Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to rename a wilderness area in my home state of Alaska in honor of Alaska's fourth Governor, Jay S. Hammond. I am pleased that I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my Alaska colleague, Senator Dan Sullivan. Jay Hammond is truly one of the unique figures in Alaska history. In a state with many unique statesmen, Hammond is truly worthy of honor. A New Yorker who first studied petroleum engineering at Penn State, he became a Marine fighter pilot who fought in World War II in the Pacific/China with the famed Black Sheep Squadron. After the war he found life on the East Coast too confining and flew an old plane to Alaska in 1946, never looking back. Initially a pilot to ``Bush'', remote rural parts of Alaska, he worked as a trapper, wildlife guide and laborer before heading back to college to gain a degree in biological sciences in 1949 from the University of Alaska. He then went to work as a wildlife biologist and hunter for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. By 1950 after conducting some of the first swan studies in northern Alaska, Jay Hammond was transferred to Southwest Alaska where he conducted predator/prey studies on Alaska Peninsula caribou, flew fisheries enforcement flights out of Dillingham Alaska, and fell in love with Lake Clark and its surrounding wilderness, a 45-mile lake on the west side of Aleutian Range that he would call home, besides a setnet salmon site at Naknek, for nearly 55 years. Mr. Hammond, upon Alaska entering the Union in 1959 ran and won election to the Alaska State House of Representatives as an independent, serving three terms before redeclaring himself as a Republican and serving two terms in the state Senate. He then served as mayor of the Bristol Bay Borough from 1972 to 1974, after serving as the borough's manager in the 1960s and 1970s. Mr. Hammond then was drafted to run for Governor of Alaska in 1974, defeating the state's second Governor and former Secretary of the Interior Walter J. Hickel in the Republican Primary before defeating the state's first Governor William A Egan in the general election. It was an election dominated by Hammond's opposition to oil leasing in Southcentral's Kachemak Bay, concern over the State of Alaska's salmon fisheries and fear over the state over spending soon after the discovery of oil on Alaska's North Slope. Governor Hammond during his two terms oversaw construction of the Trans-Alaska oil Pipeline System, TAPS, championed creation of the Alaska Permanent Fund savings account, and was the author of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program, which provides Alaskans a yearly dividend check from the interest earnings of the savings from a quarter of the State's petroleum revenues. He also won approval of a constitutional budget reserve that was intended to reduce State spending, and championed agricultural development in Interior Alaska. He also oversaw the state's purchase of the Alaska Railroad from the federal government. Hammond on environmental issues opposed construction of a proposed Ramparts hydroelectric dam on the Yukon River, supported the congressional creation of a 200-miles fisheries zone off the State's coast that improved state fishery stocks, oversaw creation of a state limited entry fisheries regime, oversaw the creation of the Nation's largest State park, the Wood Tikchik State Park in Southwest Alaska, which contains 1.6 million acres of wilderness, and worked with Congress and observed congressional passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 that replaced the designation of 120 million acres of Alaska into protected status under the federal Antiquities Act, while placing 104 million acres of new lands into national parks, preserves, refuges, monuments, wilderness and wild and scenic river classifications. The law added 5.5 million acres of wilderness in 14 units in national forests, added more than 40 million acres in 10 new units to national parks, including the 3.86 million- acre Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, bringing to 54 million acres the total size of Federal park holdings in Alaska; added a number of new wildlife refuges in Alaska, bringing to 19 the number of refuges covering 76.8 million acres in the State; and created 13 wild and scenic rivers running 3,131 miles. The act created 57.9 million acres of formal wilderness in the State, Alaska containing about 60 percent of the nation's total formal wilderness. Mr. Hammond was also a talented and prolific writer and poet, presenting to the University of Alaska Library Archives an impressive collection of speeches, testimony, notebooks and papers. He also wrote several books on life in Alaska, led by his first book, ``Tales of Alaska's Bush Rat Governor.'' He died on Aug. 2, 2005, at age 83 in his sleep at his homestead near Port Alsworth, Alaska, having survived five plane crashes and innumerable close calls during his first flight to Alaska and in fighting a fire at his home at Lake Clark, and over the following 59 years in the State. He was survived by his wife, Bella and daughters Heidi and Dana. Jay Hammond was well-respected for reaching across the aisle to forge bipartisan alliances and enjoyed many close friendships with colleagues in both political parties and with his staff, who were deeply loyal to him. The designation of the 2.6 million acres of already created wilderness in Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, where his homestead lies, will honor Jay Hammond and will be a fitting tribute to his honorable life and legacy, a man that the Anchorage Municipal Assembly on August 7, 2005, called, ``the finest example of a true public servant. There are few men who have influence through their quiet articulation of what is right and fair in the way of Jay Hammond.'' I hope for quick passage of this bill prior to the anniversary of either his birthday or the date of the tenth anniversary of this death. He was creative, funny, thoughtful, respectful, wise and courageous and truly deserves this honor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, at this time I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up Senator Thune's amendments Nos. 607 and 743 en bloc.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside to call up my amendments Nos. 838 and 770 en bloc.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have two amendments that I want to speak to very briefly this evening that I hope we will have an opportunity to consider tomorrow when we move to a very accelerated process. One of them relates to lands and one relates to water--our oceans and how we move about on our oceans. The first amendment I would like to speak to is an amendment that would establish a neutral reserve fund for land sales, transfers, and exchanges. Before I get to describing that, I want to take just a couple of minutes and speak to the overall budget itself in comparison and contrast to that submitted by the President. The budget before us is a stark contrast to the President's request, which simply pretended that sequestration didn't exist, never came remotely close to balancing, and would have led to the return of trillion dollar deficits by 2025. The Republican budget we have in front of us, as compared to the President's request, while far from perfect--believe me, far from perfect--does present a very significant choice between a direction on energy that takes us backwards and a proposal that we see laid out in this Republican budget that gives us a clear choice when it comes to the future of our energy and natural resources policy. The President's budget featured tens of billions of dollars of tax hikes and fees for our Nation's oil, gas, and coal producers. It would have stripped away offshore revenue sharing, which is a matter of fairness and should be expanded to all coastal producing States. I know that is an issue the Chair and I agree on. The President's budget also ignored basic responsibilities such as cleaning up abandoned legacy wells that the Federal Government drilled. They drilled these years ago, decades ago, and while we have seen major spending increases at most agencies and departments, in the one area where they are obligated to do the cleanup, we are not seeing that addressed. The President's budget would have done nothing to promote resource development even in places where there is overwhelming public support for it, such as my State of Alaska, which has seen restriction after restriction placed upon it by this administration. I have had an opportunity to speak many times on this floor about that. Instead, the President sought new programs to subsidize the high costs of his regulatory plans, and he has tried to find ways to avert the serious consequences, such as the weakening of the reliability of our electric grid that will consequently fall on its weight. Ultimately, the President's budget would have led to lower energy and mineral production in our country. It would have lowered energy and mineral security. It would have led to fewer jobs, lower revenues, higher prices, and higher dependence on others. It would have lavished subsidies as it deepens our debt. It takes us in exactly the wrong direction when we talk about our energy future, our energy security. The President's budget would have done nothing to turn around the negative trends we are seeing in production on Federal lands either. His energy proposals are about as balanced as the budget that he offered. As we have seen increased oil production around the country, we have seen the benefits that it has yielded in terms of lower prices, we have seen the jobs that it has created, and we have seen the opportunities for us. Yet this oil production is not happening on our Federal lands. It is going gangbusters on State and private lands. Natural gas production has outright declined for years on Federal lands, and the President's regulators are now hard at work to ensure that coal follows suit. We talk a lot about the conventional fuels--fossil fuels--and it is important