Lisa Murkowski

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, I have come to the floor this evening in celebration of an important milestone, but speaking about it actually presents a little bit of a challenge. In our current environment, how do you give a statement about a Secretary of State, a Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, a Russian Ambassador, and an exchange of millions of dollars without making sensational headlines? Well, my answer to that is you tell the story of Alaska and the Treaty of Cession that brought Alaska into our Nation on March 30, 1867, exactly 150 years ago tomorrow. If we are going to be fair, this story actually begins years before 1867. The United States and Russia had been in discussions over Russia's territorial claims since 1856, but the domestic turmoil and the Civil War in the United States stymied progress. So it wasn't until March 11, 1867, when Edouard de Stoeckl, Russia's Foreign Minister to the United States, met with then-Secretary of State William Seward that discussions really began in earnest. From that time on, things really picked up speed. Just a few weeks later, on March 29, 1867--150 years ago today--Stoeckl received a cable from Czar Alexander II, approving a deal--a deal that would transfer Russia's interests in North America to the United States. In my office, I actually have a copy, a replica of the deal that was written, along with the note for $7.2 million. That was the deal, but closing it in time was far from certain. With work in this Congress rapidly wrapping up ahead of its April adjournment--can you imagine that, actually having an adjournment around this body in April? But that was the way it was 150 years ago. There was little time to complete an agreement and see it ratified, but Secretary Seward was determined, and despite some rather lackluster interest from President Andrew Johnson, he pressed forward with this. When Ambassador Stoeckl received the cable, he went to Seward's house on Lafayette Square to deliver the news to him. According to the National Archives, Mr. Stoeckl said: ``Tomorrow, if you like, I will come to the department, and we can enter upon the treaty.'' To which Seward replied: ``Why wait until tomorrow, Mr. Stoeckl? Let us make the treaty tonight.'' Secretary Seward was not merely a determined man; he was really a very canny man--canny because before he met Ambassador Stoeckl, he consulted with the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who at the time was Charles Sumner of Massachusetts. He did this to ensure smooth action by the U.S. Senate in approving a treaty. In other words--and this is a lesson that all good members of the executive branch should perhaps take to heart--the Secretary consulted with the Congress before taking action. Conveniently, Senator Sumner and Secretary Seward lived on opposite sides of Lafayette Square from each other, and, according to the National Archives, they were able to meet at Secretary Seward's home. While Senator Sumner made no commitments about the passage of the treaty, he did send a note to Secretary Seward later that evening saying that following its adjournment at noon on Saturday, March 30, ``the Senate would be glad to proceed at once with Executive business'' and consider the treaty. With that, Ambassador Stoeckl and Secretary Seward went to work, crafting the treaty that night and long into the morning, finally putting their signatures to it at 4 a.m. on Saturday, March 30, 1867. By 10 a.m. that same day, Secretary Seward had met with the Cabinet and with President Johnson to execute a proclamation calling the Senate into special session on Monday, April 1. It was in Senator Sumner's famous speech to the Senate that day that the word ``Alaska'' was first officially used to describe the new territory. The word ``Alaska'' is Aleut in origin. Traditionally translated as ``mainland,'' it literally means, ``the object toward which the action of the sea is directed.'' It is important that I pause in reciting how Alaska came into the United States, first as a territory and later as a full member of our Union, by recognizing that while Western nations made deals about who ``owned'' the lands and the waters of Alaska, a diverse and vibrant Native people had already lived there for at least 14,000 years. While explorers, scientists, trappers, and settlers had come to Alaska from all over the world, the vast majority of our population were Alaska Natives. Thankfully, after years of wrongful and misguided policies of assimilation, we in Congress now appreciate the incredible history and cultures of Alaska's indigenous peoples and have worked diligently to fulfill our trust responsibilities to them. Today, major landmarks like Denali, which is the highest mountain in North America, are again known by their rightful Native names. Today, Tribes are empowered to provide healthcare and other services to their people, and Federal agencies are required to consult with Alaskan Native Tribes on issues that impact their daily lives. While we can all wrestle with the inherent challenge created for many by words like ``purchase'' and recognize historical injustice, we must also look at the moment through the eyes of those who played a part--to see the opportunity as they did--so that we may capture it to better inform our future. Senator Sumner's words remind us that what he, Secretary Seward, and others saw then was a foundation for opportunity, which continues in Alaska to this day. For example, in his remarks, Senator Sumner referenced a communication from the legislature of the Washington Territory to President Andrew Johnson in 1866. He said: Your memorialists, the Legislative Assembly of Washington Territory, beg leave to show that abundance of codfish, halibut, and salmon of excellent quality have been found along the shores of the Russian possessions. Your memorialists respectfully request your Excellency to obtain such rights and privileges of the Government of Russia as will enable our fishing vessels to visit the ports and harbors of its possessions to the end that fuel, water, and provisions may be easily obtained, that our sick and disabled fishermen may obtain sanitary assistance, together with the privilege of curing fish and repairing vessels in need of repair. Long before my advocacy for Alaska's fisheries here in the United States Senate, long before my warnings about the dangers of genetically modified seafood, Washington and Alaska had a strong connection that was built on the bounty of our oceans. The economic importance of Alaska's fisheries was a prime consideration in America's acquisition of Alaska even then. It was a critical part of our effort to attain Statehood some 50-plus years ago. And today, it has grown into a fundamental element of the Pacific Northwest's economy. Alaska's seafood industry now creates an estimated 118,000 jobs, $5.8 billion in annual income, and $14.6 billion in economic output nationally. We feed America, and we feed the world, with everything from our cod and our crab to our halibut and our salmon. Alaska's seafood exports alone would rank sixth compared to all other seafood- producing nations--not States, but nations. Yet fisheries were but a small part of the justification Senator Sumner offered his colleagues at the time. The prime consideration is one that today remains unappreciated by most Americans. Senator Sumner stated the following: The projection of maps is not always calculated to present an accurate idea of distances. From measurement on a globe it appears that a voyage from San Francisco to Hong Kong by the common way of the Sandwich islands, is 7,140 miles, but by way of the Aleutian islands it is only 6,060 miles, being a saving of more than one thousand miles, with the enormous additional advantage of being obliged to carry much less coal. Of course a voyage from Sitka, or from Puget sound, the terminus of the North Pacific railroad, would be shorter still. . . . To unite the east of Asia with the west of America is the aspiration of commerce now as when the English navigator recorded his voyage. Thus said Senator Sumner. The cession of Alaska secured the Pacific trade route with Asia for America. And today, that great circle route represents the path that thousands of vessels annually take from ports along the west coast of the United States to Asia and back again. Chances are that the products created through the hard work of Americans in the middle of our country transit through Alaskan waters on their way to Asia. Beyond the economic linkages, Alaska's geography has long been an asset recognized not just by our domestic strategic institutions but also by our enemies. While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor is a day that will live in infamy, the Japanese campaign in the Aleutians has been called the Forgotten Battle. Six months after Pearl Harbor, the Japanese bombed Dutch Harbor and occupied Attu and Kiska in the Aleutian Islands. Alaska Natives were captured and sent to Japan. On May 11, 1943, the United States moved to retake Attu, landing 11,000 troops on the island. Some 1,000 Americans and more than 2,000 Japanese lost their lives in the fighting--the only land battle on American soil during World War II. The Japanese attacked the Aleutians for the same reason that Senator Sumner supported the purchase of Alaska--for control of the Pacific transportation routes. Many historians believe Japanese Admiral Yamamoto launched the attack to protect his nation's northern flank. The United States fought to regain those islands for the very same reason. Brigadier General William ``Billy'' Mitchell--often called the ``father of the Air Force''--told Congress back in 1935: I believe that in the future, whoever holds Alaska will hold the world. I think it is the most important strategic place in the world. Most of us in Alaska think that Billy Mitchell was correct. Just as Alaska straddles the great circle route across the Pacific, it sits at the center of the air crossroads of the world. Ted Stevens International Airport in Anchorage sits halfway between Tokyo and New York City and less than 9\1/2\ hours by air from 90 percent of the industrialized world. Think about that. Oftentimes we think about Alaska as so remote and so far away, but when you look at that globe and you look at Alaska's geographic position, we are in the center. The airport is No. 2 in the United States for landed cargo weight and No. 6 in the world for cargo throughput. In 2012, 71 percent of all Asia-bound air cargo from the United States and 82 percent of all U.S.- bound air cargo from Asia transited through it. It is no exaggeration to say that the significance of Alaska to the airborne and maritime trade of the United States likely exceeds even the treaty's biggest boosters' dreams back in 1867. Alaska's strategic significance is now more important than ever. Our natural resources have provided energy and minerals for our Nation for decades--from the oil on our North Slope to our gold, silver, copper, and other metals. We are a storehouse of just about everything that you can think of and everything that you need in modern society. We are blessed with an abundance of natural resources. We have committed to harnessing them responsibly. As long as there is an understanding of that here in Washington, DC, we will continue to produce every type of energy and many types of minerals for the good of our Nation. Alaska also remains key to our Nation's defense. North Korea's consistent disregard for international norms and their aggressive attempts to acquire ballistic nuclear capabilities threaten our national security. The investments that we must continue to make in Alaska's missile defense infrastructure are fundamental to our national security interests. Thanks to my colleagues here in the Senate and the Pentagon's continued recognition of Alaska's strategic importance, we continue to leverage our strategic location for America's national security. The installation of the long-range discrimination radar at Clear, the stationing of F-35s at Eielson, and the continued support for the 425th at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson--or JBER, as we call it--are just some of the critical investments we are making and must continue to make in Alaska. Understanding the opportunity of Alaska also means understanding the geography and the environment of our State. In preparing for this speech, I was struck by a latter part of the communication from the Washington Territorial Legislature to President Andrew Johnson in 1866. It stated: Your memorialists finally pray your Excellency to supply such ships as may be spared from the Pacific Naval Fleet in exploring and surveying the fishing banks known to navigators to exist along the Pacific Coast from the Cortes Banks to the Bering Straits, and as in duty bound, your memorialists will ever pray. I would be remiss if I didn't note that--historical language aside-- this request reads as if it could have been submitted to the Budget Committee by the current delegations from Alaska and Washington. As we prepare to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Treaty of Cession tomorrow, our sesquicentennial, it is important to remind ourselves just how little has changed in our understanding of Alaska-- understanding where it is, how far we have come, and how far we have yet to go when it comes to mapping and to charting. In 2015, a couple of years ago, I had the honor of attending a celebration back home. It was an event where we celebrated a landmark event--that 57 percent of our land in the State had finally been mapped. That is how young a State Alaska really is. Recognizing that we just do not have accurate mapping in the State, it kind of struck me. For what else do we celebrate 50 percent of completion of anything, except for us? We were making some progress, and it was worthy of celebration. As bad as our basic mapping is, the situation is worse offshore in our waters, in the same places where the Washington Territorial Legislature asked for assistance back in 1866. So 150 years ago, we were asking for assistance with the charting, but after 150 years, just 2.5 percent of the U.S. Arctic has