Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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 Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Delaware is correct that the Rubio amendment does not affect the use of digital maps by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the implementation of the Coastal Barrier Resources Act.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be allowed to proceed to table Lee amendment No. 187.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, just to speak very, very briefly to the good Senator's amendment to amend the Antiquities Act to prohibit the President from designating national monuments in Utah. He and I have had some opportunity to speak to this issue, and I certainly agree with him when it comes to the policy goals that he is seeking to assert here. I clearly understand the frustration he has. With the previous administration, I believe we have seen a real abuse of authority--certainly an abuse of the spirit--of the Antiquities Act. We saw that in Utah when millions of acres were locked up through Executive designation. This was done despite some pretty robust local opposition and objection. This is a scenario that I know pretty well because, in my State, we have a Federal landlord that owns about 63 percent of the State, 224 million acres. We have a provision in ANILCA that is a specific no-more clause, prohibiting the withdrawal of more than 5,000 acres absent congressional approval. The Obama administration circumvented that law. They placed hundreds of thousands of additional acres off limits to development. What my colleague is seeking here, the ability to affirm or reject a monument designation by the State of Utah, is something that, again, I truly understand. I have supported legislation and introduction of legislation to do just as he has done--maybe not specific to one State but making sure that we truly do respect the spirit of the Antiquities Act and making sure, when monuments and monument designations move forward, that they are done with local support. I am in a bit of a quandary here because what he is advocating for is something that, again, I have been there with him on. But our dilemma, if you will, is that we have a package before us of lands bills, of water bills, of sportsmen's provisions, of conservation provisions that we have been working to kind of--not kind of, but to build that level of consensus. This measure is one that has been identified by those with whom we have been trying to work, not only here in this body but with the House as well. They have identified this as one of those measures that would bring down this effort. So we are in a position where, while I support the goals the Senator is seeking to achieve, I don't see a path forward for it in this Chamber at this time. As I mentioned--as you have heard me say--we have some very important provisions that we have been working on for a period of years. I want to ensure those proceed. I don't want to see S. 47 fall. So I am going to move to table the Lee amendment, but I want to once again commit to the Senator from Utah that I will work with him, as the chairman of the Energy Committee, to address these monument designations. Given the vehicle that we have in front of us, I will move to table and ask that colleagues join me in this tabling motion. Mr. President, at this moment, I move to table the Lee amendment No. 187.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment No. 187. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a colloquy with my colleague from California, Senator Feinstein. While I was pleased that we could reach agreement to include a designation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta National Heritage Area in the substitute amendment, I want to clarify what this designation does and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not do. The purpose of this designation, as with congressionally designated National Heritage Areas in general, is to celebrate the region's history and cultural heritage by promoting education, tourism, recreation, and other historic values. It also creates the opportunity for Federal participation in promoting these regional attributes. In no way does this designation implicate or interfere with any water facilities or operations associated with the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. We are not creating new regulatory authority or modifying existing regulatory authority, including those related to land or water use, at any level of government. Further, S. 47 includes protections to ensure that private property will not be impacted by the designation, protections that apply to the ownership and use of water rights both inside and outside of the National Heritage Area's boundary. I ask Senator Feinstein, you have championed this National Heritage Area designation for quite some time. In her view, have I properly characterized the intended effect of this designation?

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank Senator Feinstein. As we have explained, the purpose of this designation is straightforward and intended to promote and celebrate the cultural heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region, without any broader implications on water or land management.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Senator Murphy's reading of the bill is correct.