Lisa Murkowski

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. I thank my colleague for that. I want to acknowledge the support and partnership I have had with Senator Cantwell. She and I come from differing views on certain issues, but throughout our time as the chair and the ranking on the committee, we really did work to try to advance some of these solutions, where--I think we would both agree--there is common ground. Again, advancing that is important. It is important for the progress we are making. It is making a difference. It is helping to reduce the emissions. It is helping to move us toward greater efficiency. So let's not pooh-pooh the small things. Let's acknowledge that building things together, you do elevate yourself--but we have to start. If we keep dividing ourselves, then we are not going to come together to build these bridges. I thank my friend from Washington State who has worked hard on the committee to advance this and continues to do so. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I will yield.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, thank you. I am sorry I didn't hear all of the remarks from my friend from Illinois because at the end, he pointed out that there are some on my side of the aisle who acknowledge that we are dealing with a changing climate and that those impacts are real. Well, this Senator is one of them. I come from a State where we see it. It is real. It is tangible. It impacts not only the land and the water but also the people. We see that in the Arctic. I am one who is approaching this from the perspective of pragmatism and practical solutions we can move forward with. While I like aspirations, and we all have to have goals, I want us to make sure we are not setting ourselves up for a situation where the expectations are not realistic. The Senator mentioned the vote we will have later this afternoon. I have suggested that it is important for us around here to make sure that we don't distract from those pragmatic and practical solutions and that we don't amp up the rhetoric so high that we can't get ourselves to a place where we can work cooperatively and collaboratively to get to these solutions. If we are going to address it in a meaningful way, it must be bipartisan, it must be enduring, it must move from one administration to another, and, again, it has to be something we can work toward with meaningful steps. I would like to take just a couple of minutes today to speak to some of the things and some of the areas in which I think Congress can actually make some progress as we look to the issue of climate change. I have refrained from speaking specifically to the Green New Deal as it has been laid down and introduced because I don't see it as a real and viable solution that has been fully considered as a proposal. There certainly is a lot of aspiration to it. There certainly is a lot of aspiration, but I have kind of refrained from piling on, if you will, despite my concerns about the costs of the deal. I think we can go back and forth in terms of how much it really costs individual Americans, what is the cost to society, and what is the cost of not doing something, but I think those are all kind of almost false in a sense because it is not that we are not doing anything. I think we need to establish that. If we were to enact and move forward with every aspect of the proposal as it has been laid out, is it possible? Is it possible? It is certainly a worthy goal for us in this country to be transitioning to more renewable and cleaner sources of energy. We are doing that. We are certainly seeing that as the cost of solar is coming down and as we are seeing more wind being harnessed. I think we have great potential in more hydropower, more geothermal, and the technologies that could be coming our way when it comes to ocean energy. Surely we need to be moving in that direction, but is it affordable? Is it possible to transition to 100 percent renewable energy and electric vehicles over the next 10 years? I don't believe it is physically possible for us to do it in 10 years. So are we setting something up so that young people, like the Senate pages who are listening to me, will say: Well, sure, you should be able to do that in 10 years. You say you can. So if you haven't done it, you have failed. This is not a question of whether we succeeded or failed but whether every step we are taking is moving us in a more positive direction. Shouldn't it be a worthy goal to maximize our energy efficiencies within our buildings and how we access our power? Absolutely. But is it possible? Would we be able to physically retrofit every building in America to maximize energy and water efficiency over the next 10 years? I don't believe we can do that in 10 years. Aspirations are good, and goals are good, but when you look at what has been specifically laid out in this Green New Deal, it is more than just transitioning to renewables or electric vehicles or greater energy efficiency. It calls for a Federal jobs guarantee. It focuses on healthcare, education, wages, trade, and a lot more. It suggests unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States. That is wonderful. I would love that. But how do we get there? What is the feasible mechanism for accomplishing this goal? Let's be honest with where we are and recognize the potential cost of this Green New Deal. Whether you want to peg it in the price range of $50 trillion to $90 trillion over the next 10 years--I am not going to get caught up in those numbers because that is not going to happen. It is not going to happen. What I really hope doesn't happen is that this discussion about the Green New Deal or whatever you want to tag it--that we are not distracted from the necessary and important conversation we must have about climate change and the practical steps we can take to address it. Let's talk about that. I mentioned to my friend from Illinois that we see it in Alaska. We say that we are ground zero for climate change. The Arctic is warming two to three times the rate of the rest of the world. We are seeing glaciers retreat. Permafrost is thawing. We are seeing sea levels rise. Wildlife migration patterns are changing. We are seeing different invasive species. With the water temperature, we are seeing ocean acidification. Villages are being threatened by coastal erosion and in need of relocation. For us, this is real. Climate change is real. If you don't want to use the words ``climate change,'' you don't have to use the words ``climate change,'' but just come up and take a look, because something is happening. We are seeing it. Engaging in rhetoric that is either fantasy or denial really doesn't help those who are facing this. I think there are some policies that both parties can support that I think can make a real difference in real time. I want to first start off by acknowledging that we are not in a situation and a place where we are doing nothing. That is not the case. We are. We are working on policies, and over the course of years, we have put policies in place that are making a difference and will make a difference moving forward. It is not as though we are starting from scratch. Just look at where we were last year. We expanded the tax credit for carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration, CCUS. We increased funding for the Department of Energy to research and develop cleaner technologies. We passed legislation to promote basic science, nuclear energy, hydropower, and more. Many of us support the production, use, and export of clean burning natural gas, which can substantially help reduce global emissions. That was just last year in terms of the policies we put in place that are moving us forward in the right direction. You don't always hear about it, but we have a pretty decent story to tell here in this country. We are leading the world in greenhouse gas reductions. Despite an uptick we saw last year, in 2018, our emissions have fallen significantly over the past decade. We have made progress, but we need to be making more progress and, in my view, more accelerated progress. What more can we do? That is a conversation we are having in the Energy Committee. I have been working with my ranking member, Senator Manchin from West Virginia. It is a conversation we have been having on both sides of the aisle. We had a hearing on the impact on the electric sector due to climate change. We had that hearing about 10 days or so ago. We are planning on having others. We are talking with other colleagues who are not part of our committee about what more can be done. Two or three weeks ago, I was in Houston attending the big oil and gas conference, the