Lisa Murkowski

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I am very pleased that we are at this point after three solid weeks of debate. The Presiding Officer introduced this bill on January 8, 2015, and it is now January 29. After weeks of good, solid debate, we have officially passed our bipartisan bill to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline. This legislation was not only important to pass so we could add more jobs, have energy security, and good trade relationships with our neighbor in Canada, but also we were able to return to what we call regular order in the Chamber. The Senate has been given the title of the world's most deliberative body. I think it is fair to say that in recent years we have not really worn that title very well. We have not been able to engage in the deliberation and debate that I think Members of the Senate and the public at large expect. What we have seen over these past few weeks was a return to regular order where a Member is free to call up an amendment, have it debated, and have it fall or succeed based on a process that has been long established in this Chamber. That is a good thing to see. Boy, did we have our share of ideas. By last count, I believe there were close to 250 amendments that Members had offered from both sides of the aisle. That is a lot of ideas. There was a lot of pent-up demand, if you will, on energy-related legislation. All in all, we voted on just over 40 amendments. I believe the final count was 41 amendments. We made a lot out of the statement that we have surpassed--with just this one bill in 1 month--all of the recorded votes that we had throughout 2014. In fact, we surpassed it with nearly three times more votes than we had in all of 2014. Senator Cantwell and I have been here in the well during this last vote, and we have received thanks from Members who said: Thank you for getting us to this point. We appreciate that. Good job. But I think we all recognize there were some points of very clear tension around here, and that is just part of the process. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed, and we were able to come back together. We were able to get the process moving forward and keep this bipartisan coalition in tact. I will just point out to the Members that with the help of the ranking member on the energy committee--with the exception of one night--we did it all during daylight hours. Not to get real personal around here, but we have gotten into a habit in recent years of not taking up votes until just about the dinnertime hour. I don't know about the rest of you, but when I call the family in for dinner, we kind of expect it is dinnertime. I am pleased that we were able to work with everyone's schedule and move through amendments in a fashion that was reasonable and structured. Yesterday was not exactly convenient with the numbers that we processed, but we did it. So I appreciate the great level of cooperation we have had. It is not easy to start out a new Congress in a new majority as the manager of the first bill brought to the floor, but I had a lot of phenomenal help. I wish to take a brief moment to thank those who have provided counsel and assistance to us. This is kind of like the Academy Awards for the first bill coming through the Senate. I would like to recognize my staff on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee who have done a fabulous job with every part of this process: My staff director, Karen Billups, Pat McCormick, Kellie Donnelly, Colin Hayes, Lucy Murfitt, Tristan Abbey, Kate Williams, Robert Dillon, Chelsea Thompson, Chuck Kleeschulte, Cathy Cahill, Chris Kearney, Mike Pawlowski, Chester Carson, Mike Tadeo, Isaac Edwards, Jason Huffnagle, and Brian Hughes, on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and on my personal staff as well. Our interns on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Samin Peirovi and Will Treadwell, also did a great job assisting my staff, including putting together binders, making sure we had the current amendments and the modifications that were in front of them. So they did a great job as well. I also want to thank the members of the natural resources team in the Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel. These folks are kind of the unsung heroes. These are the ones who helped prepare the more than 240 amendments that were offered to this bill. We never see these folks, but they are churning out amendments as quickly as we can move ideas to them. Gary Endicott, Heather Burnham, Christina Jacquet, Michelle Johnson-Weider, Deanna Edwards, and Heather Lowell. It is absolutely not possible to do what we did in moving this measure through--or any measure--without recognizing the work our floor staff does for us. I wish to thank Laura Dove and the entire cloakroom staff, including Robert Duncan and Chris Tuck. The Parliamentarians and the clerks really worked hard. Also I wish to recognize on the Democratic side of the aisle Gary and--everybody has just done a phenomenal job and we so appreciate it. I truly must say the opportunity to start with this first bill and to be working with my ranking member, Maria Cantwell, on this effort, knowing that she was just getting her staff in line as we moved to this bill--the staff director on the ranking side I don't even think had officially been brought on--and it was full on. They have done extraordinary work, working with us. I want to recognize Angela Becker-Dippmann and Sam Fowler and all the rest of the team because they were extraordinary. I also want to recognize Barbara Boxer and her staff as well. There was so much that needed to be coordinated. I thank my ranking member for her patience, for her partnership, and for really the very good-faith efforts she has made as we have worked to get this bill to a conclusion, and offer a continued gesture of wanting to work together with her. I want her to know that I will be with her this weekend rooting for the Seahawks at the Super Bowl. So yet one more area of her operation, but a grand thanks to my ranking member and my partner on this bill. With that, I thank the Chair and I yield the floor to Senator Cantwell.