Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. We yield back all of our time, and we ask for a voice vote.

Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 866

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I support the Merkley amendment. I hope we will have an overwhelming vote on it, and I ask my colleague to take the remaining time.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter dated May 15, 2013, be printed in the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, if I could be heard for less than a minute, I would like to thank every single Senator here. I think we have literally worked with every one of the Senators on this bill. Senator Vitter and I have our differences in a number of areas, but when it comes to the infrastructure of our country, we worked very well together, as I did with Senator Inhofe. The committee voted this bill out unanimously, and we made it better on this floor. Senators came to us with amendments that made this a better bill. Also, I have to praise our staffs. They are unbelievable. I am not going to name names now, but later I will put them in the Record. Senator Vitter's and my chief of staff, as well as their teams, worked seamlessly in the most wonderful and cooperative fashion. I want everyone to know that this bill is about 500,000 jobs, thousands of businesses, critical flood control, environmental restoration projects, harbor maintenance, inland waterways, and we have adopted dozens and dozens of amendments. We are very excited about this vote. We hope everyone will vote yea. It would be a wonderful signal to the House so they can get on with this work as well. I yield to my friend.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I think the Senator from New York is pointing out an issue Senator Vitter and I agree with, which is that we should have had a vote on the Landrieu-Vitter amendment, which would have definitely moved in the direction of ensuring that people's insurance rates for flood protection do not go through the roof. It was very disappointing that the Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. Toomey opposed having even a vote on this. But you know what, we will have other days in the Sun, I say to my friend, where we will deal with this issue because it is too important to too many people across the Nation. But I do not want that to dim what just happened in the Senate. I do not want the fact that there was one disappointment to take away from what just happened in the Senate. What just happened is that 83 colleagues--83 strong--voted for the Water Resources Development Act that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with a very strong unanimous vote and that Senator Vitter and I, working together for the first time on a big bill such as this, were able to put aside other differences and come together in an area where we both agree; that is, it is essential to have a strong infrastructure in the greatest Nation in the world and in our States. It is essential that people not be worried that bridges will fall; that they will not have good roads; that they will not have their ports deepened so they can accept these big ships that go in and out; that they will be vulnerable to flooding; and that they will not be able to restore wetlands, which are so critical to preventing floods. This bill is so critical to the infrastructure and to the environment. Anyone who has been to the Everglades knows how critical it is to make sure the Everglades remain. It is a gift from God, and we have the responsibility. Anyone who knows the Chesapeake Bay knows how important it is to ensure it is healthy. We do that in this bill. And we do our best to ensure that the types of flooding we saw in Katrina will be minimized. We made many, many reforms, and I feel good about them. I really have to say that without the staff, none of this would be possible. Senator Vitter and I are so blessed to have the kinds of staffs we have. They are dedicated. The hours they work have no bounds. The other night we were talking at 11 o'clock. My staff was there. This type of a bill is not easy to get through because every State has its own needs, every State has its own challenges, every State has its own problems. We were able, because of our staffs working endlessly, to meet the needs, I believe, of the whole country, and that is why we have votes from the entire country. We have votes from so many States because this bill is truly reflective of the needs of our communities. I want to say to Bettina Poirier, my chief of staff and chief counsel, you certainly know how to get a bill through. You certainly know how to manage a staff. And you certainly have made wise decisions in terms of your staff. We have Jason Albritton and Ted Illston and Tyler Rushforth and David Napoliello and Andrew Dohrmann. These are only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--6 names that I mentioned, and they handled this bill from, essentially, 100 different Senators pounding on their doors, including this Senator, saying: What and why and how? And you answered it. I also want to close by thanking some other wonderful staffers of Senator Reid: Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, Bill Dauster, Alex McDonough, and, I have to say, Tyler Kruzich of the Budget Committee, who helped us, and Reema Dodin, who came in and really helped us make sure we had the votes when we needed the votes. And I am going to make one thank-you. I know Senator Vitter is going to name his staff. I am not going to mention their names, but he speaks for me when he thanks them. But there is one person, and that is Neil Chatterjee, and I hope I do not ruin his career by thanking him. He works for Senator McConnell. He helped us greatly just to know the lay of the land. He said: This is where we have problems. This is where we can come together. And I will tell you something. Managing these bills, you just need to know how you stand, and you need to know where you are. So having the support of both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell and their staffs has made our world a lot easier. So we say to the House: This is your chance. Step to the plate. I know Chairman Shuster over there really wants a bill. We stand ready to work with him. I think our bill provides a roadmap. With that, I want to again say to Senator Vitter, it has been terrific to work with him, and I look forward to continuing our collaboration anytime and anyplace we can come together. With that, I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER

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

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead: Advanced Vehicle Technology and Its Implications.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy Toward Iran.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Performance Management and Congressional Oversight: 380 Recommendations to Reduce Overlap and Duplication to Make Washington More Efficient.''

