A bill to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PAC's from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee.

Mr. President, I am pleased to once again join with Senator Grassley and today introduce the Criminal Antitrust Anti- Retaliation Act. This legislation, which is identical to our legislation from last Congress, will provide important protections to employees who come forward and disclose to law enforcement price fixing and other criminal antitrust behavior that harm consumers. This legislation is a continuation of the long partnership that I have had with Senator Grassley on whistleblower issues.

Congress should encourage employees with information about criminal antitrust activity, such as price fixing, to report that information by offering meaningful protection to those who blow the whistle rather than leaving them vulnerable to reprisals. Throughout our history, whistleblowers have been instrumental in alerting the public, Congress, and law enforcement to wrongdoing in a variety of areas. These individuals take risks in stepping forward, and many times their actions result in important reforms and have even saved lives.

The legislation we are introducing today is based on recommendations from the Government Accountability Office, which interviewed key stakeholders in the antitrust community and found widespread support for anti-retaliatory protection in criminal antitrust cases. The provisions in this bill are modeled on the whistleblower protections that Senator Grassley and I authored as part of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, and are narrowly tailored to ensure that whistleblowers are not provided with an economic incentive to bring forth false claims.

The antitrust laws protect consumers and serve to promote our free enterprise system. Our bipartisan bill will help to ensure that criminal violations of these laws do not go unreported. I urge the Senate to act quickly to pass this important legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, on the first day for bill introductions this year I once again join with Senator Crapo and a distinguished, bipartisan group of Senators to introduce the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2013. This life-saving legislation should be a top priority of the new 113th Congress. It is our hope that the Senate will act quickly to pass this strong, bipartisan bill to help all victims of domestic and sexual violence.

The Senate acted just 9 months ago to approve the Leahy-Crapo Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2012 with 68 bipartisan votes. Despite our best efforts, the House did not join in our bipartisan efforts and enact that bill into law.

By now, the litany of VAWA's successes is familiar, but important. Since this historic legislation first passed in 1994, States have strengthened criminal rape statutes, and every State has made stalking a crime. The annual incidence of domestic violence has dropped more than 50 percent. We have helped to provide victims with critical services like housing and legal protection. Those are just a few highlights. We need to remember that behind those numbers are thousands of lives made immeasurably better.

Despite VAWA's success, there is a pressing need to update and strengthen its protections. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention's 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey found that one in four women has been the victim of severe physical domestic violence and one in five women has been raped in her lifetime. These numbers are almost too awful to contemplate.

Real life cases remind us that this reauthorization is long overdue. Last month, I read in the Burlington Free Press the story of Carmen Tarleton, a woman from Thetford, VT. Five years ago, Carmen's estranged husband broke into her home, beat her with a baseball bat, and poured industrial-strength lye on her, severely burning a great deal of her body and nearly blinding her. Her doctors said that she had suffered ``the most horrific injury a human being could suffer.'' Today, she is nearly blind, disfigured, and continues to experience pain from her injuries. Despite this, Carmen is courageously sharing her story.

Stories like this one remind us that every day that we do not pass legislation that will help to prevent horrific violence and assist victims, more people are suffering. Late last year while Congress failed to act on our bipartisan bill, we saw tragic domestic violence- related murder-suicides in Missouri and Colorado. We also learned of harrowing new accounts of sexual assaults on college campuses. These are just more examples of the kind of tragedies that unfold every day across the country.

The Leahy-Crapo bill would support the use of techniques proven to help identify high-risk cases and prevent domestic violence homicides. It would increase VAWA's focus on sexual assault and push colleges to strengthen their efforts to protect students from domestic and sexual violence.

This reauthorization will allow us to make real progress in addressing the horrifying epidemic of domestic violence in tribal communities, where one recent study found that almost three in five native women have been assaulted by their spouses or intimate partners. It will allow services to get to those in the LGBT community who have had trouble accessing services in the past.