been surveyed to modern standards. Just 2.5 percent of the U.S. Arctic has been surveyed to modern standards. Some 91 percent of the U.S. Arctic has either not been surveyed at all or relies on lead line readings, many of which were taken prior to the Treaty of Cession in 1867. We talked to the Coast Guard and continue to hear stories about Captain Cook's voyage up to the north. It was actually a voyage on which a relative of mine, John Gore, was with Captain Cook, and they literally would put lead lines over the side of the ship, drop them down, and then recorded the readings. Again, 91 percent of the U.S. Arctic has either not been surveyed or was surveyed with lead lines, and we are still relying on this data. The U.S. has been chairing the Arctic Council now for 2 years. As we wrap up our term at the Arctic Council, I fear that we have accomplished much less than I, and many Alaskans, had hoped. It is Alaska that makes the United States an Arctic nation, a fact that was appreciated even at the time this body considered the appropriations for the treaty. In a letter to the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in 1868, Joseph Wilson, who was the Commissioner of the General Land Office at the Department of the Interior, relayed the importance of the treaty to the committee, including this: It gives her [the United States] also a hold upon the coast of the great circumpolar ocean, the importance of which, as yet imperfectly appreciated in the country, is awakening very great interest in Europe. England, Denmark, Sweden, France, and Germany are contemplating and organizing movements looking to the exploration and occupancy of the unappropriated northern regions of this continent--movements which it becomes us to watch with jealousy, and promptly circumvent. Think about that statement 150 years ago. Well, today, Russia, China, India, and a great number of other nations are looking to the Arctic as an emerging region of international significance, and they are seizing the opportunities that we continue to defer there. I greatly appreciate my colleagues' attention to these issues, particularly the work of my colleague from Maine and the members of the Arctic Caucus, as we work to raise awareness and press administrations to put the same sort of energy and effort into the region that other nations are. They, too, see the importance of the Arctic to our national interest, as Commissioner Wilson did back in 1898. After noting the importance of the Arctic attributes of Alaska, Commissioner Wilson went on to say: Judged from this standpoint alone, and supposing the entire country of Alaska to be a mere polar desert and utterly uninhabitable, the developments of a very few years will show that the acquisition of this territory at the stipulated price is one of the most advantageous arrangements that our diplomacy ever secured. Think about those words: $7.2 million and the United States has Alaska. So when Commissioner Wilson said that in a few years it would ``show that the acquisition of this territory at the stipulated price is one of the most advantageous arrangements that our diplomacy ever secured,'' I would suggest, President Trump, this was a deal. We got a great deal with Alaska. Popular history may refer to ``Seward's folly'' or you hear that when you are reading it in history books, or it is also referred to as America's acquisition of ``Walrussia'' when describing the Treaty of Cession, but that ignores the broad support that the treaty actually had at the time. For example, the editors of the Charleston Daily News Miner recognized this on April 12, 1867: As that territory is said to contain the highest mountain in the world, he [Secretary Seward] has provided a fit pinnacle from which the American Eagle can, when the days of good feeling come back, spread itself over the immense country that will then lie peacefully beneath the shadow of its wings. Indeed, there was opposition to the Treaty of Cession. Two Members of this body even voted against ratifying the treaty, but 37 did vote to ratify. And while the appropriations actually took another year, as appropriations often do, the treaty was largely viewed as a success. From Alaska's fisheries to its minerals, from its oil and gas resources to its diverse and vibrant cultures, and from its position on important trade routes to its significance to our national security, Alaska's contribution to America has been and continues to be as big as our geography. We are still a young State. I was actually born in the Territory of Alaska. I am just the sixth Senator to have the honor of serving my State in this body. But while we might be young and small in population, we are very, very rich in spirit. In his speech on this floor, Senator Sumner said: ``Small beginnings, therefore, are no discouragement to me, and I turn with confidence to the future.'' So I stand before the Senate today grateful for the future that Senator Sumner and Secretary Seward saw for Russian America. They were men of vision who brought a diverse, challenging, rich territory under the wing of the United States. Alaska, I believe, is better for it and so is America. I appreciate the Senate's indulgence to tell a bit of the story of this day in our national experience and would like to close my remarks as Senator Sumner did on this floor nearly 150 years ago today by quoting him. As these extensive possessions, constituting a corner of the continent, pass from the Imperial Government of Russia, they will naturally receive a new name. They will be no longer Russian America. How shall they be called? Clearly, . . . Alaska. Clearly, Alaska. Mr. President, as we celebrate the sesquicentennial of Alaska's purchase from Russia, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, there have now been two speakers on the floor this afternoon speaking to H.J. Res. 69, which is the disapproval resolution on Alaska fish and wildlife refuge rule. I have come today to speak in strong support of this resolution, which will effectively overturn a rule imposed by the previous administration related to fish and wildlife management on millions of acres of refuge land in the State of Alaska. I would like to start my comments by acknowledging Senator Sullivan, for his lead on this initiative, and Congressman Young, as he moved this measure through the House just a couple of weeks ago. What we saw in the House measure and the final vote was a bipartisan vote that secured passage through the House, and I thank Congressman Young for his able leadership there. I also want to thank Senator Sullivan for his comments and for really doing an excellent job in outlining and explaining why this Fish and Wildlife Service rule is bad for Alaska, bad for hunters, bad for our Native peoples, and bad for America. Like my friend and colleague, I am here to encourage Members of the Senate to see this rule for what it really is. It is a clear departure from Federal law. It is unwarranted regulatory overreach, and, from all accounts, it is a direct attack on States' rights. Now, we will have discussion back and forth on the floor about various hunting practices, and we will see beautiful shots of wildlife and suggestions that, somehow or other, this is about a specific hunting practice. This is bigger than wildlife refuges in the State of Alaska. This is an issue that is not just isolated or contained in the State of Alaska. This resolution is specific to Alaska, but I would suggest to my colleagues that for all of those of us who care about States' rights, who care about the promises made to our States about how they operate and how they manage activities in their States, this is something that we must all pay attention to because this is a direct attack on States' rights. I look at this and suggest that this rule is a solution in search of a problem. Again, there are those who would say: Why is the Senate spending 10 hours to debate practices within a refuge in the State of Alaska? Is this not just so parochial an issue that it ought not take our time? However, I would contend that this foreshadows what is in store for the rest of the country if we are not adamant in ensuring that this rule be repealed by Congress. Now, for those who may not be familiar with Alaska or gaming management laws within our State or within our national wildlife refuges in general, I think it is important to cover some basic facts and perhaps a little bit of history here to illustrate why this rule is so flawed. Alaska, like every other State in the Nation, holds primary legal authority to manage its fish and its wildlife, including on Federal refuge lands. So let's not get confused here and think that because we have Federal lands, somehow or other the States do not have primacy when it comes to management of fish and wildlife. Alaska holds legal authority to manage the fish and wildlife within its borders. This is clear. This is unambiguous. Congress explicitly provided that authority specifically to our State in not one, not two, but three separate laws. The first of these is the Alaska Statehood Act; then the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act--ANILCA; and the third authority was through the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. In three separate authorities, Congress made it clear: Alaska, you are to manage the fish and wildlife within your borders. Our Statehood Act gave Alaska the right to manage its fish and its wildlife as soon as the State could assemble a department of fish and game, which we actually did in our first year of Statehood. Then, in 1980, ANILCA, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, affirmed twice that nothing within its text was ``intended to enlarge or diminish the authority of the State of Alaska for management of fish and wildlife on the public lands.'' Again, it is very clear, not only within the Statehood Act, but within ANILCA, that management would be left with the State. The authority to manage our fish and our wildlife--through decisions based on sound science and that make sense for our local communities--is something that we in Alaska take very, very seriously. For us, State management of fish and wildlife is practically sacrosanct. I cannot emphasize that enough. It is one of the key reasons the State of Alaska voted to join the Union, so we have pretty good reason for the emotion and the passion that come with this authority to manage our fish and our wildlife. I am proud to acknowledge that not only am I the first Senator to serve in the Senate who was born in Alaska; I was actually born in the territory. My parents and my grandparents were engaged in the battle for Statehood. Some think it was about the land. For most of the discussion that I recall from my family, it was all about fish. It was all about the salmon. One of the reasons we fought for Statehood was management of our fisheries. The Federal management of Alaska salmon fisheries prior to Statehood was absolutely appalling, with salmon stocks falling from 113 million in 1934 to just 25 million in 1959. We saw the management from the Federal side, and that experience left Alaskans absolutely committed to State management and the preservation of both fish and game, so we negotiated that for ourselves. We put it into law; we enshrined it into law in several different places. And we expect our Federal agencies to abide by that. Those were the terms of the deal when we entered the Union as a State: Alaska is to manage the fish and wildlife within our borders. It is our right and our responsibility, and we take that responsibility very seriously. We have an entire department of fish and game dedicated to it and, as Senator Sullivan rightly noted, a department that has been recognized for the good work they do, the strong science they utilize. We are proud of the efforts they make to ensure that this management is done for sustained yield, the principle we stand by in our State's constitution. For decades now, we have done just that, until the National Park Service in 2015 and the Fish and Wildlife Service in 2016 took it upon themselves to propose regulations to take control away from Alaska, despite what was contained in our Statehood agreement, in ANILCA, and in the National Wildlife Refuge Administration Act. The National Park Service's rule is outside the reach of the Congressional Review Act. So while, in my view, that also deserves repeal, it is not the focus of our debate today. Instead, the resolution we are discussing focuses on the Fish and Wildlife Service rule that was finalized over the protests of Alaskans in August of last year. The rule itself was packaged perhaps innocently enough. The Fish and Wildlife Service spoke of clarifying ``existing mandates'' for conservation and biological diversity, and the agency claimed it was outlawing a few methods of predator control, couched its rule as a victory for public participation, and then promised us that it did not change Federal subsistence regulations or impose new regulations on subsistence users. On the face of it all, it sounded as though it was going to be not so bad--if you take the agency's description at face value. Many who are outside of Alaska are looking at this and saying: Why are you making such a big deal about all of this? The Department of the Interior is just clarifying some hunting rules, so it can't be that big of a deal. But the answer on that is: Wrong. This is a big deal. Some of our opponents will allege the repeal of this rule will legalize brutal predator-control practices. What the Senate should know is that it is already illegal for hunters to use certain practices--gas against wolves, traps to harvest bears. You cannot do this on national wildlife refuges in Alaska. So those arguments are false and, unfortunately, serve mostly to distract from what this rule is really about. As I mentioned at the outset of my comments, what this is really about are the States' rights, States' authorities, and, effectively, States' control. First and foremost, I am here to defend the rights of my home State and all of the States to manage fish and game within their boundaries. The game management rule severely erodes the authority of Alaska to make these decisions, and I