to recognize that we are seeing similar patterns on Federal lands when it comes to other energy sources. The President talks a lot about increasing generation from our renewables. I agree. It is something we need to move towards. We are seeing increased renewable production, but are we seeing it on our Federal land? It may come as a surprise to the Chair and to others in this body what we heard from representatives of the wind industry. My staff asked what percentage of wind projects are actually on Federal land? And surely, given the commitment we have to renewable energy, one would expect that to be a high percentage. The answer back was hardly any. Some 98.6 percent of wind projects are apparently on State and private land--98.6 percent. Not even 2 percent are on Federal land. That stat shows what we mean and why we are right when we say it is incredibly hard to develop any type of energy on Federal lands. Secretary Jewell said as much in front of our committee. She said: It is just hard to do so on Federal lands. So I am glad to be here as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to affirm that we have a better way forward. The energy revolution--renewable and petroleum--in this country has been on State and private lands. That is a fact. So I have filed an amendment that would complement language that is already in the resolution by focusing on sales, transfers or exchanges of land with State or local governments. The budget resolution already contains language for land acquisition and conservation efforts. So nothing in the language that we have included in this amendment actually sells, transfers or exchanges a specifically identified piece of property. Any legislation enabled by this spending-neutral reserve fund will have to go through the process and be voted either up or down in regular order. The language does specify what cannot be considered, and that is any land that is located within a national park, within a national preserve or a national monument. Those would continue to be protected. This language would provide balance by enabling the types of exchanges, sales or transfers with States or local governments that are often used to craft balanced, comprehensive land policies, such as we did in the lands package on NDAA that we passed last Congress. When we have an opportunity to consider this amendment, a vote for it is really a vote in support of--as a priority of this Congress-- comprehensive approaches to land policies to facilitate economic development, empower States, and improve our conservation systems. I would encourage Members to take a look at what I have offered here this evening and what I hope we will be able to take up for a vote tomorrow. The second matter, very briefly--and I know the Senator from Colorado is here as well, and others wish to speak tonight--is an amendment I have offered just now that I hope we will have a chance to vote on which focuses our priorities as a nation on what is happening in the north. We are an arctic nation. Now we are by virtue of my home State. But it is not just Alaska. We are an arctic nation, and as such we have responsibilities, we have obligations. There is activity happening in the north country that is without question. What is also without question is that as an arctic nation, we are woefully behind in certain infrastructure related to our Arctic. What do most people think of when they think of the Arctic? Ice. How do we move through the Arctic Ocean filled with ice? An ice breaker. And it is not just for commerce, it is from a national security perspective, it is from a research perspective. It is for all those things that, again, would allow us to be a leader as an arctic nation. This is not easy for us, because ice breakers don't come cheap. But it should be a priority for us, as a national asset, for an arctic nation. I won't go through the list of what other nations have in terms of their assets, but suffice it to say our neighbors to the east in Russia have over 30 ice breakers. The ice breaker capacity our Canadian friends have is six. But it is not just arctic nations that have arctic capacity through their ice breakers. It is nations such as China. Think how far away China is from the Arctic. India is considering building an ice breaker. Think how far away they are. It begs the question: Why, as an arctic nation, are we not stepping up? So I am challenging my colleagues: Think broader. I invited all Members of the Senate to join the Arctic Caucus and understand again what it means for you and your respective States, the benefits, but also the obligations. I look forward to the discussion on the issue of how we build out our arctic capacity and our infrastructure, and I also look forward to further discussion on how we can do more to ensure the opportunities we have for our economic development and our energy security can continue on the lands we are blessed to have as a nation, and the opportunities that will be made further available if we are able to move forward with the ideas I have proposed this evening. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I request unanimous consent that Cale Clingenpeel, an intern on my staff, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the day.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, it is quiet around here today, this afternoon. We have been notified that we are not going to be having any further votes this week because Washington, DC, is anticipating a winter storm. It is March 4. I think most people here in Washington had hoped that winter had already come and gone, but that is not the case. In my home State of Alaska, this is the time of year that we welcome winter. We embrace winter. In fact, I am going to be going up to the State this Friday to attend the kickoff of our biggest sporting event, which is the Iditarod sled dog race, 1,100 miles, where about 70 teams of dogs and intrepid mushers make the trek typically between the Anchorage area and 1,100 miles up to Nome. This winter has been a little bit different. It is warmer back home than most of us Alaskans would like, and we have actually had to reroute the Iditarod for the second time in the race's history. It is going to be starting out of my hometown in Fairbanks, and rerouting the race so that it is still a thousand-mile race. But it does speak to the fact that we are seeing some changes up there, at least for this winter, in terms of our temperatures and our climate. We have a lot of folks around here anticipating what we are going to see tomorrow who are wondering what is going on with climate? What are we seeing? Is this temporary in nature, or are we going to start seeing more arctic conditions here on the eastern seaboard? I want to talk about the Arctic today. I want to talk about the value of an amazing part of the globe and the opportunities we have in the Arctic, the opportunities we have as an Arctic nation. We have a map here. This is the bathymetric chart of the Arctic Ocean. It is a view that perhaps most Americans are not intimately familiar with. You look at it and say, where on planet Earth is this? To locate everybody a little bit, here you have Russia, Greenland, Canada over here, and the United States. This is the State of Alaska with all of the interior arctic areas there, but an amazing mass located at the top of the globe, an area where, quite honestly, most Americans put it out of sight, out of mind. The only time they really think about the Arctic is when there are temperatures that make it feel like the Arctic. There are probably going to be a lot of folks here in Washington, DC, tomorrow who are thinking, yes, maybe we do live in an Arctic nation because I am feeling it here. It doesn't make any difference whether we have a storm coming at us or whether it is the heat of the summer in Washington, DC, or the fall in New England, or the warm winter temperatures in a place such as Arizona. Wherever you reside in this country, you are part of an Arctic nation. I am willing to bet that when the Presiding Officer was elected to represent the State of Colorado, he didn't think at that time that he was also elected to be a Senator for the Arctic. But, in fact, he is because we are an arctic nation. In Colorado--I suppose the Presiding Officer is probably thinking, tell me why the Arctic is relevant to Colorado, other than the fact that we also share some good winters and have an appreciation for the snow and colder climates. But in the State of Colorado, 30 percent--30.5 percent of the total exports that go out of Colorado are exported to arctic nations. Now think about that. Thirty percent of what goes out of Colorado is exported to an Arctic nation, one of the eight Arctic nations--Canada, Finland, Greenland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden. These are your trading partners. Our colleague from Wyoming was just on the floor. Let's see what Wyoming exports. They are about in the same category as Colorado, about 28.3 percent of the total exports from Wyoming are exported to the Arctic nations. When we think about the dollars that are coming to Colorado or Wyoming or Maryland as a result of exports from your States, it causes us to maybe perhaps look at the Arctic a little bit differently. We have an opportunity to build upon a dynamic relationship, an evolving part of the globe, as we prepare as a nation to assume the chair of the Arctic Council. This event will take place on April 25, just a couple of months from now. But the Arctic Council is the intergovernmental forum for the eight nations that have territory inside the Arctic Circle. Again, this is pretty much this map here: Canada, Russia, Denmark through Greenland, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and then, of course, by virtue of the State of Alaska, the United States. The Arctic Council also includes six nonvoting permanent participant groups that represent the indigenous people of the Arctic. There are also 32 observer entities. The interesting thing with these observer participants, 12 of the 32 are non-Arctic nations, so