[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 64 (Wednesday, May 8, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3217-S3228]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2013

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S. 601, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 601) to provide for the conservation and 
     development of water and related resources, to authorize the 
     Secretary of the Army to construct various projects for 
     improvements to rivers and harbors of the United States, and 
     for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Boxer/Vitter amendment No. 799, in the nature of a 
     substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 2 
p.m. will be equally divided between the two leaders or their 
designees.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, what is the order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is in a period of debate prior to 
votes in relationship to S. 601.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, how much time is going to be controlled 
by Senator Coburn, the opposition to his amendments, and Senator 
Whitehouse?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 40 minutes. 
The majority controls 75 minutes.

[[Page S3218]]

  Mrs. BOXER. How much time is there as far as Senator Whitehouse is 
concerned?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no specific time agreement for 
Senator Whitehouse.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, I thank my colleagues for 
the opportunity to have regular order in the Senate. The ranking member 
of the committee would like to have 2 minutes before I start.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. VITTER. Madam President, through the Chair, I thank the Senator 
from Oklahoma. I briefly want to say two things: No. 1, I too am very 
supportive of this bill, which I do think is a strong bipartisan and a 
reform-oriented effort. I think the best proof of that is that it came 
out of our EPW committee 18 to 0. We have a committee that reflects the 
wide spectrum of opinion of the entire Senate. The waterway 
infrastructure bill is important, so I am very supportive of it.
  No. 2, I am also very glad we have this open amendment process. I 
think it reflects a lot of work and goodwill on a lot of folks' part, 
including the Chair and myself. I welcome this debate and vote. We want 
to take up and vote on amendments.
  With that show of good faith, I hope Members can focus on germane--or 
at least relevant--amendments, and that is what we will be turning to 
in our next set of amendments.
  I hope this open process and show of good faith engenders that 
response. I look forward to all of these amendments and debates and 
votes.
  With that, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for the time.


                 Amendment No. 805 to Amendment No. 799

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The chairman--Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. The only thing I am chairman of, Madam President, is my 
dogs at home, but I thank the Presiding Officer for that misquote.
  At this time, I call up Coburn amendment No. 805.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Coburn] proposes an 
     amendment No. 805 to amendment numbered 799.

  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S3219]]

  The amendment is as follows:

  (Purpose: To protect the right of individuals to bear arms at water 
  resources development projects administered by the Secretary of the 
                                 Army)

       At the end of title II, add the following:

     SEC. 20__. PROTECTING AMERICANS FROM VIOLENT CRIME.

       (a) Findings.--Congress finds that--
       (1) the Second Amendment of the Constitution provides that 
     ``the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
     infringed'';
       (2) section 327.13 of title 36, Code of Federal Regulations 
     provides that, except in special circumstances, ``possession 
     of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing 
     devices, bows and arrows, crossbows, or other weapons is 
     prohibited'' at water resources development projects 
     administered by the Secretary;
       (3) the regulations described in paragraph (2) prevent 
     individuals complying with Federal and State laws from 
     exercising the Second Amendment rights of the individuals 
     while at the water resources development projects; and
       (4) Federal laws should make it clear that the Second 
     Amendment rights of an individual at a water resources 
     development project should not be infringed.
       (b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear Arms at 
     Water Resources Development Projects.--The Secretary shall 
     not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an 
     individual from possessing a firearm, including an assembled 
     or functional firearm, at a water resources development 
     project covered under part 327 of title 36, Code of Federal 
     Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this 
     Act), if--
       (1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from 
     possessing the firearm; and
       (2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the 
     law of the State in which the water resources development 
     project is located.

  Mr. COBURN. A couple of years ago I added an amendment in our 
deliberative process that gave Americans their constitutional rights in 
the U.S. National Forest. There were two main reasons I did that.
  No. 1, the amount of murders, rapes, robberies, and assaults were 
rising; and No. 2, there is some confusion with the conceal and carry 
State laws.
  We have 35 or 36 States that have conceal and carry State laws, but 
when someone accidentally walks onto U.S. forest land, they are 
actually violating Federal law even though they might not know they are 
on State land versus Federal land.
  I would note that since that time the amount of crime in our national 
parks has declined. So since then, we now have, throughout the country, 
the same approach we have in national parks on the Bureau of Land 
Management areas, the Forest Service, the National Park Service, and 
the National Wildlife Refuge.
  The reason this is important for the Corps of Engineers is because 
after we passed those amendments, the corps proactively stated that 
none of this applied to them. Well, the fact is the corps has more 
visitors every year on their 422 lake and river projects, 11.7 million 
acres, 95,000 camp sites, and 6,500 miles of trails, and they have more 
than 370 million visitors. Corps projects are the most visited of any 
single Federal agency sites--even more than the 280 million annual 
visitors to our national parks.
  Americans who camp, hunt, or fish on these federally managed lands 
are prevented from exercising their Second Amendment rights that have 
been guaranteed by the Supreme Court, but also are under the 
jurisdiction of their State laws.
  The purpose of this amendment is so law-abiding citizens who are 
granted the authority in their State will not be vulnerable to 
criminals or dangerous wildlife while on Army Corps land, and we, in 
fact, will ensure they have their rights guaranteed. This does not 
include an exemption for Federal facilities, Army Corps headquarters, 
research facilities, lock or dam buildings, or any other significant 
infrastructure associated with the corps. This amendment would simply 
require the Corps of Engineers to follow State firearm possession laws 
on lands and waters managed by them--the same approach the Bureau of 
Land Management, the Forest Service, the National Parks, and the 
National Wildlife Refuges use.
  It is a simple issue. This is the only area of Federal lands now 
where we put people in double jeopardy if they are accidentally on 
corps land; they are violating Federal law even though they are 
complying with their State laws. They are totally in compliance with 
the State laws, but if they step one foot onto corps land, they are 
violating corps regulations. This amendment makes it consistent across 
all government lands--we have already done it everywhere else--the 
corps land, which is the most visited, the most utilized lands we have 
in the country. It is straightforward.
  I am very appreciative of the chairman of this committee for her 
cooperation in allowing this amendment. As a matter of fact, I am so 
cooperative I am not going to offer the other one so I can help move 
her bill forward. I congratulate her on the bipartisan work she has 
done on her committee.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. I think this is a principled stand. The question is, Why 
should we not have the same policy everywhere, No. 1; and No. 2, Why 
would we dare deny the rights we give everywhere else on Federal 
Government-owned land--why would we do something different on corps 
land?
  I actually wouldn't even be offering this had the corps not 
proactively stated that what we passed did not apply to them. We 
actually intended for it to apply and, technically, they could get out. 
All we are saying is let's make it the same everywhere, so you can 
follow State law, be a good, law-abiding citizen; but if a person 
happens to walk onto corps land, they are violating a Federal statute 
according to the corps. Not on BLM lands, not on Forest Service lands, 
not in the Parks, but if a person walks up to a lake in Oklahoma that 
is run by the corps, they are violating Federal law but they are not 
violating State law. So we ought to have consistency with our law. This 
is about consistency, good government, and common sense. Wouldn't it be 
a tragedy--and it happens all the time--that a person is on a campsite 
in Oklahoma and because there is no law allowing that person to carry 
their weapon onto that campsite, they are vulnerable to the prey of 
people who are going to violate that law. That is exactly what was 
happening in the national parks. We were having women raped, we were 
having people murdered, we were having people accosted and robbed. 
Guess what. That has all markedly declined since we allowed gun owners 
to carry their guns. There has not been, to my knowledge, one case of 
an inappropriate use by a law-abiding citizen of their weapons in those 
areas. So it is common sense.
  My hope is we will pass this amendment and have a consistent law on 
all Federal lands so people can be protected under the Second 
Amendment, people can follow their State's law and do it adequately and 
accurately and be great law-abiding citizens.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  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?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority controls 65 minutes, the 
Republicans control 64 minutes.
  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.

