[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 178 (Friday, December 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S7000-S7004]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
GEORGE P. KAZEN FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES COURTHOUSE--
Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I can't help but note
the irony that Senator Boxer, who has done so much to protect special
places in California and around our country and who at the same time
has consistently worked with our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator
Inhofe, on infrastructure--that here they are, after once again coming
together--and everybody practically slaps their forehead: How in the
world can Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe keep coming together on all
of these kinds of issues? It is because they are real legislators. They
are people who don't just throw out press releases, they write
legislation. It is hard. It is a heavy lift.
This bill was not easy. To think that Senator Boxer is here on the
last night of her time in public service, after she has protected all
of these special places and then worked with Senator Inhofe on
infrastructure, and we are still faced with this one last hurdle. I
have seen a lot of ironies in the Senate. This is just about as
dramatic an irony as I have seen.
To me, we have had wonderful statements. My colleague from Oregon
laid out very clearly how this rider would compromise good science.
That is what this is about. Senator Merkley, who knows much more about
these subjects, frankly, than I do, went through the biological
opinions one by one, the key sections. But the bottom line is, it is
compromising good science.
For us in Oregon, you have a water infrastructure bill that is
designed to provide support to places like the beautiful Oregon coast.
My wife and I were married at Haystack Rock, right in front of the
rock, one of the prettiest places on the Oregon coast. Our friend from
Michigan has visited the Oregon coast. This is one of the great
American treasures, the Oregon coast and Haystack Rock.
Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe came up with this terrific bill to
provide support to places such as the Oregon coast, where my wife and I
were married. You have to say: What is a bill that is designed to
provide support for special places really mean when it does not do a
whole lot of good if there is no salmon in the ocean, no fishing
families or fishing boats in the ports, and no fish at the dinner
table? That, colleagues, is what this is really all about.
Now, as far as the infrastructure is concerned, Senator Merkley has
led this in Oregon and has done terrific work to protect the displaced
tribes to ensure that they would have a better quality of life.
I think I have already summed it up. You can't have big-league
quality of life with little-league infrastructure. So this legislation
ensures that we are going to have that kind of infrastructure.
Particularly in rural and coastal Oregon, it would be a huge benefit.
But at a time when the Oregon coastal communities need as much help as
they can get, the provision that my colleagues--Senator Boxer, Senator
Cantwell, and Merkley--have been talking about deals with drought and
really threatens to do just the opposite of providing the help these
communities need.
I think that the provision my colleagues have been talking about in
effect threatens the very viability of the west coast fishing industry
and has literally put so many of the good provisions in this bill at
risk.
Senator Merkley went into a fair amount of detail--and very
eloquently--about the specifics in the drought provisions, so what I
would like to do is just highlight a little bit of what I have heard
from fishing families on the Oregon coast and what they are concerned
about.
Their big concern is that this drought provision basically maximizes
water delivery to agribusiness without adequate safeguards for the
fisheries that depend on that water. By preauthorizing a number of dams
across the entire west coast without additional Congressional
oversight, it basically turns years of policy with respect to dams on
its head.
We know those issues are tough. We have been dealing with them as
westerners for years. But the way we deal with them is collaboratively.
That is how Senator Boxer has managed to protect all of these special
places. That is how she has managed to work with Senator Inhofe to
promote infrastructure at the same time--because we work
collaboratively.
That is sure not the case here because all of these small fisheries
and the fishing families don't feel they have been consulted. They make
a very good case that this really gives the upcoming administration the
authority to determine whether or not salmon is being harmed by
maximizing water delivery to big agribusiness.
Water issues for us in the West are never a walk in the park; I think
we all understand that. I want to commend our other colleague from
California for her hard work. She has put in a tremendous amount of
time. I can tell colleagues that she has spoken with me again and again
on this issue in order to get an agreement on drought that helps
California.
Suffice it to say that Senator Merkley and I know our State is no
stranger to water challenges, if you just think about the amount of
time we spent on the Klamath and the whole host of issues around our
State. But, as I touched on, you have to have everybody at the table.
It has to be collaborative.
