[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 12495-12499]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                WATER RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 2007

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of H.R. 1495, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 1495) 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/Inhofe amendment No. 1065, in the nature of a 
     substitute.
       Boxer (for Feingold) amendment No. 1086 (to amendment No. 
     1065), to establish a Water Resources Commission to 
     prioritize water resources projects in the United States.
       Reid (for Levin/Reid) amendment No. 1097 (to the language 
     proposed to be stricken by amendment No. 1065), to provide 
     for military readiness and benchmarks relative to Iraq.
       Reid amendment No. 1098 (to amendment No. 1097), to provide 
     for a transition of the Iraq mission.
       Coburn amendment No. 1089 (to amendment No. 1065), to 
     prioritize Federal spending to ensure the needs of Louisiana 
     residents who lost their homes as a result of Hurricanes 
     Katrina and Rita are met before spending money to design or 
     construct a nonessential visitors center.
       Coburn amendment No. 1090 (to amendment No. 1065), to 
     prioritize Federal spending to ensure the residents of the 
     city of Sacramento are protected from the threat of floods 
     before spending money to add sand to beaches in San Diego.


                           Amendment No. 1090

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 11:45 
a.m. shall be equally divided for debate with respect to amendment No. 
1090 between the Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma 
or their designees.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I have a parliamentary inquiry because I 
don't know when my ranking member will be here. Do I understand the 
Chair correctly that I would have 15 minutes and he would have 15 
minutes, so I should conclude my remarks after such time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 13 minutes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Will the Presiding Officer please let me know when that 
time has come?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Water Resources 
Development Act of 2007 is on the floor of the Senate and that Members 
on both sides of the aisle are very supportive of this legislation. 
This legislation authorizes the projects and policies of the Civil 
Works Program of the Army Corps of Engineers. Again, it has very strong 
support across party lines.
  I think it is important for the Senate to know, as well as the 
American people, that this bill is long overdue. Seven years ago, we 
passed the last WRDA bill. What does that mean? It means that very 
important flood control projects, wetlands restoration, environmental 
projects, clean water projects--so many of these projects have been 
delayed. When we are talking about the Nation's economy and public 
safety and the environment, these are things we all want to address. We 
address them in this bill. The beauty of it is that although Senator 
Inhofe and I have some deep differences on issues, this is one bill we 
both strongly support, and across the board we see support.
  Every day I have come to the floor to talk about WRDA. I have 
stressed the strong support in the country for this legislation. I read 
yesterday from various letters of support. I want to call to Senators' 
attention--when they arrive to vote on the first amendment, which I 
hope we will all be opposing, or at least the vast majority of us--on 
their desks they will find, due to the good work of our pages, the 
letters of support I referred to yesterday. We have an amazing 
coalition. We have the National Association of Manufacturers supporting 
this bill. We have the American Farm Bureau Federation supporting this 
legislation, with a direct letter. We have a letter from the National 
Waterways Conference supporting this bill. We have the Audubon Society 
supporting this legislation. For those who may not be aware, it is a 
society of more than 1 million members and supporters who work very 
hard to restore America's natural resources. We have them supporting 
this bill. We have the American Society of Civil Engineers supporting 
this bill. We have the National Construction Alliance, which is made up 
of the Laborers International Union, the International Union of 
Operating Engineers, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and 
Joiners of America. This is about as broad a coalition as we can have. 
It concludes with a letter from the Associated General Contractors of 
America. We have a bill that, as the National Construction Alliance 
says, is a $13.9 billion authorization of Corps projects which is a 
necessary first step in addressing our country's serious backlog of 
water projects, from harbor improvement, to flood protection, to lock 
and dam construction, dredging, and environmental infrastructure.
  That is what we address in this very important bill.
  We certainly have many contentious debates on the floor of this 
Senate. We are going to have one again on Iraq. It tugs at the 
heartstrings. It is very difficult. But this is one piece of 
legislation which should not be difficult for us. Senator Inhofe and I 
share a commitment to shoring up our Nation's infrastructure, including 
our water resources. We have a true partnership on this issue. I hope 
colleagues will join with us, as we work through the amendments. There 
will be some amendments we can support, but we have made a pact that 
even if there are some amendments each of us individually supports, if 
the four top members of the Environment and Public Works Committee have 
not agreed on them, we will be forced to vote no. This is not a 
pleasant situation for either of us. We think it is the way to maintain 
the delicate balance of the legislation, because the bill is a product 
of bipartisanship.
  I mentioned the other two members of the committee who have worked so 
hard, Senators Baucus and Isakson. I thank them.
  The whole country is looking to see what we do to help the victims of 
Hurricane Katrina and what we do to move forward so that we don't see 
another tragedy as we witnessed recently. About 25 percent of this bill 
is directed at Louisiana. We have gone very far to meet their needs. We 
do understand we haven't done 100 percent of what they need, but there 
will be other WRDAs, and there may well be a couple of amendments on 
which we can move forward. We don't know at this particular point.
  We have waited 7 long years for this bill. We are going to be having 
a vote at a quarter of 12.
  Before I yield to my good friend and colleague, the ranking member of 
the committee, for his comments, I hope everyone will join in voting no 
on the Coburn amendment. What he does in his amendment is, he has 
decided--and he is here in the Chamber now--that one of the projects in 
California should wait until another project in California is totally 
funded.
  I call this amendment the Russian roulette amendment because the 
project he wants to delay is an important project in the San Diego 
area. It is the city of Imperial Beach. There is a very important 
project the Corps is recommending where the local match will be paid--
the initial stages, 30 percent; the final stages, 50 percent. We are 
talking about protecting 2,083 businesses. There are 812 nonrental 
property businesses and 1,271 rental properties. We are talking about 
22 retail businesses, 217 businesses located along the beachfront, 195 
are rental, and 19 businesses near the shoreline. What we are talking 
about doing is a project that is so cost-effective, it has met every 
criteria. It has gone through every phase. We received a letter from 
the mayor which clearly states they will be picking up their share.
  This is a project which needs to move forward. You don't say to 
somebody in