[[Page S3220]]

  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

[[Page S3221]]

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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Baldwin). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, first of all, our amendment exempts the 
areas the chairman talked about--locks and dams. All those areas are 
exempt from this amendment. As ranking member on Homeland Security, I 
know more about these issues than probably anybody other than our 
chairman and the past chairman and ranking member in terms of the 
safety.
  The people the chairman talks about do not care what the law is now. 
They do not care what the law is. So the people about whom we are going 
to be worried--Boston has pretty tight laws. They did not care what the 
laws were. They broke multiple sets of laws, as we saw what happened in 
Boston. We have to prepare for that regardless of whether this 
amendment goes through.
  I would also note, in several of our national parks we have corps 
land where we have hydroelectric facilities and we have these things. 
We have not had any problem with that. What we have had is a marked 
decline in the number of rapes and a marked decline in the number of 
murders in national parks since we instituted the State laws in 
national parks for guns.
  On campgrounds we do have problems with rapes, with accosts, with 
assaults, with robberies; and we do have murders on corps land and 
campgrounds. So the point is, standardizing where you can go--I would 
also make the point, we only allow State law to apply. If Oklahoma law 
is different than California law, it is not Oklahoma law, it is 
whatever California law is and recognizing that individual right so we 
do not put people in jeopardy when they accidentally get on corps land.
  I understand her inhibition toward it, toward any expression of the 
Second Amendment generally. But the fact is we ought to have a common 
policy in all areas. We already do it in Bureau of Land Management, we 
already do it in the Forest Service, we already do it in national 
parks. So we should not exempt the corps.
  The fact is, the people who are going to violate our laws are not the 
law-abiding citizens. They are not the law-abiding citizens. It does 
not matter what we do; they are not going to pay attention to what we 
do. The one thing we have proven in the National Parks is, when we 
allowed people the ability to carry and follow their own State's law in 
terms of their Second Amendment, we saw rapes go down, we saw murders 
go down, we saw assaults go down, and we saw robberies go down in the 
national parks.
  The same thing will happen on corps land. Most of the people will not 
carry. Most of the people will not come in. But to deny the ability to 
do that, that is what this amendment is about.
  I will be happy to debate the Senator further. The fact is, there is 
a big difference in our view of what the Second Amendment should be 
about in this country and our trusting of law-abiding citizens to do 
the right things. Her issue on critical infrastructure--we are doing 
everything we can do to protect that now and building toward the 
ultimate goals of where we need to be, and this is not going to change 
our approach. It is not going to change it at all. So I would dispute 
the fact that it is going to change our approach.
  As we look at critical infrastructure and the protection of it, we 
are going to do the same whether or not this amendment passes. It is 
not going to have any impact on it.
  My hope would be that since I actually have withdrawn the other 
amendment we would yield back the time and move to Senator Whitehouse's 
amendment as soon as we can.
  With that, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  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.
  Mr. COBURN. I will be happy to get it for the Senator.
  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----
  Mr. COBURN. Will the Senator yield?
  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.
  Mr. COBURN. I will get the Senator the actual statute.
  Federal structures are covered under another statute and I will get 
that statute for it. The reason we did not specifically represent that 
is because they are already covered. We did not exclude those 
structures. We said: Corps land. We did not specifically say that, and 
we will get you the code where Federal structures are excluded.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I do not have any intention of 
withdrawing the amendment. There is a Federal statute that already 
prohibits the carrying of firearms in Federal buildings and structures, 
and we will get the Senator the statute. That is very clear. We were 
advised by legislative counsel we did not have to put that in there 
because it is already prohibited. I will challenge the statement of the 
CRS and will give the Senator the section of the code that provides 
that.
  Again, the point is, this critical infrastructure is already being 
beefed up. We are going to be doing that in Homeland Security. We are 
doing that in Homeland Security, and it has no bearing whatsoever on 
the Second Amendment right to unify our policies across all government-
owned land in this country.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

[[Page S3222]]

  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.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

        [From the Congressional Research Service, July 12, 2012]

 Firearms at Army Corps Water Resources Projects: Proposed Legislation 
                        and Issues for Congress

                         (By Nicole T. Carter)


