[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.

                          ____________________