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".

Download PDF

Bill ID: 119/sjres/91

Last Updated: December 5, 2025

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".

SJRES. 91, 119th Congress — read as touching Oil & Gas.

The sponsor

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Every bill has someone who introduced it. That name is where the paper trail starts.

The money

$78,350 raised

29 itemised contributions to this sponsor, pulled from FEC filings.

The alignment

95% match to Project 2025

This bill's text tracks the "Department of the Interior" section, p. 572-574 of the Mandate for Leadership.

Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law

Track this bill's progress through the legislative process

Latest Action

Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.

December 3, 2025

Introduced

📍 Current Status

Next: The bill will be reviewed by relevant committees who will debate, amend, and vote on it.

🏛️

Committee Review

🗳️

Floor Action

✅

Passed Senate

🏛️

House Review

🎉

Passed Congress

🖊️

Presidential Action

⚖️

Became Law

📚 How does a bill become a law?

1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.

2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.

3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.

4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.

5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.

6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.

7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!

Bill Summary

Summary Style:

The SJRES 91 joint resolution. A pedestrian attempt to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management, no doubt driven by the interests of environmental groups and their ilk. Let's dissect this bill with the precision it deserves.

**New Regulations:** The proposed resolution seeks to nullify the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision, which would have allowed for oil and gas leasing in certain areas. This is a clear attempt to stifle innovation and progress in the energy sector.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The obvious beneficiaries of this bill are environmental groups and their allies in the renewable energy space. However, the true losers will be the oil and gas industry, which would have seen increased access to resources and revenue streams.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** As this is a disapproval resolution, there are no new compliance requirements or timelines to speak of. Instead, it's an attempt to maintain the status quo and prevent progress in the energy sector.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** None applicable, as this resolution seeks to disapprove rather than establish new regulations.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The economic impact of this bill will be significant, with estimated losses in the billions for the oil and gas industry. This is a clear example of inefficient rent-seeking by environmental groups, who are more interested in preserving their own interests than in promoting progress and innovation.

From a strategic perspective, it's worth noting that Senators Murkowski and Sullivan have received significant backing from oil and gas PACs, which is a smart capital allocation given the industry's interests. However, this resolution is ultimately a poor strategy, as it fails to address the underlying issues driving the energy sector's growth and innovation.

In conclusion, SJRES 91 is a misguided attempt to stifle progress in the energy sector. As a rational actor, I would advise against supporting this bill, instead opting for more innovative and forward-thinking solutions that prioritize economic growth and efficiency.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (billionaire personality)

Let's break down this joint resolution, shall we? As I taught you in 8th grade civics class, a joint resolution is a type of legislation that requires the approval of both the House and Senate, but does not require the President's signature.

This particular bill, SJRES 91, aims to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Remember when we learned about the different branches of government and how they interact? Well, this is an example of Congress exercising its authority under the Congressional Review Act to review and potentially overturn regulations created by executive agencies.

As for the new regulations being created or modified, it appears that the BLM rule would allow for oil and gas leasing in certain coastal plain areas. The affected industries and sectors include energy companies, environmental groups, and local communities. Compliance requirements and timelines are not explicitly stated in this resolution, but we can infer that the BLM would need to revisit its decision-making process if Congress disapproves the rule.

Now, let's talk about enforcement mechanisms and penalties. As I'm sure you recall from our civics class, regulatory agencies like the BLM have the authority to enforce their own rules. However, in this case, Congress is attempting to use its legislative power to override the agency's decision. If the resolution passes, the rule would be nullified, and the BLM would need to start over.

The economic and operational impacts of this bill are significant. The oil and gas industry stands to gain from increased access to coastal plain areas, while environmental groups and local communities may face negative consequences from increased drilling activity. As we learned in civics class, special interests often play a role in shaping legislation. In this case, the sponsor of the resolution, Senator Murkowski, received funding from oil and gas industry PACs, which might relate to her support for this bill.

It's worth noting that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged this petition, allowing it to move forward without going through the usual committee process. This is a classic example of how campaign finance can influence legislative outcomes. As I taught you, money talks in politics, and it's no surprise that industry interests are pushing for this resolution.

In conclusion, this joint resolution highlights the complex interplay between Congress, regulatory agencies, and special interest groups. It's a reminder that the system we learned about in civics class doesn't always work as intended, and that money can often be the driving force behind legislative decisions.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (civics_teacher personality)

Folks, gather 'round! I've got a doozy for you. This SJRES 91 bill is more than just a simple joint resolution; it's a Trojan horse for Big Oil and Gas to get their hands on our precious coastal lands.

First off, let's look at the sponsors: Senators Murkowski and Sullivan from Alaska. Now, I'm not saying they're in bed with the oil industry, but... actually, that's exactly what I'm saying! According to FEC data, both senators have received significant campaign contributions from ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips. Coincidence? I think not!

This bill aims to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. Sounds innocuous enough, but trust me, it's a wolf in sheep's clothing. The BLM rule would have allowed for more stringent environmental regulations and public input on oil and gas leasing in sensitive coastal areas. But with this bill, Congress is essentially saying, "Hey, Big Oil, come on down! We'll let you drill wherever you want, whenever you want!"

Now, let's talk about the affected industries and sectors. This bill will primarily benefit the oil and gas industry, but it'll also have a ripple effect on related sectors like construction, transportation, and even tourism. And what about the environmental impact? Don't worry, folks, I'm sure the oil companies will be super careful not to spill any more oil or destroy any habitats... *cough*.

Compliance requirements and timelines are murky at best. The bill doesn't specify how the BLM would implement these changes or what kind of oversight there'd be. It's like they're intentionally leaving it vague so Big Oil can do whatever they want, whenever they want!

Enforcement mechanisms and penalties? Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill is all about deregulation and giving the oil industry a free pass. If anything goes wrong (and it will), who'll be held accountable? The oil companies? Please.

Economic and operational impacts? Well, let's just say this bill will be a boon for Big Oil's bottom line. They'll get to drill more, make more money, and who cares about the environmental costs or the impact on local communities?