This rider we have been discussing is not a product of compromise. A
small west coast industry has been left out of the discussions because
the deck was stacked in favor of these very large agribusinesses. Even
though those hard-working families in small coastal communities know
that a healthy stock of salmon is a lifeline, these stakeholders in the
debate not only got short shrift, their voice really was not heard much
at all.
So I am going to close by way of saying that we don't think this
rider is just about water and agriculture in California; this is going
to put at risk the salmon fishing industry up and down the Pacific
coast. The drought provision, in my view, threatens to undermine
bedrock environment laws like the Endangered Species Act. We have
already touched on the power it would give the new administration to
override critical environmental laws.
But if you are not from the Northwest, we have talked--Senator
Cantwell has described so thoughtfully what the stakes are. They are
enormous for us in the Pacific Northwest. But no matter how many times
the sponsors say they don't think this sets a precedent, I think this
is going to be pointed too often in the days ahead as we go forward in
this present form as an argument for doing the same sort of thing
elsewhere.
I and my northwest colleagues have heard a lot from concerned west
coast fishery groups and coastal business owners over the last few
days. I am very hopeful--I know we are going to vote here in a bit--
that the position my colleagues have outlined against this proposal in
its current form is supported here in the Senate.
I thank my colleague for her terrific work on this. We have been in
public life now a pretty good stretch of time in both the Senate and
the House. This is an area, particularly, where Senator Boxer has shown
something that I think is going to stand the test of time--the ability
to protect special places, the treasures we want our kids and our
grandkids to go to. Scarlett
[[Page S7001]]
Willa Wyden, not 4, is my daughter. We are older parents. She has the
brightest red hair on the planet. She is going to be able to enjoy some
special places because of the work Senator Boxer has done. She has
protected those special places while at the same time defying most of
what the political observers thought was impossible by teaming up with
Senator Inhofe on infrastructure projects that have paid off so
tremendously in terms of jobs and quality of life. So it is possible to
do this right, but this drought provision doesn't do it. I am very
hopeful that the work my colleagues have done will be supported in the
Senate.
I thank my colleague for our years and years of friendship.
Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend so much. Madam President, how much time
remains for us?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am going to speak for a little while
and then reserve the remainder.
I say to Senator Wyden, thank you for your words.
I also wish to explain why it was important to take the time at this
late hour. We are all exhausted. We must make this case, and I will
tell you why--not only for the history books, but for the courthouse.
There is no way that this position is not going to be litigated. That
is the tragedy of it, because as my friends know and has been said by
all of us, when it comes to water, you need to have everybody around
the table.
This provision doesn't do a thing to end the doubt. Let's be clear.
All it does is take water away from the fishermen and give it to
agribusiness. You know, that doesn't help add any water.
My colleague from California who has worked so hard on this has had
some very good language in there about desalinization and about water
recharging, but we have that in the base bill. It is already in the
base bill.
For the first time, Senator Inhofe and I--and, oh, how I will miss
him--made sure we had provisions in the bill that dealt with the
drought. We reauthorized the desal program in the United States of
America. We have a new program to give funds for new technologies.
We have talked about conservation, water recharging, and underground
storage, which my friend Maria talked about. It is in the base bill. So
to call this rider about the drought is a misnomer. It is about killing
off the fishing industry so ag can have more water. That is not doing
anything to help.
I think a lot of what this election was about, as we look at it, was
which candidate really spoke to the hopes and dreams of people who work
every day.
If we really care about the miners, then we vote against the
continuing resolution that turns its back on the miners' widows, and a
lot of us did.
On this, it breaks my heart to say this, but filibustering against my
own bill is ridiculous. It is an out-of-body experience. It is kind of
Shakespearean. I don't know if it is tragedy, comedy, or what, but it
is unbelievable. What a situation. My last moments in the Senate I am
spending against a bill that I carry in my heart. It is a beautiful
bill.
Yet when are we going to stand up against this kind of blackmail. I
don't care whether it comes from a Democrat or a Republican, frankly,
and it was not the work of anyone in the Senate.
I say to my friends on the Republican side: I don't blame you for
this in any way, shape, or form. You did not do this to me, to us, and
to the salmon fisherman. You did not. It was done by a House Member who
represents Big Agriculture, and he did it because he could.
When are we going to stand up and say no?
