Floor Statements

Thank you, Mr. President.

I come to the floor this morning to speak on the resolution of disapproval that is before us, but I want to make just a few comments following my colleague, the minority whip.

I am pleased to hear him say that he does look forward to the opportunity for a hearing on Judge Gorsuch and the opportunity for a vote. I think we recognize that we have in front of us an individual who has truly a stellar legal reputation, who has committed himself to the law in a remarkable way. When he was before this Senate for confirmation leading up to the Tenth Circuit, he enjoyed very strong support. I would like to think that on yet further review of this very strong individual, our colleagues will do the due diligence that is necessary as we perform our constitutional role of advise and consent.

There is so much that I will respond to at a later time when I go into more detail about my support for Judge Gorsuch and why I think he is exactly the type of individual we want to see named to the Supreme Court, but the comment has been made, not only by my colleague from Illinois but from others, that somehow or other Judge Gorsuch is for Big Business and not the little guy. It seems that the criticism is based on this viewpoint that courts should not defer to Federal agency interpretations of their own rules, and certainly Big Business is a frequent challenger of government overreach. But, as the Presiding Officer and I both know, so are ordinary Americans--people like John Sturgeon, an Alaskan who took on the Federal Government, took on the agencies, and took on the Park Service because he was told he could not use a hovercraft in an area where he had operated one for decades. John Sturgeon, with the help of a few friends, who did everything from garage sales to fund his litigation, and with just the generosity out of their own pockets, took all the way to the Supreme Court the question of whether or not the Park Service's regulation had exceeded their legal authority.

I happen to believe very strongly that Judge Gorsuch is clearly on the right track here when he questions the deference that courts give to our government agencies. I think most Alaskans would probably agree with us on this point--that when we are talking about the scales of justice, they should not be tipped in favor of our Federal agencies.

Again, I am pleased to hear that the minority whip agrees that a filibuster is not appropriate, is not the way to proceed with this fine nominee. I look forward to learning more about Judge Gorsuch but also to be able to share more of my observations at a later point in time.

Mr. President, I wish to join my colleagues in support of H.J. Res. 38 to disapprove and nullify the Department of Interior's so-called stream protection rule. I wish to begin my comments by thanking Majority Leader McConnell and Senator Capito of West Virginia for sponsoring the Senate version of this resolution. I also wish to note that I am proud to be listed with the Presiding Officer as a cosponsor on this bipartisan measure with 28 colleagues in support.

Now, by name alone, the stream protection rule may sound pretty innocent, pretty well intentioned, but as we have heard and as we will hear throughout this debate, the reality is really different. This regulation will have severe economic impacts. It will cost us jobs. It will cost us revenues as well as affordable energy all across our country.

By way of background, the rule revises longstanding regulations for coal

mining under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, something around here we simply call SMCRA. Now this rule was finalized in December of 2016, and it took effect 2 weeks ago, making more than 400 changes to existing regulations.

Now, 400 is just a number that shows the scope of the changes that the Obama administration has made, but it hardly does justice to the sweeping substance of the changes or the deliberately opaque process that the Obama administration followed to make them.

SMCRA is supposed to be an example of cooperative federalism, and many States have approved programs that allow them to regulate coal mining within their own borders. But beyond that, the law explicitly directs the Federal Government to work with States to engage with them whenever any changes are made. So it requires a high level of cooperation and collaboration.

Contrary to the collaborative mood intended by SMCRA, the Obama administration chose to draft the stream protection rule behind closed doors. It ignored the input and recommendations that were provided by States and other stakeholders. It subverted the law, basically, to meet its own policy objectives, which was to keep the coal in the ground. Ultimately, that is what they wanted to do, and it finalized a rule that will shut down coal mining in several regions in our country, including possibly in Alaska, if it is allowed to stand.

Now, the Obama administration claimed that this rule would cost only $81 million a year and that it did not qualify as what is considered ``economically significant'' as a rule, as a result of that. We will likely hear that number touted by some of the opponents of this resolution and probably some who will claim that we are exaggerating the impact. But I don't think we should forget how the Obama administration determined that the rule was insignificant in the first place.