                                summary

       As part of its civil works mission, the U.S. Army Corps of 
     Engineers manages water resource projects. Reservoirs lying 
     behind Corps dams, and Corps navigation locks and their 
     pools, are popular recreation sites, attracting 370 million 
     visits annually. Corps projects include some of the most 
     densely used federal recreation lands. Currently, 36 C.F.R. 
     Section 327 sets out the regulations for public use of Corps 
     projects. Section 327.13 generally prohibits possession of 
     loaded firearms by private (i.e., non-law enforcement) 
     individuals at Corps-administered projects unless they are 
     being used for hunting at designated sites (with devices 
     required to be unloaded while transported to and from the 
     sites) or at authorized shooting ranges. The regulation 
     applies at projects regardless of their location in states 
     allowing open or concealed carry of loaded firearms.
       Proposed legislation--the Recreational Lands Self-Defense 
     Act (H.R. 1865, S. 1588), and Section 111 of H.R. 5325, the 
     Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies 
     Appropriations Act of FY2013 (which are all substantively 
     similar)--would bar the Secretary of the Army from 
     promulgating or enforcing regulations that prohibit 
     individuals from possessing firearms (including assembled or 
     functional firearms) at Corps projects. The bills would 
     require that firearms possession comply with state law. 
     Supporters of the proposed legislation see it as a partial 
     remedy to a current patchwork of regulations restricting 
     firearms on federally managed lands, as a means to provide 
     consistency for open and concealed firearms possession within 
     a state, and as facilitating self-defense. They argue that 
     enactment would establish Corps policies consistent with 
     Section 512 of P.L. 111-24, which made it legal for 
     individuals to possess firearms at National Park Service 
     (NPS) and National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) units of the 
     Department of the Interior (DOI). Other stakeholders are 
     concerned that the proposed legislation may produce 
     unintended public safety and infrastructure security issues 
     at Corps projects.
       The issue for Congress is not only possession of loaded 
     firearms by private individuals but also how to maintain 
     public safety and infrastructure security at Corps projects.
        Critical facilities security: Proposed legislation 
     does not explicitly provide the Corps with authority to 
     restrict firearms at Corps facilities (e.g., dams) or in 
     specifically designated areas.
        Public safety and law enforcement: There are no 
     armed federal law enforcement officers commissioned for 
     public safety and security purposes at Corps projects. Unlike 
     DOI, the Corps does not have authority to perform most law 
     enforcement functions at its projects. Corps rangers are 
     limited to issuing citations for regulatory violations and 
     are not allowed to carry firearms. Most law enforcement is 
     provided by local and state law enforcement personnel; the 
     Corps' authority to contract for this assistance is $10 
     million annually.
       A safety and security assessment of the proposed 
     legislation for Corps projects has not been performed. DOI's 
     Bureau of Reclamation is faced with similar safety and 
     security issues at its water resource projects. It allows 
     possession of firearms on Reclamation lands and waterbodies 
     (e.g., reservoirs behind dams) when such possession complies 
     with federal, state, and local law. The regulations restrict 
     firearms at Reclamation facilities (e.g; dams, buildings). 
     DOI and Reclamation also use multiple authorities and 
     mechanisms to provide for armed and unarmed law enforcement 
     and public safety and security. Whether the Corps, given its 
     current authorities, could similarly provide for safety and 
     security at its projects if the proposed legislation is 
     enacted has not been assessed.

  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Madam President, I would yield back the remainder of my 
time if the chairman of the committee would do as well.
  Mrs. BOXER. Yes, I do. I yield my time back as well and suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. May I ask further consent that time during all of the 
quorum calls be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, through the Chair, I will tell the 
distinguished chairman that I, with great enthusiasm, intend to offer 
my amendment. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will 
support it.
  You should support it if you are from a coastal State because the 
coastal problems that coastal States face are so often overlooked. If 
you are not from a coastal State but you visit coastal States to go to 
the beach, if you like to eat fish or, frankly, if you like imported 
products that come through our coastal ports, you too have an interest 
in this legislation. I hope you will support it.
  Finally, this is a piece of legislation that was agreed to before by 
this body in the form of the RESTORE Act. In the RESTORE Act, we 
literally sent billions of dollars to our colleagues along the Gulf 
States for remediation, repair, and economic reconstruction after the 
two disasters of Hurricane Katrina and the explosion of the oil

[[Page S3223]]

well. Those two disasters. So for reasons that don't merit further 
discussion here today, that part of the agreement was left 
unaccomplished.

  Whether you are from a coastal State or whether you enjoy coastal 
products or visits, I would urge my colleagues, for the sake of the 
Senate being a place in which a bargain once struck is honored, that we 
owe a vote strongly in support of the authorization--and this is only 
an authorization, no funding whatsoever--of a national endowment for 
the oceans that will allow coastal and Great Lakes States to at least 
be able to compete for funding to be obtained later through existing 
structures--no new bureaucracies--so we can do what we need to do to 
protect our coastal economies.
  I thank the chairman.
  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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It can be offered at this time.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. If I may seek recognition.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.


                 Amendment No. 803 to Amendment No. 799

 (Purpose: To create the National Endowment for the Oceans to promote 
 the protection and conservation of United States ocean, coastal, and 
                        Great Lakes ecosystems)

  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. At the Chairman's suggestion, and with her 
permission, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment be called up.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Whitehouse], for 
     himself, Mr. Rockefeller, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Blumenthal, and Ms. 
     Cantwell, proposes an amendment numbered 803 to amendment No. 
     799.