My colleague Elizabeth Warren was speaking about this, and she said
something to the effect--I am not quoting her exactly right: You take a
beautiful piece of legislation, you add a pile of dirt on it, and then
you stick a little Maraschino cherry on the top--whether it is Flint,
or whatever it is. Then you put people in a horrible position.
So I know this vote may not go the way we want. I have hope that it
would. But I understand why it might not. But when are we going to
stand and say this is wrong? We have a chance to do it tonight and send
a message to everyone. This isn't the way to legislate. This is why
people can't stand Congress, with 17 percent approval. If you ask them,
do you think it is right to add an unrelated rider in the middle of the
night on a bill that has been worked on for 2 years--and, by the way,
it is not even in the jurisdiction, Senator Inhofe, of our committee.
It is in the jurisdiction of the Energy Committee of Senator Murkowski
and Senator Cantwell. It is awful.
I say to everyone who is in a Western State--not just west coast but
Western States, between 11 and 17 States, depending on how you look at
it: The next President of the United States and the one after will have
the ability to say: We are building a dam right over here and cut out
Congress.
Congress has no authority to stop it. It is just incredible. Why
would that be done? Why is there that insult to the Members of Congress
to take that away? We already don't do earmarks. That is a whole other
issue. We are not supposed to anyway. But this is another way to say:
Oh, just give it to the executive branch. They will decide where to put
dams. I don't know about your experience, but we have had proposals in
our State where people wanted to put dams right on an earthquake fault.
It took a series of hearings to bring that point to light.
Now there won't be any hearings because President Trump and whoever
the next President is--because this bill lasts 5 years--will say: You
know what, my business interests think it will be good to build a dam
right over here, and who cares about the consequences.
Look, we know where the people are, the people in my State who really
care. Every single major newspaper, every fishery organization--they
are frightened. Then when they run them out, they will have more water,
and they won't have to fight with them--Big Ag. They will just take the
water. That is not right.
I represent all of the people, and I have said for a long time that
we must resolve these issues together. It is essential. I am going to
call on Senator Murray, but I want to say that every environmental
group in the country opposes this. The League of Conservation Voters is
scoring this, and the Defenders of Wildlife. Trout Unlimited is not a
partisan organization. They are recreational fishermen. They are going:
Wait a minute; this is a disaster. Environmental entrepreneurs,
business people, and very successful business leaders say: Don't do
this.
I am sad. My consolation is that if we lose this, my State is going
to get a lot of provisions. Good for them. I am happy. I worked hard
for it. But you know what, this is wrong.
The reason I wanted to make this record and why I asked my colleagues
to please speak is that I want this record to show up in court. This
definitely is going to wind up in court, and I want them to hear that
Senator Boxer said this was clearly a special interest provision and at
the last minute to simply destroy the fishing industry--the jobs--so
that Big Ag could get what they wanted. This is not right, and it is a
frontal assault on the Endangered Species Act, just overriding every
position. We all know that under the Endangered Species Act, we saved
the American bald eagle, the great sea turtle, and the California
condor--the most magnificent creatures of God. We never would have been
able to save them if we had similar language that said that regardless
of whether the scientists say there are only three or four pairs of
these creatures left, we have decided it is a problem for the economy.
We are going to just not worry about them. We never would have saved
any of these--God's creatures.
We talk a lot here about God, of our commitment to all of humankind
and all of God's creations. We don't have the right to do this. That is
why I wanted the time. It wasn't just to hear myself talk. I already
gave my farewell speech. That was long enough. I already gave my second
speech today. I didn't expect to. Now this is my last one.
Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 10 minutes remaining.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I yield to Senator Murray for 7 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
[[Page S7002]]
Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague.
Madam President, I thank my colleagues from the west coast for the
amazing job of pointing out the egregious nature of this poison pill
amendment that was added to this very critical bill. We are here
tonight after midnight talking about the Water Resources Development
Act. It is a bill that addresses water resource projects and policies
that are very important to our economic development and the
environmental welfare of communities in my State and across the Nation.