think it sets a terrible precedent for the other 49 States. If you think, this rule is just about Alaska, that this is not something you need not worry yourself about--well you really actually ought to be worried. Especially so if you have Federal lands within your State. Your State could be the next one where Fish and Wildlife Service comes in and says: No, it's not going to be you, State, that has this management authority. We're going to come in and tell you what can and cannot be done. The Fish and Wildlife Service freely admits its rule will impact 54 million acres of refuge land inside the State of Alaska. This is an area 10 times larger than the size of the State of Massachusetts. This is not insignificant. Really, this is truly the camel's nose under the tent. If Congress allows this rule to stand, it will effectively override U.S. Supreme Court rulings from 1896 and 1979, which held that the States have the power to ``protect and conserve wild animal life within their borders.'' The States' power in this area is subject only to specific Federal authorities articulated by Congress, such as the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act. The precedent being set for Alaska--and every other State--should be sufficient reason for us to oppose this rule. But I also need to speak to some of the particulars included within it, especially the Obama administration's claim that it would not change or restrict subsistence uses. This regulation made significant and substantive changes to regulations related to the hunting of bears. While I realize that not everyone may agree with hunting, I urge you to listen to what my colleague from the State of Alaska said in his comments and what he outlined in terms of subsistence to Alaska Natives, subsistence to those who are in areas so remote that ``rural'' is not even the right way to describe it. We call it Bush Alaska. There are no stores, there is no Safeway, there is no Whole Foods, and there is no Stop-N-Go. There is no place where you can go to get your meat, to get your fish. In many areas there just isn't even a store, much less a store where you can buy Hamburger Helper or whatever it is that you are going to provide for your family. That model just does not exist in certain parts of our State, so what the people who live there do is hunt. That is how they provide for their families. They hunt and they fish and they gather. That is subsistence. That subsistence is not only nutritional sustenance, but for many, it is also their cultural identity, whether you are the ``People of the Caribou,'' the ``People of the Whale,'' or the ``Salmon People.'' The Native people who have been part of this corner of the world for millennia relate to their food source, making sure that not only their traditional diets can continue, but how they are able to practice this subsistence lifestyle matters greatly. The regulation we are talking about today jeopardizes the ability of many of those Alaskans to sustainably harvest wildlife, to hunt, to feed themselves and their families. So when we think about the Alaska model of management and how it works to achieve healthy populations, this rule we are dealing with right now upsets that balance. It makes significant changes to the types of activities allowed when hunting bears without the support of the State or the traditional user groups. In updating regulations governing public notice and participation, the rule eliminates tools and obligations necessary for meaningful engagement with affected Alaskans. It curtails the use of local knowledge and insights for refuge management. It relies on an arbitrary and unscientific interpretation of the agency's national biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health policy. The sustainability of Alaska's ecosystem depends on good, sound management--expert management--of fish and game populations. But under this regulation, well-established best practices employed by wildlife management professionals are more vulnerable to what could be unscientific or certainly bureaucratic second-guessing. That has sweeping implications for wildlife populations and for those who depend on them. If left in place, this rule will be applied to the entire refuge system either unilaterally or through litigation, placing our Nation's fishing and hunting traditions at even greater risk. Those who actively participate in the sustainable management of our Nation's fish and wildlife populations understand the dangers presented by this rule, and they are overwhelmingly opposed to it. Senator Sullivan mentioned a list of the organizations that have voiced their support. I will not repeat many of the names, but it includes the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, which represents all 50 States. It includes subsistence users, guides, outfitters, tourists, hunters, anglers throughout the country, and dozens of conservation groups, from the Alaska Outdoor Council and the Alaska Professional Hunters Association to Ducks Unlimited, Safari Club International, the National Rifle Association, and the Boone and Crockett Club. When you have a coalition that is this strong, that is this broad and yet united against a Federal rule, you know something went terribly awry with the regulation. I would encourage the Senate to see through some of what I consider to be misleading arguments that some of the outside groups are making against us and to really see this rule for what it is--that this Fish and Wildlife Service game management rule for Alaska refuges is the very definition of Federal overreach. It defies the will of Alaskans, while disregarding sound scientific game management principles. It will result in less stable populations of fish and wildlife within our State. It will harm our subsistence users who hunt, not for sport but for their literal cultural sustenance, their nutritional sustenance, and, again, so much of their identity. I again want to thank those that have been leading on this issue. This is a bad rule that deserves repeal. I would encourage all of my colleagues to look carefully at this. Look carefully at this, not just as a rule that is parochial and limited to just Alaska alone, but look to it within the context of what this does and what it says when it comes to States' rights and States' ability to manage fish and wildlife within their own State borders. I yield the floor.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the privileges of the floor be granted to Alexander Haberstroh, a military fellow for my office, as well as Charlotte Regula-Whitefield, an oceans fellow for my office, for the remainder of 2017.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have been talking a lot about the weather here in Washington, DC, the past couple of days. We got a little bit of snow yesterday in some parts. People are still kind of plowing out of their driveways. I am looking at the daffodils that were out 3 days ago, and they are now buried, and the cherry blossoms are a little bit crispy on the trees. So many of us are not feeling like spring has really sprung here. But in Alaska, in my home State, when we think of spring, one of the things that brings a smile to the face of so many of us is that it means it is time for the Iditarod, the Last Great Race on Earth. It is an exciting time of the year for so many, when we come together to celebrate a 1,000-mile race across some pretty desolate territory in the State of Alaska. The race itself has a much storied history, one that is somewhat unique to the State of Alaska and to our culture. The race commemorates a lifesaving diphtheria serum run to the community of Nome. Back in 1925, diphtheria had raged through the community, and there was no way to get the serum to Nome. We did not have aircraft that could make it that far. Remember, it is pretty cold in February and in March. We still don't have a road. We really had no way to move the diphtheria serum. So it was determined, after a great deal of debate and discussion and pros and cons that they would use a dog team relay to get the diphtheria serum to Nome. There are names of dogs that have now become infamous, like Togo, Fritz, and Balto, which led this amazing race. Today, the memory of that lifesaving race is lived on in a race that features just a little bit shy of 1,000 miles, again across pretty frozen isolated areas. It involves 1,000-plus dogs that are in the running. For many of us, there are 1,000 more reasons that you really would not want to do that. But I have to tell you, as I look at these mushers, as I look at these dogs, and as I look at all that goes into the mushing history of our State, it makes me excited about not only the men and women who are the mushers but the true athletes, the K-9 athletes, and all that they give up. I was home in Anchorage last weekend for the ceremonial start on Saturday. It is a great deal of hoopla. There are not too many communities in America where you actually truck snow into the downtown part of your community, fill the streets up with snow so that the dog teams can launch from downtown. Thousands of people gather to watch the start. We were commemorating the 45th annual Iditarod race. The official start was on Monday morning in Fairbanks, AK, a town that I also call home, having gone to high school there. The route this year was from Fairbanks, what they call the northerly route, up to Nome. It shaves a little bit of the miles off. I think this year it was about 979 miles. So it was not quite 1,000 miles, but still good enough to test a man or a woman and their dogs. It was kind of tough starting in Fairbanks on the morning of the race. Temperatures were around 50 below. They hit the river, went right past the house where I grew up, and went downriver. By the time they got to the first checkpoint there at Tanana, the temperatures were 50 below and people were talking about how you stay warm on a sled and who has bad frostbite that is coming back after years of running. Let's just put it this way. The Iditarod is not for the timid or the weak. It takes real grit to run this race. When you think about all the hoopla that comes with the ceremonial start and all the people who came out in the community, then you get on the trail and you are alone. You are by yourself. We have 26 different checkpoints between Fairbanks and Nome. As a musher reaches a checkpoint, there is an appreciative audience of the villagers who come out to cheer them on. Again, the villagers can't offer help with taking care of the teams. The mushers have to do it all themselves. But there is a lot of time to think and reflect about the beauty surrounding you, a lot of time to worry about whether or not you have moose or wolf or bear or whatever is out there keeping them company. But truly, this is not only an endurance race, but it is a race that challenges the mind. There are stretches of just almost mind-numbing isolation in the cold where you are just focusing on your team in front of you. But as you can see, when you get out--this is right on the outskirts of Nome; this is coming in at the end of the race--there is a lot of isolation out there. The temperatures that you are dealing with are tough on a human being. Over the course of this past week, the temperature range was a 70-degree range. The temperature in Nome yesterday at the conclusion was 4 degrees above zero. So it is on the positive side, which was good news for the mushers. But that is a pretty substantial range that you are going through. It is an amazing race in terms of the strategy that goes into it. You would think: Well, you just get your dogs in line. You know where you are going to feed them. You know where you are going to let them rest. But the strategy that goes into a race like this is really quite unique to the various mushers. What we have seen with this race is an extraordinarily fast race, where the winner was averaging between 10 and 11 miles per hour between some of these checkpoints. It is pretty extraordinary to have your dogs keep up a pace like this. Some mushers will hop off their sleds and run alongside their dogs when they are going uphill, just to take some of the weight off the sled. But think about that. You have been going for a week. You have been going around the clock pretty much for some of these. You are exhausted. You are freezing cold. Now you are going to jog behind your dogs to lighten the load. This is, again, extraordinary. Many of the others, as they are approaching the end, will keep their strongest dogs, shed the nonessential gear, and switch to a lighter sled to push through on the final stretch. But there are a lot of different tactics. When a dog is tired, you can put them in the basket so the dog can rest, kind of like a coach on a basketball team: You need to be put on the bench and just kind of take a breather here. We do it with the dogs as well. But this is a race not only about the endurance, but it also is one where there is a great deal of work to ensure that these high-performance athletes are cared for and that their safety is looked after. Again, if a dog gets too tired and is just not right, mushers can leave them at a checkpoint to ensure their well-being so that they are not pushed too much. Again, putting them in a basket, making sure that the dogs are cared for. There is a veterinarian at every step along the way. The vets check the dogs out at every checkpoint. The mushers have to carry the veterinary check record, if you will. These vets are not local vets. There are some 50 vets that volunteer to come to Alaska for the Iditarod and go out there along the trail to one of these checkpoints and to do the checks before the race and after the race. When I was in Anchorage last week, I was visiting with a veterinarian from Colorado. The Presiding Officer probably might even know him. But he comes every year. This was his eighth Iditarod. He volunteers his time because, again, it is an amazing race with amazing K-9 athletes. They are the ones who get the care and attention. I don't know that there are any doctors out along the trail for the mushers, but the dogs are well cared for. It is required and there is mandatory rest that is taken. Mushers can determine where the 