Floor Statements

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building. The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Road Ahead: Advanced Vehicle Technology and Its Implications.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 9 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled, ``U.S. Policy Toward Iran.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Performance Management and Congressional Oversight: 380 Recommendations to Reduce Overlap and Duplication to Make Washington More Efficient.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-418 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 15, 2013, at 2 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Improving Cross Border Resolution to Better Protect Taxpayers and the Economy.''

Plus, both Senators are wearing the same suit today. It is a good day for it.

Madam President, pretty soon we are going to go back to the Water Resources Development Act, otherwise known as the WRDA bill. I will comment on that soon. We are making terrific progress. I hope Senators who may hear my voice would understand we would prefer to deal with a number of amendments rather than vote cloture. We have been working with almost--I can't tell you--20 different Senators to try to accommodate them, to either take their amendments, if they are noncontroversial, by voice or to make sure we can vote on their amendments or have side-by-sides.

The bottom line is it is time now--it is past time--that Senators decide if they want to move this bill forward in an open way with regular order or if they want to avoid these very important amendments that we could vote on and go straight to cloture. I hope we can continue to work through the morning.

Madam President, there is no room for politics at the IRS. Senator McConnell is right. Senator Reid is right. They have both addressed it. The issue is the IRS has to be completely neutral in politics, but they do have to go after organizations and individuals who are not abiding by the rules, whether they are right, left, center or no ideology at all.

I remember during the Bush years we saw the IRS targeting liberal churches. It was awful. They were harassing them and forcing them to show that they were nonprofits. Now we see the IRS has been targeting tea party groups. Whether they are targeting right or left, that is wrong, and anyone doing it, frankly, needs to get another job because that is against the law. We cannot have politically motivated audits or harassing people, whatever their politics may be.

Here is what we do need. We do need a fair IRS that definitely looks at whether organizations, be they left or right, are truly deserving of tax-exempt status--that is important--but not targeting one group or another. We also know the targeting of the tea party groups took place while a Bush appointee was the head of the IRS, probably--perhaps was quite unaware.

The bottom line is people at the top have to be held accountable. I agree with that. He should have known what was going on. But there is no room for this. I do believe there has to be serious action taken at the personnel level; otherwise, people will just go ho-hum.

No, not ho-hum; you cannot use a position to harass people because of their politics, regardless of where their politics may lie.

Madam President, I wish to be heard on the issue of Benghazi. I wrote an op-ed piece on this because I absolutely cannot believe what is happening with our Republican friends on this issue.

As a senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I can say I sat through the entire testimony of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Not only did she sit for hours, not only was she straight from the heart and straight from the shoulder, she took full responsibility for what went on, and she ordered an independent investigation which was launched by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering.

They did an exhaustive study. What they found is that, unfortunately, we did not have enough security at that outpost. It was not an embassy, but it was definitely an outpost.

There is a lot of talk going on about how could this happen--e-mails and all the rest. Let me focus on something very important. It takes funding to protect an embassy. It takes funding to protect a consulate. It takes funding to protect an outpost. Yes, it takes funding. Who cut the funds from embassy security? The Republicans in the House, that is who--hundreds of millions of dollars. If it were not for the Democrats, it would have been cut more, because when it came here, we stood our ground. We had to accommodate their cuts. That is how the process works. So I think the Benghazi ``scandal'' starts with the Republicans looking in the mirror. Mirror mirror, who is the fairest of them all? They ought to ask: Mirror, mirror, who cut the funding for diplomatic security across this world for America? The answer: Republicans.

They cannot stand the heat so they turn it on Secretary Clinton, and that is completely wrong. I believe if we want to know what happened in Benghazi, it starts with the fact that there was not enough security. There was not enough security because the budget was cut. Secretary Clinton said that she, in hindsight, should have definitely fought against it even harder than she did. But let the record show she predicted problems. When she saw the cuts--I don't have the exact quote in front of me but to paraphrase--she said there are going to be problems here. This budget is cut too much. And she was right.

What about these talking points? I do not know if the Presiding Officer sits down with her staff to discuss how she is going to phrase something. I don't know whether the Presiding Officer does that or whether she just does it by herself. What I do or what most people do is they have a collaborative process. When we are trying to put out a press release with a whole number of agencies having to sign off on it, it is a collaborative process. At the end of the day, one statement was approved. The statement that was made by Susan Rice, her paraphrasing of the statement was: It looks like this started because of this protest, but we don't know for sure. We don't know and as soon as we know we will say.

The day of or the day after what happened in Benghazi, the President of these United States, President Obama, stood and said this was a terror attack.

Why are the Republicans playing politics with this? It is pretty clear. Their attack coincides with the Karl Rove ad against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They are going after her. Why? Because they are looking to the 2016 Presidential election.