Every VAWA reauthorization Congress has passed has taken steps to help immigrant victims of violence, who are often particularly vulnerable. Last year's bill included a modest increase in the number of U visas available to immigrant victims who help law enforcement, which is good for victims and for law enforcement. Unfortunately, that provision led to a technical objection from House Republican leaders. In the interest of making quick and decisive progress, we introduce the bill today without that provision in order to remove any excuse for House inaction. We have retained other important improvements for immigrant victims in the bill we introduce today as part of our commitment to ensuring that all victims are protected.

I still believe strongly in the U visa increase that was in last year's Leahy-Crapo bill. I authored that provision after hearing from law enforcement and the experts in the field. I think it is needed to encourage assistance to law enforcement and to protect immigrant women and I remain committed to enacting it and ensuring that the

needed U visa increase is adopted. I intend to work to include it in comprehensive immigration reform legislation that we should consider early in this Congress. It will be part of our immigration reform effort.

We have included, as well, in this year's bill the specific provisions of the SAFER bill that I worked out with Senator Cornyn and Senator Grassley last year and that then passed the Senate unanimously late in the session. I hope that Senators who opposed VAWA last year while supporting those provisions will now join with us in our effort to enact VAWA reauthorization that includes those provisions, as well.

All of the provisions in our bill were developed with the help of victims and with those who assist them every day. They are common sense measures that will help real people. It is past time for Congress to move beyond partisan politics in order to provide help to victims of domestic and sexual violence.

We can make these concrete and important changes in the law that will prevent terrible violence and provide more help to victims. There is no excuse for delay. I hope all Senators will join me in quickly moving this bill through the Senate and that the House will quickly work with us to get a strong VAWA bill to the President.

I thank Senator Crapo, the lead Senate Republican cosponsor of our bill and Senators Murkowski, Mikulski, Ayotte, Collins, Coons, Durbin, Bennet, Klobuchar, Shaheen, Kirk, Cantwell, Murray, Udall (CO), Casey, and McCaskill, who join us as original cosponsors and have all been strong supporters of VAWA. I look forward to many others joining us to move forward on this vital legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation directed at combating the practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking in firearms. I thank the law enforcement partners who have contributed ideas and Senator Durbin for joining me in this effort. I hope that as Senators become familiar with the proposal, they will see it as a focused approach to provide law enforcement officials with the tools they need to go after those who engage in the illegal trafficking. This commonsense measure deserves the bipartisan support that will be critical to any effort in the Senate to reduce gun violence in America.

I have heard again and again from Senators on both sides of the aisle that keeping guns away from those who should not have them is a goal worth pursuing. This bill will further that effort. When the President spoke last week about the need for legislative action in the wake of the horrific events at Sandy Hook Elementary School, strengthening our law enforcement efforts against illegal gun trafficking was one of the key issues he proposed. This bill will answer that call to action.

Next week, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold the first hearing of the 113th Congress on the issue of gun violence. I expect that part of that discussion will include examining various legislative proposals Senators have put forward. We need to move beyond platitudes and toward solutions. It is my hope that as the Committee proceeds we can find areas of common ground.

There is now broad recognition that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a firearm, and that self protection is an essential part of that right. To the extent there used to be a backdrop of uncertainty about the meaning of the Second Amendment, that time is past. I have long believed that the right to bear arms for protection is a fundamental right. The Supreme Court has now confirmed the individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment. That is no longer questioned. So we can proceed now in this discussion with certainty that Americans' constitutional rights will be preserved while we seek solutions to prevent gun violence.

There is broad agreement that keeping guns away from those suffering from mental illness and criminals is the right thing to do. I am a responsible gun owner. I know that other responsible gun owners will support better enforcement of the laws that exist to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. We cannot allow those who are barred from buying guns to circumvent our laws. That is just common sense.

Law enforcement officials have complained for years that they lack the legal tools necessary to effectively combat illegal firearms trafficking. Congressional inquiry during the last Congress should have put a spotlight on the very difficult legal environment within which law enforcement officials currently operate. In fact, one of the whistleblowers who testified about the misguided tactics used by Federal law enforcement in firearms trafficking investigations in Arizona described the current laws as ``toothless''. If we are to address gun violence, we must respond to this clear vulnerability.