big global conference. It is kind of like the Davos of oil and gas. It was notable that throughout that week's conference with oil and gas producers, predominantly, the focus and the attention was on climate change and what we are doing with those technologies that will help us to reduce methane leakage, what we are doing to help share some of these environmental technologies, and what more we are doing to help facilitate these clean, lower carbon technologies. This is coming from an industry that is recognizing that innovation must happen. It was fascinating. I sat down with a group of about 20 folks who were pretty high up within their sectors. I was thinking we were going to be talking about some of the latest technologies in oil and gas development. But about two-thirds of the people around the table were not from oil and gas companies; they were from high-tech companies. They were there because they see that the real difference in making a difference is going to come from these technologies, and they want to be a part of that conversation. That is a good conversation to have. Within the Energy Committee, what we are doing is we are going to revive and refresh the bipartisan Energy bill that we moved out of committee and off this floor a couple of years ago with the help of Senator Cantwell. We moved it out with the support of 85 Members. It may be that we have to move some smaller bills instead of everything all at once, but we have to update our policies. We haven't updated an energy policy for 11 years now. Senator Cantwell knows, when you think about where the industry has gone, where the energy sector has gone, and the fact that our policies have lagged, that is a drag. We need to address that. I think there are areas where we can reach a bipartisan agreement on policies that support the innovation, break down the barriers, promote efficiency, and keep the markets well-supplied. There is a lot more we can be doing on nuclear energy. I am going to be introducing a bipartisan bill this week to promote advanced reactors. There is more we can be doing on carbon capture utilization and sequestration. This is a big priority of Senator Manchin's. We know that unlocking the key is going to be with storage and energy storage. We have to be advancing that. There is so much more room within hydropower, microgrids, to lower costs for energy in rural areas, to lower the cost of all renewables and make them more competitive, to ensure we are producing the minerals and materials we need for the technologies. I mentioned sharing environmental technologies. It is not just the Energy Committee that is going to be working on this. All committees will have their own contribution to make, and I welcome that, but we have to have rational discussions. I have said: Come to the Energy Committee, where there is a safe space if you want to talk about climate. If you are a Republican on this side who says I don't know that I want to go there, a Democrat on that side, let's sit down and have a rational conversation about how we are going to be working together across the aisle to agree on policies that will deliver cleaner and lower carbon technologies. They have to be pragmatic, they have to be durable, and they have to be bipartisan. Senator Manchin and I had an op-ed that ran in the Washington Post a few weeks ago. It wasn't great, earthshaking, brandnew, novel ideas on how to address climate change. What we said is, we have to join hands on this. We have to come together. We are both from producing States with very vulnerable populations. Take a look at the two of us and work with us to help advance some of these things. We have gotten more shout-outs not for highlighting some new technology but the fact that we were talking together as Republicans and Democrats. That is going to be an important part of how we move forward. I mentioned, I am from a producing State. You all know that. What many don't know is how Alaska is leading the way in what is possible for some of the innovation, the proving ground, for technologies. We have about every resource you can think of in great abundance, including sunshine. You don't think about solar for us, but we are putting it to good use. We have been pioneering when it comes to microgrids and these smaller scaled technologies. We have wind turbines out in St. Michael. We have energy-efficient refrigeration on Saint Paul Island. This is a little, tiny island out in the middle of the ocean. We have clean power generation in Kodiak. About 99 percent of that significant fishing community is renewable. We have an in-river system being installed in Igiugig. We have innovation happening all over the place, and it is happening because we are driven by necessity. It costs too much. It is not sustainable. I don't want to be from a State where most of my off-road communities are powered by diesel. It is not good for them. It is not good for anybody. How do we get off that? Allow us to move forward and free up-- some are going to be critical of me. They are going to say: You know what, Lisa, you are talking about baby steps. You are talking wind turbines in St. Michael; you are talking about energy efficiency in St. Paul. Do you know what? When you are paying $7, $8, $9 a gallon to keep the lights on, to keep something refrigerated--close to 80 cents a kilowatt hour--that is not sustainable. So for these communities, it is making a difference. You say: Well, we have a big globe out there. We do have a big globe out there, and we all have a responsibility there, but we have to start. I want to share a quote from my friend, the former Secretary of Energy, Ernie Moniz. He was talking about some of the practical, pragmatic solutions. He said some are going to argue it is not enough. Some would argue, well, that will not get us there as fast as we need to go. I would argue that would get us there as fast as we can go. We must--we must--move. We recognize that, but we have to know the only way we are going to be moving is if we move together. That is what we have to do in Congress. We have to take these policies that can keep us moving to lower emissions, to address the reality of climate change, to do so all the while recognizing we have an economy we need to keep strong, we have vulnerable people whom we need to protect, and we have an environment we all care about--Republicans and Democrats--and it is not just the environment in our States or our country, but it is our global environment. So, moving forward, how we are working together on that is a priority, or should be a priority, for us all. My hope is, we get beyond the rhetoric, the high-fired rhetoric, and we get to practical, pragmatic, bipartisan solutions.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the Senate floor today to talk about a sporting event--an event that captures the attention of people not only in my State of Alaska but around the country and around the globe. I am talking about the ``Last Great Race on Earth.'' It is a pretty fancy, big, and impressive title for what really happens--the ultimate challenge with man, woman, and dogs--a 1,100-mile sled dog race from Anchorage to Nome, up north. I will share with you all a picture that was taken at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday morning, March 13. Obviously, it is the middle of the night. I know everybody thinks that it is always dark in Alaska this time of year, but it is not. This is at 3:39 a.m. on Wednesday, March 13. It is pitch dark. You can't really see it in this picture, but the snow is coming down. The wind is blowing. It is pretty dang cold. Temperatures are down in the teens, but you have some wind blowing. So it gets your attention. What you are seeing here is Front Street in Nome, AK. At 3:30 in the morning, the street is packed. It is lined with hundreds of people who are cheering loudly. These are people from all over the country--fans, friends, and family who have come from across Alaska and flown into Nome. Some of them chartered an aircraft coming out of the YK Delta. They flew into Nome, a community of about 4,000 people, to witness this moment--to witness the moment that Pete Kaiser, born and raised in Bethel, AK, came into town with eight dogs in harness and came down the street to cross the finish line and claim victory as the 2019 Iditarod champion. He was just 12 minutes ahead of the defending champion, Joar Leifseth Ulsom, who is originally from Norway but who now lives with us in Alaska. This is probably one of the closest Iditarod races we have in some time. Jessie Royer, of Fairbanks, a friend of my family and a great lady, came in at third place. When you talk about the ``Last Great Race'' of 