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are here this Monday afternoon to continue debate on S. 47, which is our Natural Resources Management Act, which we introduced just last month with Senator Cantwell. We have been working on this bill with not only Senator Cantwell and Senator Manchin but with the chairman and ranking member of the House Natural Resources Committee. We did that last fall when the composition of that committee on the House side was a little bit different and now in this new year. We have been working forward with the commitment from our respective leaderships to bring this measure to the floor early in this Congress, and here we are. I am very thankful and appreciative to Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer for keeping their word to allow us a few days of debate on this very important natural resources and lands package. We have a great partnership going on in working with my new ranking member on the committee, Senator Manchin, in working with his team in conjunction with ours, and, again, in building on the great, great work that we have had with my friend and colleague from the State of Washington, Senator Cantwell, and her team. There have been so many who have really come together in a very collaborative way and in a very dedicated way to help make this happen. I make mention of the contributions of a few Members on our side and a few Members on the Democratic side who have really been engaged with us throughout this process--Senator Gardner, Senator Daines, Senator Wyden, Senator Heinrich--and of the dozens of Members who are on this measure as cosponsors. We truly appreciate it. We made some good progress last week. We reached agreement to enter into debate on our bill. We considered two amendments. Both of those amendments were tabled in order to preserve what we would refer to as the spirit of the bicameral-bipartisan agreement. We anticipate one more amendment to process today before we move to a cloture vote. I am pleased that we are at this point as we near the end of the floor debate on this measure, and I would like to spend just a few moments this afternoon, if I may, speaking to the really extensive process that has gone into this bill. It is a substantive bill. There is no doubt about it. It is substantive because of the many, many different, discrete, small provisions that have been incorporated into it. Reaching this point has been no small task. I mentioned last week the way that we handle many of these lands matters before the U.S. Senate. It is an imperfect process--that is certainly for sure--but so many of these issues are so parochial that they just do not command the floor time that is available here. Invariably, what we effort to do is to put together a package of these measures. We really haven't seen a lands package before the Congress that has been ready to move out or, actually, be signed into law--that is, I guess, the best way to say it--since 2014. So that is 5 years of really pent-up demand, if you will, to address these matters. So over the course of several years and multiple Congresses, both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and the House Natural Resources Committee have held dozens of hearings and business meetings to prepare the more than 100 bills we have now incorporated into S. 47. So when you think about, again, the process that goes into it--this is endless hours, countless hours of Member time, of staff time that go into these meetings as we work on very local priorities and then drafting the legislative text and refining it to make it right and refining it yet again to make it right. We have also worked for months on a bipartisan, bicameral basis to truly negotiate every word in this bill, literally down to one-tenth of a mile for a certain designation on a specific conveyance there, so really taking a very sharp eye and a sharp pencil to all of the provisions that are in here. We have really worked to try to incorporate as many local, State, and Member priorities as possible. The process these matters went through in order to get where we are today--the regular order process in the House, in the Senate, and in many cases, in both--is really quite impressive. I mentioned some of the Member priorities last week. Members have come to the floor. I indicated that we have included provisions sponsored by at least 50 different Senators within this bill. That number rises to about 90 Senators when we count the cosponsorship of various Members. So, again, it was very collaborative in terms of how we reached out to everyone to ensure their priorities are heard. We have heard a lot on the floor about the contributions contained within the sportsmen's provision--something I have worked on with Members over the course of years, with different partners on the other side, whether it was Senator Tester or Senator Heinrich. It has been three Congresses running that we have tried to advance a bipartisan sportsmen's bill. So there are so many who are looking with great interest into finally passing these sportsmen's provisions. There is a provision in here that helps the folks in Tennessee. One of Senator Alexander's priority projects is a special resource study for the James K. Polk Presidential home in Columbia, TN. It was built in 1916. It is the only surviving private residence of our 11th President. What we do within this bill is we take that first step to make a determination, to ask the question of whether this special place should be designated as a national park unit at some point in the future. So pretty parochial, pretty small, but it is important to those in Columbia, TN. I mentioned some of the Arizona provisions. Udall Park in Tucson, AZ, is a priority for the Arizona delegation. This is one of those issues where they have a pretty popular local community park in the city, and there are all kinds of activities one would anticipate taking place in a small park--baseball, swimming, farmers market. Up until just a couple years ago, the city of Tucson was actually unaware that the Federal Government even owned this local park. So what we do in this bill is we clean up the ownership issue, which allows the city to move forward with the day-to-day activities without facing these Federal bureaucratic hurdles that happen back here. So when they want to do something that would be good for that community, such as expanding a farmers market or improving cell service on the softball fields, they don't have to come to us to ask for permission--pretty common sense. I mentioned some of the priorities coming out of the State of Louisiana and a measure that Senator Cassidy has been working on, the Lake Bistineau Land Title Stability Act. I shared the story of some homeowners who had been on a parcel for 13 years, built their home, wanted to sell, and then they found out they couldn't because they didn't have clear