The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act will make important changes to Federal firearms statutes to give law enforcement officials the tools they need to investigate and prosecute the all-too-common practice of straw purchasing and illegal trafficking of firearms. This practice typically involves a person who is not prohibited by Federal law purchasing a firearm on behalf of a prohibited person, or at the direction of a drug trafficking or other criminal organization. It is a problem that must be addressed. It not only results in the support of larger criminal organizations, but also in the proliferation of illegal firearms and gun violence in our communities. It puts both law enforcement officials and law abiding firearms dealers in a very difficult position but more importantly, this makes our citizens and communities less safe.

Under current law, there is no specific statute that makes it illegal to act as a straw purchaser of firearms. Nor is there a law directly on point to address the illegal trafficking of firearms. As a result, prosecutors must cobble together charges against a straw purchaser using so-called ``paperwork'' violations such as lying on a Federal form. These laws are imperfect, and do not give prosecutors the leverage needed to encourage straw buyers, often the lowest rungs on a ladder in a criminal enterprise, to provide the information needed for investigators and prosecutors to go after those directing and profiting from such activity.

The bill I introduce today will add a new provision to our Federal criminal code to specifically prohibit serving as a straw purchaser of firearms, and establishes tough penalties for those who purchase firearms for, on behalf of, or with the intent to transfer the firearms to someone prohibited from making that purchase directly. Under current law, it is a crime to transfer a firearm to another with the knowledge that the firearm will be used in criminal activity. This bill would strengthen this existing law by prohibiting such a transfer where the transferor has ``reasonable cause to believe'' that the firearm will be used in relation to criminal activity. The bill does contain important exemptions from the prohibition, namely, the transfer of a firearm as a gift, or in relation to a legitimate raffle, auction or contest.

This bill will complement existing law that makes it a crime to smuggle firearms into the United States by specifically prohibiting the smuggling of firearms out of the United States.

The provisions laid out in this legislation are focused, commonsense remedies to the very real problem of firearms trafficking and straw purchasing. The bill does not affect Federal firearms licensees, and in no way alters their rights and responsibilities as sellers of a lawful commodity.

As the Senate seeks a way forward to find national solutions to reduce gun violence, I hope Senators from across the political spectrum can work together to find common ground. We have a responsibility and a duty to refine our laws consistent with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, a Senator, a Vermonter, an American, a father and a grandfather, I am prepared to hear all ideas, listen to all views, and work with Senators from both sides of the aisle. The bill I introduce today is the first of several proposals I expect to support to reduce gun violence. I look forward to discussing it further with fellow Senators and witnesses at the upcoming hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Yes.

I would answer my friend in this way. This is a new commission. We set it up in the bill. It has never worked before. We do not know how it will work. So we thought, for starters, let's go after the older projects, see how it works, and any day we could come back and add more authority. But we think, if there are active projects, it sends a very confusing signal to the folks back home.

We think this is the way to start it. It is smart. We have never had this commission before. I am very proud that we have it in here. I know my colleague supports the commission. He is already wanting to expand it. But I think we start this way, and then if it looks like we can give them more authority, we can. By the way, any day of the week Congress could deauthorize as well.

Mr. President, I very much respect my friend. I know his intention is the best. But I do have to say there is not one earmark in this bill. He should be so proud of both sides of the aisle in this committee--not one earmark--and we do not tell the commission what they can and cannot do. But we do set some parameters because we do believe, as we start this deauthorization commission, it ought to go after the older projects. But projects that are active, let them get a chance to move forward. There are no earmarks in this bill. I kind of resent it, in a nice way. I am not angry about it. But, believe me, there is no intention to protect earmarks here at all.

So I hope we will vote no. I think we are starting something new, something good. It is a huge reform. We have a deauthorization commission, but let's start them with the older projects. Let's track it. If we feel we should move forward with more reform, I am certainly open to it.