areas that are not countries that we would think of that would have a keen interest in what is going on with Arctic policy. This is France, Germany, the United Kingdom, China, Japan. What is really impressive to me is that we are seeing the growth in the number of non-Arctic nations that are seeking observer status. Back in the 2013 Arctic Council ministerial meeting we had in Sweden, six nations were admitted as observers. Many others have indicated their interest as well. It is also interesting to note that with the admission of China, all five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are now members or observers of the Arctic Council. Also represented are 8 of the world's 10 largest economies based on GDP, which is an indicator of the level of importance the world ascribes to the Arctic. What has happened with the Arctic is, again, a keen interest from all over the globe in what is happening. Why is that? What is going on that is capturing the interests, the imagination, the opportunity for nations all over the globe? So much of it is because this area, an area that for most has always been locked up in a world of ice and permanently frozen in time. So to even imagine the possibilities of what could unfold in the Arctic was so foreign that only the most adventurous of the explorers ever pushed out. It is changing up North, whether it is the northern sea route coming across on the Russian side, whether it is the Northwest Passage, whether it is nations that are looking to explore for resources, whether it is those involved in maritime traffic and engaging in a level of commerce that are looking for that shorter route that will cut days, weeks, off of a journey and, therefore, costs off of the expense of shipping. Whether it is the tourists--cruise ships are coming across the top. Up in Point Barrow, right up here at the top of the world, you have cruise ships that are moving through those waters--the ultimate ecotourists and those who are seeking something different. The Arctic is notable within the international community from an economic perspective. As its shipping lanes open up, we have additional areas that become accessible for resource development. Again, the rise of tourism is an example of the increased accessibility of the Arctic. It is also notable from a political perspective as the region that is not bogged down by the inertia of longstanding disputes. Think about so many parts of the world where there have been decades, if not centuries of conflict. This is a part of the world that does not have that overlay, if you will. It does not have the entrenched views that make international cooperation in other areas difficult. Instead, it is an area that seeks to promote collaboration and remain a zone of peace. Think about the conversations I am able to have with Secretary Kerry, as I did just a few weeks back, talking about the Arctic and being able to speak to the Secretary of State about how we can work more collaboratively, how we can keep an area as a zone of peace as he deals with hot spots all over the globe--to know that there is a cool place, not only from a physical perspective but perhaps from an emotional and a political perspective, where perhaps we can be working together to advance goals and initiatives rather than constantly being at issue with one another. It also is a region that is writing its history as we speak. This has been around for a long time. But what is happening at the top of the globe is like a clean sheet. It is an opportunity for us to write history. It is even more important for the United States to take a lead in guiding international policy decisions within this area. This is why I am calling on colleagues in the Senate to join me, to step up, to help us not only to build out policy initiatives but really to take that leadership role, as we should be doing as an Arctic nation. So I have joined together with the Senator from Maine, Mr. King, to form a new caucus. I know we have plenty of caucuses around here, but I am asking colleagues to consider joining this caucus, the Senate Arctic Caucus. This caucus has a mission to convene conversations among Members on issues relating to defense, science, energy, environment, commerce, trade, maritime affairs, the well-being of the indigenous peoples of the Arctic, to raise awareness about the importance of the Arctic, and to advance a coordinated effort toward investment in infrastructure that will benefit all Americans, including those who live in the Arctic. I should let colleagues know that when I am offering this opportunity to join a caucus, it is not just to say that I am paying attention to Arctic issues in name only. We really want to try to educate because, again, I think the awareness of what is happening in the Arctic has captivated the imagination and the attention of people around the world, of nations around the world. It should captivate the imagination and the attention of every Member in this body. So each Member will be receiving an invitation to join this caucus, along with a breakdown of each State's exports to the Arctic region, to help demonstrate why the Arctic matters to all 50 of the States. So as I have outlined to the Presiding Officer, about the benefits that Colorado receives and the benefits that Wyoming receives, all Members will be getting similar figures. It was 10 years ago when I started an Arctic awareness campaign. That was a long time ago. It was an effort to get folks--not only within the legislative body but within the administration--to pay attention to what was going on within the region. It started out pretty simply. I can remember that I was on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we had the nomination hearing for Condoleezza Rice to be Secretary of State. I asked her a question: So what are we doing in the Arctic to ensure that the Arctic remains a zone of peace? Or I asked something to that effect. I think I caught her flatfooted. The next time I saw her before the Foreign Relations Committee, she was up to speed and engaged. But I can state with some certainty here that in 2005 the State Department was just not prepared to have a discussion on these issues. Now, I am not going to claim full credit here. But move forward a little bit with the clock. It was good to see the movement within the administration. When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she was the first Secretary of State to participate in an Arctic Council ministerial meeting. I think that was probably prompted by some visits she had made to view the Arctic, including the U.S. Arctic in Barrow, when she was a Member of this body. But as Secretary of State she traveled to Nuuk, Greenland in 2011. I accompanied her. Then in 2013 Secretary Kerry went to the ministerial meeting in Kiruna, Sweden. In 2015 Secretary Kerry will again participate in this year's meeting in Canada, where the Arctic Council chairmanship will be handed over to the United States. I started off my comments by talking about what is going on with the weather and people feeling like we are under an Arctic siege here right now in Washington. But I think it is safe to say that Arctic awareness is at an alltime high. But unfortunately, the investment has not matched the interest. One barometer of your interest when you are talking about the Arctic is: How do you move in the Arctic if there is ice up there? You have to be able to plow through some ice. This is where an icebreaker comes into play. But icebreakers are expensive. The Coast Guard estimates that it is going to be about $1 billion. It takes about 10 years to build. If I were to ask anybody in this body how many icebreakers the United States has, I think you would say: Well, of course we have an icebreaker up there. We have one medium-strength icebreaker, the Healy, which does a good job for us. But our only Polar Class vessel, the Polar Star is on assignment to Antarctica for the next 5 years. We will not see her in the Arctic for 5 full years. The life expectancy, the useful life of the Polar Star is only 6 to 8 years. It takes 10 years to build a new one. We are sitting here as a nation woefully behind when it comes to Arctic infrastructure, if you define it by icebreaking capacity. Russia is cleaning our clock in terms of the number of icebreakers they have. They have 27. Our own Coast Guard's High Latitude Study says it is going to require six major icebreakers--three heavy and three medium- sized icebreakers--to fulfill its statutory requirements. Even China has one icebreaker. They are building six more. India--do you think of India as an Arctic Nation? They are considering building an icebreaker. Why? Because they see the Arctic opportunity. They want to be part of an area on the globe that is piquing their interest for a host of different reasons. So as others in the Arctic region, whether it is Russia or whether it is Canada, as they continue some pretty aggressive national plans, combined with state investment to develop their Arctic resources and advance commerce in the north, the United States needs to be a participant. But we need to be more than a participant. We need to be a leader. We lead everywhere else. We led to the moon. We know more about the mapping of Mars than we know about mapping in the Arctic. We need to step it up. It is exciting to think that we can step it up. I am hoping that we will be able to focus our attention on these issues. It is not just the resources and infrastructure that will make the Arctic a national priority. It is not just preparing for a 2-year chairmanship. It is about what the vision is--the long-term vision for the United States' role in an emerging part of the globe. It is as dynamic as anyplace out there. But we have to be ready. We lack certain basic infrastructure needs. I mentioned the need for an icebreaker. I am going to be introducing legislation, hopefully very soon, to develop a solid foundation and put some building blocks in place for that investment, including a focus on obtaining more accurate data for charting the Arctic. We simply