Barbara Boxer

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. We passed a budget; the Senate passed its version of a budget. The regular order, as I understand it, having asked the Historian to go back and look, is that we then take the House budget and the Senate budget and we go to conference and the conferees resolve the differences. All my friend is asking--and she has asked it or someone has asked it in her stead five times--we are asking our Republican colleagues to allow our leader to name the conferees--of course Senator McConnell will name his--and walk into that conference committee to finish the budget. The budget is unfinished; am I right? We have two versions. We need one version. What the Senator from Washington is telling us, in no uncertain terms, is that the Republicans are stopping this country from having a budget; am I stating it correctly?

Mrs. BOXER. Let me say to my friend, I hope she plans to be here as often as she can, and those of us who can help her will be here to continue to ask for conferees so we can get to the next stage. When Senator McConnell said he would amend the request of the Senator from Washington, was he not prejudging what would happen in the conference? He said no reconciliation, and he said something else. I don't remember the other condition.

Mrs. BOXER. And no revenue. That is akin to the Senator from Washington saying, I will go to conference except I don't want to see any more cuts in afterschool programs or senior citizen programs or veterans programs. In other words, we don't take our priorities as individual Senators into the conference. It is a team approach where we will have to compromise. So isn't Senator McConnell, by laying out his conditions, completely sidestepping regular order?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend. I got into this a little bit with Senator Cruz the other day. He doesn't want to go to conference because he is afraid we could pass the Buffett rule. We could come out of there with the Buffett rule, which says the billionaire executive should have to pay the same effective tax rate as a secretary. God forbid. He is afraid of that. So I just say, they are afraid of the process. What are they afraid of? They control the House. We control the Senate. Obviously, in conference we are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle. It seems to me they have a fear of democracy, and it seems to me--and I don't like to use this word but I will; it rhymes with democracy and it is called hypocrisy. They said they want to do a budget and now they are stopping the budget. I thank my friend. I want to make sure America understands this. They ran around the country running against our candidates saying our candidates wouldn't do a budget and now they will not allow us to do a budget. It seems to me ridiculous. I am so happy our leader and the Senator from Washington are here to bring this issue the attention it deserves. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I would like to lay out what we are going to do, and it will take me about 6 minutes maximum. The good news for the Senate--I am glad you don't object to good news because it is not always good news. What we have seen on this WRDA bill is that we have handled a number of amendments both through the managers' package that we substituted for the original text and in individual amendments. What we have seen is that the Boxer-Vitter substitute strengthened participation of environmental agencies in project delivery. We have addressed challenges in every part of the country. We reached agreement with appropriators on future harbor maintenance trust fund expenditures. We authorized additional regional programs. We accelerate investment in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Here on the floor, we adapted amendments to set up an oceans trust fund and a new program to address Asian carp. We have made sure that agencies are treated fairly in the WIFIA Program. We require performance measures for levee safety grants. These are good amendments offered by both sides of the aisle. We are about to, as soon as we do this little technical change to an amendment number--and it looks as though it has been done--we are about to adopt Senator Blunt's very important amendment that has so much support on both sides of the aisle for resilient construction, meaning we are going to make sure that as we enter a phase of extreme weather situations, we use the best materials on these projects. That is the Blunt amendment. Then we go to the Sessions amendment, which is land transfer to help his local communities--uncontroversial. There is a Coburn amendment to deauthorize projects that have been inactive for a very long time. This saves us money. Also, there is a Warner amendment that makes technical corrections for Four Mile Run. We will set aside the Inhofe amendment and that number, amendment No. 797, that would be pending. I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the Blunt amendment No. 800 in the previous order, the following amendments be the next amendments in order to the bill: Sessions No. 811, as modified with the changes that are at the desk, Coburn No. 823, Warner No. 873, and Inhofe No. 797; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments or the Blunt amendment prior to the votes in relation to the amendments.

Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments, which have been cleared by both sides, be considered and agreed to en bloc: Blunt amendment No. 800; Sessions amendment No. 811, as modified; Coburn amendment No. 823; and Warner amendment No. 873.

