Floor Statements

Madam President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent it adjourn under the previous order.

Mr. President, I was unable to attend this roll call vote. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the Moran amendment No. 974 to require the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation to carry out research and development regarding a crop insurance program for alfalfa.

Mr. President, I was unable to attend four roll call votes that occurred on May 23, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted yea on the confirmation of Srikanth Srinivasan to be U.S. Circuit Judge, yea on Feinstein amendment No. 923 to end the Federal crop insurance subsidy for tobacco, yea on Hagan amendment No. 1031 to reduce fraud in the crop insurance program, and yea on Durbin amendment No. 953 to reduce crop insurance premium subsidies for those earning over $750,000 annually in adjusted gross income.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Will the Senator yield for a question?

Here is the problem. The people in my State are saying the same thing: Roll up your sleeves and attack the problems. Because, guess what. I remember when this budget was balanced, when Bill Clinton was President. It took literally a few months before George W. Bush gave a tax break and put it on the credit card, two wars on the credit card, and the debt was off and running.

But put that aside, we are where we are. Does my friend not think if we could get into a conference--and I know a lot of us here have been in tough conferences--that is where we would roll up our sleeves? I say Patty Murray and Paul Ryan are ready to roll up their sleeves and get to work. Why would my friend want to give instructions--of course, I would love to give instructions. I would like to give instructions the richest of Americans pay the same effective tax rate as their secretaries. I would love to do that. I would love to order that, but I wouldn't do that.

Let Patty Murray and Paul Ryan and the respective committees get in there, in an open process, and come back. Doesn't my friend understand what he is calling for, when he says roll up your sleeves and get to work, is exactly what Senators Murray, McCain, Collins, and lots of us want to do, those of us who believe we need to use regular order? Can my friend comment on that?

The Senator skipped over George W. Bush, who caused the deficits. But let's not argue that.

Will the Senator yield for one more question? Then I will yield the floor.

I thank my friend.

Will the Senator yield for a question? And I thank him so much.

Listen, let's cut through what is happening and tell me where I am wrong, and I would respect the Senator's answer. The Senator represents a lot of folks, I represent 38 million, so we are two big States and we owe a lot to our people. That is for sure. What is happening here today is very clear. The Republicans, except for Senator McCain and Senator Collins, who were here, are stopping us--this Nation--from having a budget, and they are saying their reason is that something might happen in the conference. Well, that is not the way we work in a democracy. Anything can happen at any moment.

Let's get into that conference. Paul Ryan has a budget that I think is apocalyptic and that the Senator from Texas may well support. Patty Murray has a budget that the Senator probably thinks is apocalyptic. They want to get into that conference and they want to work together. That is called democracy.

I will close with this and ask my friend to respond. Ronald Reagan supported raising the debt ceiling about 18 times. He put out a number of statements that were totally counter to my friend's. Ronald Reagan said--and I am paraphrasing, and I will get the exact quote and put it in the Record, as I have done in the past--even thinking about defaulting on the government's bills is enough to send shock waves through the country.

The last time the Republicans played that game it cost us $19 billion. We cannot afford that. My friends say they are conservatives, but they are leading us down that road. I beg them to think about what they are doing. I beg them to have faith and trust in this democracy. I beg them to let the people who are very responsible in the House and in the Senate, who are on different wavelengths when it comes to this budget, get to work. And to quote my friend, let them get to the place where they can roll up their sleeves and get the job done.

I think by my friend's continuing presence to stop us from having a budget, he is doing a great disservice not only to this country but to his party.

That is it for me.

Before my friend from New Jersey leaves the floor, I wish to thank him for leading a letter regarding this important nomination. We need a Secretary of Labor. We had a wonderful Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis. The reason it is so essential is we

now see that the middle class is essentially collapsing, even though we are coming out of the worst recession since the Great Depression because of the leadership of our President and those of us who tried to help him. We need a head of the Department of Labor to make sure everybody gets a fair chance. I wish to thank my friend. He makes a very important point about Republican obstructionism.

After the election, they sat around, all of them, and said: Oh, my goodness. We have to do better with Hispanics. We have to do better with women.

Who are the two people they are holding up with all their might at this point--and I hope they end it--Mr. Perez and Gina McCarthy, a woman who deserves a promotion just as Mr. Perez deserves a promotion. They can say all they want that they are reaching out to minorities and women, but then they are blocking promotions of people who are outstanding Americans. I wished to say that before my friend left the floor.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle are focused on several issues, which they call scandals. I would like to address those and then talk about issues that seem to be falling through the cracks while they focus on ``gotcha'' politics; they are going to get the President.