are so far behind in our hydrographic charting. We need to do better with our ice forecasting, with our weather observation stations, with our weather buoys, with our monitoring out in our oceans, with just having a level of communications and understanding of what we have. So, as we look to the area, we have at least to be able to assess the accuracy of Arctic weather and water forecasting. We have to be able to understand whether we have gaps in Arctic weather and sea-ice observing networks and the status of our sea-ice analysis and forecasting services. So we are going to be having a hearing tomorrow in the energy committee. We may be the only committee that is open for business. We may be the only Senators that are here in the building. But we are going to be having the first-ever hearing on the Arctic. I think it is fair to say that it is not only the first hearing in the energy committee but the first-ever hearing on the Arctic as a whole, instead of just bits and pieces of it. So I am encouraging all of my colleagues who may be locked out because they could not jump on a flight quickly enough or they could not get on the road soon enough. But we will be having, I think, a very informative hearing tomorrow in the energy committee to focus on what, again, I am calling Arctic opportunities. I do not know if the timing of the hearing was just prescient on my part and that we knew that this was going to happen. If so, I should also do part-time work as a weather forecaster. But I do think it is certainly timely. In fact, it is long past time that we focus again on an area that hosts amazing promise and opportunity for leadership as a nation. I would encourage all of my colleagues to join us in this new Senate Arctic Caucus. Embrace your inner Arctic self. It really is a good place to be. With that, I see that my colleague from Wyoming is here. He has been very patient. As I mentioned to the Senator from Colorado, our Presiding Officer right now, Colorado enjoys good benefits from the State of Alaska. For the fine folks in Wyoming, 28 percent of their total exports from the State of Wyoming do go to Arctic nations. So there is a connection. I look forward to working with both of my colleagues as members of the energy committee on these issues of great importance to our Nation. I yield the floor.

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 thank my friend and colleague from North Dakota for his leadership. He has been dogged not only as we have advanced this measure through the floor and process but truly over the years. It has been 6-plus years, or 2,350 days, since the company seeking to build the Keystone XL Pipeline first submitted its cross-border permit application. Even with all this time, the President is incapable of making a final decision. I thank my colleague from West Virginia, who just spoke. He articulated some of the myths and misconceptions that are out there, and the Senator from South Dakota annunciated them as well. When you think about where we are today, with this veto override here in front of us--you have to think about that fact that this is bipartisan energy legislation. The first bill we sent to the President this year is bipartisan and has strong support around the country from an environmental perspective, from an energy security perspective, and from a national security perspective. The Keystone XL Pipeline is what we should endorse. It is wrong and shortsighted that this President has chosen to veto this bipartisan energy initiative. We have heard on the floor all of the reasons why this proposal is good and sound and rational. It focuses on the energy infrastructure. I think it is also important to remind colleagues that when we had this bill on the floor in January, we had something that we have not had in a long period of time, and that was an open amendment process. We moved 41 different amendments forward to the floor, and some of those amendments actually passed. They became part of this Keystone XL Pipeline legislation. So in addition to vetoing the infrastructure aspects of this legislation, the President has vetoed a time-sensitive provision that will provide regulatory relief to our water heater manufacturers. He also vetoed multiple provisions to increase the efficiencies of our commercial buildings. He has also vetoed a provision that would improve the energy retrofitting assistance that would be available for our schools. He also vetoed what I believe many of us viewed as a very responsible path forward on the Oilspill Liability Trust Fund and our statement asserting that climate change is real. We made some good progress with this bill. If this vote is not successful, all of that is now off the table. We are not just talking about permitting a piece of pipe, the infrastructure that goes across the border. Keep in mind, folks, we also included some things that this body felt were important to advance, and that has all been vetoed by this President. It was wrong to veto this legislation. I think it is also important to highlight some of the irony we see with the veto of this legislation coming from this administration. In effect, the President is making a mockery of the Executive order meant to expedite decisions, as it has been more than 2,350 days since this application was submitted for permit. But there is other irony here, and I wish to take a brief moment to point this out. Last month the White House released the National Security Strategy for this country. I will quote from this strategy: The challenges faced by Ukrainian and European dependence on Russian energy supplies puts a spotlight on the need for an expanded view of energy security that recognizes the collective needs of the United States, our allies, and trading partners as well as the importance of competitive energy markets. Therefore, we must promote diversification of energy sources, fuels, and routes, as well as encourage indigenous sources of energy supply. Greater energy security and independence within the Americas is central to these efforts. Well, Canada is within the Americas. The President's veto of the Keystone XL Pipeline contradicts his own national security policy. It contradicts his own energy policy that is outlined by the Council of Economic Advisers in their economic report when they say ``the extent to which a country's economy is exposed to energy supply risks--specifically, international energy supply disruptions that lead to product unavailability, price shocks, or both. The President is contradicting himself at every turn, whether it is his Climate Action Plan that he has introduced, vetoing his own--this veto contradicts his own climate policy. We have an opportunity to boost our economy, to help our allies, to increase our energy security, to be an environmental leader, and to lead on energy. This President's veto denies us that. It is a failure of leadership. I recommend that all of us on both sides of the aisle come together to override this veto.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, rise today to introduce legislation that I have cosponsored for a number of years, that will remedy the problems that have been created by this administration's decision to apply the, Inventoried, Roadless Area Conservation Rule to Alaska, especially in Southeast Alaska's Tongass National Forest, and also in the Chugach National Forest of Southcentral Alaska. I am joined today in introducing that bill by my Alaska colleague Senator Dan Sullivan. Back in 2001 the Clinton administration promulgated the Nationwide Inventoried Area Roadless Conservation Rule. Initially the rule did not cover the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which has been the subject of congressional review and special legislation twice in the past 35 years, first in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which reduced the allowable timber harvest in the 16.9-million acre forest from nearly 1 billion board feet a year to a 450 million board foot harvest level, and later by the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, which further reduced the allowable harvest level to 267 million board feet annually. Congress in 1980 created 5.75 million acres of wilderness by creating 14 wilderness areas in the forest, and in 1990 further reduced the lands available for timber harvesting by creating five additional wilderness areas totaling 296,000 acres and 12 Land Unit Designation 11 areas of 727,700 acres that increased the protected acreages in the Tongass to more than 6.4 million. With the passage of the Sealaska lands bill in 2014, total protected acreage in the Tongass has risen to 6.55 million acres. Lands classified for potential timber production have been drastically reduced since the 1980 Act's passage. In the Tongass Land Management Plans, TLPM, crafted after ANILCA's passage, 13.3 million acres of the forest, nearly 80 percent, have been restricted from resource development. Of the 9.5 million acres of commercial timber lands in the Tongass only 3.4 million were open for development after 1980 and only 800,000, including previously logged areas, were permitted/planned for harvest over a prospective 100-year timber rotation, harvesting limited to about 8,250 acres a year--4 percent of the total land area. That included about 400,000 ``new'' acres of new timber lands over a century on top of the roughly 425,000 acres harvested since modern timber activities in Southeast Alaska began in the 1950's and allowed in part for reentry in the future. Since passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and since imposition of the Inventoried Roadless Rule, potential harvesting has dropped even further. The 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Tongass include 9.5 million acres, 57 percent of the entire forest, while 5.4 million acres, 99 percent, of the Chugach National Forest in Southcentral Alaska were placed in protected status. In the Tongass 7.4 million acres are in the highest protected status of inventoried roadless meaning that not only can't roads be built for forestry, but that