U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–691 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 114–232 

BUSINESS MEETING 

MEETING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 20, 2016 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, Chairman 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RYAN JACKSON, Majority Staff Director 

BETTINA POIRIER, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JANUARY 20, 2016 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 4 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 293 

LEGISLATION 

Text of S. 1674, Long Island Sound Restoration and Stewardship Act and 

S. 2143, Starr-Camargo Bridge and GSA Resolutions ...................................... 20 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Fischer .............................. 68 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Booker .............................. 75 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Sullivan ............................ 85 

Text of the amendments No. 1 and 2 to S. 659 offered by Senator Cardin ........ 91 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Merkley ............................ 112 

Text of the amendments No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boozman ............... 127 

Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boxer ...................... 133 

Text of the amendment No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator Vitter ...................... 138 

Text of the amendment No. 2 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boxer ...................... 143 

Text of the amendment S. 659 offered by Senator Crapo .................................... 155 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Markey ............................. 195 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Rounds ............................. 199 

Text of the amendment No. 4 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boxer ...................... 204 

Text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Barrasso ........................... 212 

Text of S. 1024, Great Lakes Retoration Initiative Act of 2016 .......................... 218 

Text of the amendment to S. 1724 offered by Senators Inhofe and Boxer ......... 228 

Text of S. 659, In the Nature of a Substitute ........................................................ 273 

(1) 

BUSINESS MEETING 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 20, 2016 

U.S. SENATE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:32 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. James Inhofe (chairman 

of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Inhofe, Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Capito, Crapo, 

Boozman, Sessions, Fischer, Rounds, Sullivan, Cardin, Merkley, 

Gillibrand, Booker and Markey. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. The meeting will come to order. We are going 

to be sensitive to what it takes for a quorum. It will take a quorum 

of 11 to report legislation and a quorum of 7 needed just for the 

amendments. 

With the new session and competing schedules for our Senators, 

I will place my opening statement in the record and recognize Senator Boxer for her opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

2 


99691.001
3 


99691.002
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Thanks so much, Mr. Chairman. Nice to see everybody. Happy New Year, if I didn’t get a chance to say that. 

I want to thank my Chairman for holding this markup today. 

There are many important bills on the agenda, including the Lake 

Tahoe Bipartisan Restoration Act, which I co-sponsored, and I am 

so pleased the Committee is considering this important legislation. 

I also like a lot of the other bills on the agenda. 

I do have deep concerns about another bill, known as the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act. While there are definitely elements of the 

bill I support, I am disappointed we haven’t made progress in addressing some of the concerns many of my colleagues have raised 

with me. We tried very hard, Mr. Chairman. We worked with your 

staff, but it doesn’t look like there is common ground there. So I 

am very sorry about that, because there are so many amendments 

that we thought we could work on together to improve it. 

And I will speak about both of these bills in more detail. 

On the Lake Tahoe bill, just to say that it is a bill that I support. 

I joined Senators Heller, Feinstein, and Harry Reid in introducing 

it. 

Lake Tahoe, if you haven’t been there, it is one of our most magnificent treasures, and it is emblematic of the natural beauty of 

California; one of the defining characteristics of our State. It is a 

huge tourist attraction. One of the things I always say, when you 

save the environment, you bring tourists, because there is nothing 

that tourists want to see more than God’s creation unspoiled, and 

that is what we have there. The famous crystal clear waters should 

be preserved for our children and our grandchildren. 

Our bill helps ensure that the lake will continue to provide economic, recreational and ecological benefits for generations to come 

by authorizing projects to address invasive species, reduce 

wildfires, restore and maintain the lake’s clarity, and protect 

threatened species and wildlands. 

The bipartisan bill would continue to strengthen efforts begun 

under the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000. So, again, I want 

to thank you so much. 

Now, on the Sportsmen’s bill, known as the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act of 2015, personally, I don’t believe it lives up to its name. 

It does have a provision, such as reauthorization of the North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act, that I strongly support, but 

I have other concerns. And, again, we tried very, very hard to work 

with your staff. It wasn’t like the highway bill or the WRDA bill. 

We just could not find common ground. And I appreciate that. I am 

not complaining about it; I am just sad about it because I think we 

could have made this a really good bill and had a smooth transition 

to the floor. But it is not going to happen. So many groups have 

raised problems with it, including conservation groups, environmental groups, and animal welfare groups. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record all of the letters 

I have received, and emails, against a lot of the provisions in the 

bill. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

5 


99691.003
6 


99691.004
7 


99691.005
8 


99691.006
9 


99691.007
10 


99691.008
11 


99691.009
12 


99691.010
13 


99691.011
14 


99691.012
15 


99691.013
16 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

For example, the bill creates a broad new exemption from the 

Toxic Substances Control Act with no ability to determine whether 

the products exempted are harmful to people. The bill also prevents 

the Corps from implementing common sense restrictions on firearms used on Corps properties, including on infrastructure that the 

Corps has determined is critical to homeland security. Imagine a 

terrorist with a gun, because they do get guns, wandering around 

our lands, our public lands, near dams and near projects that 

could, if it gets in their hands, could just be very, very dangerous. 

So I have offered four amendments to address the most serious 

concerns in the bill. I know Senators Cardin and other Senators 

have their own. I am hopeful we can adopt these. If not, I will have 

to oppose the legislation. 

With that, I would yield back to you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

17 


99691.014
18 


99691.015
19 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

As I said, I will waive my opening statement. 

I see we have exactly 11 people here now, so I would like to go 

ahead and get these three things out of the way that I believe are 

not controversial, but we need to have a quorum to do it. They 

would be S. 1674 and S. 2143. They have no amendments, no opposition. I will entertain a motion to accept them en bloc. Is there a 

second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. They are accepted. 

And then the 32 GSAs, is there a motion to approve the GSA resolutions en bloc? 

Senator BOXER. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Second? Anybody? 

Senator CAPITO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. We accept the resolutions en bloc. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

20 


99691.016
21 


99691.017
22 


99691.018
23 


99691.019
24 


99691.020
25 


99691.021
26 


99691.022
27 


99691.023
28 


99691.024
29 


99691.025
30 


99691.026
31 


99691.027
32 


99691.028
33 


99691.029
34 


99691.030
35 


99691.031
36 


99691.032
37 


99691.033
38 


99691.034
39 


99691.035
40 


99691.036
41 


99691.037
42 


99691.038
43 


99691.039
44 


99691.040
45 


99691.041
46 


99691.042
47 


99691.043
48 


99691.044
49 


99691.045
50 


99691.046
51 


99691.047
52 


99691.048
53 


99691.049
54 


99691.050
55 


99691.051
56 


99691.052
57 


99691.053
58 


99691.054
59 


99691.055
60 


99691.056
61 


99691.057
62 


99691.058
63 


99691.059
64 


99691.060
65 


99691.061
66 

Now, we have several bills, as Senator Boxer said, on the agenda 

and, as usual, after I call up each bill I will ask members to seek 

recognition on the amendments that they might have and allow 

each member to call up their own amendments. We can have committee counsel available at the table to respond to questions that 

may come up. At the conclusion of the member statements and 

questions, we will vote on each amendment and then on whether 

to report each bill. 

Now, what I am going to do is go back and forth, Democrat, Republican. We have 25 amendments on the first bill that we are 

going to bring up, which is the Sportsmen’s bill. So everyone is 

going to be heard. We are going to call for amendments at the conclusion of the explanation of each one. Some members have several 

of them. 

Now, I am aware of two specific conflicts which require Senator 

Fischer to chair the Commerce Committee hearing momentarily. 

Then Senator Booker is going to have a similar problem with the 

same committee. So what I would like to do is recognize Senator 

Fischer to make a statement concerning your amendment to S. 659. 

Then, when the appropriate time comes, Senator Crapo, who is also 

a sponsor of that amendment, will handle it on the floor. 

You are recognized at this time for any comment you would want 

to make. 

Senator BOXER. Just a parliamentary inquiry. Could we make 

sure that Senator Booker gets to offer his amendments? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes. We talked to Senator Booker about 

that. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And my thanks to 

Senator Crapo for offering this very important bipartisan amendment in today’s markup of the Sportsmen’s Act. As vice chair of the 

Sportsmen’s Caucus, I am proud to be an original co-sponsor of the 

amendment, which is identical to S. 1500, the Sensible Environmental Protection Act, that this committee approved on a bipartisan vote last August. 

The significant amendment addresses duplicative permitting of 

pesticides under FIFRA and also the Clean Water Act. This duplicative process creates unnecessary resource burdens and challenges 

for pesticide registrants and users, including private homeowners, 

businesses, ag producers, golf courses, local water authorities, and 

the sportsmen’s community. 

Pesticides are critical for maintaining a healthy and viable environment by eliminating harmful and invasive pests that threaten 

outdoor activities of all kinds. For example, as a result of costly 

compliance regulations and the increase in Clean Water Act liability, many rural communities in this Country, and also small municipalities, are being forced to reduce or cancel their mosquito control programs. This places families at risk for devastating mosquito-borne diseases like West Nile Virus, yellow fever, and malaria. 

Additionally, managers in the national wildlife refuge system 

rely on pesticides to treat waterways for aquatic species that can 

choke waterways, wastewater, and detrimentally impact fish and 

67 

other wildlife. State agencies have testified that these permitting 

requirements offer no additional environmental benefits because 

pesticide applications are already reviewed and regulated through 

a stringent FIFRA approval process. 

Again, this amendment clarifies that NPDES permits should not 

be required for the application of pesticides that are already approved by the EPA and authorized for sale, distribution, or use 

under FIFRA. Pest protection products benefit outdoor recreation 

enthusiasts by protecting and maintaining natural habitats, so I 

ask my colleagues to please support this amendment. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Fischer 

follows:] 

68 


99691.062
69 


99691.063
70 


99691.064
71 


99691.065
72 


99691.066
73 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Booker, you have the same conflict that she does, and if 

you would like to call up your amendment at this time. 