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, we are just about ready to begin our votes. Again, it was a very productive day processing amendments yesterday, and we have some good provisions included in the bill. We were able to adopt by voice the provision of the Senator from Maine to better coordinate energy retrofitting assistance for schools. That was good for us. I think we have been available to reach agreement on several of the measures that will allow the process to go quickly this morning. I am certainly prepared to yield back any time here so we can commence with the voting, although I want to recognize my ranking member and partner in this weeks-long effort if she wants to make any comments before the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Louisiana. I do think this is an area where those of us from coastal States can sit down together to truly map out a proposal that is fair and equitable, truly taking advantage of the benefits of accessing our offshore resources while recognizing those States that bear the responsibility of these production and development activities should share in some of the benefit there as well. I am looking forward to working with him as well as members of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. At this time I ask unanimous consent that the votes on the Barrasso amendment No. 245 and the Cardin amendment No. 124 occur after the disposition of the Udall amendment No. 77, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect, and there be 2 minutes equally divided before the vote on the Daines amendment.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, as we just heard, the House has sent over legislation they have moved through that body that would allow for export of LNG. As we speak, in the Energy and Natural Resources Committee downstairs, the committee is considering a bipartisan LNG measure. Five Republicans and five Democrats are coming together with an LNG export proposal that they have not only worked with the administration on, but the administration is actually carrying out, without the law being in place. Certainly we are getting to a place with our LNG and our natural gas opportunities where there are good, substantive developments being made in our laws and in how we can provide for not only certainty through the regulatory process-- efficiency, expediency--but assurance to the public--to families, to businesses, to manufacturers--that pricing issues will be addressed and the opportunity for jobs in this country is put first and foremost. So I think there is good news going on today. There is further good news as we begin the glidepath toward passage of the Keystone XL Pipeline. We have had a host of measures come before us in the form of some 35 amendments that we have considered as a body over the course of these several weeks. I think it has been good debate. I think it has been a good process. We are now getting to the final closeout. Amendment No. 80, as Further Modified Some very important issues have been raised in this debate. I wish to thank Senator Vitter for bringing the very important issue of revenue sharing to the attention of the Senate. He offered an amendment that has been before us for consideration. He has been very steadfast in ensuring that there is a continued commitment to America's energy security and increasing offshore energy production. The American energy revolution has provided us with high-paying jobs for millions of workers. It has led to lower gas prices. It has provided a real stimulus to the pocketbooks of just about every American. It is fundamentally changing our role on the international stage, which is so important. The amendment Senator Vitter has offered to the underlying bill, which would increase access to our offshore energy resources and provide revenue sharing for coastal producing States, is a very important one. Again, I thank him for that. One of my top priorities as chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is to help ensure the exploration and the development of Alaska's Outer Continental Shelf--OCS--which holds an estimated 236 billion barrels of offshore oil and 132 trillion cubic feet of offshore natural gas. This is clearly an amazing resource base. It is going to take a while--more than a decade--to develop, but it will provide substantial government revenues for generations to come. With the benefits that come with this resource development, there are also impacts. There will be impacts both to the State of Alaska and to coastal communities. It will require major investment in new infrastructure, whether it be ports or pipelines or roads. That just comes with this kind of resource production. I look forward to working with Senator Vitter to address the revenue sharing not only for my State but for the gulf States and other States that host energy development off of their coastline in legislation that the energy committee will consider later this year. I appreciate the continued support of my colleague from Louisiana and for providing a fair share of the revenue from offshore oil and gas activity to the States that are most affected. His State most clearly has experienced the benefits of offshore activity. I have seen this for myself when I have gone down to visit. He is also working hard to ensure that others enjoy those benefits as well. Again, we are having a great debate over energy policy. We are seeing many good amendments with ideas that could be included in future bills, and I certainly look forward to working on revenue sharing with my colleagues from Louisiana, Senator Vitter and Senator Cassidy, and with other Members of the Senate as we go forward in this Congress. I will now yield to my colleague from Louisiana for any comments he may choose to make.