I have to say, keep politics out of the IRS, keep politics out of Benghazi. Don't take four beautiful Americans who died in a tragic fashion and play politics, 2016 politics, with it. It is an outrage.

So I say they should start off by looking in the mirror, stepping to the plate, admitting that they cut too much from embassy security. If they want to hold a hearing on it, fine. If they want a hearing, they need to call the people to the table who can help us make sure this never happens again.

I will continue to speak out on Benghazi, and I will continue to speak out on whatever issues my Republican friends are pounding on. At the end of the day, the bottom line is, Who cut the money for embassy security?

If they want to divert attention from that, be my guest, but I will bring it home. Everyone knows if we had adequate security there, it could have well been a different outcome.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, in the interest of all Senators, and frankly in the interest of the people of this country, we are moving forward on the Water Resources Development Act. The question is, will we be able to clear a list of amendments, some by voice vote, and a further list of more controversial amendments by recorded vote. I am hoping that is the case. Senator Vitter and I hope that is the case, that we can get clearance on these packages of amendments. If we do not, we have to decide whether to invoke cloture, which will bring debate to a close. If we have to go that way, we have to go that way. But I am very optimistic that we can get these amendments cleared because, frankly, almost every Senator here has a stake in this very important legislation.

We have ports that are sometimes on the coast, sometimes they are inland. We have waterways. We have floods in our States. Not all of us but most of us. We have environmental restorations in our States with wetland conservation. We have work to do on our water infrastructure. Our infrastructure in this country has been rated a D-plus. That is not very heartening for the greatest country in the world. We have a weak infrastructure. Frankly, that is not good enough.

I want to read a list of supporters for our legislation. I think what people will notice is how broad-based the list is. They are either representing workers or businesses, or they are businesses themselves. They are businesses that need to ship products. So let me read this. There are environmental organizations.

The AFL-CIO supports us; the American Association of Port Authorities; the American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association; the American Council of Engineering Companies; the American Farm Bureau Federation; the American Foundry Society; the American Public Works Association; the American Road and Transportation Builders; the American Society of Civil Engineers; the American Soybean Association; Associated Equipment Distributors; Associated General Contractors; Association of Equipment Manufacturers; the Clean Water Construction Coalition; the Concrete Reinforced Steel Institute.

I can't even go through it all, it is such a very long list. There is the National Association of Flood and Storm Management Agencies, the National Governors Association, the National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association, the National Waterways Conference, Inc, the American Institute of Architects, the National Association of Manufacturers, The Nature Conservancy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America. There are more. It is such a long list.

I ask unanimous consent to place this list into the Record.

The point is this legislation represents jobs. This legislation represents moving products. This legislation represents flood control. This legislation represents fixing our ports, making sure we have some reforms that work well. This makes sure that when the Army Corps sets a project timeline, the resources agencies are in the room. It is very important. I have to say, as this country sees, there is a lot of partisanship going on; this is a bipartisan bill.

The bill made it through the Environment Committee without a single ``no'' vote. Since then, Senator Vitter and I have been working with all Senators, whether they are on the committee or off the committee, to meet the needs of their States to work with them. I think we have done everything in our power to help every State.

We know the last WRDA bill was 2007. We used to have a WRDA bill every couple years, but everything has gotten so controversial. What happened between then and now is a ban on earmarks. This bill used to be a bill that listed projects. We can't do that anymore. What we have to do is figure out a way to fund the needed projects while averting earmarks.

We did it by saying if there is a completed Corps report then, in fact, the project can go forward. We set up a way for future projects to be handled with the local communities coming forward.

I think we handled that issue well. We focused on flood control, ports, and environmental restoration. We have a piece that deals with the Everglades. If you have never been to the Everglades, it is a national treasure, River of Grass. That is what it is called. It is a magnificent, amazing, fabulous, environment, but it needs to be preserved and protected.

When my spouse and I went there with Senator Nelson, we went down through the Everglades. All of a sudden we see a deer jump up. The deer is actually living on the water on these little berms. It is the most remarkable thing I have ever seen.

We put WIFIA in here based on a program we call TIFIA, which will allow us to help local areas leverage their funds and build these projects more quickly. It goes on and on. We have terrible threats from flooding in places such as Sacramento, for example. We are looking at tens of thousands of Californians at risk and $7 billion in property. We say, OK, it is time to get that done.

We look at flood protection for the 200,000 residents of Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN. They have been fighting rising floodwaters in recent weeks. We will restore the reliability of levees that protect places such as Topeka, KS. It goes on to Texas. I could name literally every State in the Union that has something at stake.

I yield to the Senator.

Yes. There is an amendment, I would say to my friend through the Chair, on our list that we have agreed to, Senator Vitter and I. There will probably be a vote on this proposal. I will ask my staff is that correct, on the Leahy-Sanders amendment on the culverts if it is on the list.