Mrs. BOXER

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time is going to be controlled by Senator Coburn, the opposition to his amendments, and Senator Whitehouse?

Mrs. BOXER. How much time is there as far as Senator Whitehouse is concerned?

Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much. I wanted to get the order squared away so I could share the information with colleagues before Senator Coburn is heard on his amendments. Madam President, we are on the Water Resources Development Act--it is a great day for the Senate--because we have received a D-plus rating on our infrastructure. This is the greatest Nation in the world. If we cannot move people or products, if our ports need to be deepened--and because they are not deepened, we cannot move commerce in and out--we have problems. As we move into periods of extreme weather--there is some debate as to why, and I will not get into that because it is almost like a religious debate, so I will not go there. The fact is we have extreme weather, and now that we have some rules in place, this bill will make it a lot easier for people in the State of the Presiding Officer to deal with the corps after an extreme weather event. For the first time they will not have to come back for new authorizations. They can do some moves right then and there to improve the situation, and that is a reform I think is very necessary. I certainly thank Senator Vitter, my ranking member, and every member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to thank all the organizations that have come to support this legislation. We have them listed, and I am just going to read a few of those. Madam President, may I speak for approximately 5 more minutes.

Mrs. BOXER. We have 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 Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Soybean Association, Associated General Contractors of America, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Clean Water Construction Coalition, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Construction Management Association of America, International Liquid Terminals Association, International Propeller Club of the United States, and the International Union of Operating Engineers. I will not read all of these as there are too many. We received a letter today from the chamber of commerce, which I will talk about in a few minutes. We also have listed the Laborers International Union of North America, surveyors, real estate people, Grain and Feed Association, the Retail Federation, the National Waterways Conference, National Stone Sand & Gravel Association, Portland Cement Association, the American Institute of Architects, the Fertilizer Institute, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Waterways Council. This is just a sample. America is behind this bill. This is important. Everything we do here is important, and this is as important. It will, in fact, support over half a million jobs--not doing things we don't need but doing things we need and must do. We have some very important letters. One letter is from the American Association of Port Authorities and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. They talk about how it is important that this legislative progress should not be slowed or jeopardized by amendments that are not germane to the bill. This is their language: If enacted, this long overdue legislation will ensure critical investments are being made. They say nice things about Senator Vitter and me, which I will not read because it is too self-serving, but I am very proud to have it in writing. I will put it on my wall when I get back to the office. There is another letter from the Transportation Construction Coalition, and it basically says: This bill will remove barriers to realizing the benefits of water resources projects. It needs to be bipartisan and bicameral. Let's swiftly pass this. That is a very important message for us. We have the Associated General Contractors of America, and they say: Please don't slow or jeopardize this bill. We have a letter coming from the chamber of commerce, and it is going to say the same thing. I know Senator Coburn feels very strongly about his amendments, and we have agreed to take them up and vote on them. Every Senator has the right to do anything they want. I just want to lay it out here for the American people: This is a public works bill dealing with water infrastructure. It is not a bill about guns, it is not a bill about a woman's right to choose, it is not a bill about gay rights or gay marriage, it is not a bill about those very hot button issues we know divide the American people. I will have more to say after Senator Coburn talks about his amendment. I am just going to make a plea to my colleagues: We are trying so hard to accommodate everybody but, speaking for myself, I hope we can avert and avoid controversy on this bill. We have so much controversy every minute of every day. There have been terrible arguments on this floor about issues as to whether we should extend the debt ceiling, whether to default, do background checks. These issues are tough. I am not saying they should be avoided. We have to confront them. Every once in a while I hope we can take a pause from this controversy and do something for this country and come together without the rancor, without the upset, and without the divisiveness of some of these issues. We will proceed to deal with these issues that Senator Coburn has brought forth on guns. After we dispose of these, I hope we will not have this kind of divisiveness on a bill that is so needed. I thank the Presiding Officer very much. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to thank my friend from Oklahoma because it was tough for me on this bill to face the first amendment being a gun amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma has very strong emotions about it. So do I. We just come down on different sides. But I believe we want to show our good faith. I am also pleased we are not going to vote on the study amendment because, as I researched it, it looks as if there is already a study underway and I look forward to looking at the results of that study with the Senator from Oklahoma in terms of the buying of ammunition. I thank the Senator for that. It means a lot. I ask the Chair, since Senator Coburn is now not going to take up one of his amendments and we only have one more, what is the status of time? How does that change things?

Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am going to answer a question that was posed rhetorically by my friend, which is a fair question. Why make a difference as far as who can carry a gun on Federal land versus national park land? My statement will address this directly to my friend. Coburn amendment No. 805 would make it legal for anyone to carry weapons on critical water infrastructure property managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. My view of this is it is a dangerous amendment. He and I just see it very differently. I believe this amendment would put our national security at risk by making the Nation's dams, reservoirs, hydroelectric powerhouses, navigation locks, major river systems, levees, and other flood risk management features vulnerable to attacks. Current law on Army Corps property is this: Army regulations prohibit the private possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, and other weapons on Army Corps property unless--and this is important--unless the weapon is being used for hunting, fishing, or target shooting in designated areas. So let's establish that, yes, people can bring a gun onto corps property, but it needs to be for hunting, fishing, or target shooting. I don't know what other usage there would be. I guess one could argue that a person wants to defend themselves, but they could argue that anywhere. So I don't know what more my friend wants. We have hunting, fishing, and target shooting in designated areas so we don't have these weapons near this critical infrastructure. Similar to the regulations that govern private gun possession on military bases, corps regulations require guns to be unloaded when transported to and from these designated hunting, fishing, and target- shooting areas. In addition, under current law, the regulations allow for permission to be given to private individuals by the district commander of the corps. So if somebody has a need to do this, they can get permission to do it. As I look at the current rules, I see it very differently. I see the Army Corps cooperating, making sure people can take their weapons onto corps land, but making sure the uses are the recreational uses. If they have a special problem or a special issue, they can get permission to carry a gun for other circumstances. So the law already allows for the transport of guns on and off Army Corps property when used appropriately for hunting or sport. I guess we would have to say why would we have an amendment here that I believe will put our critical water infrastructure installations and millions of Americans who visit corps land at risk? I think it is a public safety issue. Why do I oppose this Coburn amendment and why do I say it is dangerous? First of all, Army Corps rangers are not trained or equipped to be law enforcement officers. That is quite different from the national park lands. Second, Army Corps facilities are infrastructure that is critical to national security, the economy, and the safety of the American people. Third, the amendment ignores significant increases in the budget deficit, and I know my friend is, if not the biggest deficit hawk, certainly one of the biggest deficit hawks in history-- ever since I have been here, which is a long time. So we have costs-- notifying the public of the change in law and somehow hiring security guards to protect dams and reservoirs and other critical infrastructure. I have sat in on numerous discussions, both classified and unclassified, that talk about the need to protect the critical infrastructure of this world in which we live. In this world we live in, we may well see more homegrown terrorists who know our land and who know where these dams are, and who know where these reservoirs are, and who know where these locks are. The Army Corps rangers are not trained or equipped to be law enforcement officers. They have no authority to carry firearms, to make arrests, or execute search warrants. Corps rangers are tasked with resource management and recreation maintenance. They are not law enforcement officers. The Coburn amendment would allow individuals to carry loaded or concealed weapons on all corps land as long as the individual's possession is in compliance with the State law where the property is located. By the way, I appreciate the fact the Coburn amendment does that, because some others have offered amendments where if a person is in a State that allows conceal and carry, they can go to any State. The Coburn amendment doesn't do that. I appreciate that very much. Now in the 49 States that allow concealed carrying of loaded weapons, the corps would not be able to prevent visitors from carrying concealed loaded weapons on corps campsites and hiking trails. Yet the corps has no employees who perform law enforcement duties. I have said this now three times. It is a very important point. We are putting our corps people in a situation where they are unarmed and people coming on the property are