I yield the floor and hope for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.

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

Madam President, I urge a ``no'' vote. Colleagues, please hear me out. This amendment would expand the authority of a newly created infrastructure deauthorization commission and allow projects in your State to be stopped midstream--active projects, projects that have local funds flowing into them and private funds flowing into them. This is a bridge too far.

I am very proud of the work Senator Vitter and I have done in setting up this commission. We have very clear rules about what the commission could look at, and we protect projects that are active. We say to them: Go after the inactive projects, stop them, and save taxpayer dollars.

Please, let's have a good ``no'' vote on this one.

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

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

I move to reconsider the vote and to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 866

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

I ask the Senator have 30 seconds more.

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

Madam President, I thank my colleague for not offering his amendment. He and I see this very differently. But first I wish to say I have committed to a hearing. I told my colleague he can get as much time as he wants, but I have to correct the record.

My colleague said this project delivery reform was a last minute addition. Project delivery reform was in the bill as it was voted out of committee, without a dissenting vote.

Let me reiterate: This is not a last minute issue. Project delivery reform was in the bill when it got voted out. Here is why--two reasons. One is projects are being delayed--environmental projects, flood control projects; they are being delayed. Some delay is necessary--when there is new information--and they could still have a delay.

What we do in this bill--and it has been changed for the better, I think my

colleague is right on that--is we sunset the provision in 10 years.

For the first time in history, the resource agencies my friend and I care so much about, such as Fish and Wildlife, EPA, and all the rest, will be in the room with the corps setting the deadlines. It is very important that we get our job done. Bureaucratic agencies have to get the work done as well.

I think this reform is one we will be proud of, and I look forward to those hearings.

I thank my colleague. We will get on with this and make sure this reform works the way we anticipate it will.

I yield the floor.

Amendment No. 909, as Modified

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

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

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

I will be supporting this amendment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam President, if I could be heard for less than a minute, I would like to thank every single Senator here. I think we have literally worked with every one of the Senators on this bill.

Senator Vitter and I have our differences in a number of areas, but when it comes to the infrastructure of our country, we worked very well together, as I did with Senator Inhofe.

The committee voted this bill out unanimously, and we made it better on this floor. Senators came to us with amendments that made this a better bill.

Also, I have to praise our staffs. They are unbelievable. I am not going to name names now, but later I will put them in the Record. Senator Vitter's and my chief of staff, as well as their teams, worked seamlessly in the most wonderful and cooperative fashion.

I want everyone to know that this bill is about 500,000 jobs, thousands of businesses, critical flood control, environmental restoration projects, harbor maintenance, inland waterways, and we have adopted dozens and dozens of amendments.

We are very excited about this vote. We hope everyone will vote yea. It would be a wonderful signal to the House so they can get on with this work as well.

I yield to my friend.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Florida (Mr. Nelson) would vote ``nay.''

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg) and the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.

I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. Lautenberg), the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray), and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mrs. Warren) are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mrs. Warren) would vote ``yea.''

Madam President, today the Senate will pass a Water Resources Development Act, or WRDA, for the first time since 2007. I thank my colleagues, chairman Barbara Boxer and ranking member David Vitter of the Environment and Public Works Committee, for working together to move a bipartisan bill out of committee and to the floor.

I know it wasn't easy, and compromises were made. But water resources development bills are important to the commerce that moves by river and sea, to those communities and towns that rely on the Corps of Engineers to protect them from flooding and other storm damage, and to maintaining the precious natural resources that our rivers, streams, and wetlands represent.

We have an infrastructure problem in this country. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need $3.6 trillion investment in our failing infrastructure. I say failing not only because its literally crumbling but because the American Society of Civil Engineers 2013 Infrastructure Report Card gave America's infrastructure a ``D-plus.'' But for our inland waterways, levees, and ports that grade is a ``D-minus.''

As an example, consider the locks and dams on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. These two rivers are important economic arteries, transporting millions of tons of product each year. The locks and dams that allow barges to move these goods were built in the 1930s and 1940s.