1,100 miles across extraordinary terrain, Pete Kaiser took 9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes to complete this--9 days, 12 hours, and 38 minutes. Think about how you cover 1,100 miles on the back of a dog sled. Typically, with dogs, when you are moving really fast, you are moving along at about 10 miles an hour, but you are going over some incredible terrain, and you are doing this not just between 8 and 5, but you are running the trail over the course of days and weeks. Here is Pete Kaiser. He has just crossed the finish line. He has his hands thrown up in the air in celebration. He hugged his family. He wiped the tears from his face. It is one of those moments that he will always, always remember. The feeling is probably hard to fathom, but for Pete, a young man who grew up in Western Alaska, somebody who is often referred to as an encyclopedia of racing knowledge, somebody who is known in his community for his hard work and dedication, somebody who has now won the Kuskokwim 300 four times in a row--a race qualifier for the Iditarod--and for his family and his extended family who supported him, who cheered him along the way, and for so many in the community of Bethel who joined together, who chartered an aircraft to get there in time to see him finish and celebrate this achievement, this truly is a victory that is an accomplishment and an extraordinary highlight to a remarkable career. So the excitement that comes when you are finishing a grueling race like this and when you and your team come across the line is something that you really have to experience to understand. There is fatigue, but there is great excitement with the accomplishment. It is not just the accomplishment of the musher, because the musher would still be sitting back in Willow were it not for these extraordinary animals, which truly, truly live to run. They live to do this race and others like it. Nothing beats the finish here. I don't have very many opportunities where I can actually be at the finish because you never quite know when it will be. Usually, race winners come in between 8, 9, or 10 days. So if you are starting on a Sunday, usually we finish during the week when we are back here working. So I haven't had the opportunity to be on that end, but I have had multiple opportunities--in fact, this is an opportunity that I do not miss--to be at the front end and to be at the start of the Iditarod. So just 9 days prior, this is me and Pete Kaiser at the start of the Iditarod. He is looking pretty fresh in this picture. He probably didn't look quite so fresh after 9 days on the trail. We gathered in downtown Anchorage with 52 mushers--that is how many mushers ran this year--and all of their teams. With the rules change this year, there were 14 dogs to a team at the start. But you are in downtown Anchorage, and you not only have your teams who are going to be moving you through the first day of the ceremonial start but you have your other dogs. So you have dogs, you have mushers, you have people, and you have kids. It is like a carnival atmosphere. This year I had an opportunity to do something I have never done before, and that was to drive the tag sled of one of our four-time champions, Jeff King. During the ceremonial start, you go from Anchorage to Campbell Creek Airstrip. It is an 11-mile portion of the trail. I can say that I did 1 percent of the Iditarod by driving on the back of this tag sled. I didn't have the dogs directly in front of me, but I still had to operate the brake on the sled. I still had to lean into the curves and still had the opportunity to experience just the majesty of the dogs in front of you and the way the mushers communicate with their team. The Iditarod is a race like none other, and it is perhaps made so because of the challenge of the terrain that this race goes through. The journey that led the mushers through these valleys and across these mountain ranges is hard. It is challenging. The weather is not unlike the terrain. It was up, and it was down. We had areas along the trail where it was raining, and then we had areas where we had freezing temperatures. You had wind. You had snow. You had ice. So when you think about how much work it is to get through the burled arch, it is really a tremendous accomplishment to be able to say that you have completed this race. As we speak, there are still dozens more mushers and their teams that are out along that trail working to complete it. You might think that this is something where there is a significant prize, and that is what motivates people. Well, if you are successful and you finish the Iditarod, you will be able to claim $1,149. Your dogs are going to eat up that money pretty quickly. Most of this is so much for the love of mushing and the love of the animals. People always ask: Well, how hard is it? What kind of challenges do the mushers encounter along the way? It is everything from encounters with animals, whether it is a moose along the trail--and we have seen some bad outcomes from that--to just physical obstructions along the trail. Richie Diehl of Aniak ran smack into a tree--literally, smack into a tree. He hit his face on the trail near Nikolai. He said he was kind of cruising along and he had his head turned. It was still dark. He looked forward and, bam, he ran into a tree. He probably could have ducked if he noticed it, but he didn't, and then he was kind of knocked off. He did an all-out sprint to chase his team down and dove to catch his sled. He lined up the dog team, again got everybody organized, grabbed some toilet paper, some wet wipes, and started mushing down the trail as he wiped the bleeding off his skin. You are just not stopping. You are not stopping for yourself. For your dogs, if your dogs are injured, you absolutely stop. Anja Radano of Talkeetna fell in a large hole in the ice crossing the infamous Dalzell ice hole. While she is making her way across the frozen river, her sled slipped into the hole. She falls into the water, and she injured her ribs and her legs. She had been having a little bit of a struggle along the trail, but she said she would not have been able to get out of the waterhole there without the help of her dog team. Then there is Linwood Fiedler, who was on his way to Nikolai, and his entire dog team got separated from the sled when his biner broke, but, fortunately for him, there was a fellow musher coming up, Mats Pettersson, who shows up on the trail shortly after. He helped him get his whole team, and potentially--potentially--saved the lives of these dogs. You have trail conditions that are hard this year, and part of the trail, quite honestly, because of the warmer weather we have seen, they were what we call tusset, which is just mounds of hard, matted grass in just kind of a bumper strip all the way going through. It is very hard on sleds. There were a couple of mushers who took 30 hours to go through this one stretch, and they ultimately decided enough and scratched. You have the terrain. You also have the fact that you are going all out for days on end, and limited sleep has its effect. We heard some comments from Lance Mackey, who is a four-time Iditarod champ. He was talking about how he was imagining things on the trail, a little bit of a hallucination, seeing and hearing things that aren't there, thinking he was hearing people say, ``Go, Lance,'' as he was making the run between Rohn and Nikolai. You have to do all you can to keep yourself awake because you are in the back of a sled. Remember, you are not sitting down. This is not all comfy and cozy for 1,100 miles. You are standing on the back of the sled. Oftentimes, you are running along or walking along behind. You are helping your dogs move through. You have to constantly replenish yourself and your dogs, and that means taking trail snacks and drinking nonstop. There is always a question about what everybody eats. Aliy Zirkle, who has come in fourth, attributes her diet to rolled oat bars made out of peanut butter, banana, sesame seeds, and other things because they are easy, and they don't get frozen. You have to think about things like how do I eat while I am still moving and things don't get frozen. They do have an opportunity to get some good meals. They get wined and dined, if you will, when they get to a checkpoint. When you are in a village, you have the kids come out, and everybody is looking for autographs. They want to say hello to them. They want to find out what position everybody is in, but they also, oftentimes, get a warm meal like a stew, but before the humans eat--before the mushers eat, the dogs have to eat. The dogs have to be cared for. The dogs have to be taken care of