borough, in part, to
ensure our communities would benefit from oil and gas
development on their ancestral homelands. It was the first
time Alaska Natives took control of their destiny using a
regional municipal government. The Borough exercises its
powers of taxation, property assessment, education, and
planning and zoning services to serve our communities. Taxes
levied on oil and gas infrastructure, not development, have
enabled the Borough to invest in public infrastructure and
utilities, support education, and provide police, fire,
emergency, health, and other services. Elsewhere in rural
Alaska, these services are typically provided primarily by
the State or Federal Government, or both.
ASRC
ASRC is a for-profit, land-owning Alaska Native regional
corporation formed pursuant to ANCSA. ASRC represents the
same region as the Borough and ICAS, and the same eight
villages whose residents are predominantly Inupiat, and who
comprise many of our over 14,000 Alaska Native shareholders.
ASRC holds the title to approximately five million acres of
land on the North Slope, including both surface and
subsurface lands. These lands--the ancestral lands of the
North Slope Inupiat--were conveyed to ASRC by the United
States pursuant to ANCSA to provide for the economic and
cultural well-being of our Inupiaq shareholders.
ASRC is committed to both providing sound financial returns
to our shareholders, through jobs and dividends, and to
preserving our Inupiaq way of life, culture, and traditions,
including the ability to maintain a subsistence lifestyle
that supports our communities. In furtherance of this
congressionally mandated mission to provide benefits to our
shareholders, ASRC conducts and continues to invest in a
variety of activities related to infrastructure and natural
resource development and other economic initiatives.
ASRC's perspective is based on the dual realities that our
Inupiaq culture and communities depend on a healthy ecosystem
and subsistence resources, as well as infrastructure and
resource development as the foundation of sustainable North
Slope communities.
Disapproval of the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD
The NPR-A lies entirely within the homelands of the North
Slope Inupiat. Congress established the NPR-A with a clear
purpose: to ensure energy security for the Nation while
respecting the needs of Alaska Natives. Instead, the 2022
Record of Decision (ROD) issued by BLM has imposed 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.
The impacts of the 2022 ROD are especially severe for the
North Slope. Oil and gas development in the NPR-A funds the
Borough's schools, emergency services, and infrastructure. It
supports jobs for Inupiaq shareholders and residents. It
underwrites the continuation of our communities, even as we
maintain our subsistence way of life. By arbitrarily locking
away vast portions of the NPR-A, BLM's rule threatens these
essential services and imposes disproportionate burdens on
our people.
Equally concerning, BLM failed to engage in meaningful
government-to-government consultation with ASRC, the Borough,
and ICAS. This omission 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 outcomes, yet
those concerns were ignored.
The 2022 ROD ignores congressional intent under ANCSA, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980
(ANILCA), the National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of
1976 (NPRPA), and the Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1980. The
2022 ROD also disregards the economic needs of North Slope
communities, and creates unnecessary obstacles to
infrastructure, energy, and community health across the North
Slope of Alaska.
Support for S.J. Res 80 and H.J. Res. 124
For these reasons, our trilateral organizations strongly
support passage of S.J. Res. 80 and H.J. Res. 124 to
disapprove the 2022 NPR-A IAP ROD. Overturning this rule is
necessary to restore balance to federal policy,
[[Page H4756]]
reaffirm Congress's intent for the NPR-A, and uphold the
economic, cultural, and subsistence well-being of the North
Slope Inupiat.
Our identity, resilience, and survival are deeply rooted in
our traditional lands that the NPR-A boundaries encompass. We
take great pride in our ongoing efforts toward self-
determination, focused on securing a future where future
generations of Inupiat can continue to live in our
communities with access to the essential services they need
to thrive. We thank you for your leadership on this important
resolution and look forward to continued collaboration to
ensure that federal policies in the NPR-A reflect both
national priorities and the needs of the people who call the
Arctic home.
Sincerely,
Nicole Wojciechowski,
President, Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope.
Josiah Patkotak,
Mayor, North Slope Borough.
Rex A. Rock Sr.,
President and CEO, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation.
Mr. HUFFMAN. 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. WESTERMAN. 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. HUFFMAN. 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.
{time} 1810
Mr. WESTERMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to close, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. HUFFMAN. 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,
[[Page H4757]]
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. WESTERMAN. 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.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moore of Utah). All time for debate has
expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 879, the previous question is ordered on
the joint resolution.
The question is on the third reading of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution was ordered to be read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on passage of the joint
resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this question will be postponed.
____________________