They are aging, and the risk of failure grows by the day. Back in March, a

miter gate at the Marseilles Lock and Dam failed and was closed for 7 days. During that time, more than 50,000 tons of petroleum products came to a halt. That was a 7 day closure--can you imagine the economic impact of a catastrophic failure of one of these locks?

But we also must face reality that we passed this bill in a time of budget caps. This bill tries to update some of the funding mechanisms and processes we use to maintain and build locks dams, levees, and harbors.

With such great need and limited resources, my colleague Senator Mark Kirk and I introduced the Water Infrastructure Now Public Private Partnership Act, or WIN P3. I am pleased that the Senate-passed WRDA includes a major provision of our bill.

The provision adds a new element to a pilot program that allows for public private agreements between the Corps of Engineers and private entities. The pilot would allow the corps to expedite construction by bringing in private entities that have enough of a stake in completing infrastructure projects quickly that they could bring in private resources to help complete the work. The new language ensures that projects that have not received Federal funds would qualify for the program--projects like lock and dam modernization on the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers.

Currently those upgrades aren't projected to be complete until 2090. With this new program, I am hopeful new ways to fund and deliver big projects like these will be developed and help Illinois upgrade our water infrastructure more quickly.

This bill includes many provisions that could greatly benefit my home State of Illinois. It would keep up the fight against the spread of Asian carp. We must keep this invasive species from damaging the ecosystem of Lake Michigan.

The bill would also implement a National Levee Safety Program to establish safety standards and provide assistance to locals whose levees require rehabilitation. Many communities in Illinois find themselves in the difficult situation of having their levees decertified but without the funds to make the necessary repairs. I am hopeful that this bill could help at least some of them.

I am pleased that the bill addresses extreme weather. No matter why you think it is happening, it is clear that extreme weather events are becoming more severe and more frequent.

Consider the last year: The two costliest natural disasters in the world occurred in the United States--the Midwest drought and Hurricane Sandy, costing $100 billion. We can't ignore the reality that weather events like these are the new normal.

This bill would initiate studies by the National Academy of Sciences and GAO to evaluate how we respond to and mitigate extreme weather events. It would also give the corps greater authority to learn from and prepare for extreme weather events.

We have certainly seen our fair share of extreme weather in the Midwest and along the Mississippi River lately. Right now in Illinois and the Midwest, we are recovering from major floods. But it was only 5 months ago that the drought that sapped the Midwest caused record low water levels on the Mississippi--levels not seen since World War II.

I traveled to see it. The corps and Coast Guard took me out on an observation boat. When we got to the center of the channel, the corps commander said, ``Imagine water ten feet over your head right now, that's where the water levels should be.''

The water was so low it threatened to stop navigation on America's great commercial artery. Every few days barge operators and shippers were faced with the difficult question of whether there would be enough water for them to safely transit the Mississippi River. We are talking billions of dollars in goods from nearly every sector imaginable-- agriculture, energy, dry goods, bulk goods.

During the crisis, some recommended it could all be solved if we simply allowed more water to flow from the Missouri River into the Mississippi. Some even called on the President to declare a disaster and mandate the water be taken from the Missouri River.

I said, ``Let's hold on a minute, we are all in this together.'' What happens on the Missouri affects the Mississippi, and the commerce on the Mississippi clearly benefits the Missouri River States.

Instead of draining the Missouri River for the benefit of the Mississippi, we pushed the corps to expedite removal of rock pinnacles that obstructed navigation. With that, along with some needed rain and creative management by the corps, we were able to maintain navigation without doing any harm to the Missouri River.

In my view, that was a fair and responsible outcome. Equally fair and responsible, now that we are through the crisis, is doing everything we can to learn from what happened and work to ensure we are better prepared if it happens again.

I introduced legislation to do that--the Mississippi River Navigation Sustainment Act. I am pleased that legislation is part of the Senate- passed bill.

It will improve forecasting capabilities and technology on the Mississippi River, give the corps greater flexibility to operate outside of the navigation channel, and create an environmental management pilot program for the Middle Mississippi.