title to their land due to an issue with the BLM management survey. So we worked with BLM and the State of Louisiana-- all this bipartisan work--to clear up the title. Again, this is something that you wouldn't think you would need an act of Congress to do, but we do that. Up in the State of Minnesota, we worked with their delegation to modify the boundaries of the Voyageurs National Park. In Georgia, we are expanding the Ocmulgee National Monument--this is a prehistoric American Indian site--and we are doing this at the request of the local communities and the Tribes. It has strong support from the Creek Indian Tribe and the local community. It is a designation that will help preserve the historic and cultural values of the area as well provide economic benefit by giving greater opportunities for visitors. So these are some of the various priorities we have included in this very comprehensive package. These are not things that are going to make the front page of the Washington Post or the New York Times. These are very local. But I can pretty much guarantee that they will be on the front page of the Ocmulgee--I still don't know if I am pronouncing that correctly--within the Creek Indian Tribe. They are going to make sure people know that this is something we have been working on for a long period of time and that it has finally been addressed in Congress. Working over the years to help address these priorities is very, very important. We have received the support of not only so many colleagues in the Senate and in the House, Republicans and Democrats, but we have heard it from organizations and communities around the country. Some of these names are pretty well known to us: Ducks Unlimited, the Boone and Crockett Club, Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation, the U.S. Travel Association, the Nature Conservancy. That is just a few of the many that have weighed in. I want to give a couple more examples of groups that have written in to share their support. The Southeast Tourism Society wrote that ``S. 47 has earned the enthusiastic support of the travel and tourism industry.'' I mentioned last week that so many of the provisions contained in this bill really help these little local economies or the broader economies within the region, so you can see where the travel and tourism industry would be appreciative. The Outdoor Recreation Roundtable--this is a consortium made up of a number of recreation associations--wrote that our bill should be passed to ``guarantee American's great outdoors receive the attention and resources they so richly deserve and to ensure the outdoor recreation economy continues to grow.'' We are also hearing from communities that have been waiting for congressional action to resolve longstanding Federal land management issues. I mentioned the one in Louisiana. I also mentioned the situation in Tucson, AZ. We did receive a letter from the mayor of Tucson in support of our package because of the provision we have included that he says ``will bring closure to a historic agreement made between the city of Tucson and Bureau of Land Management at a popular urban park in Tucson's northeast business and residential areas.'' That mayor knows this is going to allow the local community to do some of the more simple tasks, such as operating a farmers market, without going through these bureaucratic hoops and hurdles. Another provision in the bill will convey a parcel of land on the shores of Lake Fannin to Fannin County in Texas. The county commissioner shared that with the conveyance of this land, they will be able to ``continue the process to restore, preserve, and protect the historical significance and beauty this lake has to offer for years to come.'' So, again, there is the encouragement we are getting from the communities and from the organizations. I have certainly heard from a lot of Alaskans who are very pleased about where we are with this lands package. We heard from Sheri Buretta. Sheri is the chair of Chugach Alaska Corporation, and she wrote that ``Section 1113 of S. 47, while long overdue from our perspective, provides a welcome and extremely helpful mechanism for addressing serious inequities relative to our land settlement.'' Again, the land settlement in Alaska is decades old, and we are still attempting to address some of those inequities, and this legislation allows us to do that. David Fee, who is the coordinating scientist at the Alaska Volcano Observatory, noted that ``current volcano monitoring capacity in the United States is deficient, and we are unable to accurately forecast and detect eruptions at an adequate level. . . . Passing and funding [this measure will provide] for a safer and more resilient United States.'' The benefits we provide for so many around the country--these are just a few of the examples of the many communities and organizations that support the passage of the bill. We have a full list of our supporters that is available on the committee's website--it runs almost 7 pages long--that I am going to be submitting for the record--not only that consolidated list but also the many, many letters of support we have received. These folks--these individuals, these groups, these communities--are writing in to make their support known because there is good policy in this package. It is policy that fosters economic development in rural America. It is policy that ensures that incredible landscapes are conserved for future generations to enjoy. It is policy that ensures access for sports men and women. It also allows for greater access for some of our off-highway vehicles. It is policy that enhances our volcano-monitoring systems. It empowers local water managers to make decisions on how to conserve water and endangered species. I want to just kind of segue off of that because there hasn't been a lot of discussion about the water provisions within this bill. I keep referring to S. 47 as the lands package, but the truth is, it is not just about land; it is about water as well, and it includes a number of important western water provisions. We improve water management by taking important steps to provide greater local