Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am very pleased to bring to the floor today the conference report on H.R. 1495, the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. I think I can pick up on something Senator Alexander said about how divided we are in this country over this Iraq war. That is very clear. No one understands more than our Senator who is sitting in the chair and presiding today how we are divided. This is a different story, so we will take a little break out of our discussions about Iraq, and we will continue to work for bipartisanship in bringing this war to an honorable close. At this time, we take a little break from that and turn toward something that is very important, which is building and rebuilding the water infrastructure of our Nation. Today is a day that is 7 years in the making. I wish to start off by thanking my committee, all of the Members on my side of the aisle, and Senator Inhofe, our ranking member, and all his colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle. This is an unusual day. This is a day where we come forward united on a bill that will authorize the projects and policies of the Civil Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. I am so pleased we will vote today on final passage of that bill, and we will send it to the President. I hope President Bush will reconsider his veto threat of this bill. I think colleagues will speak to how urgent this bill is. Imagine not having a water resources bill for 7 long years. That is too long to wait. If colleagues are concerned about the size of the bill--truly, if we had gone back the way we did it, every 2 years, it would be about the size that this bill is. As Senator Inhofe will say when he gets here--and, as you know, he and I don't agree on many environmental matters, but on public works matters we do agree--this is the first step in a long process--the authorizing step--and then comes the appropriations. So every one of these projects that has gone through local governments all over this country--remember, for every one of these projects, there is a local match. These are projects that came from the bottom up, from our people who were saying to us we need help with flood control, with economic development, with dredging and we need help with wetlands restoration and in a number of areas involving the movement of water; and this country learned it when we watched after Hurricanes Rita and Katrina. If we didn't know it then, we certainly know it now. So I say to this President, this bill is in line, in terms of the pricetag, with what we would have had if we had done this bill every 2 years. There is huge support for this bill. The votes in the House and the Senate are enormous, very one-sided. So I hope, Mr. President, if you are listening or people in your office are listening, this is a respectful request to please join with us. We don't have to fight over every single thing. When it comes to the economy, the quality of life of our people, we should be united. The House vote on this conference report was 381 to 40. We are hoping we will vote in that same fashion in the Senate. Mr. President, how much time do I have, since I am Senator Reid's designee?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, again, in a way I am glad I didn't have a chance to speak before because there has been so much interest in this bill that I waited until we had a little quieter time on the floor, although several are coming. Part of our work is making sure that in coordination with local governments and State governments and communities and the American people, we do what we need to do so we can build our economy, so our economy has behind it the infrastructure it needs. What happens when an infrastructure fails? We saw that in Minnesota when the bridge collapsed. I am proud the Environment and Public Works Committee held a very strong hearing at the behest of Senator Klobuchar, and we are moving forward on a way to ensure that we can fund those kinds of improvements. We saw what happens when water infrastructure fails, when we look at what happened in Hurricane Katrina. We saw that the levees we thought were built to protect against category 5 storms simply didn't stand up. There is no way we can talk our way out of the problem we face in America. The problem we face is we have an aging infrastructure. Whether it is our roads or bridges, our highways, or our water infrastructure, these need attention. That is why today is such an important day and why I am so proud to stand here, because even though not every Member will support this bill, I would say almost every Member will. Senator Feingold was eloquent and he was disappointed that we didn't do everything he and Senator McCain asked us on Corps reform. I understand that. We are very close friends and colleagues. The fact is, I see it a little differently. We went a very long way. I know he and I have our differences. What I wish to do, rather than take the time to engage in an argument, is to place in the Record the program highlights of Corps reform initiatives that are in this bill. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. What everyone will be able to read is the independent review we now have in place in the bill that is truly independent, done by the National Academy of Sciences, which includes safety assurance reviews, mitigation, planning principles and guidelines, watershed- based planning, levee safety, and other program improvements, including expediting the process for deauthorizing the unconstructed backlog of projects. Rather than get into a big argument, to me it is such a positive day today. I see the Senator from Virginia coming to say a few words. This is a very important day. We are struggling in the Senate to work together. The war in Iraq has torn us apart. It is very hard. But on this matter of building an infrastructure and making sure it works, we are as one. This conference report has the support of my ranking member, Senator Inhofe, the entire Environment and Public Works Committee. It is important to note that the conference report was signed by every conferee from both Chambers. The conference report was signed by every conferee, Republican, Democratic, Independent, as they may be, in both Chambers. The conference report has already received an overwhelming vote in the House: 381 in favor; 40 opposed. Imagine what a wonderful message that is that we can work together. I also say for the record that this conference report fully complies with the rules of the Senate as amended by S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. Under the requirements of new rule XLIV, I certify that each congressionally directed spending item in the conference report and the name of each Senator who submitted a request to the committee for that item has been identified through a chart that has been available on the committee Web site at least 48 hours prior to the vote on this conference report. So we have been faithful as we must be to the new rule XLIV on our ethics, where you can see what every Senator requested and a certification that in fact there is no conflict of interest, no pecuniary interest on the part of the Senator or any member of the immediate family. This is truly a bipartisan bill. I am going to make a unanimous consent request that at the conclusion of my 10 minutes, Senator Cardin be recognized for up to 10 minutes and that then Senator Warner be recognized.