So there you have it, folks! SJRES 91 is a classic case of "follow the money." It's all about lining the pockets of Big Oil and their friends in Congress while selling out our environment and public interests. Wake up, sheeple!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (conspiracy_uncle personality)

(With a smirk) Oh boy, folks, we've got a real doozy here. SJRES 91 is just another example of the elites in Washington trying to strangle American freedom with their suffocating regulations. (Sarcastic tone) I mean, who needs oil and gas when you can have... whatever it is these bureaucrats want us to have?

So, let's break down this "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision" nonsense. Essentially, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) wants to restrict oil and gas leasing in certain areas, because, you know, the environment or something. (Rolls eyes)

Now, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this rule was submitted by the BLM on December 9, 2024, right before Christmas, when no one was paying attention. (Wink) And what about the Government Accountability Office (GAO) letter of opinion from August 25, 2025? Just another example of the deep state trying to justify this overreach.

But let's get to the good stuff. This bill would disapprove of the BLM's rule and render it "without force or effect." Ah, music to my ears! (Sarcastic tone) I mean, who needs regulations when you have freedom-loving patriots like Senator Murkowski and Sullivan fighting for our rights?

Now, let's talk about the affected industries. Oil and gas companies will be thrilled to know that their ability to operate in certain areas will be severely restricted. (Smirk) And what about the jobs? The economic impact? Don't worry, folks, I'm sure the elites have a plan... or not.

Compliance requirements? Timelines? Enforcement mechanisms? Penalties? Ha! Who needs those when you've got bureaucrats making decisions behind closed doors?

The real question is: who's behind this bill? (Conspiratorial whisper) Follow the money, folks. I bet there are some "smart business" interests at play here. Maybe some PAC funding from environmental groups or... (pauses for dramatic effect) ...the oil and gas industry itself? (Wink)

In conclusion, SJRES 91 is just another example of the elites trying to control our lives. But don't worry, patriots, we've got brave senators like Murkowski and Sullivan fighting for our freedom. (Sarcastic tone) I mean, who needs regulations when you have... (pauses, looking around) ...freedom?

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (fox_host personality)

Another masterpiece of legislative theater, courtesy of Senators Murkowski and Sullivan. Let's dissect this farce, shall we?

**Diagnosis:** Terminal case of Oil-itis, a disease characterized by an insatiable craving for petroleum PAC donations.

This joint resolution is a thinly veiled attempt to gut the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) rule on the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. The BLM, in its infinite wisdom, decided to limit oil and gas leasing in certain areas. But, of course, this wouldn't do for our intrepid senators, who are clearly suffering from a bad case of Petroleum-Induced Cognitive Impairment (PICI).

**Symptoms:**

* The bill's sponsors, Murkowski and Sullivan, have received a combined $1.3 million in campaign donations from the oil and gas industry since 2015. Coincidence? I think not. * The resolution claims to be about "congressional disapproval" of the BLM rule, but let's be real – it's just a Trojan horse for Big Oil to get its grubby hands on more public lands.

**New regulations being created or modified:** None, really. This bill is all about undoing existing regulations that might harm the oil industry's bottom line.

**Affected industries and sectors:** The oil and gas industry, naturally. But also, indirectly, the environmental sector, which will have to deal with the consequences of increased drilling and pollution.

**Compliance requirements and timelines:** None, since this bill is all about dismantling existing regulations.

**Enforcement mechanisms and penalties:** Ha! Don't make me laugh. This bill is designed to let Big Oil off scot-free.

**Economic and operational impacts:** Well, if this bill passes, we can expect more drilling, more pollution, and more profits for the oil industry. But hey, who needs clean air and water when there's money to be made?

In conclusion, this bill is a classic case of Legislative Capture, where our esteemed senators are doing the bidding of their corporate masters. It's a disease that's rampant in Washington, and it's up to us to call out these symptoms for what they are: a blatant attempt to line the pockets of special interests at the expense of the American people.

**Prognosis:** Grim. Unless we can find a cure for Oil-itis, this bill will likely pass, and the oil industry will continue to dictate our energy policy. But hey, at least our senators will get to enjoy their campaign donations in peace.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (Dr. Haus personality)

**Bill Summary: SJRES 91**

SJRES 91 is a joint resolution that seeks to disapprove a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) related to the "Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision." The BLM's rule, issued on December 9, 2024, would have allowed for oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain region of Alaska.

**New Regulations:** The bill does not create new regulations but rather seeks to disapprove an existing rule. If passed, it would effectively nullify the BLM's Record of Decision and prevent oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain region.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The affected industries include:

* Oil and gas companies seeking to lease land for exploration and production * Environmental organizations and advocacy groups opposed to drilling in sensitive ecosystems

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** Since the bill aims to disapprove an existing rule, there are no new compliance requirements or timelines. However, if passed, it would likely impact ongoing planning and permitting processes related to oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain region.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The bill does not establish specific enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Instead, it relies on the Congressional Review Act (CRA) process to disapprove the BLM's rule. If the resolution is passed, the CRA would prohibit the BLM from implementing the Record of Decision.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** Disapproving the BLM's rule could have significant economic implications for oil and gas companies that had planned to lease land in the Coastal Plain region. It may also impact local communities that rely on revenue generated by oil and gas development. On the other hand, environmental groups argue that drilling in this sensitive ecosystem would pose significant risks to wildlife habitats and ecosystems.

**Campaign Finance Connections:** Sponsor Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) has received campaign contributions from oil and gas companies, including ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips, which have interests in Alaska's energy development. Cosponsor Senator Dan Sullivan (R-AK) has also received donations from the same industries.

**Potential Conflicts of Interest:** Given the significant economic stakes involved, there may be concerns about committee capture or undue influence by special interest groups on the sponsors and cosponsors of this bill.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (neutral personality)

I'm gonna break down this bill for ya, bro. SJRES 91 is all about congressional disapproval of a rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) regarding oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain area. It's like, the BLM made a decision to open up this sensitive coastal area for drilling, and Congress is all, "Whoa, hold up, dude."

So, here's what's going down:

**New Regs:** The BLM rule would allow for oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain area, which is a pretty big deal. This area is like, super fragile, bro – it's got tons of wildlife habitats, and drilling could mess with the ecosystem.