In January of 2011, the Associated Press obtained documents showing that this rule was projected to eliminate 7,000 direct jobs across the country. So instead of going back and fixing the rule to avoid these potential job losses, what happened? The Department of Interior fired the independent contractor that had made the projection. So, effectively, we have a situation where the Department essentially cooks the books instead of fixing the rule. It then took steps to rebrand the rule, changing the name from the ``stream buffer zone rule'' to the ``stream protection rule'' making the rule sound rather innocuous.

So what the American people should know is that there is a real discrepancy between the economic impacts the Obama administration estimated and what other sources project will happen if the rule is left in place. The projection is that up to 30 percent of the direct jobs in coal mining will be lost, and domestic coal production will fall 29 to 65 percent, with anywhere from $15 billion to $29 billion in lost annual coal resource value and $3.3 billion to $6.5 billion in lost State and Federal revenue.

So with estimates like this, it is no wonder that this rule has drawn such strong bipartisan opposition from Alaska all the way to Appalachia. If you are doubting the statistics--if you are saying, well, I am hearing certain things on one side and others on another-- you need to talk to people out there. We did that. Instead of just taking what the Obama administration said, we went out and we asked people.

Last March, I held a field hearing of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and we held the field hearing up in Fairbanks, AK. Among our witnesses was a woman by the name of Lorali Simon. The occupant of the Chair knows her well. She works for Usibelli Coal Mine, an initially family-owned and operated coal mine--which has been very successful--and provides coal and power to the residents of the Interior, and has been for a long time. Ms. Simon spoke about how coal resources contribute significantly to our State by providing jobs and a reliable energy source.

She explained that coal is the cheapest source of energy in Interior Alaska for everything from the local community to our military bases there and how usability has helped to create business for others like our Alaska railroad. She also highlighted the broader picture about how coal strengthens our national and energy security. So those are all good things, in my book.

But Lorali also testified about the stream protection rule. She said that, if the rule was finalized as it was proposed--which it has been-- it will likely kill all coal development in Alaska. She also noted that Congress passed SMCRA, but during the Obama administration, she said: ``We were seeing unelected federal employees violate legislative intent, which will kill America's coal industry.''

Now, Lorali Simon is not alone in her criticisms or her opposition to this rule. Our Governor in Alaska, an Independent by the name of Governor Bill Walker, recently noted that it was one of the worst of many different actions the Obama administration took to limit resource development in our State of Alaska.

The attorneys general of 14 different States wrote:

The rule would have a disastrous effect on coal miners,

their families, workers in affected industries, and their

communities. It would also impose very significant costs on

American consumers of electricity, while undermining our

Nation's energy supply.

That is pretty tough--not only a disastrous effect on the coal miners but the cost on American consumers of electricity, undermining our Nation's energy supply.

The Interstate Mining Compact Commission described this rule as a ``burdensome and unlawful rule that usurps states' authority as primary regulators of coal mining as intended by Congress under SMCRA'' while also seeking to impose ``an unwarranted top-down, one-size-fits-all approach that does not take into account important regional and ecological differences.''

Then, finally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce noted that the rule ``exceeds the Department's authority, will cause significant economic harm and job losses, and interferes with longstanding and successful state efforts to protect water quality.''

It is very clear to me that this rule simply cannot stand. We have an opportunity here to make sure that is the case. So if you are concerned about families paying more for their heating and their electricity bills, you should support this resolution. If you are worried about job losses due to access restrictions and rising energy costs, you should support this resolution. And, if you care about States' rights, which so many of us do, or overregulation by the Federal Government, which we clearly do, you should support this resolution.

I have noted to a couple of people today that this is a pretty good day to be debating a disapproval resolution under the Congressional Review Act. It is Groundhog Day, and it is exactly what the last 8 years have felt like for anyone who has paid attention to the regulations that were just churned out by the Obama administration. The SPR rule is a perfect place to start as we sort through the major burdens that the last administration imposed through its relentless regulatory actions.

So, again, I wish to thank Leader McConnell and Senator Capito for sponsoring and leading this legislation, and know that I intend to vote for it. I urge my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak on the upcoming motion to proceed to the DeVos nomination for a period of 5 minutes.

Mr. President, I would like to share my thoughts with my colleagues today about the President's nominee to be Secretary of Education. I shared many of these thoughts yesterday with my colleagues on the Senate HELP Committee.