I think we will start with the IRS. It is wrong to target any group for scrutiny whether they are on the right or on the left, if it is a tea party group or a liberal church. We have seen this with the IRS over the years. As a matter of fact, I looked back to see how many of my Republican friends stood up and talked about going after the IRS and straightening them out when they went after the NAACP or when they went after a liberal church in Pasadena in Congressman Schiff's district. The fact is they got exercised when they went after the tea party. OK. I hear you. I am with you. What is important is so is the President.

If this President says: I agree with you, they say: We didn't hear you.

They just want to fight. I have friends where sometimes we are having a debate, and all of a sudden a bright light goes on and I will say, you know what, I think you are right. Sometimes they keep on arguing.

The President said this is an outrage, and he has already made sure people are being fired. We are going to make sure we straighten things out at the IRS.

Let's focus on how to fix it, not how to make it into a ``gotcha'' political issue. We also have Republican outrage over the Justice Department seeking the phone records of the Associated Press.

I, myself, believe freedom of the press is one of the most important freedoms we have. I don't like to see phone records of reporters subpoenaed in secret.

I was once a reporter and had a lot of confidential sources. I wrote for a very good weekly magazine called the PacificSun. I did indepth stories on all kinds of issues. People would talk to me, and they knew I would never say who they were and who was giving background.

The thought of having the government take a look at these records without telling the press is bad. Guess what. The President agrees it is bad. The President said we need a law, a media shield law. Guess what else. We had a vote on this in 2008. It was 51 to 43 with all Democrats supporting the media shield law and all Republicans, save 5, voting to filibuster, so the bill was killed.

How do they then say this is horrible when they themselves, Republicans, blocked us from protecting the media?

I believe this is an important issue we should work on together, but it shouldn't be made into a political ``gotcha.'' We should fix it and move on. Let's take up a media shield law again. This time the Republicans shouldn't filibuster since they are all over this question, and let's get going.

Then we look at Benghazi. I am on the Foreign Relations Committee. I sit next to the chairman. I sat next to John Kerry. I sat through all the hearings where Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said: This was a tragedy. These were my friends who were killed. I take full responsibility.

She ordered an independent investigation. It came back and guess what it said. We need to spend more defending our outposts.

Guess who started cutting embassy security, who initiated it. The Republicans in the House.

I think if they are looking to blame someone, why don't they look in the mirror for starters.

Again, let's fix the problem. I am supporting a bill that will authorize funding for key items identified by the independent review board Secretary Clinton put together. It will deal with a number of pieces they recommend. It requires, among others, detailed reports from the State Department on how they are progressing toward implementing the recommendations, and it requires the identification of the most high-security threats.

I understand why we would look at losing four brave Americans as a tragedy. It is a tragedy. Don't politicize it.

Where were the Republicans when we lost 4,000 Americans in Iraq, injured 10 times as many. Where were they? Where was their indignation at that? Based on false premises, that war was a war of choice, not a war of necessity.

We have all of this swirling around Washington and we look at the American people and we say what is it they want us to do. Sure, we should conduct oversight. I am all for it. Let's solve those problems, but let's move to the issues that matter.

I will tell you what matters most in California: jobs, jobs, jobs, the economy, the economy, the economy. We just moved off a double-digit unemployment rate. For the first time in a long time we are below 10 percent. It means we have to keep our eye on this economy. We have to make the investments that matter. Restore some of the mindless cuts that were made with the sequester while we see this deficit going down.

That is another point. All the howling from the Republicans about how this President doesn't care about deficit reduction, we are witnessing deficit reduction. We are witnessing the housing market come back. We are witnessing a lot of good. Just think of what we could witness if we came together, sat down with this President and inked a whole new plan for this economy, for deficit reduction.

We have to do the farm bill. We just did the water resources bill. Let the House get it done. We did the Marketplace Fairness Act. Let the House get it done.

Republicans, I say to them--they are not here--rhetorically, help us pass a budget. They are blocking the budget. They went around the country campaigning against Democrats saying we didn't pass a budget. Then we passed a budget and now they will not finish the job, which means making sure we get conferees appointed. Bring the two bills together, the House and the Senate, compromise on that, and get the budget done. There is no budget. They will not let us do it.