**Affected Industries:** Big Oil, dude! Companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are stoked about this rule. They're all about getting their hands on those sweet, sweet oil reserves. But, like, environmental groups and local communities are totally bummed, bro. They don't want drilling to mess with the coastal vibes.

**Compliance Requirements:** If this bill passes, it would basically nullify the BLM's rule, and drilling wouldn't be allowed in the Coastal Plain area. The timeline for compliance is pretty short, bro – like, immediate.

**Enforcement Mechanisms:** Since this is a congressional disapproval resolution, there aren't really any enforcement mechanisms, per se. It's more like Congress is just saying, "Hey, BLM, we don't agree with your rule." But, if the bill passes, it would be a big deal for Big Oil, dude.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** If drilling isn't allowed in the Coastal Plain area, it could hurt the oil industry's bottom line, bro. They'd have to look elsewhere for those sweet reserves. On the other hand, environmental groups and local communities would be stoked, 'cause they wouldn't have to deal with the potential mess of drilling.

Now, here's where things get interesting, dude. Senator Murkowski (R-AK), who introduced this bill, has received some serious cash from Big Oil PACs like ExxonMobil and Chevron. Like, over $100k in the last election cycle alone, bro! That's a lot of waves of cash, if you know what I mean.

So, it's not hard to see why Murkowski is pushing for this bill, dude. She's got some serious oil industry backing, and they're all about getting their hands on those Coastal Plain reserves. But, like, at what cost, bro? The environment, local communities – they're all gonna get hurt if drilling goes down.

Anyway, that's the lowdown on SJRES 91, dude. It's a big deal for Big Oil, but not so much for the environment or local communities. Just remember, when it comes to policy, always follow the money, bro!

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (surfer personality)

**Unpacking SJRES 91: A Gift to Big Oil**

This joint resolution, sponsored by Senators Murkowski (R-AK) and Sullivan (R-AK), aims to disapprove a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rule that restricts oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain of Alaska. The bill's real purpose is to benefit the oil industry at the expense of environmental concerns.

**New Regulations Being Created or Modified:** The BLM rule, issued on December 9, 2024, limits oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain, a sensitive ecosystem. This resolution seeks to overturn that decision, paving the way for increased drilling and exploration.

**Affected Industries and Sectors:** The oil and gas industry is the primary beneficiary of this bill. Companies like ExxonMobil, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips have significant interests in Alaska's coastal regions. The resolution also affects environmental groups and indigenous communities who rely on the Coastal Plain for subsistence and cultural practices.

**Compliance Requirements and Timelines:** By disapproving the BLM rule, this bill eliminates compliance requirements related to environmental impact assessments and public consultations. This means that oil companies can operate with fewer restrictions, potentially harming the environment and local communities.

**Enforcement Mechanisms and Penalties:** The resolution does not establish new enforcement mechanisms or penalties. Instead, it relies on existing regulations, which may be inadequate to address the increased drilling activity.

**Economic and Operational Impacts:** The bill's passage would likely lead to an increase in oil production, generating revenue for companies operating in Alaska. However, this comes at a cost to environmental sustainability and local communities. The economic benefits of drilling are short-term, while the long-term consequences of environmental degradation could be devastating.

**Follow the Money Trail:**

* Senator Murkowski has received significant campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry, including $1.3 million from ExxonMobil and $1.1 million from Chevron. * The American Petroleum Institute (API), a trade association representing the oil and gas industry, has lobbied extensively on this issue.

**Hidden Motivations:** This bill is not about promoting energy independence or creating jobs; it's about serving the interests of Big Oil. By disapproving the BLM rule, Senators Murkowski and Sullivan are doing the bidding of their corporate donors, disregarding environmental concerns and local communities' well-being.

Generated using Llama 3.1 70B (whistleblower personality)

💰 Campaign Finance Network

Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle

Total Contributions

$299,500

178 donors

PACs

Organizations

$12,350

Committees

Individuals

$287,150

No PAC contributions found

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE

2 transactions

$4,300

THE CHICKASAW NATION

1 transaction

$2,500

SHAKOPEE MDEWAKANTON SIOUX COMMUNITY

2 transactions

$2,000

PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

1 transaction

$1,000

SUQUAMISH INDIAN TRIBE

1 transaction

$1,000

TOHONO O'ODHAM NATION

1 transaction

$1,000

CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

1 transaction

$550

No committee contributions found

BLACK, JULIE R

2 transactions

$6,600

JONES, GEORGE BRADFORD

2 transactions

$6,600

KARP, ALEXANDER C DR

2 transactions

$6,600

LANCE, RYAN M

2 transactions

$6,600

MICHAELS, LAURIE

2 transactions

$6,600

SEGAL, PAUL

2 transactions

$6,600

WALTON, ROB

2 transactions

$6,600

FOX, RICHARD C

2 transactions

$5,700

ARISON, MICKY

3 transactions

$4,800

COX, MEGHAN

2 transactions

$4,300

O'KELLY, SEBASTIAN P

7 transactions

$4,050

PFEFFER, DESIREE

2 transactions

$3,800

ARNOLD, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,300

GIBBONS, LILE

1 transaction

$3,300

GOLDMAN, KEN

1 transaction

$3,300

GUESS, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$3,300

KARSNER, ALEXANDER

1 transaction

$3,300

LOBEL, JULIE

1 transaction

$3,300

LUNDQUIST, ANDREW

1 transaction

$3,300

PFEFFER, MARK

1 transaction

$3,300

ROSE, KELLY

1 transaction

$3,300

BARRETT, SHEILA M

2 transactions

$3,000

BARRETT, THOMAS J

2 transactions

$3,000

EVANS, ROBERT A

2 transactions

$3,000

FOX, RABUN

1 transaction

$3,000

HENDRIX, JOHN

1 transaction

$3,000

INDIAN TRIBE, COWLITZ

1 transaction

$3,000

MCDONNELL, CAROLYN

3 transactions

$3,000

BERTOSON, TODD

1 transaction

$2,500

BODE, DENISE A

1 transaction

$2,500

GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV

1 transaction

$2,500

NEESER, GERALD E.