Also included from my bill is a provision that would create a greater Mississippi River Basin severe flooding and drought management study. It will for the first time look at the entire Mississippi River Basin, which covers 40 percent of the United States and is the third largest river basin in the world. The study will help us better understand how the basin functions as a system and how we can best manage it to maintain safe and reliable navigation and protect lives and property-- especially during times of extreme flooding and drought.

This provision was added to the bill as an amendment that I introduced with Senator Roy Blunt and others. That amendment was a compromise between Missouri River Senators and Mississippi River Senators.

I thank my colleagues, including Senator Baucus, for working with me to come up with acceptable language. With this agreement, hopefully we can start to get beyond the parochial wars of the past. It is clear those of us on the Missouri River and the Mississippi River have a new common enemy that isn't going anywhere soon extreme weather.

I am encouraged that the Senate has come together in a bipartisan way on this bill. I now hope the House will pass legislation that makes needed investments in the waterways that are so important to the flow of commerce and upholds the environmental protections that keep America's waterways healthy.

I thank Senator Klobuchar for adding that important point regarding the interconnected nature of the Great Lakes Navigation System. And thank you, Chairman Boxer, for working us to begin to improve the maintenance of the Great Lakes Navigation System, which is critical to our economy and jobs and to our global competitiveness.

Madam President, Michigan is a water State. The State is surrounded by water on three of its sides. We depend on our vital water resources for drinking water and commerce. Water provides opportunities for recreation, rest, and reflection. Our waters define us. It has been 6 years since the last Water Resources Development Act was passed. This bill includes several provisions that will improve the management of Michigan's water resources, such as critical harbor maintenance, upgrades to drinking and wastewater systems, flood control projects, and restoration of aquatic resources, and I will support its passage.

This bill makes some progress toward improving the Great Lakes Navigation System, and I am pleased that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee worked with us to address concerns with the reported bill. The bill would increase authorized appropriations for harbor maintenance, beginning with $1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and increasing every year thereafter by $100 million through fiscal year 2019. In fiscal year 2020 and beyond, the bill would require that total budget resources for harbor maintenance equal the full amount of funds collected for that purpose. Currently, only about half of the funds collected from shippers for harbor maintenance are used for harbor maintenance. The harbor maintenance trust fund, into which the fees from shippers are collected, has a balance of over $7 billion.

Great Lakes harbors and channels are in great need of dredging. A backlog of dredging projects forces vessels to carry less than their capacity, threatens to close harbors and increases the risk of vessel groundings. These funds need to be used for harbor maintenance instead of for other purposes. I have been fighting to free these funds and worked with the EPW Committee to incorporate the text of the Harbor Maintenance Act of 2013, which I introduced earlier this year in February, into the committee-reported

bill. While the point of order enforcement language of my bill that would have required full funding immediately for harbor maintenance was not included in the final version, the compromise language that would phase in the increased funding still represents progress. The next step in the dredging battle will be to work with appropriators so that funding is provided at the authorized levels.

I am also pleased that the EPW Committee responded to my concerns regarding how harbor maintenance funding was prioritized. I had written a letter to EPW that was signed by 10 other Great Lakes Senators expressing our concerns, and EPW responded by including a provision in the bill that would prioritize 20 percent of harbor maintenance funds in excess of fiscal year 2012 levels for the Great Lakes. This setaside represents real progress, and I hope appropriators will provide funding in accordance with this directive in the bill.

I am also pleased that my amendment concerning other uses of the harbor maintenance trust fund was agreed to by the full Senate. That amendment, which was cosponsored by Senator Stabenow, makes clear that the primary use of the harbor maintenance trust fund is for maintaining the constructed widths and depths of ports and harbors and that those functions should be given first consideration in the budgeting of harbor maintenance trust fund allocations. I fought for this language because the bill includes a new authorization for other uses of the trust fund, and I wanted to make sure that harbor maintenance, including that of the Great Lakes, has a higher claim for these funds than the other new uses.