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Cross Border Resolution to Better Protect Taxpayers and the Economy.''

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Plus, both Senators are wearing the same suit today. It is a good day for it.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, pretty soon we are going to go back to the Water Resources Development Act, otherwise known as the WRDA bill. I will comment on that soon. We are making terrific progress. I hope Senators who may hear my voice would understand we would prefer to deal with a number of amendments rather than vote cloture. We have been working with almost--I can't tell you--20 different Senators to try to accommodate them, to either take their amendments, if they are noncontroversial, by voice or to make sure we can vote on their amendments or have side-by-sides. The bottom line is it is time now--it is past time--that Senators decide if they want to move this bill forward in an open way with regular order or if they want to avoid these very important amendments that we could vote on and go straight to cloture. I hope we can continue to work through the morning.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, there is no room for politics at the IRS. Senator McConnell is right. Senator Reid is right. They have both addressed it. The issue is the IRS has to be completely neutral in politics, but they do have to go after organizations and individuals who are not abiding by the rules, whether they are right, left, center or no ideology at all. I remember during the Bush years we saw the IRS targeting liberal churches. It was awful. They were harassing them and forcing them to show that they were nonprofits. Now we see the IRS has been targeting tea party groups. Whether they are targeting right or left, that is wrong, and anyone doing it, frankly, needs to get another job because that is against the law. We cannot have politically motivated audits or harassing people, whatever their politics may be. Here is what we do need. We do need a fair IRS that definitely looks at whether organizations, be they left or right, are truly deserving of tax-exempt status--that is important--but not targeting one group or another. We also know the targeting of the tea party groups took place while a Bush appointee was the head of the IRS, probably--perhaps was quite unaware. The bottom line is people at the top have to be held accountable. I agree with that. He should have known what was going on. But there is no room for this. I do believe there has to be serious action taken at the personnel level; otherwise, people will just go ho-hum. No, not ho-hum; you cannot use a position to harass people because of their politics, regardless of where their politics may lie.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to be heard on the issue of Benghazi. I wrote an op-ed piece on this because I absolutely cannot believe what is happening with our Republican friends on this issue. As a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I can say I sat through the entire testimony of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not only did she sit for hours, not only was she straight from the heart and straight from the shoulder, she took full responsibility for what went on, and she ordered an independent investigation which was launched by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering. They did an exhaustive study. What they found is that, unfortunately, we did not have enough security at that outpost. It was not an embassy, but it was definitely an outpost. There is a lot of talk going on about how could this happen--e-mails and all the rest. Let me focus on something very important. It takes funding to protect an embassy. It takes funding to protect a consulate. It takes funding to protect an outpost. Yes, it takes funding. Who cut the funds from embassy security? The Republicans in the House, that is who--hundreds of millions of dollars. If it were not for the Democrats, it would have been cut more, because when it came here, we stood our ground. We had to accommodate their cuts. That is how the process works. So I think the Benghazi ``scandal'' starts with the Republicans looking in the mirror. Mirror mirror, who is the fairest of them all? They ought to ask: Mirror, mirror, who cut the funding for diplomatic security across this world for America? The answer: Republicans. They cannot stand the heat so they turn it on Secretary Clinton, and that is completely wrong. I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut. Secretary Clinton said that she, in hindsight, should have definitely fought against it even harder than she did. But let the record show she predicted problems. When she saw the cuts--I don't have the exact quote in front of me but to paraphrase--she said there are going to be problems here. This budget is cut too much. And she was right. What about these talking points? I do not know if the Presiding Officer sits down with her staff to discuss how she is going to phrase something. I don't know whether the Presiding Officer does that or whether she just does it by herself. What I do or what most people do is they have a collaborative process. When we are trying to put out a press release with a whole number of agencies having to sign off on it, it is a collaborative process. At the end of the day, one statement was approved. The statement that was made by Susan Rice, her paraphrasing of the statement was: It looks like this started because of this protest, but we don't know for sure. We don't know and as soon as we know we will say. The day of or the day after what happened in Benghazi, the President of these United States, President Obama, stood and said this was a terror attack. Why are the Republicans playing politics with this? It is pretty clear. Their attack coincides with the Karl Rove ad against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They are going after her. Why? Because they are looking to the 2016 Presidential election. I have to say, keep politics out of the IRS, keep politics out of Benghazi. Don't take four beautiful Americans who died in a tragic fashion and play politics, 2016 politics, with it. It is an outrage. So I say they should start off by looking in the mirror, stepping to the plate, admitting that they cut too much from embassy security. If they want to hold a hearing on it, fine. If they want a hearing, they need to call the people to the table who can help us make sure this never happens again. I will continue to speak out on Benghazi, and I will continue to speak out on whatever issues my Republican friends are pounding on. At the end of the day, the bottom line is, Who cut the money for embassy security? If they want to divert attention from that, be my guest, but I will bring it home. Everyone knows if we had adequate security there, it could have well been a different outcome.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, in the interest of all Senators, and frankly in the interest of the people of this country, we are moving forward on the Water Resources Development Act. The question is, will we be able to clear a list of amendments, some by voice vote, and a further list of more controversial amendments by recorded vote. I am hoping that is the case. Senator Vitter and I hope that is the case, that we can get clearance on these packages of amendments. If we do not, we have to decide whether to invoke cloture, which will bring debate to a close. If we have to go that way, we have to go that way. But I am very optimistic that we can get these amendments cleared because, frankly, almost every Senator here has a stake in this very important legislation. We have ports that are sometimes on the coast, sometimes they are inland. We have waterways. We have floods in our States. Not all of us but most of us. We have environmental restorations in our States with wetland conservation. We have work to do on our water infrastructure. Our infrastructure in this country has been rated a D-plus. That is not very heartening for the greatest country in the world. We have a weak infrastructure. Frankly, that is not good enough. I want to read a list of supporters for our legislation. I think what people will notice is how broad-based the list is. They are either representing workers or businesses, or they are businesses themselves. They are businesses that need to ship products. So let me read this. There are environmental organizations. The AFL-CIO supports us; the American Association of Port Authorities; the American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the American Foundry Society; the American Public Works Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the American Soybean Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; the Clean Water Construction Coalition; the Concrete Reinforced Steel Institute. I can't even go through it all, it is such a very long list. There is the National Association of Flood and Storm Management Agencies, the National Governors Association, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the National Waterways Conference, Inc, the American Institute of Architects, the National Association of Manufacturers, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. There are more. It is such a long list. I ask unanimous consent to place this list into the Record.