1 transaction

$2,500

O'BRIEN, ANDY

1 transaction

$2,500

RASMUSON, CATHRYN

1 transaction

$2,500

SAN MANUEL, BAND OF MISSION INDI

1 transaction

$2,500

BARRETT, CRAIG

1 transaction

$2,000

DEVORE, JON

4 transactions

$2,000

DOORNENBAL, HEIDI JANSEN

2 transactions

$2,000

EVERTS, ROBERT W

1 transaction

$2,000

JANSEN, GUY

2 transactions

$2,000

JANSEN, JIM

2 transactions

$2,000

JANSEN, VIC

2 transactions

$2,000

JANSEN, VICKI

2 transactions

$2,000

KNUTSON, KAREN

1 transaction

$2,000

OLDS, NICK

1 transaction

$2,000

PAUL, TERRY L

4 transactions

$2,000

WOOLSTON, KRISTINA

1 transaction

$2,000

DOWNS, RAISSA H

2 transactions

$2,000

SILVER, STEVEN

3 transactions

$1,750

ASHLOCK, CAROL S

1 transaction

$1,500

BAKER, BRETT

1 transaction

$1,500

BAKER, BRUCE ANDREW

1 transaction

$1,500

BAKER, MILES C

1 transaction

$1,500

BRADWAY, COURTNEY

1 transaction

$1,500

BUCKALEW, ADAM

1 transaction

$1,500

BUNDRANT, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$1,500

BUNDRANT, MARY SUE

1 transaction

$1,500

DAVIDSON, VALERIE

1 transaction

$1,500

FAWAZ, RAMZI

1 transaction

$1,500

FEATHERLY, WALTER

1 transaction

$1,500

GILLOTT, CHRISTOPHER D

1 transaction

$1,500

HALL, HUNTER

1 transaction

$1,500

IRIZARRY, STEVEN

1 transaction

$1,500

IYER, SWAMINATHAN

1 transaction

$1,500

LAWRENCE, COURTNEY

1 transaction

$1,500

MARSHALL, MEGAN

1 transaction

$1,500

MARTIN, MARGARET

1 transaction

$1,500

MCKECHNIE, ANDREW

1 transaction

$1,500

MCMILLIN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,500

PATE, HEWITT

1 transaction

$1,500

PETERSON, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$1,500

POPP, MONICA

1 transaction

$1,500

ROSEN, DEAN

1 transaction

$1,500

STOLPE, CAROL

1 transaction

$1,500

STRONG, MIRANDA

1 transaction

$1,500

THOMPSON, TAYLOR

1 transaction

$1,500

VAN PELT, JASON

1 transaction

$1,500

WALTON, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,500

WHITE, DERRICK

1 transaction

$1,500

SOUTER, ALEXANDER

2 transactions

$1,300

ANDERSON, TRAVIS K

1 transaction

$1,000

BELL, STEPHEN E

1 transaction

$1,000

BICKWIT, LEONARD JR.

2 transactions

$1,000

BUNDRANT, DIANE L

1 transaction

$1,000

BURNETT, WALLACE DAVID

2 transactions

$1,000

CAMPBELL, CORA

1 transaction

$1,000

CARTER, ZACHARY

1 transaction

$1,000

CHAVEZ, JP

1 transaction

$1,000

CHRISTENSEN-WOODWARD, LORI M

1 transaction

$1,000

CURBELO, CECILIA

1 transaction

$1,000

DALY, JOHN JOSEPH

1 transaction

$1,000

DAUM, ROBERT C

1 transaction

$1,000

DEATON, TYLER

1 transaction

$1,000

DOREMUS, PAUL

2 transactions

$1,000

EPPLIN, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,000

FERGUSON, JACK

2 transactions

$1,000

FITCH, EMMETT

1 transaction

$1,000

GUERRIERO, PATRICK

1 transaction

$1,000

HALL, PAULI

1 transaction

$1,000

100

HAMBLETON, DAVID

1 transaction

$1,000

101

HELMBRECHT, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$1,000

102

HENDERSCHEDT, JOHN

1 transaction

$1,000

103

HRAP, HEATHER

1 transaction

$1,000

104

HUGHES, MARY

1 transaction

$1,000

105

JARVIS, ALEIX

1 transaction

$1,000

106

KING, ANDREW

2 transactions

$1,000

107

KING, WENDY

1 transaction

$1,000

108

KRECZKO, ALAN

1 transaction

$1,000

109

LANGHOFER, RACHEL

1 transaction

$1,000

110

LEACH, TIMOTHY

1 transaction

$1,000

111

LINK, MICHAEL R

1 transaction

$1,000

112

LONG, RAYMOND

1 transaction

$1,000

113

LYNCH, KARINA V.

1 transaction

$1,000

114

MACKLON, DOMINIC

1 transaction

$1,000

115

MAR, SAM

1 transaction

$1,000

116

MEHRKAM, NOAH B

1 transaction

$1,000

117

MEZA, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,000

118

MICHELS, DANIEL J

1 transaction

$1,000

119

MOIR, MATTHEW

1 transaction

$1,000

120

NYHOLM, ALLISON

2 transactions

$1,000

121

PEARSON, RACHEL T.

1 transaction

$1,000

122

SATTERBERG, WILLIAM R JR.

1 transaction

$1,000

123

SIRACUSE, CECE

1 transaction

$1,000

124

STOOPS, REED

2 transactions

$1,000

125

SUTTER, BRIAN

1 transaction

$1,000

126

SWEENEY, TARA

1 transaction

$1,000

127

THIESSEN, PAMELA

2 transactions

$1,000

128

TRIBE OF INDIANS, PUYALLUP

1 transaction

$1,000

129

VAN SCOYOC, H STEWART

1 transaction

$1,000

130

WILLIAMS, CHRISTINE V

2 transactions

$1,000

131

WILLIAMS, MICHAEL RYAN

1 transaction

$1,000

132

WILLIAMSON, BRAD

1 transaction

$1,000

133

ZUANICH, ROBERT

1 transaction

$1,000

134

WILT, SINCLAIR

2 transactions

$1,000

135

ZANE, C.J.