first because life on the trail is taking care of the dogs. They are making sure they have a warm and a comfortable place to rest, are fed, and they are watered. They are checked out by the veterinarians. This is one thing that is pretty interesting. People think, well, you are just going into a town. A lot of these places, it is not a town. It is not like you can just go to a tap and fill up your dog bowls for water for your dogs. Now, your dogs have been on the trail for several hours. They are thirsty. They have been eating snow along the way, but they are thirsty. They need to be hydrated. If you are out on the trail and you have 14 or 15 dogs, what do you do? You melt snow or you melt ice. Where is the stove? Well, you have your little camp stove that you have in the back of your sled. Think about it. You are sleep-deprived, you are hungry, you are tired, but you have to take care of your dogs first. You put your straw down to bed them down. You check their feet, and you put dry booties on them. You melt the water. You have to then heat up the dog food that has been dropped along the way in places where you know your team is going to be stopping. You could be working with your dogs for a good hour before you can even start thinking about yourself and how you satisfy your hunger, your thirst, your sleep. It is a pretty amazing race. Again, I am just in awe of the animals. I am in awe of the mushers. I am also in awe of the many, many, many, many people who come to be volunteers for it, this race. Most people have no idea what it takes to pull off a race like this, but I am told there are more volunteers who help us at this race than any other organized race like this in the country. What we have is a volunteer Air Force, if you will. Those stashes of food I talked about, those don't get there by accident. There is no road to drive them by, so you have pilots who will volunteer to take whatever it is, straw for bedding or big coolers and containers of food, to the various checkpoints. They will drop them off so they are pre-positioned out there, but those guys, they are all volunteers. At the banquet in Nome, at the end of this week, the people who put on the banquet are volunteers not necessarily from Nome but from all over the country. The last time I was up there, I went back in the kitchen to say thank you to the men and women who were working there. They all had their little nametags, and they say where they are from. There is a whole group who was from a little town in Florida. They had all taken a week's vacation from their work to come up and just be there for the Iditarod, to welcome the mushers coming in. I asked: What do you do here as a volunteer? They said: We are in charge of rolls and butter. Ok. But this is how much of a commitment they have made to this race. They have been doing it for years. They are a group who just comes up from Florida, they cash in their miles, they take leave from work, and this is where they take their vacation because they realize this is such an extraordinary happening. You have volunteers from all over the country, from Canada, and the communities along the trails. The veterinarians. There are 50 veterinarians along the trail because at the checkpoints, the dogs must be checked by the vets. We are going to take care of those animals and make sure--so you have veterinarians; you have dog handlers; and you have vet techs who come from across the Nation. They are there volunteering their time to be at this extraordinary event. Again, the pilots who fly to drop the supplies are volunteers. They act as race judges. They aid in the event of an injury or a lost dog. The list goes on and on and on in terms of those who volunteer. Ultimately, it simply could not happen were it not for the volunteers who put the extra mile in to make it happen. So today we are celebrating and acknowledging the efforts of all those who pitched in to help, the fans who cheered on the teams throughout the race, the communities that served as hosts along the way, and all the mushers and all their teams who put their hearts and put their souls into this really tough but incredible expedition. We, in Alaska, are all congratulating Pete Kaiser on his win. He is the only musher from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta since the inaugural Iditarod back in 1973. He is the first Yup'ik Iditarod champion in the history of the Iditarod race. He is an incredibly humble man. He is a great role model. He is an inspiration to his community, and I know they are all exceptionally proud. After he won, Pete said he hoped his victory would be celebrated not just by the Yup'ik people within his region but by all Native people throughout Alaska. So, Pete, I think, we are here to tell you that today, Alaskans in the western part of the State, all over the State, including as far away as Washington, DC, are all celebrating and recognizing you and your extraordinary canine athletes. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, today I speak in memory of an Alaska pioneer, a pillar of the community of Nenana, signer of the Alaska Constitution, legendary Alaska legislator and our 6th Lieutenant Governor, Jack Coghill, who died in February at the age of 93. Long before statehood, the name Coghill was synonymous with the town of Nenana. Jack's father, William A. Coghill, Sr., emigrated from Scotland to Canada and then to Alaska in March 1907. He landed in Valdez, hiked to the interior over the course of 10 days, and went to work delivering the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. In 1916, Bill relocated about 60 miles down the road to Nenana, which was at the time a boom town. It was home to the Alaska Engineering Commission, which was building the railroad, a bridge, and a large dock. Along with a partner, Bill converted an existing business into Coghill's Store, which continues to exist today. In the 1930s, Jack and his brothers, Bill, Jr., and Bob, began learning the business from the ground up. They were hauling freight, stocking shelves, assisting customers, and delivering the groceries. Jack served in the Army in World War II. He was a staff sergeant in the U.S. Army Alaska Command, fighting in the Aleutians. Following the war, Jack moved home to Nenana. When Bill, Sr., died in 1947, Jack and his brother Bob, along with their mother, took over the store. Later the business included a movie theatre, fuel distribution, and a roadhouse. Public service was an important part of Jack Coghill's life since the late 1940s. He served on the Nenana School Board, and he was mayor of Nenana for 23 years. He was elected to the Alaska Territorial Legislature in 1952 and reelected in 1956. At age 30, he was selected as one of 55 delegates to the Alaska Constitutional Convention. Jack participated in the drafting of the Alaska Constitution in 1956 and was the third individual to sign it. Post-statehood, he served in the Alaska House of Representatives and the Alaska Senate. In 1990, he was elected Lieutenant Governor on a ticket with Wally Hickel. Unable to stay away from service, Jack returned to the Nenana City Council when his term as Lieutenant Governor concluded. Until his death, Alaskans of all generations looked to Jack for advice. Jack and his wife Frances were parents to six children. Next to family, Jack characterized his service on the Alaska Constitutional Convention as his greatest achievement. Of course, that was far from Jack's only recognition. He held an honorary doctorate from the University of Alaska and was elected to Junior Achievement's Small Business Hall of Fame. One of Jack's six children is John Coghill, a friend whom I served with in the Alaska Legislature and who serves as a member of the Alaska State Senate today. John remembers his father as ``a firm believer in utilizing Alaska's natural resources to build a strong economy and provide good paying jobs for Alaska . . . He had the same passion for Alaska, even at 93.'' With the passing of Jack Coghill, only one of the signers of the Alaska Constitution, Victor Fischer, remains alive today. While it is sad to part with a pillar of Alaska's history, an individual who was instrumental in Alaska's growth from its frontier, territorial days to today's modern State, we were blessed to have his leadership for so many years. It is an honor to share just a brief glimpse of the story of Jack Coghill with my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, she was a mentor, communicator, historian, volunteer, role model, and a friend with an incredible memory of Alaska history, a journalist, public servant, a Republican, a woman who had strong opinions and was not afraid to express them, a