  (The amendment is printed in the Record of Tuesday, May 7, 2013, 
under ``Text of Amendments.'')
  Mrs. BOXER. Does the Senator need to ask for the yeas and nays or are 
the yeas and nays ordered?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays would have to be requested.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. I ask for the yeas and nays, Madam President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is not a sufficient second at this time.
  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I am very confused. Yesterday there was 
an agreement there would be a vote. What is my colleague's 
understanding?
  OK, we just need to have some more time. So I recommend the Senator 
stay on the floor so we can get a colleague on the floor. That would be 
great. After we do that, I am going to encourage my friend to take some 
time and go into why it is so critical we pay attention to the oceans 
of our country, what is happening to the state of our oceans, and what 
is happening to the quality of our oceans, given so many factors, 
including the changes we are experiencing in climate, because he is a 
great expert on that.
  Does my friend want some time now? I would like to see if I can get 
us to the yeas and nays.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, while the chairman goes about the 
parliamentary task of organizing a sufficient second on the national 
endowment bill, I do wish to describe some of the changes our coastal 
and Great Lakes States are seeing and need to deal with.
  Probably the most obvious of all are the storms we have been seeing--
the unprecedented and extreme storms we have been seeing--along our 
coasts. Whether it was Hurricane Katrina or Superstorm Sandy, we have 
seen unprecedented damage done at the merger of land and sea, where 
driven by these powerful storms the sea can wreak such havoc on the 
land. But it goes well beyond the damage of extreme storms. If we go 
out into the Gulf of Maine, we can see the cod catch, which is a 
historic fishery going back centuries, has now collapsed to the point 
where the Draconian measures that must be applied to that fishery 
actually risk extinguishing the fishing industry for cod in some of our 
Northeastern States.
  We can move down the coast to the Carolinas, where highway 
departments are raising the bridges out to the Outer Banks in order to 
prepare for higher seas and stronger storm surges. We can go further 
south, to the Florida coast, where in some parts of that ocean--the 
Caribbean ocean nearby--as little as 10 percent of the coral remains 
alive. That is actually a pretty big industry for Florida. I think they 
do 15 million scuba dives a year for recreational purposes--15 million 
scuba dives--which are not just economically valuable for the dive boat 
owners and operators but for the people who travel, who have meals and 
who stay in hotels and buy equipment. They are not going to come to do 
scuba diving there as much if the famous Caribbean reefs and coral 
reefs off of Florida continue to die at the rate they are.
  We can go all the way across the country to the West Coast, where we 
see the oyster fisheries in Washington and Oregon threatened by the 
acidification of the oceans. There have been oyster hatcheries that 
have had massive die-offs within the hatchery when acidified water from 
the sea welled up and came into the intakes of these, in many cases, 
multigenerational family operations and were too acidic to allow the 
larval oysters to develop their shells, resulting in massive die-offs 
and economic loss.
  I can tell two stories about my home State of Rhode Island that are 
very current. In Rhode Island, the biggest storm we have seen, worse 
even than Superstorm Sandy in recent decades, was the famous hurricane 
of 1938, which did immense damage along our shoreline at a time when 
our shoreline was far less developed than it is now. Between the 1930s, 
when that hurricane took place, and now, the sea level at the Newport 
tide gauge in Newport, RI, has actually climbed 10 inches. So when the 
next hurricane of 1938 comes--or perhaps even a bigger one, as our 
current experience of storms would seem to suggest is possible--it will 
be driving a higher ocean against the shore and probably not just 10 
inches higher, because a storm surge will stack that 10-inch increase 
as it crashes against our Rhode Island shores, and that can be a game 
changer.
  States such as Rhode Island have to do a lot of work to reconfigure 
where the so-called velocity zones are, where it is safe to build or 
not safe to build, what is actually now vulnerable in a 100-year flood 
or a 500-year flood as things change along our coasts. That is 
something that is a little hard to debate. It is actually a 
measurement. It is a measurement of 10 inches on a tide gauge. This is 
not some theory. This is what has happened. That water lying out there 
10 inches higher is a terrific risk to our State and something we have 
to prepare for. Given the way State budgets are, we would like to be 
able to compete, once we have found some Federal funding, for the 
ability to figure things out so investors and people living along 
coastal communities can have a solid and fact-based appreciation of 
what the risks are to them from this worsening condition of stronger 
storms and higher measured sea levels.

  Another Rhode Island-specific example is the winter flounder. The 
winter flounder is a major catch species in Narragansett Bay--or at 
least it was. We can go back to the earliest Native American 
settlements and find winter flounder bones around the settlements. For 
many years the winter flounder was the biggest catch in Narragansett 
Bay. I know a certain amount about it because when my wife did her 
Ph.D. thesis, she studied the winter flounder in Narragansett Bay and 
what was happening to it and how its life cycle interacted with another 
bay creature called the sand shrimp--or the Crangon septemspinosa, 
which is the technical name. In the time between when she wrote her 
thesis and now, the catch of winter flounder in Narragansett Bay has 
crashed more than 90 percent. It is no longer an active direct fishery 
in Narragansett Bay.
  I can remember not that many years ago, it doesn't seem, driving over 
the Jamestown Bridge or the Newport Bridge or the Bristol Bridge and 
looking down and seeing trawlers working the upper bay trawling for 
winter flounder. We don't see that any longer because that fishery has 
crashed.
  It has crashed for two reasons. One is the bay is warmer in the 
winter. I am

[[Page S3224]]

