If I may respond to my good friend, the Senator from West Virginia, first, we are both aware of the fact that the President did support opening ANWR. He would have signed an energy bill with ANWR in it. Clearly, the intent of the amendment, had it passed, was that the proceeds would go for the steel legacy fund--a significant portion of it. I know the Senator from West Virginia wanted an ironclad commitment from the White House. I simply share that had we passed the amendment, we would have identified the funds as flowing to the steel legacy as compared to where we are today, which is we are talking about a 1-year proposal with an authorization only and no identification of funds. It seems to me we were much better off previously, had you accepted the deal. Had it passed, that is where the funds would have gone.
On the recordMay 21, 2002
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Discussing the implications of an amendment related to ANWR and funding for the steel legacy fund.
Share
More from Lisa Murkowski
Aug 19, 2026
Kyle brings extensive knowledge of both our state and our court system to the federal bench, having served the District of Alaska as a federal prosecutor and U.S. Magistrate Judge, a position he has held in Alaska for the past five years.
Aug 8, 2026
It's only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage.
Aug 7, 2026
“I am also keenly aware that the Department’s nearly $2-billion dollar slush fund—which likely would have rewarded January 6 protesters—is only off the table because this nomination is pending and the Senate has leverage.”