Senator BOXER. Parliamentary inquiry. Will we have a chance to 

respond to Senator Fischer’s? 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes. She is not bringing it up. It will be 

brought up by Senator Crapo. 

Senator BOXER. Fine. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Chairman Inhofe, I want to thank you for being 

gracious this morning with the conflict that Senator Fischer and I 

have. I am her ranking for the subcommittee, so I will be chasing 

after her in a few moments to catch up. And I want to thank you 

for just being gracious in general about the amendment that I have 

before me, and obviously rank the Ranking Member, Senator 

Boxer, as well. 

I would like to discuss Booker Amendment No. 1, which would 

limit the use of body-gripping traps in the natural wildlife refuge 

system. Leghold traps have been banned in 90 countries; yet in the 

United States not only are these cruel traps not banned, they are 

currently allowed even on Federal wildlife refuges. Body-gripping 

traps are not just cruel, but they are absolutely indiscriminate. Too 

often the animals that are caught in these traps are not the animals being targeted. 

What types of non-targeted animals are being maimed and killed 

with gruesome routine happenings across our Country by these 

cruel body-gripping traps? Well, here are two illustrations. Right 

here you see the iconic species of the bald eagle maimed and killed 

in this first picture. At the time the picture was taken, the bald 

eagle was still listed as an endangered species. 

And not just wildlife, but really tragic to many American families 

is that our dogs are regularly caught and killed in these cruel 

traps. Here, tragically, is another example. This beagle here caught 

is named Bella, a 20-month-old hunting dog, who was killed in the 

steel jaw traps that were placed on public lands. 

More and more we are learning about the threat of these traps 

and what they pose to our pets. In just one State where data was 

collected, in Minnesota, there have been 112 dogs caught in these 

traps since 2012. Of these 112 dogs, 23 died and 50 of the dogs that 

were caught in these traps were on public land. 

Just today, on the Internet, a story was posted about an Akita 

named Darby in Montana who was caught for 5 days in a leghold 

trap before being found. Her leg was amputated just yesterday. 

Last May, Director Dan Ashe testified before this Committee as 

to the serious concerns with our bill to ban the use of body-gripping 

traps on wildlife refuges. After the legislative hearing, my office 

worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service to address all of those 

concerns that had been raised to alter this amendment so that it 

worked in coordination with the concerns that Dan Ashe brought. 

So Booker Amendment 1 includes changes requested by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service in order to preserve their discretion to use 

body-gripping traps as a last resort for management purposes, such 

as controlling invasive species in order to protect endangered species. 

74 

Now, look, this is something that we know, 90 countries are banning it. But its history is long. Charles Darwin, in fact, called the 

leghold trap one of the cruelest devices ever invented by man, stating that few men could endure to watch for 5 minutes an animal 

struggling in a trap with a torn limb. Some will wonder how such 

cruelty can be permitted to continue in these days of civilization. 

Charles Darwin said those words in 1863 and I echo them today. 

More than 150 years later, how can we permit such cruelty on our 

wildlife refuges in the United States of America? 

Before I end, I just want to thank, one more time, Senator 

Inhofe. He has been very gracious in working with my office on this 

issue; gracious to me personally, knowing my passion for this issue. 

I want to specifically thank him for introducing Inhofe Amendment 

1, which will take at least a step in the right direction in requiring 

that the Fish and Wildlife Service post notice when the traps are 

being used and collect data on the non-target animals injured and 

killed. 

I am not going to ask for a vote today, as I talked with the 

Chairman. I will withdraw my amendment. But, dear God, I hope 

that we can continue to work together to focus on this issue, along 

with the bill’s sponsors, in order to try to address what I think is 

a level of cruelty that is unbecoming of the greatness of our Nation. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Booker 

follows:] 

75 


99691.067
76 


99691.068
77 


99691.069
78 


99691.070
79 


99691.071
80 


99691.072
81 


99691.073
82 


99691.074
83 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Booker, and thank you for 

the passion that you are addressing here. I know what your concern is; you have expressed it before this Committee, and I will 

look forward to working with you between now and the floor time 

to see if something can be done. Thank you for your cooperation. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Sullivan, you are the other one that 

had a special request, and we would like to recognize you. 

I will remind the members here that the text that we are working with right now on S. 659 is one that we distributed. All the 

changes we made were taking out those provisions that were already addressed in the NDAA, as well as the Consolidated Appropriations Act. Senator Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

your leadership on this bill. I appreciate the bipartisan way in 

which we have been focused on it. 

Mr. Chairman, my amendment that I am introducing this morning would prohibit the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service from implementing a recently proposed rule that preempts State management 

authority that Alaska was actually promised under the terms of 

our statehood compact and further guaranteed under the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA. And, Mr. 

Chairman, one of the reasons I have to leave early is I am going 

to hear a U.S. Supreme Court case on ANILCA that is going to 

start in about 45 minutes, a big, big case for Alaska. 

I think not many folks would dispute the fact that Alaska has 

probably the best management of fish and game of any State, of 

any country in the world. Yet, these proposed regulations, as currently written by the Fish and Wildlife Service, would fundamentally alter not only how we now manage wildlife refuges and the 

fish and wildlife habitats on them, but would also change the relationship of the Fish and Wildlife Service and the individual States 

from one of cooperation, which it should be, to subservience. 

With these new proposed regulations, which I want to emphasize 

to the Committee only focus on Alaska, Federal regs that only focus 

on Alaska, the Fish and Wildlife Service will administratively impose the irregulatory action, a regime that will preempt sciencebased management approved by the Alaska Board of Game in an 

open and public process. This is a perfect example of where an 

agency philosophically disagrees with Federal law, so they bypass 

the will of Congress and seek to regulate policy through their regulations, again, just on one State. Where the agency directors are so 

far removed from the original statutory language is what we refer 

to as Federal overreach at its worst. 

And no matter what anyone says about this regulation, it is not 

about stopping predatory control. The Fish and Wildlife Service 

uses predatory control. The Fish and Wildlife Service uses extensive predatory control and programs to eliminate the Arctic fox, to 

boost the Pacific Black Brant populations on the Yukon Delta Refuge, to kill mountain lions in Arizona to support the bighorn sheep, 

or the barred owl to enhance the survival of the spotted owl. They 

use these methods right now, the Fish and Wildlife Service does. 

This action of the Fish and Wildlife Service is simply about controlling resources in my State. The proposed rule is opposed by the 

84 

State of Alaska. It is proposed by the Alaska delegation, the entire 

congressional delegation; it is opposed by the Association of Fish 

and Wildlife agencies representing the interests of all 50 States, 

and they have expressly opposed this in terms of many, many communities throughout the Country in terms of the hunting and fishing community. So I urge a yes vote on my amendment. 

But I would like to just mention one final thing, Mr. Chairman. 

As I mentioned, this, I believe, is the kind of issue where I would 

urge my colleagues to show deference to what is going on in a single State. So, for example, in my State, Democrats and Republicans, our Governor, who is an Independent, our lieutenant Governor, who is a Democrat, they are all opposed to this reg. And it 

is just one reg, the Federal Government focused solely on Alaska, 

where we have a tremendous record of managing fish and game. 

This would be similar, and I am going to use a few examples, my 

friend and colleague, Senator Boxer, if the Federal Government 

came out with a reg solely focused on the movie industry only in 

California; or, Senator Carper, the Federal Government coming out 

with a reg solely focused on the Delaware chemical industry; or, 

Senator Cardin, the Federal Government solely coming out with a 

reg focusing on Maryland crabs. In that instance I would expect, 

and certainly hope, that when you spoke on the issue, we would 

give you some deference here. 

This is, once again, and I am going to go to the Supreme Court 

here in 30 minutes on another issue where the Federal Government, in regulations, is solely focusing on trying to control my 

State, and I would ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 

a yes vote on an issue which is enormously important to the State 

of Alaska. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Sullivan 

follows:] 

85 


99691.075
86 


99691.076
87 

Senator INHOFE. Questions to Senator Sullivan? Others who 

want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, I do. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. We have a lot of wilderness in our State, we 

have a lot of marine sanctuaries in our State, and we like it when 

we work with the Federal Government to tailor rules and regulations to our specific State. We appreciate it, because if you just do 

it for everybody, you may not answer. 

Now, my understanding of this rule is that it is out for 2 weeks, 

and there is all kinds of time for public hearings. There is all kinds 

of time to weigh in. We are talking about wildlife refuges that are 

not owned by the State of Alaska, but owned and operated by the 

people of America, because we are one Nation under God. We think 

it is very important. And this rule may have to change. You could 

persuade me that maybe they are protecting wolves too much or 

protecting bears too much, it is fine. But the point of a refuge is 

to ensure that we protect species. 

So, you know, I think the proposal aims to more effectively engage the public by broadening notification outreach methods, ensuring consultation with Tribes in the State, and allowing for additional opportunities for the public to provide input. I honestly think 

to do this, I don’t remember really ever doing this in this Committee, stopping a rule before it has even been issued and stopping 

the rulemaking process. Again, it just started 2 weeks ago. The 

comment period just started. I think we ought to let this run its 

course. And the Senator may be able to well influence me to say, 

Barbara, take a look at this, they go too far in protecting the bears. 

I am very open to it. 

But I would just argue this. You know, we see this issue popping 

up all the time, people taking over a Federal area, saying you have 

no right to tell us what to do, etcetera, etcetera. It is a big issue. 

And my answer to it is that this is one Country; that we all prosper 

together, we all do well together when we protect God’s creations; 

and if we overreach as a Government, that is bad, and we should 

pull in. 

