Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 1:10 remaining? I thought I had 3 minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given an additional 3 minutes, and the same for Senator Coburn, if he wishes to respond.

Mrs. BOXER. I am going to take 2 minutes, and then we will see if Senator Coburn wants to respond, and then we will give the last minute to Senator Inhofe. There is a lot of misinformation about the flooding here. There is also the implication that this is not an important project, when I have already pointed out how many businesses are at risk, how many residences. This project has gone through so many steps. First, the local people said: We want to step forward and pay toward solving this problem. Then, the Corps said: You are right. Let's do a cost-benefit study and see if it makes sense for Federal dollars to go into the mix. Well, it came back: Absolutely. Then they said: What is the best type of project? Should we build walls? What should we do? No. They said: The best type of project is to utilize the sand as a natural barrier to these floods. What we are desperately trying to do is complete this project because we are very concerned we could have even a worse problem than we had in 2004. As much as I respect my colleague, I feel his judgment is not something I can accept. I cannot look in the eyes of the people who have been fighting for this project since 2003 and say to them they do not deserve to get any attention paid to their problem until Sacramento is taken care of. I have to say to my friend, in going after this project the way he is, it seems to me he is picking one project out of a hat, which is extremely disturbing. Mr. President, I know there are those who need to go over to the White House, so I will stop my discussion. I think I have enough information in the Record to have colleagues join with me. I say, if Senator Coburn has anything to add at this time, I will reserve the minute for Senator Inhofe.

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

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for that overwhelming vote. I view it as a vote that basically says this bill is a good bill. Let's not tinker with this bill unless there is pretty quick agreement on both sides that it is the right kind of amendment. This wasn't the right kind of amendment. We appreciate this vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, Senator Cardin be recognized to call up amendment No. 1072; that once the amendment is reported by number, there be 5 minutes under the control of Senator Cardin, and that upon the use or yielding back of time, the amendment be withdrawn; that the Senate then resume consideration of the Coburn amendment No. 1089, and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Coburn amendment No. 1089, the Senate consider the Feingold amendment No. 1086, and there be 5 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to the amendment, with all debate time equally divided and controlled in the usual form; that prior to a vote in relation to the amendments covered in this agreement, no intervening amendments be in order.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following Members be recognized to speak as in morning business: Senators Dodd, Inouye, Alexander, and Levin and that after that the Senate stand in recess.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I hope we will do what we did on the last amendment, which is to say no to it because, as we learned from the Senators from Louisiana, this particular amendment is directed at the local people who are willing to pay 100 percent for this center. The fact is, Louisiana is never going to get on its feet if it does not revive tourism. Let's face it. It isn't that we can say: Let's just build the flood protection and worry about the visitor centers later. There is a certain amount of linear thinking going on behind this amendment and the one before. This is the United States. We have to do everything; we can't just do one thing. We have to build the flood protection, and we have to revive Louisiana's economy. This is a rather mean-spirited amendment in the sense that not even a penny of Federal money is involved in the building of this particular center. I urge a ``no'' vote. I yield back all time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute 20 seconds, and I will yield the rest of the time to Senator Inhofe. I thank Senator Feingold for being a leader on Corps reform. I don't view this amendment as reform. My colleague says we have to take the politics out of the decisionmaking process. Well, the fact is, his commission is a political commission appointed by the President, appointed by the Speaker, the minority leader, and so on. So he is taking the decisions, in many ways, away from us. Therefore, I call this the ``we have met the enemy, and it is we'' amendment--taking the power away from us to decide what is important in priorities and adding another layer of bureaucracy in political appointees, who are now going to slow things down. We do have problems. It has taken 7 years to get to this point with WRDA. There are checks and balances every step of the way. We have very tough criteria in this bill. I know the occupant of the chair knows that because he is on the committee. Senator Inhofe and I have said the locals have to pay their share. The cost/benefit ratio has to be in place. Everything has to be thought through. The Corps has to make their report. They come to the committees, and they go through authorization and appropriation. I hope we will vote no on this amendment. I yield to my friend.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would say it would be Senator Hagel first, followed by Senator Dodd.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, how much time remains for Senator Kerry?

Mrs. BOXER. If the President could just tell me when I have used 4 minutes, I will yield the rest of the time back to Senator Kerry. I think, again, this gives us the sense of some of the debate that has been going on inside the environment committee and across the various committees. I certainly believe these kinds of debates are helpful because we get the charges, if you will, out in the open. People on one side or the other can have this free debate. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. When I learned he was going to offer this amendment, I wrote to the Corps and I asked them whether they are considering the impact of global warming already as they do their work. I will ask consent to have printed in the Record their answer to me. It is dated May 10. I will just read a little bit of it. The Corps planning process has been considering the physical impacts of global climate change for over 20 years, initially through the consideration of sea level rise in project planning. As part of the evolution in our approach to incorporating the impacts of global climate change, we are including more risk and uncertainty analyses in our planning process. We continue to collaborate with Federal agencies to ensure that we are up to date on the current interpretations of climate change scenarios and to refine our processes as more aspects of global climate change are understood. This is imperative because the water resources public works projects being planned and designed today must protect against and be resilient to future extreme events, which could be exacerbated by global climate change. They are basically saying: We believe the [Corps] is a leader in developing an innovative, yet practical, cost-effective approach to addressing climate change impacts in our planning and management of our key water-based infrastructure. We are well positioned to respond to the Nation's needs now and in the future. I want to have this letter printed in the Record because I want to say to my friend from Massachusetts that as a result of his offering this amendment, we were able to get the Corps to focus on everything they have been doing to address climate change. I think the Senator will be pleased to see some of the steps they are already taking. I think his amendment is really consistent with what the Corps has already begun to do. I thank Senator Kerry. I thank Senator Inhofe for engaging in this debate with him. It is a little more pleasant for me to see the debate between Senator Kerry and Senator Inhofe rather than Senator Boxer and Senator Inhofe. It is a little bit of a rest for me. I thank both of them for their intelligent approach to this debate. I send this letter to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Kerry.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to talk about something else for a moment to let Senators know where we are. We have been working staff to staff. We are so close to completing this WRDA bill. Once we vote on this 60-vote issue, we are down to a few amendments. There is a managers' package that has been signed off on by the leaders of the committee. We would like to get that done. What we want to say to colleagues on both sides is, if you want to participate in this bill, tonight would be the night to do it because we are wrapping this thing up tomorrow. Our hope is we can complete it. We have this managers' package. If you have something you need to say about this bill, if you have a last-minute amendment you want to show us, this would be the time, this would be the moment. I would be happy to yield some time to my colleague if he wishes to make some comments.

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I would be happy to respond to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mrs. BOXER. I concur that this is the committee's intent.

Mrs. BOXER. I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful independent review and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

Mrs. BOXER. I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful mitigation reform and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

Mrs. BOXER. I concur that these are fundamental elements of meaningful reform of the Corps of Engineers planning guidelines and concur that it is the committee's intent to retain these elements and that we will strenuously support them in the conference.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his comments. I appreciate the leader's continued support for this reauthorizing legislation and the authorization of the new projects for navigation, flood and coastal storm damage reduction, ecosystem restoration and environmental remediation, and water storage and water quality.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Leader, the Middle Creek Project will restore lands within the Middle Creek floodplain and study area. I believe the project will reconnect the floodplain of Middle Creek to the historic Robinson Lake wetland area by breaching the existing levee system and creating inlets that direct flows into the study area. The restoration will provide flood damage reduction by relocating residents of the Robinson Rancheria from the floodplain.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Leader, that is correct.