Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following resolutions, which are at the desk: S. Res. 577, S. Res. 578, and S. Res. 579.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we are starting this new year, there is certainly no shortage of issues to be talking about. You and I have been engaged in fruitful discussions, I believe, about how we address health coverage for millions of Americans that are looking at dramatically higher costs, in many cases, and recognizing that there is a pretty short window here in front of us. In fact, for many, it feels like that window is already closed. We have work to do on that account. We certainly have work to do on the appropriations bills for fiscal year 2026. We have got a looming deadline of January 30 that is fast approaching. And I think it is good news that we will be able to begin that process to advance this next minibus, these three bills--my Interior subcommittee appropriations as well as CJS, and Energy and Water--be able to advance those. But then we have to get moving on the fiscal year 2027 cycle. We are already, technically, behind on that. So we have got efforts there. We obviously need to do more when it comes to the situation around the world. We just had a vote on a motion to discharge a War Powers Resolution as it relates to Venezuela. We need to strengthen sanctions on Russia, which continues to prosecute this awful war against Ukraine. We need to do more. We need to work together to reach a bipartisan agreement on permitting reform. We seem to make good forward progress and then take a few steps back. But we need that to build out the infrastructure that this country needs. We know we all need to tackle the affordability issues that impact all of us, whether they relate to the costs of goods or housing. There is a lot that we have to do here, but there is one thing that we should not be doing, one thing that we should not be spending our time doing, and that is an effort--any effort--that would seek to annex Greenland, whether it is taking it by force, taking it by coercion, taking it by pressure or threat, or, really, in fairness, any related method. It is not an issue that I would have ever expected to raise here on the floor of the Senate. In my time here in the Senate, over the past two decades, I have immersed myself in all things Arctic. I have strong relationships with friends across the Arctic and in Greenland, specifically. I have been the cochair of the Arctic Parliamentarians Conference for years now, and my cochair is a strong Greenlandic woman, who I just spoke with this morning about the situation and the rhetoric that is coming out of Washington, DC, directed toward her country. It is an issue that is not necessarily new to Congress--the U.S. interest in Greenland. In fairness, there have been discussions prior to the first Trump administration. It was actually back in 1867. This was when the United States bought Alaska from Russia and, apparently, at that time, Seward made some inquiries. Seward was Secretary of the Interior at the time. He made some inquiries about Greenland, but the Congress wasn't interested in doing anything about it. And then, in the Taft administration, there was a land swap that was proposed. This was back in 1910. It was rejected by Denmark. And then, apparently, there was actually a formal offer made back in 1946, at the outset of the Cold War, in the Truman administration, where there was actually an outright offer--$100 million, as I understand it, in gold-- to buy Denmark. That is what it was reported as. That was, again, rejected by Denmark. But it was at this time where we moved from the discussion about how do we take or how do we buy or how do we trade into one that was based on a relationship and shared mutual interests and national security, and working with Greenland and the Kingdom of Denmark to ensure that military assets could be based at Thule, at the time--now called Pituffik--Air Base Station. Again, these are discussions that have been had in the past--but in the very, very distant past--until just recently, when, again, we have seen comments coming out of the administration and really stepped up in this past week or so. It is one thing to have a discussion. It is one thing to have a conversation. But, instead, what we are hearing is some pretty aggressive rhetoric from the Trump administration and some members of Congress. There are statements that we are seeing that are suggesting that not only is a taking by force or coercion or other related method not only an option but perhaps a priority. And that, as a priority for the United States to take Greenland, military action is an option. And that, to me, is profoundly, profoundly troubling. I think most of us want to be able to just not only quiet that but make clear that is not only not going to happen, but it is an option that has been taken off the table. I wish that I could say we have received that kind of reassurance, but to date, we haven't. We haven't had that assurance. To be fair, the Secretary of State has recently stated that we are not talking about military intervention, so much as seeking to purchase. Again, in order to purchase something, you have to have a willing buyer and a willing seller. Greenland has made it very, very clear and Denmark has made it very clear that Greenland is not for sale. As I speak with those whom I have established relationships with across the Arctic and, more specifically, in Greenland, they are sharing with me their concern, their deep anxiety about what is going on. What is it that the United States is asking for? Think about the 57,000 people who reside in Greenland. That is the total population of this massive, massive island--57,000 people. But those 