So I am hoping the Senator will withdraw this amendment. I 

would hope we could work together. I will work with him if it is 

an overreach and overstep, but I don’t think we should stop this 

in its course. I think it is precedent-setting and I don’t think it is 

right. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, if I may respond very quickly. 

And I appreciate Senator Boxer’s comments, but there is a fundamental issue here. The statehood compact by which Alaska became 

a State, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, 

what we call in Alaska ANILCA, all of these, granted by the Congress, authority for the State to manage our fish and wildlife 

throughout the entire State, Federal and State lands. That is what 

we were granted by Congress. So this is just an attempt through 

regulations to limit State management of the State of Alaska lands, 

State and Federal, and that was what we were promised, that is 

what is in Federal law. 

88 

So I agree with Senator Boxer in that, yes, there is a big principle at stake here: the management of Alaska’s lands, State and 

Federal, which were guaranteed by Congress to be managed by 

State officials is now being usurped by this reg. So I am going to 

move forward and respectfully ask for a vote on my amendment. 

Senator BOXER. If I could respond very briefly. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

I respect that totally. I just want to say that my understanding 

from my legal team here is that there was nothing in those agreements that overrode Federal law to conserve and preserve our wildlife refuges. It may be this thing winds up in the court. I just think 

what we are doing here is not going to fly. It is not going to go. 

The President will veto the thing, if it gets that far, and I think 

that it probably won’t even get that far. I just hope we don’t stop 

rules before they are completed, because you may be satisfied. 

What could happen is as a result of the outpouring of comments, 

it could be they decide to take another crack at it or change it or 

pull back. I just hate to see us act in this way prematurely. 

The Senator may be right in his feelings, and I really respect 

him and like him and the rest, but I do think that we should let 

this run its course first. But that is the last I will say and we will 

be governed by the vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

My feeling is the most compelling argument is the rule that is 

proposed is opposed by the State of Alaska, by the Democrats and 

Republicans there, the delegation, and I would urge a yes vote. 

Do you move your amendment? 

Senator SULLIVAN. I move a vote on Sullivan Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator VITTER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. Let’s go back and repeat that. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

89 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator SULLIVAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chair, the yeas are 11, nays 9. 

Senator INHOFE. And the amendment is agreed to. 

Yes, Senator Cardin. We will go back and forth, as I said in my 

opening remarks, so we will recognize Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. As I explained to the Chairman privately, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is having 

a hearing on Iran, and I am ranking on that committee, so I will 

be going back and forth. 

Mr. Chairman, I filed five amendments. I am going to offer two 

of those amendments at this time, and let me explain that. 

The Cardin Amendment No. 1, which reauthorizes the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act through Fiscal Year 

2020, this has been taken up individually by this Committee and 

has been, I believe, unanimously approved, that deals with the 

neotropical migratory birds that are critically important to our environment. 

Cardin Amendment No. 2 reauthorizes the National Fish and 

Wildlife Foundation. I know this has been approved previously by 

the Committee, and I would urge they be included. 

I would like to speak to Cardin Amendment 3, 4 and 5. I will not 

be offering them, but I think they are important. I bring them up. 

The reason I am not going to be offering them, quite frankly, Mr. 

Chairman, is I don’t believe the votes are here to pass them, and 

our staffs have worked very constructively to try to figure out how 

we can get changes here. 

Amendment 3 would authorize the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

to recover response costs and damages for individuals and entities 

that damage a national wildlife refuge. This is identical to the authority that our National Park Service has and it is basically a 

practical way in which our wildlife refuges can get the responsible 

90 

parties that have caused damage the funds to repair those damages. It has worked in our national park system and it is critically 

important we include that in our refuge under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

I hope we can work this out to the satisfaction of the members 

of this Committee before the bill reaches the floor, because I do 

think it is important that we get this done in this Congress. 

The other two amendments that I am offering deal with some of 

the provisions that are already in the bill that are going to need 

to be addressed if this bill is going to be able to make it enactment 

into law. One would give the Environmental Protection Agency the 

ability to at least investigate the impact of lead ammunition or 

sports fishing equipment and components so that at least we have 

the information. I think, at a minimum, we have to be able to allow 

the agency that has the responsibility here to be able to do its public service and inform the public as to risk issues. 

And Cardin 5 would allow the Secretary of the Army to be able 

to make determinations that are necessary for protection of infrastructure and homeland security as it relates to the additional authorizations that are put on this bill in regards to the use of firearms. 

I think both of those are common sense ways to deal with an 

overreach that is in the underlying bill and, quite frankly, if these 

amendments are approved, I think we have a pathway, although 

I am concerned about some of the additional additions we are adding to the bill today, but I think that the bill that was originally 

submitted, if these amendments were approved, I think you have 

the pathway for consideration on the floor of the U.S. Senate that 

will lead to the type of consensus that is going to be necessary to 

have floor time and to get this bill to the President’s desk. 

So these amendments are being offered in a way so that we can 

get to the finish line. As I told the Chairman, as I told the Ranking 

Member, we would like to get a sportsmen’s package to the President for signature. We really would. And these amendments are offered in that regard so that we can in fact get a type of bill that 

can have the support necessary to get it enacted into law. 

So, Mr. Chairman, with your consent, I would offer en bloc 

Cardin Amendment 1 and 2 and ask for its consideration. 

[The text of Amendments No. 1 and 2 to S. 659 offered by Senator Cardin follows:] 

91 


99691.077
92 


99691.078
93 


99691.079
94 


99691.080
95 


99691.081
96 


99691.082
97 


99691.083
98 


99691.084
99 


99691.085
100 


99691.086
101 


99691.087
102 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you, Senator Cardin. 

Did you want to be heard? 

Let me just make one comment on Cardin No. 2. This reauthorizes the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for 5 years as opposed to doing it 1 year at a time. I would urge a yes vote on 

Cardin No. 2. 

And on Cardin No. 1, the objection that we hear is that it does set aside $6.5 million each year for 5 years. However, that would 

also have to be appropriated at that time, and very likely that 

would not be, so I am not going to object to that. 

Anyone else want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am pleased you won’t be objecting. I 

would just say that Cardin No. 1, which reauthorizes the 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act, is very important. It 

is a small little gem and it encourages habitat protection, education, research, monitoring, and capacity building to provide for 

the long-term protection of these migratory birds. And I just wanted to thank Senator Cardin for his work on both of these and will 

put the rest of my statement in the record, if it is OK with you. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

103 


99691.088
104 

Senator INHOFE. Let me just make one comment. 

Senator Cardin, we are wanting to take these up one at a time. 

There may be some. So, if you don’t mind. 

Senator CARDIN. Not at all. I would then move Cardin Amendment No. 1. And let me just make one final point. One of the 

neotropical birds is the Baltimore Oriole, and it needs all the help 

it can get. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. There is a motion to accept Cardin Amendment 

No. 1. Is there a second? 

Senator BOXER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. 

All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it. 

Now, Senator Cardin, you are recognized. 

Senator CARDIN. I offer Cardin Amendment No. 2, which is the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation reauthorization. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it. Both amendments, 1 and 2, 

are recognized. 

We now move over to the Republican side. Who wants to be 

heard on an amendment? Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I call up the CrapoCarper-Fischer Amendment No. 1 regarding pesticides over water. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. You are recognized. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, the Committee should be very familiar with this amendment, so I won’t go into a lot of detailed 

background, and Senator Fischer has already made some remarks. 

But it is based on Senate Bill 1500, the Sensible Environmental 

Protection Act, which the Committee acted on last summer. We 

want to take a moment to note its connection to the issues covered 

in this Sportsmen’s Act, such as public lands, outdoor recreation, 

fish and wildlife, and why that bill is an appropriate measure to 

discuss this issue. 

Pesticides are a tool utilized by property owners, land and wildlife managers to combat invasive species, manage vegetation, and 

promote healthy forests, range lands, and waterways which provide 

habitat for fish and wildlife. Examples of pesticide application benefits impacting the Sportsmen’s Act issues include invasive pests 

where aerial insecticide applications have been used to control and 

eradicate invasive species such as the Douglas-Fir Tussock Moth 

and the Asian and European gypsy moths. If uncontained, these 

pests can defoliate entire forests, which impact wildlife habitat and 

stream temperatures that are vital to a number of our fish species. 

105 

Vegetation management. Aquatic herbicides are one tool used to 

control vegetation in riparian habitats, which is important to maintaining healthy ecosystems for water fowl, migratory birds, and 

promotes robust hunting and outdoor recreation experiences. 

Invasive plants. Federal land management agencies use pesticides to combat invasive weeds, such as cheatgrass, to encourage 

the reestablishment of native plants. These efforts help promote 

healthy range land habitats and the wildlife that depend on them. 

It is important to remember that a pesticide may not be used in 

or near water unless EPA approved labels are available and specifically states that it is OK to do so. The EPA provides this labeling 

requirement and the requirements for application of these pesticides under FIFRA, a full statutory authority regime which is 

currently being effectively administered by the EPA. Requiring an 

NPDES permit for these same types of pesticide applications is just 

another layer of needless regulation. 

And, by the way, it is one the EPA doesn’t even agree with. The 

EPA has said that they are adequately and safely managing these 

issues through FIFRA and do not need the NPDES requirements. 

This diverts budgets, staff time, and agency resources to activities 

that do not improve environmental health, hunting or fishing opportunities, and could better be spent executing on-the-ground 

management objectives. 

I encourage all the members of the Committee to support this 

amendment. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to everyone who supports this, it is an amendment in search of a problem. The EPA does not support this amendment. Let’s get that 

straight. Today, under the rules, if you have an emergency and you 

have pests in a forest, you can spray and get a permit after. This 

is the least bureaucratic system I have seen. And we are not aware 

of anyone really complaining. 

So here is what we have right now. You have to get a Clean 

Water Act permit if you are going to spray pesticides that wind up 

in a body of water. Now, you would think if we learned anything 

from Flint, Michigan, it is that we don’t allow more contamination 

in bodies of water, where our kids can get horrific brain damage. 

