Jim Risch

This legislation is important to me, personally.

We think we have got this right now. It has been kicking around for a long time, and we think we are going to get that vote on the floor that we all so desperately want.

Conservation is critically important to hunters, anglers, boaters and shooters.

I think in this town we'd love to see more of that, and that's a great start.

We are the original conservationists as sportsmen and women.

Thank you, gentlemen, for leading this large caucus in the U.S. Senate.

Let's make sure that public really means public, and that multiple use really means multiple use.

We are not only going to push hard, we are going to deliver on this sportsmen's bill.

If we do not get a good agreement, there should be no agreement.

Each of us that signed that is an elected Member of the United States Senate, and as such is a member of the first branch of this government.

This is a treaty that is being negotiated.

Chief Tidwell, thanks so much for your service. We really appreciate it.

I was shocked to learn when I came here that Congress overrules the laws of nature, and that falling water is not a renewable resource.

I really appreciate the fact that you understand that you have got two agencies that we really need to bring together.

I think we should all be pulling a wagon in the same direction on that.

No one wants to spend money on it, but because of the world the way it is today, we have to.

It is important to all of us, and I think everybody is working in good faith to try to get this done.

I rise today also in support of the Bipartisan Sportsmen's Act of 2015. I am honored to be here today with Senator Murkowski. Idahoans and Alaskans have a lot in common when it comes to outdoor sporting activities, including hunting and…

We had them right where we want them.

How can you do that with a contract that every word is important?

Yes, I think this is soft stuff.

I think I was disappointed that 10 years was really the baseline, not 15 to 20.

I personally opposed the Iran deal. I did not believe it would ultimately prevent the regime from developing a nuclear weapon and would instead embolden the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, while diminishing our leverage.

I think it is tremendously soft stuff, and we are going to keep getting the exact same thing out of Iran until we toughen up.

I think it is really a sign of a bad agreement if the only thing you can argue is we can use a military option in 10-15 years from now.