57,000 people are their own autonomous country. They have been striving for independence and control of their own future for years. Greenland's Prime Minister made a point very clearly recently. He said that ``threats, pressures and talk of annexation have no place between friends'' and that Greenland's future must be decided by its own people. We need to take that message seriously. We need to respect the will and the wishes of the people of Greenland. Greenland's future must be decided by its own people. It is also deeply unsettling if you live in Denmark, which administers defense and foreign policy for Greenland, as a mostly autonomous territory. So those who are not Greenlanders but who live in Denmark are justifiably disturbed and unsettled. It is deeply unsettling, if you understand the immense value of NATO--of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization--and how one cofounding member taking land from another shatters this crucial alliance forever. We have seen that in statements coming from our NATO allies. Frankly, this should be unsettling for all of us because, bluntly, there is no need to treat longstanding allies with such a brutal lack of respect. And that is what I believe it is, a lack of respect. We are not talking to the people of Greenland. We are talking over them. We are talking about them. But we are not talking to them. That is what you do with your friends. That is what you do with your allies. The people of Greenland are watching us, and the United States is not exactly winning them over by treating them like serfs in a feudal estate. The administration's approach is not improving relationships. It is alienating Greenland. It is alienating Denmark. It is alienating many of our friends and allies in Europe. And it sets the worst possible example for Russia and China and others. This is coming into focus in the wake of the arrest and extradition of Nicolas Maduro. We get that. We get that. But Greenland is not Venezuela. It is not Venezuela. It is not a narcostate that is run by an illegitimate dictator. It is not an area where we have seen the economy wrecked by a dictator. Greenland's Prime Minister has rejected any comparison to Venezuela and has emphasized that Greenland is a peaceful democracy. It is not a territory to be pressured, to be threatened. There is no case, legally or otherwise, for U.S. military intervention in Greenland. Greenland has been not only a partner but a faithful partner. They have been an ally and a friend to the United States, dating back to World War II. At that time, it played a pivotal role in the Allied victory. To this day, they continue to be that staunch ally. As I mentioned, they have been hosting the Pituffik Space Base and allowing the United States to have not only an important presence there but an invaluable presence. Any colleagues who have had the opportunity to visit the U.S. assets that we have there at Pituffik understand that strategic geography and the level of cooperation that we have seen now for decades. I was in Greenland just a couple of months ago. I had an opportunity to meet with the new Greenlandic President, and he wanted to know--he said: What is it that the United States wants? What are they seeking? There is this talk about U.S. wanting Greenland. What does it mean? What do they want? Is it critical minerals? Is it more from a national security perspective? Because if that is what you are seeking, we are not only willing to talk; we are anxious to talk. We want to have that discussion with our friend and our ally. We don't want to cut that off. We encourage it. We have seen how Greenland has encouraged that. The way that they have provided the access, again, to our military for decades, we should be thankful for that. We should appreciate it. We should recognize what we have there and, again, that Greenland and Denmark are willing to give more. They have said as much. Denmark's Prime Minister has suggested that a larger U.S. military presence in Greenland--if that is what we are looking for, let's talk about it. And we could pursue that as we pursue other areas of cooperation. Whether it has to do with trade or tourism or the other economic ties that bind, that is what we should be doing, but we are not doing it. Instead, at least publicly, the Trump administration is focused on acquisition, on ownership, even though every one of our strategic goals can be accomplished with Greenland as our partner, rather than a possession. I would hope that the Trump administration realizes that the United States' taking control of Greenland, especially by military force-- which, again, I can't even wrap my head around that one--what harm that would bring to our national security and our international relationships. This is the 21st century. This is where the United States is supposed to set the example for the rules-based global order, not be the exception to it. And that includes respecting the sovereignty of others. If we do the wrong thing in Greenland, we will not--we will not--end up with a more secure Arctic. For those of us who have been focused on the Arctic for decades, that is what we have been pushing for. It was this area of peace. We used to call it a ``zone of peace.'' Then Russia fouled all that up. But it still is an area where, again, we have prioritized the security, and we have done so in a way that is collaborative and cooperative. If we lose the people of Greenland, we will lose partners in Denmark and across Europe. We will destroy--we will destroy--our strongest international alliance, and that is NATO, and that gives Russia and China exactly--exactly--what they are looking for. Now, there may be some new forms of partnership. I am talking about dialogue and trade relationships, but