This is ridiculous. This is terrible that the Environment Committee 

would be doing this. What is this, the pollution committee? This is 

outrageous. 

Now, when pesticides get into waterways where our kids swim 

and waterways that provide drinking water for our families, we 

know we are exposing our people to substances that are known to 

be toxic. You know, we are sitting here as if this is some academic 

exercise, when we see what has happened in Flint, where people 

are going to go to jail because of what happened, and our first activity responding to that is this amendment. It shocks me. It 

shocks me. 

Pesticides have been linked to a variety of human health impacts. The easy ones: irritation of the skin and eyes. Oh, maybe 

that is not so bad. But what about the fact that there can be 

neurotoxins that impact the nervous system, impact during the 

106 

gestation and adolescent development of children, disrupt the hormone or endocrine system? And some have even been identified as 

carcinogens. That is the impact to people. And it doesn’t even touch 

on what it does to the fisheries. 

Over a billion pounds of pesticides are used annually in the U.S., 

and the USGS has found that 61 percent of agricultural streams 

and 90 percent of urban streams were contaminated with one or 

more pesticides. Pesticide pollution is a problem, so what does the 

Environment Committee do first thing after Flint? Oh, you don’t 

have to get a permit; just spray your hearts away. I don’t get it. 

This public health safeguard has been in place since 2011. Contrary to the fears of industry, it has not stopped the use of pesticides. But it does ensure that pesticides are used in a responsible 

way so that our streams, our waterways where our kids swim and 

where they drink the water are not contaminated. 

You know, again, if it is an emergency, you can spray and get 

the permit after. We should not be interfering, in light of Flint in 

particular, with safeguards designed to protect public health. I 

hope that we can either withdraw this thing. I think it is an embarrassment to this Committee. I know I am going to talk about 

it at home. I just don’t see why this Environment Committee would 

do this. 

And, again, I will close on this, I know I do go on, but I have 

never had a constituent in all my years, I have been in public life 

for 40 years in elected office, come up to me and say the water is 

too pure, the air is too clean. On the contrary, they say, Barbara, 

just make sure you protect us; we don’t want to be in a situation 

where we don’t know what our kids are exposed to. And, with that, 

I would hope we would withdraw this thing, work on it before we 

get to the floor, to make it a big issue, and I don’t think that is 

a happy option. 

Senator CARDIN. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to concur with Senator Boxer’s observations. If this amendment is on the bill, if it gets on the floor, it will 

probably be the centerpiece of the discussion, not the sportsmen’s 

package. It will take it over. There have been numerous efforts 

over the last 2 years to get this bill passed. This is not a new issue 

that is coming up. 

And it is interesting, since we have seen this regulatory framework, as Senator Boxer has pointed out, there has been zero complaints. It is working. The current system is working. We are not 

hearing from the stakeholders that there is a problem. So what we 

are doing is opening up a huge hole in protection that could very 

well be abused and cause a significant public health issue, and we 

are not solving a burdensome problem for the stakeholders because 

they don’t have one today. 

So, look, I really do, I couldn’t agree more with Senator Boxer. 

If this gets on the bill, this bill is going to have a serious problem, 

and I think people need to understand that. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, could I respond? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. This is really not an issue or a problem that is 

seeking for a solution, a non-existing problem. And if my colleagues 

107 

are not hearing about it, then I don’t know which stakeholders they 

are listening to. This is becoming a huge problem across the Country. We have had bipartisan support for fixing this now for several 

years. And you are right, we continue to run into these objections, 

but these objections are not founded. The fact is that with this 

amendment we are trying to reestablish the Environmental Protection Agency’s original policy regarding the applicability of FIFRA 

and the Clean Water Act. 

And to answer legal questions concerning the two statutes, the 

EPA itself issued a regulation in 2006 stating that the Agency did 

not interpret FIFRA-compliant pesticide applications as discharges 

and pollutants, and that such applications did not need a permit. 

The system up until then had operated fine and there was no problem needing this solution that has been forced on it. 

More recently, on February 16, 2011, at a joint hearing held by 

the Subcommittees of the House Agriculture and Transportation 

Committees, Dr. Steven Bradbury, the Director of the EPA Office 

of Pesticide Programs, testified that FIFRA fully protects water resources. I am going to repeat that: FIFRA fully protects water resources. This is his quote from that hearing: ‘‘In sum, EPA uses its 

full regulatory authority under FIFRA to ensure that pesticides do 

not cause unreasonable adverse effects on human health or the environment, including our Nation’s water resources,’’ said Dr. 

Bradbury. 

This is an issue where the EPA has made it clear that there is 

a solution seeking a problem, rather than the other way around. 

I want to reiterate that a pesticide may not be used in or near 

water unless the EPA has approved the label under FIFRA and it 

specifically states that it is OK to do so. These are the types of pesticides used and applications we are talking about with this 

amendment. 

The notion that pesticides not approved for use in or near aquatic habitats are being released into water without regulation prior 

to the 2009 court ruling is simply not true. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, if I could respond. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, I do have just a little more to say, but I 

would be willing to do it after you. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. No, no. 

Senator INHOFE. I suggest that you go ahead, because he needs 

to close debate. 

Senator CRAPO. OK, let’s do that. 

Senator BOXER. You got it. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. You got it. 

Let’s be clear about FIFRA. FIFRA is a labeling requirement, period. That was it. And guess how this came about? A lawsuit by 

the people of our great Nation who said, wait a minute, we have 

a Clean Water Act and we have no protection from these pesticides. 

And the courts ruled it and it changed everything. And what you 

are doing here is ignoring that history, making people think that 

EPA has all this power to regulate, when all they do have power 

is to put a label on the pesticide. 

This is serious stuff. This is straight out of somebody’s nightmare 

following up on Flint. Unbelievable. You see what is going on over 

108 

there with children, and this is saying now that we will go back 

to where they just have to put a label on the pesticide so we know 

what is poisoning our children. No, that is not going to happen. It 

is not. It is not going to happen, because a lot of us are going to 

stand on the floor who would otherwise support that Sportsmen’s 

bill and say this is an outrage. 

I think you are making a big mistake, Mr. Chairman, to allow 

this to move forward. Now, knowing you, I don’t think you shy 

away from a fight, and you will probably let it go. But I just, because you are my dear friend, want you to know the strong feelings 

that those of us have who have watched this thing in Flint, where 

kids may never recover, may never recover. And it was done to 

them by a government that said we can’t stand regulation. All 

right? That is what happens, folks. There are prices to be paid. 

Usually you don’t find out about it for 20 years, but we found out 

about Flint. 

So what we should be doing here is the opposite of what we are 

doing. How do we strengthen our laws to protect our families? How 

do we make sure that our children aren’t poisoned? Instead, what 

are we doing? We are taking away a program that works fine and 

we are going back to a program that was so weak that it caused 

a lawsuit where the courts ruled under the Clean Water Act we 

have to do more. And getting a permit before you spray a pesticide 

that could be harmful does not seek to me to be outrageous. 

And if you go out in the street, I don’t care whether it is in Idaho 

or California or right here, and say before people spray pesticides, 

do you think that somebody ought to look at the situation to make 

sure that it can’t really get in the water and poison the fish, poison 

the children, poison our families? I think most people would say, 

you know, I think it is worth being a little careful here. 

So, again, I speak from my heart, as you know I always do, just 

because I don’t want you to be blindsided, Mr. Chairman, when we 

come down in full force and say we are not taking up any bill that 

would allow us to put poisons into waterways. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

We will recognize Senator Crapo to conclude debate. 

I would only observe that this has been driven by a partnership. 

I have always been a real fan of the partnership, so we have people, Federal, State, local agencies, conservations, sportsmen’s organizations, private landowners, and business sector. So I will urge 

a yes vote. 

Senator CRAPO. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just say, 

again, as I said just a moment ago, all of these problems that the 

opponents of this amendment are bringing up are not a result of 

pesticide applications under FIFRA. The fact is that EPA itself testified that the waterways, because of FIFRA activities, are fully 

being protected. So one can bring up issues from somewhere else 

and say that that justifies some kind of an increased government 

regulatory system being imposed on another entire aspect of our 

conduct of our pest management, but it doesn’t make it true. 

And the truth is that I think we all agree on the nature of the 

importance of protecting the environment and human health. Pesticides should only be used when necessary, and applicators must 

109 

follow all State, Federal, and local laws that have been established 

to accomplish that. 

FIFRA is not just a labeling requirement; there are requirements 

in terms of the conduct and application of pesticides under FIFRA. 

And my concern is that the overregulation of these applications can 

have unintended consequences. 

And I will conclude with this. It has been said several times 

today that nobody has a problem with the new regime, there are 

no problems being caused. That also is untrue. It is becoming a 

huge problem, which is why we have bipartisan support for this, 

and have had bipartisan support for years. And I could go through 

examples. I will just use one. I have pages of examples here. 

But just a few years ago, forests in Northern Idaho, my State, 

had an invasive moth outbreak that defoliated thousands of acres 

of trees. And while private landowners initiated a treatment, State 

forestry managers opted to not treat neighboring lands specifically 

due to the NPDES requirement because of the increased regulatory 

load. And the increased regulatory burden that is being put into 

place, the activities that we need to be engaged in for the kinds of 

invasive species and pest management that I described earlier are 

not happening, and the costs are being driven up and the impacts 

are big. That is why this issue is so important. 

I think this is one of the biggest issues that the Farm Bureau 

is focusing on in this Congress. It is a big issue for our sportsmen 

and for people across this Country, and for those who want to use 

these beautiful resources that we have in our Country and want 

them to be able to be managed properly. This is a critical issue that 

we need to address. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. INHOFE. Thank you, Senator. 