armed. So if someone carries a weapon onto corps land--and I agree with my friend that 99-something percent of the people are wonderful and would never think of committing any type of felony, but we know violent crime happens every day. Good Lord, all one has to do is read the paper. We know there are--how many deaths every day from guns? There are 87 deaths a day from guns. A lot of that is suicide and a lot of that is violence toward another person. So let me tell my colleagues what the corps can do in the case where there is a felony on the land there--someone doing something violent. They could write a ticket or call for backup. Since they have no weapons and no authority to arrest suspects, it is a dangerous situation. If this were to pass, we would have to spend a whole lot of dough making sure we train the corps personnel or allow them to hire law enforcement. We are talking about a lot of funds we don't have. I don't know what the problem is. Honestly, maybe my friend has heard from colleagues or friends or people who are upset about this. But the fact is people can have weapons on corps land for all kinds of reasons pertaining to recreation, which is the point. Yes, one has to get them to the site not loaded and so on, and there are rules and regulations, but I don't think that is a problem. Some of the hunters I know are extremely proud of the safety record they have had and what they teach their kids. Now let's talk about the facilities that I think are being put at risk--facilities important to our national security, to our economy, and to our public safety. The Department of Homeland Security under President Bush took action in 2003 to list--and I am quoting--this sounds funny--``dam''--D-A-M--``assets.'' Those include navigation locks, levees, and water retention facilities, as a sector that is critical to the function of the economy, to the government, to our society, to the well-being of our people. The inspector general notes that these assets are especially important because one catastrophic failure at some locations could affect populations exceeding 100,000 people and have economic consequences surpassing $10 billion. So we are talking about changing the law on corps land that would expand the right to carry a gun, which people now have on corps land as long as it is for recreation purposes--expanding it in a way that could threaten critical infrastructure. This is in a situation where there are no armed guards. One catastrophic failure could affect 100,000 people and could have economic consequences surpassing $10 billion. This is a report from the Bush administration, folks. A 2011 DHS Inspector General report indicated there were numerous security gaps already at critical dam assets across the Nation. So I do not know why we would allow anyone to bring firearms to those critical infrastructure facilities. They can use them for hunting and fishing, but we should have some rules that protect this infrastructure. Just notifying the public of the change in law that my friend wants to see happen will cost an enormous amount of money--millions of dollars. The Coburn amendment does not address the costs, and normally he would do that in an amendment: address the costs the corps would incur in order to train their workers to carry weapons or to hire outside security for that. I appreciate and respect the views of my friend, but I also think this is something we should not do today on this bill now, especially when we are seeing a lot of talk about more homegrown terrorism. We want to protect our infrastructure. It may be that the corps ought to look at more protection for these facilities. I am willing to look at that. But I do think we are making a problem where there is not a problem. People can go on corps land and use their guns for hunting and fishing, recreation and target shooting, and I think that is working out fine. This seems to be an amendment that is solving a problem that, frankly, does not exist. I have 38 million people in my State. That is a lot of people. I asked: Do we have a lot of letters on this? I, at this point, do not know of any. But I may have some now that the Senator has brought this up. We probably have it on both sides now. But I hate to see us do this because I think it is going to put critical water infrastructure at risk. This is not the national parks. These are not facilities where we have armed guards. If something were to happen to a reservoir, to a dam, the Bush administration tells us it could be quite devastating to communities. So I hope we will oppose this amendment. Again, it is with respect that I say these things. I say them because I truly do think this is misguided. I hope we can get on with the underlying bill. I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I wish to ask my friend to show me where he excludes the areas that have the critical infrastructure because we have a report from CRS that says they are not excluded. The dams are not excluded.