pillar of the community, a legend. This weekend, the Pioneers of Alaska Fairbanks Igloo will remember Kathleen ``Mike'' Dalton who passed in January at the age of 93. I rise today to speak in memory of my friend, this woman named Mike, an oracle of Alaska history and at the same time a fixture of Alaska's political history. So how does a girl get the name Mike? Mike was born to an Irish father who anticipated that he would have two children. One named Patricia, the other named Mike. Problem is that Mike's father had little control of the gender of his children. Mike's sister, the first of the children, was named Patricia. The second, who turned out to be a girl as well, was named Kathleen, but that stubborn Irish father would have nothing of it. Kathleen was ``Mike'' from the very beginning. Mike grew up in Arizona. Her father worked on the Navajo Reservation as a carpenter and construction worker. She moved to Tucson to attend Catholic school at age 10 and graduated with a degree in English from Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. She followed a friend and schoolmate to Alaska, and as they say, the rest is history. Mike acclimated well to the north and was quickly introduced to the sport of dog mushing. She met Jim Dalton, the son of a pioneer and Klondike gold rush legend and married him in 1950. Jim was an engineer who played a major role in development of the naval petroleum reserve on Alaska's North Slope. Jim and Mike lived in Barrow, now the community known as Utqiagvik, and had two children. They bought 30 acres in Fairbanks and built a loghouse. Jim continued to work on the North Slope. Mike stayed in Fairbanks to raise the children, but ever ingenious, she found ways to hitch a ride to see Jim. She made 12 trips above the Arctic Circle during the winter of 1968-1969. Mike chose to live a full life in Fairbanks. She was a reporter for the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, writing the first draft of Alaska's post-Statehood history. She covered all of the big events: the 1964 earthquake, the 1967 Fairbanks flood, the discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay, and the construction of a 500-mile haul road that made oil production possible. That road is today known as the Dalton Highway, in acknowledgment of Jim Dalton's pioneering work on the North Slope. Jim died in 1977. While Mike's writing endeared her to Alaskans, her greater contribution may be her decision to rescue all of the News-Miner's World War II era photo archives from a dumpster, after an editor new to Alaska, determined that they lacked historic value. Waiting until dark, she dove in, dusted the photos off, and preserved them. She was recruited to stuff envelopes and lick stamps for Republican candidates, the stepping stone to a half century's leadership in the Fairbanks Republican Women's Club. Her email list was envied by all. In 1964, the Fairbanks North Star Borough, a regional government for interior Alaska, was formed. Mike ran for a seat on the borough assembly, which is the borough's legislative body. She was the top vote getter. Turning to a career in government, Mike managed Senator Ted Stevens' interior Alaska field office from 1971-1978. She worked for another legend, who recently passed, Alaska State Senator Jack Coghill, and during the administration of Governor Jay Hammond, she relocated to Washington, DC, to manage Alaska's Washington office. Returning to Alaska, she devoted her life to community service. In 1991, she worked for the city of Unalaska and helped organize the 50th commemoration of the Japanese occupation of the Aleutians. She helped organize the first American delegation visit to the Russian Far East and the Kamchatka Peninsula, hoping to improve ties between Russia and Alaska as the USSR came apart. Active in the Pioneers of Alaska, Mike recorded oral histories of Alaska's pioneers for the University of Alaska archives. She repatriated 24 paintings by Alaska's most famous artist, Sydney Laurence, back to Alaska. She was active in the campaign to settle Alaska Native land claims and was one of the first non- Natives to be honored by the Fairbanks Native Association. Mike was about service to others, not glory to herself. She would drive 50 miles out of town to give a ride to a sourdough who needed it, deliver her prized oatmeal cookies to the seniors, chase after a dog gone astray. She went out to fix the culverts that collapsed under the weight of Alaska winter to prevent spring floods, and she raised money for the hospital. She was generous to newcomers who experienced difficulties in acclimating and a mentor to young women. Upon Mike's induction to the Alaska Women's Hall of Fame in 2016, it was remembered that Mike refused to attend an event honoring her 90th birthday because she was so adamantly opposed to self-aggrandizement. The Alaska Women's Hall of Fame recognized Mike as a ``seemingly tireless activist whose efforts have made waves since her arrival in Alaska from Arizona in 1949 . . . As for Fairbanks, her home base for more than half a century Mike played a major part in shaping its social, political and economic future, as well as the state, while preserving a valuable part of our history.'' I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to share a brief glimpse into the extraordinary life of Mike Dalton in the U.S. Senate today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, in support of the argument outlined in that headline, the News-Miner's editorial board wrote the following: Encroachment by one branch on another and the consolidating of power in one branch worried some of the Founders as they crafted our system of independent yet interlocking government branches. The Federalist Papers . . . contain references to that concern. The editorial board goes on to refer to Federalist No. 51, which reads: The great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of others. . . . Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. When you translate that into just plain old English, it basically means Congress is a coequal branch of government, and, as such, Congress should stand up for itself. That really is the reason--the root--of why I have announced my support for this resolution of disapproval. I think it is fair to say that we all have disagreements around here about all sorts of things that are part of the appropriations process, and, certainly, the issue of border funding or just border security is no exception. Even if the fiscal year 2019 appropriations process had run smoothly, which it certainly did not, think about how we got to where we are right now. The President submitted his budget last year. He requested money for barriers on the border and other aspects of border security. The request went through the appropriations process. I serve on that subcommittee. In the Senate subcommittee, we advanced out of the committee the President's request. After 3 months of continuing resolutions, we ended up in a stalemate with the other body last year, calendar year 2018. In January, control of the other body changed. The stalemate continued until the lengthy negotiations concluded, which allowed both bodies to pass and for the President to agree to sign an appropriations package just several weeks ago in February. Again, that appropriations package was, I think it is probably fair to say, the result of a great deal of back-and-forth between the House, the Senate, and the White House, but it was clearly something that did help to advance the priorities that the President had outlined with regard to the southern border. I am quoting from a White House fact sheet here, which reads: ``Secured a number of significant legislative victories that further the President's effort to secure the Southern Border and protect our country.'' Chief among those victories was ``the bill provides $1.375 billion for approximately 55 miles of border barrier in highly dangerous and drug smuggling areas in the Rio Grande Valley, where it is desperately needed.'' So we are where we were on February 15 when the administration recognized that significant gains had been made, but I think we all know that the President believes very, very strongly that there is more that should be done, that must be done, and that will be done to address that. Clearly, there was a disagreement between the Congress and the President about how much could be spent on border security in 2019. I think, in fairness, sticking up for Congress's power of the purse doesn't necessarily mean that it comes at the expense of border security. I believe very strongly we can address the President's concerns--the very, very real and legitimate concerns that