Like my colleague from Maine, this nomination has been a very difficult one for me. It has been very personal. As I mentioned in committee, I take very personally the education of the children in my State. I take very personally the contributions that our educators, our administrators in the schools--all that they provide and the importance that we should all place on the education of America's children.

I don't think it is an overstatement to say that I have struggled with how I will cast my vote on the nomination of Mrs. DeVos. Again, I take very personally the success of Alaska's schools and the success of Alaska's schoolchildren. We have a lot of schools in Alaska, as we all do around the country. My schools, I would challenge you all, are a little bit more diverse than perhaps in other parts of America just because of our geography. We are isolated. Eighty-two percent of the communities are not attached by a road. The communities are small. The schools are smaller.

In our urban centers, what some find unusual is we have more diversity in our populations than most people could understand or even imagine. One of the neighborhoods in my hometown of Anchorage hosts the most ethnically diverse schools in the United States of America. So I have urban schools that have rich diversity, and I have very rural, very remote, extremely remote schools that face challenges when it comes to how we deliver education. So knowing that we have the strongest public school system is a priority for me.

I have spent considerable time one-on-one with Mrs. DeVos before and after the committee hearing. I spent the entirety of the Senate HELP Committee listening carefully to the questions that colleagues put to her. Afterward, I reviewed not only her written responses to me but those that she had responded to other colleagues. I requested further that she provide certain commitments in writing. After speaking with her at length and considering everything that I have learned, I have the following comments to share:

First, I must state that I absolutely believe Betsy DeVos cares deeply for all children. I think we all acknowledge that she could have spent her time, her energy, and her considerable resources on almost anything else that she chose to do. I admire her for choosing to help children to access a better education because she could have chosen to do many other things, but she chose to work for children, and I appreciate that.

Now, as Senators, we are in the position to provide advice and consent on the President's nominee. My view has been--and has been since I came to the U.S. Senate--that under almost all circumstances, a President has the right to have their nominees considered and to receive a full vote by the entire Senate.

So I have gone back, and I have looked at how I, as a Senator, have handled confirmations under President Bush and President Obama. When cloture votes have been called on Cabinet nominees, my practice has been to vote aye. I voted aye twice for Secretary of Defense Hagel. I voted aye for Secretary of Labor Perez, even though I voted against his confirmation in the final vote.

So, Mrs. DeVos.

She has answered thousands of questions that have been put to her. Neither the Office of Government Ethics, the Senate HELP Committee, nor I have found any substantive reason to question Mrs. DeVos's name or reputation, but yet I have heard from thousands--truly thousands of Alaskans who share their concerns about Mrs. DeVos as Secretary of Education. They

have contacted me by phone, by email, in person, and their concerns center--as mine do--on Mrs. DeVos's lack of experience with public education and the lack of knowledge she portrayed in her confirmation hearing.

Alaskans are not satisfied that she would uphold Federal civil rights laws in schools that receive Federal funds. They question her commitment to students with disabilities' rights under IDEA. They fear that the voucher programs that are intended to serve them may actually rob them of the opportunity to benefit from an education in an inclusive environment with their nondisabled peers.

After 8 years of the micromanagement that we have seen from this previous administration, quite honestly, they are very concerned that Mrs. DeVos will force vouchers on Alaska. Now, she has said that she has not. She has committed publicly and to me personally that she will not seek to impose vouchers on our States. She has committed to implementing Federal education laws as they are written and intended, and this is a welcome departure from what we had seen with the two previous Secretaries of Education.

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

Thank you, Mr. President.

She has committed that the focus she will give, not only to Alaska but to all States will not undermine, erode, or ignore public schools and that she will, in fact, work to support our public schools. She has committed to me that she will come to Alaska in order to learn from Alaska's educators, our parents, school board members, and our tribal representatives to see for herself the challenges we face.

I still continue to have concerns. I think Mrs. DeVos has much to learn about our Nation's public schools, how they work and the challenges they face.

I have serious concerns about a nominee to be Secretary of Education who has been so involved in one side of the equation--so immersed in the push for vouchers--that she may be unaware of what actually is successful within the public schools and also what is broken and how to fix them.