Endlessly, they bash the President. Immigration reform, my colleagues are doing an incredible job in the Judiciary Committee, very difficult--sensible gun laws, background checks, things that matter to people.

Working on the farm bill, I hope we get it done this week. Last time it died in the House. I have a message for my House friends. Please, do your oversight but do something for the people that they are asking us to do. Get a budget, get a farm bill, get a Marketplace Fairness Act. Work on restoring the mindless cuts so we can have more jobs. These are the things that have to be done. Background checks. We didn't get it here. It was very close. It would be great if they did something in the House.

This week I believe we are voting on Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. We have to protect the middle class.

Today I read the paper about some new instrument that has been thought of by Wall Street that would go to people and say give us the proceeds of your pension plan, and we will give you a lump sum. Maybe that is great, but it sounds risky to me. We need someone who is out there protecting the consumers, particularly in banking and housing. I hope we get Richard Cordray done.

I thought Senator Menendez was brilliant the way he explained why Thomas Perez deserves to be head of Department of Labor.

I wish to spend a couple of minutes on Gina McCarthy. She has a history of bipartisanship. She worked for not one, not two, not three but four Republican Governors: Republican Governor of Connecticut Jodi Rell, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Paul Cellucci, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Jane Swift, Republican Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney. She worked for four Republican Governors. She is not enough qualified for my friends on the other side. She was confirmed here without a dissenting vote for her current position. What more do they want? She worked for four Republicans and one Democrat, Barack Obama. What more do they want?

This is what Christie Todd Whitman said about the Republican boycott: They walked out. They have since returned to the table. I was happy, but when they walked out of that meeting, they didn't come to the meeting, and we couldn't mark her up the first time we tried. She said: They looked like sore losers when they walked out. If they don't object to the person and what they have done in the past, and they don't with Gina, then they have even less grounds to hold up this nominee.

Jane Swift, who was a former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, said it was disgraceful.

I don't get it. Ms. McCarthy answered 1,000 of their questions. Then when I approach my friends on the other side and say, you asked her a thousand questions, their answer was: Well, we only cared about five. Then why did you ask her a thousand questions? She had to sit there, exhausted, answering every single question.

Now Senator Vitter says I don't know what I will do. I might let it go and not filibuster, but then I might filibuster or I might wind up voting for her. Well, you know, the time for all this contemplation has passed. The woman is qualified. The President deserves his Cabinet, he deserves an EPA Administrator. He made a bipartisan choice in Gina. Gina was brilliant when we had our hearing. Enough already. Please, it is time to have a vote up or down on Gina McCarthy.

We have a lot of work to do. I mentioned a few. How about the latest threat from the Republicans? They decided they are not sure they are going to raise the debt ceiling so they now have a bill where they lay out who would get paid first when we default on our debt. And guess what, America: It is not you. It is China. Before we pay America's business or American bondholders, we are going to pay China.

So when you look at where we are going with this debt ceiling, the last time they held it up it cost us $19 billion--$19 billion over 10 years--because they played games, even though when Ronald Reagan was President he said: Don't even go there. Of course, I am paraphrasing. But he said even the thought of not raising the debt ceiling and not paying our debts is dangerous for our Nation.

Yet now the Republicans have a bill that we call ``Pay China First.'' That is what it is about. They would pay China and other foreign bondholders before we pay our troops, our disabled and retired veterans, doctors and hospitals that treat Medicare patients, and before we pay American businesses that are contractors.

I understand they had a meeting to discuss this further, and they were so excited about it--what hostages they could hold--they talked about proposals that threaten a woman's right to choose, tax breaks for the wealthy, and repealing ObamaCare. They have already tried it 37 times. And cutting Medicare.

What are they thinking over there? Pay our bills. Don't let this country's credit be downgraded again.

I tell you something, if that is what they do, they do not deserve to get their salary. I have a bill that would say if we default on our obligations by not raising the debt ceiling we should give up our pay. I don't know what they are doing over there other than playing politics, and it is dangerous.

We know they do not care for our President, but he is the President. Show a little respect for the office. Show a little respect for what he has on his shoulders. Show a little respect for what he has already accomplished, and accept the fact that when there is trouble he doesn't hide in the corner. He says: You are right, I want to fix it. Let's fix it together.

Climate Change

I have gone over just some of the issues we have to look at, but I am going to close with one very big issue that no one, except a handful of Senators, seems to care about, and that is climate change.