[[Page 12496]]

the southern part of a State: You don't deserve this flood protection 
until someone in the northern part of the State gets flood protection. 
We have to do it all. This is the United States of America. California, 
if we were a nation, would be the fifth largest economy in the world.
  All Members have a right to their opinion and a right to offer 
amendments. I support my colleague's right to do so. But it is 
absolutely wrong. He will present it as some kind of a beach project. 
He makes it sound as if what we are doing is protecting a beach. 
Nothing could be further from the truth. We are using the replenishment 
in this project as a way to absorb the floodwaters.
  I will speak for a minute on this later. I hope we will have a 
resounding ``no'' vote. Every Member has a right to say what he or she 
thinks belongs in this bill. But this bill has gone through a rigorous 
process. We don't have anything in here that doesn't meet the criteria. 
Senator Inhofe was very strong on that. I agreed with him completely.
  With my time waning, I yield the floor and look forward to a strong 
``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment in 15 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield myself such time as I may consume. As I 
understand, we are now dividing time equally between the junior Senator 
from Oklahoma and the committee; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. INHOFE. How much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 3 minutes 20 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. We have a total of 3 minutes left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California has 3 minutes 20 
seconds. The junior Senator from Oklahoma has 13 minutes. The time is 
divided between Senator Coburn and Senator Boxer. Senator Coburn has 13 
minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. The main thing I want to get across, I can't get across 
in 3 minutes. But I can tell you right now--and by the way, the reason 
I wasn't here earlier is that I have been, in the last 3 days, in Iraq. 
And by the way, good things are happening there in spite of what the 
press will tell you.
  I came back somewhat shocked to see some of these amendments because, 
quite frankly, a lot of people don't understand the process. I don't 
want anyone out there watching what we are doing today saying that we 
are killing some useless project. It has nothing to do with that. This 
is an authorization bill. I will make this clear, but I can't do it in 
this time unless the Senator from Oklahoma would like to yield 5 
minutes of his time.
  Mr. COBURN. Sure.
  Mr. INHOFE. I thank the Senator.
  The amendment we will be talking about is the Imperial Beach 
amendment. I have to remind my colleagues, as I did in the steering 
committee last Thursday, this is not an appropriations bill. What we 
are doing here today is not going to change anything at all in terms of 
money. I don't want anyone thinking we will have some useless project 
or spend money on it. We are not doing it with this bill today. We may 
be doing it in the future. We may be doing it when the appropriations 
bills come up. I may be opposing it at that time.
  But all we are doing through the WRDA bill is we allow ourselves the 
opportunity to make sure there is some level of discipline in putting 
projects forward that people will eventually be voting on. They are not 
going to be voting on them today. This is the authorization process.
  Now, we have criteria. We have to have an engineer's report from the 
Corps of Engineers. It has to say it is economically feasible, it takes 
care of the environmental problems--all these things--and it ensures 
there is cost sharing.
  Let me tell you what would happen if we did not do this. If we did 
not do it, and we had everyone coming up, swapping out their deals, and 
saying: I have a project over here; it is my sweetheart project; the 
Corps of Engineers has never been there. We don't care. No one has ever 