need to be addressed--but that we don't have to do it at the expense of ceding that authority, of ceding that power of the purse, of ceding that article I power that we have here. There are ways that the President can advance his issues, and he has done so. He, certainly, has the prerogative to ask for supplemental appropriations. He has identified additional funding that is outside of the national emergency designation, or declaration, if you will. He has identified additional funding--close to $3 billion--from other statutory authorities. These are the authorities under 10 U.S.C. 284(b), which is the counterdrug account, counterdrug funds. That will require a level of reprogramming through the appropriating committees, but that can be done outside of the national emergency. The other source of funding is the Treasury Forfeiture Fund through the Secretary of the Treasury under 31 U.S.C. 9705. So I think it is clear that there are avenues to enhance the funding opportunities to address the situation at the border. The concern that many of us have raised is the designation in this third account--the designation of a national emergency--that would tap into funds that have already been designated for military construction projects, important construction projects that have been designated around the country. We certainly have many in my State of Alaska. We haven't seen the list that would perhaps outline with greater articulation where the Secretary of Defense might think it would be appropriate to delay some of these projects. But, again, I would just remind--these are projects that have perhaps already been delayed because of the Budget Control Act that has been in place for several years, so I think further delay for many of these projects would cause most concern. So I come to the National Emergencies Act. I think there is a recognition that when this was adopted, was put into law, it was initially intended to rein in the President's ability to declare emergencies. But at the same time it authorized the President to declare national emergencies, it didn't ever clearly define the extent of that power. So that is an issue that I think we are dealing with right now. Implicit in this grant is the trust that the power will be used sparingly. I think that if you look back over the history, the 59 previous times these powers have been utilized, you can say they have been used sparingly. But also explicit is the authority for the Congress to terminate an emergency if the Congress believes it was imprudently declared, and that is basically where we are today. Because Congress did not explicitly constrain the President's power to declare an emergency, many of the constitutional scholars--those who are trying to game this out--believe the President will ultimately prevail in the litigation that we are entirely certain will be seen in the courts. The question for us to consider in this body is not whether the President could have declared an emergency but whether he should have and, again, the question relating to the redirection of military construction funds from our bases around the country to the southern border. These are the questions we are currently debating. But in the final analysis, I look at the issue we have in front of us, and this is really a very challenging place for us as a Congress, to be debating the constitutional powers of the Congress against a legislative agenda--a strong legislative agenda and an important one that the President has. But I have come to be quite concerned about where we are when it comes to precedent and the precedent that we may see unleashed. In many ways, I view this as an expansion of Executive powers by legislative acquiescence. If we fail to weigh in, if we fail to acknowledge that this designation has gone beyond that which has previously been considered, if we go around, effectively, the will of Congress, where will it take us next? I think we need to think about that because it is so easy to get focused on where we are in the here and now and the situation we are dealing with today, but when we are pushing out those lanes of congressional authority, I think we need to be thinking clearly about what that may mean for future administrations and for future Congresses. As the chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, my focus is very often on the energy sector, on the energy space, and so I have asked, if we were in a situation with a new President, what could be invoked if a new President should decide to exercise his or her emergency authorities as they relate to energy? It is entirely possible that a future President could declare a national emergency related to global climate change, speaking to a humanitarian crisis and what it might mean for national security. In fact, one of our colleagues from Massachusetts has already said as much--that a national emergency could be declared as relates to global climate change. You have to ask the question. What would stop a future President from declaring an emergency and then directing the military to spend billions of dollars on renewable projects or refugee assistance? What is to stop a future President from targeting the Nation's oil and gas supply by cutting off exports and shutting down production on the Outer Continental Shelf? I think we would all say: Well, we don't need to worry about that happening with our current President; he is not going to do any of those things. But the authorities technically would exist for all of them, and so it is concerning. It is concerning to me that a future President could use that to drive their agenda--again, without the consent of the Congress. So I repeat--I am concerned that, as a Congress, as a legislative body, we would stand back and we would acquiesce in the use of a national emergency to resolve a disagreement between the executive and the legislative branches over the appropriate level of funding for a situation that likely exceeds what can be spent in our current fiscal year. I know there will be continued discussion not only here in the Senate, in the Congress, but certainly around the country about these matters. I know some of my colleagues are interested in revisiting the scope of the National Emergencies Act, and that is clearly worth considering. But I firmly believe that one can be strongly for border security and at the same time question whether the administration has overreached in using the National Emergencies Act in the way that it has, and I find myself in that camp. That is why it is with great resolve that I support the adoption of the resolutions of disapproval. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, last week, I announced my intention to vote in favor of H.J. Res. 46. This is a resolution expressing disapproval of the President's February 15 proclamation of a national emergency. At that same time, I joined with my colleague, the Senator from New Mexico, along with the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, and the Senator from New Hampshire, Mrs. Shaheen, in the introduction of the Senate companion, S.J. Res. 10. I want to take just a few moments this afternoon and speak to my rationale not only for my statements but for my support for terminating the national emergency. It is, certainly, not based on disagreement over the issue of border security on our southern border. I recognize full well, along with, I believe, all of our colleagues here, the situation on the border and the humanitarian issues that face us. The issue that faces us with the level of those coming across our borders is not a sustainable situation, and, certainly, the influx of drugs that we are seeing in this community must be addressed. Rather, my concern is, really, about the institution of the Congress and the constitutional balance of powers that, I think, are just fundamental to our democracy. In my view, it really comes down to article I of the Constitution. Article I, section 7, clause 8 reads: ``No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of Appropriation.'' This provision and the necessary and proper clause of article I, section 8, clause 18 and the taxing and spending clauses--article VIII, clause 1--are just generally regarded as the basis for the notion that the power to spend resides in the Congress. We say it around here--that the power of the purse rests with the Congress. Of all of these three clauses that I have just articulated, the admonition that no money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriation is probably the clearest expression of the Framers' view that the executive has no power to spend money in a manner that is inconsistent with the intentions of the Congress. Justice Story, in his 1883 Commentaries on the Constitution, characterized that clause as an important means of self-protection for the legislative department. He went on to write: The [legislature] has, and must have, a controlling influence over the executive power, since it holds at its command all of the resources by which the executive could make himself formidable. It possesses the power of the purse of the nation and the property of the people. Again, he just very clearly articulates where these lanes of authority--these lanes of jurisdiction--reside. This past weekend, on Sunday, a local newspaper, the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner, published an editorial. In that editorial, it was argued that our colleagues here in the Senate should vote for the resolution of disapproval. The editorial is entitled: ``A dangerous course: Congress shouldn't cede power to president in border funding dispute.