We are trying to work out the objections, but we will have a vote on it if we cannot. We are working on it.

I thank the Senator. We are doing everything in our power. This shows the American people right on the floor of the Senate the way Senators have been working with us. I wish to say to my friend I am so proud he is on the Environment and Public Works Committee and how he has looked after his State. He has some very important things in this bill.

As a matter of fact, his work on the extreme weather title is very important and would allow us to prevent these terrible floods before they start. Yes, we are looking at things such as this in every State. We are trying to do everything in our power to meet every Senator's needs.

Sometimes what happens is it is kind of like that pop-up game. Something pops up over here, and it is OK, but then something else pops up over here. It is the legislative fix we are trying to meet and get to here, the legislative fix so every State feels comfortable.

This is an important bill. There is no other bill that deals with the Everglades. There is no other bill that will deal with the Chesapeake Bay. There is no other bill that is possible that would allow us to move forward with these important flood control issues, because when we ended earmarks, we had no way to authorize any programs.

This Boxer-Vitter bill is not just an important bill, it is an essential bill. We need to move forward.

The extreme weather title I talked about that Senator Sanders helped us write will require the corps and the National Academy of Science to jointly evaluate options for reducing risks related to future extreme weather events. Let me say that again. Right now the corps is not authorized to look ahead and say, given the extreme weather we are having, what is it we can do across this country to prepare. This study will give us a roadmap to that.

Without this bill, we don't have it. Without this bill, we have no reforms in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. People are paying good money into the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund for dredging our ports. Yet the full amount of the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is not going for those uses.

We make moves toward capturing more of those funds. The smaller ports have a good title, the Great Lakes, the seaports that are large donors such as Los Angeles and Long Beach make progress. I think it is a win- win. Our bill is certainly not perfect. Every one of us could write it in ways that benefit our States even more, I think there is no question, starting with the chairman of the committee. But we have to deal with everybody's issues, everybody's concerns, everybody's problems.

We support 500,000 jobs in this bill. There are very few bills that come before us that could make that claim.

I think we can show the American people we can work together. We have this one last stage, and we are working so hard.

I wish to say to my staff--who are still working. My staff and Senator Vitter's staff have worked nonstop. I am talking about Saturday, Sunday, last night. They were still in the office at 11 o'clock. I just want to praise them. People don't see that. People don't understand these bills don't magically appear.

Dealing with every Senator, I think everyone knows every one of us has a very strong personality. They truly care about their States and fight for their States. It is tough to try to preserve everyone's rights and everybody's wishes. We have to work with Senator Mikulski in a very good way and Senator Shelby. Senator Landrieu has worked hard on this bill, and now she has an amendment we are trying to dispose of. I hope we will get the approval to do that.

Once we finish our work, Congressman Shuster, Chairman Shuster over in the House, needs to pass a bill or could take up our bill and pass it.

When I read this list to you, I didn't even get to all of the names. This is

one of the broadest coalitions I have ever seen behind any piece of legislation. It is a huge and important coalition. It represents America. It is people who work every day at building the infrastructure, utilizing the infrastructure, and making sure our homes are safe from flooding. The list includes the National Governors Association. It is a rarity to have that kind of a list.

At this point, we are supposed to vote at noon, and we will be back to you with some further comments.

I yield the floor.

While we discuss how we are going to proceed, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

I ask unanimous consent that the time during quorum calls be divided equally.

I note the absence of a quorum.

If my friend will yield, through the Chair, I think he has covered it. Basically what I want to make sure people know as they go to their various conference meetings this afternoon is that we have a very fair list. I think it probably has more Republican amendments than Democratic amendments. We have done everything to reach an agreement.

But I also want to support my leader. If there is objection to this important list of amendments, we will go straight to cloture. I want everyone to understand, without this bill there will be no more water infrastructure projects because there is no path forward. Since we ended earmarks, this is the one bill that will make sure there is a path forward. Without water infrastructure earmarks you cannot keep commerce moving at the ports, you can't do flood control, you can't restore the Everglades or the Chesapeake. I strongly support what my leader is doing but I also hope colleagues will please allow us to move forward, make the cloture vote unnecessary. But we are going to have that cloture vote, if necessary, at 2:30.

What is the order?

We are working on our finite list, and we expect to make our unanimous consent shortly.

I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

For the interest of Senators, we are going to very shortly propound a consent agreement that has been cleared by Senator Vitter and myself and we will see where that takes us. If it needs to be modified, we may well do that, but I want Senators to know it is our hope we can avert a cloture vote at this time.