evaluated it, but this is my humble opinion, since we are here in 
Washington making all these decisions in violation of what people back 
home want. Then we will have a project.
  That is the alternative. This is the same as the transportation 
authorization bill. There we had criteria where we would talk about the 
qualifications of various projects, and they would have to be in that 
criteria. Then we would bring it up later on and decide whether we were 
going to fund these things.
  Now, on the project that is going to take place at Imperial Beach, it 
was authorized. The Corps recommended this storm damage reduction 
project because it is technically sound, economically justified, 
environmentally acceptable, and it will have the local cost share.
  I have a letter from the mayor of Imperial Beach saying this is what 
they want out there. It may not be what they want in Washington, but 
this is what they want.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                        City of Imperial Beach, CA


                                          Office of the Mayor,

                                                    July 18, 2002.
     Colonel Richard G. Thompson,
     Los Angeles District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 
         Los Angeles, CA.
       Dear Colonel Thompson: This letter should serve as a formal 
     indication of interest and intent by the City of Imperial 
     Beach to proceed with the recommended project indicated in 
     the Silver Strand Shoreline, Imperial Beach, California Draft 
     General Reevaluation Report dated, June 2002.
       The City of Imperial Beach is willing and able to provide 
     all non-Federal requirements of the project including 36% of 
     the cost to construct the initial project and 50% of the 
     construction costs for each renourishment cycle.
       It is anticipated that funds for the local share of initial 
     construction will come from $4.2 million currently earmarked 
     for this project in the California State Department of 
     Boating and Waterways FY 2002/2003 budget.
       We thank you for your continued interest in this worthwhile 
     project.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Diane Rose,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. INHOFE. Hopefully, when we get down toward the end of the debate, 
after I hear what my colleague says about this issue, I will use more 
time.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today with Senator Boxer in 
opposition to the Coburn amendment. This amendment limits our ability 
to appropriate funding to projects in our State, and I would ask all 
Senators to vote against the amendment.
  My colleagues may remember that during consideration of the fiscal 
year 2006 emergency supplemental, we had an extended debate over flood 
control projects in the bill for California because Senator Coburn 
offered an amendment to strip them out of the bill. I understand that 
yesterday, Senator Coburn acknowledged that he made a mistake in 
opposing the Sacramento River Bank project, which he now believes was 
legitimate emergency funding. However, he has now offered another 
amendment affecting California and this same project.
  Senator Coburn's amendment would require that the Army Corps complete 
its work on the Sacramento riverbank flood control project before it 
can begin any work on the Imperial Beach replenishment project. These 
two projects are separated by 500 miles and have no relation to each 
other, except that both protect homes and families.
  I would like to briefly discuss these two projects. The Sacramento 
river bank flood protection project is a long-term levee restoration 
project. The project area is along 210 miles of the Sacramento River 
that is constantly at risk of erosion. Areas protected by the levees 
comprise over 1 million acres, 50 communities, $38 billion worth of 
improvements, and approximately 2.3 million people.
  The Corps of Engineers is dangerously close to the ceiling set in the