I would observe that this is bipartisan; Senator Carper, Senator 

Coons, Senator Donnelly, and others. 

What do you do with your amendment? 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I do move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator VITTER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

110 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Yes. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12, the nays are 8. 

Senator INHOFE. And the amendment is agreed to. 

I will go to the Democrat side for those wanting to propose 

amendments. Yes, Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am 

going to speak to an amendment, but I am not going to ask for a 

vote on it. Specifically, I wanted to address Merkley No. 1, the Columbia River Basin Restoration Act. 

This is an Act which has not had a hearing yet. It is related to 

a conversation on how we go about having an effort to address 

long-time chemical contamination of the Columbia River. This is 

parallel to the bills that are already law for the Chesapeake Bay, 

for the Great Lakes, for the Gulf of Mexico, for Lake Champlain, 

Long Island, Pacific Islands, Puget Sound, San Francisco Bay, 

South Florida. In other words, every great body of water in the 

Country except the Columbia. 

So I would like to work with my colleagues, Senator Crapo and 

others, who have States that are on the Columbia River, find a way 

that this bill could have the kind of flexibility that might suit different circumstances in different States, but still enable those 

States that wish to follow the model so effectively pursued on great 

waters across the Country apply that assistance to the Columbia 

River. 

People may be surprised to find out that more water rolls 

through the Columbia River than any other river in the Country, 

including the Mississippi. Mississippi is much wider, but a lot slower and a lot shallower. 

Senator INHOFE. A lot warmer. 

Senator MERKLEY. And the Mississippi is a lot warmer. 

So I would appreciate working with the Chairman to have a 

hearing on this at some point in the future. 

111 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Merkley 

follows:] 

112 


99691.090
113 


99691.091
114 


99691.092
115 


99691.093
116 


99691.094
117 


99691.095
118 


99691.096
119 


99691.097
120 


99691.098
121 


99691.099
122 


99691.100
123 


99691.101
124 


99691.102
125 


99691.103
126 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

On the Republican side? Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call 

up my amendment, Boozman No. 1. This amendment is identical 

to legislation that the Committee passed by voice vote in the 113th 

Congress. Senator Boxer was very helpful in her support in marking it up at that time. The purpose is to encourage joint cooperative 

management at Corps of Engineers recreational sites and facilities. 

Current law enables the Corps to enter into cooperative agreements with non-Federal public and private entities to provide for 

operation and management of recreation facilities and natural resources at civil works projects. These partnerships help ensure that 

Corps recreation facilities are well maintained and remain open. 

These agreements also ensure that natural resources are conserved 

and protected. 

For many years, the Corps used its existing authority to allow 

partners to collect and reinvest user fees. However, based on a 

2013 legal review, the Corps determined that this practice exceeds 

existing statutory authority. Unfortunately, some recreation sites 

and facilities are difficult, if not impossible, to maintain or keep 

open without partnership support. 

The 2013 ruling is hurting communities and it is discouraging 

the friends and partners and volunteers who contribute so much to 

the improvement of Corps recreation sites. This amendment would 

reestablish the positive partnerships that were built over many 

years. The Corps values these partnerships and would like to 

strengthen them and maintain them. This amendment restores the 

practice that existed before the September 2013 guidance was 

issued. 

I look forward to working with the Committee on this issue as 

the legislation moves forward, and I would ask for my colleagues’ 

support. 

If the Chairman is willing, I would be happy to move the amendment by voice vote. 

[The text of Amendment No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator 

Boozman follows:] 

127 


99691.104
128 


99691.105
129 


99691.106
130 


99691.107
131 

Senator INHOFE. First, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I wish to speak in support of the Boozman 

amendment. I won’t take the Committee’s time to say why. I think 

he speaks for me. Most important thing is this amendment restores 

an important source of funds for the operations and maintenance 

of civil works, and I think it is important and I am proud to support it. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Senator INHOFE. And I might also just make a comment to get 

in the record. We have done this before. Any time you have the private sector willing to put up resources to take care of a public need, 

it is a good idea. So I think this carries on that good idea and 

would be in strong support if it. 

Before we ask for a voice vote, does this mean you would not be 

offering your second amendment? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, sir, just the first. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. All right, fine. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, yes, Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to speak 

in support of this. We have an example in my State, a partnership 

between Sherman County and the Army Corps, in which the Corps 

no longer can afford to operate a park and boat landing the way 

they have in the past. It would make a lot of sense for the county 

to be able to take over this valuable asset to the community or receive the fees back from the operation. We have run into red tape 

on this. I think this amendment would help in this specific situation and I am very supportive of the amendment. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator Boozman, do you move your amendment? 

Senator BOOZMAN. I ask to move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Second? 

Senator VITTER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it and it is agreed to. 

On the Democrat side, amendments? 

Senator BOXER. Not for this. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, all right. Senator Boxer, which amendment 

do you have? 

Senator BOXER. OK, I call up Boxer Amendment No. 1. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, Boxer Amendment No. 1. 

Senator BOXER. This amendment modifies Section 2, which creates a new permanent exemption from the Toxic Substances Control Act for a wide array of sport fishing equipment. Section 2 prevents the EPA from ever acting to address a dangerous chemical, 

such as lead, in fishing equipment, even if the science is clear that 

it is harming people’s health. Again we get back to lead and the 

problem that lead causes, particularly in children. 

So instead of burying our heads in the sand and ignoring potential impacts to children and families, I think we should make sure 

132 

that experts can continue to look at this issue and alert us if any 

concerns arise. 

So what I do is I just hone in on lead and say lead is not exempt 

from TSCA and everything else is exempt, but we want to make 

sure that we have a study to make sure that that is not harming 

our kids. I tried very hard to work with the Majority to get this 

change. Couldn’t do it. I don’t anticipate we are going to get it, but, 

again, in light of Flint, I think this is another critical issue, so I 

am going to ask for a recorded vote on this amendment, knowing 

full well I don’t think I have cracked the barrier on the other side. 

[The text of Amendment No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boxer 

follows:] 

133 


99691.108
134 


99691.109
135 


99691.110
136 

Senator INHOFE. With that last comment, I won’t make my comments, then. 

Senator BOXER. I speak for you in saying that? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. I thought so. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. All those in favor of Boxer No. 1 say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator BOXER. I ask for a recorded vote. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 2. 

Senator INHOFE. Then the amendment is not agreed to. 

137 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments on the 

agenda, but Vitter Amendment No. 1 I am going to withdraw. We 

are still working on a few points regarding that with members of 

the Committee. Excuse me, Vitter Amendment No. 2 I am going to 

withdraw. Vitter Amendment No. 1 I will take up. 

This concerns the regulation of fisheries, particularly fisheries in 

the Gulf. There is a very odd situation in the Gulf, which is that 

Texas and Florida State regulation go out to nine nautical miles, 

but everything in between, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, only 

go out to three nautical miles. This would equalize that at nine 

nautical miles. This was done specifically in the omnibus bill. Some 

Shelby language directly to this effect was included. It is strongly 

supported in the Gulf. I don’t think it was controversial in that 

context. 

This amendment would simply extend that permanently, since, 

by nature of it being an appropriation bill, the language in the omnibus would only have effect for one fiscal year. So I would offer 

this amendment, which has strong support in the Gulf. 

[The text of Amendment No. 1 to S. 659 offered by Senator Vitter 

follows:] 

138 


99691.111
139 


99691.112
140 


99691.113
141 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. And I would only add that, from my experience down in Texas, this offers the recreational fishermen opportunities they have in Texas they don’t have in Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama. 

Others want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t have a fish in this fight, but I will tell 

you who does, the Commerce Committee. They are very disturbed 

because it is under their jurisdiction; NOAA manages these species. 

And I have been asked by Senators Cantwell and Nelson to ask 

Senator Vitter not to offer it here. They are going to complain 

about it when we get this to the floor. It is up to him, but I would 

urge a no vote because our colleagues are saying it is damaging to 

take NOAA out of this equation. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Others want to be heard? Senator 

Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. I would simply close by saying for an aye vote. 

It has great consensus support in the Gulf. It has in the Omnibus, 

which was obviously done by the Appropriations Committee, not 

the Commerce Committee. It was not highly controversial there, 

and I would urge an aye vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CRAPO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. 

Senator VITTER. Excuse me. Let me urge an aye vote as modified. 

There was a modification made this morning to it, which I think 

everyone has. 

Senator INHOFE. And there is a second. The Clerk will call the 

roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

142 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 11, nays are 9. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is agreed to. 

From the Democrat side I would ask if there are any amendments to be brought up. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Yes, I do. Am I recognized? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

So I have three amendments left. I am not going to offer Amendment No. 3, so you can take that off the list. And I am going to 

offer Amendment No. 2, if I might, Mr. Chairman. 

This amendment, I hope we can support this amendment because, at the end of the day, it doesn’t do any harm to the goal, 

but we do worry about a precedent-setting nature here. 

In Section 4 we allow the importation of polar bears that were 

killed in Canada prior to the species being listed under the Endangered Species Act. So this provision in Section 4 is intended to be 

a one-time exemption for bears that were killed between the proposed listing and the final listing of the species. 

Many conservation groups who cover Republicans and Democrats 

are very concerned that the provision as it is now sets a precedent 

for future exemptions because it directly amends the Marine Mammal Protection Act. So all we do in our amendment is say remove 

the provision from the Marine Mammal Protection Act, but keep it 

in the bill that there is this one-time allowance done. 

So I think if you support allowing these bears to be brought in, 

but you don’t want to amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act 

to set a precedent, you would support this, and that is why I offer 

it up. And I tried to get some agreement; I could not reach agreement with my colleague on it, so I would offer this up. I think it 

is important not to set a precedent by amending the Marine Mammal Protection Act but just say, sure, this is a one-time carve-out, 

it is fine. 