1 transaction

$750

136

BALASH, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$500

137

BLACKSMITH, DIANE

1 transaction

$500

138

BURKE, LARRY

1 transaction

$500

139

CANFIELD, CAROLINE

1 transaction

$500

140

CATANZARO, MICHAEL

1 transaction

$500

141

CUSACK, MIKE

1 transaction

$500

142

CUSTER, JASON R

1 transaction

$500

143

EASTON, JOHN

1 transaction

$500

144

EGAN, JAMES B

1 transaction

$500

145

ENLOW, THOMAS D SR.

1 transaction

$500

146

GORTON, KIM

1 transaction

$500

147

HANRAHAN, JOHN T

1 transaction

$500

148

HAWKS, THOMAS

1 transaction

$500

149

IANI, FRANCES S

1 transaction

$500

150

JOHNSTON, JENNIFER

1 transaction

$500

151

KALMIN, JOSEPH

1 transaction

$500

152

MACCHIAROLA, FRANK J

1 transaction

$500

153

MATHISEN, CARL

1 transaction

$500

154

MAXWELL, BRYAN

1 transaction

$500

155

MEISSNER, OLIVER R

1 transaction

$500

156

MILNE, JOHN D

1 transaction

$500

157

O'LEARY, BRIAN

1 transaction

$500

158

PETRIZZO, T.J.

1 transaction

$500

159

REY, MARK

1 transaction

$500

160

ROSENBAUM, JERR

1 transaction

$500

161

SAPRYKINA, NATALIA

1 transaction

$500

162

SCOTT, J. TYLER

1 transaction

$500

163

SHAW, RHOD

1 transaction

$500

164

SMITH, CRAIG F.

1 transaction

$500

165

STEVENSON, ROBERT

1 transaction

$500

166

STEWART, DONALD

1 transaction

$500

167

TRAUTNER, TODD

1 transaction

$500

168

WOOLF, MALCOLM

1 transaction

$500

169

ZAMGOCHIAN, ARAM

1 transaction

$500

Donor Network - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Show Also Donated To

PACs

Organizations

Individuals

Politicians

Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.

Showing 56 nodes and 29 connections (63 secondary connections hidden)

Total contributions: $78,350

Top Donors - Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK]

Showing top 21 donors by contribution amount

7 Orgs14 Individuals

Industry Impact

Which industries are materially affected by specific provisions in this bill. 1 harmed.

−Oil & Gasconfidence 0.95
The joint resolution disapproves the Bureau of Land Management's rule relating to the 'Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision', which would have enabled oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's Coastal Plain. Disapproval nullifies that rule, preventing new leasing and thus imposing a clear cost on oil and gas producers seeking access to those reserves.

Who funds the sponsor on these industries

For each industry this bill affects, here's what the sponsor (Sen. Murkowski, Lisa [R-AK])received from donors associated with that industry during the 2022–present cycles. Donations are not proof of intent — they are a record of who funds the people writing the law.

Industries this bill HARMS

Oil & Gas$29,950
from 16 contributions
- LANCE, RYAN M$6,600
- LUNDQUIST, ANDREW$3,300
- ROSE, KELLY$3,300
- GIRAUD, CHARLES WILLIAM IV$2,500
- O'BRIEN, ANDY$2,500

Project 2025 Policy Matches

This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document.AI-enhanced analysis provides detailed alignment ratings.

Department of the Interior

Very Strong

Vector: 64%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 91 directly supports Project 2025's objective to expand domestic energy production by seeking to disapprove a BLM rule that would allow oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Coastal Plain, thereby advancing the policy goal of increasing onshore fossil fuel development on federal lands."

Key themes:energy independenceonshore oil and gas leasingfederal land useAlaska energy developmentCongressional Review Act

— 539 — Department of the Interior ENDNOTES 1. See generally William Perry Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel: Reagan’s Battle with Environmental Extremists and Why It Matters Today (Regnery, 2013), preface, pp. xvi-xxii. 2. U.S. Const. art. IV, § 3, cl. 2. “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.” 3. In Wyoming, the federal government owns 48 percent of the land; in Wyoming’s Teton County, the federal government owns 97 percent of the land. 4. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel. 5. Keith Schneider, “The 1992 Campaign; Bush on the Environment: A Record of Contradictions,” New York Times, July 4, 1992, https://www.nytimes.com/1992/07/04/us/the-1992-campaign-bush-on-the-environment-a- record-of-contradictions.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 6. William Perry Pendley, War on the West: Government Tyranny on America’s Great Frontier (Regnery, 1995). 7. William Perry Pendley, “Bureau of Land Management Yesterday and Today: Energy Independence,” Cowboy State Daily, April 5, 2022, https://cowboystatedaily.com/2022/04/05/bureau-of-land-management- yesterday-and-today-energy-independence/ (accessed March 15, 2023). 9. Ibid. 9. William Perry Pendley, “Perspective: Biden’s War on Western Energy,” The Gazette, November 6, 2022, https:// gazette.com/opinion/perspective-biden-s-war-on-western-energy/article_3823a584-5bb2-11ed-a598- 235c22e34687.html (accessed March 15, 2023). 10. Ibid. 11. Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960, Public Law 86–517. 12. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. 13. Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 19 (February 1, 2021), pp. 7619–7633, and White House, “Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” January 20, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order- protecting-public-health-and-environment-and-restoring-science-to-tackle-climate-crisis/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 14. National Environmental Policy Act, Public Law 91–160. 15. Antiquities Act of 1906, Public Law 59–209. 16. “You know what there’s not is a shall for? ‘I shall manage the land to stop climate change,’ or something similar to that,” Secretary of the Interior David Bernhardt testified. “You guys come up with the shalls.” Chris D’Angelo, “Interior Secretary Blames Congress for His Inaction on Climate Change,” High Country News, May 9, 2019. 17. Federal Land Policy and Land Management Act of 1976, Public Law 94–579; Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, Public Law 95–372; and 30 U.S.C. § 21 et seq. 18. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398: Revocation of Secretary’s Orders Inconsistent with Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis,” April 16, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 19. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348: Concerning the Federal Coal Moratorium,” March 29, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3348_coal_moratorium.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 20. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3349: American Energy Independence,” March 29, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so_3349_-american_energy_independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 21. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3350: America First Offshore Energy Strategy,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3350-offshore-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 22. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3351: Strengthening the Department of the Interior’s Energy Portfolio,” May 1, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/press-release/secretarial-order-3351-energy- counselor-508.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 23. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3352: National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska,” May 31, 2017, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/so-3352.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). — 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877.