control over water resources and promote management that balances the needs of water users with fish and wildlife protection. As an example of this, we create a new Bureau of Reclamation title transfer program. This is going to facilitate conveyance of water facilities to the local agencies that have been managing them for decades and in some cases longer than decades--almost over a century-- and that have fully repaid the government for the cost. So effectively what we are talking about here is we are simplifying the process for local utilities, States, and Tribes to pursue title transfers for reclamation projects, not by requiring an act of Congress to do it. So it is simplification. It is common sense. It is making things work. It is a straightforward change in the law that will make a huge difference for the entities in 17 of our Western States that manage water projects, canals, and other water infrastructure that irrigate more than 11 million acres of land--land that provides fresh fruits and vegetables for millions of Americans every day. In the bill, we also authorize individual title transfers to California and Oklahoma. These provisions will greatly improve water management and incentivize capital investment in water infrastructure while conserving water resources and protecting public safety. The reauthorization of the Upper Colorado and the San Juan River fish recovery program and phase 3 of the Yakima Basin Water Enhancement Project are both included in this bill. I think both of these are great examples of how a collaborative approach to water challenges, rather than litigation and conflict, results in solutions that benefit water users and the environment. We have certainly heard from Senator Cantwell on this as it relates to the Yakima Basin project and the very collaborative effort that was involved with that. The Colorado River project involves bringing four species of endangered fish back from the brink of extinction while water development projects move forward. There are other important water provisions that didn't make it into the bill for various reasons. I think many of us were disappointed, it is fair to say. It is clear to me that there is a lot more that we have to do to address these major challenges with western management of water and drought resilience. We have some issues to work through on that, certainly not the least of which is the Colorado River drought contingency plan. This involves an interstate agreement to keep Lake Mead from dropping to critical levels. It has taken years of negotiation with cities, Tribes, farmers, and elected officials. I clearly understand that this is a time-sensitive issue. I had hoped we might be able to finalize it for this package, but I am looking forward to working with both Senator McSally, who is the new chairman of the Water and Power Subcommittee of the Energy Committee, and Senator Cortez Masto, who is the ranking member, so we can get this over the finish line as quickly as we can. We also need to complete our work to reauthorize the Bureau of Reclamation's infrastructure funding programs to better utilize Federal lands and water facilities for aquifer recharge and eliminate duplication in the permitting of reclamation pump storage projects. We are making good strides on the water side with this measure as well. I think it is important to remind folks that it is a lands package; it addresses many of the issues related to water; it is a sportsmen's package; and it is truly a conservation package as we look to what we have included and incorporated as the permanent authorization of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This is a good bill we have in front of us. We have been able to make it even a little better through our substitute amendment. I do know that we have many colleagues who, if we had more time, would say that they have more amendments they would like to offer for the package. We are not going to have the time or the ability to come to an agreement to add them here, but it is not without a great deal of work that we have gotten to this place. Again, the fact that we have been working for years--literally, years--to put this together is demonstration of our good faith to try to incorporate as much as we possibly can. I do want to repeat, and I know Senator Manchin has, as well, that this is not going to be our last chance to pass natural resources legislation in this Congress. As soon as we get done here--hopefully, no later than early tomorrow--we are going to be right back at work. The Energy and Natural Resources Committee is going back to work, holding hearings, moving lands legislation. This is our effort, what we are dealing with right now, to clear the deck, and then move on to some new issues. We will be back again to move many of the provisions that perhaps weren't quite ready for this particular package. Later this afternoon, we are going to vote on motions to end debate on S. 47. I strongly, strongly encourage all Members to support that motion and to allow us to take final steps to move this important package with good, strong, robust bipartisan support, and send it over to the House of Representatives so that we can finally get this enacted into law. I see my friend from Nebraska is here. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, at 4:30 p.m. on Tuesday, February 12, all postcloture time be considered expired on S. 47; that following the disposition of any pending amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to, the bill, as amended, be read a third time, and the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the bill, as amended.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I appreciate the cooperation of the body on the very substantive vote, and I look forward to tomorrow.

Mr. MURKOWSKI