Betsy DeVos must show us that she truly understands the children of Alaska and across America, both urban and rural, who are not able to access an alternative choice in education, as in so many of my communities. She must show us that she will work to help the struggling public schools that strive to educate children whose parents are unable to drive them across town to get to a better school. That she will not ignore the homeless students whose main worry is finding somewhere safe to sleep and for whom their public school is truly a refuge. And that she will fight for the children whose parents don't even know how to navigate these educational options.

I believe that my colleagues here in the Senate and the many, many they represent have the right to debate these questions, to air their thoughts and concerns and perspectives about this nomination, and again I believe that any President has the right to expect that we do so.

I conclude my remarks to make clear that my colleagues know firmly that I do not intend to vote, on final passage, to support Mrs. DeVos to be Secretary of Education. I thank the chairman of the committee for working with me and with my colleagues on this matter, but I cannot support this nominee.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources' subcommittee assignments for the 115th Congress be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, Alaskans tend to view our State as a big family, a family whose members come from many places but are united in our love and loyalty for our great land. And like any family, Alaska has been blessed with outstanding sons and daughters, distinguished in their own unique ways.

Today I wish to pay tribute to the memory of one such Alaskan, acclaimed watercolorist Byron Birdsall. Byron's passing on December 4, 2016, just 2 weeks shy of his 79th birthday, leaves a hole not just in the hearts of Alaskans, but in the art world itself. Given the indelible impact that Byron's prolific volume of work has had on Alaskans over the last 41 years, it is all the more impressive, considering that he lived the first half of his life outside the State.

Born in Buckeye, Arizona on December 18, 1937, Byron was raised in the suburbs of Los Angeles. After graduating with a bachelor's degree in history from Seattle Pacific College in 1959, Byron attended Stanford University. Following his 1960 marriage to his beloved Lynn, who succumbed to breast cancer in 1998, the couple set out to travel the world. The couple traveled to Africa to teach English and explored the Pacific, living in American Samoa for a few years. They then returned for a job in Seattle before arriving in Anchorage for a job at an advertising agency, which he soon quit to paint full time.

He recalled that it was 1975, during the pipeline boom that he was painting pictures. ``People started buying them so I quit work and started painting.'' Byron painted Alaska. He later explained to the Anchorage Daily News, ``Alaskans love Alaska. That's what they want to buy.''

Despite his talent in multiple mediums, including portraiture and oils, Byron will likely be best remembered for his prolific work in watercolor and landscapes, and, perhaps rightly so, as many of the pieces and prints so familiar to most Alaskans were in that format. His work is so highly regarded that one of his prints, ``McKinley Moonlight,'' was selected to serve as a background for Alaska's heirloom marriage certificates. As his wife Billie said, Byron was ``inspired by both the scenic beauty of Alaska and its people.''

Alaska Dispatch News writer David James described Byron's landscapes for a recent book Byron completed this year as ``rich with color and detail. His summer scenes explode with flowers, animals and sunlight, while his images of winter, where snow covers the ground and twilight darkens the sky, are alive with elaborate hues and stellar lighting that belie the notion of Alaska as a desolate wasteland for half the year.''

But I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to highlight for the record that Byron's work was not just the beautiful landscapes that Alaskans love so much. Rather, he helped catalog the history of the 49th State. Among the many honors we have as Senators is adorning our offices with artwork that represent our States. In my case, that includes two of Byron's prints proudly hanging in the hallway leading to my office. While the first is one of his traditional moonlit landscapes, the other is ``Anchorage Land Auction, 1915.'' It features a crowd huddled in what was then no more than a tent city near Ship Creek, in what would eventually become downtown Anchorage. Byron's painting reminds me not just of those pioneers who ventured to Alaska with the promise of a new life waiting to be carved out of the wilderness but, despite how far Alaska has come, how much raw potential still remains.

Despite our rich history and heritage, we are a young State, and many of our founding generation has been--and is now--passing from the scene. However, whether through his capturing of the 75th Annual Anchorage Fur Rendezvous Festival or ``Fur Rondy,'' featuring Rondy 10- time champion George Attla racing his sled dog team down 4th Avenue, or in his painting the historic devastation to downtown Anchorage following the 1964 earthquake, Byron was interpreting and memorializing the highs and lows of our history for generations of Alaskans to come.