I ask unanimous consent the following amendments be considered and agreed to en bloc: Baucus No. 847, Boxer-Vitter No. 899 as modified, Inhofe No. 895, Wicker No. 894, Inhofe No. 867, Boozman No. 872, Thune No. 912, Cornyn No. 880, Murkowski No. 904, Klobuchar No. 884, Wyden No. 870 as modified, Cochran No. 911 as modified, Carper No. 882, Murkowski No. 903 as modified, Durbin No. 906 as modified, Levin No. 893, Collins No. 898, Cardin No. 861 as modified, Brown-Graham No. 907, and Wyden No. 896; further, that the only remaining amendments in order to the bill be the following: Inhofe No. 797, Barrasso No. 868, Sanders No. 889, Johnson and Landrieu--Johnson No. 891, Landrieu No. 888, Coburn No. 815, Coburn No. 816, Boozman No. 822, Merkley No. 866, Udall of New Mexico No. 853, and Hoeven No. 909; further, that no second- degree amendments be in order to any of the amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendment; that the time until 5 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on all of the amendments; that at 5 p.m. the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the amendments in the order I have listed; that all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; that there be 2 minutes equally divided prior to each vote; that the following amendments be subjected to a 60- affirmative-vote threshold: Sanders No. 899, Johnson No. 891, Landrieu No. 888, and Barrasso No. 868; finally, that upon disposition of the Hoeven amendment No. 909, the cloture motion be withdrawn, the Senate proceed to vote on the passage of S. 601, as amended.

Madam President, it is my understanding, listening to my friend from Pennsylvania, that he objects to the Landrieu amendment. It is also my understanding that Senator Landrieu would like to be heard on this matter. Then I will propound a new consent request. I ask she get the floor and I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I think everybody who is listening to this understands that there has been a disagreement here--a pretty tough one.

I have to praise Senator Landrieu for saying: Look, I am going to bring this fight back another day. She has told me she would be willing to support a new, modified request--the same one I made about 10 minutes ago--and take out Johnson amendment No. 891 and Landrieu amendment No. 888. I believe the new request will be acceptable to all in the Senate.

I renew my request with that change--the deletion of Johnson amendment No. 891 and Landrieu amendment No. 888. I ask unanimous consent that we move forward with this agreement at this time.

If I might respond to my friend's request, the American people need to know that we are dealing on this Senate floor with a bill that is the Water Resources Development Act. This bill is about improvements in flood control so we don't have anymore Hurricane Sandys. This is also about port-deepening and about 500,000 jobs. This is about restoring the Chesapeake Bay and the Everglades in my friend's home State. What a beautiful spot that is, I say to my friend. It is not about the IRS scandal, although I could not agree more with my friend. Anyone who would play politics at the IRS is doing a disservice to this Nation. I am happy to look at this law. They ought to be canned.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an inquiry which took place by the IRS into a church in my State--the All Saints Church--in the district of Adam Schiff be printed in the Record.

Republicans and Democrats at that time asked for investigations into this, and this is from 2005.

I ask unanimous consent that an article that talks about the investigation of the NAACP that involved the IRS in 2006 be printed in the Record.

This is a continuing scandal. It is outrageous, and I think anyone who goes after a liberal group should be canned. Anyone who goes after a conservative group should be canned unless there is reason to do so. But it appears they are not following the rules of nonprofits, which is they cannot be political.

I ask that those items be placed in the Record only to remind people that this is a bad and terrible thing that has happened, and it has been a while.

I object to the request that we place such an urgently important matter on this long-term bill. It is going to take a while for us to get it through the House. We don't know when the conference will come back.

I object to the unanimous consent request to turn a bill like this into a bill about the IRS scandal.

Mr. President, it is my understanding--and I ask the floor staff to correct me--is it so that we just now passed the first number of amendments that don't require votes? Was that just done in the unanimous consent? Is that correct?

I am very pleased with that. We had about 15 of these amendments--quite bipartisan. Half of the amendments were Democratic and half Republican, so that is good.

Now what we are going to do is take up the amendments that require votes. It is my understanding that Senator Vitter wants to speak on the Barrasso amendment, which is fine.

I say to my colleagues through the Chair that they now have approximately 2 hours to come down and make the case on their votes. Senators Inhofe, Barrasso, Sanders, Coburn, Boozman, Merkley, Udall, and Hoeven is where we are. If they wish to be heard, then it is time to come over and be heard.

At this time, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I rise now to speak in opposition to the Barrasso amendment No. 868 and to explain why.

Before I talk about why I hope the Senate will defeat this amendment, I wish to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for working so closely with me and with Senator Vitter.

The underlying bill is a very good bill and it protects every State. We look at every State's needs. Whether it is flooding, whether it is preserving fishing, whether it is about ports, whether the ports are inland or coastal, medium, small, or large, we have gone out of our way on both sides of the aisle to accommodate Senators.

I wish to speak about Barrasso amendment No. 868, which will be the first amendment to come before us.