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have 8 requests for committees to meet during today's session of the Senate. They have the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees are authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry The Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 1:45 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 10:15 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Examining United States Africa Command and United States Southern Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program.'' Committee on Energy and Natural Resources The Committee on Energy and Natural Resources is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on Foreign Relations The Committee on Foreign Relations is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a business meeting and hearing on the following nominations: nominations of William Pelham Barr, of Virginia, to be Attorney General, and Donald W. Washington, of Texas, to be Director of the United States Marshals Service, both of the Department of Justice, Bridget S. Bade, of Arizona, and Eric D. Miller, of Washington, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit, Paul B. Matey, of New Jersey, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, Eric E. Murphy, of Ohio, and Chad A. Readler, of Ohio, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit, Allison Jones Rushing, of North Carolina, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, Rossie David Alston, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia, Roy Kalman Altman, A Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II, and Rodney Smith, each to be a United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, Raul M. Arias-Marxuach, to be United States District Judge for the District of Puerto Rico, Thomas P. Barber, and Wendy Williams Berger, both to be a United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, J. Campbell Barker, and A Michael J. Truncale, both to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas, Pamela A. Barker, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, Kenneth D. Bell, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of North Carolina, Jean-Paul Boulee, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia, Holly A. Brady, and A Damon Ray Leichty, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Indiana, Andrew Lynn Brasher, to be United States District Judge for the Middle District of Alabama, Brian C. Buescher, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska, James David Cain, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Louisiana, Stephen R. Clark, Sr., to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, Clifton L. Corker, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Daniel Desmond Domenico, to be United States District Judge for the District of Colorado, Karin J. Immergut, to be United States District Judge for the District of Oregon, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Texas, Corey Landon Maze, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, David Steven Morales, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, Sarah Daggett Morrison, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Ohio, Carl J. Nichols, to be United States District Judge for the District of Columbia, Howard C. Nielson, Jr., to be United States District Judge for the District of Utah, J. Nicholas Ranjan, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania, Wendy Vitter, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, T. Kent Wetherell II, and Allen Cothrel Winsor, both to be a United States District Judge for the Northern District of Florida, Joshua Wolson, and John Milton Younge, both to be a United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Patrick R. Wyrick, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, M. Miller Baker, of Louisiana, and Timothy M. Reif, of the District of Columbia, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, and Richard A. Hertling, of Maryland, and Ryan T. Holte, of Ohio, both to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, during the first vote to conduct an organizational hearing. Committee on Veterans' Affairs The Committee on Veterans' Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, to conduct an organizational hearing. Select Committee on Intelligence The Select Committee on Intelligence is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, February 7, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a closed briefing.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table Lee amendment 162. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I move to table the Lankford amendment No. 158, and I request the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I stand to object to the amendment of my friend from Utah. We recognize the significance and importance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. There has been an effort for reauthorization back and forth over the years. Within this measure before us, we have not only permanently authorized LWCF, but we have included significant reforms--reforms that I believe are necessary and reforms that I think the Senator from Utah would agree are good in terms of getting more resources to the State side and making sure that there are better ways to account for the funds. I now have an opportunity to move to table the Lee amendment No. 162 and would encourage Members to vote on this tabling motion in the affirmative. What we have collaborated to build at this point in time is a necessary fix to address the continuation of the LWCF, and I ask for Members' support.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I call up Murkowski amendment No. 112.