access is not allowed for other uses such as renewable energy development. Overall, between the Inventoried Roadless Rule and other land protections, fewer than 176,000 acres of ``new'' timber lands are planned for harvest over the next 100 years, cutting the allowable sale quantity below 267 mmbf. The drop in employment in the region has been chilling. According to the Forest Service, total direct timber sector employment fell from a high of 3,543 average annual employees in 1990 to 402 in 2007, Tongass employment in logging and sawmilling has declined from 409 in 2001, the first year of the roadless rule, to 114 by 2007. The drop off in timber activity would actually be higher except the State of Alaska, to the degree that it could, increased State timber sales. In 2002, for example, 73 percent of all timber cut in Southeast came from Federal forest lands, while by 2007 the percentage stood at barely half coming from Federal lands. Without changes in the roadless rule to allow some additional timber harvest areas and other energy and mineral development, no more than about 3 percent of the Nation's largest forest will ever be developed and Southeast Alaska will be forced to depend solely on fisheries and tourism as economic engines, potentially returning the region to its impoverished economy of the 1940s. Today I am introducing legislation to simply exempt Alaska from the Inventoried Roadless Rule. That will not permit economic development on all 9.5 million acres of IRA lands in the Tongass or many of the lands in the Chugach. They will continue to be protected by the terms of the national forest plans for both forests. What it will do is permit land planners the flexibility to propose more rational land planning decisions in the future. It would allow the Forest Service the ability to permit road and electric transmission lines to be placed to tap the region's huge hydroelectric potential--there being 300 megawatts of hydropower available from known sites, if distribution lines can be built at reasonable cost to get the power to markets. Adding some timber back to the timber base would allow a timber industry to again help the region's economy. But that would not harm the environment and wildlife. Already of the 537,451 acres of productive old-growth, POG, trees left in the Tongass, 437,000 are in permanent conservation areas--81 percent. The roadless rule may make sense in the contiguous states since there are at least some roads and utility lines that cross those States' national forests. In Southeast Alaska, however, there is no transportation network except a marine ferry system, and no permitted electrical transmission system. It simply made no sense in 2001 for the Inventoried Roadless Rules to apply to Alaska. The rule is not needed since by existing plans and regulations, even without IRA's, 96 percent of the Tongass will remain protected. An exemption from the rule will simply allow Alaskans an opportunity to make thoughtful decisions on development in a region 18 times larger than the state of Delaware, but with 1,300 miles of road in the entire region, 1/10 of the road miles of tiny Delaware.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, rise today to introduce legislation that I have cosponsored for a number of years, that will remedy the problems that have been created by this administration's decision to apply the, Inventoried, Roadless Area Conservation Rule to Alaska, especially in Southeast Alaska's Tongass National Forest, and also in the Chugach National Forest of Southcentral Alaska. I am joined today in introducing that bill by my Alaska colleague Senator Dan Sullivan. Back in 2001 the Clinton administration promulgated the Nationwide Inventoried Area Roadless Conservation Rule. Initially the rule did not cover the Tongass National Forest in Alaska, which has been the subject of congressional review and special legislation twice in the past 35 years, first in the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which reduced the allowable timber harvest in the 16.9-million acre forest from nearly 1 billion board feet a year to a 450 million board foot harvest level, and later by the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990, which further reduced the allowable harvest level to 267 million board feet annually. Congress in 1980 created 5.75 million acres of wilderness by creating 14 wilderness areas in the forest, and in 1990 further reduced the lands available for timber harvesting by creating five additional wilderness areas totaling 296,000 acres and 12 Land Unit Designation 11 areas of 727,700 acres that increased the protected acreages in the Tongass to more than 6.4 million. With the passage of the Sealaska lands bill in 2014, total protected acreage in the Tongass has risen to 6.55 million acres. Lands classified for potential timber production have been drastically reduced since the 1980 Act's passage. In the Tongass Land Management Plans, TLPM, crafted after ANILCA's passage, 13.3 million acres of the forest, nearly 80 percent, have been restricted from resource development. Of the 9.5 million acres of commercial timber lands in the Tongass only 3.4 million were open for development after 1980 and only 800,000, including previously logged areas, were permitted/planned for harvest over a prospective 100-year timber rotation, harvesting limited to about 8,250 acres a year--4 percent of the total land area. That included about 400,000 ``new'' acres of new timber lands over a century on top of the roughly 425,000 acres harvested since modern timber activities in Southeast Alaska began in the 1950's and allowed in part for reentry in the future. Since passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act, and since imposition of the Inventoried Roadless Rule, potential harvesting has dropped even further. The 2001 Inventoried Roadless Areas in the Tongass include 9.5 million acres, 57 percent of the entire forest, while 5.4 million acres, 99 percent, of the Chugach National Forest in Southcentral Alaska were placed in protected status. In the Tongass 7.4 million acres are in the highest protected status of inventoried roadless meaning that not only can't roads be built for forestry, but that access is not allowed for other uses such as renewable energy development. Overall, between the Inventoried Roadless Rule and other land protections, fewer than 176,000 acres of ``new'' timber lands are planned for harvest over the next 100 years, cutting the allowable sale quantity below 267 mmbf. The drop in employment in the region has been chilling. According to the Forest Service, total direct timber sector employment fell from a high of 3,543 average annual employees in 1990 to 402 in 2007, Tongass employment in logging and sawmilling has declined from 409 in 2001, the first year of the roadless rule, to 114 by 2007. The drop off in timber activity would actually be higher except the State of Alaska, to the degree that it could, increased State timber sales. In 2002, for example, 73 percent of all timber cut in Southeast came from Federal forest lands, while by 2007 the percentage stood at barely half coming from Federal lands. Without changes in the roadless rule to allow some additional timber harvest areas and other energy and mineral development, no more than about 3 percent of the Nation's largest forest will ever be developed and Southeast Alaska will be forced to depend solely on fisheries and tourism as economic engines, potentially returning the region to its impoverished economy of the 1940s. Today I am introducing legislation to simply exempt Alaska from the Inventoried Roadless Rule. That will not permit economic development on all 9.5 million acres of IRA lands in the Tongass or many of the lands in the Chugach. They will continue to be protected by the terms of the national forest plans for both forests. What it will do is permit land planners the flexibility to propose more rational land planning decisions in the future. It would allow the Forest Service the ability to permit road and electric transmission lines to be placed to tap the region's huge hydroelectric potential--there being 300 megawatts of hydropower available from known sites, if distribution lines can be built at reasonable cost to get the power to markets. Adding some timber back to the timber base would allow a timber industry to again help the region's economy. But that would not harm the environment and wildlife. Already of the 537,451 acres of productive old-growth, POG, trees left in the Tongass, 437,000 are in permanent conservation areas--81 percent. The roadless rule may make sense in the contiguous states since there are at least some roads and utility lines that cross those States' national forests. In Southeast Alaska, however, there is no transportation network except a marine ferry system, and no permitted electrical transmission system. It simply made no sense in 2001 for the Inventoried Roadless Rules to apply to Alaska. The rule is not needed since by existing plans and regulations, even without IRA's, 96 percent of the Tongass will remain protected. An exemption from the rule will simply allow Alaskans an opportunity to make thoughtful decisions on development in a region 18 times larger than the state of Delaware, but with 1,300 miles of road in the entire region, 1/10 of the road miles of tiny Delaware.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, in accordance with rule XXVI, paragraph 2, of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I submit the rules governing the procedure of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources for publication in the Congressional Record. I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague Senator Sullivan, to introduce a bill to open a small portion of the arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing this bill today because I strongly believe that whether oil and gas exploration should be conducted on a small portion of the coastal plain is a question for Congress; not one for unilateral action by Federal agency. The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. When Prudhoe Bay, the largest conventional oil field in North America and one of the 20 largest fields in the world was discovered in 1968, estimates at the time projected 9.6 billion barrels of oil would be recovered. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. With potential comparable to Prudhoe Bay, the coastal plain represents an opportunity to ensure the American energy renaissance continues and our domestic energy security is bolstered for decades to come. Alaska used to provide that foundation for our country. At its peak in 1988, Alaska provided nearly 25 percent of America's domestic production. Today it represents barely 6 percent. Importantly, despite the Federal government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The people of Alaska are doing everything they can to contribute to America's energy security by promoting production from State lands. In the past two years the State of Alaska has passed oil tax reforms, improved State permitting and provided more than $1.2 billion in State tax credits to support the exploration and development of oil from State lands. The only production on federal estate comes from the Northstar project, a small man-made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea. For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet as the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge the record. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands stalled or outright blocked, Alaska faces a tipping point. The Trans- Alaska Pipeline System, an engineering marvel that has served as one of America's great energy arteries for decades is facing more and more challenges from lower throughput. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve Alaska depend on the long-term viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The bill I introduce today, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than \1/6\ the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the Coastal Plain is the quickest, most environmentally sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States. The bill includes strong protection for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development would not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. The bill also ensures these protections are strong because it provides for strict consultation with the residents of the coastal plain; the City of Kaktovik as well as the regional government, the North Slope Borough. The bill also provides important impact aid to the local communities from the State's share of revenues due to it under the Mineral Leasing Act and Alaska's Statehood Act. As we continue to struggle with long-term unemployment, and an unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on 2 state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way and with the meaningful impact of the local people. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Consistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the state of Alaska recently submitted a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct minimal exploration activities in the coastal plain and was rejected. Despite the fact that the State was in court presenting its case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an updated Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that puts areas like the Coastal Plain in de facto wilderness status as Wilderness Study Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that they did not consider an oil and gas alternative, as requested by the State of Alaska, North Slope Borough, various Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations as well as a broad spectrum of Alaskans, because they stated that the decision to conduct oil and gas development is one for Congress to make. I hope this Congress will rise to that challenge and have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing a small portion of the coastal plain. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole and one more step we can take to push back against the unilateral executive actions that are threatening our economy and very system of government. With this in mind, Senator Sullivan and I will work to educate members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. We will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us and help secure our energy security for decades to come.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise, along with my colleague Senator Sullivan, to introduce a bill to open a small portion of the arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing this bill today because I strongly believe that whether oil and gas exploration should be conducted on a small portion of the coastal plain is a question for Congress; not one for unilateral action by Federal agency. The 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie within the non-wilderness portion of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are North America's greatest prospect for conventional onshore production. When Prudhoe Bay, the largest conventional oil field in North America and one of the 20 largest fields in the world was discovered in 1968, estimates at the time projected 9.6 billion barrels of oil would be recovered. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain has a mean likelihood of containing 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 8.6 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, as well as a reasonable chance of economically producing 16 billion barrels of oil. With potential comparable to Prudhoe Bay, the coastal plain represents an opportunity to ensure the American energy renaissance continues and our domestic energy security is bolstered for decades to come. Alaska used to provide that foundation for our country. At its peak in 1988, Alaska provided nearly 25 percent of America's domestic production. Today it represents barely 6 percent. Importantly, despite the Federal government owning almost 70 percent of the lands in Alaska, almost all of our oil production is from State lands. The people of Alaska are doing everything they can to contribute to America's energy security by promoting production from State lands. In the past two years the State of Alaska has passed oil tax reforms, improved State permitting and provided more than $1.2 billion in State tax credits to support the exploration and development of oil from State lands. The only production on federal estate comes from the Northstar project, a small man-made island that straddles state and federal waters in the Beaufort Sea. For more than 30 years, my State has successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that these endeavors are not mutually exclusive, and with advances in technology, the footprint of development projects is only getting smaller. Yet as the Federal level, there is an astonishing refusal to acknowledge the record. With new exploration and development projects on Federal lands stalled or outright blocked, Alaska faces a tipping point. The Trans- Alaska Pipeline System, an engineering marvel that has served as one of America's great energy arteries for decades is facing more and more challenges from lower throughput. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production, devastating Alaska's economy and deepening our dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world. Exploration and development in the Arctic offshore and National Petroleum Reserve Alaska depend on the long-term viability of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. The bill I introduce today, would disturb no more than 2,000 acres of the vast coastal plain. To put this in perspective, 2,000 acres is less than \1/6\ the size of the local Dulles Airport, or about \1/10\ of 1 percent of the refuge. Since these areas are less than 60 miles from TAPS, development in the Coastal Plain is the quickest, most environmentally sound way to increase oil production in Alaska and ensure the pipeline will operate well into the future, providing jobs and supporting the economies of both Alaska and the United States. The bill includes strong protection for fish and wildlife, fish and wildlife habitat, subsistence resources, and the environment. Development would not move forward if it would cause significant adverse impacts to the coastal plain. The bill also ensures these protections are strong because it provides for strict consultation with the residents of the coastal plain; the City of Kaktovik as well as the regional government, the North Slope Borough. The bill also provides important impact aid to the local communities from the State's share of revenues due to it under the Mineral Leasing Act and Alaska's Statehood Act. As we continue to struggle with long-term unemployment, and an unsustainable national debt, we need to pursue development opportunities more than ever. The shale oil and gas boom on 2 state and private lands in the Lower 48 has been the shining light as our economy struggles to recover from the recession. My bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally-friendly way and with the meaningful impact of the local people. For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support development of the coastal plain, have been asking permission to explore and develop the resources located there. Consistent with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, the state of Alaska recently submitted a plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct minimal exploration activities in the coastal plain and was rejected. Despite the fact that the State was in court presenting its case, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released an updated Plan for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that puts areas like the Coastal Plain in de facto wilderness status as Wilderness Study Areas. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states that they did not consider an oil and gas alternative, as requested by the State of Alaska, North Slope Borough, various Alaska Native Regional and Village Corporations as well as a broad spectrum of Alaskans, because they stated that the decision to conduct oil and gas development is one for Congress to make. I hope this Congress will rise to that challenge and have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing a small portion of the coastal plain. This is critical to my State and the nation as a whole and one more step we can take to push back against the unilateral executive actions that are threatening our economy and very system of government. With this in mind, Senator Sullivan and I will work to educate members of this chamber about the opportunity we have and the tremendous benefits it would provide. We will show why such development should occur--why it must occur--and how it can benefit all of us and help secure our energy security for decades to come.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today with my friend and colleague from the State of Idaho to speak in support of legislation we have just dropped today; that is, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. I have introduced it today, along with the prime cosponsor, Senator Heinrich from New Mexico. I think it is important to recognize that this bipartisan bill is supported with original cosponsors, including the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Risch, Senator Manchin, Senator Fischer, and Senator Heitkamp, as well as myself and Senator Heinrich. I wish to acknowledge the role of Senator Heinrich in this and his staff for working with us to revise and reintroduce this important bill. I would also like to acknowledge the great work the bipartisan leadership of the Senate's Sportsmen's Caucus has done on this issue, led ably by my friend from Idaho. I think it is important to recognize the groundwork, the leg work that went into the development of this bill and the work the caucus did in doing so. So I thank my colleagues for all of their good, hard work. We are here today to not only announce this reintroduction--because this is now the third Congress we have tried to advance the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act--but also to really kind of re-up the conversation about its importance and really to urge the Senate to come together to pass legislation such as we are talking about today. We have sportsmen all over the country. I come from a big State that is wide open, and people come to Alaska to hunt and to fish. They never want to leave, and that is fine. That is how my husband came to Alaska--it was the lure of sport fishing on the Kenai River. So many of our military are on assignment to Alaska, and they end up staying because of the hunting and fishing and other recreational opportunities Alaska offers. It is not just places such as Alaska and Idaho that offer great outdoors opportunities; it is all over the country, from big cities to small towns, North and South. For so many of us, hunting is a tradition that is passed down from generation to generation. Certainly my family is evidence of that. I think it is important to recognize that while we talk about hunting and fishing as being the best known recreational opportunities, we also include with this legislation enthusiasts who go outside to go boating and so many of the other outdoor activities. We speak often on this floor about jobs and economic opportunities and what they bring to our Nation, the important role they play. Sportsmen and sportswomen really are economic contributors when we think about their role. Back in 2013 there were approximately 37 million people who hunted or fished in America. That is roughly equal to the entire population of the State of California. Those numbers are always on the rise. Again, when we have strong numbers, we also have strong economic impacts. Sports men and women spent roughly $90 billion in 2013. Those numbers have probably risen since then. Those dollars go not only to the gear and equipment, which is what we would expect, but also to the travel industry, to the hospitality industry, and to so many other sectors of the economy. Spending by sports men and women also aids our conservation efforts. Excise taxes on fishing and hunting and shooting equipment, motorboat fuel, as well as the fees for licenses and stamps are all dedicated to State fish and wildlife management and conservation. These folks care deeply about the environment and conservation, and that is why these excise taxes are in place to take care of our natural resources. Since their establishment, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs have contributed over $14.5 billion to conservation. I mentioned Alaska and its role as kind of a magnet for those who like to hunt and fish. In my State alone, we have over 125,000 individuals who engage in hunting every year. It has created more than $439 million in retail sales and $195 million in salaries and wages. In Alaska, we bring in over $53 million to the State and local governments each year. We had a big holiday a year or so ago when Cabela's opened its doors. It was as though we had finally arrived on the scene. All of our sportsmen--hunters and fishermen--were loving it. On the fishing side, when we think about the economic impact in my State, it is even more impressive. Last year over 460,000 people bought fishing licenses to take part in some of the best fishing in the world. It brought about $1.4 billion to Alaska's economy. These are huge contributors to our tax base, to our economy, and they are key to who we are as a State. Our Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015 that we are introducing today builds on the efforts of last year. Last year's bill saw 46 Members of this Chamber coming together to support it. We have taken all of the provisions from the previous bill except for two that were enacted in other legislation and then we have added some additional bipartisan provisions. We have Senator Heinrich's revised HUNT Act. We have a couple of others that are new to the bill. All told, these measures increase access to provide greater opportunities for sports men and women to enjoy our public lands. There are a lot of different components in the bill. I know my colleague from Idaho will speak to several of them. I wish to highlight a couple that I think are important in this discussion. First is a bill I have championed for several years now called the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. It protects recreational hunting and fishing on our BLM and our National Forest Service lands while reaffirming other prior congressional actions enacted to protect hunting and wildlife conservation. So the bill we have introduced--again, this is the same one we have had previously--requires BLM and Forest Service lands to be open to hunting, to recreational fishing, or recreational shooting as a matter of law unless the managing agency acts to close lands to such activity. So it is open unless otherwise closed. Leaving lands open unless closed means that agencies need not take action then to open them up to hunting and fishing. Agencies are still permitted to close or put restrictions on land for a number of purposes, such as resource conservation and public safety. But on the whole this is really an affirmation that sportsmen and sportswomen are welcome on our public lands. Isn't that what our public lands are supposed to be all about, which is being able to access them? The Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act has again been included in this bill. This was introduced previously by Senators Thune and Klobuchar as a standalone bill, but its language is very important to many of us and to nearly all the sportsmen's groups we have heard from. We also have provisions in the bill that deal with some of the efforts to limit ammunition and fishing tackle by some organizations. I think we know that if we can't access, if we can't afford traditional ammunition and fishing tackle, it makes it pretty tough to go out and enjoy these opportunities. We have good pieces in here relating to conservation priorities, including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I again the Sportsmen's Caucus and Senator Heinrich as the prime Democratic lead on this bill. My hope is that we will be able to build this coalition on the floor and get even beyond the number 46, which is what we had last go-around with this legislation. I think we will have good discussion within the committee and here on the Senate floor. My hope is that the third time is going to be the charm for this sportsmen's legislation. It is important to us, it is important to our economy, and it is an issue which I am certainly willing to take aim at. Sorry for the pun. With that, I yield to my friend from Idaho.