I was proud to work closely with my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to craft this bipartisan WRDA bill. I thank the Senator from
California for her tremendous work, listening to all of us,
incorporating our ideas and making sure this reflected all of the needs
of our States. I personally fought for critical provisions in this bill
important to Washington State, making sure our Columbia Basin tribes
have an opportunity to give their descendants--the ancient ones--a
proper burial and a final resting place. I thank my colleague for
putting that in this bill and for keeping our ports competitive, which
is extremely important in the Pacific Northwest in our global maritime
economy, and making sure our workforce is strong. I am proud it
addresses the needs of Flint, MI--and I see my colleagues from Michigan
here tonight--communities that have been dealing with lead in their
drinking water. This was a good bill. It was a good bill.
But as you have heard, at the last minute, a poison pill rider
concerning California water management, in the face of a long-running
drought, turned another bipartisan bill into a very--as you have
heard--contentious, divisive bill. It is a bill that is especially
problematic for our west coast States.
I thank my colleague from Washington, Senator Cantwell, who has
fought diligently, worked hard to get us to where we are, and now has
had to turn against this bill because she knows the long-term
consequences of this. This was a provision that was added very late.
There were no hearings. There was no agreement. It wasn't included in
either the House or Senate versions of this bill, and then there was
this backroom deal that set new precedent and undermined the Endangered
Species Act. It reduces congressional oversight of water projects in
our Western States and could harm our commercial, our recreational, and
our tribal salmon fisheries along the entire west coast.
Environmental and conservation groups and west coast industries are
very opposed to this last-minute backroom deal. I wanted to be here
tonight to stand with my colleagues from the west coast. I will vote
against this bill tonight because of the inclusion of this last-minute
rider, and I urge our colleagues to stand with us as well.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I have listened to the words from the
other side. I have respect for them and their thoughts. I don't agree
with them. But I wish to share a couple of things with the Senate.
First of all, people need to understand what we went through on this
bill. There were 2 years of work. It has been a long, involved time for
all of us. Particularly, we had Mr. Jackson, Mr. Herrgott, Susan
Bodine. These are experts in different areas. She is the water expert.
Charles Brittingham has been crucial to this becoming law; he knows
that end of it. The Corps operations--Charles Brittingham knows more
about the Corps operations and worked tirelessly. These guys worked for
several hours on this thing for many, many weeks. Byron Brown
negotiated the coal ash. The coal ash issue is a huge issue. The States
have been wanting this for a long period of time. It was a compromise,
and everyone was happy with it.
I wish to thank Jennie Wright, Andrew Neely, Andrew Harding, Carter
Vella, Amanda Hall, Devin Barrett, and Joe Brown. And from Senator
Boxer's staff, I don't think we could have gotten this done without the
long hours of Jason Albritton and others from her staff, like Ted
Ilston. The CBO staff came in and they worked very hard on this. Aurora
Swanson was always available. I thank the Senate legislative counsel,
including Deanna Edwards, Maureen Contreni, and Gary Endicott.
We have a lot of people involved in this. I don't want people to
think this is just another bill that came along and it is time for it
to be considered.
We could have done this a long time ago. We weren't quite ready. It
took time for all of us to get together, and I think it is important.
We have heard others talk about one major provision in the bill, and I
wish to address that in a moment, but we should stop and think about
what is in this.
We have 30 new navigation, flood control, and environmental
restoration projects and modify 8 existing projects based on reports
submitted to Congress by the Secretary of the Army. These projects
support our Nation's economic competitiveness and well-being by
deepening nationally significant ports. Everyone here knows which ones
we are talking about.
The bill also includes ecosystem restoration in the Florida
Everglades, which will fix Lake Okeechobee and stop the algae blooms on
the Florida coasts.
The bill includes ongoing flood control and navigation safety in the
Hamilton City project--that is in California--and the Rio de Flag
project in Arizona.
It includes programs that will help small and disadvantaged
communities provide safe drinking water and will help communities
address drinking water emergencies like the one facing the city of
Flint, MI.
The bill includes the Gold King Mine. The people in California, and
certainly Senators Gardner, Bennet, and Udall, spent a lot of time on
it. It is in this bill.
The bill includes the rehabilitation of high hazard potential dams.
This section of the bill authorizes FEMA assistance to States to
rehabilitate the unsafe dams. This is significant. There are 14,724
what they call high hazard potential dams in the United States. That
means that if a dam fails, lives are at stake. The program will prevent
loss of lives. We have talked about this on the floor. That is
significant--14,726.