Mrs. BOXER. They certainly believe we should have gone further with Corps reform. That is clear. But they do say: The reforms in this bill begin to put the Corps on track towards becoming a more reliable and credible agency. This is important. They do say: The gains in the WRDA bill would not have been possible without the tireless work from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. They name some names of Senators. Even though, as I say, they would have wanted 100 percent of what Senator Feingold asked for, they again say: Congress has taken a first step towards more responsible river management. I feel pleased with this result. I know sometimes we see a glass half full and sometimes we see it half empty. I see it half full. I am proud we made these amazing strides toward Corps reform. Senator Feingold is, shall we say, very disappointed, and I respect that. I do not see it the way he sees it. So when I come back to some more of my time--but I will yield at this time--I will talk about how important this bill is to the health and safety of our families, our communities, and our economy. At this time I yield and we will go to the unanimous consent agreement.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I might make a unanimous consent request before my good colleague speaks. First of all, because my friends on the other side are looking for time, I yield them 3 minutes of my time, to Senator Inhofe, right off the bat--3 minutes. If the Chair could add that to the time they have remaining.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following Senator Cardin, Senator DeMint be recognized for up to 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. I object. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me say this. For 7 years, we waited for flood control and then we saw Katrina. For 7 years, we have waited for environmental restoration. For 7 years, we have waited for navigation improvements. For 7 years, we have waited, and the bottom line is, every single project in this bill has a letter attached to it saying who asked for it, whether it was added in conference, added in the first bill, the second or the third. I would urge that we get on with this today, and I object to the unanimous consent request that we slow this thing down.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes at this time. Mr. President, it is my understanding that now I have 14 minutes remaining on my side. Senator Inhofe has how much time remaining?

Mrs. BOXER. And Senator Feingold retains 20 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. If he doesn't take that 20 minutes, Senator Inhofe and I will share that time. I am sorry that Senator DeMint has left the floor, which oftentimes happens after a Senator speaks. But I have to say that when I said we need to do these Katrina-related fixes, his answer was that the reason we had a problem with Katrina in the first place is the Corps didn't do a good job, and I think certainly the Corps didn't live up to our expectations. But what Senator DeMint doesn't mention is that in this bill before us, because of the hard work of Senator Feingold and others, we have now put into this bill an independent review process where there will be no projects going forward unless and until there is an independent report that the National Academy of Sciences will, in fact, oversee. We have gone light years from where we were before. That is why we have so much strong support for the bill. The Audubon Society supports the bill, along with the Clean Water Fund, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the American Shore and Beach Preservation Society, the National Water Resources Association, and on and on and on. The fact is, if we had allowed the DeMint request to go forward, we would be back to square one. We cannot afford that. It has been 7 long years. Again, the health of our communities is at stake. The safety of our families is at stake. I could talk about Sacramento. Finally, we have language in the authorization to move forward with the proper flood control for the community of Sacramento. Mr. President, 300,000 people live there. It is the home of our State, the capital of our State. We finally reached agreement. These are not agreements that come from the top down; they come from local government up. I think it is important, as colleagues come to the floor to in a way demean this process, to understand if they demean the process, they are demeaning their own communities. In Oklahoma, or in California, or Georgia--I see Senator Isakson here. He and Senator Baucus were invaluable to Senator Inhofe and me in doing all of this. The fact is these projects and these ideas and these needs come up from local governments. As a matter of fact, homeowners' associations find themselves faced with dangerous circumstances because a river is rising and there have not been the needed improvements. Senator Inhofe and I share a commitment to shoring up our infrastructure, including water resources, and I think when we look at all of the things that come before us--and we are so torn in half here, Democrat versus Republican--here we have an opportunity to move forward in a bipartisan fashion. As Senator Inhofe would say in his way, because he has been hammering at this, this is one step of a very important process. We have added these independent reviews so that we have checks and balances all the way through. I will retain the remainder of my time. I thank the Chair.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield 6 minutes to Senator Landrieu of Louisiana.