Mrs. BOXER. No problem. Madam President, I think the point is, the Senator tries to say what I think about the right to bear arms. He does not know my views. It is very clear the Supreme Court has stated the Second Amendment--that there is a right to bear arms. But just as any other right--free speech, freedom of the press--rights are not unrestricted. We all know the story: You have free speech, but you cannot go into a theater and yell ``fire, fire'' unless there is a fire because you could be charged for causing a riot. So there is no absolute right. The corps has stated on their land you can already bring a gun as long as it is about hunting, it is about fishing, it is about recreation. But they say, if it is near their critical infrastructure-- which the Bush administration says is a homeland security necessity to protect--you cannot carry a loaded weapon. My friend says he excluded these areas. I am telling you--you can read this--there is no exclusion. And if you read the CRS----

Mrs. BOXER. I will in 1 second. I want to read what CRS says: Proposed legislation does not explicitly provide the Corps with authority to restrict firearms at Corps facilities (e.g., dams) or in specifically designated areas. I am happy to yield.

Mrs. BOXER. Well, if I could say to my friend, through the Chair, fine, get me the code. But the Senator said his amendment specifically excluded it, and it does not. I am researching now that part, but there is no question there is no explicit prohibition here. So now you get into a circumstance where you have one Federal law that says one thing, another Federal law that says something else, and we know where that leads, folks. That leads to court. I think my friend wanted to exclude being able to carry weapons near levees and dams and so on. He ought to like the status quo because that is the status quo. The status quo is, if you want to use a gun for hunting, fishing, recreation, fine, the corps already allows it. You just cannot use it on critical infrastructure. He says that is his point. What is the problem? What is the problem? As I discuss this with my friend, I do not see why his amendment is necessary. I hope he will withdraw it, frankly.

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the CRS report summary that was done on this identical bill, which clearly states in their analysis that this would allow individuals to carry firearms--loaded--on to levees, dams, near reservoirs, and the rest. It is clearly stated here: Proposed legislation does not explicitly provide the Corps with authority to restrict firearms at Corps facilities [like dams]. . . . And it goes on to say that is their decision.

Mrs. BOXER. CRS did a big study of it. I appreciate my friend says he covers this. It is not in his legislation. It is just not in there. He does not refer to that other law. He does not say anything about the other law. My point is that the corps already allows you to bring a loaded gun onto the premises. You can even get a special permit if you want to bring it to other areas. It is already the law. So this is an amendment that, in my reading of it, would allow you then to go onto these other areas--the levees, the reservoirs, the critical infrastructure. CRS agrees. I have put it in the Record. My friend says no. I will tell you something, I do not think we should move forward with this--he is--and we will see where the votes fall. I yield the floor.

Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do. I yield my time back as well and suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, for the interest of all Senators, we are moving forward with our bill. We have a first vote on an amendment at 2 o'clock. At this time we are determining whether Senator Whitehouse will offer his amendment. If he does, there will be a vote on one of the two Coburn amendments--he has withdrawn the other--and then a vote on the Whitehouse amendment if, in fact, he offers it. I would like say for the benefit of all Senators that this is a WRDA bill; this is a water bill. This is about dredging our ports. This is about making sure we have restoration of our wetlands. This is about making sure we have flood control protection. This is about the infrastructure of our country, the ability to move goods, and the ability to have an infrastructure that is much better than the D-plus it is rated at this time. This is not a gun bill. I beg my colleagues, whatever side you are on, we cannot turn this bill into a gun bill because that is not going to happen. I hope my colleagues will look at the Coburn amendment and decide that the best course is not to have it on this bill. It doesn't belong on this bill, and it shouldn't be on this bill. It is nongermane, and, more important to me, it is very controversial. I wish to ask the Senator from Rhode Island a question. I know the Senator has a wonderful amendment that deals with the protection of our oceans on a water bill. Guess what--an amendment about water on a water bill. This is good. I would ask my friend if he intends to offer his amendment.

Mrs. BOXER. Retaining my time, I would like to ask through the Chair if Senator Whitehouse has to actually send his amendment to the desk and ask for the yeas and nays. Because, if so, I think it would be an appropriate time to do that since we intend to vote at 2 p.m.

Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator need to ask for the yeas and nays or are the yeas and nays ordered?