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m., Wednesday, February 27; further, that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the Senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the Desmond nomination under the previous order.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I further 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. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 79, submitted earlier today.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, before I wrap for the end of the day at the request of the leader, I want to share my thanks, my appreciation--truly, my appreciation--for an action that the House just took up. It was just about an hour or so ago that the House took up the bill that we had passed out of the Senate here, our lands and water conservation bill, which was a very significant measure of about 120 different conservation, lands, waters, and sportsmen's bills--all rolled into one package--that passed out of here by 92 to 8. It just passed out of the House by a significant, significant margin. It is, I think, a real testament not only to the work that has been done within this body on a very strong bipartisan basis but, really, to the work that we have done with the House, in our working with the other body in a bipartisan, bicameral way. I think it goes a long way to showing that we really can come together as a Congress on issues that are important to each of us individually. I give my thanks and my appreciation to Chairman Grijalva, to Mr. Bishop, who was the former chairman of that committee and who worked on this with us last year, and to all of their teams, as well as to the House leadership, which has helped to advance this to this moment in time. We look forward to the President's signing that very, very shortly, and I know that it will come as a real positive moment for so many. I thank all who helped us with this.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the postcloture time on the Desmond nomination expire at 12:15 p.m. tomorrow; further, that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; finally, that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided prior to the cloture vote on the Wheeler nomination.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that with respect to the Miller nomination, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have finally completed our work on S. 47, the Natural Resources Management Act. We had a good day yesterday. We had a good day here in the U.S. Senate. We passed this significant bill--really, a landmark piece of legislation--out of the Senate by a vote of 92 to 8. That is pretty strong. You don't see a lot of that in the Senate anymore--every now and again, and this was one of those every now and agains. I appreciate all the work. We have now sent this over to the House of Representatives, and it has some good momentum. We are looking forward to being able to work with the House. I encourage them to move quickly on this important measure and see it enacted into law. I want to take just a few moments this afternoon, while I can, to thank so many who have been key in getting us to this point. I want to start my comments with acknowledging the former ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Senator Cantwell from Washington. We have spent a lot of time together. We have spent a lot of time over the years working on these lands bills. We did it in the public forum through the committee process. We had hearings on hundreds of bills. We worked to refine and reach agreement on them and to report them from committee. So there was all of that process, which went on throughout the committee, and then the two of us sitting down with our staffs on noncommittee time, just working through these particulars, in many meetings in my office and in her office. We really did this on a bipartisan basis. We stuck together. There were times when the prospects for this package did not look so good, and then there were moments when it looked even worse than not so good. But we kind of pulled one another along. I think that is a tribute to the commitment we made as colleagues and partners in this to advance not just to a message but to a product. I truly think that is a tribute to Senator Cantwell and her willingness to work together to find a path forward. Then we weren't able to finish things at the end of the year. Senator Cantwell moved over to another committee, and I had an opportunity to pick up with Senator Manchin. He picked up. Here he comes in, a new ranking member, and he has a bill to help manage on the floor with some 100-plus bills. But he helped us in a way that I am most, most grateful for. He kept us on track and helped us secure a very strong final tally here. I am also very grateful to my other corners, the chairman and ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee on the House side, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop. I thank them for their exceptional, exceptional work on this package and look forward to working with them as we finish this out. Next on my list are Leader McConnell and Senator Schumer. The minority leader is here. We had a conversation on the floor just about where he is sitting--this was back in December. But the two leaders gave their commitment to take this bill up early this year. They kept that commitment. They made it happen. I thank them for what they did in recognizing that this public lands, resources, and waters bill deserved early attention in this new Congress. I mentioned on the floor that there were many colleagues on both sides: Senator Heinrich, Senator Gardner, Senator Daines from Montana, Senator Wyden from Oregon, all of whom have been great partners here on the floor. It is important to briefly mention the staffs, who put in the long hours--the work and the family life they gave up. The first person on my list to recognize is my deputy chief counsel, Lucy Murfitt, who is truly an expert, a true expert on the lands issue. She has poured her heart and soul into these issues, and it is no exaggeration to say they would not have happened without her efforts. I also thank my staff director, Brian Hughes; my chief counsel, Kellie Donnelly; the members of my lands team, Annie Hoefler, Lane Dickson, and Michelle Lane; our communications team, Nicole Daigle, Michelle Toohey, and Tonya Parish; our support staff, including Melissa Enriquez and Sean Solie; then Brianne Miller and Isaac Edwards, who basically kept the committee running while everyone else was focusing on this bill. While I am proud of my team, we had great partners on the other side of the aisle. Sarah Venuto and Lance West joined the committee with Senator Manchin, and they have been great to work with. Sam Fowler, David Brooks, Rebecca Bonner, Bryan Petit, Camille Touton, Mary Louise Wagner, and Amit Ronen also played key roles. Then on the House side, we had David Watkins and Brandon Bragato of Chairman Grijalva's staff, along with Parish Braden and Cody Stewart, who has now left the Hill, of Ranking Member Bishop's staff. I have to give a shout-out for the floor staff. Laura Dove and her team were fabulous. We also appreciate our Parliamentarians, Elizabeth McDonough and Leigh Hildebrand; Terry Van Doren with Leader McConnell; and Aniela Butler at the Senate Budget Committee. Two of the individuals who probably put the most time into this package, Heather Burnham and Christina Kennelly, are in the Office of Senate Leg Counsel. I also thank Janani Shankaran, Kim Cawley, and Aurora Swanson at CBO. Great members, great team--we could not have done this great work without them. To Senator Schumer, I say thank you for allowing me to complete this in its entirety. I appreciate your indulgence.