Mrs. BOXER. Will my friend yield just on the time issue? It is my understanding that Senator Feingold has yielded us 20 minutes, so I ask unanimous consent that Senator Inhofe get an additional 10 minutes and I get an additional 10 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, could you tell us how much time remains between Senator Inhofe and myself?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, let me say as we wind down that I think this committee, of which I am so proud to be the chairman, and I am so pleased to work with Senator Inhofe on these infrastructure issues, has done its work. I think we have done our job. Now, of course, you can always find something that somebody doesn't like in a bill, but the fact is, as Senator Inhofe explained with a most instructive set of charts--and I thank him so much for going back through the history of the difference between appropriations and authorizations--this is an important step and a necessary step in the process but by no means the last step. He talked about the appropriations process, and I talked about the process now that Senator Feingold and Senator McCain got added to this bill. Although they are still not happy with everything we have done, it creates an independent review. So we will have independent review, we will have appropriations. Therefore, this is a very necessary first step after these projects have come up really from our constituents, from our homeowners, from our city councils, from our boards of supervisors, from our mayors and governors, et cetera. So I believe we have put together a bill that meets our communities' needs, and I think we have done it in the very best way we can. We have complied with the new ethics rules. By the way, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter dated today from Majority Leader Reid and the Rules Committee chair, Senator Feinstein, replying to Senator DeMint on the issue of whether the Senate rule XLIV point of order applies to authorization bills.

Mrs. BOXER. So, Madam President, we have complied in full with the Ethics Committee, and we worked with the Parliamentarian every step of the way to make sure we were in total concert with that new law because we are respectful of it. We have letters from every Senator. We have a transparent process here. Everyone who asked for a project put their name on the line, and we made sure there was no pecuniary interest of a Member or their family. So this is an important day for our country. We have all said this in different ways, but we are authorizing projects our communities need to help protect millions of people in our Nation from catastrophic flooding. It also will help restore the great wetlands, estuaries, and rivers of our Nation, places where wildlife thrive and that our families enjoy today. We want to make sure they enjoy them in the future--the hunting, the fishing, the boating, the camping, the outdoor industries. By the way, those outdoor industries are a very important part of our economy. We call it the recreation economy. Without these projects, they simply won't be able to thrive. WRDA makes other important contributions. It authorizes projects for our communities that they need to increase their capacity at their ports, to make shipping easier, safer, and more efficient. It literally keeps America's economy moving. You cannot have a great country if you don't keep up with the infrastructure needs. We saw what happened when a bridge collapses, and we are dealing with that in the committee as well. Look what happens if we don't keep up with our water projects. We are not going to be able to move our ships. I know there are, for example, in California so many ports, but in many cases a lot of silt builds up and they can't move those ships through. So we need to do that. These are our gateways to the world. Our manufactured goods, such as computer chips, agricultural goods, grains, wines, and fruits, pass through our ports and harbors to be sold around the world. We have $5.5 billion worth of goods passing through our ports each day and more than 2.5 billion tons of trade moving through our ports each year. Colleagues, that volume is expected to double over the next 15 years. That is why we say to this President: Please, please sign this bill. Why do we have to fight over every single thing? The fact is, you can't have a great economy, the greatest economy in the world, if we can't keep our goods moving. And we need to create thousands of new jobs right here in America. The port economy is responsible for approximately 5 million jobs--and ``jobs'' is your middle name, Madam President. So this bill will keep jobs being created and keep goods moving. WRDA is essential for goods movement. I mentioned recreation. Maybe some people don't know this, but the Corps of Engineers is the largest provider of outdoor recreation, operating more than 2,500 recreation areas at 463 projects and leasing an additional 1,800 sites to State or local parks and recreation authorities or private interests. At these projects around the country, the Corps hosts 360 million visitors a year at its lakes, beaches, and other areas. One in ten Americans--25 million people--visits a Corps project at least once a year, and this generates 600,000 jobs related to all of this movement. So, colleagues, we can all agree that public health and safety, economic growth, and environmental protection are important goals, and this bill helps to achieve them. Finally, I wish to say a word of thanks to