there may be other forms of partnerships that might make sense in 2026. There has been some suggestion of a joint Compact of Free Association that accounts for both Greenland and Denmark's interests. That is one proposal, and I think it is worthy of consideration if folks are interested in that, but we can't force it on them. We need to have both Greenland and Denmark at the table. We would need to treat them both with the respect that they deserve, and it would have to be their choice--their choice-- to enter freely into any such accord, and that type of an accord, I might add, would require congressional ratification. So we would have involvement and engagement with that as well. It should go without saying, but how we talk to our friends and allies matters a great deal, and our approach to Greenland and then, by extension, to Denmark is severely lacking right now. In early 2024, Greenland released their Arctic strategy to guide its foreign security and defense policy for the next decade. The title of that document--the title of their Arctic strategy--is ``Greenland in the World--Nothing about us without us.'' I hear that phrase ``Nothing about us without us'' all the time from my fellow Parliamentarian in Greenland. We would do well to remember that--to remember that real people live in Greenland; that real people are watching the U.S.'s actions and deciding whether or not they want to have much of anything to do with us going forward. We need to be making sure that that is a firm yes instead of a no. Greenland is an amazing place. It is a beautiful place. Again, I have had an opportunity to visit it multiple times. It reminds me of Alaska, my home State. It is extraordinarily beautiful in so many ways. It is also, like Alaska, very geostrategic. It is a resource-rich area just like my State of Alaska. We have cultural connections thanks to the Inuit people, who migrated from Alaska to Greenland centuries ago. We see that. We see that in the art, and we hear that in the language, where there are shared and common words. But, unlike Alaska, Greenland is not part of America, and we can't simply take it because we want to. To do so would be a colossal mistake. It would end NATO. It would be a gift to Russia and China and all autocratic nations that lust after new territory and want it to justify their own provocations. Again, it is not necessary. It is not necessary given the decades-long, still-strong partnership that we have with Greenland--again, a country that is willing to work with us diplomatically, militarily, and otherwise. I am proud of the Alaskans who have really worked to enhance the relationship between my State--the State that causes the United States to be called an arctic nation--and the country of Greenland. We have been working to forge relationships with the people. We have been focused on shared economic interests, whether it be tourism, whether it be trade, whether it be sharing best practices regarding indigenous governance structures or in the collaboration that we are seeing going on with arts and cultures. It is just exactly what we should be doing, which is building these relationships--building these relationships instead of sending out provocative messages that unsettle and disarm everything. Again, we have got a lot ahead of us in 2026. Greenland--taking Greenland or buying Greenland--should not be on that list. It should not be an obsession at the highest levels of this administration. I urge--I urge--a reset in how we are conducting these discussions. Let's be respectful of one another. Let's have dialogue. Let's have cooperation. Let's have partnership. Let's take a different tack to secure this relationship with Greenland, recognizing that they are an ally and not an asset and not appropriate for any--any--sort of forced annexation or action. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Thursday, December 18; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, morning business be closed, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the en bloc nominations provided for under the provisions of Executive Calendar No. 4, S. Res. 532, postcloture, and that all time during recess, adjournment, morning business, and leader remarks count postcloture; further, that at 12 noon, the Senate resume legislative session to execute the order of December 10 in relation to S.J. Res. 82, and the Senate vote on passage, and upon disposition of S.J. Res. 82, the Senate resume executive session; finally, that if any nominations are confirmed during Thursday's session of the Senate, the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration of S. 3436 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc: Calendar No. 581, Calendar Nos. 602 through 607, and all nominations on the Secretary's desk, with the exception of PN89; that the nominations be confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then resume legislative session.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H. Con. Res. 66, which was received from the House.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 566, which is at the desk.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be discharged from further consideration and the Senate immediately proceed to S. Res. 492.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 278, S. 2393.