George P. Kazen Federal Building and United States Courthouse--Continued

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. President, reclaiming my time, I can't help but note the irony that Senator Boxer, who has done so much to protect special places in California and around our country and who at the same time has consistently worked with our colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, on infrastructure--that here they are, after once again coming together--and everybody practically slaps their forehead: How in the world can Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe keep coming together on all of these kinds of issues? It is because they are real legislators. They are people who don't just throw out press releases, they write legislation. It is hard. It is a heavy lift.
This bill was not easy. To think that Senator Boxer is here on the last night of her time in public service, after she has protected all of these special places and then worked with Senator Inhofe on infrastructure, and we are still faced with this one last hurdle. I have seen a lot of ironies in the Senate. This is just about as dramatic an irony as I have seen. To me, we have had wonderful statements. My colleague from Oregon laid out very clearly how this rider would compromise good science.

That is what this is about. Senator Merkley, who knows much more about these subjects, frankly, than I do, went through the biological opinions one by one, the key sections. But the bottom line is, it is compromising good science. For us in Oregon, you have a water infrastructure bill that is designed to provide support to places like the beautiful Oregon coast.

My wife and I were married at Haystack Rock, right in front of the rock, one of the prettiest places on the Oregon coast. Our friend from Michigan has visited the Oregon coast. This is one of the great American treasures, the Oregon coast and Haystack Rock.
Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe came up with this terrific bill to provide support to places such as the Oregon coast, where my wife and I were married. You have to say: What is a bill that is designed to provide support for special places really mean when it does not do a whole lot of good if there is no salmon in the ocean, no fishing families or fishing boats in the ports, and no fish at the dinner table? That, colleagues, is what this is really all about.

Now, as far as the infrastructure is concerned, Senator Merkley has led this in Oregon and has done terrific work to protect the displaced tribes to ensure that they would have a better quality of life.
I think I have already summed it up. You can't have big-league quality of life with little-league infrastructure. So this legislation ensures that we are going to have that kind of infrastructure.
Particularly in rural and coastal Oregon, it would be a huge benefit.
But at a time when the Oregon coastal communities need as much help as they can get, the provision that my colleagues--Senator Boxer, Senator Cantwell, and Merkley--have been talking about deals with drought and really threatens to do just the opposite of providing the help these communities need.
I think that the provision my colleagues have been talking about in effect threatens the very viability of the west coast fishing industry and has literally put so many of the good provisions in this bill at risk.
Senator Merkley went into a fair amount of detail--and very eloquently--about the specifics in the drought provisions, so what I would like to do is just highlight a little bit of what I have heard from fishing families on the Oregon coast and what they are concerned about.

Their big concern is that this drought provision basically maximizes water delivery to agribusiness without adequate safeguards for the fisheries that depend on that water. By preauthorizing a number of dams across the entire west coast without additional Congressional oversight, it basically turns years of policy with respect to dams on its head.
We know those issues are tough. We have been dealing with them as westerners for years. But the way we deal with them is collaboratively.

That is how Senator Boxer has managed to protect all of these special places. That is how she has managed to work with Senator Inhofe to promote infrastructure at the same time--because we work collaboratively.
That is sure not the case here because all of these small fisheries and the fishing families don't feel they have been consulted. They make a very good case that this really gives the upcoming administration the authority to determine whether or not salmon is being harmed by maximizing water delivery to big agribusiness.
Water issues for us in the West are never a walk in the park; I think
we all understand that. I want to commend our other colleague from California for her hard work. She has put in a tremendous amount of time. I can tell colleagues that she has spoken with me again and again on this issue in order to get an agreement on drought that helps California.
Suffice it to say that Senator Merkley and I know our State is no stranger to water challenges, if you just think about the amount of time we spent on the Klamath and the whole host of issues around our State. But, as I touched on, you have to have everybody at the table.
It has to be collaborative.

This rider we have been discussing is not a product of compromise. A small west coast industry has been left out of the discussions because the deck was stacked in favor of these very large agribusinesses. Even though those hard-working families in small coastal communities know that a healthy stock of salmon is a lifeline, these stakeholders in the debate not only got short shrift, their voice really was not heard much at all.
So I am going to close by way of saying that we don't think this rider is just about water and agriculture in California; this is going to put at risk the salmon fishing industry up and down the Pacific coast. The drought provision, in my view, threatens to undermine bedrock environment laws like the Endangered Species Act. We have already touched on the power it would give the new administration to override critical environmental laws.

But if you are not from the Northwest, we have talked--Senator Cantwell has described so thoughtfully what the stakes are. They are enormous for us in the Pacific Northwest. But no matter how many times the sponsors say they don't think this sets a precedent, I think this is going to be pointed too often in the days ahead as we go forward in this present form as an argument for doing the same sort of thing elsewhere.
I and my northwest colleagues have heard a lot from concerned west coast fishery groups and coastal business owners over the last few days. I am very hopeful--I know we are going to vote here in a bit-- that the position my colleagues have outlined against this proposal in its current form is supported here in the Senate.
I thank my colleague for her terrific work on this. We have been in public life now a pretty good stretch of time in both the Senate and the House. This is an area, particularly, where Senator Boxer has shown something that I think is going to stand the test of time--the ability to protect special places, the treasures we want our kids and our grandkids to go to. Scarlett

Willa Wyden, not 4, is my daughter. We are older parents. She has the brightest red hair on the planet. She is going to be able to enjoy some special places because of the work Senator Boxer has done. She has protected those special places while at the same time defying most of what the political observers thought was impossible by teaming up with Senator Inhofe on infrastructure projects that have paid off so tremendously in terms of jobs and quality of life. So it is possible to do this right, but this drought provision doesn't do it. I am very hopeful that the work my colleagues have done will be supported in the Senate.

I thank my colleague for our years and years of friendship.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source