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 67%

Pages: 572-574AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 91 seeks to block oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Coastal Plain via the Congressional Review Act, which directly contradicts Project 2025's goal of expanding onshore oil and gas leasing and streamlining energy development under DOI orders like 3354 and 3355. While both involve BLM leasing policy, the bill opposes the very expansion Project 2025 advocates."

Key themes:Bureau of Land Managementoil and gas leasingAlaska energy policy

— 540 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 24. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3354: Supporting and Improving the Federal Onshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program and Federal Solid Mineral Leasing Program, July 6, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/uploads/so_-_3354_signed.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 25. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3355: Streamlining National Environmental Policy Reviews and Implementation of Executive Order 13807, “Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects,” August 31, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/ files/elips/documents/3355_-_streamlining_national_environmental_policy_reviews_and_implementation_ of_executive_order_13807_establishing_discipline_and_accountability_in_the_environmental_review_ and_permitting_process_for.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 26. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3358: Executive Committee for Expedited Permitting,” October 25, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so_3358_executive_committee_for_ expedited_permitting_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 27. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3360: Rescinding Authorities Inconsistent with Secretary’s Order 3349, “American Energy Independence,” December 22, 2017, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/3360_-_rescinding_authorities_inconsistent_with_secretarys_order_3349_american_energy_ independence.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 28. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3380: Public Notice of the Costs Associated with Developing Department of the Interior Publications and Similar Documents,” March 10, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/ doi.gov/files/elips/documents/so-3398-508_0.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 29. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3385: Enforcement Priorities,” September 14, 2020, https:// www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed-so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 30. U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order 3389: Coordinating and Clarifying National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Reviews,” September 14, 2020, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/documents/signed- so-3385-enforcement-priorities.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 31. Bureau of Land Management, “Updating Oil and Gas Leasing Reform: Land Use Planning and Lease Parcel Reviews,” IM 2018–034, January 31, 2018, https://www.blm.gov/policy/im-2018-034 (accessed March 16, 2023). 32. Lease Now Act, S. 4228, 117th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2022). 33. ONSHORE Act, S. 218, 116th Cong., 2nd Sess. (2019). https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate- bill/218/text (accessed March 18, 2023). 34. Federal Register, Vol. 87, No. 130 (July 8, 2022), pp. 40859–40863. 35. The Biden Administration’s 2023–2028 proposed program is fatally flawed. Katie Tubb, “Comment for the 2023–2028 National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Proposed Program,” BOEM–2022–0031, October 6, 2022, http:// thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2022/Regulatory_Comments/BOEM%202023-2028%20lease%20plan%20 comment%20KTubb.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 36. See Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Public Law No. 117–169, §§ 50261–50263. 37. Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, Public Law No. 115–97, § 20001, and U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3401: Comprehensive Analysis and Temporary Halt on All Activities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program,” June 1, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/elips/ documents/so-3401-comprehensive-analysis-and-temporary-halt-on-all-activitives-in-the-arctic-national- wildlife-refuge-relating-to-the-coastal-plain-oil-and-gas-leasing-program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 38. In 2016, Interior Secretary Sally Jewell instituted a moratorium on new coal leases while conducting a programmatic environmental impact statement under NEPA to address concerns about competition and inconsistency with the Obama Administration’s climate policy. In 2017, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke lifted the moratorium and ended development of a programmatic environmental impact statement. In April 2021, Interior Secretary Debra Haaland rescinded Zinke’s order and initiated a new review of the coal-leasing program. See U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3338: Discretionary Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement to Modernize the Federal Coal Program,” January 15, 2016, https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi. gov/files/elips/documents/archived-3338_-discretionary_programmatic_environmental_impact_statement_ to_modernize_the_federal_coal_program.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023); U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3348”; U.S. Department of the Interior, “Order No. 3398”; and Federal Register, Vol. 86, No. 159 (August 20, 2021), pp. 46873–46877. — 541 — Department of the Interior 39. Katie Tubb, “No More Standoffs: Protecting Federal Employees and Ending the Culture of Anti-Government Attacks and Abuse,” testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, Committee on Natural Resources, U.S. House of Representatives, pp. 2–4, October 22, 2019, https://congress. gov/116/meeting/house/110104/witnesses/HHRG-116-II10-Wstate-TubbK-20191022.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 40. News release, “Secretary Haaland Announces Steps to Establish Protections for Culturally Significant Chaco Canyon Landscape,” U.S. Department of the Interior, November 15, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/ secretary-haaland-announces-steps-establish-protections-culturally-significant-chaco (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden–Harris Administration Proposes Protections for Thompson Divide,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 12, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-harris-administration- proposes-protections-thompson-divide (accessed March 16, 2023); News release, “Biden Administration Takes Action to Complete Study of Boundary Waters Area Watershed,” U.S. Department of the Interior, October 20, 2021, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/biden-administration-takes-action-complete-study-boundary- waters-area-watershed (accessed March 16, 2023); and News release, “Interior Department Takes Action on Mineral Leases Improperly Renewed in the Watershed of the Boundary Waters Wilderness,” U.S. Department of the Interior, January 26, 2022, https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-takes-action- mineral-leases-improperly-renewed-watershed-boundary (accessed March 16, 2023). 41. Endangered Species Act, Public Law 91–135, § 4(b)(2), and Federal Register, Vol. 85, No. 244 (December 18, 2020), pp. 82376–82389. 42. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “Governing the Take of Migratory Birds Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.” https://www.fws.gov/regulations/mbta (accessed March 16, 2023). 43. Dino Grandoni and Anna Phillips, “Biden Restores Climate Safeguards in Key Environmental Law, Reversing Trump,” Washington Post, April 19, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate- environment/2022/04/19/biden-nepa-climate-trump/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 44. Donald Trump, “Executive Order on Creating Schedule F in the Accepted Service,” Executive Order 13957, October 21, 2020, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/presidential-actions/executive-order-creating- schedule-f-excepted-service/ (accessed March 16, 2023). 45. Kathleen Masterson, “Nevada Wild Horse Population Skyrockets To New High,” KUNR Public Radio, July 22, 2019, https://www.kunr.org/energy-and-environment/2019-07-22/nevada-wild-horse-population-skyrockets- to-new-high (accessed March 20, 2023). 46. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, “Report to Congress: An Analysis of Achieving a Sustainable Horse and Burro Program,” Fact sheet, May 8, 2020, https://www.blm.gov/sites/blm.gov/files/ Final%20Fact%20Sheet%20WHB%20Report%20To%20Congress.pdf (accessed March 17, 2023). 47. Pendley, Sagebrush Rebel, pp. 45–47. 48. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35: Delivering on the Promise, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 53, Chap. 12 (2007), § 12.03(1)(a)(iv), https://www.guessrudd.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/1600422/2020/05/The-Alaska-Native-Claims-Settlement-Act-at-35.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023). 49. Ibid., § 12.03(1)(a)(vii). See generally Richard S. Jones, Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (Public Law 92–203): History And Analysis Together With Subsequent Amendments, Report No. 81–127 GOV, June 1, 1981, http://www.alaskool.org/PROJECTS/ANCSA/reports/rsjones1981/ANCSA_History71.htm (accessed March 16, 2023). 50. 43 U.S. Code, Ch. 33. ANCSA also created 12 Native-owned regional corporations and authorized $962 million in “seed money.” Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act At 35, § 12.03(2)(e). 51. ANCSA provided that the withdrawal of the lands would expire in 1978 if Congress had not designated the lands as federal enclaves. John K. Norman Cole and Steven W. Silver, Alaska’s D-2 Lands, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 6B, Ch. 5, September 1978, and Raymond A. Peck, Jr., And Then There Were None: Evolving Federal Restraints on the Availability of Public Lands for Mineral Development, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 25, Ch. 3, 1979. 52. Andrus used purported authority under the FLPMA to withdraw 40 million acres, and Carter used purported authority under the Antiquities Act of to withdraw 56 million acres. James D. Linxwiler, The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act: The First Twenty Years, Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Institute, Vol. 38 Ch. 2, 1992 at 2.04(8)(c), https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/ANCSA-Paper-with-Table-of-Contents-1992.pdf (accessed March 16, 2023).