having a dispute with PolitiFact right now, but I stand by my assertion 
it is 4 degrees warmer in the winter. They think it is more like 3 
degrees warmer in the winter than it was 30 years ago. Four degrees in 
water temperature may not seem like much to us humans, but we don't 
live in that environment. If that is your environment, 4 degrees sends 
a signal to certain species they don't belong there any longer and to 
move to cooler waters.
  The other thing it has done is it has allowed this other bay 
creature, the sand shrimp, to move in earlier to the bay when the 
larval winter flounders are still small enough to be eaten by the sand 
shrimp. It used to be the sand shrimp would come in and they would feed 
on the larval winter flounders, but enough of them would get big enough 
soon enough that they got too big to eat for the sand shrimp. In fact, 
as they got bigger, they would turn around and eat the sand shrimp. 
That was the cycle of life. Now the sand shrimp come in earlier. There 
are fewer winter flounder because of the temperature, and because they 
are getting in earlier, it is a much more dangerous environment because 
the larval winter flounder are smaller and remain prey longer. So for 
all those reasons, there goes what once was a very key fishery.
  These are just individual examples. Every coastal State, every Great 
Lakes State could come and have their Senator give the same speech with 
at least two examples of things that are changing and making a dramatic 
difference in the coasts. The phrase I use is: The faster you drive, 
the better your headlights need to be. These changes are coming fast. 
Things that used to happen across centuries are happening in decades; 
things that used to happen over decades are happening in years. We need 
to have better headlights as we see these changes coming at us, and the 
headlights are the science, the research, the information, and the 
ability to do this kind of work.
  I hope my colleagues, on the merits, will support my amendment. I 
hope even if they do not particularly care, even if they are from an 
inland State and don't have a great interest, that simply in the 
interest of the spirit of the Senate they will respect an agreement 
once it has been reached and will make an effort to make sure 
agreements, when struck, aren't broken and that I will get my partisan 
support.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BARRASSO. Madam President, I rise today in support of the 2013 
Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA. I agree with my colleagues 
who believe that moving forward with a bipartisan WRDA bill is 
important for our communities.
  As the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, I believe we need to address the issues facing the Army 
Corps and the country. Today we have problems with aging 
infrastructure, with a lack of transparency, and with fiscal 
accountability--all of which impact the public health, the safety, and 
the economic welfare of our communities.
  My staff and I have worked with our colleagues on the full committee 
and the subcommittee to create a bipartisan product to address these 
concerns. We may have our differences on a number of the issues, but 
the bulk of what we have accomplished is about protecting our States 
and protecting our constituents, not about partisan politics.
  For example, issues such as flood mitigation are very important to my 
State. In 1984 the town of Baggs, WY, faced a major flood. The entire 
town had to be evacuated, and there was over $1 million worth of damage 
done. In mid-May of 2008, Baggs faced another major potential flood. 
The Wyoming National Guard was called in to assist, as well as the 
Department of Homeland Security. At the request of the Department of 
Homeland Security, the Army Corps Sacramento office sent an official 
who was able to oversee the reinforcement of existing berms and the 
construction of new ones. This time Baggs did not need to be evacuated 
and the damage was minimal.
  Baggs is not the only town in Wyoming to need assistance to protect 
itself from the threat of flooding. Predicting floods and being better 
prepared for them is a major component in keeping Wyoming communities 
safe. That is why I proposed and successfully included language in this 
bill, with the help of the chair and ranking member, for an 
authorization for Upper Missouri Basin flood and drought monitoring. 
This program will restore the stream gauges and snowpack monitors 
through the Upper Missouri Basin at all elevations. These gauges are 
used to monitor snow depth and soil moisture, to help inform agencies 
such as the Corps as to potential flooding and also drought in the 
future. This type of monitoring will protect communities and save 
lives. The language is supported by the Upper Missouri Water 
Association.
  I am also pleased that the language I have authored for technical 
assistance to help rural communities comply with environmental 
regulations was included in the bill. Rural communities often do not 
have the expertise or the funding to make important upgrades to their 
water systems. Dedicated professionals, such as the folks at the 
Wyoming Rural Water Association, use this funding to go into these 
communities and provide the critical assistance they need. I thank 
Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for his help in working with me to get 
this important language included in the bill.
  As I mentioned, transparency and fiscal responsibility are also 
important components to tackling the issues that need to be addressed 
with the Army Corps. That is why I offered language to create an Army 
Corps project deauthorization process. It is one that mimics the Base 
Realignment and Closure Commission--you know, the BRAC Commission--that 
the Department of Defense uses to close or reconsolidate military 
bases.
  Under my language, an independent commission appointed by the 
President would identify projects for deauthorization based on 
established criteria and then submit those projects as one package for 
an up-or-down vote by the Congress. There are many of these projects 
that are on the books. They are authorized for millions of dollars, and 
they are going nowhere. The backlog of Army Corps projects is currently 
about $60 billion according to the National Academy of Sciences. It is 
time for the Corps and Congress to clean the books, cut the waste, and 
bring fiscal responsibility to the WRDA process.
  I am specifically thankful to Chairman Boxer and to Ranking Member 
Vitter and Subcommittee Chairman Baucus for supporting my language. I 
am also grateful to my colleagues for the bipartisan process under 
which this bill was considered. Our staffs worked well together. We put 
together a good product. I specifically want to thank a member of my 
staff, Brian Clifford, who worked diligently on this process and worked 
in a unified way. We see the results in the Senate.
  The bill unanimously passed the Senate Environment and Public Works 
Committee.
  Although the bill is not perfect and there is always room for 
improvement, I believe we have achieved a compromise, a solution that 
is substantive, effective, and in the public interest. This is a 
product that will save lives, will maintain the flow of commerce, and 
will protect communities for years to come.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. COONS. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Education Equality

  Mr. COONS. Madam President, as the son and grandson of classroom 
teachers, as a father myself, as someone for whom education played a 
central role in my life, and as a passionate believer in the power of 
education to change others' lives, I rise today to talk about a bill 
that is one of the most important to me that I have moved as a Senator.
  The fact is if we look at the American national condition, the lack 
of access to higher education as well as the

[[Page S3225]]

