To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting the designation of critical habitat.
Legislative Activity
Stay on top of the latest movement without scrolling through every action
Senate amendment agreed to: Amendment SA 659 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 42. Record Vote Number: 128.
March 27, 2015
View full timeline
Senate amendment agreed to: Amendment SA 659 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 42. Record Vote Number: 128.
March 27, 2015
Roll call votes on amendments in Senate: Amendment SA 659 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 42. Record Vote Number: 128.
March 27, 2015
Amendment SA 659 agreed to in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 52 - 42. Record Vote Number: 128.
March 27, 2015
Senate amendment proposed (on the floor): Amendment SA 659 proposed by Senator Enzi for Senator Cotton.(consideration: CR S1995-1997, S2009-2010; text: CR S1996)
March 26, 2015
Amendment SA 659 proposed by Senator Enzi for Senator Cotton. (consideration: CR S1995-1997, S2009-2010; text: CR S1996) To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to prohibiting the designation of critical habitat.
March 26, 2015
Senate amendment submitted
March 25, 2015
Senate amendment submitted
March 25, 2015
Votes
1 roll call on this amendment
Text
Submitted
SA 659. Mr. COTTON submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the concurrent resolution S. Con. Res. 11, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2016 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2017 through 2025; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows: At the appropriate place, insert the following: SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO ENSURING PROPER ECONOMIC CONSIDERATION IN DESIGNATION OF CRITICAL HABITAT. The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate may revise the allocations of a committee or committees, aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to critical habitat designations, which may include requirements that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service examine the cumulative economic effects of the designation, such as on land or property uses or values, regional employment, or revenue impacts on States and units of local government, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025. ______