[[Page 12497]]

current authorization, with many more projects to be done. Senator 
Boxer and I support language in this bill to increase the Corps' 
authorization by another 80,000 linear feet. It will be several years 
before the Corps will reach that threshold if we are able to fund the 
project at full capability annually.
  Yesterday, Senator Coburn referred to our discussion last year and 
that I had said that life and property lay in the balance with the 
restoration of these levees. I would say to my colleagues that 
statement also holds true on other projects to protect homes in a 
different part of my State that Senator Coburn will inhibit with this 
amendment.
  Imperial Beach is a small city adjacent to the U.S./Mexico border and 
just south of San Diego Bay and the naval installations on Coronado. 
Its beach, the Silver Strand, is losing 100,000 cubic yards of sand per 
year, corresponding to a loss of 6.6 feet of beach. So much shoreline 
has been lost that there is no longer dry beach at high tide, leaving 
only a small embankment between the ocean and homes. At the current 
retreat rate, the shoreline could reach homes within the year. A high-
tide storm event in Imperial Beach could affect 3,000 homes within 3 
blocks of the coast. Already these homes have experienced flooding and 
structural damage and the soil is highly erosive and receding--the 
problem in Imperial Beach is now, and we cannot wait years to address 
it.
  The problem is that the beach is no longer the recipient of sand from 
its natural sources. First, there is a lack of sediment transfer from 
the Tijuana River because of three dams, two on the American side and 
one on the Mexican side, which have stopped the historical flow of 
sediment to the shoreline. Second, the Army Corps-built jetty that 
protects San Diego harbor also disrupts the flow of sand.
  Yesterday, Senator Coburn stated that he believes the replenishment 
of this beach is a State responsibility. As we all know, all of these 
projects are cost-shared with the State or localities involved. The 
State of California already has $4.2 million on the table for this 
project as soon as it is authorized. So the State's commitment is 
there.
  The residents and local government are also doing their fair share to 
shoulder the costs. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that 
every dollar spent avoiding storm damage through beach nourishment will 
save taxpayers close to $2.00. The total net benefit this project 
provides due to annual costs from structural damage due to erosion, 
wave attack, or inundation costs, utility relocation costs, land loss, 
cleanup costs and other items related to the loss of sand will be at 
least $1.8 million.
  There are hundreds of very important projects authorized in this 
bill, and many States have multiple projects. This amendment would set 
the dangerous precedent of requiring vital projects to wait until other 
projects in the same State are completed. Not only does this have the 
potential to increase Federal costs if we have to respond to disasters 
that could have been prevented, but it removes our discretion to 
evaluate projects independently, regardless of where they are located.
  Senator Coburn has now decided that securing levees in my State is a 
high priority. It certainly is. However, I do not agree with him that 
homes and families behind river levees are more important than homes 
and families behind an ocean beach. I hope that my colleagues will join 
with us to oppose this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, to make sure everybody understands, this 
is not an amendment that eliminates this project. As I complimented the 
Senator from California and the Senator from Oklahoma yesterday, the 
idea behind this amendment is to make priorities.
  What do we know? We know the Corps has a $58 billion backlog right 
now. That is 27\1/2\ years of work at the way the Corps is funded now. 
All this amendment says is, if you are in a family and you need a new 
roof, and you want to build a swimming pool, probably most American 