Mrs. BOXER. The point is this legislation represents jobs. This legislation represents moving products. This legislation represents flood control. This legislation represents fixing our ports, making sure we have some reforms that work well. This makes sure that when the Army Corps sets a project timeline, the resources agencies are in the room. It is very important. I have to say, as this country sees, there is a lot of partisanship going on; this is a bipartisan bill. The bill made it through the Environment Committee without a single ``no'' vote. Since then, Senator Vitter and I have been working with all Senators, whether they are on the committee or off the committee, to meet the needs of their States to work with them. I think we have done everything in our power to help every State. We know the last WRDA bill was 2007. We used to have a WRDA bill every couple years, but everything has gotten so controversial. What happened between then and now is a ban on earmarks. This bill used to be a bill that listed projects. We can't do that anymore. What we have to do is figure out a way to fund the needed projects while averting earmarks. We did it by saying if there is a completed Corps report then, in fact, the project can go forward. We set up a way for future projects to be handled with the local communities coming forward. I think we handled that issue well. We focused on flood control, ports, and environmental restoration. We have a piece that deals with the Everglades. If you have never been to the Everglades, it is a national treasure, River of Grass. That is what it is called. It is a magnificent, amazing, fabulous, environment, but it needs to be preserved and protected. When my spouse and I went there with Senator Nelson, we went down through the Everglades. All of a sudden we see a deer jump up. The deer is actually living on the water on these little berms. It is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen. We put WIFIA in here based on a program we call TIFIA, which will allow us to help local areas leverage their funds and build these projects more quickly. It goes on and on. We have terrible threats from flooding in places such as Sacramento, for example. We are looking at tens of thousands of Californians at risk and $7 billion in property. We say, OK, it is time to get that done. We look at flood protection for the 200,000 residents of Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN. They have been fighting rising floodwaters in recent weeks. We will restore the reliability of levees that protect places such as Topeka, KS. It goes on to Texas. I could name literally every State in the Union that has something at stake.

Mrs. BOXER. I yield to the Senator.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes. There is an amendment, I would say to my friend through the Chair, on our list that we have agreed to, Senator Vitter and I. There will probably be a vote on this proposal. I will ask my staff is that correct, on the Leahy-Sanders amendment on the culverts if it is on the list.

Mrs. BOXER. We are trying to work out the objections, but we will have a vote on it if we cannot. We are working on it.