In addition to the beneficial harbor maintenance provisions, the bill also includes a number of other provisions that could benefit Michigan. A new pilot program, called the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, is included in the bill, and it would increase options for financing our nation's water and wastewater infrastructure by providing loan guarantees and low interest loans with flexible repayment terms. WIFIA is a positive provision for Michigan and the Nation that will help to address the ongoing problems we face with aging and outdated infrastructure.

As Michigan and much of the Midwest recover from damaging flooding, I am pleased to see an authorization for the National Levee Safety Program and the establishment of a National Levee Safety Advisory Board. The board will provide technical assistance to States and tribes on levee safety and facilitate the development of levee safety programs through a Federal grant program. Levees are an essential part of our flood protection infrastructure. This provision will hopefully ensure our levees are constructed and maintained using sound science and the best available information.

The bill also includes a provision on dam safety that is critical to Michigan communities. The Dam Safety Program provides grant assistance to States for the training of dam safety staff and for the development of safety monitoring programs. This bill also helps us in the Asian carp fight. I worked with Senator Gillibrand to include a provision that would authorize the Army Corps of Engineers to implement emergency measures to prevent Asian carp and other invasive species from getting into the Great Lakes. That language is based on a provision I was able to get included in an appropriations bill for fiscal year 2012, and including it in the WRDA bill would make the authority permanent.

I also want to mention the shadow that hangs over this legislation and all the other legislation before us. That shadow is sequestration, and until we lift that shadow, it will erode the good we seek to accomplish with this legislation and everything else we do.

The projects authorized in this bill will touch every State in our Nation, put Americans to work, help American companies sell their goods here and around the world, improve our navigation systems, and provide clean drinking water for our homes and businesses. But authorizing these projects is not enough. We also need to appropriate the money to execute these projects. And so long as sequestration remains in effect, so long as we continue to view our fiscal challenges as exclusively a matter of cutting budgets, so long as we ignore the desires of the American public and the realities of budget math and refuse to adopt a balanced approach to deficit reduction--so long as all that continues, those appropriations will be reduced. As a result, water projects will suffer, health and education programs will suffer, law enforcement, border security, food inspections and more will suffer. The Speaker of the House said not long ago, ``We can't cut our way to prosperity.'' He's right. We can't cut our way to clean water or operable harbors either. We need to keep that in mind as we consider budget solutions going forward.

Despite the challenge of sequestration and continued fiscal pressures, the bill before us represents progress for America's waterways and the people who depend on them and in particular for the precious waters of my State of Michigan. I urge my colleagues to support this much-needed legislation.

Madam President, I would like to thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Murray for their support and resolve to work to address the issue of cargo diversion posed by the harbor maintenance tax.

The Water Resources Development Act that we are discussing here today is an important bill that works to ensure the economic success of our Nation's waterways. The language we were able to include in this bill is just the start of our effort to address the serious issue of cargo diversion and international competition. It gives deep-water ports the ability to more cost-effectively utilize the funds raised by the harbor maintenance tax to keep competitive with their Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

Over the past decade, we have seen increasing competition for the market share of U.S.-bound goods from ports beyond our border to the north and to the south. These diversions can be partially attributed to the added cost of paying the harbor maintenance tax at U.S. ports. In fact, among the top 25 North American ports, the fastest growing in 2012 were the Port of Prince Rupert in Canada and the Port of Lazaro Cardenas in Mexico. Instead of U.S.-bound cargo creating growth of U.S. ports, we are witnessing this cargo, previously shipped through our west coast ports, contributing to the growth of Canadian and Mexican ports. The loss of cargo shipments through American ports leads to decreased port activity and export capacity, and it

erodes the harbor maintenance trust fund, which means fewer direct and indirect American jobs supporting U.S. international commerce. More than 200,000 jobs are tied to the activities at the ports of Seattle and Tacoma, and with nearly 27 percent of international container cargo potentially at risk of moving to Canada from west voast ports, this could result in significant job losses.

