On the recordDecember 9, 2016
In fact, the savings clause here is drafted to be nearly identical to the savings clause in a case called Verizon Communication v. Trinko. This is a Supreme Court case in which the Court took a commonsense view of the same clause as we have in this bill and concluded that clause prevented any modification to existing law. I also want to talk about process. The bill before you today is the result of 3 years of painstaking and public work. I first introduced a version of this bill in July of 2015. That bill received significant public input, including a Senate energy committee hearing last October. Based on feedback, I revised that bill and then circulated a public discussion draft in December of that year. We incorporated feedback from a variety of stakeholders, including environmentalists, water districts, and State and Federal agencies. We made dozens of changes. Incorporating all of this, I then introduced a revised bill in February of 2016. That revised bill received a second Senate hearing in the committee in May. The administration testified at that time that the bill complied with the Endangered Species Act and relevant biological opinions. The short-term operational provisions in this bill are largely the same as the bill I introduced in February. We also made the savings clause and environmental protections even stronger, referencing them no fewer than 36 times.…