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my intern Rachel Shaw for the month of December 2025 in the 119th Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there has been a lot of discussion today following the votes on the floor this morning about healthcare and healthcare costs. It was just about a year ago exactly--it was December 12 of last year--I spoke to a reporter from Alaska, and we were talking about just the staggering costs of healthcare costs and what we were seeing with the rise at that time. I pointed out to this reporter that Alaska had already seen 3 years of premium increases that exceeded 50 percent in total. This was putting a pressure on individual and household budgets in a way that people were telling me that this is an unsustainable trend. I said then that we are going to have to address the issue of the enhanced premium tax credits at the Federal level. We are going to need to address the fact that these come to an end at the end of this calendar year. And I said then we have got a year to kind of figure this out, to buy time to pursue what I feel is important, and that is true reform--some of the long-term reforms that will not just help us address the cost of health insurance but, more importantly, the overall cost of healthcare in this country. That is the driver there. That is the problem. So that was about a year ago--almost exactly a year ago, and yet here we are. Little has changed. Key transparency in legislation remains stalled. Too many Alaskans are facing premium increases that are now approaching 500 percent. Think about what that means. I have shared with some colleagues a text that I received from a friend of mine in Fairbanks, and she and her husband will be looking at the potential for premiums in the range of $36,000. Nobody--nobody that I know of--can afford premiums for $36,000. So we know we have got a job here in the Congress. We know that we have to address this issue of rising costs to healthcare. But what we are facing right now, literally, on this 11th day of December, the immediate issue is this expiration of the enhanced premium tax credits and this cliff that is in front of thousands of Alaskans--about 24,000 Alaskans. Millions of Americans are facing this. So this morning we saw what we saw. The Senate voted on two dueling healthcare proposals to address this healthcare cliff. Both proposals were partisan in nature. Neither one was written in a committee setting or reported through what we refer to as the regular order process. Unfortunately, neither really included any attempt at compromise. Neither tried to gain the support from the other side or to address perhaps the very valid concerns that were raised by the other side, and so it is no surprise that we are where we are, which is two failed votes on the Senate floor. And those measures failed. But, Mr. President, I would just suggest that we have failed. We have failed. This institution here in this Senate, we failed to work together. We failed to reach consensus. We failed to help all those who are facing these, shockingly, completely unaffordable increases in their healthcare premiums as they are looking at the new year. We voted on a Democratic proposal as part of the agreement that allowed us to reopen the Federal Government after a record-setting but ultimately a pointless 43-day shutdown. And the headline of that measure was that it would extend the current subsidies for 3 years. Unfortunately--unfortunately--there is no recognition of the much needed reforms. The two speakers preceding me both pointed out there are flaws in the existing system. If we are going to be addressing a program and a continuation of it, I think it is our responsibility to make sure that we are making sure that these programs don't have ways-- that they are not being abused. We also voted on a Republican proposal which would have prefunded health savings accounts. This is something that so many Americans are very familiar with, but it would allow for Americans to receive dollars more directly in their hands, to go in their pockets for their own care while also funding cost-sharing reductions projected to reduce premium costs down the line and some other provisions. But it was good work by the chairman of the HELP Committee as well working with the chairman of the Finance Committee. And I was encouraged by what we were beginning to see there, but there were flaws, quite honestly, with that approach as well. So where did I end up? I ended up voting in favor of the motion to proceed to both of these proposals, but I want to be clear here. It is not because I fully endorse the Democratic proposal and I fully endorse the Republican proposal. Neither of the proposals, in fairness, met the challenge, as far as I am concerned. The Democratic proposal would have extended the status quo under the Affordable Care Act which, as we have heard, has failed to restrain costs, and it has done so for longer than necessary to build the stability that I think we need to develop better policy. More importantly, it included no reforms--no reforms whatsoever. We have seen examples of how the system has been abused, and as stewards of Federal taxpayer dollars, it is incumbent on us to address matters like that. So making sure that there were legitimate reforms, making sure that we don't set up another cliff just like we would have done under the Democratic proposal--it would have set up another cliff in 2029. And that cliff would look even more staggering if we just continued to allow and subsidize unchecked premium growth. And then on the Republican proposal over here, again, I give credit to the authors of that measure because it did focus on some longer term reforms that I do believe can help people over time. But what it didn't address was the immediate situation that folks are facing: this immediate cliff, the imminent pain that is going to come with this massive spike in premiums in Alaska. Again, maybe it is more extreme in other States, but we are still one of the 50 States. And when you are talking about premium increases that are doubling or, in many cases, tripling, that is not sustainable. So we had a proposal that had its