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which has been proposed in the past by the Alaska Congressional Delegation to officially restore the traditional name of the nation's highest peak, currently Mount McKinley, to its traditional Interior Alaska Athabascan name, Denali.' I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan. Since passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 the Alaska Delegation has been trying to change the name of the tallest mountain in North America back to its Alaska name. In 1980 Congress did change the name of the national park and preserve where the mountain is located to Denali National Park and Preserve, from its earlier name of Mt. McKinley National Park. But unfortunately the name of the peak itself continues to refer to a President who never set foot in Alaska. While I have great respect for President William McKinley and great respect for the wonderful State of Ohio where he was born, the peak at 20,230 feet has always been called by Alaska's first Athabascan residents as Denali, meaning ``the high one.'' It is simply fitting in this day and age of greater awareness of Native history that the mountain return to a name that honors its Native ancestry. Already there are a number of towns and institutions named in honor of the 25th President. He has a monument for him at his birthplace in Niles, OH, and another on McKinley Monument Drive where the McKinley National Monument is located, not far from the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, OH. There is McKinley Heights in Ohio. There are more than 20 schools in Ohio named for him. There is a county in New Mexico named after him. There are literally hundreds of streets, libraries and other institutions and businesses named for him nationwide. There is no danger than Americans will not remember and honor the assassinated President. But no official in the territory of Alaska actually named the nation's tallest mountain after the former President. That was done by a prospector William Dickey, who took it upon himself to name the peak in 1896. The Alaska State Place Names Board in 1975 took official state action to rename the peak, restoring its traditional name of Denali. I clearly believe that there is every reason for this Congress to follow Alaskans' desires and the desires of Native Americans and restore the name to the English translation of what it has been called for millennia, on Federal maps and documents. I hope that this Congress will finally agree to this name change.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation which has been proposed in the past by the Alaska Congressional Delegation to officially restore the traditional name of the nation's highest peak, currently Mount McKinley, to its traditional Interior Alaska Athabascan name, Denali.' I am joined in sponsoring this bill by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan. Since passage of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980 the Alaska Delegation has been trying to change the name of the tallest mountain in North America back to its Alaska name. In 1980 Congress did change the name of the national park and preserve where the mountain is located to Denali National Park and Preserve, from its earlier name of Mt. McKinley National Park. But unfortunately the name of the peak itself continues to refer to a President who never set foot in Alaska. While I have great respect for President William McKinley and great respect for the wonderful State of Ohio where he was born, the peak at 20,230 feet has always been called by Alaska's first Athabascan residents as Denali, meaning ``the high one.'' It is simply fitting in this day and age of greater awareness of Native history that the mountain return to a name that honors its Native ancestry. Already there are a number of towns and institutions named in honor of the 25th President. He has a monument for him at his birthplace in Niles, OH, and another on McKinley Monument Drive where the McKinley National Monument is located, not far from the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton, OH. There is McKinley Heights in Ohio. There are more than 20 schools in Ohio named for him. There is a county in New Mexico named after him. There are literally hundreds of streets, libraries and other institutions and businesses named for him nationwide. There is no danger than Americans will not remember and honor the assassinated President. But no official in the territory of Alaska actually named the nation's tallest mountain after the former President. That was done by a prospector William Dickey, who took it upon himself to name the peak in 1896. The Alaska State Place Names Board in 1975 took official state action to rename the peak, restoring its traditional name of Denali. I clearly believe that there is every reason for this Congress to follow Alaskans' desires and the desires of Native Americans and restore the name to the English translation of what it has been called for millennia, on Federal maps and documents. I hope that this Congress will finally agree to this name change.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Kayla Dolan, a staff member on the staff of Senator Tillis, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of this Congress.