The WRDA bill is bipartisan and will play a critical role in
addressing problems facing the communities.
I want to make sure everybody understands how long we have been
talking about the Flint, MI, tragedy. We have been talking about it for
a long time. It is in here. The solution is in here. The bill we just
passed, that is an appropriation, but the authorization has to be
there. I would say this: Since I am looking across at the two Senators
from Michigan, I know they are concerned with this. We have to
understand that without this authorization, this bill, there would be
no Flint relief, none whatsoever.
I will yield some time to either of the two Senators from Michigan--
Senator Stabenow--for any comments she wants to make about this. But I
hope she understands, as I yield time that she would be requesting,
that without this bill, there is nothing for Flint.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
Ms. STABENOW. Thank you very much. First, I wish to thank the
chairman of EPW for his very hard work on behalf of the 100,000 people
in the city of Flint and his incredible staff, all of his staff who
have been following this.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a list of all of the staff. I want to make sure they are in the
Record so we can properly thank all of them.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Approps Vice Chair Barbara Mikulski: Chuck Kieffer, Staff
Director, Melissa Zimmerman, Interior Approps; EPW Ranking
Member Barbara Boxer: Bettina Poirier, Staff Director, Jason
Albritton, Senior Advisor; EPW Chair Inhofe: Alex Hergott,
Deputy Staff Director, Susan Bodine, Chief Counsel; Gary
Peters: David Wineburg, LD, Bentley Johnson, LA; Chuck
Schumer: Gerry Petrella; Debbie Stabenow: Matt VanKuiken, Kim
Corbin, Aaron Suntag.
Ms. STABENOW. This is, on the one hand, a very important time where
we finally are saying to the people we have been fighting for, for over
a year: We see you, we hear you, and we are going to be able to get
something done
[[Page S7003]]
so you can turn the faucet on and actually have clean, safe water come
out of the faucet. We all take that for granted.
I have to say it is also bittersweet, though, when I look to my
colleagues, Senator Boxer and Senator Cantwell, who have spent more
time working than anyone else I have worked with, other than working
with Senator Inhofe and his staff. They have worked so hard to help us
get to this point, only to find us in this situation because of what
the House did, where we can't all be unified. It is something I feel
very sad about and regret deeply.
Senator Murkowski and Senator Cantwell were very instrumental in
spending hours and hours early on in the year trying to get something
done as it related to the Energy bill. I regret that the Energy bill is
not part of what is being done by the end of this year. The Democratic
leader, the majority leader, certainly Senator Peters, and I have been
fighting together for a year and beyond in terms of what the people of
Flint need.
But I want to say just one thing to really focus on this. There are
many needs, there are many issues, but there are people whose health is
literally permanently damaged; 9,000 children under the age of 6 who
have been so exposed to lead that they may not have the opportunity to
have a healthy, full life, where they can focus in the future as they
otherwise would, because of developmental concerns. So we have people
who are in a crisis situation. This bill needs to get passed for them.
They have waited and waited while other things have been done the
entire year. It is time for them to stop having to wait.
This is the opportunity for us to actually take an entire city--no
place else in the country is there an entire city that has not been
able to use their water system because of fear of lead poisoning. That
is what is happening in this community. And this bill authorizes
funding to be able to fix that and give them the dignity we all take
for granted of safe drinking water.
Thank you.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, reclaiming my time, let me just say that
I saw the other Senator from Michigan nodding with approval and
agreement.
So this can happen, and that is why it is in here. I have to say to
both Senators from Michigan--and we on this side worked very closely
together to make this happen. That wasn't really easy. But now there is
an agreement, and I think that is a very important part of this.
Let me mention one of the things the Senator from Oregon made some
comments about, about Senator Boxer and me, the things we have done
together, and we have. It does show, though, that we can disagree, but
that doesn't change my feelings about Senator Boxer.
I want to conclude just by saying something that I don't think people
have heard. They talk about the drought provision as if something evil
put that together. Well, the White House put it together. It was
drafted by the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Department
of Commerce.
The savings clause--we have spoken about that. According to the White
House, the savings clause prohibits any Federal agency under any
administration from taking any action that would violate any
environmental law, including the Endangered Species Act and the
biological opinions. Don't take my word for it; just ask Senator
Feinstein. We talked about this on the floor.
