Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
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".
A Republican resolution with 1 Republican cosponsor · See the cosponsor
Last activity — Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
Introduced, nothing more yet
Formally proposed, and not yet handed to a committee.
Nearly every bill is sent to a committee within days. Introduction alone is not a sign of support, of momentum, or of any likelihood of passing — any member may introduce any bill.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
How Congress voted
- See who voted how →A vote on whether to start debating something · 12/03/2025
What this bill would do
This joint resolution expresses congressional disapproval of a specific rule submitted by the Bureau of Land Management. The rule in question relates to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision. It was originally issued as a record of decision on December 9, 2024. A Government Accountability Office letter of opinion from August 25, 2025, concluded that this record of decision qualifies as a rule under the Congressional Review Act. Because of this joint resolution, that rule will now have no force or effect.
Yes· 3 of 9
- Scored +4
Does this invest in rural communities?
Promoting resource development can bring economic activity and infrastructure investment to remote regions like Alaska.
- Scored +4
Would business owners be better off under this?
Benefits energy companies and associated businesses by opening leasing opportunities.
- Scored +4
Would people in rural areas be better off under this?
Supports local economic development and resource-dependent communities in Alaska.
The opposite· 3 of 5
- Scored -6
Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced?
The resolution specifically invalidates a rule restricting oil and gas leasing, thereby promoting fossil fuel production.
- Scored -4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
Disapproving the BLM record of decision removes certain land use and environmental constraints in the area.
- Scored -3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Overturning restrictions on oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain may lead to increased fossil fuel extraction and higher carbon emissions.
What Congress actually voted on
One recorded vote has been taken on this bill.
None of them settled the bill — every vote so far has been about whether to keep going.
- The Senate: a vote on whether to start debating something This decides only whether the chamber takes the measure up at all. Nothing about the measure itself has been decided when it passes. Motion to Proceed Agreed to 49 yes · 47 no
12/03/2025 · Roll call 630 · recorded as “On the Motion to Proceed S.J.Res. 91”
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Invalidation of the Bureau of Land Management Rule: The text explicitly states that Congress disapproves of the rule relating to the Coastal Plain Oil and Gas Leasing Program Record of Decision, and that this rule shall have no force or effect. This could be seen as positive for individuals or groups who opposed the original Bureau of Land Management decision, as it completely voids the specified rule.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Lack of Textual Evidence for Negative Impacts: The provided text does not contain any specific provisions outlining negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people. Therefore, no specific negative impacts can be cited from the document without making assumptions.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this invest in rural communities? — Promoting resource development can bring economic activity and infrastructure investment to remote regions like Alaska. Is this likely to lower the price at the pump? — Expanding potential oil and gas leasing areas can help increase domestic supply and potentially lower energy costs. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — The resolution specifically invalidates a rule restricting oil and gas leasing, thereby promoting fossil fuel production. Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — Disapproving the BLM record of decision removes certain land use and environmental constraints in the area. Does this better protect public land such as parks and forests? — Congressional intervention to void a BLM management decision alters standard administrative public land planning processes. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Overturning restrictions on oil and gas leasing in the Coastal Plain may lead to increased fossil fuel extraction and higher carbon emissions.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would business owners be better off under this? — Benefits energy companies and associated businesses by opening leasing opportunities. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Supports local economic development and resource-dependent communities in Alaska. Would union members be better off under this? — Creates potential union employment opportunities in construction, drilling, and pipeline operations. Would Native Americans be better off under this? — Some local indigenous groups may oppose resource development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge due to environmental and cultural concerns.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Facilitating energy leasing and development can positively impact economic output and resource availability. Is this likely to create jobs? — Enabling oil and gas leasing programs can support job growth in the energy sector.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — Uses congressional authority under the Congressional Review Act to override executive agency rulemaking. Does this leave more decisions to the states? — Aligns with regional interests in Alaska seeking to overturn restrictive federal land rules.
- 12/4/2025
- Indefinitely postponed by Senate by Unanimous Consent.
- 12/3/2025
- Motion to proceed to consideration of measure agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 49 - 47. Record Vote Number: 630.
- Measure laid before Senate by motion. (consideration: CR S8473)
- 12/2/2025
- Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources discharged, by petition, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 802(c).
- Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 280.
- 10/28/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- Introduced in Senate
One bill Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Dan SullivanRepublican · Alaska