[The text of Amendment No. 2 to S. 659 offered by Senator Boxer 

follows:] 

143 


99691.114
144 


99691.115
145 


99691.116
146 


99691.117
147 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

I would only observe that the current language was a result of 

lengthy negotiations with the Fish and Wildlife. They are supportive of the language. In fact, in a letter to the Committee from 

the Service dated April 15th of this past year, the Service thanks 

Senator Sullivan for incorporating their comments into the sportsmen’s package. 

I would urge a no vote. 

Senator BOXER. Can I be clear on something? They do not support this. They have taken no position on it. So let’s be clear. They 

would much prefer that we didn’t amend the Marine Mammal Protection Act. They have told us they do not support it. They did give 

their comments. That is my understanding. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would only read from their letter. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Senator INHOFE. In Section 4, permits and so forth, the Administration supports this provision and thanks Senator Sullivan for incorporating the services, so forth. 

Senator BOXER. OK. We hadn’t seen that. We’ll take it back. 

Senator INHOFE. Ask that this be made a part of the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

148 


99691.118
149 


99691.119
150 


99691.120
151 


99691.121
152 


99691.122
153 

Senator BOXER. I apologize. We hadn’t seen that. What date was 

that? 

Senator INHOFE. April 15th. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, thank you. So that got by me. OK. Well, I 

stand with the amendment. I still feel that it is better not to 

change the Marine Mammal Protection Act. 

Senator INHOFE. You want to move your amendment? 

Senator BOXER. I do. I move it. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. 

Senator BOXER. A roll call, please. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator MARKEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

154 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. And the amendment is not agreed to. 

On the Republican side? Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Mr. Chairman, I call up the Crapo Amendment 

No. 1. And Senator Cardin wanted to be an original co-sponsor and 

asked me to ask for unanimous consent on his behalf to add his 

name as an original co-sponsor. 

Senator INHOFE. Without objection. 

Senator CRAPO. This amendment is a version of a bill that I have 

long worked with Senator Cardin on. The legislation, the National 

Fish Habitat Conservation Act, is modeled after other successful 

conservation programs, such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 

The amendment will codify the National Fish Habitat Board and 

National Fish Habitat Partnerships Programs established through 

a State-led public-private partnership and housed within the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The Board approves fish habitat partnerships, evaluates local projects supported by the projects, and provides funding recommendations to the Secretary of Interior ensuring the projects funded meet strategic fish habitat objectives 

through projects that will be permanently led by local communities 

and the State fish and wildlife agencies. 

The new version of this legislation allows Congress to further refine how this program operates. For example, this improved fish 

habitat bill would add more diverse representation onto the current 

NFH Board, broadening the input of stakeholders and including 

private landowners, organizations from agriculture and private industry sectors, more diverse NGO representation, and clarified 

Federal agency representation. 

I ask unanimous consent to pass this important legislation. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Crapo 

follows:] 

155 


99691.123
156 


99691.124
157 


99691.125
158 


99691.126
159 


99691.127
160 


99691.128
161 


99691.129
162 


99691.130
163 


99691.131
164 


99691.132
165 


99691.133
166 


99691.134
167 


99691.135
168 


99691.136
169 


99691.137
170 


99691.138
171 


99691.139
172 


99691.140
173 


99691.141
174 


99691.142
175 


99691.143
176 


99691.144
177 


99691.145
178 


99691.146
179 


99691.147
180 


99691.148
181 


99691.149
182 


99691.150
183 


99691.151
184 


99691.152
185 


99691.153
186 


99691.154
187 


99691.155
188 


99691.156
189 


99691.157
190 


99691.158
191 


99691.159
192 

Senator INHOFE. By unanimous consent? 

OK, Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. I would like to put my full statement in the 

record in support of this. I want to compliment my friend and Senator Cardin. Just to sum it up, I think this amendment fosters better science, communication, and partnership to unite diverse stakeholders and focus voluntary action on conserving priority habitats. 

And I love the public-private partnership, it is so workable, and I 

want to again thank my friend. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] 

193 


99691.160
194 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Is there objection to the unanimous consent request? 

Without objection, it is adopted. 

Senator MARKEY. Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. My 

amendment will strike out all of the controversial sections of S. 

659, leaving only the sections with true bipartisan support. This is 

Markey No. 1. 

So it will leave Section 7, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and Section 8, the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Reauthorization, because we all agree that the fiscally 

responsible North American Wetlands Conservation Act conserves 

North America’s wildlife and wetlands, while producing numerous 

environmental, recreational, water quality, and economic benefits. 

Over the life of this competitive program, the North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants have leveraged non-Federal matching contributions at a rate of 3 to 1. Among the program’s biggest 

supporters is Ducks Unlimited, one of the Nation’s largest sportsmen’s groups. 

And we all agree that the Multinational Species Conservation 

Funds Reauthorization provides crucial support for the protection 

of the planet’s most imperiled species, including elephants, rhinoceroses, tigers, great apes, and marine turtles, which, as were previously discussed here, are a special concern to some of our closest 

constituents. This program promotes international collaboration, 

while bolstering the goodwill of the United States and organizations seeking to assist the responsible development of emerging 

economies around the world. This program is also notable for its 

success in leveraging matching funds at a rate of 2 to 1. 

So my amendment supports the economies and conservation efforts which depend on these critical programs. It would also speed 

action on this legislation to the Senate floor, and I urge support of 

my amendment, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Markey 

follows:] 

195 


99691.161
196 


99691.162
197 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Markey. 

I would observe that the amendment would strike five sections 

of the bill, leaving only the short title and two provisions. It also 

strikes language that has been negotiated and agreed to by the Administration and by others, so I would urge a no vote. 

Others want to be heard? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Well, the reason I am supporting this, and I 

thank my friend for doing it, is he is trying to get this bill done. 

We have been trying to get this bill done for a long time. There are 

Democrats and Republicans that want to get it done, but every 

time we try to do it there are poison pills on it and it just makes 

it impossible, and at the end of the day we all look at each other 

and say another missed opportunity. 

I think what my friend is trying to do is get a situation here 

where we can go to the bill, and then if there are agreed-upon additions, we can do that in an amendment. I am sure my friend would 

work actively, so I know the handwriting is on the wall, if you will, 

but I just wanted to speak out in strong support, because it is not 

a negative thing to do, it is a positive thing to do, and I wanted 

to make sure I was on the record saying that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator MARKEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Markey. 

Senator MARKEY. I can accept a voice vote on this. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. 

You have heard the motion. Is there a second? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. All in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator INHOFE. The noes appear to have it. The noes do have 

it. It is not agreed to. 

On the Republican side, who seeks recognition? Senator Rounds. 

Senator ROUNDS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I would 

like to just say thank you to you and to Senator Sullivan for the 

work that you have done on this bill so far. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator ROUNDS. I would like to call up the Rounds Amendment 

No. 1 and ask for its consideration. This amendment is designed 

to ask that more information be provided to individuals who are 

being asked or are considering making an easement to the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service or to another Federal agency. What this 

says is that all of the options available, not just permanent easement options, but intermediate easement options, should also be 

considered. 

I was surprised to find out that there are multiple types of easements available right now. But most landowners aren’t being made 

aware of them. So what this does is it simply says that, first of all, 

all of the options will be made available that are available under 

the Federal programs today and, second of all, that there will be 

a documentation that will go with this process assuring that this 

198 

information has been provided. The hope is that we will get more 

owners, landowners to actually agree to conservation easements in 

the future if it doesn’t have to be one size fits all of a permanent 

easement only. Our goal is to have more participation, but clearly 

more transparency and more options for those landowners to participate in these conservation programs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator Rounds 

follows:] 

199 


99691.163
200 


99691.164
201 


99691.165
202 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Rounds. 

It is surprising to me that people are not aware of what goes 

along with these easements. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of this 

amendment. I do think it needs additional work, and if my colleagues want to voice vote it out today, it is fine, and perhaps there 

is a way we can get to a place where we agree. But I do support 

the intent. 

Senator INHOFE. You move your amendment? 

Senator ROUNDS. I would move the amendment, Mr. Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator VITTER. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. There is a second. 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed 

to. 

On the Democrat side? Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. This could be the last amendment on our side. 

It looks like Senator Barrasso has one. 

I would call up Boxer Amendment No. 4. 

Senator INHOFE. Boxer Amendment No. 4. 

Senator BOXER. And this amendment strikes Section 6, which 

prevents the Corps from implementing restrictions on the use of 

firearms at its facilities. Corps projects are managed for many purposes, including navigation, hydropower, water supply, fish and 

wildlife conservation, recreation, and flood risk management. Many 

of these projects, such as lock hydroelectric dams and levees are 

critical infrastructure with significant homeland security concerns. 

Significant. As a matter of fact, they are in many ways targets for 

terrorism. 

Protection of these structures is of the highest priority, so allowing individuals to carry loaded firearms near these facilities has 

national security implications. The Corps should not be prohibited 

from implementing common sense restrictions to protect critical infrastructure. They should be encouraged to protect the infrastructure. In addition, the Corps does not have its own law enforcement 

officers, like the National Park Service or Fish and Wildlife. Therefore, significantly expanding the ability of the public to carry firearms prevents a significant public safety and law enforcement challenge. 

Under the current Corps regulations, visitors are already allowed 

to possess loaded firearms for hunting or for use at established firing ranges on Corps lands. So anybody who says what I am trying 

to do impacts hunters, absolutely not. I strongly support their right 

to bring on a loaded firearm for that purpose. But my amendment 

codifies existing Corps regulations, ensuring uniform application of 

Corps gun regulations at all Corps facilities without endangering 

our Nation’s critical infrastructure or other users of Corps recreational sites, and I would argue not interfering with the Second 

Amendment. 