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are now on S. 47, our lands package bill, and as we have heard, Senator Lankford's amendment has just been called up. I am happy to speak to that, but I understand he is in the process of coming back to the Hill. We will wait for his arrival, and he can speak directly to his amendment. I want to take just a couple of minutes, right off the top, and speak to some of the broader provisions in this bill that I view as significant. Interestingly, I was just visiting with our President pro tempore, and he thanked me. He said thank you because we have a provision that helps Council Bluffs, IA. It is something we have been working on for a long time, and now it appears it will be finally resolved through this legislation. That is a prime example of what we have put together with this 100- plus package of land and water bills--bills that help sports men and women, bills that help us with measures on conservation. It is a very wide and broad effort, and yet so many of these provisions are very local and very parochial. However, local issues can help with economic development in a region, and I want to highlight how this package does create economic opportunities in our communities across the country. For example, when this bill is signed into law, Fannin County, in rural Texas, will gain local control over the Lake Fannin Recreation Area from the Forest Service. This recreation area right now, we are told, is rundown. It has been closed to the public for many years. The county is looking forward to actually taking ownership so it can transform Lake Fannin into a multiuse recreation area, complete with trails, playgrounds, and water recreation, allowing and encouraging people to come and visit and enjoy. We also include a provision for La Paz County in Arizona. This conveys a parcel of Federal land to facilitate the development of a large-scale solar project. It will also allow for a link to an electric transmission line. This is going to be creating local jobs and is going to be bringing renewable energy online to power many of our communities. There is a great benefit there. In Tucson, AZ, we removed bureaucratic obstacles to allow for the city to operate a park. They have done this, apparently, for dozens of years without the control of a Federal Agency. So when the local citizens want to operate, perhaps, a farmer's market, they are not going to have to jump over hurdles or be subjected to the whims of Federal officials there. Instead, they are able to make these local decisions. For heaven's sake, if they want to put a little farmer's market in there, they shouldn't have to come to Congress to ask for permission. Another example--I mentioned this one before--is in South Dakota, in Custer County. This is a conveyance that will allow the county to have full ownership of all the lands on which it operates its airport. It will allow the county to expand the airport so a little bit larger aircraft can get into the airport. Again, you want to think about economic opportunity. If you can't bring more folks into your community, into your region, you are limited. Conveyances like this--small-scale acreage that can allow for that expansion of opportunity--are strong and are important. This is yet another reminder as to the opportunities that we create for our local communities. We are also expanding and designating new areas of off-highway vehicle recreation in the Mojave Desert, which is out in San Bernardino County in California. The OHV recreation is a growing sector in the outdoor recreation economy. It is so important to a lot of our communities. We also encourage Agencies to look for new opportunities for fishing, for hunting, and for recreation on our Federal lands. Again, this is a very, very significant sector in our economy as consumer spending by hunters and anglers and target shooters supports over 1.6 million jobs and about $71.8 billion in salaries per year. Of course, there is that ripple effect then to the larger communities when you are able to bring in folks to enjoy these areas. This is just a further example of how we really work to create new economic opportunities and why this lands package is so important. We are creating economic opportunities, but we also fix a lot of problems. That is one of the things that we try to do on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Sometimes problems are created because you just didn't even know that it was actually your Federal Government or your land disposition that was causing any form of impediment, but we really do work with a number of these provisions to help to solve real problems with Federal land management. There is one example that, I think, my friends from Louisiana will appreciate, and this relates to the situation at Lake Bistineau--I hope I am pronouncing that right--sponsored by Senator Cassidy. Back in 2017, there were a couple of residents who wrote to Senator Cassidy. They were outlining their problem, and they wrote: Look, our family purchased our land, our minerals, our home, in the subject section over 13 years ago after we retired. They go on to write: We have lived in our home on the land ever since. There were no contrary claims or clouds on the title to the property when we purchased it. Therefore, we were disturbed to discover that the government felt it had a claim to our title. That would be kind of a bummer of a letter to receive when you have been living there for over a dozen years, and now you find out, well, maybe you don't have a clear title there. Lake Bistineau has a long and a very complicated history with the Federal Government. The land in question was conveyed by the Federal Government to the local levee district in 1901. Then it was subsequently deeded to private individuals. Yet, in the 1960s, the BLM resurveyed the land, and then it realized the boundary line was incorrect. That survey led to the determination that about 200 acres of land that were currently held privately were actually Federal land. That is a real problem, of course. As the letter to Senator Cassidy went on, they wrote: Just a few years ago, we had the property listed for sale. Once a suggested claim was made by the BLM in its 2013 letter, the potential contract on the property fell through. Again, this is a situation of people who had been living happily in their home for a period of time and decided that they were going to be moving on but now were limited--handcuffed. They had no idea that this was a problem that they had to deal with. It is not just they. There were more than 100 private landowners in Louisiana who were impacted by this. This is regarding land that has been held under a private title for over a century now--places where people have built their homes, their businesses, their lives--and now it is unclear where exactly everybody stands. In the case of Lake Bistineau, our bill clarifies