lack of an opportunity for a quality education is one of the greatest 
problems we face. Inequality in having some real hope, some real 
promise of a shot at college defines and distinguishes the drivers of 
social inequality in America in ways it has not in decades. If we want 
to ensure going forward that American workers can compete in the global 
economy, if we want to ensure a country that is capable of living up to 
our promise of liberty and justice for all, if we want to deal with one 
of the biggest civil rights issues in our country, then we have to 
ensure every child has an equal chance for high-quality education 
regardless of the ZIP Code they are born into.
  Long before I was elected to public office, I spent years working 
with a nonprofit education center called ``I Have A Dream'' Foundation. 
In my role there, I visited schools all over the United States. More 
often than not, these were schools in very tough communities and 
neighborhoods, schools that were in public housing developments or that 
were in some of the most forlorn and troubled neighborhoods in all of 
America.
  What struck me over and over when I would go into an elementary 
school and talk to a group of young kids and ask: What do you dream of? 
What do you hope to be when you grow up? They would raise their hands, 
and none of them said: I dream of being in a gang; I dream of being in 
jail; I dream of being a drug dealer; I dream of dying before I turn 
20. They would say: I dream of being a Senator or a lawyer or owning my 
own business or being a star in the NBA or being a success. The dreams 
we hear from kids in elementary schools are the same regardless of the 
community in America. Yet the outcomes are so desperately different.
  What I saw in the nearly 20 years I was active with the ``I Have A 
Dream'' Foundation was that the young people who came from a community, 
family, or school where there was little or no experience or 
expectation of a college education sent a powerful, persistent, and 
negative message at a very early age--that college is not for them. 
They are told indirectly that it is not affordable, it is not 
accessible, it is not part of the plan for their future. Those messages 
have a cumulative, powerful, and consequential impact.
  Very few of the 50 ``Dreamers'' from the east side of Wilmington that 
my family and I worked very closely with had any expectation of a 
college education. In 1988 when our chapter of ``I Have A Dream'' 
Foundation promised them the opportunity for a higher education through 
a scholarship, we could see the change. First we saw the change in 
their teachers and parents, then in their mentors and classmates, and 
ultimately we saw it in them. We saw a change in their hopes and their 
expectations.
  The most powerful thing the ``I Have A Dream'' Foundation did in our 
chapter, and in dozens of chapters around the country, was to hold up a 
mirror to young people of their future that was a brighter and more 
promising future than they had ever dreamed of on their own. They were 
challenged to walk through that open door and make college not just a 
distant dream, not something they heard of or watched on TV, but 
something that became a part of their lived life, and to change their 
outcomes.
  That experience has inspired the bill I introduced in the last 
Congress, and I am most personally connected to in this Congress.
  Last year I found a Republican partner who shares my passion for 
expanding access to college and for making it more affordable. That 
partner is Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Some folks have noticed that 
here in the Senate we don't always get along and we don't always agree 
and sometimes partisanship divides us. I have been very pleased to have 
this strong and able partner in moving forward a bipartisan bill which 
we named the American Dream Accounts Act. This is a bill that bridges 
the opportunity gap by connecting students, teachers, parents, and 
mentors to create a new generation of higher education achievers.
  There are too many American kids today who are cut off from the 
enormous potential of a higher education. The numbers are grim. If 
someone comes from a low-income family, the chance that student will 
complete a college degree by the time that person turns 25 is about 1 
in 10 at best.
  In order to have the prospect of employment and opportunity of 
accumulating wealth and providing an education and security for our 
family and kids, a college education is essential these days. We in the 
Federal Government spend billions of dollars on making higher education 
affordable through Pell grants, yet do almost nothing to make it clear 
to children at the earliest age that this funding will be available to 
them.
  In my home State of Delaware, our Governor Jack Markell and our first 
lady Carla Markell have done a wonderful job of incorporating the power 
of this insight and lesson. They are ensuring there is a State-funded 
scholarship and network of engaged mentors and real reform in our 
public schools. We don't tell kids, even in our State, in elementary 
school of the possibilities that lie ahead of them in a way that 
changes their expectations. That is what this bill will hopefully do. 
It encourages partnerships between schools and colleges, nonprofits and 
businesses. It allows them to develop individualized student accounts, 
such as their Facebook account, married to a college savings account; 
individual accounts that are secure, Web-based, personal, and portable; 
accounts that contain information about each student's academic 
preparedness and financial literacy. It is something that combines a 
portfolio of their entire education experience with the very real 
savings for the future of higher education we want to pull them toward 
from their earliest years.

  Instead of forcing motivated parents or concerned teachers or 
interested mentors or empowered students--instead of forcing all of 
these folks to track down these different resources separately, this 
legislation, this idea would connect them across existing silos and 
across existing education programs at the State and Federal level.
  So tomorrow Senator Rubio and I will reintroduce this legislation as 
the bipartisan American Dream Accounts Act of 2013. We are working hard 
to earn the support of our colleagues in the Senate and in the House, 
and I will keep at this for as long as it takes.
  The American Dream Accounts Act addresses the longstanding challenges 
and barriers to college access: connectivity, financial resources, 
early intervention, and portability. Let me briefly speak to each of 
those.
  First, connectivity. The journey from elementary school, to high 
school, to higher education is a long one, and for a student to be 
successful it takes lots of engaged and attentive adults--motivated 
parents, concerned teachers, supportive family. So many students in our 
schools all over this country disengage or drop out along the way 
because they are not connected, they are not supported by those 
concerned and engaged adults. The American Dream Accounts Act takes 
advantage of modern technology to create Facebook-inspired 
individualized accounts--an opportunity to deliver personalized hubs of 
information that would connect these kids and sustain and support them 
throughout the entire journey of education by continuing to remind them 
of the promise of higher education and its affordability.
  Second, these dream accounts would connect kids with college savings 
opportunities. Studies show that students who know there is a dedicated 
college savings account in their name are seven times more likely to go 
to college than peers without one. Think about that for a moment. 
States such as Delaware and our Nation invest billions of dollars in 
programs to make higher education affordable. Yet so few of the kids I 
have worked with all over this country in the ``I Have a Dream'' 
program have any idea. They have never heard of Senator Pell. They 
don't know Pell grants exist. They don't live in States that have the 
HOPE scholars, the Aspire scholars, or the Dream scholarships that a 
number of States have, and they don't know they will be there for them 
when they are of age to go to college. Why don't we tell them early? 
Why don't we change their expectations? That is one of the things this 
program would do. And it is not a new idea; it is a demonstrated one 
that we know works.
  The third piece of this American Dream Accounts Act is early 
intervention. As I said, States and Federal programs that provide 
billions of dollars