I can think of no better way to end than with Byron's own words about his life: ``A dream come true. That is what Alaska has given to me. Incredible beauty for subject matter, and a receptive public have combined to allow me to do what I love best, painting all day, every day for more than 41 years.''

On behalf of grateful Alaskans and my fellow Senators, I extend my condolences to Billie and Byron's family. With Byron's passing, Alaska has lost a cultural icon, but his substantial body of work lives on forever.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.

It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one- eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--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. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy deposit in North America.

In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests.

That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and for the Nation's long-term energy security.

America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive.

Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States.

Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as soon as possible.

ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows.

As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, ``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not to?''

I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness-- but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment.

For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.

Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards.

The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all revenues generated.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife.

At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally- friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and energy security that ANWR will produce.

Mr. President, I rise today to once again open a small portion of the Arctic coastal plain, in my home State of Alaska, to oil and gas development. I am introducing the bill because, now more than ever, new production in northern Alaska is vital not only to my state's future, but also to our Nation's energy and economic security.

It has been known for more than nearly 4 decades that the 1.5 million acres of the Arctic coastal plain that lie inside the northern one- eleventh of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are the most prospective lands in North America for a major conventional oil and gas discovery. The U.S. Geological Survey continues to estimate that this part of the coastal plain--which represents just 3 percent of the coastal plain in all of northern Alaska--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. Even the relatively recent major finds in North Dakota's Bakken field and the recent estimates of shale oil in Texas' Wolfcamp formation pale in comparison, as ANWR is likely to hold over three times more conventional oil than any other onshore energy deposit in North America.

In the 1990s, opponents dismissed ANWR's potential and argued that the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was forecast to contain almost as much oil. However, early this decade the U.S. Geological Survey significantly reduced its oil estimates in the 23 million acre reserve. Instead of containing somewhere between the 6.7 to 15 billion barrels as forecast in 2002, the USGS now forecasts a mean of 896 million barrels--a dramatic downward revision. While I still believe oil production must be allowed to proceed in NPRA and that development of satellite fields must be allowed to occur, the revised forecast means that opening a small area on shore to the east on the coastal plain, is now more vital than ever for America's economic and national security interests.

That is especially the case given that President Obama late last year closed almost all of Alaska's outer continental shelf oil and gas deposits to future exploration and development. That makes production of onshore deposits even more vital for Alaska's economic future, and for the Nation's long-term energy security.

America once received more than 10 percent of its daily domestic oil production from fields in Alaska. You heard correctly, production already occurs in Arctic Alaska, and has for nearly 40 years. We have successfully balanced resource development with environmental protection. Alaskans have proven, over and over again, that those endeavors are not mutually exclusive.

Today, however, we face a tipping point. Alaska's North Slope production has declined for years and now accounts for just under 5 percent of the Nation's daily production. It is now forecast to decline further to levels next decade that will threaten the continued operation of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. A closure of TAPS would shut down all northern Alaska oil production. This would devastate Alaska's economy, drag global oil prices even higher, and deepen our energy dependence on unstable petrostates throughout the world, especially once oil shale production peaks in the Lower 48 States.

Anyone who takes the long view on energy policy recognizes that no matter what energy policy our Nation pursues, we will use substantial amounts of oil well into the future. The more of that oil we produce at home, the better off our economy, our trade deficit, our employment levels, and the world's environment will be. To help meet future demand both here in America and throughout the rest of the world, and to help avoid a tremendous price spike in the event of supply disruptions, we need to take steps today to ensure new production is brought online, as soon as possible.

ANWR development will provide huge benefits for the U.S. Treasury. Let's examine this with some simple math. ANWR's mean estimate of over 10 billion barrels, at even today's $50 per barrel price, means that there is half a trillion dollars worth of oil locked up beneath this small area in northern Alaska--and even more when prices rebound. That is half a trillion taxable dollars, and it is difficult to calculate or even fathom the corporate and payoll taxes that this would generate for our treasury. But we do know that there are hundreds of billions of dollars in pure Federal royalties since my bill devotes 50 percent of the value to a Federal share, rather than the 10 percent which current law allows.