flaws. There were also some provisions in the Republican bill that we know were not going to garner support from across the aisle. And I guess where I am today--as most Members have left the Chamber, have left the building, they are going back to their States for the weekend--we are leaving with unfinished business, and this is something that we have known was coming for a long time, for a long time. It is not like this just crept up on us. We had a chance to address it in budget reconciliation, but we couldn't agree to do so. We were told: No, no, no. You know, we have got a lot of time on that. We will do it later. That would have been a win on healthcare. We would have avoided this anxiety that we are in right now. We had a chance to address it, to avoid or end the shutdown. The same story; we weren't able to do that, and so we let the clock run. We wait and we wait and we settle for competing proposals, and now we are where we predicted--where I predicted we would be. We failed in both, and nobody wins from that. Nobody wins from this either politically and certainly not in real life. As I was coming over here, I asked some of the folks that were with me--and I said: What day is Festivus Day? Festivus, for those who are not familiar, is kind of like the day of grievances, which apparently is December 23, just before Christmas. I am not here to do a preemption of Festivus and just air grievances because I don't think that is what people want us to do here. I think they want us to try to figure out, OK, you have demonstrated what you can't do. Now, can you demonstrate what you can do? And that is where I want to put us. I refuse to accept that where we are right now, which is two failed bills, is the best that we can do. I voted to proceed to both proposals, not because they solve the problem, not because they are great policy, but because I think they kind of represented the least bad options available to us at this eleventh hour and because I think we should be talking about it. We should be debating them, amending them, having an opportunity to do so on the floor, and seeing if we can't make some progress there. Sometimes out in the open gets us somewhere--not too often these days. But I will tell you the alternative, which is doing nothing and letting people--really letting people suffer here, I think, is worse. So, again, today, we showed the country what we can't do, but I wanted to show that there are bipartisan votes in the Senate that are eager, that are anxious for a bipartisan compromise. And I don't think it is too late for that. It is December 11 here. The year is not over. Our session is not over. I agree that we don't have a lot of time, and we know that. But I think we can still come up with something that, again, would give people in this country comfort knowing that my premiums are not going to double and triple in the calendar year 2026. So that is exactly what I am hoping the Senate is going to do and what I challenge every one of us to focus on before we adjourn this year. And it is not like we are starting from scratch here. The ingredients for what we are going to need have been out there. We just need to get them all together and figure out how we are going to bake this. I think we know a lot of the work has already been done. We know the general contours of what an agreement could look like. By my count, there are no fewer than eight plans that are out there. There are probably more than that that we can draw from. You have got the Democratic bill that we saw, which was the 3-year offering. You saw the Cassidy-Crapo effort. Senators Moreno and Collins have a proposal. I have put forward a proposal. Senator Rick Scott has, and Senator Hawley, Senator Marshall, Senator Husted. There is a lot that is out there. And so many have been speaking about this for so long now. I have put legislation on the table, a 2-year extension of the premium tax credits, to buy us time to avoid this situation. I have also proposed ways to address it in both budget reconciliation and in my frameworks, when we were trying to figure out how we handle the shutdown. So there is not a lot of new stuff out here. We know what the component pieces are. And it is not just in this body. Look at what is happening down the hall here. Two--two--bipartisan proposals by Members of the House, and they are circulating for signatures so that they might be able to discharge and be able to move this. To me, I think that is really significant. You have got Members in the House that are coming together, and they are going to stand out and put their name up front on a bipartisan effort. Maybe, it is not everything that they want, but they are willing to put something out there because they believe that the American people demand and deserve a solution. And so I am encouraged. I am really encouraged by the momentum that we are seeing coming out of the other body as a way out. And so if you take time to look at the proposals that are out there, you can see where we need to go. You can see where there is overlap. You can see where there are areas that serve as the foundation for an agreement. I think there are so many that agree that we have got to have some extension of an enhanced premium tax credit. Maybe it is not 3 years. Maybe it is. We know it is at least 1 year. Perhaps it is 2 years. Most agree on the need for reasonable reforms to ensure that these credits are going to go to those who need them most and to protect the taxpayers who foot the bill from the waste, fraud, and abuse, because we know that that is real. We have to address that. We have got some good measures, good ideas on what to do there. They are already written. We can plug them into a bipartisan measure. And there is consensus for reasonable