[[Page S3226]]

in support to make college affordable don't connect with kids early 
enough. By letting them know early, we can change their ultimate 
orientation and outcomes.
  The last important piece is portability. One of the things I saw in 
my own experience with my Dreamers, the students in the ``I Have a 
Dream'' program I helped to run in Delaware, was just how often they 
moved. Children growing up in poverty, in families facing unexpected 
challenges, relocate over and over and bounce from school to school, 
district to district, often facing overstretched teachers with full 
classrooms who, when they move midyear into a new school, don't get any 
background information or insight on the student who has moved into 
their classroom. So instead of being welcomed and engaged in a positive 
way, sometimes they feel and are disconnected and develop into 
discipline problems or students who are difficult to teach. The 
mobility that comes with poverty sometimes also leads to disconnection 
from education.
  This robust, online, secure, individualized account would empower 
teachers to connect with parents, to connect with mentors, and to know 
the entire education history of the student newly before them. So no 
matter what disruptions or challenges a student might face as they 
travel through the long journey of education, their own individual 
American dream act--their own portfolio of their dreams and their 
activities and their progress--would be there with them.
  Our Nation's long-term economic competitiveness requires a highly 
trained and highly educated workforce, and our Nation's commitment to a 
democracy and to a country of equal opportunity demands that we do 
everything we can to make real the hope of higher education for kids no 
matter the ZIP Code into which they are born, no matter their 
background. While we spend billions on making higher education 
affordable, we aren't delivering it effectively enough to change that 
future. What I saw in my years with the ``I Have a Dream'' program was 
bright faces, raised arms, hope, and opportunity that sadly was not as 
often as it could be realized. This program, this connectivity, this 
new type of account is a way to make real on that promise.
  We can meet this challenge by connecting students with a broad array 
of higher education options, informing them about them early, whether 
it is vocational school or job training, community college or 4-year 
universities. Not everyone is made for a 4-year higher education 
degree. This would connect kids with all of the different opportunities 
for skill training and higher education that are out there. It also 
would support students as they identify the type of education best for 
them, the career they most want, and give them the tools to get there.
  As I visit schools across my own State of Delaware, one thing is 
clear: All of these different resources currently exist in different 
ways and at different stages of education, but they are not connected 
in a way that weaves together students, parents, mentors, and the 
resources of our highly motivated, highly engaged State.
  So this vision--one that has stayed with me from my time at ``I Have 
a Dream'' to my service here as a Senator--is that when we ask a 
roomful of elementary school kids in the future, ``What do you dream 
of, what is your hope,'' when their hands shoot up in the air and they 
list all of the different dreams they have, regardless of background or 
income or community, we can make that possible. We can make our 
investments real, and we can make the dream of equal opportunity a 
reality.
  This year, with the support of lots of groups, including the 
Corporation for Enterprise Development, a wonderful group called 
Opportunity Nation, the First Focus Campaign for Children, we are 
hopeful that bipartisan support for this American dream accounts idea 
will simply continue to grow. Let's work together to empower students 
and parents of all backgrounds to achieve their dreams from the 
earliest age.


                               The Budget

  Madam President, I rise today to speak about our current impasse over 
the progress of the Federal budget. I have been a Senator for just a 
little over 2 years. I have presided over this Chamber a great deal, as 
has the Senator now presiding. I have listened to dozens of speeches 
from colleagues--in particular, Republican colleagues--upset that this 
Chamber and the Budget Committee on which I serve hadn't passed a 
budget in several years. But this year we passed a budget, finally. We 
went through the long and grinding process known here in Washington as 
vote-arama where we considered, debated, and disposed of over 100 
amendments over hours and hours of deliberation and debate and voting 
on this floor, and we passed a budget.
  It has been 46 days since the Senate passed our budget, but we still 
need to reconcile it with the House of Representatives' budget for it 
to become a forceful resolution, a budget resolution that drives the 
decisions of the Congress. It is important we do that because it has 
been 66 days since the sequester kicked in.
  I know ``sequester'' is Washington-speak, but all of us as Senators 
are hearing from our home States the very real, very human impact of 
these across-the-board spending cuts that have begun to really bite. We 
hear about potential furloughs of men and women who serve at Dover Air 
Force Base. We hear about the tens of thousands of children being 
kicked out of needed Head Start Programs. We hear about the thousands 
of women not getting the breast cancer screenings they need, and we 
hear about the hundreds of thousands of children not getting the 
vaccines they are supposed to get. The impacts of the sequester are 
becoming stronger and broader and more negative all across our country.
  The sequester exists because of a lack of political will to come 
together and resolve a fundamentally different vision between the 
Senate and the House enacted in our respective budgets. This sequester 
exists because we haven't come together across the House and the Senate 
in the way that for 200 years and more this Congress has done. When we 
pass a bill and when the House passes a bill, it is supposed to go to 
conference or reconciliation, resolution, and ultimately passage. Here 
is our chance.
  Why would Republicans actively keep us from going to conference to 
finalize a budget, especially after years of coming to this floor and 
giving speeches, claiming over and over how terrible it was that we 
would not pass a budget in the Senate? Americans are tired of this 
dysfunction. In my view, today Republicans are manufacturing a crisis 
by preventing the Senate and House from coming together to reconcile 
our budgets in conference.
  As I said, I am a member of the Budget Committee, and I can say with 
some detailed knowledge, as can the Presiding Officer, that there are 
real differences between the budget adopted here in the Senate and the 
budget adopted in the House. I believe the Democratic budget promotes 
growth and the Republican budget focuses on cuts. I believe ours 
prioritizes the middle class while the other prioritizes more tax cuts 
for the wealthiest. In my view, ours prioritizes balance; the other, 
politics. I think our budget puts us on the path toward job creation 
while the other takes a path to austerity. But we will never reconcile 
these two budgets, achieve a shared path forward, and set aside this 
terrible sequester if we don't go to conference.
  Reconciling these two budgets is the definition of what I have heard 
Member after Member come to the floor and call for, what we have heard 
here in the Senate called regular order--the process set out by the 
Founders of this Nation and to which we should return.
  These political games, in my view, are destroying this institution. I 
think it is no wonder the opinion of the average American across this 
country of this institution simply sinks lower and lower.
  What is standing in the way of our progress on this budget at this 
point is repeated Republican objections. It is my hope that they will 
step aside and allow us to walk the corridor to the House, get to the 
conference table, and resolve our budget differences.
  With that, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S3227]]