This was put together by those Departments, and the savings clause
that is there is strong. And according to them--not to me; I actually
don't know that much about it, but they do because this is their area
of specialty--they say this prevents any type of action.
With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator there California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I love my colleague. However, the White
House strongly opposes this rider, and we have it in clear writing.
They issued that notice. They didn't issue a veto because, as Senator
Stabenow points out, they are torn.
But let's be clear. All we have to do is strip this poison pill and
we have a gorgeous bill that saves Flint, that helps us all, where we
can smile and I can leave here with a really nice lift in my step
rather than leaving here sad that we are threatening a magnificent
historical industry called the fishing industry, where people go out
and work for their families on little boats, some of them big boats. So
what we are saying is we have no choice; we have to swallow this poison
pill and, thank God, help the people of Flint, thank the Lord. God, we
should have done that a long time ago. Oh my Lord, thank you, Jim
Inhofe, for your work on that. Thank you, Debbie and Gary and all the
staff. But now we have a circumstance where we are saying yes to that
and no to our entire industry on the entire west coast. And every
single editorial in California, where--as my friend points out, the
underlying bill--I have never gotten as much for California; I almost
don't want to say it--26 provisions, everything from Lake Tahoe to the
Salton Sea, from the Sacramento River to the San Francisco Bay, to
Orange County, the Inland Empire, Republican parts of my State,
Democratic parts of my State, amazing work that was done.
Yet, as we pass this, which we may because of the situation, I want
everyone here to understand that there are people who are shivering and
shaking because they know the water they need to support their
livelihood is going to be diverted away. This isn't a drought
provision; this is taking water from one group that desperately needs
it to sustain their business--the salmon fishery--and giving it to Big
Agriculture.
We all need to come together. I represent all of those interests,
including urban users and rural users and suburban users and farmers
and the fishery. As my friend Maria Cantwell pointed out when she had a
voice this afternoon--she said: Can you really think about the long-
range issue here, which is if you drive out the salmon fishermen, they
are gone, and then all the water can be taken away, and they won't be
there? It is so sad to do such a thing without a hearing--without a
hearing.
By the way, you can say anything. You can say you are saving
anything. You can say it; it doesn't mean it is true. So let me say for
the court record--because this is going to go to a lawsuit
immediately--if you are listening and you are reading this, you can say
anything. If you send a bomb over to another country and bomb the heck
out of them and they say ``Wait a minute, this is an act of war,'' you
can say ``No, it isn't. We said it wasn't an act of war; we are just
trying to teach you a lesson.'' You can say anything. It is what you do
that matters. And when you have operations language that says you must
use so much water, the maximum water, even though the biological
opinion says that it will destroy the fishery, this is a real problem.
I reserve the remainder of my time.
Mr. INHOFE. I would inquire as to how much time remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma has 9 minutes
remaining; the Senator from California has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. INHOFE. Well, I just consulted with my staff.
I know you believe in this or you wouldn't have said it, but the
administration cannot be opposed to this. As a matter of fact, the
administration drafted this. Everyone liked the underlying bill before
the change was made, but then the Department of--and I will repeat
this.
``Section 4012 includes a savings clause--a savings clause written by
the U.S. Department of Interior and Commerce''--that is the White
House--``that ensures that the entire subtitle must be implemented in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act, or the smelt and salmon
biological opinions.''
So I would just say, in response, they are the ones who drafted that.
Here is a bill that everybody talked about--my friend from California
and myself included and more than half the people. Then, when that
provision was put in by those two departments, all of a sudden it is a
bad bill. That is what I don't understand and I don't agree with. They
are very emphatic in their paper that they wrote, with their opinions,
putting this provision in.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I did not say this was a bad bill. I
said this
[[Page S7004]]
is a beautiful bill with a bad rider dropped on us. That was what I was
talking about, the bill that was placed on top of WRDA. It is awful.
The White House said: We do not support the kinds of proposals that
have been put forward to address the water resource issues in
California right now.