limits on who can receive the credits and an understanding that reforms need to be made, again, to reduce the fraud in the system. And I think we can do some of that through some of the program integrity reforms and by addressing plans where the customer is not currently paying any premium whatsoever. So, again, I acknowledge the great work that Senator Cassidy has put forward with proposing solutions that give families options here when it comes to their healthcare choices. So here we are on December 11. We have taken the partisan votes, and now we need to move forward. We need to develop a bipartisan product based on what we do agree on. And I firmly believe--I firmly believe-- that it is in our reach, if we try, but to get there in this short period that we have in front of us, we have got to remember that none of us get to design this on our own. None of us will get exactly everything we want. The time for that is over. We have proven that no specific plan of that nature has the kind of support that we need. So we have got to do better. We have got to do better. We can't just say: Happy holidays. Brace for next year. That is our message to you. We need to focus on the people who are going to be hurt if we do nothing, and we need to set aside the politics and the partisanship that are preventing us from helping them. I think there is still a consensus to be had here, and know that I stand at the ready to do everything that I can to help in that effort before we adjourn at the end of this year. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Congressional Record a letter from the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation, dated December 3, 2025, expressing strong support for S.J. Res. 91 and H.J. Res. 131, joint resolutions providing for congressional disapproval of the Bureau of Land Management's 2024 Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision under the Congressional Review Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have come to the floor this morning as we begin debate on two identical disapproval resolutions. This is S.J. Res. 91--I filed it with Senator Sullivan--and then H.J. Res. 131, which is a companion measure filed by our delegation colleague Representative Begich. These resolutions would nullify the Biden administration's Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program. This was unilaterally rewritten and finalized over our objections back in November of 2024. We are going to have an opportunity to vote later on a motion to proceed to my Senate resolution. Then, if that succeeds, our final vote tomorrow will be on the House resolution because it can then go directly to the President's desk. Those of us in the Alaska delegation filed these resolutions because we are again seeking to overturn the Biden administration's effort to effectively shut down resource production across Alaska. We opposed their Central Yukon Resource Management Plan, their integrated activity plan for our National Petroleum Reserve, and their decision to shut down any potential development on a very small part of the Coastal Plain. So for those who have not followed this, the Coastal Plain is a 1.56 million-acre tract of land. This is on the eastern part of Alaska's North Slope. So if you look at the overlay here of Alaska, across the lower 48 States, the ANWR region is up here in the upper eastern corner. The refuge itself is about 19 million acres. This is approximately the size of South Carolina. The nonwilderness area--this is the 1002 area--is 1.5 million acres, which is approximately the size of Delaware. Again, you see this in that section of the map there. The Coastal Plain is part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but in designating that as a refuge, Congress specifically reserved this area up at the top, on the slope there, for energy exploration and potential future development. Congress did this through what was known as section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. We call it ANILCA. So when we refer to the 1002 area, it is this Coastal Plain here within the ANWR region. Section 1002 of ANILCA starts with a purpose that explicitly authorizes ``exploratory activity within the coastal plain in a manner that avoids significant adverse effects on the fish and wildlife and other resources.'' So I think it is important that people understand this purpose, this distinction. The 1002 area--this area here, the purple area--is not Federal wilderness. By law--by law--it is a Federal set-aside. This area here is wilderness. This is the refuge area. The 1002 area, again, was specifically set aside to authorize exploratory activity. Then Congress left the decision on development to be determined later. It was years--it was decades, actually--it was in 2017 that we in Congress agreed as to what should be allowed. I was chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee at the time, and we added a title II to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. It drew bipartisan support, but we effectively put an end to a 40-year battle. We opened up a small fraction of the Coastal Plain to responsible development. And under the terms of that act, we required at least two area-wide lease sales over the course of 7 years. But we provided balance to all that. It wasn't just ``open the whole thing for exploration.'' We limited surface development to just 2,000 acres. So, keep in mind, in this area that is the size of Delaware, we limited surface development to 2,000 acres, which is one one-hundredth of 1 percent--one one-hundredth of 1 percent--or one ten-thousandth of all of ANWR. That is what we included within that measure in that 2017 act. We did not shortcut or truncate the environmental review process. The