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 805

  Mrs. BOXER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have up to 5 
minutes to speak before the vote. Am I correct in assuming the vote is 
at 2 o'clock?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Thank you very much, Madam President.
  I wish to again let Senators know where we are. At 2 o'clock, we will 
be voting on a gun amendment. I would hope this gun amendment would not 
get the 60 votes required because I believe it is dangerous. Even 
though Senator Coburn says it would not allow guns to be carried on 
critical infrastructure such as dams and locks and reservoirs, we now 
have two studies that say, in fact, it would allow that.
  According to the Bush administration, this critical water 
infrastructure is a target for terrorists. We are now entering into a 
stage when our leaders are talking about homegrown terror, and we do 
not have to look too much further than Boston to understand this is a 
problem.
  Why would we want to have on a water infrastructure bill an amendment 
that allows people to come in with guns and go right to the heart of 
those critical water infrastructure projects--those dams, those 
reservoirs, those locks, et cetera--particularly since the corps 
already allows, for recreational use, the use of guns for hunting, 
target practice or fishing. That is already allowed.
  There are rules. This is not comparable to the National Park Service. 
We could get into another debate on that. That one--I know some people 
here voted for that, to allow extensive guns being carried on parkland. 
That change was made. The corps is a different situation. The Park 
Service act like police. They can come in. They can quell a 
disturbance. They are armed. They are trained. The corps is not a law 
enforcement entity. That means what they would have to do, if there was 
a violent outburst, is call the local governments, the State 
governments, and we do not know how long it would take to have those 
law enforcement people arrive at such a situation.
  So I am pleading with my colleagues, this is a water infrastructure 
bill. This is not a gun bill. This is not the place to add these types 
of amendments. We have a very bipartisan bill. It is supported by the 
chamber of commerce, it is supported by the unions, it is supported by 
local governments, by the Governors Association. I could go on and on. 
There is a list of literally 150 organizations. It came out of the 
committee with a bipartisan vote.
  I hope when the clock strikes 2 we can have a vote that keeps us on 
track, that does not turn the WRDA bill into a gun bill. It is not 
necessary. It is not appropriate. The fact is, there is nothing in the 
amendment that would stop people from carrying guns onto critical water 
infrastructure. It sets up a national security threat. It endangers 
people.
  I just want to be clear: I am not going to allow a bill to move 
forward that endangers the lives of the people I represent. I owe them 
a lot more than that, let alone the entire country. We all serve this 
Nation.
  So I hope we will not pass this amendment. I ask for a ``no'' vote on 
the Coburn amendment.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Heinrich). All time is expired. The 
question is on agreeing to the Coburn Amendment No. 805.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 56, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 115 Leg.]

                                YEAS--56

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Begich
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Donnelly
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagan
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (WI)
     King
     Landrieu
     Lee
     Manchin
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Murkowski
     Paul
     Portman
     Pryor
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Tester
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                                NAYS--43

     Baldwin
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Coons
     Cowan
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Harkin
     Hirono
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Leahy
     Levin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order requiring 60 votes 
for the adoption of this amendment, the amendment is rejected.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. One of the three scheduled votes has been withdrawn, an 
amendment, so we only have one more vote. Senator Boxer and Senator 
Vitter have a number of other people wanting to offer amendments today, 
so if you have amendments, talk to the managers of the bill.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. CARDIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for the yeas and nays on the Whitehouse amendment 
and urge its passage.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 2 
minutes of debate equally divided prior to a vote in relation to 
amendment No. 803 offered by the Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. 
Whitehouse.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President and colleagues, if I could have my 
colleagues' attention for a moment, I would appreciate it. This is a 
measure that this body has voted on before in a strong bipartisan vote. 
This was part of the RESTORE Act, which was a part of the highway bill.
  For reasons that don't merit further discussion now, this piece of it 
fell out of the bargain that had been reached at the last minute in 
conference.
  I hope this will be a bipartisan vote with support on both sides. If 
you supported the RESTORE Act, you have already supported this bill. If 
you believe that deals should be deals in the Senate, then you should 
support this bill. For all of us in coastal States who are facing very 
unique pressures, it is very important that we as a body support this 
bill.
  It does not create a single extra bureaucracy or person. It works 
within the existing government, and it adds no funding. I am going to 
have to work with all of you to find funding for it later and within 
our existing budget constraints.
  This is just the authorization. Please give me a strong bipartisan 
vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Who yields time in opposition?
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I understand there are some asking for a voice vote. 
Would that be all right with Senator Whitehouse?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It would require unanimous consent.
  Mrs. BOXER. All right. I think we should go on with the vote then.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment No. 803 offered by the Senator from Rhode 
Island, Mr. Whitehouse.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S3228]]

  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) is necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 67, nays 32, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 116 Leg.]

                                YEAS--67

     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Isakson
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Kirk
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wicker
     Wyden

                                NAYS--32

     Alexander
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Grassley
     Hatch
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson (WI)
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Thune
     Toomey
     Vitter

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Lautenberg
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 60-vote threshold having been achieved, 
the amendment is agreed to.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move 
to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                             Change of Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, on rollcall vote 116, I voted ``yea.'' It 
was my intention to vote ``nay.'' Therefore, I ask unanimous consent 
that I be permitted to change my vote since it will not affect the 
outcome.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The foregoing tally has been changed to reflect the above order.)
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I will 
make it in a minute.
  We are making good progress. We have three amendments in order now: 
the Blunt amendment No. 800, Pryor amendment 806, and Inhofe amendment 
No. 835. I ask they be the following amendments in that order to be 
considered; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to 
these amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendments. That is 
my request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, we are well on our way to getting this 
bill done, I hope. The Whitehouse amendment was one that was 
overwhelmingly supported. I hope that will set the tone for this 
particular bill; that we will come forward together; that we will not 
have contentious issues that divide us and divide the American people 
on a bill that is so motherhood and apple pie as this one is, which is 
to make sure our ports are dredged, that our flood control projects are 
done, that our environmental restoration of wetlands is done. It is a 
very simple, straightforward bill.


                           Order of Procedure

  I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks 
here Senator Whitehouse be recognized for up to 5 minutes to thank the 
Senate for this vote--I know he has worked exceedingly hard on this--
and then there be a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, 
with each Senator allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Under the previous order, amendment No. 799, as amended, is agreed to 
and is considered original text for the purposes of further amendment.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Mr. President, I appreciate the chairman's leadership 
and her offer of 5 minutes of time. I will not need anything near that. 
I want to take this moment to extend to all of my colleagues a very 
heartfelt thank you for that last vote.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________