As our Nation grapples with a huge budget deficit, nearly $20 trillion in national debt, and a lack of capital to incentivize new energy development, it is folly for America to further delay new onshore oil development from Alaska. The question is no longer, ``Should we drill in ANWR?'' Today, it has become, ``Can we afford not to?''

I understand that no matter what happens, some will remain opposed to development in this region. The outgoing administration has attempted to not only prohibit oil and gas development onshore in the coastal plain--proposing to forever lock the area up into formal wilderness-- but also has proposed to impede oil and even natural gas development from vast portions of NPRA and from the offshore waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This mindset ignores Alaska's economic realities, it ignores the Nation's looming energy challenges, and it ignores the fact that Arctic oil production can proceed without any significant environmental impact. Our development has coexisted productively with polar bears, and will not harm the Porcupine caribou herd or any other form of wildlife on the Arctic coast. The groups who oppose my legislation seem totally oblivious to strides made in directional, extended reach drilling, three- and four-dimensional seismic testing, and new pipeline leak detection technology, all of which permit Alaskan energy development to proceed safely without harm to wildlife or the environment.

For all these reasons, I am reintroducing legislation to open the coastal plain of ANWR to development. At the same time, I am again focusing and narrowing that development so that just 2,000 acres of the 1.5 million acre coastal plain can be physically disturbed by roads, pipelines, wells, buildings or other support facilities. At most, just one-tenth of 1 percent of the refuge's coastal plain would be impacted. For comparison's sake, 2,000 acres is roughly the size of National Airport--compared to an area roughly three times the size of the state of Maryland. It is hardly a blip on the map.

Limiting development to such a small area is important. It will help guarantee--beyond any shadow of doubt--the preservation in a natural state of more than sufficient habitat for caribou, muskoxen, polar bear, and Arctic bird life. My legislation also includes stringent environmental standards.

The bill, named the Alaska Oil and Gas Production Act, AOGPA, which is being cosponsored by my colleague from Alaska, Senator Dan Sullivan, also includes guaranteed finding to mitigate any impacts in the region, and guarantees that the Federal Government will receive half of all revenues generated.

For decades, Alaskans, whom polls show overwhelmingly support ANWR development, have been asking permission to explore and develop oil in the coastal plain. Finally, technology has advanced so that it is possible to develop oil and gas from the coastal plain with little or no impact on the area and its wildlife.

At this time of unsustainable debt, and an unstable global environment, we need to pursue domestic development opportunities more than ever. My ANWR bill offers us a chance to produce more of our own energy, for the good of the American people, in an environmentally- friendly way. I hope this Congress, given the new administration that will soon take office, will have the common sense to allow America to help itself by developing ANWR's substantial resources. This is critical to my state and the Nation as a whole. And with this in mind, I will work to educate the members of this chamber about ANWR. I will show why such development should occur, why it must occur, and how it can benefit our Nation at a time when we need the domestic jobs and energy security that ANWR will produce.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Madam President, this is an amendment Senator Barrasso and Senator Cardin have been working on together. This amendment provides that the Federal Government must consult with the relevant Indian nations before modifying or breaking any trust or treaty obligation. This obligation is already required by Executive order. The Federal Government has been fulfilling its government-to-government consultation responsibilities on the Keystone XL Pipeline project for over 6 years.

I think it is important for colleagues to recognize that this amendment does not create any new law; it is merely an additional guarantee that the Federal Government will live up to its existing obligations to consult with the Indian nations, which is a matter I think we should all be able to agree on.

This is an issue Senator Barrasso has been working on with the Senator from Maryland, and they have indicated that they will accept a voice vote on this amendment.

Amendment No. 245, as Modified

I ask unanimous consent that Barrasso amendment No. 245 be modified with the changes at the desk.

I ask unanimous consent that the 60-vote affirmative threshold be vitiated, and I urge its adoption by voice vote.

Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, we are here today because the Keystone Pipeline border crossing permit has been pending for years. There are no shortcuts at play.

The Booker amendment, drafted as a savings clause, would withhold the approval the bill seeks to confer if there are any new circumstances, new information relevant to environmental concerns. That is the whole point here.

The Keystone administrative record is already thousands of pages long. We have had 6 years of dos and redos. If this amendment is adopted, it begs the question as to whether there will ever be a decision.