It is an anti-environmental rider. Now, here we go again, again and again and again. There is no reason to bring these anti-environmental riders onto every single piece of legislation that goes through here, but yet that is what we face. So I agreed that we would have a vote on this in the spirit of good faith because it certainly is not germane to this bill. It is not.

It has to do with the Clean Water Act. It does not have to do with the Water Resources Development Act. This Barrasso amendment says the guidance that has been developed by the Army Corps of Engineers and by the Environmental Protection Agency as they get ready for a rulemaking after a Court decision is null and void--without a hearing, without giving the corps a chance to explain their guidance, without giving the EPA a chance to explain their guidance. Without looking at the Court's decision his amendment would say the guidance is blocked because he does not like the guidance.

Well, trust me. I am sure I do not like everything in the guidance either. But let the process go forward. The guidance is necessary so there can be a rulemaking, which is essential. Right now there is nothing but chaos after the Court's ruling. People do not know what the Clean Water Act covers.

So the Army Corps, working with the EPA, has issued some guidance. It is

not the final rule, it is guidance. The Barrasso amendment throws the guidance out, throws it into the garbage can, says it cannot be used. If anything like it is ever used, there can be no rulemaking. The Barrasso amendment stops, therefore, the rulemaking. He may not say it explicitly, but if you cannot use any of the guidance, any of the work that has been done, then you cannot have a rule.

Let me tell you who opposes not having a rule: the business community. The business community opposes it. Everyone opposes it. Everybody wants a rule. The vague restriction will make it impossible to initiate a rulemaking, to define what waters are protected under the Clean Water Act. The Barrasso amendment locks into place the current confusion created in the wake of two Supreme Court decisions. He does it by prohibiting any future update of the Clean Water Act regulations or related guidance.

Industry associations and 30 Republican Senators who are opposed to the guidance developed by the Obama administration have called for a rulemaking. They have called for a rulemaking. The letters were just sent to the EPA last month. What we believe to be absolutely accurate is if you throw out the guidance, if you vote for this Barrasso amendment and you say no guidance that looks anything like this will ever be used, there can be no rulemaking.

For decades the Clean Water Act has provided broad protections for the Nation's waters. The Barrasso amendment stops the corps from restoring these longstanding protections, leaving many waters at risk. Let me tell you what that means. Streams that provide drinking water for up to 117 million Americans may not be covered by the Clean Water Act. That is dangerous for the people because there is all kinds of pollution that gets dumped into these streams. There are 20 million acres of wetlands that provide flood protection and serve as wildlife habitat. There will be no rules governing them because of the way the Barrasso amendment is written.

Any effort to clear up uncertainty that has resulted in delays and confusion and slowed efforts to hold polluters accountable will be null and void, can have no effect. You cannot use the guidance. You have to throw it away. If anything comes forward that remotely resembles it, you have to throw it away. Then you cannot make a rule. This is harmful.

In closing, I want to talk about from what harm we want to protect the people. We know some of the dangerous pollution that gets dumped into our Nation's waters sometimes on purpose, sometimes on accident. But we have chemical pollution and all kinds of industrial pollution. It includes such chemicals as arsenic--very dangerous for people. I will have more to say on the specifics, but we know there is waterborne disease. People get very ill if the drinking water is not good, if the swimming water is not good. The warmer our waters are getting, the more dangerous it is. Certain organisms that live in these warmer waters never existed before.

We had a case in Ohio where a child got deathly ill because the water was so warm it attracted these different kinds of bacteria and organisms. So when I stand here, I speak from the heart. All of us do. But I know we should not vote on something that precludes us from protecting the health and safety and the lives of our people who are the most vulnerable, the children--the children, the pregnant women, the elderly. My goodness, if we are here for any reason, it would certainly be to do no harm to them.

The Barrasso amendment does a lot of harm. It does not belong on the Water Resources Development Act, which is about building projects to protect people using flood control. It is about dredging our waters. It is making sure commerce can move. This is an anti-environmental rider. It does not belong on this bill. It is dangerous for the people.

I urge my colleagues to vote no when the vote comes before us.

I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request?

We have a vote locked in at 5 p.m., so the Senator can speak up until 5 p.m.

I ask unanimous consent that at 5 p.m., the Senate vote in relation to the Inhofe, Barrasso, and Sanders amendments as provided under the previous order; that following the vote in relation to the Sanders amendment, the Senate proceed to a period of morning business with Senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes; further, that when the Senate resumes consideration on S. 601 on Wednesday, May 15, it resume the voting sequence in the previous order with all after the first vote being 10 minutes and all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect.

For the information of all Senators, it is our expectation that the Inhofe amendment will be the subject of a voice vote. If that occurs there will be two rollcall votes this evening, and the remainder of the votes will occur tomorrow.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, shortly we are going to vote; I believe it will be a voice vote on the Inhofe amendment. It is not a controversial amendment; everybody agrees to it. Then we will proceed to the Barrasso amendment which I have spoken about before.