24-hour rest period is taken. There are two 8-hour stops, one along the Yukon River and one at White Mountain, just before you get to Nome. But, again, you think about the demands on the individual as they are mushing along at this pace. There is a story out of this year's race about a musher. I think it was day 3 into the race. A team comes into the checkpoint. They are clipping right along, but there is no musher. The musher had fallen asleep while standing on the runners of his sled and just kind of fell off his sled. He had a pretty good team, if I can just say. They were obviously following the trail from teams ahead of them. That team just went on and ended up at the checkpoint there. It was a little while later that another musher came along and saw this musher walking, following his dog's footprints. He gave him a ride to the next checkpoint where his dogs were all there just waiting for him, saying: You know, we got here first. Where were you? But it kind of speaks to some of the issues that go on along the trail. There used to be a time, up until this year, when there was no two-way communication devices that were allowed--none at all. So as to your cellphone, you could not have your cellphone with you. It was designed to make sure you were not gaining unfair advantage in determining where other mushers were ahead of you or behind you. But for safety reasons, I think there is a recognition that being able to send out an alert if you need it is probably wise and important. A thousand miles is a lot of land to cover. There are a lot of things that can go wrong when it is just you and your dogs along the trail. The news. The news is big about the 45th Iditarod race. This year, the winner, a fabulous gentleman by the name of Mitch Seavey, blasted the overall record--extraordinarily impressive. He set the Iditarod record of 8 days, 3 hours, 40 minutes, and 13 seconds. What is wonderful to add to this story is that this is the fastest time. The next fastest time, the fastest time that we had had up until this year, was the year prior, which was set by his son. Think about that. What athletic competition, what sport can you have a father and a son go in toe to toe beating the all-time record? Last year, the 29-year-old son was the winner. This year, the 57-year-old dad is the winner. And who came in second this year? The son. When I was at the ceremonial start and I had the opportunity to see Mitch Seavey, I went up to him, and I said: OK, I know everyone is betting on Dallas Seavey to win because it would be win No. 5 for him, but I am going with the old guy. Fifty-seven is not so old. Mitch Seavey certainly demonstrated that just yesterday. The Seavey family is Iditarod legend. Dan Seavey, who is Mitch's father, ran the very first Iditarod in 1973, and then some 44 years later, his son Mitch and his grandson Dallas are still going at it. Mitch won in 2004 and in 2013, and his son Dallas won in 2012, 2014, 2015, and 2016--again, a father and son kind of trading off second and third places during each of these. It is extraordinary when you think about the records that have been broken with this race, and the closeness of the race is exciting to look at. When the second and third place finishers came in--Dallas came in just 5 minutes ahead of the third place musher, Nicolas Petit, who calls Girdwood his hometown, as does one of our young pages here, and it is a place I call home as well. So there is a lot of excitement with the winners, not only with Mitch Seavey's record-smashing race but also the fact that he is the oldest racer to win, at 57. Again, as he has reminded us, 57 isn't that old. I will acknowledge that both Dallas and Nicolas Petit came in breaking last year's record as well. So for the sixth year in a row, we have had a Seavey champion. You talk about a family of champions, this is pretty amazing. This one is Mitch's third win, and it is an extraordinary win. I spoke to Mitch not too long ago to offer him my congratulations, and I told him: As a parent of two 20-somethings, I like the command you demonstrate. You have still got it in you. You are going to be a fierce competitor. But what Mitch told me was really a lovely statement. He said that what was so great was to be at the finish line seeing his son coming in and seeing Dallas genuinely happy at Mitch's win. He said that they were head-to-head competitors all throughout the race, and Dallas didn't make that five-time win that he was hoping for, that so many of us Alaskans were hoping for, but he was so genuinely proud of his father. As of this afternoon, we have 10 mushers who have crossed the finish line. I wish all of the other mushers and their fearless dogs good luck as they continue to make their way to Nome over the next few days and beyond. This is an event that I love to celebrate with my colleagues. I love to brag about the amazing men and women, not just the Alaskans but from all over the country and really from all over the world. Our fourth place finisher is from Norway, Joar Leifseth Ulsom. He was right up there all the way to the end. It is men. It is women. Jessie Royer was the first woman in, and she came in fifth place. Aliy Zirkle crossed in eighth place. So they are remarkable men and women--Alaskans, Americans, and people from truly around the globe--who come to compete. Truly the ones we celebrate with great enthusiasm and gusto are these canine athletes that demonstrate to us all that there is no end, there is no limit to their love to run, their love to compete, and their desire to excel. I am pleased to be able to celebrate with colleagues from the Senate in recognizing the 45th Iditarod race, the Last Great Race on Earth. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be discharged from further consideration of S. 416 and the bill be referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 3:45 p.m. today, there be 15 minutes of debate remaining on H.J. Res. 44, equally divided in the usual form.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. This list includes our Nation's energy and mineral producers, the people who keep our lights on, who provide fuel for our vehicles, and who construct everything from semiconductors to skyscrapers. The American Petroleum Institute, the Independent Petroleum Association of America, the Western Energy Alliance, the National Mining Association, and the American Exploration & Mining Association are all opposed to this rule, and so are many State groups, like the Arizona Mining Association, the Montana Electric Cooperatives' Association, and the Petroleum Association of Wyoming. Joining them are many of our Nation's farmers and ranchers, the individuals who provide so much of our Nation's food supply, whether that is steak or whether that is milk or something else. The National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Sheep Industry Association have registered their opposition. The American Farm Bureau Federation opposes the rule and so do many of its State partners, including the Colorado Farm Bureau, the New Mexico Farm & Livestock Bureau, the Oregon Farm Bureau, and the Washington Farm Bureau. Perhaps most critically, planning 2.0 has drawn strong opposition from local and State governments, the entities that are elected to represent all of the people, not just one specific interest. The National Association of Counties, the voice of county governments all across the country, sent a letter outlining their support for the disapproval resolution. Another group, the National Association of Conservation Districts, wrote that planning 2.0 should be repealed because it ``skirts the Federal Land Policy and Management Act and reduces the ability of local government involvement'' while seeming ``forced and blind to the many issues raised in the public comment period.'' Again, this disapproval resolution has drawn strong support from a wide range of stakeholder groups--energy, mining, and grazing, America's farmers and ranchers, State officials, local counties, and conservation districts. Everything from the Alaska Trucking Association to the Public Lands Council and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have all weighed in. At last count, more than 80 groups had asked us to repeal BLM's planning 2.0 Rule, and I am sure there are many others that are not included in that count. We have heard such strong support because this is a misguided rule that will negatively impact our Western States. It subverts the special status relationship between the Federal Government and the States and local governments. It limits local involvement and local input. It opens the door for decisionmaking authority to be centralized at BLM's headquarters here in Washington, DC. It upends BLM's multiple-use mission by allowing the agency to pick and choose among preferred uses, while sidelining industries that provide good-paying jobs in our western communities. I think there is broad agreement that planning 2.0 should be overturned. That is what we are here to do, and we will have that opportunity in just a few moments. So I ask all Members of the Senate, including those who do not have BLM lands in their States, to consider the strong support this resolution of disapproval has drawn and to join us in passing it at 4 o'clock. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are coming to the end of debate on the disapproval resolution for the BLM Planning 2.0 Rule. I would like to take just a few minutes to highlight the very broad support it has drawn here on Capitol Hill but really across the country. Here in the Senate, I mentioned earlier that there is a total of 17 Members who have joined me in sponsoring our version of this resolution. That is nearly one-fifth of this Chamber. It includes every Republican from a Western State with BLM lands within its borders. These are Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Nebraska, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, Montana, even Kentucky, and the State of the occupant of the Chair, North Dakota, and Oklahoma, so a very strong contingent of Members who are in support of this disapproval resolution. Across the Capitol, the House of Representatives passed this resolution with bipartisan support a couple of weeks ago through the leadership of Representative Cheney of Wyoming. This resolution wound up with 234 votes in the House. That is a pretty strong vote. The reason why so many Members of the House and the Senate want to overturn BLM's planning 2.0 Rule is pretty simple. We know what it means for our Western States. We don't like the impacts that it will have and neither do a wide variety of elected officials and stakeholders back home. In my State of Alaska, I have heard from the Alaska Municipal League, the Alaska Farm Bureau, and the Associated General Contractors of Alaska. The Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce wrote to ask us to overturn the rule. The Alaska Chamber wrote in support of our resolution because they said BLM's planning process ``has grown to be substantially lengthier, more confusing, and burdensome for stakeholders to engage in.'' We have heard from our leaders in the Alaska State Legislature, State Senators Pete Kelly and John Coghill, who have asked for this rule to be nullified, as have several of our Alaska Native corporations, including CIRI, Olgoonik, and Calista Corporation. The Alaska chapter of the Safari Club opposes it because its landscape-level approach to land management planning has the potential to withdraw and lock up even more land in Alaska. Alaska's energy, mineral, and timber producers are united in their opposition to this rule and in their support of our disapproval resolution. We have heard from the Resource Development Council, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, the Alaska Forest Association, the Council of Alaska Producers, the Alaska Support Industry Alliance, the Fortymile Mining District, and the Alaska Miners Association, and they all oppose BLM's planning 2.0 Rule because it reduces economic opportunities for Alaskans--those who actually live near these BLM lands, who know the most about them, and who depend on them to provide for their families. It is the same story in many other Western States, from Arizona and New Mexico to Washington and Oregon, to Montana and South Dakota. This rule affects all 12 BLM States, and those States just are not happy about it. We have heard from about 80 groups so far that oppose that rule, and I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the list of supporters be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is at the point we are this morning. Last night, we agreed to proceed to consideration of H.J. Res. 44, which will overturn the Bureau of Land Management's Planning 2.0 Rule. The House has considered this already. They passed this resolution on a strong bipartisan basis. It was a 48-vote margin. They did this just before the February recess, and so it is now in front of the Senate. As the sponsor of the Senate version, I have come to the floor now to explain to colleagues why this BLM Planning 2.0 Rule is such a bad rule and to urge its nullification. There are probably a lot of folks that are asking the question: BLM Planning 2.0, what is it? It is not just folks that are listening, it is colleagues here. What exactly is Planning 2.0 and what exactly does Planning 2.0 do? A lot of people are saying: I never heard of this one. Where did it come from? Based on that, I think a lot of context is in order as we begin this debate. The Bureau of Land Management is a Federal agency that manages 245 million acres of land in 12 Western States, along with 700 million acres of Federal and non-Federal subsurface estate. Congress has directed the BLM to manage those lands according to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. That is too long to say. So we just refer to it as FLPMA. It serves as the agency's organic act. It mandates a multiple-use mission for BLM lands. I think it is important to always remember that. BLM is required to manage under the concept of multiple use. It lays out a planning process for its mission. It establishes a special status relationship between the Federal Government and the