Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 149, submitted earlier today.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask the Senator have 30 seconds more.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I have a minute and a half.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I thank my colleague for not offering his amendment. He and I see this very differently. But first I wish to say I have committed to a hearing. I told my colleague he can get as much time as he wants, but I have to correct the record. My colleague said this project delivery reform was a last minute addition. Project delivery reform was in the bill as it was voted out of committee, without a dissenting vote. Let me reiterate: This is not a last minute issue. Project delivery reform was in the bill when it got voted out. Here is why--two reasons. One is projects are being delayed--environmental projects, flood control projects; they are being delayed. Some delay is necessary--when there is new information--and they could still have a delay. What we do in this bill--and it has been changed for the better, I think my colleague is right on that--is we sunset the provision in 10 years. For the first time in history, the resource agencies my friend and I care so much about, such as Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and all the rest, will be in the room with the corps setting the deadlines. It is very important that we get our job done. Bureaucratic agencies have to get the work done as well. I think this reform is one we will be proud of, and I look forward to those hearings. I thank my colleague. We will get on with this and make sure this reform works the way we anticipate it will. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 909, as Modified

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, the Senate is not in order. I believe this is our last amendment, and this is an important amendment to my friend. It is also important to many States. It would be nice if we could show the Senator some courtesy.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if I could be heard on this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am supporting this amendment. It is important to the States that are affected, and there are several States that are affected. The fact is that we don't want to see the corps start a water war, and the Presiding Officer has discussed that with me. I am very grateful to her and Senator Hoeven for explaining this matter. The tribes were involved as well. We don't want to see them get in trouble. I think the corps has to respect the fact that there are these water rights in place. I will be supporting this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I want to take this opportunity to address one of the provisions of this bill relating to water supply. Section 2015, which originally had a much broader impact, now expresses the sense of the committee related to a particular dispute between States, and expresses a concern on the part of members of the Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding the ongoing interstate water disputes among the States of Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. I would like to yield to the Committee's Ranking Republican, Senator Vitter, for his remarks about this provision, but I would note that it is the strong desire of the Committee that this dispute be resolved amicably through water compacts that ensure the availability of water to meet all necessary human and environmental needs. Senator Vitter, can you elaborate on the intent of Section 2015?

Mrs BOXER

Mrs BOXER. I thank the Senator. That's correct. And as this new language clearly states, ``this subsection does not alter existing rights or obligations under law.'' So to reiterate, it is not the intention of Section 2015 to alter the Corps' existing legal authority to reallocate storage, to express any view on whether current or projected future levels of storage for water supply exceed the Corps' existing legal authority, or to prohibit or interfere with the Corps' ongoing efforts to update its water control plans and manuals for the ACF and ACT Basins. Further, it is not the intention to preclude the Corps from taking action consistent with its existing legal authority to study and implement reallocations of reservoir storage to meet municipal and industrial water supply needs.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. That is my understanding. The additional uses authorized by WRDA 2013 are important for many parts of the country, including California, and are clearly an eligible use of the harbor maintenance trust fund.

Mrs. BOXER. I appreciate the Senator from New York raising this issue. I also know that my good friend from New York and I agree on the need to enhance the resiliency of the east coast in the wake of the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy. Section 3004 states that, with respect to the corps study for flood and storm damage reduction which was authorized by the Sandy relief bill, the Secretary shall include specific project recommendations. The bill also includes a new provision to prioritize hurricane protection studies, section 2044, that would give the Secretary the authority to quickly move feasibility studies developed through the comprehensive hurricane study.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for raising this concern. He is correct that the language of section 3004 authorizes and directs the corps to conduct feasibility studies for the specific projects it identifies in the regional study.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from New Jersey for raising this concern. While section 3004 does state that the Secretary shall include project recommendations, it does not add funding, so such recommendations or feasibility studies would only be possible if monies are available after the regional study is complete.

Mrs. BOXER. The unique nature of the Great Lakes Navigation System is one of the reasons we do not include Great Lakes projects in the definition of high-use deep draft harbors and instead include the Great Lakes in a separate group for the prioritized funding.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, that is correct. The funding could be used for any project in the Great Lakes Navigation System.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes.

Mrs. BOXER. I would answer my friend in this way. This is a new commission. We set it up in the bill. It has never worked before. We do not know how it will work. So we thought, for starters, let's go after the older projects, see how it works, and any day we could come back and add more authority. But we think, if there are active projects, it sends a very confusing signal to the folks back home. We think this is the way to start it. It is smart. We have never had this commission before. I am very proud that we have it in here. I know my colleague supports the commission. He is already wanting to expand it. But I think we start this way, and then if it looks like we can give them more authority, we can. By the way, any day of the week Congress could deauthorize as well.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I very much respect my friend. I know his intention is the best. But I do have to say there is not one earmark in this bill. He should be so proud of both sides of the aisle in this committee--not one earmark--and we do not tell the commission what they can and cannot do. But we do set some parameters because we do believe, as we start this deauthorization commission, it ought to go after the older projects. But projects that are active, let them get a chance to move forward. There are no earmarks in this bill. I kind of resent it, in a nice way. I am not angry about it. But, believe me, there is no intention to protect earmarks here at all. So I hope we will vote no. I think we are starting something new, something good. It is a huge reform. We have a deauthorization commission, but let's start them with the older projects. Let's track it. If we feel we should move forward with more reform, I am certainly open to it. I yield the floor and hope for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I believe there is 2 minutes equally divided. Could I ask my friend if he wishes to make a statement.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote. Colleagues, please hear me out. This amendment would expand the authority of a newly created infrastructure deauthorization commission and allow projects in your State to be stopped midstream--active projects, projects that have local funds flowing into them and private funds flowing into them. This is a bridge too far. I am very proud of the work Senator Vitter and I have done in setting up this commission. We have very clear rules about what the commission could look at, and we protect projects that are active. We say to them: Go after the inactive projects, stop them, and save taxpayer dollars. Please, let's have a good ``no'' vote on this one.