I wish to urge my colleagues to be very careful on this one because it has unintended consequences. The way the Barrasso amendment is drafted, it tries to say, in advance of a rulemaking, that if the rulemaking includes any infrastructure from the guidance that has been put forward by the corps and the EPA--if it even contains anything like it--``the rule will be considered as having been vacated.'' That is a quote.

So the bottom line is, the Barrasso amendment is such an overreach that we will keep the whole issue of waters of the United States in chaos--and it is in chaos. We received letters from business people begging us to allow the rulemaking to go forward, but because of the way the Barrasso amendment is drafted, essentially we are not going to ever have a rule.

So why is it important to have a rule that is very clear and explains what waters are covered under the Clean Water Act? Let me tell my colleagues why. Without protections of a rule, dangerous pollutants could be put into our waterways. This isn't just hyperbole. We are talking about toxic heavy metals such as arsenic and lead. We are talking about toxins that cause cancer and harm the health of infants and children in particular. Who are the vulnerables? The infants, the children and the elderly and those who are disabled. They are the ones who are the victims of filthy, dirty water.

I am not saying my friend Senator Barrasso wants to get people sick. I am not saying that. But I am saying there is an unintended consequence of the overreach in this amendment which is pretty clear to all who read it. It says if the draft guidance that has already been looked at is included in any way, shape or form into a final rule, then the whole rule is thrown out on its face and that leaves the situation in chaos.

Say I come to the Presiding Officer and say: I am going to write a book about mathematics. The Presiding Officer says: That is very exciting, but there is only one thing. I am your publisher and you can't put one single number in the book--not a 1 to a 2 to a 3. You can write a book on mathematics, but it can't contain any numbers. That is the most ridiculous situation. But this is the essence of the Barrasso amendment. It is telling people who are going to write a rule that they can't take anything that was put in the draft guidance and put it into that rule. It makes absolutely no sense.

I want to protect people from toxics such as lead and arsenic. Without these safeguards of the rule, our drinking water supplies would be more at risk and the laws of these protections would increase the risks of dangerous floods in downstream communities because it would eliminate wetlands protections.

One of the things I learned when I was a county supervisor a very long time ago is that wetlands kept in their natural state and enhanced are the best way to have flood protection. When I went to Louisiana after Katrina, I was struck by the fact that the whole community understood the importance of the wetlands, because they absorb the floodwaters.

So now, because we are not going to be able to define what is a body of water that falls under the Clean Water Act, we are going to have a major problem with our wetlands. We are going to have a major problem with our rivers. We are going to have a major problem with our streams. We are talking about enormous bodies of water that are unprotected now because there is no rule. Under the Barrasso amendment, my opinion is-- and it isn't just my opinion--there will not be any rule because if the rule picks up anything in the guidance at all--anything substantially similar to the guidance at all--it will be automatically overturned.

I wish to say to my friend, if he doesn't like a rule, he has the CRA, the Congressional Review Act. He can wait until he gets the rule. Don't prejudge it. Don't say the rule is vacated. That is pretty dictatorial to people who are in charge of protecting our water supply.

Nobody wants our kids to get more cancer. Nobody wants this to happen. We have to protect streams that provide drinking water for up to 117 million Americans. We have 20 million acres of wetlands that provide flood protection, improve water quality, and serve as wildlife habitat.

So the hour of 5 o'clock is upon us. We are going to vote on the Inhofe amendment first. Then we will turn to Senator Barrasso for a moment to make his case, and then I will have 1 minute after that. So at this time we return to regular order. I note the absence of a quorum.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I call up Inhofe amendment No. 797.

I ask unanimous consent to yield back all time.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Madam President, what is the order at this time?

Amendment No. 868

Madam President, the way my colleague and friend has drafted his amendment is very dangerous to the process because he wants to say if, in the rulemaking where we will define the waters of the United States, if they even so much as refer to the guidance that has been put forward, the draft guidance, there will be no rule.

The problem of not having a rule is we leave in place chaos. States cannot go ahead and handle this themselves. Local governments cannot. Under the law, according to all the rules of the Court and everybody else, we have to have a definition. No one I know wants to classify a ditch or a puddle as a water of the United States. That is always brought up, but that is just a red herring.

We need to make sure we have a Clean Water Act that protects the people, protects their drinking water, and makes sure they are safe when they swim in a lake. If we do not move forward with a rule, at the end of the day this amendment will not allow that to happen, and we are in chaos. It does not protect our people from arsenic, from lead, from whatever objects there may be in a body of water. So I hope we will reject this. I thank my friend for offering it, but I think it is misguided.