States and the local governments that are affected by the agency's resource management plans. I think it is important, as we are focusing on the BLM right now, that we remember that BLM lands are not national parks or wildlife refuges. They are not wild and scenic rivers or wilderness. BLM lands are working lands. They are valuable--not because they might contain a Mount Denali, like up north, or the Grand Canyon--but rather because these lands contain energy and minerals and they can be used. Again, this is the multiple-use concept. They can be used for grazing. They can be used for recreation and many other purposes. They are valuable in this way and as such are a leading source of good jobs for families and communities all across the West. BLM's management of western lands has never been without controversy. That is part of the reason that the last administration decided to overhaul the regulations that guide the planning process. The stated goals from the administration were to create a better process that would increase transparency, increase public involvement, and reduce the amount of time it takes to develop a resource management plan. So those clearly all sound like good ideas, good goals. Unfortunately, the reason we are here today seeking to overturn this planning 2.0 rule is that the BLM absolutely failed to achieve any of those three goals. Instead of greater transparency, BLM delivered a new process that ensures less transparency. Instead of expanding public participation, Western States are looking at fewer and weaker opportunities to influence the management of local lands. Planning 2.0 also turns the relationship between federal, state, and the local governments on its head. It just really turns it upside down. What actually happens then is that it has effectively subverted FLPMA, shattering the special status arrangement that the West is supposed to have under the Federal law. As a Senator for the State of Alaska when this rule came out, I looked critically at it and I have problems with many aspects of the rule. I know I am joined by nearly all of my western colleagues and many who are not from the West but who have taken the time to understand how our land management laws are supposed to work and who have looked critically at this rule. The more my staff and I have unpacked the Planning 2.0 Rule, the less we like it and the greater is our conviction that this rule should be overturned through the Congressional Review Act. That is why we are here. I could go on for quite some time, but for purposes of this statement, I will list this morning my four main criticisms, all of which compound each other and show why this rule must be repealed. First of all, Planning 2.0 seeks to transition to a landscape-level approach for land management planning. It is not a bad concept on its own, really. I don't have any problem with BLM determining, for instance, where our solar resources are located, but to make that a defining measure and to make that a defining feature of a resource management plan is a bad idea. It all but assures that new and revised plans will not have the level of detail or specificity that is needed to properly manage our local resources. It allows for planning areas to cross State lines without regard to the competing priorities of neighboring Governors. It does not ensure that existing State and local plans will be consistent. It is very obvious that BLM will deploy it as a mechanism to reduce or perhaps to eliminate many reasonable uses of Federal land that provide jobs and support communities all across the West. The second criticism I have is that Planning 2.0 allows BLM officials to remove the decisionmaking authority from our field offices and our State directors, and it tends to centralize that power at BLM headquarters. So for those of us in the West, we are looking at a situation where effectively the management decisions of our land are being taken from those who are on the ground, people who really understand the conditions and are those who are most impacted by it. It shifts it back East to be decided by those who don't have that same local understanding, who might not really have any understanding as to the areas and why this is so important. So centralizing power at BLM headquarters, in my view, is never the right direction. I am not suggesting that this is going to happen every time with every decision. However it could happen at any time, whenever a future administration decides that a decision needs to be made at the headquarters level rather than locally. So now, at a moment's notice-- perhaps without even any notice at all--decisionmaking authority can be taken away from a Western State with expertise and effectively siloed here in Washington, DC. That is not the direction to be taken. The third area of concern I have is that Planning 2.0 reduces the ability of western stakeholders to provide input into the land management process, as well as their stature within it. So, again, it compounds the fact that you are shifting decisionmaking authority back here to the East. By further limiting stakeholders' input, that is very problematic. Now, the agency has talked a good game about public participation. But if you read the rule, what it effectively does is just kind of front-load public input while cutting later opportunities for feedback. If left in place, Planning 2.0 would ensure BLM would be able to maximize its decisionmaking power while at the same time effectively sidelining input from Western States. We previously were in a situation where western stakeholders had a seat on the stage before this rule, but under it they are really demoted. They are effectively demoted to a middle row in the mezzanine as part of a bigger crowd, but with no special status. I think it is important to keep that in context. The fourth area of concern is that BLM 2.0 weakens and eliminates the requirements in FLPMA that require BLM to coordinate planning and resource uses with our States and local governments. Under this rule, BLM shifts the burden for making sure that resource management plans are consistent with State and local governments plans away from itself and onto the States and onto the local governments. That is not right. The agency is also limiting the opportunities that those government have to identify and remedy deficiencies within and across plans wherever they may be found. So here are a couple of examples this morning for the Senate, just to illustrate why so many of us are concerned about this and are opposed to Planning 2.0. You have to ask yourself: Is it fair and is it really what Congress intended, for a western stakeholder to have the same voice and influence over the management of their local lands as any other member of the general public from anywhere else, with no connection, no relationship to these areas? To be more specific, should a small placer miner in Chicken, Alaska, or a cattle grazer in Nevada be relegated to the same status as a lawyer in, say, Vermont who has never visited either Chicken, Alaska, or rural Nevada? My answer to this is pretty easy. It is a simple no. But that is what awaits us under Planning 2.0. So here is a real world example of what Planning 2.0 will mean on the ground. Last year, the BLM finalized a resource management plan for 6.5 million acres of eastern Interior Alaska. Much of that plan was developed in accordance with the principles of Planning 2.0. So what does it actually look like for us up there in Alaska, in the eastern Interior area? The plan closes nearly three-quarters of the 40-mile district, where the only economic activity, really, is placer mining--small placer mining. They closed it to mineral entry. More than 1 million acres are withdrawn into what they call ``areas of critical environmental concern''. This is a land management tool that BLM has used more and more in recent years to sidestep Congress's sole authority to designate Federal wilderness. So the agency sought public comment, but it was limited public comment. Then it effectively ignored the comments that it did receive. Ultimately, very few Alaskans were able to participate in the development of the plan, and even fewer Alaskans are happy with the final outcome of the plan. As we expected and as we feared, the Planning 2.0 process was used to shut down a reasonable use of Federal land that the last administration just did not like. This was done even though it enjoys overwhelming support among local residents who really depend on it for their livelihood. The Planning 2.0 process was also used to close off Federal lands to the public in violation of the ``no more'' clauses within ANILCA, or the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, even though there was no imminent threat or reason to do so. So, as colleagues are considering how they will cast their vote on this resolution of disapproval, I am sure, again, that many had not really focused on this Planning 2.0 before. Most of them would never be able to find Chicken, Alaska, on a map, and they are thinking: This is not going to impact me. I am not from the West. But for those of us in the West, if you live in one of the 12 Western States that have BLM land, believe me, you are impacted. I would suggest that what we are seeing, starting in Alaska, is something that simply won't stay up there. If this rule is allowed to remain in place, you will see that move through all of our Western States. BLM maintains and periodically revises dozens of resource management plans in its 12 Western states. So if Planning 2.0 stays on the books, I think what it will do is it will harm our Nation's energy producers. I think it will harm our mineral developers. I think it will harm those who rely on Federal lands for grazing. It will most certainly cost us jobs. It will cost us economic opportunity, and it will hurt the communities and the people of our Western States. I would ask that you don't just take my word for this. Six counties from six different States have challenged this rule as impairing the informational and coordination rights of local governments. They believe that it violates FLPMA and that BLM has failed to properly evaluate the impact that it will have. I think they have a very strong case. This is a fatally flawed rule. Our best option is to overturn it while we have the ability to do so under the Congressional Review Act and to hold BLM accountable to the underlying statute and its multiple- use mission. If we can agree to do that today, we can then work with our new Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, to make genuine improvements to the BLM land management planning process. I know that Secretary Zinke cares about our public lands. He understands these issues, and I think he is dedicated to ensuring that we get this right. I would like to close by thanking the roughly 80 stakeholder groups that are supporting our disapproval resolution. I also thank the 17 Senators who are cosponsoring the Senate version of it. I thank the new administration, which has released a statement of policy in support of it. I also acknowledge and thank Representative Cheney and Chairman Bishop in the House, who led the resolution through the House with good bipartisan support a couple of weeks back. It is now the Senate's turn to act on this. It is our turn to recognize why this rule deserves to be overturned. For the good of our Western States, let's send this disapproval resolution to the President's desk. With that, I again urge the Senate to support House Joint Resolution 44. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I want to make sure we do have locked in at 1:45 a vote on confirmation of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the matter pending before the Senate this morning is the nomination of Rick Perry to be Secretary of Energy, and I have come to the floor to speak to that nomination. As with Representative Zinke, whom we confirmed to be Secretary of the Interior just yesterday, I am equally proud to support Governor Perry's nomination. I know colleagues from both sides of the aisle will be joining me as we make statements in support of this individual to our new President's Cabinet. Before that though, here's a little bit on Governor Perry's background. He is one who has devoted his life--literally decades of his life--to public service. After graduating from Texas A&M, he joined the U.S. Air Force. He piloted C-130 tactical airlift aircraft in Europe as well as in the Middle East. He has served as a State representative, agriculture commissioner, Lieutenant Governor, and of course Governor of Texas. During his time as Governor, Rick Perry showed that economic growth and environmental stewardship cannot only survive and coexist, but that they can really thrive. Over the course of 14 years, Texas added 2.2 million jobs, saw its population grow by more than 6 million people, and at the same time he had this robust growth within his State's population, the State reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 17 percent, reduced its sulfur dioxide emissions by 56 percent, and reduced its nitrous oxide emissions by 66 percent. So in most States where you have a considerable plus-up in your population and a growing economy, you also see growing levels of impact, growing levels of emission. However Governor Perry dealt with this head-on, and we saw the results over the course of 14 years in the State of Texas. He led an effort to decommission older and dirtier power plants. He prioritized the development of emerging and innovative technologies, including carbon sequestration and capture. As a result of his leadership in the State of Texas, that State now leads our Nation in producing more wind energy than all but five other countries. Coming from the State of Alaska, as the Presiding Officer and I do, we recognize that we are labeled as an oil State. Well, Texas certainly has been labeled as an oil-producing State. Yet under Governor Perry's leadership, we have seen Texas lead the Nation in producing more wind energy than all but five other countries. For those who may come to the floor and suggest that, somehow or another, Governor Perry is anti- environment or bring up the issue of climate change