Ms. MURKOWSKI

Ms. MURKOWSKI. With that, Mr. President, I again thank Members for their cooperation today and look forward to yet another productive day tomorrow. I yield the floor.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I thank our colleague for his kind comments. We do have one more consent request here very briefly. I ask unanimous consent that the order of votes on the Burr and the Daines amendments be reversed.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Murkowski substitute, as amended, be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate resumes consideration of S. 1 tomorrow, Thursday, January 29, there be 15 minutes equally divided in the usual form and the Senate proceed to vote on the following amendments in the order listed: Barrasso No. 245; Cardin No. 124; Burr No. 92, as modified; Daines No. 246; Vitter No. 80, as further modified with the changes at the desk; Udall No. 77; further, that all amendments on this list be subject to a 60-vote affirmative threshold for adoption and that no second-degrees be in order to any of the pending amendments to this bill. I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes of debate equally divided between each vote and that all votes after the first in this series be 10-minute votes. I further ask that once these amendments have been disposed of, the Senate agree to proceed to the motion to reconsider the failed cloture vote on S. 1; that the motion to reconsider be agreed to and the Senate proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the bill, upon reconsideration. I ask consent that if cloture is invoked on the bill, as amended, all time postcloture be considered expired at 2:30 p.m.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, this amendment is virtually identical to the text of what we saw last year. It was tabled by a vote of 52 to 43. This amendment is not relevant to this debate. It is as unnecessary now as it was the first time we voted on it. To the extent it is legal for a person or a company to make a campaign contribution, Federal and State election laws require public disclosure of those campaign contributions. Any other more general political activities a company or a person may choose to engage in are governed by existing laws and regulations as well. For that reason, I am going to be opposing this amendment for a second time and would encourage my colleagues to do as well.

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

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. I move to reconsider the vote.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, claiming the 1 minute in opposition. As the Senator from New York has described, this would apply to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act to underground ejection of natural gas. Currently the Safe Drinking Water Act expressly prohibits this application. This amendment to add the requirements to the Safe Drinking Water Act is beyond the scope of the immediate Keystone debate. We are debating the approval of a pipeline that is going to carry oil, not gas. If the Senator from New York wants to debate the issues of fracking--most certainly those issues are before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Safe Drinking Water Act--I would welcome a stand- alone bill. We will have those discussions, but on this measure I would oppose and encourage Members to vote against the Gillibrand amendment. I would remind Members we are so close to wrapping up this series of amendments. If we can ask the folks to stick around for these final few and keep to the 10-minute line. I know Senator Feinstein is looking to encourage the women of the Senate to gather for a meal later on, and that would be important for us.

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

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

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I have had an opportunity to speak on this amendment several different times. Effectively, what we are doing is releasing wilderness study areas if within 1 year of receiving the recommendation Congress has not yet designated the study area as wilderness. Effectively, what is happening is designations will come from the administration. Congress is the entity that is to approve them. But in the interim these areas are managed as de facto wilderness. In fact, many areas have been managed as de facto wilderness for decades because the Congress has not acted. So simply, what we do in this amendment is to put a time period. Until the Congress makes a final determination on the wilderness study area, these areas will be determined not to be wilderness and not managed as such. But they are putting a time parameter on that so that they are not managed as wilderness areas indefinitely. I would urge a ``yes'' vote from my colleagues.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank both Senators, and I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold on the Collins amendment be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

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

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Ms. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I had a conversation with our colleague from Delaware, and I told him I think this is an area where we might be able to work together. I had actually introduced an amendment that deals with the adaptation that helps to assist those communities that have been affected by climate. We see that up in the coastline of Alaska. Senator Merkley has an amendment that also deals with adaptation. This is about resilience. I am going to oppose the sense-of-the-Senate at this time because of some of the language. I get a little confused or am not certain we are stating it in the right manner. But I do think this process has been healthy in the sense that by having an opportunity to have amendments come forward, we find out where there might be areas where we can work to develop future initiatives that we all might be able to support on a bipartisan basis. I look forward to working with the Senator from Delaware.

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

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