I think the obvious strategy of pipeline opponents is to drag out the approval process until everybody gives up on it; everyone walks away. That is certainly not the intent of those of us who support this bipartisan bill. We don't want to see an endless round of further considerations. I think the majority here in the Senate believes it is time to move forward. Let's not have continued delays.

I urge a rejection of this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to the Boxer amendment No. 130.

It is my understanding that Senator Boxer is willing to forgo a rollcall vote, but she would like to speak to her amendment.

I turn to Senator Boxer.

Mr. President, I think it is clear that the good Senator from California and I disagree on whether the Keystone XL Pipeline should proceed. It is apparent that we disagree on the reach of the section on permits as currently in the bill and also, more specifically, the substitute amendment we are discussing.

I am willing to agree that the permits which have already been issued should not be affected. That was the intent of the provision within the substitute. I am going to be voicing my opposition through a loud ``nay'' and would encourage my colleagues to do the same.

With that, I ask for the yeas and nays.

I withdraw my request.

I would suggest that this amendment is designed to further delay this pipeline. It requires that a study be done by all Federal agencies with even a smidgen of review authority to determine whether increased greenhouse gas emissions are likely to contribute to an increase in more extreme weather events. It doesn't specify that the increased greenhouse gases that are under study are only related to the pipeline project. So, for instance, the President's deal to allow an increase in greenhouse gas emissions until 2030--if it caused the impacts listed in this amendment, it would stop the pipeline. That is not what we want to do.

I am going to be urging my colleagues to vote no.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. President, I will be opposing this amendment. I believe it is unnecessary. We already debated and dispensed with this just last week. We voted for the sense of the Senate amendment which called for a loophole within the oilspill liability trust fund to be closed. We set us on a path to work with the House on that. That amendment is now part of this bill.

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his support in making sure we did adopt that. I think most of us believe this loophole should be closed, and I am confident that we will close it well before the Keystone XL Pipeline goes into operation.

We have to remember, my friends, that before any oil flows through this pipeline which can be put into the oilspill liability trust fund, it has to be built. That is what this bill before us does. I want to make sure that we address this with the House. We will do so.

I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to reconsider the vote.

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.

Madam President, I wish to thank the Senator from Washington for her comments. I think it is clear that we have a great deal of work in front of us, but I think we also have a better idea of where some of that common ground may be as a result of the discussions this past month. So I am looking forward to advancing an energy initiative through the committee and, hopefully, through the full process, that will speak to the attributes of affordability, abundance, a clean energy supply, diverse and secure. We have a lot of work to do.

In the comments I made, I thanked a lot of people, but I think it is important to recognize that the Senator from Washington and I would not have been able to do the job we did--managing this bill on the floor, working with other Members, working with staff on the floor and our respective staffs--if there had not been a very clear and a conscious decision that management of what was going to happen on the Senate floor was going to be a little bit different, that there would be an opportunity for debate, and some have described free-wheeling debate. What is free-wheeling debate? I think we have just kind of defined it here with the Keystone XL Pipeline. I don't know whether that is going to be the course for everything going forward, but this was a pledge that the majority leader Senator McConnell made when he became the majority leader. I think we have seen that play out in a process that has been respectful, where at the end of the discussion we can still agree to disagree on the bill itself, but the process that has gotten us through final passage has been one that, again, was respectful and did allow for full and civil discourse. I think that is what the Senate should be all about and I am proud to have been a part of it.

With that, I know my good friend from North Dakota, the prime sponsor of this bill, is waiting to speak and I congratulate him for a phenomenal job. He and his staff--I should have mentioned his staff. Ryan and the others

who have been working behind the Senator from North Dakota have been doing a great job. Senator Hoeven has been articulate, persistent, and really has done a phenomenal job moving this through the process.

I congratulate the Senator from North Dakota, and I yield to him.

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.

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.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 10 a.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a subcommittee hearing entitled, ``Improving the Performance of our Transportation Networks: Stakeholder Perspectives''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD- 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 2 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Employer Wellness Programs: Better Health Outcomes and Lower Costs.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 10 a.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building to continue a hearing entitled ``Attorney General Nomination.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 12 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on January 29, 2015, at 2:30 p.m.