families are going to put the roof on before they build the swimming 
pool.
  Sacramento has 1.8 million people. It is the largest city in this 
country at risk for flood damage. The canals and levees up there need 
to be reworked. All this amendment says is before we restore beaches--
by the way, let me give a little background. The last time there was 
any flood damage at Imperial Beach was 1988. The total damage was 
$500,000 in 1988.
  What we do know is, when you restore the sand, one winter storm will 
wipe it all out. That is why this is a 50-year project. This is planned 
to restore sand after sand after sand after sand for the next 50 years. 
It may be the right thing to do, but in terms of making a choice about 
priorities, wouldn't we think that before we restore sand that is going 
to be washed away by the next winter storm, maybe we ought to ensure 
ourselves that the people in Sacramento are safe. So this does not 
eliminate this project.
  I also go back to the history on this project. What is the Corps' No. 
1 way of fixing this project? It is not to continue to pump sand onto 
the beach. It is to have an extended growing out until the beach 
redevelops and replenishes itself, which was proposed and never 
finalized before they completed the environmental impact statement on 
it. That is the way to restore the sand to the beach in a natural way.
  So what we have is we are going to take a low-priority item--very 
high-priority item for some of the people of Imperial Beach, CA, not 
all of them--we were submitted a letter yesterday by a large group of 
people who oppose this--and we are going to say that is as important in 
terms of authorization as fixing the levee system in Sacramento. It is 
not.
  All this amendment says is before you start spending money on 
restoring sand that is going to be washed away by the next winter 
storm, you ought to fix the levees where you have 1.8 million people at 
real risk for flood. It is the largest city in the United States at 
risk. It has a greater risk of flood than New Orleans. It has an 85-
year risk compared to a 250-year risk in New Orleans.
  By this amendment, we are not saying do not do this. We are saying, 
let's add some priorities. Let's fix what is wrong in a major levee 
system first. Let's have, in this bill, that we are going to choose a 
priority rather than to send all this to the Corps, which is 27 years 
behind right now on their projects--will be another 7\1/2\ to 8 years 
after this bill passes--and say, on the way of priorities, the priority 
that ought to go first is fixing the levee system in Sacramento. It is 
not to degrade that this is not needed. I am not saying it is not 
needed. I am saying, with limited funds, we ought to have a priority.
  Many people will argue they will make that decision at the 
Appropriations Committee. The authorizing bill right now is on the 
floor. I support many of the projects in this bill. But I think a case 
can be made, and the American people would demand, we cannot quit 
ducking priorities. It is easy to say to do everything, as the Senator 
from California said yesterday. The only problem with that is, we 
cannot do everything. We cannot do everything, so we have to make a 
choice. We ought to do those things that will protect the most people, 
solve the biggest problems first, and then work to the smaller 
problems.
  In 1988 was the last time we ever had any storm damage at Imperial 
Beach, CA. It was in the midst of storm damage that was less than 
$500,000. We are going to be talking about in excess of $20 million for 
this beach at the same time we have levees that need to be reworked and 
reaffirmed in Sacramento.
  This amendment is common sense. Let's do what is most important 
first, and when we have done that, then go do this. Let's do not do 
them both at the same time, quite frankly, because it will never happen 
at the same time, because we only have $2 billion a year for the Corps 
now and there are hundreds of projects in this country that should be 
done before this project.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