Mrs. BOXER. Before I turn to my colleague from Arkansas, I want to say that I support his amendment, and I believe he will be happy to have a voice vote. I hope that is OK with everyone. I think it is a very good amendment, and I ask him to explain it, if we could have order for him, please.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, we are moving forward today. I thank all colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Vitter and I have tried to allow all kinds of amendments. Unfortunately, yesterday there was an objection to one contentious amendment, and Senator Landrieu was--she took one for the team and withdrew her amendment because she wanted to make sure this WRDA bill moves forward. I appreciate that. It is a very important issue about flood issues and it is complicated and I know how strongly she feels about it. I know she will be back. So we have a number of amendments, and we will be debating them for 1 minute on each side. I wish to address my friend from Oklahoma. Let me tell my colleagues, we have been on opposite sides on his amendments. I don't like that very much. When we do work together we win big; when we don't, then it doesn't work out well for either of us. So I am sorry to say I will have to oppose the two amendments of my friend from Oklahoma, and I want to lay out for the record in a little more than a minute why. We do something important in this bill. We create a new infrastructure deauthorization commission to review the backlog of corps projects and develop a list of projects that will be deauthorized unless Congress passes a joint resolution opposing the commission's recommendation. It is kind of like the Base Closure Commission, where the Base Closure Commission comes forward and says these are the bases that will be closed. It is a very cumbersome process to overturn the commission. We did that on purpose because we know politics plays a part in a lot of these things, and we want the commission to have power. I am sure my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, is grateful we have set up this commission because what he is trying to do is cut out even more projects. I just want to make the case that when we did this in the committee, we developed a careful balance and we give the infrastructure deauthorization committee a lot of authority. But this amendment removes the bill's limitations on what projects can be deauthorized. So this is in our bill. This is what we say to the commission. We give guidance to the commission. We say: These are the projects that can be deauthorized; in other words, stopped, because I share the view of my friend from Oklahoma. We don't want to keep projects going that are doomed and not going anywhere. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and, frankly, it makes it very confusing for people back home because they don't understand why a project started in 1996 is still alive. What we do is projects authorized or reauthorized after the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50 percent complete, and projects that have a viable, non-Federal sponsor would not be deauthorized. They would not be deauthorized. So let me say it again. Projects that would not be deauthorized are projects authorized after 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that received appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50 percent complete, projects that have a viable and non-Federal sponsor. So we do give guidance to the commission. We say other than that, go for it and deauthorize. The provision Senator Coburn wants to strike was included to focus the attention of the commission on the older, truly inactive projects. That is what we are about. The Coburn amendment would give unlimited discretion to the commission to deauthorize a project even if it is in the middle of construction or it has an active non-Federal sponsor. Imagine we have a city or a county or even a private sector participant who is involved, and all of a sudden everything they have done is for naught. I think what the amendment does is create havoc. I know my friend has the best of intentions. His point that we can overturn the commission is a valid point, but let's be clear. How many bills actually become a law around here these days? It is hard to even pass a resolution saying Happy Mother's Day. So we have a hard time. So to say the Congress could actually overturn the commission--we have never done it in the Base Closure Commission, and we wouldn't do it here. States and local communities have invested millions of dollars in local cost-shares from project feasibility studies. It isn't fair to these communities that have committed significant resources to deauthorize a project that remained active and is moving forward. So, in essence, this amendment would disrupt the new deauthorization process created in WRDA 2013, and I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment. Now I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Construction Alliance. It reads: ``The National Construction Alliance strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.'' It says: ``Communities . . . cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from beneath them.'' I think it is important to note that they don't in any way chastise the committee for our work. We also have opposition from the Road Builders.

Mrs. BOXER. In my concluding moments, we also will have a Coburn amendment on striking section 2030 on the beach nourishment extension. I think it is very important that this be defeated because many of these existing projects provide critical storm damage protection for coastal communities which require periodic nourishment to maintain this protection. There are dozens of important shoreline protection projects around the country that it benefits that exceed the costs. Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that Federal shoreline protection projects fared better against the storm surge than other areas impacted by the storm. We have seen this. Where there was beach nourishment, they had a lot less damage and people were spared. So in our work on WRDA, the EPW Committee held hearings on the corps' flood and storm damage reduction projects. We received testimony from local communities such as Ocean City, MD, which highlighted the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages avoided by these projects. Section 2030 in WRDA 2013 does not provide a blanket extension of all beach nourishment and shore protections. The section simply allows the corps to study projects and to make a recommendation to Congress. I don't know why we would want to stop this since we know, after Hurricane Sandy, some of these projects have cost-benefit for the people--for the taxpayers. Before receiving an extension, a project has to go through a feasibility analysis to demonstrate that the project is in the national interest, it has to have a positive cost-benefit ratio, is technically feasible, and is environmentally acceptable. The provision Senator Coburn is attempting to strike doesn't guarantee an extension, it just tells the corps to study the issue and come back with a recommendation. I honestly believe blocking Federal investment in these projects will harm coastal communities, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this Coburn amendment. I know I speak for many, including Senator Lautenberg, who actually brought this issue to my attention years ago. I yield the floor and note that the time has come to debate the Coburn amendment, 1 minute each side.