I have to say it is shocking to me that as this planet enters a planetary emergency, where we are as close as we can be to carbon concentrations of almost 400 parts per million, which is the danger zone, I still don't see anyone here saying to me, as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, let's get a bill to the floor. Oh, no. Oh, no. So we are burning up.

I am going to read a little bit from what I thought was a very well- done piece in Politico, and I am going to read parts of it, but I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire Politico article I am about to read from.

This is from an article dated May 10 from Politico:

The amount of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere passed a symbolic milestone this week, scientists

announced Friday, reaching levels that haven't prevailed on

the Earth since long before human civilization began.

Let me say that again. Is anybody listening to this? Scientists said:

The amount of heat-trapping carbon in the atmosphere passed

a symbolic milestone this week, reaching levels that haven't

prevailed on the Earth since long before human civilization

began.

Do you know who said that? NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

. . . CO2 concentrations had finally hit 400

parts per million at a key measuring station in Hawaii. . . .

Still, there are few signs that Washington will emerge from

its deep snooze on the issue.

How right on. They are all sleeping, except for a handful of us. Wake up to this.

Congress remains unable to pass serious legislation to

tackle climate change.

Melanie Fitzpatrick, climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, was quoted in the article saying:

. . . it's been 3 million to 5 million years since the

planet has had such high carbon dioxide levels. We've never

been here before, certainly not while human beings were on

the planet.

She goes on. Oh, no, this is Jon Hoekstra of the Wildlife Fund.

The carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is like

the thermostat in your house. Every time you turn it up, we

are essentially turning up the heat in the planet.

James Butler, Director of Global Monitoring of NOAA's Earth System Research Lab, was quoted as saying:

It is unprecedented. Hitting 400 is just like saying,

``Folks, we haven't addressed this yet.'' The planet hasn't

seen atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide this high since the

Pliocene era, between 2.5 million and 5 million years ago.

The global average temperature will reach 400 parts per

million in 1 or 2 years.

The article continues:

Scientists warn that continued increase could result in

catastrophe. . . . 5 million Americans living in low-lying

areas who could be affected by sea level rise.

It goes on and on. Hoekstra ends his quote with:

At what point as a society do we say this is more than we

can put up with?

I will tell you why we are not doing anything. Special interest: Big oil, big coal, big polluters. They do not want to address this. For their short-term profit they do not to want address this. It is sad, the control they have here. Special interests have a lot of control, whether it is the NRA stopping us from doing something 90 percent of the people want, such as background checks, or it is big polluters--big polluters who don't want us to do anything about this issue for their short-term benefit.

When they are all gone and people are suffering in our country, our grandkids and great-grandkids are going to say: What was my great- grandma thinking? What was my great-grandpa doing? We see what is happening in the weather. Just look out the window. We see it.

Mr. President, I have discussed the latest scientific information that is available to us, including a front-page story in USA Today, on March 1, that spotlighted the impacts of climate change unfolding around us. The story was part of a year-long series called ``Why You Should Sweat Climate Change,'' and it described how climate disruption is happening all around us.

I have also talked about a report entitled the ``2013 High Risk List'' that was released by the Government Accountability Office--GAO-- a government watchdog agency. That report told us how climate disruption and the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as Superstorm Sandy, threaten our Nation's financial security.

Another aspect of climate change that I have discussed is its impact on public health in the U.S. and China, which has experienced the harmful health effects from air pollution due to its rapid industrialization over the past few decades.

Today I will discuss how climate disruption poses a risk to our national security in several ways. It has serious implications on national security planning, it places additional burdens on the U.S. military, and it affects our military readiness.

We have been told by a number of military leaders and defense experts, such as former Secretary of State George Schultz under President Reagan, that climate change is a fact and we must address it as a national security priority.

It is a priority that we simply cannot ignore. An open letter was signed by 38 former high-ranking Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--including 17 former Senators and Congress members, 9 retired generals and admirals, and Cabinet officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, and Bush (43) administrations. The letter was turned into an ad highlighting that.

Look at this chart.

``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This is a February 25, 2013, Partnership for a Secure America ad.

Some of our most senior military leaders have already told us that climate disruption will have significant impacts on national security.

According to the Chief of U.S. Pacific forces:

The significant upheaval from climate change `is probably the most likely thing . . . that will cripple the security environment . . . Navy Admiral Samuel J. Locklear, III, ``Chief of US Pacific forces calls climate biggest worry,''

That is from the Boston Globe, March 9, 2013.