Mrs. MURKOWSKI

Mrs. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have 9 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 Armed Services The Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Briefing on cyber operations to defend the midterm elections.'' Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on the following nominations: Janice Miriam Hellreich, of Hawaii, Robert A. Mandell, of Florida, Don Munce, of Florida, and Bruce M. Ramer, of California, each to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and a routine list in the Coast Guard. Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``America's infrastructure needs: keeping pace with a growing economy.'' Committee on Environment and Public Works The Committee on Environment and Public Works is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``The invasive species threat: protecting wildlife, public health, and infrastructure.'' Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Dennis Dean Kirk, of Virginia, to be Chairman, and Julia Akins Clark, of Maryland, and Andrew F. Maunz, of Ohio, both to be a Member, all of the of the Merit Systems Protection Board, and Ronald D. Vitiello, of Illinois, to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. Committee on the Judiciary The Committee on the Judiciary is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10 a.m., to conduct a hearing on pending legislation and the following nominations: Michael H. Park, of New York, and Joseph F. Bianco, of New York, both to be a United States Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit, Greg Girard Guidry, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, Michael T. Liburdi, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, and Peter D. Welte, to be United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. Committee on Rules and Administration The Committee on Rules and Administration is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a business meeting. Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship The Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Oversight of the U.S. Small Business Administration.'' Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support The Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Conditions of the military housing privatization initiative.''

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, we are now down to the final minutes of debate on S. 47, our Natural Resources Management Act. This is something we had a good number of Members come to the floor to speak on. Our Members are proud of the many provisions that we have seen fit to include within this package itself--bills that relate to lands and land conveyances, conservation aspects, sportsmen's provisions, those measures that can help bring about economic development in very small areas. We are very proud of what we have done with this process that has led us to where we are today. I am excited that we are coming to the end of the debate and, hopefully, will be able to move this bill across the floor with a very strong bipartisan vote. We had a good showing last night with our cloture vote, 87 to 7, to end the debate. That was good and sound. We are looking forward to sending this to our colleagues on the House side for their review and their support and, hopefully, shortly after that, their ratification. When we take a package that is over 100 bills from over 50 different Senators and over 90 who have signed on as cosponsors, that demonstrates something. What we have done with the strength, extent, and expanse of these provisions, the efforts we have made to ensure that the Land and Water Conservation Fund continues with a permanent extension and what we have done, as I mentioned, within the sportsmen's provisions to really help make a difference for those men and women, certainly Senator Manchin and me and sportsmen and women around the country, by making sure that our public lands are open for recreational fishing, hunting, target shooting--this is significant for us, certainly from an economic perspective, when you think about how much goes into these areas. Sportsmen and women spent about $119 billion-- that was back in 2016--on everything from their gear to the support in these small communities. But when we talk about access to land, it is not just access to land, it is expansion of economic opportunities. We also have provisions to encourage the Secretary of Interior and Secretary of Agriculture to think bigger and identify more opportunities for recreation, hunting, and fishing on our public lands. We have special hunting days for youth, veterans, and Active Duty military. We have included provisions from the WILD Act--the Wildlife Innovation and Longevity Driver Act--to protect endangered populations and combat invasive species. There is so much contained in this measure. With regard to the conservation provisions, we think we have done them right because we have worked to ensure that we have strong support at State and local levels. We are creating three new National monuments--two in Kentucky and one in Mississippi--with Congress at the helm of those provisions. We have provisions to improve volcano monitoring and warning systems, which is important if an aircraft in the sky passes across an area where there has been eruptions. We have provisions that promote wildlife conservation, combat endangered species, protect endangered species and water management provisions that save water, protect public safety, enhance fish protections and wildlife habitat. We do all of this, and the CBO estimates that we will reduce direct spending by $10 million over the next 10 years. We recognize that is hardly enough to reduce deficits, but it is a bonus. We are chalking that up as an additional bonus. This has come together with a great deal of hard work by many Members and our staffs. I want to particularly recognize the good work of my ranking partners, Senator Cantwell in the previous Congress and now Senator Manchin, and their help in getting us to this point. I thank not only the Members but their very strong staffs who have worked in conjunction with my staff. I recognize that we stand up and do a lot of the talking, but the behind-the-scenes negotiation, the navigating, making sure that the wording is just exact--what we have done, I think, has been yeoman's work in getting us here, and I am very, very proud of all of those who have helped accomplish that. Stating for the Members again, this is a big package, a substantive package, but there is more to come. These public lands matters have a tendency to stack up, so we are hardly finished with our work in this area. We are clearing the decks this afternoon of the items that are ready to go to the President right now. After we spent so much time working through them in this regular order process in this Congress, I think it is something we can be proud of. There is a lot of stress that goes on, and there have been some discussions, just earlier, about how we keep the wheels on the bus, how we keep the government from shutting down, how we figure out how to deal with appropriations bills, and here we have been just plugging quietly along, moving forward on legislation that has been a great cooperative effort, a great bipartisan effort, and, hopefully soon, a very great bicameral effort, demonstrating that maybe--just maybe--we in Congress can get something done. It is nice to be part of a team that is making things happen and, again, great thanks and great appreciation to the many Members who have helped. I also want to give a shout-out to Senator Heinrich, who has been here every step of the way, pushing on these sportsmen's matters. Senator Wyden has also been a great help. Over on the Republican side, Senator Gardner and Senator Daines have been in this every inch of the way, helping us advance. It is a good place and a good time to be working toward the finish line. With that, I yield to my friend and ranking member, the Senator from West Virginia.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I ask for the yeas and nays.

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