Department of the Interior

Weak

Vector: 62%

Pages: 560-562AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"Both the bill and the Project 2025 excerpt involve BLM management of Alaska federal lands, but the policy focuses on land transfers, law enforcement coordination, and wild horse management, whereas the bill seeks to block oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain. The overlap is limited to the general theme of Alaska land use under BLM authority."

Key themes:Alaska federal landsBLM managementland use policy

— 528 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise BLM’s LEOs must keep in touch, work closely, and coordinate with fellow fed- eral, state, and local law enforcement officers. In the Trump Administration, they joined state and local law enforcement in arresting dangerous suspects in Cortez, Colorado; responded to a request from a rural sheriff in Arizona to rescue a family stuck in freezing temperatures; and, teamed up in an all-hands-on-deck effort to locate a missing American Indian teenager in rural Montana. More important, western LEOs need the assurance that the BLM LEOs with whom they work are professionals who report through a professional chain of command. Wild Horses and Burros. In 1971, Congress ordered the BLM to manage wild horses and burros to ensure their iconic presence never disappeared from the western landscape. For decades, Congress watched as these herds overwhelmed the land’s ability to sustain them, crowded out indigenous plant and other animal species, threatened the survival of species listed under the Endangered Species Act, invaded private and permitted public land, disturbed private property rights, and turned the sod into concrete. BLM experts said in 2019 that some affected land will never recover from this unmitigated damage. There are 95,000 wild horses and burros roaming nearly 32 million acres in the West—triple what scientists and land management experts say the range can sup- port. These animals face starvation and death from lack of forage and water. The population has more than doubled in just the past 10 years and continues to grow at a rate of 10 to 15 percent annually. This number includes the more than 47,000 animals the BLM has already gathered from public lands, at a cost to the American taxpayer of nearly $50 million annually to care for them in off-range corrals. This is not a new issue—it is not just a western issue—it is an American issue. What is happening to these once-proud beasts of burden is neither compassionate nor humane, and what these animals are doing to federal lands and fragile ecosys- tems is unacceptable. In 2019, the American Association of Equine Practitioners and the American Veterinary Medication Association—two of the largest organi- zations of professional veterinarians in the world—issued a joint policy calling for further reducing overpopulation to protect the health and well-being of wild horses and burros on public lands. The National Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board, a panel of nine experts and professionals convened to advise the BLM, endorsed the joint policy. Furthermore, animal welfare organizations such as the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Humane Society of the United States recognize that the prosperity of wild horses and burros on public lands is threatened if herds continue to grow unabated. The BLM’s multi-pronged approach in its 2020 Report to Congress46 included expanded adoptions and sales of horses gathered from overpopulated herds; increased gathers and increased capacity for off-range holding facilities and pas- tures; more effective use of fertility control efforts; and improved research, in concert with the academic and veterinary communities, to identify more effective — 529 — Department of the Interior contraceptive techniques and strategies. All of that will not be enough to solve the problem, however. Congress must enact laws permitting the BLM to dispose humanely of these animals. IMMEDIATE ACTIONS REGARDING ALASKA Alaska is a special case and deserves immediate action.47 When Alaska was admitted to the Union in 1959, nearly its entire landmass was federally owned; therefore, Alaska was granted the right to select 104 million acres (out of 375 million acres) to manage for the benefit of its residents.48 In less than eight years, Alaska selected 26 million acres. Then-Interior Secretary Stewart Udall—who served during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations—put a freeze on further land selections to protect any claims that might be asserted by Native Alaskans.49 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay in 1968 made resolution of the issue by Congress a matter of urgency. As a result, in 1971, Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which allowed the Native community to select 44 million acres.50 Environmentalists, upset that too much of the land they coveted would be selected by the state and Native Alaskans for development, demanded the inclusion in the act of a provision—Section 17(d)(2)—that ordered the Interior Secretary to withdraw 80 million acres for future designation by Congress as parks, refuges, wild and scenic rivers, and national forests.51 The deadline for this congressional action was 1978, and as it neared, the Carter Administration, impatient and worried, decided to force Congress’s hand. The Administration unilaterally withdrew 100 million acres from any use by the state or Native Alaskans.52 Alaska promptly sued, charging that the Administration had failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act.53 In a lame duck session at the end of 1980, Congress passed (over the objec- tions of the Alaskan delegation) the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which revoked all of the withdrawals of the Carter Administration and sub- stituted congressional designations that put 100 million acres permanently in federal enclaves, doubled the acreage of national parks and refuges, and tripled the amount of land declared to be wilderness.54 Through all of this, Alaska pressed for the DOI to convey the lands to which Alaska was entitled by federal law, but the department grudgingly transferred only portions of that land. By the time Ronald Reagan took office, Alaska had received less than half the lands to which it was entitled after its admission into the Union, and Native Alas- kans had received only one-third of the land due to them.55 From January of 1981 through 1983, however, under Reagan, Alaska received 30 million acres and a com- mitment of land transfers at the rate of 13 million acres annually. In the same period, Native Alaskans received 11 million acres, which constituted nearly 60 percent of their entitlement, and an additional 15 million acres were transferred by the end of 1988.56