There are a broad range of risks associated with the impacts of climate change, such as drought and lack of drinking water supplies, which can contribute to military crises around the world. These threats must be factored into our national security planning and operations.

According to President Obama's National Security Advisor, the environmental impacts of climate change are clear:

[T]he danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe.

That is from Tom Donilon, National Security Advisor, April 24, 2013.

In March, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, reported to the Senate that climate change and extreme weather will create water scarcity, disrupt food supplies, and harm energy infrastructure in ways that will raise global risks of instability and aggravated regional tensions.

This is from the March 12, 2013, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community, report to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

While climate change alone does not cause conflict, it can accelerate instability, increase the threat of international military crises, and hinder our ability to combat terrorism. According to the Department of Defense's Defense Science Board:

Climate change effects, particularly those related to water and food and security, can erode the legitimacy of fragile states and create conditions terrorists and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they are significant factors in combating terrorism.

This is from ``Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security,'' Department of Defense's Defense Science Board, October 2011.

Climate disruption is also placing an additional burden on our military, because it impacts the type of missions that must be planned for and undertaken. Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, and when a weather disaster occurs, our Armed Forces mobilize to provide humanitarian assistance to local communities and families in need.

We saw this happen with Superstorm Sandy, which wiped out entire communities in just a few hours. In response, our soldiers came to the rescue of people on the east coast who were impacted by Sandy's storm surge. These types of humanitarian missions--whether it is in the U.S. or overseas--place additional burdens on our brave men and women in uniform.

Disasters such as Sandy that harm our civilian infrastructure, such as airports, ports, and electric grids, also create national security issues, because they can affect military readiness.

In addition to civilian infrastructure, Superstorm Sandy caused tremendous damage to our military facilities. A portion of the $60 billion Sandy emergency relief package that Congress passed earlier this year went toward repairing and replacing damaged Federal military assets, including: Fort Dix in New Jersey; Norfolk Naval Station in Virginia; Dover Air Force Base in Delaware; and the Coast Guard Academy campus in Connecticut.

The U.S. military has almost 300,000 buildings valued at $590 billion--much of which is at risk because of climate change. In January, DoD stated:

In many ways, coastal military installations have been on the front lines of climate change.''

In fact, 10 percent of DoD coastal installations and facilities are located at or near sea level. According to the National Intelligence Council, more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated risks from storm surges and rising sea levels. These installations include

Eglin Air Force base, located on the Gulf of Mexico in the Florida panhandle--this facility faces storm surges and sea level rise; and

Norfolk Naval Station and the neighboring Newport News shipyard--the location where we build aircraft carriers. These facilities are also threatened by storm surges and sea level rise.

The U.S. military is not alone in viewing climate change as a threat. A recent study found that over 70 percent of nations surveyed around the world view climate change as a national security threat.

This is from the American Security Project: Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change, March 21, 2013.

Countries around the world recognize that climate change is a national security threat, but it is the U.S. military that must take a leading role. As one of America's retired military leaders, former U. S. Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, stated:

Climate Change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America . . . The imperative, then, is for leadership and action on a global scale. The United States must act. The United States must lead.

This is from the November 1, 2012, ``Climate Change and the Homeland,'' American Security Project.

I could not agree more. We must follow the analysis and advice of our Nation's military leaders and national security experts to protect the American people by addressing the dangerous threat posed by climate disruption.

I want to show a few charts about what people are saying, and then I will stop.

``The cost of inaction will be staggering.'' This ran in March.

The effects of climate change in the world's most

vulnerable regions present a serious threat to American

national security. Countries least able to adapt to or

mitigate the impacts of climate change will suffer the most,

but the resulting crisis will quickly become a burden on U.S.

priorities. Both the Department of Defense and State

Department have identified climate change as a serious risk

to American security and an agent of instability.

This is a very bipartisan group. It is actually mostly Republicans on this, of people saying do something about this. Our national security is at stake.

When there are refugees who are run out of their country, what is going to happen to the world? There already are climate refugees. There is a movie called ``Climate Refugees.''

``Danger from climate change is real, urgent and severe.''

The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new

conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from

drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the

degradation of land across the globe.

That is a quote from Tom Donilon, National Security Adviser. So this is a national security issue.

How could the polluters have so much power to overwhelm our national security people? But that is where it is. That is where it is.

``Climate change can hinder ability to combat terrorism.''

Climate change effects, particularly those related to water

and food and security . . . can create conditions terrorists

and extremists seek to exploit. Therefore, they are

significant factors in combating terrorism.