ownership of the land and prevents the Federal Government from ever claiming it in the future. I think, as people go through this to look at individual bills that we have included, that these are the types of things that really help people. They help improve people's lives, and they help improve our local economies. Unfortunately, sometimes it literally takes an act of Congress to clear up whether these are problems or impediments to our opportunities. Again, what we have managed to address within the structure of this bill is very, very important. I want to address the issue that will be before us this afternoon, and that is a conversation about the Land and Water Conservation Fund. As I mentioned, Senator Lankford's amendment is before us, and I wanted to kind of put in context what it is that we have done within our lands package proposal and the title that relates to the LWCF, as we call it. This is in title III. Effectively, what the Land and Water Conservation Fund establishes and what our provision does is to make permanent the authorization within the LWCF. So we deposit oil and gas receipts into the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Also within our bill, we make some commonsense reforms to the LWCF Act. This is something that, in my view, has been a long time in coming. We have had good collaboration going back and forth as to how we can make these reforms and also allow for this important conservation fund to be authorized permanently going forward. There is a little bit of history here. The LWCF was enacted to help to preserve, to develop, and to assure access to outdoor recreation resources. It is kind of a paper trust fund that accumulates revenues from the Federal motorboat fuel tax and surplus property sales and then to supplement these sources to reach the annualized level of $900 million, which is what the authorized figure is. It is not a figure that we have reached historically. That is for sure. The fund also accumulates revenue from oil and gas leases from the Outer Continental Shelf, or the OCS. As we see those revenues come in, those revenues from the fossil fuel then go to fund an account, if you will--the LWCF fund--to help with conservation, and whether States are moving forward with conservation efforts or Federal entities are, it helps to fund that. The authorization to deposit oil and gas receipts into the LWCF expired on September 30, 2018, at the end of this past fiscal year. We have to make sure that those LWCF funds are moved, are made available, but the moneys in the fund are only available if they are appropriated by Congress. Currently, we have an unappropriated balance of just over $20 billion in the LWCF. So some have said: Oh, my gosh. The authorization expired in September, and nothing is happening within the LWCF. In fairness, those funds are still coming in. What we need to do is to make sure that they are then available for distribution and for appropriation, and that is what we will do with this authorization. The amendments to the LWCF in this bill are, again, very important to the structure of the fund, and they are well supported in the Senate. We have been focusing on this expiration date and the deposits to the LWCF for a long, long time. I think we have had kind of this stop-and- go approach of: How long are we going to reauthorize the LWCF? Is it 2 years? Is it 3 years? Is it permanent? Is it not? We go back and forth and forth and back. Let's come to the place where we can accept that this conservation fund is important on a host of different levels, but let's also work to make sure that we have reformed, in a sense, how we utilize this fund. Through this measure, we are making the authorization permanent, and spending from the LWCF still remains subject to appropriations. Let me just outline some of the reforms that we have included. In fairness, they don't go as far as I would like them to, but they clearly reflect a bipartisan-bicameral agreement. I will go into a little more history again. The 1965 authorization for the LWCF--the original authorization-- provided that States would receive 60 percent of the funding and that the Federal Agencies would receive 40 percent. So where the State side dollars have gone in the past is to outdoor recreation facilities, and these have been in areas where people generally live--around the local city playgrounds, baseball fields, local fishing holes, and State parks. Certainly, in States like mine, what we are able to do with the State parks with the LWCF moneys is really, very, very beneficial and very much appreciated. We set it up in 1965. In 1976, Congress stripped this 60-40 split from the act. The question there is, Why? The ``because'' is that there was concern in Congress that by increasing the authorization level to $900 million, some States would have difficulty in meeting the 50-50 match required to receive the funds. In an effort to provide some flexibility there, Congress then replaced the 60-40 State-Federal split with the current language, which provides that not less than 40 percent of the appropriations from the LWCF should be for Federal purposes. So we have gone from, basically, a guarantee that the States would get 60 percent of the funding to, really, kind of flipping that and saying not less than 40 percent goes to Federal purposes. What happened was not really the result that the Congress had intended. According to the Congressional Research Service, over the last 25 years, what we have seen is that over 84 percent of the funds have gone to Federal purposes, primarily for land acquisition. Because we don't have that more clearly defined split, now we are seeing that Federal acquisition increase significantly. When we talk about the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act these days, it is almost always about the Federal land acquisition side. In my view, that is disappointing, and that is not the direction that I would like. I think so many have seemed to have forgotten about the very, very pivotal role that the States have in conservation and outdoor recreation under the act. What we do in our LWCF section is to recognize that