I fully support your efforts.

I'm hopeful that we can do the same with bipartisan solutions that move us forward instead of using controversial riders that hold us back.

the heart of this debate is, is this a clarification or is this yet that overreach, that creep of an agency that so many of us are concerned with.

What they're doing is, they are either putting expectations that, in a place like Alaska or in places in rural America, it's impossible, if not highly unexpected, unanticipated, the costs are so high, you just can't get there from here.

I also appreciate that the budget supports programs important to New Mexico, especially uranium cleanup on Navaho lands.

I think this has to be across agencies, in terms of how we're going to place priority on this.

We must ensure that tribal governments can operate without unnecessary federal interference.

And of course, right now, our concern is, where is the data?

I need to figure out how we build this path forward for not only one icebreaker, but the six that have been recommended in the study that has been done.

I think it's time to channel that innovation into finding solutions to stop and even to begin to reverse the effects of climate change.

The EPA's efforts to regulate existing electric power plants will increase energy prices and negatively impact the economy in Alaska and throughout the United States.

I think we did exactly what the American people have complained we don't do enough of in Washington, we sat down the Republicans, Democrats, advocates, and business.

I would suggest some of the Agency's choices are troubling.

We've got to be working together to resolve them.

I have described the water rule as a potential showstopper for new development in Alaska.

One way to express itself the last time we dealt with this it seemed like, when we created a little bit of mandatory funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund a few years ago it all went to the state side because the westerners did…

Why shouldn't we say to a state like Tennessee that if you want to use your Land and Water Conservation Fund money to acquire more lands have at it?

I believe that it makes sense to shift the Federal focus away from land acquisition, particularly in Western states, toward maintaining and enhancing the accessibility and quality of the resources we have.

I do approach the need for additional Federal purchases with some skepticism, particularly when we are dealing with tough budgetary times.

I strongly believe conservation in the 21st century must include taking care of what we already have, what we choose to conserve first instead of simply pretending that more is always better.

I fully support reauthorizing this Act this year in a way that reflects the changing needs and evolving viewpoints about conservation in the 21st century.

we do need to look at access more and more, and I think that's appropriate.

As we forget the customer service, we are forgetting not only the satisfaction to the veteran.

I am sending out the signals.

I have to tell you, I am concerned.