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am here on the floor today with my friend and colleague from the State of Idaho to speak in support of legislation we have just dropped today; that is, the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. I have introduced it today, along with the prime cosponsor, Senator Heinrich from New Mexico. I think it is important to recognize that this bipartisan bill is supported with original cosponsors, including the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Risch, Senator Manchin, Senator Fischer, and Senator Heitkamp, as well as myself and Senator Heinrich. I wish to acknowledge the role of Senator Heinrich in this and his staff for working with us to revise and reintroduce this important bill. I would also like to acknowledge the great work the bipartisan leadership of the Senate's Sportsmen's Caucus has done on this issue, led ably by my friend from Idaho. I think it is important to recognize the groundwork, the leg work that went into the development of this bill and the work the caucus did in doing so. So I thank my colleagues for all of their good, hard work. We are here today to not only announce this reintroduction--because this is now the third Congress we have tried to advance the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act--but also to really kind of re-up the conversation about its importance and really to urge the Senate to come together to pass legislation such as we are talking about today. We have sportsmen all over the country. I come from a big State that is wide open, and people come to Alaska to hunt and to fish. They never want to leave, and that is fine. That is how my husband came to Alaska--it was the lure of sport fishing on the Kenai River. So many of our military are on assignment to Alaska, and they end up staying because of the hunting and fishing and other recreational opportunities Alaska offers. It is not just places such as Alaska and Idaho that offer great outdoors opportunities; it is all over the country, from big cities to small towns, North and South. For so many of us, hunting is a tradition that is passed down from generation to generation. Certainly my family is evidence of that. I think it is important to recognize that while we talk about hunting and fishing as being the best known recreational opportunities, we also include with this legislation enthusiasts who go outside to go boating and so many of the other outdoor activities. We speak often on this floor about jobs and economic opportunities and what they bring to our Nation, the important role they play. Sportsmen and sportswomen really are economic contributors when we think about their role. Back in 2013 there were approximately 37 million people who hunted or fished in America. That is roughly equal to the entire population of the State of California. Those numbers are always on the rise. Again, when we have strong numbers, we also have strong economic impacts. Sports men and women spent roughly $90 billion in 2013. Those numbers have probably risen since then. Those dollars go not only to the gear and equipment, which is what we would expect, but also to the travel industry, to the hospitality industry, and to so many other sectors of the economy. Spending by sports men and women also aids our conservation efforts. Excise taxes on fishing and hunting and shooting equipment, motorboat fuel, as well as the fees for licenses and stamps are all dedicated to State fish and wildlife management and conservation. These folks care deeply about the environment and conservation, and that is why these excise taxes are in place to take care of our natural resources. Since their establishment, the Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Programs have contributed over $14.5 billion to conservation. I mentioned Alaska and its role as kind of a magnet for those who like to hunt and fish. In my State alone, we have over 125,000 individuals who engage in hunting every year. It has created more than $439 million in retail sales and $195 million in salaries and wages. In Alaska, we bring in over $53 million to the State and local governments each year. We had a big holiday a year or so ago when Cabela's opened its doors. It was as though we had finally arrived on the scene. All of our sportsmen--hunters and fishermen--were loving it. On the fishing side, when we think about the economic impact in my State, it is even more impressive. Last year over 460,000 people bought fishing licenses to take part in some of the best fishing in the world. It brought about $1.4 billion to Alaska's economy. These are huge contributors to our tax base, to our economy, and they are key to who we are as a State. Our Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015 that we are introducing today builds on the efforts of last year. Last year's bill saw 46 Members of this Chamber coming together to support it. We have taken all of the provisions from the previous bill except for two that were enacted in other legislation and then we have added some additional bipartisan provisions. We have Senator Heinrich's revised HUNT Act. We have a couple of others that are new to the bill. All told, these measures increase access to provide greater opportunities for sports men and women to enjoy our public lands. There are a lot of different components in the bill. I know my colleague from Idaho will speak to several of them. I wish to highlight a couple that I think are important in this discussion. First is a bill I have championed for several years now called the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. It protects recreational hunting and fishing on our BLM and our National Forest Service lands while reaffirming other prior congressional actions enacted to protect hunting and wildlife conservation. So the bill we have introduced--again, this is the same one we have had previously--requires BLM and Forest Service lands to be open to hunting, to recreational fishing, or recreational shooting as a matter of law unless the managing agency acts to close lands to such activity. So it is open unless otherwise closed. Leaving lands open unless closed means that agencies need not take action then to open them up to hunting and fishing. Agencies are still permitted to close or put restrictions on land for a number of purposes, such as resource conservation and public safety. But on the whole this is really an affirmation that sportsmen and sportswomen are welcome on our public lands. Isn't that what our public lands are supposed to be all about, which is being able to access them? The Hunting, Fishing, and Recreational Shooting Protection Act has again been included in this bill. This was introduced previously by Senators Thune and Klobuchar as a standalone bill, but its language is very important to many of us and to nearly all the sportsmen's groups we have heard from. We also have provisions in the bill that deal with some of the efforts to limit ammunition and fishing tackle by some organizations. I think we know that if we can't access, if we can't afford traditional ammunition and fishing tackle, it makes it pretty tough to go out and enjoy these opportunities. We have good pieces in here relating to conservation priorities, including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. I again the Sportsmen's Caucus and Senator Heinrich as the prime Democratic lead on this bill. My hope is that we will be able to build this coalition on the floor and get even beyond the number 46, which is what we had last go-around with this legislation. I think we will have good discussion within the committee and here on the Senate floor. My hope is that the third time is going to be the charm for this sportsmen's legislation. It is important to us, it is important to our economy, and it is an issue which I am certainly willing to take aim at. Sorry for the pun. With that, I yield to my friend from Idaho.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Just for Members' information, we will be prepared very shortly to commence votes. The good news for Members is the list of amendments that we had scheduled prior to the lunchtime has actually been winnowed down somewhat. Some Members, such as we have just seen from the Senator from Louisiana, have chosen to withdraw. We may be in a position to take some by voice. We will be having votes commencing here very quickly. But the good news is there will be fewer than there were when we started out this morning.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, this amendment is an issue that Congress has considered many times over the past 16 years, but we declined to impose a renewable electricity standard. We called it several different names. We called it a renewable portfolio standard. Then it moved to renewable electricity standard. It was later rebranded the clean energy standard. Now it is back to the RES. But this latest proposal that 25 percent of electricity supplied by a retail provider be generated by certain renewable resources by 2025 is really no different than the EPA's move to impose a 30-percent reduction in greenhouse gases from existing powerplants by 2030 under this proposed CPP regulation. I would encourage Members to oppose this amendment. Further, I would note to colleagues that we are very close to finishing up these amendments. If we move quickly, if we stay on the floor and stick to 10-minute votes, we can finish them all before lunch. I think that would be good, but it is going to require the cooperation of all Members. With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I would suggest that legislative proposals such as reauthorizing the LWCF should be considered under regular order, beginning with hearings in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Obviously, this is an issue in which many of us are interested. We have just had a measure before this which spoke to some of the proposed policy changes that might be considered. So whether we are seeking to reauthorize permanently or considering different set-asides of funds that come in for different programs, I would like to think we could do it through regular order. But I certainly understand where the Senator from North Carolina is coming from, and I look forward to working with him.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I believe Senator Daines is still in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee so I will attempt to speak on his behalf in support of his amendment. Reauthorizing the LWCF is something that I have said we plan to take up in the energy committee. We are going to make it a priority. But I agree the sense-of-the-Senate, in order to ensure that this program can be an effective tool for management structural improvements to the program, is going to be needed. For example, I know the LWCF has been used to acquire inholdings in existing national parks, our national forests, and wildlife refuges. Acquiring inholdings can improve management. We should do more of these kinds of targeted land acquisitions. Another structural change I know some are interested in making is setting aside some of the LWCF funding to address the maintenance backlog facing our Federal land management agencies. We have combined maintenance backlogs, as much as $22 billion, according to CRS reports. We have issues. We have to do that. I will support the Daines amendment.