I yield the floor.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

I want to tell my colleagues what the plan is for tonight and tomorrow on the WRDA bill and thank everyone so much on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation. Senator Vitter and I are so happy we are able to have this open process, and we will finish this bill tomorrow. This will be the last vote this evening. We will continue late morning and complete our work. Right now we are going to have the Sanders amendment, with 2 minutes equally divided, and both Senators from Vermont would like to be heard.

Amendment No. 889

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SR-328A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 10 a.m., in room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Advancing Reform: Medicare Physicians Payments.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet, during the session of the Senate, to conduct a hearing entitled ``The ADA and Entertainment Technologies: Improving Accessibility from the Movie Screen to Your Mobile Device'' on May 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room 430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 14, 2013, at 10 a.m., in SD-G50 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, continue its executive business meeting from May 9, 2013.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a meeting during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 10:30 a.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``State of Video.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Senate Armed Services Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Securities, Insurance, and Investment be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 14, 2013, at 3:15 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Returning Private Capital To Mortgage Markets: A Fundamental for Housing Finance Reform.''

Mr. President, for the interest of all Senators, I wanted to thank everyone for cooperating with us. We have handled a number of amendments, one quite controversial and nongermane, but we dealt with it. It is not on this bill, I am happy to say. We are trying to keep this bill a water infrastructure bill. There may be a few exceptions, but, for the most part, that is what we want because it will increase the chances of passage all the way through to get it to the President's desk.

The bill we are dealing with, the Water Resources Development Act, was last authorized in 2007. It is high time we did a follow-on bill. What we are talking about here is flood protection, projects we need all over the country to protect our people from the ravages of floods.

We need to make sure our ports are operational. I know my friend in the chair certainly deals with all these matters in his great and beautiful State of Hawaii. We need to make sure our ports are deep enough, they have enough funding to stay modernized, and can move that cargo in and out with ease. We have environmental restoration. We have to take care of all of our water infrastructure.

I know Senator Merkley is here to say something about the bill, which I am very pleased about, so I am going to be very brief. I will talk for about 2 more minutes and say we have a great committee, the Environment and Public Works Committee, when it comes to infrastructure. We see eye to eye. We work together. Yes, we have our differences, but we can breach those differences.

This bill is a product of working together. It is a product of collaboration--not only in the committee where we work together, but even here when it got to the Senate. We have worked, Senator Vitter and I, with individual Members to meet all of their needs. There are no earmarks in this bill. Whatever we do is setting policy.

It is an exciting bill. It includes reforms I think are important. Most of all, I think the people at home are going to like it because it puts them in the driver's seat and protects them from delays and other problems as they move forward with projects their people need.

We have some terrific supporters of this legislation--I will close these early remarks--with organizations such as AFL-CIO, the Chamber of Commerce, the American Society of Civil Engineers, we have the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. We have many. I will show you the next chart and name a couple: The Transportation Construction Coalition, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters, storm management agency, surveyors, engineers. I think what you see here is mainstream America is behind this bill.

The bad news is our infrastructure has been rated at a D-plus. You can't be the greatest Nation in the world and have an infrastructure that is rated D-plus.

While we have major problems on other fronts in our committee--and I have to admit today was not a good day for me, the committee, or the American people, when the Republicans boycotted the markup of Gina McCarthy to be the head of the Environmental Protection Agency after she answered more than 1,000 questions. She is the most qualified ever to be nominated, having served, how about this, four Republican Governors.

What more do they want? The fact is 70 percent of the American people want clean air, want clean water, want safety reform. Gina McCarthy deserves a vote, not a boycott. They say they don't like her answers. Well, I am not surprised. She is not Mitt Romney's nominee for the EPA, she is not Rick Perry's nominee for the EPA, she is Barack Obama's nominee for the EPA. It is her position, as it is the President's, that we should enforce the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and so on.

When your Republican Presidents put up nominees for the EPA I didn't agree with, I didn't filibuster them. I said, okay, I will vote no; let them go. It is a sad day for me on the environment side of our committee.

On the public works side of my committee, it is a good day, because we are making progress. We have now about a half dozen amendments that have been cleared on both sides. We are trying to make them pending. We cleared them. We are asking all Senators, please get your amendments in because this can't go on forever. We need to pass this bill, as 550,000 jobs are supported by this legislation. Hundreds and hundreds of businesses are looking forward to our doing this. That is why we have this amazing array of support.

With that, I would say to Senator Merkley, the floor is his.

I yield the floor at this time.

I thank the Senator.

Reserving the right to object for just a moment, and I, of course, will not object, I just want to make it clear that at noon the two leaders are coming to do a back-and-forth. So up until the time they arrive--I just wanted to let my friend know. Then after the leaders, Senator Vitter should be recognized to speak about the issue Senator Landrieu just raised, to be followed by me, if that is OK, if I can do that in the UC? It would be Senator Cardin, the two leaders, Senator Vitter, and myself.

I wonder if the Senator from Washington would enter into a colloquy with me at this time, through the Chair.