Department of the Interior effectively spent 3 years designing a sound, environmentally protective program, and the result, then, was a record of decision in August 2020 that would have allowed us to safely develop the area's anticipated resources while fully protecting the fish, the wildlife, and the subsistence uses. We have talked a lot on this floor and in other areas about the resources that we project to be in the ANWR area--prolific resources-- an estimated 7.7 billion barrels of oil, which would be enough to add a half million barrels a day to our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System for perhaps the next 40 years and help to fill up our pipeline. I am one who has been engaged in this battle for decades, and I absolutely understand the concern about whether or not limited development makes sense in the area. And like so much of Alaska, the Coastal Plain is a special place. None of us wants to see it harmed, and that is why we went to such extraordinary lengths to ensure that energy development and environmental protection could coexist. We didn't trade one for the other. We didn't put energy above the environment. We had a lot of confidence in the program that was finalized in 2020, but, unfortunately, we never got the chance to, once again, demonstrate how Alaska leads the world when it comes to balanced, environmentally responsible development. We held our first lease sale in early 2021, but after that, everything seems to have just kind of gone in reverse, because on his first day in office, President Biden suspended the Coastal Plain Program. His Department of the Interior paused all leasing and development activities before arbitrarily canceling every lease in the area. And the Biden administration didn't stop there, either. They next decided to rewrite the Coastal Plain Program to make leasing unattractive and development impossible. And they claimed deficiencies in the original process, between 2017 and 2020, that they had to somehow go back and remedy, but they never really cited anything specific. Now, keep in mind, the Biden administration in their political agenda did not include energy from Alaska. So they were trying to move forward and address what they said were flaws, but their process was also fatally flawed. For starters, the Biden administration failed to meaningfully consult with the people who actually live on the North Slope, including those who live in Kaktovik, which is the only community within ANWR's boundaries. When I say ``failed,'' I mean they refused--they flatout refused. I added report language to my Interior appropriations bill directing them to do the consultation, and still they refused. The Biden administration issued a record of decision for a new Coastal Plain Program in November of 2024. And if you spend time looking at it, you will understand why we are here, because it clearly and repeatedly contradicts Federal law, because the Tax Cut and Jobs Act opened the 1.56 million-acre Coastal Plain to potential development, subject to the 2,000-acre surface limit. We were very clear in what that law was. The Biden administration took that, flipped it on its head, and finalized the program that allowed leasing on just 400,000 acres--so, gone, immediately. Gone was potential leasing on 74 percent of the 1002 area. And the 400,000 acres that was left available, which is--I question the availability there-- but it amounted to less than was bid on at the 2021 lease sale. And even there, 231,700 acres were subject to no surface occupancy, another 84,300 were subject to controlled surface use, and 3,100 acres were subject to timing limitation. So only about 5 percent--only about 5 percent--of the overall Coastal Plain was subject to standard lease terms and conditions under the Biden plan. So think about that-- just 5 percent now. The Biden administration also restricted seismic surveying--the best way to understand the Coastal Plains resources. They restricted the surveying of the lands that were now theoretically available for leasing. They even reinterpreted the 2,000-acre limit to not be a ``saleable feature'' of leases. We had discussed this with the Parliamentarians during the budget reconciliation back in 2017, but it was a matter of secretarial discretion to allow development of anywhere between 0 and 2,000 acres. So, again, they flipped that on their head. So it wouldn't surprise you to learn that the 2024 program contemplates development on a maximum of 995 surface acres. Again, what we had statutorily prescribed--what the law says--was 2,000 acres. Finally, the Biden administration expanded and created new lease stipulations and required operating procedures to further dissuade leasing interests and clamp down on any potential for development. The goal wasn't hard to understand. It is evident in the 2024 record of decision. Interior acknowledged that, under their preferred alternative, future oil production from the Coastal Plain would decline nearly 80 percent. They knew it. That was the plan. I think they were probably trying to shoot for closer to 100 percent. Under the 2024 plan, there would be no leasing, as we clearly saw in a lease sale that was designed to fail and then did fail late last year. There would be no development on the Coastal Plain, regardless of congressional action, support from Alaskans who live on the North Slope and within the Coastal Plain, or our national need for responsibly produced energy. Bear in mind, this is all taking place right as the Biden administration was relaxing sanctions on countries like Iran, like Venezuela, allowing them to produce more and financially benefit from the development. And it also happened right as California, which is a traditional market for Alaska's oil, was