That was the Department of Defense, October 2011. Department of Defense. National security advisers. The CIA has been telling us this for a long time. We have to act. We have to act.

I have to say there are a number of my colleagues here--a small number--who feel the way I do. We are all pushing hard. Senator Sanders and I have a bill, the Sanders-Boxer bill, that would put a price on carbon. Carbon could cost us the planet. The least we can do is put a little charge on it so people move to clean energy--clean energy.

Take the issue of the Keystone Pipeline. It is a big controversy. People say, let's just do it. Well, you ought to see what will come out of that in terms of carbon pollution. It will undo all the good we did from fuel economy. And the oil won't stay here. They have a waste disposal problem with it. But it is a little bit inconvenient.

Remember when Vice President Gore wrote the book ``Inconvenient Truth.'' It is a little inconvenient for us. We don't want to know about it because it is hard to deal with. But we can do it.

In California, we are beginning to see more and more solar rooftops, more and more clean power, and the jobs that are coming with it are extraordinary. We can do this. This is the greatest Nation in the world, but we are kind of held hostage to the big polluters. We have to say that we have to act for the safety of the people.

We are hearing it. We are hearing it from our national defense department, we are hearing it from George Shultz, who was the former Secretary of State under President Reagan. He says it is a national priority that shouldn't be ignored. Cabinet officials from the Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush--41 from Clinton and 43 from Bush--wrote a letter to us. And Navy ADM Samuel Locklear, III, Chief of U.S. Pacific Forces, calls climate ``our biggest worry.''

That is what he said.

The significant upheaval climate change ``is probably the

most likely thing . . . that will cripple the security

environment. . . . ''

This is a Navy man.

There are a broad range of risks associated with the

impacts of climate change, such as drought and lack of

drinking water supplies, which can contribute to military

crises around the world.

This is what the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, said:

. . . extreme weather will create water scarcity, disrupt

food supplies, and harm energy infrastructure in ways that

will raise the global risks of instability and aggravated

regional tensions.

It goes on. The entire national defense establishment is speaking with one voice. We also wanted them to tell us what would happen to our military facilities. Many of them--300,000 buildings valued at $590 billion are at risk because of climate change. Those are coastal military installations.

We are dealing with a lot of infrastructure. Norfolk Naval Station, neighboring Newport News shipyard where they build the aircraft carriers, they are threatened by storm surges and sea level rise.

I have come to the floor now three or four times to keep raising these different issues. Tonight I am talking about national security, but we also

saw terrible tornadoes in Oklahoma--horrible. I send my condolences to the people who lost loved ones. This is climate change. This is climate change. We were warned about extreme weather--not just hot weather but extreme weather.

When I had the gavel years ago--it has been a while--the scientists started to agree that we would start to see extreme weather. People said: What do you mean? Do you mean it is going to get hot? Yes, it is going to get hot, but we are also going to have snow in the summer in some places. We are going to have terrible storms and tornadoes and all the rest.

We need to protect our people. That is our No. 1 obligation. We have to deal with this threat that is upon us. It is going to get worse and worse through the years.

I certainly hope--and I pray over it--that people will wake up to this and we will start to have support for moving together and at the end of the day it is a win-win-win. We will help save our planet. We will create good-paying jobs right here in America as we move toward clean energy. We will see fewer people with asthma, and we will have a more healthy population.

At the end of the day we will help those in the transition who have to pay a little bit more for their energy. We have it all figured out, how to do that, and no one will be hurt. But right now--I am a very straight from the shoulder person--I can tell you it is not happening, but I feel an obligation to my grandkids to be here every Monday I can be here to put in the Record the problems we are facing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Banking Committee be discharged from further consideration of S. 309 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

I ask unanimous consent the Harkin amendment, which is at the desk, be agreed to, the bill as amended be read three times and passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate.

I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 149, submitted earlier today.

I ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on Tuesday, May 21, 2013; that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that following any leader remarks, the Senate be in a period of morning business for 1 hour with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each, with the majority controlling the first half and the Republicans controlling the final half; that following morning business, the Senate resume consideration of S. 954, the farm bill; and that the Senate recess from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings.

If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, for the benefit of all Senators, we are moving forward today. I thank all colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Senator Vitter and I have tried to allow all kinds of amendments.