Cargo diversion is not my only concern with the harbor maintenance tax. I also am concerned by the poor utilization of the funds collected and the disparate distribution of the funds that are allocated. As of 2011, the balance of the harbor maintenance trust fund has built up to more than $6.4 billion. We should be investing this balance for its designed purpose of improving the ability of our ports to move goods. Furthermore, the harbor maintenance trust fund balance is rarely spent on operations and maintenance at west coast ports, where a significant amount of the tax revenue is generated. Our two largest ports in Washington Seattle and Tacoma generate, on average, close to 7 percent of the funding for the HMTF, but each received just over a penny for every dollar collected from shippers who pay the HMT in Seattle and Tacoma.

To remain competitive in an international marketplace, we need a long-term plan for how to grow and support infrastructure development and that must include reform of the harbor maintenance tax. Essential to remaining competitive is the ability of our ports to shorten the time it takes to get goods to consumers. This means we must invest in the infrastructure of our ports and freight corridors something that I have worked with Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on to more quickly deliver the goods from our ports to the rest of the Nation. If we don't make these infrastructure investments, America will face major opportunity costs. We are seeing this already with the cargo diversion to Canada from the Pacific Northwest. But I must warn my colleagues that the competition is only increasing and will spread throughout the country with major ports planned or coming online in Canada and Mexico on both coasts, as well as the forthcoming expansion of the Panama Canal. Now is the time to address the harbor maintenance tax and reverse cargo diversion by reforming this tax and better utilizing the money it generates.

Today Chairman Baucus is proposing that we work together to address the competitive imbalances created by the harbor maintenance tax. While we acknowledge the work done to improve the spending out of the harbor maintenance trust fund collections in the Water Resources Development Act, we believe the efforts are just a starting point. Many of the underlying tax and trade issues cannot be addressed in this legislation. We believe it is important to clarify our intent to move on comprehensive reforms the harbor maintenance tax on the next available and appropriate legislative vehicle.

Madam President, as we consider S. 601, the Water Resources Development Act, specifically amendment No. 903, I want to highlight critical emerging needs in our Nation's arctic.

The arctic is opening at an alarming rate, which creates a number of economic opportunities for the Nation. This accessibility also creates new requirements for the U.S. Coast Guard and the Navy. Multiple bipartisan Presidential directives call for increased arctic presence to meet national security and homeland security needs; to facilitate safe, secure, and reliable navigation; to protect maritime commerce; and to protect the environment as resource development increases.

With new shipping lanes and opportunities to obtain and transport natural resources, the arctic has become a new frontier. We need to have arctic infrastructure ready to accommodate this increase in commerce.

That is why I have worked closely with Senator Begich to fight for heavy-duty icebreakers and other arctic infrastructure. We need to make sure the Coast Guard acquires the tools they need to fulfill their missions in the arctic.

In fact, the Army Corps of Engineers is in the final phase of a study which assesses feasibility of deep draft ports in the arctic. The corps assessed over 3,000 miles of Alaskan coastline and identified a shortlist of two possible deep draft ports in Nome and Port Clarence.

The U.S. Department of the Interior released a report on emerging Federal management needs in the arctic in March 2013. The report, titled ``Managing for the Future in a Rapidly Changing Environment,'' found that the U.S. arctic habitat encompasses St. Lawrence Island Northward, based on physical oceanography, seasonal sea ice, and other ecosystem characteristics. These northern seas are vastly different and require unique infrastructure compared to the majority of the Bering Sea, Alaska.

It is the intent of this bill that these arctic deep draft ports are present in the arctic. And while there has been some dispute on how the U.S. arctic is defined, both the Army Corps study and the Department of the Interior report indicate the importance of deep draft ports in close proximity to the Arctic Circle, 66 degrees North. This is where ports of refuge, natural resource shipping, oilspill response, commercial shipping, and other commercial opportunities require a deep draft port.

These key findings identify ports that must be prioritized when considering deep water draft port development in the arctic, where the Federal Government has a role including technical assistance outlined in amendment 903.