Source: United States Senator for Alaska Lisa Murkowski
02.26.25
Washington, DC – U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) today voted against S.J.Res.10, a resolution to terminate the national energy emergency declared by President Trump on January 20, 2025. Murkowski spoke on the Senate floor in advance of the chamber’s vote to defeat the resolution, detailing the energy emergency in Alaska—which includes supply in Southcentral, affordability in rural and remote communities, and low throughput in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System—while also pointing out the United States’ deep, self-inflicted vulnerabilities on mineral security.
View Senator Murkowski’s remarks here
A transcript of Murkowski’s floor statement is below.
TRANSCRIPT
Murkowski: Mr. President, I join my colleague from Utah, the Chairman of the Energy Committee, in speaking today in clear opposition to Senate Joint Resolution 10, which would terminate the energy emergency that has been declared by President Trump.
I think my colleagues here on both sides of the aisle know that I’m not afraid to suggest when I think that the President may be heading in the wrong direction, but folks, on this one, he has absolutely, positively, clearly hit the mark. And I think that the Chairman of the Energy Committee has outlined in pretty good detail how that has come about.
We know that our country is blessed with extraordinary, extraordinary assets. We have the potential to become the world’s leading resource superpower. But in order to do that, we have to be able to produce more energy domestically, and we have to be able to extract more minerals. We have to be able to build more transmission lines. We need to be able to overhaul what is clearly a broken federal permitting process. And we can do this.
We can do this in a way that is cheaper, that is more reliable, more clean, than any other nation in the world. But wewe’ve got to kind of dig out now from where we have been over these past four years, where we saw setback after setback for resource producing states like mine, the state of Alaska.
Let me give you a little detail in terms of what we’re facing in the state of Alaska, a state that, again, is known for its resource wealth.
Right now, in the southcentral part of the state, we’re on the verge of importing LNG to meet the needs of some 75% of our population during the colder winter months. I’ll just repeat that: Alaska, the place where everybody knows we’ve got extraordinary oil resources, we have extraordinary natural gas potential, not only on the North Slope, but down in Cook Inlet. Well, Cook Inlet reserves are on the decline, and we are actually talking about importing LNG from Canada. That ought to just be considered a non-starter for anyone who knows and understands the extraordinary potential for resource development that we have in our state, with the wealth that we have.
Right now, in some of our remote communities across the state, residents are truly in what I would describe as an energy emergency. They might not use that term anymore, because they’ve just gotten so used to the fact that they’re paying so much to keep their lights on and to keep warm. We have residents in many communities that are spending up to one half of their incomes on energy just to, again, to keep the lights on and to keep warm.
Think about what that means when you’re spending half of what you what you make for just the basic necessities. It means that you have less to feed your family, to educate your kids. We’ve got communities where power costs 10 times the national average, where gasoline can easily exceed $10 a gallon, and that includes diesel as well. And those costs, of course, impact everything, everything – because you’ve got to move your food, your goods, usually by airplane, sometimes over the water, sometimes you’re able to drive it, but when you’re paying this much for diesel, gasoline, for avgas, it impacts everything.
So, it’s not unusual to go into a village store and, if you can actually find a gallon of milk, see that it costs $18 a gallon. I do my comparison shopping by checking the prices of a box of Tide. People need to be able to wash their clothing for sanitary purposes. In almost every village that I’m going to, you’re looking at prices over $50 a box. $50 for a box of Tide laundry detergent. And it’s not because Tide is any more expensive than anything else, it’s just the reality of what we’re paying there. So, I think we’ve got an energy emergency when it comes to affordability.
Right now, in our state, we also have an oil pipeline that is just one-quarter filled. We’ve had this pipeline pumping oil safely from the North Slope to delivery down in Valdez, going to other parts of the country for refining. That oil pipeline was completed in 1977 and has been producing for America ever since. But right now, it’s about one-quarter full. What’s happening is you have the federal government controlling most surrounding lands, and that has led to decreased opportunities to expand production up there, and a pipeline that again is about one-quarter full.
I mentioned the benefits of oil here. I talked about natural gas, but we also have known deposits of about 50 critical minerals, the building blocks of our modern society and our national security. We have just about everything that our nation needs to break its deep dependence on China, to be able to rebuild our supply chains. But if you can’t access it, you can’t produce it, we can’t benefit from it.
We tried to build a road from the Dalton Highway to the Ambler mining district that is explicitly provided by a 1980 federal law. We authorized this as part of a grand compromise. The road corridor was in exchange for creation of a massive National Park and Preserve. But we can get the Ambler project approved in one administration, only to have the next one come in, reopen it, ignore the law, and then make a political decision to reject it. And then here in Congress, we run into a partisan wall with some less interested in the rule of law than the whims of the very same environmental groups that pushed this resolution. And then meanwhile, what’s happening when we’re not able to produce in our own home states? China is cutting us off from its mineral exports, including the gallium and the germanium that we could produce from the Ambler district, if only the federal government would uphold its promise to allow Alaskans to responsibly access it.
So, yeah, when I when I look at my home state, when I look at Alaska, I do see an energy emergency. I see several actually. And I see even more reasons to be concerned nationally. As the Chairman of the Energy Committee just noted, electricity demand is growing, and yet we can’t permit new power plants or build transmission lines. We can’t build pipelines in the Northeast or almost anything, particularly mines, on federal lands in the West. And you know, I’m listening to some of the arguments that are there being presented here, and maybe I’d feel differently if my home state was producing more than two million barrels of oil per day, as some are. But we’re not, and it’s not because we can’t, it’s because we’ve been denied the opportunity to do so. And that’s why I’m very thankful for President Trump and the administration for the focus that they have given to the state of Alaska with a specific executive order to allow us to unleash Alaska’s energy and resource potential.
I have shared with the Secretary of the Interior, as well as the Secretary of Energy, that we need to stop treating energy like it’s some kind of an evil or a bad thing. We need to recognize that it is good. When I was chairman of the Energy Committee, we had a little bumper sticker, and I summed up my whole policy with: energy is good. I haven’t deviated from that policy. Energy makes us stronger, makes us less vulnerable, and it is an asset, not a liability, and we need to treat it as such.
We need to be unleashing our resources, including all of our renewables, because that’s all part of the energy basket as well. So, it’s not an either-or, in my view, it’s all of the above. And that’s good for our economy. It’s good for our security, it’s good for our geopolitical power. America’s resource production is good for the global environment, because when we’re producing our resources, we stop paying countries that have little to no environmental standards, no interest in reducing their emissions, who often rely on child slave labor, and who frankly don’t even like us. So why not seize the opportunities we have here?
Why not seize the opportunities that we have here, benefit our own people, our own economies, and again, benefit the global environment as well? If an energy emergency helps us figure this all out, then I’m good with that. And if it helps us remove the federal sanctions that we have seen on Alaska and returns my state to the heart of our national strategy for resource production, then that is also good. I think we’ll all be better off.