Unfortunately, yesterday there was an objection to one contentious amendment, and Senator Landrieu was--she took one for the team and withdrew her amendment because she wanted to make sure this WRDA bill moves forward. I appreciate that. It is a very important issue about flood issues and it is complicated and I know how strongly she feels about it. I know she will be back. So we have a number of amendments, and we will be debating them for 1 minute on each side.

I wish to address my friend from Oklahoma. Let me tell my colleagues, we have been on opposite sides on his amendments. I don't like that very much. When we do work together we win big; when we don't, then it doesn't work out well for either of us. So I am sorry to say I will have to oppose the two amendments of my friend from Oklahoma, and I want to lay out for the record in a little more than a minute why.

We do something important in this bill. We create a new infrastructure deauthorization commission to review the backlog of corps projects and develop a list of projects that will be deauthorized unless Congress passes a joint resolution opposing the commission's recommendation. It is kind of like the Base Closure Commission, where the Base Closure Commission comes forward and says these are the bases that will be closed.

It is a very cumbersome process to overturn the commission. We did that on purpose because we know politics plays a part in a lot of these things, and we want the commission to have power. I am sure my friend, the Senator from Oklahoma, is grateful we have set up this commission because what he is trying to do is cut out even more projects.

I just want to make the case that when we did this in the committee, we developed a careful balance and we give the infrastructure deauthorization committee a lot of authority. But this amendment removes the bill's limitations on what projects can be deauthorized. So this is in our bill. This is what we say to the commission. We give guidance to the commission. We say: These are the projects that can be deauthorized; in other words, stopped, because I share the view of my friend from Oklahoma. We don't want to keep projects going that are doomed and not going anywhere. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars and, frankly, it makes it very confusing for people back home because they don't understand why a project started in 1996 is still alive.

What we do is projects authorized or reauthorized after the enactment of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that have received appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50 percent complete, and projects that have a viable, non-Federal sponsor would not be deauthorized. They would not be deauthorized.

So let me say it again. Projects that would not be deauthorized are projects authorized after 1996, projects currently undergoing review by the corps, projects that received appropriations in the last 10 years, projects that are more than 50 percent complete, projects that have a viable and non-Federal sponsor. So we do give guidance to the commission. We say other than that, go for it and deauthorize.

The provision Senator Coburn wants to strike was included to focus the attention of the commission on the older, truly inactive projects. That is what we are about. The Coburn amendment would give unlimited discretion to the commission to deauthorize a project even if it is in the middle of construction or it has an active non-Federal sponsor. Imagine we have a city or a county or even a private sector participant who is involved, and all of a sudden everything they have done is for naught.

I think what the amendment does is create havoc. I know my friend has the best of intentions. His point that we can overturn the commission is a valid point, but let's be clear. How many bills actually become a law around here these days? It is hard to even pass a resolution saying Happy Mother's Day. So we have a hard time. So to say the Congress could actually overturn the commission--we have never done it in the Base Closure Commission, and we wouldn't do it here.

States and local communities have invested millions of dollars in local cost-shares from project feasibility studies. It isn't fair to these communities that have committed significant resources to deauthorize a project that remained active and is moving forward.

So, in essence, this amendment would disrupt the new deauthorization process created in WRDA 2013, and I urge my colleagues to oppose that amendment.

Now I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the National Construction Alliance. It reads: ``The National Construction Alliance strongly opposes the Coburn amendment.''

It says: ``Communities . . . cannot afford to have the rug pulled out from beneath them.''

I think it is important to note that they don't in any way chastise the committee for our work.

We also have opposition from the Road Builders.

In my concluding moments, we also will have a Coburn amendment on striking section 2030 on the beach nourishment extension. I think it is very important that this be defeated because many of these existing projects provide critical storm damage protection for coastal communities which require periodic nourishment to maintain this protection. There are dozens of important shoreline protection projects around the country that it benefits that exceed the costs.

Hurricane Sandy demonstrated that Federal shoreline protection projects fared better against the storm surge than other areas impacted by the storm. We have seen this. Where there was beach nourishment, they had a lot less damage and people were spared.

So in our work on WRDA, the EPW Committee held hearings on the corps' flood and storm damage reduction projects. We received testimony from local communities such as Ocean City, MD, which highlighted the hundreds of millions of dollars in damages avoided by these projects.

Section 2030 in WRDA 2013 does not provide a blanket extension of all beach nourishment and shore protections. The section simply allows the corps to study projects and to make a recommendation to Congress. I don't know why we would want to stop this since we know, after Hurricane Sandy, some of these projects have cost-benefit for the people--for the taxpayers.