importing more oil from the Middle East, which is a long way from California, but also from other countries in South America, actively deforesting the Amazon rain forests. So if you want to talk about a massive geopolitical and environmental failure, that was it--that was it--happening under that administration. Less oil from Alaska means a Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that is running mostly empty. It means a west coast that increasingly turns to imports instead of domestic energy, regardless of the terror that that breeds or the devastation that it causes. It also means fewer jobs for hard-working Alaskans, less opportunity in our communities for the folks who support and benefit from energy development, less revenue for the State of Alaska, and, in turn, less infrastructure and services. To me, that just makes no sense. The people of the North Slope, the Alaska delegation, and the State of Alaska were ignored as the Biden administration put its 2024 program into place. From the start, this was a fait accompli. There was no question in my mind what they planned to do, and there was nothing unfortunately that we were able to do to change their minds. It really didn't matter what Alaskans wanted. It didn't matter what the law required. It didn't matter that they wound up in court and lost--and lost badly--as they did when a Federal judge ruled that their cancellation of the Coastal Plain leases was blatantly illegal. All of that was their choice, and this is ours. This is our choice-- to disapprove and permanently nullify their actions so that they never come back in substantially similar form. So if you care about the rule of law, if you care about our domestic energy security or the consequences of sending our dollars abroad for energy that we have here at home, then I would ask you to join us in supporting this resolution. I think if you acknowledge that no one cares more about Alaska than Alaskans, you should be with the full Alaskan delegation on this. We can restore the rule of law. We can require Federal Agencies to follow congressional direction. We can return to balanced management on the Coastal Plain, while still protecting 99.99 percent of ANWR's surface acreage. I think the choice is pretty clear. I would urge colleagues to support the motion to proceed later and the underlying resolution when we vote on it tomorrow. Mr. President, I would ask, as I wrap here, that unanimous consent be provided for letters of support from those who live on the North Slope, as well as letters from the Resource Development Council and the NFIB, to be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 15 minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I know that we are getting ready to wrap up the day here, on this Saturday, and I just wanted to take just a couple minutes. And I really don't feel like I am speaking as the Senator for Alaska. I feel like, at this moment, I want to be the Senator speaking for the men and women who allow this place to happen on a weekday but also on a weekend. There are a lot of really great people who come in, day over day over day, to either protect the Capitol, to clean the Capitol, to help make sure that our operations are efficient and expedient to the extent that we can be. They keep the wheels on the bus, if you will. And along with all of our other Federal employees and so many that are being impacted by this shutdown, they haven't been paid since the 1st of October, since the shutdown began, and the pressure points are real. I spend a lot of time talking to these people because they are, again, the ones that are making things happen here. And we are here on a weekend, and I am glad we are here this weekend. I didn't want to be. I didn't want to be here last weekend, but I said: Until the government is open, we should be here doing our jobs. And so I am glad that we are here, but I also recognize that this is not business as usual. This is not ordinary times. This is a Saturday. It is a beautiful day in Washington, DC, right now. And we have asked those who are our stenographers, those who are doing the photocopying, those who are outside guarding the doors to this entrance--we have asked everybody to be here. We have asked everybody to be here. The Capitol Building, the doors that are open this weekend--almost identical to what we would be doing on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. The doorkeepers who are outside, same schedule as usual. The Employee Assistance Program, same schedule as usual. The food services, a little bit pared down, but outside of some different hours, scheduled as usual. The ID office--do we really need to have the people who work at the Senate ID Office here on a Saturday and a Sunday? The media galleries, the parking operations, the photographic services--do we really need to have the Senate photographers coming in? Those people who have kids, whom they don't get to see during the week--we are now asking them to come in, be on standby here during the weekend, drive 45 minutes to come in. Printing and graphics. We need charts. Well, those folks are all still here. The Senate Post Office, the Senate recording studio. I care about the people who allow our operations to function, and I don't want us to grind them down. And so I am asking that our Sergeant at Arms, along with those who have the oversight--it is the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration--I am asking them to take a look at this list and to make sure that we are treating the people who stand by us with the degree of respect that they deserve during a really difficult time. We need to get the shutdown over, behind us, yesterday. But, in the meantime, let's think about those who are here. I yield the floor.