States are the leaders on recreation and conservation. We aim to restore the balance to the State-Federal split by ensuring that at least 40 percent of the LWCF funds have to be allocated to the State side program. We want to try to get back to a greater level of equity instead of what we have had--again, over 84 percent of the funds going to Federal purposes. We also recognize the importance of access to existing Federal lands. In our measure, we amend the LWCF to set aside the greater of 3 percent or $15 million per year to improve access for sportsmen and other recreation opportunities. For those of us in a sportsmen community--for those of us who are hunters, for those of us who are fishermen--access to these lands is really, really important. We don't want to just have them and not be able to utilize them. Whether it is going out and hiking or going out and fishing, these are the traditions that we have. Being out on these Federal lands is the importance, and we recognize that in this legislation. I have made no secret of the fact that I worry about what many would consider to be unfettered land acquisition by the Federal Government. In my State, the Federal Government controls almost 224 million acres. To put it into context, Alaska is pretty big. You know how big it is. It is the biggest out there. It is one-fifth the size of the United States of America. About 63 percent of our lands are held in Federal ownership. To put it in another context, that is about one-third larger than all of Texas. So all of our Federal lands are about one-third larger than all of Texas. It is a lot. Large amounts of Federal lands within a State give the Federal Government outsized influence in what happens in these States. So, to begin to address these issues, the LWCF section that is contained in our bipartisan product requires the resource Secretaries to consider conservation easements instead of fee title acquisitions, where appropriate and feasible, and this will help to keep lands in private ownership and as working lands. This is a measure that my colleague from South Dakota has been pushing and advancing. In addition, we also amend the LWCF to require the Agencies to take into account certain considerations in acquiring land. This is like the geographic distribution--whether the acquisition would result in management efficiencies and cost savings. We know that we have this kind of checkerboard pattern of Federal lands, so being smart about our acquisitions to develop efficiencies is the direction we seek to take with this measure. As you can see, we put a lot of work into the provision. We have focused very keenly on LWCF, recognizing the priority that it is to so many. I think we have tried to find that balance between reforms that are workable and reforms that acknowledge the role our States play and to put some contours on the LWCF that I think Members can appreciate and support. I see that my friend, my colleague from South Dakota, is here. I don't know--maybe he wants to talk about that little airport in Custer County. I have never been there, but hopefully it is going to make a little bit of a difference to him. There are a couple hundred acres that are conveyed to Custer County. I yield to my friend from South Dakota. I will be speaking about these and others measures as they come to the floor. Thank you.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, for the awareness of Senators, they should expect a vote in relation to the Lankford amendment No. 158 sometime around 1:30 this afternoon--so just in a little bit here. Then, next in the queue will be Senator Lee's amendment No. 162. We hope to have a vote on that amendment around 2 o'clock. There is a lengthy Judiciary hearing that is still underway, and we want to accommodate that. Both of these amendments are related to the Land and Water Conservation Fund I just spoke about a few moments ago. I just wanted to give Members a heads-up.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays on the substitute amendment No. 111.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have before us now the pending amendment. This is the Lankford amendment regarding the use of LWCF funds for deferred maintenance. This amendment acknowledges and, I think, attempts to address what we are dealing with in a deferred maintenance backlog. We all recognize that it is an issue and a problem. What Senator Lankford has done is specifically to direct 5 percent of funds distributed from LCWF to deferred maintenance. It also requires that any new Federal lands acquisitions allow for maintenance needs at the time of acquisition. I think we would all agree that we have a very real problem with deferred maintenance on our Nation's public lands. We think about the National Park Service most often, which has an $11.6 billion backlog, and it is not just the National Park Service. It is the National Wildlife Refuge, BLM, and the Forest Service. So this is an issue, and we have been working within the committee to address this. There have been numerous bills that have come before our committee. We are working with the administration, and we know we have to address it. This proposed amendment is clearly an effort to do that, and I appreciate what Senator Lankford has done in focusing our attention on this significant maintenance backlog and the need to plan for routine and ongoing maintenance in any new acquisition. So I am standing before our colleagues saying: I understand where Senator Lankford wants to take us, I appreciate it, I agree with him, but given where we are right now with this package and how it has come together, knowing that we will have, I think, significant opposition, whether it is on the other side or in the other body, it is viewed as detrimental to what we have put together. So I am reluctantly going to be opposing the Lankford amendment, but, again, I want to make sure that we all take this on as an issue to address in a way that is rational, sound, and reasonable going forward into the future.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I call up substitute amendment No. 111, as modified, with changes at the desk.