For every major newspaper in my State to come out--I don't think we
ever argue about this because it is a California issue, it is a west
coast issue. If it doesn't bother you, fine, but the bottom line is, a
beautiful bill was hijacked, and it is going to result in the loss of
the fishing industry. I can assure my friend, if you had a proposal--
and you have had some--that threatened your oil industry, you are down
there and I say: Fine, that is your job. It is my job to defend my
fishing industry.
So there is nothing anyone can tell me that changes my mind, even
though this puts me in a tough, tough, tough spot because the rest of
the bill is beautiful and I greatly enjoyed working on it. But I know
this stuff. Every single fishery organization opposes it. It is opposed
strongly. Even Trout Unlimited--you know those folks. They don't get
involved that often. Every single major newspaper opposes it, every
single environmental organization. The White House said: We do not
support the kinds of proposals that have been put forward to address
some of the water resource issues.
Those are the facts. They are not subject to interpretation.
So let's be fair. We have a beautiful bill called WRDA. Standing on
its own, it is one of my proudest accomplishments that I share with my
chairman, but this rider did not belong in it.
Our position is, bring this bill down, strip the rider. You will have
agreement, you will have the bill, and we can all go home happily. I
know that is a very heavy lift, but that is the rationale. I hope when
this thing gets to court--and it will get to court--that our words will
be entered into the court record here. We know what we are talking
about because we are from the West Coast.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
Mrs. BOXER. All right.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, I am about to yield back my time, except
to make one last comment.
Everyone agrees it is a beautiful bill. They talk about the rider,
but the rider came, not from someone else, it came from the Department
of Commerce and the Department of the Interior, and that is the
administration. So they are the ones that, I guess, made it into a bad
bill, but nonetheless it is a good bill. It is one we all want, and I
encourage my colleagues to support it.
Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Cloture Motion
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before
the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to
concur in the House amendment to Calendar No. 65, S. 612, an
act to designate the Federal building and United States
courthouse located at 1300 Victoria Street in Laredo, Texas,
as the ``George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States
Courthouse.''
James M. Inhofe, Roger F. Wicker, Orrin G. Hatch, Johnny
Isakson, John Cornyn, Thad Cochran, Mike Crapo, Pat
Roberts, Bill Cassidy, John Hoeven, John Barrasso, Thom
Tillis, John Boozman, John Thune, Daniel Coats, Marco
Rubio, Mitch McConnell.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 612 shall be brought to a
close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 162 Leg.]
YEAS--69
Alexander
Ayotte
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Burr
Capito
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murphy
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--30
Baldwin
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Durbin
Flake
Gillibrand
Heinrich
Hirono
King
Lee
Markey
McCain
McCaskill
Merkley
Murkowski
Murray
Paul
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Udall
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cotton
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are
30.
Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in
the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
The motion to refer falls.
Under the previous order, all postcloture time is expired.
Motion to Concur with Amendment No. 5144 Withdrawn
Under the previous order, the motion to concur with an amendment is
withdrawn.
Vote on Motion to Concur
Under the previous order, the question occurs on agreeing to the
motion to concur in the House amendment to S. 612.
Mr. RISCH. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator
from Arkansas (Mr. Cotton).
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tillis). Are there any other Senators in
the Chamber desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 21, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]
YEAS--78
Alexander
Ayotte
Baldwin
Barrasso
Bennet
Blumenthal
Blunt
Booker
Boozman
Brown
Burr
Capito
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Cassidy
Coats
Cochran
Collins
Coons
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Cruz
Daines
Donnelly
Enzi
Ernst
Feinstein
Fischer
Franken
Gardner
Graham
Grassley
Hatch
Heinrich
Heitkamp
Heller
Hoeven
Inhofe
Isakson
Johnson
Kaine
King
Kirk
Klobuchar
Lankford
Leahy
Manchin
Markey
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Mikulski
Moran
Murkowski
Murphy
Nelson
Perdue
Peters
Portman
Risch
Roberts
Rounds
Rubio
Schatz
Scott
Shaheen
Stabenow
Sullivan
Tester
Thune
Tillis
Toomey
Udall
Vitter
Warner
Wicker
NAYS--21
Boxer
Cantwell
Durbin
Flake
Gillibrand
Hirono
Lee
McCain
Merkley
Murray
Paul
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Sasse
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Warren
Whitehouse
Wyden
NOT VOTING--1
Cotton
The motion was agreed to.
____________________