Before receiving an extension, a project has to go through a feasibility analysis to demonstrate that the project is in the national interest, it has to have a positive cost-benefit ratio, is technically feasible, and is environmentally acceptable.

The provision Senator Coburn is attempting to strike doesn't guarantee an extension, it just tells the corps to study the issue and come back with a recommendation.

I honestly believe blocking Federal investment in these projects will harm coastal communities, so I urge my colleagues to oppose this Coburn amendment. I know I speak for many, including Senator Lautenberg, who actually brought this issue to my attention years ago.

I yield the floor and note that the time has come to debate the Coburn amendment, 1 minute each side.

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.

Madam President, I think the Senator from New York is

pointing out an issue Senator Vitter and I agree with, which is that we should have had a vote on the Landrieu-Vitter amendment, which would have definitely moved in the direction of ensuring that people's insurance rates for flood protection do not go through the roof.

It was very disappointing that the Senator from Pennsylvania Mr. Toomey opposed having even a vote on this. But you know what, we will have other days in the Sun, I say to my friend, where we will deal with this issue because it is too important to too many people across the Nation.

But I do not want that to dim what just happened in the Senate. I do not want the fact that there was one disappointment to take away from what just happened in the Senate. What just happened is that 83 colleagues--83 strong--voted for the Water Resources Development Act that came out of the Environment and Public Works Committee with a very strong unanimous vote and that Senator Vitter and I, working together for the first time on a big bill such as this, were able to put aside other differences and come together in an area where we both agree; that is, it is essential to have a strong infrastructure in the greatest Nation in the world and in our States. It is essential that people not be worried that bridges will fall; that they will not have good roads; that they will not have their ports deepened so they can accept these big ships that go in and out; that they will be vulnerable to flooding; and that they will not be able to restore wetlands, which are so critical to preventing floods.

This bill is so critical to the infrastructure and to the environment. Anyone who has been to the Everglades knows how critical it is to make sure the Everglades remain. It is a gift from God, and we have the responsibility. Anyone who knows the Chesapeake Bay knows how important it is to ensure it is healthy. We do that in this bill. And we do our best to ensure that the types of flooding we saw in Katrina will be minimized. We made many, many reforms, and I feel good about them.

I really have to say that without the staff, none of this would be possible. Senator Vitter and I are so blessed to have the kinds of staffs we have. They are dedicated. The hours they work have no bounds. The other night we were talking at 11 o'clock. My staff was there. This type of a bill is not easy to get through because every State has its own needs, every State has its own challenges, every State has its own problems. We were able, because of our staffs working endlessly, to meet the needs, I believe, of the whole country, and that is why we have votes from the entire country. We have votes from so many States because this bill is truly reflective of the needs of our communities.

I want to say to Bettina Poirier, my chief of staff and chief counsel, you certainly know how to get a bill through. You certainly know how to manage a staff. And you certainly have made wise decisions in terms of your staff. We have Jason Albritton and Ted Illston and Tyler Rushforth and David Napoliello and Andrew Dohrmann.

These are only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5--6 names that I mentioned, and they handled this bill from, essentially, 100 different Senators pounding on their doors, including this Senator, saying: What and why and how? And you answered it.

I also want to close by thanking some other wonderful staffers of Senator Reid: Gary Myrick, Tim Mitchell, Bill Dauster, Alex McDonough, and, I have to say, Tyler Kruzich of the Budget Committee, who helped us, and Reema Dodin, who came in and really helped us make sure we had the votes when we needed the votes.

And I am going to make one thank-you. I know Senator Vitter is going to name his staff. I am not going to mention their names, but he speaks for me when he thanks them. But there is one person, and that is Neil Chatterjee, and I hope I do not ruin his career by thanking him. He works for Senator McConnell. He helped us greatly just to know the lay of the land. He said: This is where we have problems. This is where we can come together.

And I will tell you something. Managing these bills, you just need to know how you stand, and you need to know where you are. So having the support of both Senator Reid and Senator McConnell and their staffs has made our world a lot easier.

So we say to the House: This is your chance. Step to the plate. I know Chairman Shuster over there really wants a bill. We stand ready to work with him. I think our bill provides a roadmap.

With that, I want to again say to Senator Vitter, it has been terrific to work with him, and I look forward to continuing our collaboration anytime and anyplace we can come together.

With that, I yield the floor.