leader Harry Reid, who has just come onto the floor to make a statement of his own. I know Senator Inhofe and I spoke to Senator Reid many, many times, and I know it is difficult for him because, just so the public understands, everyone who gets a bill out of his or her committee goes right to the majority leader to beg for time. He made a commitment to me. He told me, and I remember it: When the Jewish holidays are completed, we will turn to WRDA. And that is what he did. He is a man of his word. This is so very important for the country. Finally, let me thank the staff. First, the Democratic staff: Bettina Poirier, Ken Kopocis, Jeff Rosato, Tyler Rushforth; EPW Republican staff: Andy Wheeler, Ruth Van Mark, Angie Giancarlo, Let Mon Lee--I have gotten to know these as family; also, the staff of Senator Baucus: Jo-Ellen Darcy and Paul Wilkins; and staff of Senator Isakson: Mike Quiello. This has been not an easy time. But when you get a bill that is supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, and the three biggest construction labor organizations--Laborers' International, International Union of Operating Engineers, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners--when you get all those, plus a host of local people, plus a host of water people, I think we are answering a need. Again, I thank each and every member of the staff, my dear friend Senator Inhofe for being such a good fighter for this, and all the Members of the Senate. I know we are going to have a great vote. It is my understanding Senator Inhofe may have a closing word prior to Senator Reid speaking, so I yield my time.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I support passage of the Levin-Reed amendment and a new course of action in Iraq. This amendment makes three significant and important changes in our involvement in Iraq that to this point the administration has been unwilling to make, even though the American people have been demanding change for over a year. First, it removes our troops from the civil war they are now policing and gives them three achievable missions: to conduct targeted counterterrorism operations against al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations; to train and equip Iraqi Security Forces; and, to provide security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure. Second, the amendment calls for the safe redeployment of those troops not required for these three missions beginning in 3 months and to be completed within 9 months of this bill's passage. And finally this amendment acknowledges what we have known all along that there is no military solution to this conflict. It calls for the implementation of a comprehensive diplomatic, political, and economic strategy to jump start the process of reconciliation and stability. This strategy would include sustained engagement with Iraq's neighbors and the international community and the appointment of an international mediator in Iraq under the United Nations Security Council. The mediator would have the authority to engage the political, religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders in a political process that aims to avoid no one wants--regional civil war. For nearly 5 years, our troops have done everything asked of them. It is time for Iraqis to provide the security for their own country. I urge adoption of the Levin-Reed amendment.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2947 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the clerk for reading those words. I hope Members of the Senate heard them well because in this amendment, what we are doing is saying that there is essentially a terrible trend in America today: to launch attacks on honorable people who serve in the military. By the way, it isn't just folks who were mentioned or alluded to. I have an article I would like to have printed in the Record from the San Diego Union Tribune, April 16, 2004, and another from the Seattle Times of May 13, 2007. I ask unanimous consent to have two articles printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. This is one where General Zinni, who criticized the war in Iraq, said, ``I have been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things.'' Outrageous--because he spoke out against the war in Iraq. Then you have retired General Batiste, who lashed out on the war and says he gets e-mails with the heading, ``Traitor.'' My friend from Texas is taking one example, attacking an organization that he doesn't agree with--I am sure of that--and we are going to be pretty busy in the Senate if we turn into the ad police. When Senator Cleland was attacked we didn't have a resolution on the floor of the Senate. When Senator Kerry was attacked we didn't do it. When General Batiste was attacked we didn't do it. For General Zinni we didn't do it. We did speak out, and we did speak out about the ad, all of us on both sides of the aisle, that attacked General Petraeus. But we didn't have a resolution all these times. Suddenly, now, a political organization is attacked by name in a resolution in something that reminds me of the old, bad days in America when organizations were attacked by the Government. So what we have done is we have written this. I thank Senators Levin and Reid and Durbin and other Senators who believe what we see is a trend to attack heroes. We say it is wrong. We don't go after one organization. We say it is wrong. Let me show you the Max Cleland ad. We have the picture of Max Cleland in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. This is what Senator McCain had to say about that ad. Here is what he said: I've never seen anything like that ad. . . .Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to a man who lost three limbs on the battlefield, it's worse than disgraceful, it's reprehensible. But we didn't come down and pass a resolution attacking the campaign that ran this ad. But now we have an attack on one organization. It is wrong. It should be defeated. This amendment I have offered is the one that ought to pass this Chamber. I yield to Senator Durbin my remaining time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I might say that my friend and colleague-- maybe he didn't read the Boxer amendment because we specifically pointed to the Petraeus ad, and we say, in fact, that it was an unwarranted personal attack. I will just tell you right now, if my colleague wants to vote no on all such attacks, whether it is against General Batiste or Zinni, then vote no on the Boxer amendment. If you want to vote no on the amendment that says two things here--we reaffirm our strong support for all the men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces, and we strongly condemn all attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving as or has honorably served in the U.S. Armed Forces by any person or organization--if my friend wants to vote against this, then so be it because just to attack one organization and not look at the larger problem of what is happening out there in our country seems to me a political vendetta and nothing more. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to Senator Levin.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold-Reid amendment. This amendment would remove our troops from the middle of a civil war and give them three achievable missions. First, to conduct targeted operations against al-Qaida and affiliated terrorist organizations; second, to train and equip Iraqi security forces that have not been involved in sectarian fighting or attacks against our forces; and third, to provide security for U.S. personnel and infrastructure. For all other U.S. forces not essential to these three missions, the amendment calls for their safe redeployment beginning in 3 months and to be completed by June 30, 2008. On May 16, the Senate failed to end a filibuster on the Feingold amendment by a vote of 29-67. Since that time, 389 Americans have been killed in Iraq. In fact this has been the deadliest summer for U.S. forces since the war began. Our troops have done everything asked of them. They achieved every mission they have been given. When they were given a clear task, it was accomplished. Our military forces defeated the Iraqi army, hunted for nonexistent stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, captured Saddam Hussein and his sons, provided security for three elections, and trained 350,000 Iraq police and army. But there are some missions that are beyond the capacity of our military. Our military cannot give the Iraqi people the political will to achieve a national reconciliation among Sunni, Shia and Kurds. And, our military cannot convince Iraq's neighbors to play a positive role in ending the violence in Iraq. The Iraqi people do not want us in Iraq and 70 percent of them believe that the surge has made the security situation worse. Passage of the Feingold-Reid amendment will allow us to renew our focus on al-Qaida. I voted to go to war against al-Qaida. I strongly supported the decision to use military force in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban government. But then this administration made one of the biggest strategic blunders in the history of this nation. It took its eye off of al-Qaida and became obsessed with Iraq, a country that had no links to al-Qaida. The cochairs of the 9/11 Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, recently wrote, ``no conflict drains more time, attention, blood, treasure and support from our worldwide counterterrorism efforts than the war in Iraq. It has become a powerful recruiting and training tool for al-Qaida.'' It is finally time to change the mission in Iraq and redeploy our troops out of the middle of this civil war. And so, Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the Feingold-Reid amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, could I ask what the parliamentary situation is? I thought Senator Cornyn was going to have an amendment and I was going to have an amendment this morning. Is that accurate?

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, John Kerry and Max Cleland are great heroes. My colleagues on the other side voted not to condemn the attacks against them, even though the Senator from Arizona did so, and I have the chart of what he said. This is about politics, let's face it. Since when are we the ad police who go after organizations by name and wave around their name? What are we going to do next when there is a health care debate? Are we going to condemn one organization on one side and one on the other, or are we going to do it on choice and hold up some very tough ads that we see running all over this country? I would hope not. This is the United States of America. We condemn all attacks against our men and women serving honorably in the military, not just one organization. We condemn all the attacks. I hope our colleagues will vote ``no.'' Otherwise, we are starting a terrible precedent around here we will regret. I yield back the remainder of my time.