and suggest that he does not support care for our environment, that is simply not the case, and clearly in his case, actions speak louder than words. As Texas's longest serving Governor, Rick Perry guided a large, diverse and very complex State government to economic success. Again, when we are talking about States, Alaska is always out there bragging about our size, but if Texas were its own country, it would be the 12th largest economy in the world. So it is one thing to talk about size just by way of geography, but I think it is important--when we are talking about economic contribution, the size of Texas as the 12th largest economy in the world is pretty significant. What happened in the State of Texas? Not only did the people of Texas give their endorsement to Governor Perry to ask him to serve again as Governor, they gave him their endorsement for his work by reelecting him to office not once but twice--14 years. Governor Perry is a principled leader, and that will serve him well as he takes the helm at the Department of Energy. DOE has a very important mission, ranging from the maintenance of our nuclear weapons stockpile to the research and development of new energy technologies. At the same time it is also a department, a bureaucracy, something that I think we recognize. It is large. It is cumbersome, with tens of thousands of employees and contractors. I think the example Governor Perry showed as the State leader of Texas is an example that will do well at the Department of Energy--capable of really setting a good direction for the Department. It has been suggested that he is not one of them in the sense that he is not an award-winning scientist, but, as I mentioned at his hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, you do not necessarily need to have a scientist to lead other scientists; you need to have somebody who is a good, strong, competent, capable manager. That is what Governor Perry has demonstrated, and that is what the Department of Energy needs. He will hold his employees and contractors accountable. We know he will be a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. I think he will work to continue to break down the research silos that have frustrated the Department and work to find ways where there can be greater collaboration, greater working together. I am also confident that he will pursue policies that will ultimately provide us with more energy, more stable sources of energy for us where--unfortunately, we have great sources of energy, but it is high cost. We need to be working with the Department of Energy. We need collaboration there to do what we can to reduce the cost of energy, as well as reduce the amount of energy we consume. By supporting basic research, encouraging scientific exploration, and fostering innovation, the Department will increase access to energy, make it more affordable, and continue to improve its environmental performance. We have 17 National Labs. We are very proud of them. These National Labs are at the heart of those efforts. I have had good conversations with Governor Perry. He reaffirmed in our committee hearing that he clearly recognizes and values the work done by the men and women at our National Labs. One area, which we do not cover within our Committee on Energy and Natural Resources but which is a big part of DOE's mission, is the maintenance and the protection of America's nuclear weapons. Governor Perry recognizes the importance of that mission, and he is committed to working with experts at the NNSA to maintain a proper stockpile stewardship program. I believe Governor Perry will also put his management experience to work on a challenge that has really vexed the Department and affected States for a long period of time. He recognizes that we must clean up the legacy wastes that have been left behind by our nuclear weapons programs, particularly at the largest of these sites in Washington State. My hope is that, through his leadership, the Office of Environmental Management can finally move off of GAO's high-risk list. I know these conversations have been had with many members on the committee. It has been pressed as a priority. But, again, ensuring that we deal with these legacy waste sites has to be a priority. I will reiterate that my hope is that Governor Perry will help address the crisis of rural energy prices in Alaska, as well as in other parts of the country where unfortunately we face high energy costs. The Department must do a better job of partnering with institutions. In our State of Alaska, we have the opportunity to work with DOE collaboratively. We have been the incubators of good ideas, whether it is in energy microgrids or in some of the other pioneering way, we have done it because of necessity. We have no other options. We look to our institutions to find these good ideas, build on them, and work to bring down the costs and transition our many remote communities that are still relying on diesel power. Far too many of our communities are still dependent on diesel and that is just not right. So working with Alaska--allow us to be that proving ground for the Department of Energy. Allow us to be that place where we can first deploy some of these new ideas, these innovative ideas, these projects to help lower the costs and really make a difference in people's lives. Again, I am proud to be here to support Governor Perry's nomination. I believe he has the management experience we need in the Department of Energy right now to help pursue scientific discovery and to promote innovation, to maintain and safeguard our nuclear weapons stockpile, to make progress on the cleanup of legacy waste, and to partner with States like Alaska that suffer from high energy costs. I think we recognize that he has his work cut out for him, but we are counting on him to fulfill those responsibilities and to keep the Department of Energy as one that we look to for true leadership not only here in the United States but around the world. Governor Rick Perry has a strong record of results based on his public service in the State of Texas. He is a proven leader, and I am confident he will do a good job for us leading the Department of Energy in this new administration. I will be supporting his nomination, and I certainly urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we near the vote on the nomination of Governor Rick Perry to be our next Secretary of Energy, I want to again reiterate my support for his confirmation. As I mentioned earlier, Governor Perry has devoted his life to public service. During his 14 years as Governor of Texas, he championed an ``all of the above'' energy strategy, and led his State to tremendous economic growth. He was a good steward of the environment as he worked to find ways to grow the economy and worked toward achieving major reductions in emission levels in the State of Texas. As I said this morning, Governor Perry is a principled leader. He will set a good direction for the Department of Energy. I am confident he will pursue scientific discovery, promote innovation, be a good steward of our nuclear weapons stockpile, and make progress on the cleanup of our legacy sites, which we recognize are very important. He will help us build the infrastructure we need to become a global energy superpower and partner with States, like my State of Alaska, that suffer from very high energy costs. He has a strong record. Governor Perry gets results. He is a competent manager and I think a proven leader. I am pleased to be able to support his confirmation. I know Members from both sides of the aisle agree. I think he will be a good addition to our new President's Cabinet, and I would urge that all Members support his nomination. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. As long as I still have about a minute prior to that vote, I have no objection.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we have the nomination of Representative Ryan Zinke to be the Secretary of the Interior as the business before the body today, and I wish to spend a few moments this afternoon speaking about him, his qualifications, and why I believe he will be a strong Secretary of the Interior. Of all the Cabinet-level nominations that have an impact on my home State of Alaska, the Secretary of the Interior is almost certainly the most important and the most consequential. Two- thirds of Alaska--nearly 224 million acres--is under Federal management. To put that into perspective, that is more land than is occupied by the entire State of Texas, and it is an area about 177 times larger than the State of Delaware. The vast majority of that land is controlled by agencies within the Department of the Interior, from the Bureau of Land Management, to the National Park Service, to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Again, significant parts of Alaska--more land than is occupied by the State of Texas--are held under Federal management. It is for this reason we in Alaska call the Interior Secretary our ``landlord.'' He might not necessarily like that fact, but that is what he is effectively. While it might sound strange if you are from an Eastern State such as Massachusetts or New York, which have hardly any Federal lands within their borders, the decisions that are made by the Department of the Interior literally determine the livelihoods of thousands of Alaskans, as well as the stability and the success of our State. When the Department of the Interior chooses to work with us, Alaska is able to grow and prosper, even as our lands and our waters remain protected under the most stringent environmental standards in the world. When the Department chooses not to work with us, as was all too often the case in the last administration, the people of Alaska suffered. Our State's economy, our budget, and our future are all threatened at the same time. I start with that context to help the Senate understand why I take this confirmation process so seriously whenever a new Interior Secretary is nominated. I consider whether the nominee is right for the job and whether he or she will do right by the people of Alaska, as well as other western states. I talk with the nominee and ask him or her questions about everything from ANCSA and ANILCA to wilderness and wildlife management. When I make a decision, I am making it as a Senator for Alaska and as the chairman of both the authorizing committee and the Appropriations subcommittee for the Department of Interior. Today, after a great deal of review and careful consideration, I am very pleased to be here to speak in strong support of our new President's nominee for this position, Representative Ryan Zinke. I believe Representative Zinke is an excellent choice to be our next Secretary of the Interior. Maybe I am a little bit partial here, but the fact that he is a fellow westerner, hailing from the Treasure State of Montana--that helps with my decision. He is a lifelong sportsman. He loves to hunt and fish. That also resonates with me. I also understand he is a pretty good downhill skier, and I like that too. He is a trained geologist. He has worked as an energy consultant. Even more notably, he has dedicated his life to the service of our Nation, including more than two decades as a Navy SEAL, a term in the Montana Senate, and most recently as the sole U.S. Congressman for his home State. Representative Zinke's life and career have prepared him well to serve as Secretary of the Interior. He was born in the West. He lives in the West. He understands it. He understands its people. He has substantive knowledge of the challenges facing the Department and truly a firsthand experience in trying to solve them. He has also shown that he understands the need for the Department to be a partner for Alaska and other western states, which contain the vast majority of our nation's Federal lands. We had an opportunity in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to hold a hearing to consider Representative Zinke's nomination on January 17. It seems like an eternity ago now, but what I remember very clearly from that morning is the positive and very compelling vision he shared with us. Representative Zinke told us he grew up in a ``small timber and railroad town next to Glacier National Park.'' He explained that he believes the Secretary is responsible for being ``the steward of majestic public lands, the champion of our great Indian nations, and the manager and voice of our diverse wildlife.'' He did show us--and spoke to it in the committee hearing--that he understands the purpose and the value of Federal lands, invoking Teddy Roosevelt and pledging to follow the multiple-use doctrine. As other colleagues have come to the floor today to speak about Representative Zinke's nomination, several have spoken to the issue of the Antiquities Act, speaking more directly than to the issue of multiple-use as it relates to our public lands. Yet, in outlining the concept of multiple-use that Representative Zinke believes and follows, it is probably best to look to his own words that he said when he was before us in the committee. On multiple-use, Representative Zinke said the following: In multiple-use, in the spirit of Roosevelt, it means you can use it for multiple purposes. I am particularly concerned about public access. I am a hunter, a fisherman. But multiple uses are also making sure what you're going to do, you know, and you go in with both eyes open, that means sustainability. That means that it doesn't have to be in conflict if you have recreation over mining. You just have to make sure that you understand what the consequences of each of those uses are. It's our public land. What I have seen most recently is our access is being shut off, roads are being shut off, and we're all getting older. And when you don't have access to hunting areas, traditional fishing areas, it makes it an elite sport. And I'm particularly concerned about the elitism of our traditional hunting, fishing, and snowmobiling. Making our public lands accessible in the spirit of multiple-use. Single use, if you look at the Muir model of some of our national parks and some of our areas, I agree. There are some areas that need to be set aside that are absolutely appropriate for