203 

My amendment makes clear that sportsmen can bring their firearms to Corps facilities for hunting and sport shooting. I just, 

again, want to say to my colleagues if you go out on the street and 

ask an average person do you support being able to hunt with a 

loaded firearm on Corps land, they would say yes. And we do allow 

that; my amendment allows that. But do you support allowing folks 

who you have no idea who they are to get access to where there 

are dams, flood control, serious infrastructure where you have no 

armed security? Honestly, really, really? I think people would say 

that makes no sense at all. 

So I think this is common sense legislation. Yes for the people 

who are shooting. After all, it is a sportsmen act, it is not a let the 

terrorists in with their firearms near infrastructure act. I hope we 

will support this. 

[The text of Boxer Amendment No. 4 to S. 659 offered by Senator 

Boxer follows:] 

204 


99691.166
205 


99691.167
206 


99691.168
207 


99691.169
208 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

I would observe that the language would put restrictions on 

where and how law-abiding citizens can carry their guns. The language overlooks the fact that many people carry the guns for their 

own safety. You know, if a grizzly bear attacks, they don’t know 

whether it is loaded or not, but an unloaded gun doesn’t do much 

good. So I would urge a no vote. 

Others want to be heard? 

Senator CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, Senator Crapo. 

Senator CRAPO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree. First of all, I think 

a misimpression has been created. The fact is the language in the 

bill does allow the Corps to protect infrastructure in terms of not 

allowing firearms to be brought onto infrastructure facilities; and 

I think that is very important to note because that is simply a 

mischaracterization of what the language would do. The language 

basically says that an American has a right, under the Second 

Amendment, to bear arms for hunting and for recreation and for 

self-defense, as I think most Americans would willingly support. 

One court recently has ruled the current approach by the Corps 

to be unconstitutional, which I believe is correct. This simply says 

that the Corps’ current policy of saying that all of their land is 

closed unless it is specifically allowed to be opened by some kind 

of permit from the head of the Corps, is not the way to approach 

the issue. And again I reiterate that the infrastructure issue that 

has been raised is a red herring, if you will. There is already property authority for the agency to protect at critical infrastructure. 

Senator BOXER. If I could just say, Mr. Chairman, the Corps disagrees with that. They don’t feel that they do. And if you had a 

big group, after all, you support everybody’s right to carry a gun 

on there, including terrorists. They are going to get guns. So they 

are going to walk in. Let’s say they meet up and there is a few people protecting a facility and they shoot it up and start a flood. 

Look, if you feel you need a gun to protect yourself, you can go 

to the Corps and protect that permit. If you feel that you are going 

to a place that there are a lot of grizzlies, you can go to the Corps 

and get that permit. We do not say you can’t get a permit. All we 

are saying is that it is dangerous to public security to allow perhaps terrorists or anybody else, bad actors, from getting on there. 

And if you are a good actor, what is the problem? You know, in my 

State you can get a permit to carry a gun. Nobody is taking away 

anybody’s guns. But to sit here and say, oh, there is plenty of security, that is great. It is just not true. And this critical infrastructure, they are hard targets. Let’s be clear, they are hard targets. 

So I don’t know, again, you know, somebody said why can’t you 

get anything done in the Senate, and I say, well, first of all, it is 

not true, we get some things done, and I always point to our ability 

to work together. But then I say the truth. We see the world in different ways now, Republicans and Democrats. We really see the 

world in different ways. If you can sit here and think that it is for 

public safety that we allow anyone and anyone to carry a loaded 

gun near a facility that if it is attacked could wreak havoc on our 

people, I don’t see it that way. You look at me and think what’s 

209 

wrong with her. I look at you and say what is wrong with you. This 

is serious. 

I am not mad about it at all because it is just a different way 

of seeing the world. My belief is you can protect the Second Amendment and have common sense laws, and I think that is where 

Americans are. They are not one side or the other, they are 

straight down the center; protect my right, but also common sense. 

And if you are going to grizzly country, and you go to the Corps 

and say, look, I really need to be able to load my gun, they are 

going to give you a permit. They are not going to take away your 

right. So I just think that this amendment is important. 

Again, look, we are going to have this debate on the floor. It is 

going to be very interesting, if this bill ever comes to light. I doubt 

that it will. I think there is going to be way more than 40 people 

who say don’t even bring it up. But you are loading this thing up. 

You are loading it up with lead in the water; you are loading it up 

with lead from guns; you are loading it up with security threats. 

It is just remarkable what you are doing to a bill that ought to be 

bipartisan. I tried so hard. I love your staff; we work with them. 

We love them. We couldn’t get anywhere on this stuff. 

And it is just sad to me that a sportsmen’s bill can’t get bipartisan support when, if it was strictly a sportsmen’s bill, fine. But, 

oh no, we have all this stuff about guns and allowing people to 

dump garbage in the water that is poison. What are we doing? Just 

stick to the sportsmen’s deal, as Senator Markey suggested. Oh, no, 

we are going to have this ideological thing, and, frankly, it won’t 

even get to that because I am going to go down on the floor after 

this passes, which it will, and say a remarkable thing happened in 

the Environment Committee: we are endangering the people of this 

Country. 

And I am going to do everything in my power, stand on my feet, 

do whatever I have to do to stop it unless we can come to some 

agreement to withdraw some of this stuff, take it up separately. 

Let’s have a fight on bringing guns where there is infrastructure. 

Fine, we can do that. We can ask the Homeland Security people 

how they feel. We can talk about how the Humane Society feels 

about some of the things you are doing. That is fine. Why not try 

to take out the controversy? But, no, we keep adding it. And this 

amendment is an effort to get us to take out this controversy because this isn’t going anywhere, and that is not good for the Country. 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to dwell 

a little bit on the point that my colleague from Idaho is making 

about the exemption in the underlying language, which says the 

Secretary of the Army shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm, including assembled or functional firearm, in any area open to the public; 

and then it has an exception: other than a Federal facility as defined in Section 930(g) of Title 18. I think that is the provision that 

you are referring to. 

I have received a lot of letters on this, and the concern with this 

is that that leaves a little bit of a vague situation. For example, 

the definition referred to is ‘‘a building or part of a building owned 

210 

or leased by the Federal Government where Federal employees are 

regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.’’ So people have envisioned, for example, the Bonneville Dam, 

where the grounds are open to the public, they have a sturgeon 

pond, they have salmon rearing. But if only the building is the exception, then essentially armed individuals coming to the door of 

the building would be exempted. But it poses that concern of domestic terrorism of a group, perhaps a group financed, organized 

by enemies abroad, bringing guns right to the door of the building, 

and yet they would still be protected by the language that is in this 

because they would not have yet entered the building. And the language is specifically the building, not the grounds of the facility. 

So that confusion has led to a lot of letters from the public. I 

think we should work to clarify that piece. The grizzly concern is 

one concern separate from an assault team at the door of a Federal 

facility. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, others want to be heard? 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. No, we can just vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you want to move it? 

Senator BOXER. I would move. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you request a roll call? 

Senator BOXER. I do. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, the Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

211 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator VITTER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 9, the nays are 11. 

Senator INHOFE. The amendment is not agreed to. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to call up 

Barrasso Amendment No. 1 to S. 659. This amendment would 

delist the grey wolf in Wyoming and the Great Lakes under the 

Endangered Species Act. It also protects the delisting from further 

judicial review, similar to the judicial protections already granted 

by Congress to the States of Montana and Idaho. 

This amendment is one of many legislative efforts I am going to 

continue to pursue until Wyoming’s wolf management plan is protected and fully implemented. Wyoming honors its commitment. 

We have put together a solid and working plan to protect the 

State’s wolf population. Even in this Committee, Dan Ashe, who is 

the Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, stated from that 

very table that he agrees that wolves should be delisted in Wyoming. It is time to move forward, to recognize the science, focus on 

our scarce taxpayer resources on truly imperiled species, and I 

move the amendment. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 659 offered by Senator 

Barrasso follows:] 

212 


99691.170
213 


99691.171
214 


99691.172
215 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CRAPO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you want a roll call? 

Senator BOXER. May I speak briefly? 

Senator INHOFE. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment would legislatively remove endangered species protections for grey wolves in 

Wyoming and the Great Lakes. It would overturn two Federal 

court decisions that require the protection of grey wolves in these 

areas and, as I understand it, according to Senator Barrasso, he 

would preclude the courts from getting involved in it in the future. 

Now, the Federal courts were clear that the grey wolves deserve 

protection under the Endangered Species Act. Decisions about protecting endangered species should be made according to the law. If 

you don’t like the law, change it, but that is the law. We shouldn’t 

be engaging in this as politicians. If we want to change the law, 

change it. But it is a law that was passed by our predecessors, and 

it is a dangerous precedent to undermine the Endangered Species 

Act. 

The Fish and Wildlife Service, as I understand it, did approve 

the Wyoming law, so that wasn’t the problem. The problem was 

they were sued by groups such as the Humane Society. I don’t 

know the exact groups. Is that right? Probably Defenders of Wildlife. Those groups, similar to them. And the court said uh-uh, you 

know, you are wrong. They said to the Fish and Wildlife Service 

you are wrong. So you are trying to shut down the courts from getting involved in protecting a law and protecting the wolves. I think 

it is a dangerous precedent. 

I do understand the frustration. My State has had situations 

where they have drawn up their own conservation plans and they 

were judged inadequate once or twice by the bureaucrats here, and 

the courts in another case. It is frustrating. But, in fact, you know, 

when we act to protect endangered species, we are doing it in accordance with the law. And as long as the law stands, it is one of 

the most popular laws in the Country, we have to abide by it. So 

I think this is a bad precedent; interferes with people’s rights and 

the courts, etcetera, and interferes with the wolf, and I would urge 

a no vote. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. 

Others who want to be heard? 