[[Page 12498]]

  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, there has been some misinformation. The 
last flooding and very bad winter storm was in 2004, and we have all 
that documented--in the hundreds of thousands of dollars--in this area. 
I understand Senator Coburn wants to substitute his opinion for the 
opinion of the Corps, but I want to go through, with my colleagues who 
might be listening to this debate, how many steps this project has 
already been through, as have all the projects we have agreed to fund.
  So the WRDA bill is 7 years in the making.
  Mr. President, will you tell me when I have 1 minute remaining 
because I want to yield that minute to Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We are at 1:10 now.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, 1:10 remaining? I thought I had 3 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Inhofe used a minute of that.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we be given 
an additional 3 minutes, and the same for Senator Coburn, if he wishes 
to respond.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to take 2 minutes, and then we will see if 
Senator Coburn wants to respond, and then we will give the last minute 
to Senator Inhofe.
  There is a lot of misinformation about the flooding here. There is 
also the implication that this is not an important project, when I have 
already pointed out how many businesses are at risk, how many 
residences.
  This project has gone through so many steps. First, the local people 
said: We want to step forward and pay toward solving this problem. 
Then, the Corps said: You are right. Let's do a cost-benefit study and 
see if it makes sense for Federal dollars to go into the mix. Well, it 
came back: Absolutely. Then they said: What is the best type of 
project? Should we build walls? What should we do? No. They said: The 
best type of project is to utilize the sand as a natural barrier to 
these floods.
  What we are desperately trying to do is complete this project because 
we are very concerned we could have even a worse problem than we had in 
2004.
  As much as I respect my colleague, I feel his judgment is not 
something I can accept. I cannot look in the eyes of the people who 
have been fighting for this project since 2003 and say to them they do 
not deserve to get any attention paid to their problem until Sacramento 
is taken care of.
  I have to say to my friend, in going after this project the way he 
is, it seems to me he is picking one project out of a hat, which is 
extremely disturbing.
  Mr. President, I know there are those who need to go over to the 
White House, so I will stop my discussion. I think I have enough 
information in the Record to have colleagues join with me.
  I say, if Senator Coburn has anything to add at this time, I will 
reserve the minute for Senator Inhofe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. COBURN. Mr. President, I am not going after the project. The 
project stays. I think the Senator from California misses the point. 
This beach had restoration done by the city last year. It washed away. 
The sand they put up there will wash away. It is a temporary fix to a 
long-term program. That is why they have a 50-year authorization for 
restoring this beach, because it is going to continue to wash away 
because they are not fixing it in the way the Corps originally 
recommended it be fixed.
  It is not about picking on this project. It is about, again, 
shouldn't we have priorities? Isn't it more important to fix Sacramento 
and the levee system there than this particular project, which has been 
repaired of late by the city with their own funds? I am not saying we 
should eliminate it; I am saying we should not do this until we have 
done the other things that are higher priority on the Corps' list, 
which No. 1 in my mind, besides what we need to do in Louisiana, is to 
restore the levee system in Sacramento.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, is the Senator yielding back time?
  All right. In deference to some other things that are going on right 
now, I will go ahead and yield back my time at this moment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1090.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the 
Senator from Ohio, (Mr. Brown), the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. 
Johnson), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Obama), and the Senator from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), are necessarily absent.
  Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), the Senator South 
Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Isakson), and the 
Senator from Arizona, (Mr. McCain).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. 
DeMint) would have voted ``yea'' and the Senator from North Carolina 
(Mrs. Dole) would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 12, nays 77, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 163 Leg.]

                                YEAS--12

     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Gregg
     Lott
     Lugar
     Sessions
     Smith
     Sununu

                                NAYS--77

     Akaka
     Alexander
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Grassley
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Martinez
     McCaskill
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Shelby
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Tester
     Thomas
     Thune
     Vitter
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Biden
     Brown
     Brownback
     DeMint
     Dole
     Graham
     Isakson
     Johnson
     McCain
     Obama
     Rockefeller
  The amendment (No. 1090) was rejected.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DURBIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for that 
overwhelming vote. I view it as a vote that basically says this bill is 
a good bill. Let's not tinker with this bill unless there is pretty 
quick agreement on both sides that it is the right kind of amendment. 
This wasn't the right kind of amendment. We appreciate this vote.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m. today, 
Senator Cardin be recognized to call up amendment No. 1072; that once 
the amendment is reported by number, there be 5 minutes under the 
control of Senator Cardin, and that upon the use or yielding back of 
time, the amendment be withdrawn; that the Senate then resume 
consideration of the Coburn

[[Page 12499]]

amendment No. 1089, and there be 2 minutes of debate prior to a vote in 
relation to the amendment; that upon disposition of the Coburn 
amendment No. 1089, the Senate consider the Feingold amendment No. 
1086, and there be 5 minutes of debate prior to a vote in relation to 
the amendment, with all debate time equally divided and controlled in 
the usual form; that prior to a vote in relation to the amendments 
covered in this agreement, no intervening amendments be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
Members be recognized to speak as in morning business: Senators Dodd, 
Inouye, Alexander, and Levin and that after that the Senate stand in 
recess.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

                          ____________________