man to be an observer. There are special places in our country that deserve that recognition. But a lot of it is traditional uses of what we find in North Dakota and Montana where you can hunt and fish, you can drill an oil well. Make sure there is a reclamation project. Make sure there is a permit, make sure there's NEPA. If you are doing something that's more intrusive, make sure you monitor the water. Everyone enjoys clean water and we should. I don't think necessarily they are in conflict. I think you have to do it right. I think it is important to put those comments of Representative Zinke on the record because it is clear that, again, he recognizes the multiple uses of our public lands--recognizing there are certain places that are special but ensuring, again, that the doctrine of multiple-use is respected as initially intended. Representative Zinke also told us that he would have three main tasks if he is confirmed as Secretary of the Interior. The first, he said, is to ``restore trust by working with rather than against local communities and states.'' The second is to address the multibillion dollar maintenance backlog at the National Park Service so that we preserve the crown jewels of our public lands for future generations. And the third is to ``ensure the professionals on the front line, our rangers and field managers, have the right tools, right resources, and flexibility to make the right decisions that give a voice to the people they serve.'' So those were the three priorities as outlined by Representative Zinke, and I believe all three of those missions are necessary. I am hardly alone in supporting Representative Zinke as the right choice to fulfill them. Within the committee, he drew bipartisan support when we reported his nomination to the full Senate on January 31. He has drawn widespread support from dozens and dozens of stakeholder groups all across the country: from the Alaska Federation of Natives, the Blackfeet Tribe, the Choctaw Nation, the National Congress of American Indians, Safari Club International, Ducks Unlimited, the Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation, the National Rifle Association, the Public Lands Council, and the American Exploration & Mining Association. These are just a few of the many stakeholders that have praised or endorsed Representative Zinke to be our next Secretary of the Interior. I am glad we are finally here today on the verge of confirming Representative Zinke to this position. I would remind the Senate that despite many substantive differences, we confirmed President Obama's first nominee for Interior Secretary on inauguration day back in 2009-- not so with Representative Zinke. It has now been 6 weeks since we held his nomination hearing and almost a full month since we reported his nomination from our committee--again on a strong bipartisan basis. I am disappointed, of course, that it has taken this long to get to this point, particularly with regard to a nominee who I think, by all accounts, is not controversial or unqualified. Now we need to confirm Representative Zinke without any further delay, so that he can select his team and get to work addressing the range of issues that he will inherit. From the maintenance backlog of the Nation Park Service, to the need for greater balance in Federal land management, to life-and-death issues in remote Alaska communities, and from the Bureau of Indian Affairs to U.S.-affiliated islands, Representative Zinke really has his work cut out for him, and he needs to be allowed to get started as soon as he can. Again, I will repeat that I believe Representative Zinke is a solid choice for this demanding and critical position. While we may not agree on every issue, I believe he will work with us in a thoughtful manner that is reflective of a true partnership. I believe he understands what the job requires, he has the experience necessary to succeed in it, and he will show that the Department of the Interior can still work with local stakeholders to achieve positive results. I thank Representative Zinke for his willingness to continue his service to our Nation and for his patience during this process. On behalf of Alaskans, I look forward to working with him after he is confirmed with bipartisan support, and I urge every Member of the Senate to support his nomination. With that, I see the other Senator from the great State of Alaska is here with us today. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I wish to recognize the accomplishments of an exceptional Alaskan, Brig. Gen. Timothy J. Cathcart, U.S. Air Force, currently serving as director, Office of Legislative Liaison, National Guard Bureau. He will retire on May 31, 2017, after more than 32 years of honorable service. A master navigator, Brigadier General Cathcart has executed more than 75 operational rescue missions, has over 2,000 flight hours, and has served in a variety of operational, training, command, Air Staff, and joint positions. Brigadier General Cathcart enlisted in the Alaska Air National Guard in 1985 and received his commission in 1990 through the Academy of Military Science. Upon completion of navigator training in 1992, he returned to the Alaska Air National Guard as a rescue navigator on the HC-130 aircraft and then served as senior controller at the Alaska Rescue Coordination Center. While serving, Brigadier General Cathcart earned a master of business administration and a master of science in computer science from the University of Alaska. In 2000, he was selected as the mobility forces action officer in the Air and Space Operations Directorate at the National Guard Bureau. After 2 years, Brigadier General Cathcart was promoted to mobility forces branch chief and later went on to serve as the operations support branch chief. In 2005, Brigadier General Cathcart was selected to attend the Industrial College of the Armed Forces, National Defense University, earning a master of science in National Resource Strategy. Following graduation, he served at the Pentagon as the National Guard readiness adviser, Operations Directorate, Joint Staff, while concurrently earning a doctor of philosophy, Ph.D., in Science and Technology Studies from Virginia Tech. From 2008 to 2011, Brigadier General Cathcart served as chief, Joint Training and Education Division, Joint Doctrine, Training, and Force Development Directorate, followed by a position as deputy director for Force Development, Domestic Operations and Force Development Directorate on the National Guard Bureau Joint Staff. From 2011 to 2014, he served as commander of the I.G. Brown Training and Education Center at McGee Tyson ANGB, TN, followed by the General Officer Homeland Security Executive Seminar at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. Prior to his current position as director of legislative liaison, Brigadier General Cathcart was a special assistant to the director, Air National Guard, assigned to the Air Staff's total force-continuum office. In this role, on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of Staff of the Air Force, he worked to identify the appropriate balance of active and reserve components across missions and platforms and helped reduce legal, organizational, policy, and cultural barriers to a more fully integrated Air Force. As director, Office of Legislative Liaison, Brigadier General Cathcart is the primary adviser to the chief, National Guard Bureau, on all matters of congressional interest and provides guidance and direction in the development of the National Guard Bureau legislative strategy. He ceaselessly and effectively supported all Air and Army National Guard roles and missions both State and Federal. Brigadier General Cathcart's efforts advanced an unprecedented level of integration and collaboration within the Department of Defense, as well as with State, interagency, and non-Federal entity partners. He educated and informed decisionmakers within the executive as well as legislative branches of U.S. Government to support National Guard priorities, personnel, and resource requirements, resulting in support and funding for core programs in fiscal year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 legislation. Brigadier General Cathcart's extraordinary career of visionary leadership and highly successful implementation of innovative cutting- edge concepts leaves behind a remarkable legacy of success. His years of dedicated service in the U.S. Air Force and the National Guard represent lifelong dedication and commitment to the defense of our great Nation. I wish to express my gratitude to Brig. Gen. Timothy J. Cathcart for his many years of distinguished service to this country.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, when I am home in Anchorage this weekend, I plan to attend the grand opening of Roscoe's Food for the Soul Restaurant at the Aviator Hotel. Last December, the Alaska Dispatch News noted that the name Roscoe's has been synonymous in Anchorage with soul food for decades. The original Roscoe's was a father and son enterprise. Roscoe Wyche, Jr., opened the restaurant on Government Hill with his son Roscoe Wyche III in 1988. Roscoe's Food for the Soul continues the family tradition. It is a partnership of Roscoe Wyche III, now 56, and his son, Roscoe Wyche IV, who goes by the moniker ``Roc.'' Roscoe III told the Alaska Dispatch News that he was passing the torch just like his dad did--a very sweet story. But this weekend's opening will be a tad bittersweet. The matriarch of the family, Annie Carroll Wyche, Roscoe's mother and Roc's grandmother, passed away on January 18, 2017. Ms. Carol, as she was known, was an entrepreneur in her own right. A native of Thomasville, GA, Ms. Carol came to Anchorage with her late husband, Roscoe Wyche, Jr., who served in the Air Force. Shortly after his retirement, they formed two beauty businesses. Top of the Hill Beauty Salon and Top of the Line Beauty Supply. That was Ms. Carol's domain. Ms. Carol was also a partner in her husband's restaurants. Ms. Carol is remembered for a beautiful spirit, which showed in her smile. She leaves behind a large family. There is no doubt that her entrepreneurial spirit lives on in Roscoe's Food for the Soul.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, on behalf of myself and Senator Cantwell, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the rules of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for the 115th Congress be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. I come to the floor this morning to speak on the resolution of disapproval that is before us, but I want to make just a few comments following my colleague, the minority whip. I am pleased to hear him say that he does look forward to the opportunity for a hearing on Judge Gorsuch and the opportunity for a vote. I think we recognize that we have in front of us an individual who has truly a stellar legal reputation, who has committed himself to the law in a remarkable way. When he was before this Senate for confirmation leading up to the Tenth Circuit, he enjoyed very strong support. I would like to think that on yet further review of this very strong individual, our colleagues will do the due diligence that is necessary as we perform our constitutional role of advise and consent. There is so much that I will respond to at a later time when I go into more detail about my support for Judge Gorsuch and why I think he is exactly the type of individual we want to see named to the Supreme Court, but the comment has been made, not only by my colleague from Illinois but from others, that somehow or other Judge Gorsuch is for Big Business and not the little guy. It seems that the criticism is based on this viewpoint that courts should not defer to Federal agency interpretations of their own rules, and certainly Big Business is a frequent challenger of government overreach. But, as the Presiding Officer and I both know, so are ordinary Americans--people like John Sturgeon, an Alaskan who took on the Federal Government, took on the agencies, and took on the Park Service because he was told he could not use a hovercraft in an area where he had operated one for decades. John Sturgeon, with the help of a few friends, who did everything from garage sales to fund his litigation, and with just the generosity out of their own pockets, took all the way to the Supreme Court the question of whether or not the Park Service's regulation had exceeded their legal authority. I happen to believe very strongly that Judge Gorsuch is clearly on the right track here when he questions the deference that courts give to our government agencies. I think most Alaskans would probably agree with us on this point--that when we are talking about the scales of justice, they should not be tipped in favor of our Federal agencies. Again, I am pleased to hear that the minority whip agrees that a filibuster is not appropriate, is not the way to proceed with this fine nominee. I look forward to learning more about Judge Gorsuch but also to be able to share more of my observations at a later point in time. Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 38 to disapprove and nullify the Department of Interior's so-called stream protection rule. I wish to begin my comments by thanking Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Capito of West Virginia for sponsoring the Senate version of this resolution. I also wish to note that I am proud to be listed with the Presiding Officer as a cosponsor on this bipartisan measure with 28 colleagues in support. Now, by name alone, the stream protection rule may sound pretty innocent, pretty well intentioned, but as we have heard and as we will hear throughout this debate, the reality is really different. This regulation will have severe economic impacts. It will cost us jobs. It will cost us revenues as well as affordable energy all across our country. By way of background, the rule revises longstanding regulations for coal mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, something around here we simply call SMCRA. Now this rule was finalized in December of 2016, and it took effect 2 weeks ago, making more than 400 changes to existing regulations. Now, 400 is just a number that shows the scope of the changes that the Obama administration has made, but it hardly does justice to the sweeping substance of the changes or the deliberately opaque process that the Obama administration followed to make them. SMCRA is supposed to be an example of cooperative federalism, and many States have approved programs that allow them to regulate coal mining within their own borders. But beyond that, the law explicitly directs the Federal Government to work with States to engage with them whenever any changes are made. So it requires a high level of cooperation and collaboration. Contrary to the collaborative mood intended by SMCRA, the Obama administration chose to draft the stream protection rule behind closed doors. It ignored the input and recommendations that were provided by States and other stakeholders. It subverted the law, basically, to meet its own policy objectives, which was to keep the coal in the ground. Ultimately, that is what they wanted to do, and it finalized a rule that will shut down coal mining in several regions in our country, including possibly in Alaska, if it is allowed to stand. Now, the Obama administration claimed that this rule would cost only $81 million a year and that it did not qualify as what is considered ``economically significant'' as a rule, as a result of that. We will likely hear that number touted by some of the opponents of this resolution and probably some who will claim that we are exaggerating the impact. But I don't think we should forget how the Obama administration determined that the rule was insignificant in the first place. In January of 2011, the Associated Press obtained documents showing that this rule was projected to eliminate 7,000 direct jobs across the country. So instead of going back and fixing the rule to avoid these potential job losses, what happened? The Department of Interior fired the independent contractor that had made the projection. So, effectively, we have a situation where the Department essentially cooks the books instead of fixing the rule. It then took steps to rebrand the rule, changing the name from the ``stream buffer zone rule'' to the ``stream protection rule'' making the rule sound rather innocuous. So what the American people should know is that there is a real discrepancy between the economic impacts the Obama administration estimated and what other sources project will happen if the rule is left in place. The projection is that up to 30 percent of the direct jobs in coal mining will be lost, and domestic coal production will fall 29 to 65 percent, with anywhere from $15 billion to $29 billion in lost annual coal resource value and $3.3 billion to $6.5 billion in lost State and Federal revenue. So with estimates like this, it is no wonder that this rule has drawn such strong bipartisan opposition from Alaska all the way to Appalachia. If you are doubting the statistics--if you are saying, well, I am hearing certain things on one side and others on another-- you need to talk to people out there. We did that. Instead of just taking what the Obama administration said, we went out and we asked people. Last March, I held a field hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we held the field hearing up in Fairbanks, AK. Among our witnesses was a woman by the name of Lorali Simon. The occupant of the Chair knows her well. She works for Usibelli Coal Mine, an initially family-owned and operated coal mine--which has been very successful--and provides coal and power to the residents of the Interior, and has been for a long time. Ms. Simon spoke about how coal resources contribute significantly to our State by providing jobs and a reliable energy source. She explained that coal is the cheapest source of energy in Interior Alaska for everything from the local community to our military bases there and how usability has helped to create business for others like our Alaska railroad. She also highlighted the broader picture about how coal strengthens our national and energy security. So those are all good things, in my book. But Lorali also testified about the stream protection rule. She said that, if the rule was finalized as it was proposed--which it has been-- it will likely kill all coal development in Alaska. She also noted that Congress passed SMCRA, but during the Obama administration, she said: ``We were seeing unelected federal employees violate legislative intent, which will kill America's coal industry.'' Now, Lorali Simon is not alone in her criticisms or her opposition to this rule. Our Governor in Alaska, an Independent by the name of Governor Bill Walker, recently noted that it was one of the worst of many different actions the Obama administration took to limit resource development in our State of Alaska. The attorneys general of 14 different States wrote: The rule would have a disastrous effect on coal miners, their families, workers in affected industries, and their communities. It would also impose very significant costs on American consumers of electricity, while undermining our Nation's energy supply. That is pretty tough--not only a disastrous effect on the coal miners but the cost on American consumers of electricity, undermining our Nation's energy supply. The Interstate Mining Compact Commission described this rule as a ``burdensome and unlawful rule that usurps states' authority as primary regulators of coal mining as intended by Congress under SMCRA'' while also seeking to impose ``an unwarranted top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that does not take into account important regional and ecological differences.'' Then, finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted that the rule ``exceeds the Department's authority, will cause significant economic harm and job losses, and interferes with longstanding and successful state efforts to protect water quality.'' It is very clear to me that this rule simply cannot stand. We have an opportunity here to make sure that is the case. So if you are concerned about families paying more for their heating and their electricity bills, you should support this resolution. If you are worried about job losses due to access restrictions and rising energy costs, you should support this resolution. And, if you care about States' rights, which so many of us do, or overregulation by the Federal Government, which we clearly do, you should support this resolution. I have noted to a couple of people today that this is a pretty good day to be debating a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. It is Groundhog Day, and it is exactly what the last 8 years have felt like for anyone who has paid attention to the regulations that were just churned out by the Obama administration. The SPR rule is a perfect place to start as we sort through the major burdens that the last administration imposed through its relentless regulatory actions. So, again, I wish to thank Leader McConnell and Senator Capito for sponsoring and leading this legislation, and know that I intend to vote for it. I urge my colleagues to do the same. With that, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 1\1/2\ minutes.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. President. She has committed that the focus she will give, not only to Alaska but to all States will not undermine, erode, or ignore public schools and that she will, in fact, work to support our public schools. She has committed to me that she will come to Alaska in order to learn from Alaska's educators, our parents, school board members, and our tribal representatives to see for herself the challenges we face. I still continue to have concerns. I think Mrs. DeVos has much to learn about our Nation's public schools, how they work and the challenges they face. I have serious concerns about a nominee to be Secretary of Education who has been so involved in one side of the equation--so immersed in the push for vouchers--that she may be unaware of what actually is successful within the public schools and also what is broken and how to fix them. Betsy DeVos must show us that she truly understands the children of Alaska and across America, both urban and rural, who are not able to access an alternative choice in education, as in so many of my communities. She must show us that she will work to help the struggling public schools that strive to educate children whose parents are unable to drive them across town to get to a better school. That she will not ignore the homeless students whose main worry is finding somewhere safe to sleep and for whom their public school is truly a refuge. And that she will fight for the children whose parents don't even know how to navigate these educational options. I believe that my colleagues here in the Senate and the many, many they represent have the right to debate these questions, to air their thoughts and concerns and perspectives about this nomination, and again I believe that any President has the right to expect that we do so. I conclude my remarks to make clear that my colleagues know firmly that I do not intend to vote, on final passage, to support Mrs. DeVos to be Secretary of Education. I thank the chairman of the committee for working with me and with my colleagues on this matter, but I cannot support this nominee. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I would like to share my thoughts with my colleagues today about the President's nominee to be Secretary of Education. I shared many of these thoughts yesterday with my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee. Like my colleague from Maine, this nomination has been a very difficult one for me. It has been very personal. As I mentioned in committee, I take very personally the education of the children in my State. I take very personally the contributions that our educators, our administrators in the schools--all that they provide and the importance that we should all place on the education of America's children. I don't think it is an overstatement to say that I have struggled with how I will cast my vote on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Again, I take very personally the success of Alaska's schools and the success of Alaska's schoolchildren. We have a lot of schools in Alaska, as we all do around the country. My schools, I would challenge you all, are a little bit more diverse than perhaps in other parts of America just because of our geography. We are isolated. Eighty-two percent of the communities are not attached by a road. The communities are small. The schools are smaller. In our urban centers, what some find unusual is we have more diversity in our populations than most people could understand or even imagine. One of the neighborhoods in my hometown of Anchorage hosts the most ethnically diverse schools in the United States of America. So I have urban schools that have rich diversity, and I have very rural, very remote, extremely remote schools that face challenges when it comes to how we deliver education. So knowing that we have the strongest public school system is a priority for me. I have spent considerable time one-on-one with Mrs. DeVos before and after the committee hearing. I spent the entirety of the Senate HELP Committee listening carefully to the questions that colleagues put to her. Afterward, I reviewed not only her written responses to me but those that she had responded to other colleagues. I requested further that she provide certain commitments in writing. After speaking with her at length and considering everything that I have learned, I have the following comments to share: First, I must state that I absolutely believe Betsy DeVos cares deeply for all children. I think we all acknowledge that she could have spent her time, her energy, and her considerable resources on almost anything else that she chose to do. I admire her for choosing to help children to access a better education because she could have chosen to do many other things, but she chose to work for children, and I appreciate that. Now, as Senators, we are in the position to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee. My view has been--and has been since I came to the U.S. Senate--that under almost all circumstances, a President has the right to have their nominees considered and to receive a full vote by the entire Senate. So I have gone back, and I have looked at how I, as a Senator, have handled confirmations under President Bush and President Obama. When cloture votes have been called on Cabinet nominees, my practice has been to vote aye. I voted aye twice for Secretary of Defense Hagel. I voted aye for Secretary of Labor Perez, even though I voted against his confirmation in the final vote. So, Mrs. DeVos. She has answered thousands of questions that have been put to her. Neither the Office of Government Ethics, the Senate HELP Committee, nor I have found any substantive reason to question Mrs. DeVos's name or reputation, but yet I have heard from thousands--truly thousands of Alaskans who share their concerns about Mrs. DeVos as Secretary of Education. They have contacted me by phone, by email, in person, and their concerns center--as mine do--on Mrs. DeVos's lack of experience with public education and the lack of knowledge she portrayed in her confirmation hearing. Alaskans are not satisfied that she would uphold Federal civil rights laws in schools that receive Federal funds. They question her commitment to students with disabilities' rights under IDEA. They fear that the voucher programs that are intended to serve them may actually rob them of the opportunity to benefit from an education in an inclusive environment with their nondisabled peers. After 8 years of the micromanagement that we have seen from this previous administration, quite honestly, they are very concerned that Mrs. DeVos will force vouchers on Alaska. Now, she has said that she has not. She has committed publicly and to me personally that she will not seek to impose vouchers on our States. She has committed to implementing Federal education laws as they are written and intended, and this is a welcome departure from what we had seen with the two previous Secretaries of Education.

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