Senator BARRASSO. I will just conclude if everyone else is finished, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Senator BARRASSO. Just to say that it is because of endless litigation that forced Congress to actually act and change the law with 

regard to Montana and with regard to Idaho. Realistically, you 

take a look at the map of where Idaho is, Wyoming, Montana, 

these are just imaginary lines that are drawn there. So it is the 

same species in all three locations. This amendment is just going 

to provide Wyoming the same legal protections that this Congress 

has provided to Montana and to Idaho to be able to control the 

management and recovery of wolves in their States, and not have 

that approval of the management plan be challenged again and 

216 

again in court. I believe it is an issue of fairness. Wyoming should 

have the same legal protections as Montana and as Idaho. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. Do you move your 

amendment? 

Senator BARRASSO. I move the amendment. 

Senator INHOFE. Second? 

Senator CRAPO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Do you wish to have a roll call? 

Senator BARRASSO. That is not necessary. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, all in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[Chorus of noes.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have 

it. The amendment is agreed to. 

Other amendments on 659? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. 

[Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator INHOFE. No, what we are going to do now, we don’t have 

a quorum for a final passing. We will conclude our amendments on 

this bill. But I do want to go to two other bills I think we can dispose of pretty quick. That would be, first, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and, second, the Lake Tahoe. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I have one for the Great Lakes. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me start off. I do want to call up S. 1024, 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, the markup vehicle. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make a comment 

before we shifted to a new bill, if I could indulge the Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, I am sorry. Ask unanimous consent. Your 

comments will be reflected prior to bringing up this bill. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. Senator Cardin put 

forward an amendment that he chose not to have a vote on, but 

it was providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with the same 

power that the national parks have to recover damages from individuals that damage a wildlife refuge. And because this is so much 

an issue in Oregon right now, I just wanted to make a brief comment on that topic. People from outside the State have come and 

occupied the wildlife refuge. There has been damage to the buildings and to the fences. The sheriff from Harney County has said 

you all came here to say you wanted to support the community, 

and the best way you can support the community is to go back 

home. 

Last night there was a community meeting held and the chair 

of the county commission, who is referred as a county judge, said 

it is time for you to go home. Judge Grasty said to Bundy, vowing 

to meet with him any time, any place outside of the county. And 

the community, now, this is a very rural, conservative community, 

joined a chant that said, go, go, go. It is a message that they have 

had repeatedly. 

217 

The reason this is relevant to the amendment that was proposed 

is that this very rural county with very few resources, because 

most of the land is federally owned and they don’t get property 

taxes on it, is spending about $75,000 a day for the standoff, and 

the county commissioners, and specifically the county judge that is 

chair of the county commission, has noted that those are costs they 

simply can’t bear and they should have a mechanism to be able to 

recover these costs. 

So I will just conclude there saying I support the local elected 

leaders, the sheriff and the county judge and their belief that the 

best way to resolve this is for the out-of-State individuals to return 

to their home States so that there is no violence. The conversation 

can continue about the challenges in ranching and leasing of Federal property. That conversation is important and should continue. 

But, also, the county is really in a tough spot here, not only in 

terms of the costs on a daily basis, but also in terms of the enormous friction in which individuals have people from outside the 

State parking in front of their homes, harassing various members 

of the community and that the community hopes this can be quickly and peacefully resolved. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

We will now turn to S. 1024, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. We also begin with calling up the text, as amended. It was 

circulated yesterday to everyone’s agreement. 

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative was authorized for 1 year 

during our consolidated Appropriations Act. This substitute extends the authorization for 5 years. 

[The text of S. 1024 follows:] 

218 


99691.173
219 


99691.174
220 


99691.175
221 


99691.176
222 


99691.177
223 


99691.178
224 

Senator INHOFE. Are there amendments? Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t plan to 

offer my amendment, but I want to talk about the bill because I 

am the only member on the Committee that actually represents a 

Great Lakes State. So I want to speak briefly about this amendment and the underlying bill. 

I appreciate your willingness and the willingness of your staff to 

address many of our concerns with the substitute amendment; 

however, it is unfortunate that we have not been able to come to 

an agreement on the authorization level for this bill. My amendment would have ramped up the authorization by $25 million over 

the next four fiscal years, to $400 million in 2020, to help us meet 

the critical needs of the Great Lakes. This would address toxic contamination, restore water quality, and protect our water against 

the real threat of invasive species that harm our environment and 

economy. 

While I will not oppose reporting of this bill out of Committee, 

I hope that, when this bill does move forward to the floor, we can 

work with other Great Lakes Senators in a bipartisan way to come 

to an agreement on the authorization level that adequately meets 

the needs of the Great Lakes. 

So I ask unanimous consent to include in the record signed by 

Healing Our Waters Great Lakes Coalition, which consists of 125 

environmental, conservation, and recreational organizations, all of 

which support my amendment. Members of this Coalition include 

the National Parks Conservation Association, Alliance for the 

Great Lakes, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, Audubon Society, 

and many others. They understand how important it is that we can 

provide a strong Federal commitment to the Great Lakes. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

225 


99691.179
226 


99691.180
227 

Senator INHOFE. And the same thing. We need one more member 

here to have a quorum. One is on his way and we are going to hope 

to be able to dispose of these. 

We will now turn S. 1724, the Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. The 

only amendment offered is an amendment by Boxer and Inhofe. 

This amendment provides a technical fix to the underlying bill to 

ensure that it is consistent with our highway bill that we passed. 

Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. No need for me to specify. You already said 

this is such an important bipartisan bill, including our amendment, 

it is Heller, Feinstein, Boxer, Reid. It is important. 

If you haven’t ever seen Lake Tahoe, I hope you take the chance 

to do it. It is an incredible lake. And you just look at that lake and 

you just wonder how clear it is. It is so deep and so beautiful, and 

surrounded by these mountains. And I would say thank you in advance because the Committee has been so kind to us on this particular bill, and I would urge an aye vote. 

Should we include the amendment? Should I ask unanimous consent that the amendment become part of the bill? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. Without objection, so ordered. 

Senator BOXER. And then I would urge an aye vote. 

[The text of the amendment to S. 1724 offered by Senators Inhofe 

and Boxer follows:] 

228 


99691.181
229 


99691.182
230 


99691.183
231 


99691.184
232 


99691.185
233 


99691.186
234 


99691.187
235 


99691.188
236 


99691.189
237 


99691.190
238 


99691.191
239 


99691.192
240 


99691.193
241 


99691.194
242 


99691.195
243 


99691.196
244 


99691.197
245 


99691.198
246 


99691.199
247 


99691.200
248 


99691.201
249 


99691.202
250 


99691.203
251 


99691.204
252 


99691.205
253 


99691.206
254 


99691.207
255 


99691.208
256 


99691.209
257 


99691.210
258 


99691.211
259 


99691.212
260 


99691.213
261 


99691.214
262 


99691.215
263 


99691.216
264 


99691.217
265 


99691.218
266 


99691.219
267 


99691.220
268 


99691.221
269 


99691.222
270 


99691.223
271 

Senator INHOFE. And we do have 11, with Senator Sessions having arrived. 

OK, we now have 11 members, as soon as Senator Sessions sits 

down. 

We will go back now to the final vote on S. 659, the Sportsmen’s 

Act. Seeing no further members wishing to seek recognition or offer 

amendments, is there a motion to accept the underlying text and 

report the legislation, as amended, favorably to the Senate? 

Senator BARRASSO. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? 

Senator CAPITO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. The Clerk will call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Barrasso? 

Senator BARRASSO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Booker? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. No. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Capito? 

Senator CAPITO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Cardin? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Carper? 

Senator BOXER. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Crapo? 

Senator CRAPO. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Fischer? 

Senator FISCHER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mrs. Gillibrand? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Markey? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Merkley? 

Senator MERKLEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Rounds? 

Senator ROUNDS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sanders? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sessions? 

Senator SESSIONS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Sullivan? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Vitter? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Whitehouse? 

Senator BOXER. No by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Wicker? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye by proxy. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator INHOFE. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, the yeas are 12, the nays are 8. 

272 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it and the legislation is reported 

favorably to the Senate. 

We will now move to S. 1024, the Great Lakes Restoration Act. 

Is there a motion to accept the underlying text? We have already 

done that. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I ask for a voice vote. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, there is a request for a voice vote. Is there 

objection to a voice vote on S. 1024? No objection. 

Is there a motion to accept S. 1024? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. I move to accept 1024. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Is there a second? 

Senator CAPITO. Second. 

Senator INHOFE. Those in favor, say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. The ayes have it in the opinion of the Chair and 

the legislation will be reported favorably to the Senate. 

We now turn to S. 1724, Lake Tahoe Restoration Act. 

Senator BOXER. So moved. 

Senator INHOFE. Is there a second? As amended. Senator Boxer 

moves acceptance as amended. Is there a second? 

All those in favor say aye. 

[Chorus of ayes.] 

Senator INHOFE. Opposed, no. 

[No audible response.] 

Senator INHOFE. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and 

the amendment is agreed to. 

[Text of S. 659, In the Nature of a Substitute:] 

273 


99691.224
274 


99691.225
275 


99691.226
276 


99691.227
277 


99691.228
278 


99691.229
279 


99691.230
280 


99691.231
281 


99691.232
282 


99691.233
283 


99691.234
284 


99691.235
285 


99691.236
286 


99691.237
287 


99691.238
288 


99691.239
289 


99691.240
290 


99691.241
291 


99691.242
292 

Finally, the authority to make technical and confirming changes. 

I ask unanimous consent that the staff have authority to make 

technical and conforming changes to the measure approved today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would observe, Senator Gillibrand, that we did pass your bill 

before you came here. Was there any comment you wanted to make 

about that? 

Senator GILLIBRAND. No. I will submit my comments for the 

record. Thank you very much. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good. 

With that, the business meeting is concluded. Thank all of you 

for staying here. 

[Whereupon, at 11:49 a.m. the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

293 

Æ 


99691.243