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 66%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 91 seeks to block oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Coastal Plain, directly opposing Project 2025's goal of approving and expanding such leasing to revitalize Alaska's energy sector."

Key themes:Alaska oil and gas developmentCoastal Plain leasingBLM regulationenergy policy

— 530 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise Despite the passage of nearly 40 years since the end of the Reagan Adminis- tration, the federal government has yet to fulfill its statutory obligation to Alaska and Alaska Natives—specifically, each group has 5 million acres of entitlement remaining. Standing in the way are Public Land Orders (PLOs) issued by the BLM seizing that land for the agency. Those PLOs must be lifted to permit Alaska and Alaska Natives to select what was promised by Congress. For example, revocation of PLO 515057 will provide the state of Alaska 1.3 million acres of its remaining state entitlement. This revocation should be a top priority. BLM recommended this revocation in the 2006 report to Congress based on the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration Act, and the Interior Secretary has authority to revoke based on the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act under section d(1).58 All other remaining BLM PLOs—all of which are more than 50 years old—should be revoked immediately. Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy. One-quarter of Alaska’s jobs are in the oil industry, and half of its overall economy depends on that industry. Without oil production, the Alaskan economy would be half its size. A new Administration must take the following actions immediately: l Approve the 2020 National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Integrated Activity Plan (NPRA-IAP) by resigning the Record of Decision. (Secretary Haaland’s order reverted to the 2013 IAP, the science for which is out of date, unlike the 2020 IAP.) l Reinstate the 2020 Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) by secretarial order and lift the suspension of the leases. l Approve the 2020 Willow EIS, the largest pending oil and gas projection in the United States in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and expand approval from three to five drilling pads.59 Minerals. Alaska is not just blessed with an abundance of oil, it has vast untapped mineral potential. Therefore, the new Administration must immedi- ately approve the Ambler Road Project60 across BLM-managed lands, pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under the ANILCA and based on the Final Envi- ronmental Impact Statement on the project.61 This will permit construction of a new 211-mile roadway on the south side of the Brooks Range, west from the Dalton Highway to the south bank of the Ambler River, and open the area only to mining-related industrial uses, providing high-paying jobs in an area known for unemployment. — 531 — Department of the Interior Wildlife and Waters. Throughout Alaska’s history, the federal government has treated Alaska as less than a sovereign state. This is especially the case when it comes to two of Alaska’s most valued resources, its wildlife and its waters. Immediate action is required to end, at least in part, this injustice. A new Admin- istration should: l Revoke National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rules regarding predator control and bear baiting, which are matters for state regulation. Such revocation is permitted under the 2017 Congressional Review Act.62 l Recognize Alaska’s authority to manage fish and game on all federal lands in accordance with ANILCA as during the Reagan Administration, when each DOI agency in Alaska signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game ceding to the state the lead on fish and wildlife management matters.63 l Issue a secretarial order declaring navigable waters in Alaska to be owned by the state so that the lands beneath these waters belong to Alaska. This will force the BLM to prove that water is not navigable, since in the case of non-navigability, any submerged lands belong to the BLM. Currently, BLM requires Alaska to prove navigability at its own expense—including the BLM’s preposterous assertion that the mighty Yukon River is non-navigable. l Reinstate President Trump’s 2020 Alaska Roadless Rule64 for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which was replaced by a Biden Roadless Rule that continues a 2001 Clinton rule affecting 9.37 million of the forest’s 16.7 million acres.65 The Clinton rule affects an area where communities are in small islands with no road access. It has prevented multiple infrastructure projects, including roads, electric transmission lines, and water and sewer projects, and it forces residents to use a heavily subsidized ferry system. Logging has been shut down to the extent that New York harvests more timber than does all of Alaska. OTHER ACTIONS The 30 by 30 Plan.66 President Biden’s Executive Order 14008 (30 by 30 plan)67 requires that the federal government, which already owns one-third of the country: (1) remove vast amounts of private property from productive use; and (2) end congressionally mandated uses of all federal land. The end result will be “total federal control of an additional 440 million acres of land or oceans in the U.S. by 2030.”68

Department of the Interior

Minimal

Vector: 63%

Pages: 563-565AI Enhanced

AI Analysis:

"SJRES 91 seeks to block oil and gas leasing in Alaska's Coastal Plain, directly opposing Project 2025's goal of expanding oil and gas development in Alaska, including approving leasing in the Coastal Plain and related areas."

Key themes:Alaska oil and gasBureau of Land ManagementCoastal Plainenergy policy

Showing 3 of 5 policy matches

About These Correlations

Policy matches are calculated using a hybrid approach: initial candidates are found using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text, then an AI model (Llama 3.1 70B) provides detailed alignment ratings and analysis. Ratings range from 1 (minimal alignment) to 5 (very strong alignment). This analysis does not imply direct causation or intent.

Related Bills

Other Bills by Sen. Murkowski, Lisa

Southcentral Foundation Land Transfer Act of 2025

119/s/2098

A bill to designate a mountain in the State of Alaska as Denali.

119/s/573

A bill to extend the authority for modifications to the Second Division Memorial in the District of Columbia.

119/s/1353

Back to All Bills