I wish to join with Senator Reid in thanking Senator Murray for her amazing leadership. I was on the Budget Committee for several years, and I know that as a result of the Senator from Washington becoming chairman and, of course, being the most senior member next to Kent Conrad for so long, she knows this budget inside and out. It is filled with complexities--the mandatories, the discretionaries, the

defense and nondefense--all the things she knows in her head. She knows how to get us to balance not only in terms of the numbers she will move toward balance in her budget but also in terms of our priorities.

I wish to make sure my people at home understand this. What the Senator from Washington is telling us is that for several years now--2 or 3--the Republicans have been chastising the Democrats for not passing a budget in the Senate; am I right on that?

The reason we didn't do it is we had another law that actually set our caps; am I right on that? So we didn't go through the budget.

All right. So the Senator from Washington decided, with Senator Reid and the leadership team, to bring a budget to the floor. Then--I will never forget it--we stayed here until 5 o'clock in the morning handling over 100 amendments; is that right?

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

Let me say to my friend, I hope she plans to be here as often as she can, and those of us who can help her will be here to continue to ask for conferees so we can get to the next stage.

When Senator McConnell said he would amend the request of the Senator from Washington, was he not prejudging what would happen in the conference? He said no reconciliation, and he said something else. I don't remember the other condition.

And no revenue. That is akin to the Senator from Washington saying, I will go to conference except I don't want to see any more cuts in afterschool programs or senior citizen programs or veterans programs. In other words, we don't take our priorities as individual Senators into the conference. It is a team approach where we will have to compromise.

So isn't Senator McConnell, by laying out his conditions, completely sidestepping regular order?

I thank my friend. I got into this a little bit with Senator Cruz the other day. He doesn't want to go to conference because he is afraid we could pass the Buffett rule. We could come out of there with the Buffett rule, which says the billionaire executive should have to pay the same effective tax rate as a secretary. God forbid. He is afraid of that. So I just say, they are afraid of the process. What are they afraid of? They control the House. We control the Senate. Obviously, in conference we are going to have to meet somewhere in the middle.

It seems to me they have a fear of democracy, and it seems to me--and I don't like to use this word but I will; it rhymes with democracy and it is called hypocrisy. They said they want to do a budget and now they are stopping the budget.

I thank my friend. I want to make sure America understands this. They ran around the country running against our candidates saying our candidates wouldn't do a budget and now they will not allow us to do a budget. It seems to me ridiculous. I am so happy our leader and the Senator from Washington are here to bring this issue the attention it deserves.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I would like to lay out what we are going to do, and it will take me about 6 minutes maximum.

The good news for the Senate--I am glad you don't object to good news because it is not always good news. What we have seen on this WRDA bill is that we have handled a number of amendments both through the managers' package that we substituted for the original text and in individual amendments. What we have seen is that the Boxer-Vitter substitute strengthened participation of environmental agencies in project delivery. We have addressed challenges in every part of the country. We reached agreement with appropriators on future harbor maintenance trust fund expenditures. We authorized additional regional programs. We accelerate investment in the Inland Waterways Trust Fund.

Here on the floor, we adapted amendments to set up an oceans trust fund and a new program to address Asian carp. We have made sure that agencies are treated fairly in the WIFIA Program. We require performance measures for levee safety grants. These are good amendments offered by both sides of the aisle.

We are about to, as soon as we do this little technical change to an amendment number--and it looks as though it has been done--we are about to adopt Senator Blunt's very important amendment that has so much support on both sides of the aisle for resilient construction, meaning we are going to make sure that as we enter a phase of extreme weather situations, we use the best materials on these projects. That is the Blunt amendment.

Then we go to the Sessions amendment, which is land transfer to help his local communities--uncontroversial.

There is a Coburn amendment to deauthorize projects that have been inactive for a very long time. This saves us money.

Also, there is a Warner amendment that makes technical corrections for Four Mile Run.

We will set aside the Inhofe amendment and that number, amendment No. 797, that would be pending.

I ask unanimous consent that in addition to the Blunt amendment No. 800 in the previous order, the following amendments be the next amendments in order to the bill: Sessions No. 811, as modified with the changes that are at the desk, Coburn No. 823, Warner No. 873, and Inhofe No. 797; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to any of these amendments or the Blunt amendment prior to the votes in relation to the amendments.

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

I move to reconsider and lay those motions on the table.

The motions to lay on the table were agreed to.

I wish to thank everybody. We have made great progress on this bill. We will still be working very hard tomorrow, Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. We urge you, if you have amendments, we are just saying let them be relevant and not controversial. We can't solve every problem in America on this water bill, but we are trying our best to get a really good bill through the Senate.

I understand from the House that they intend to look at our bill, work off our bill, and make their changes. Then we will go to conference and hopefully have a very good result.

It is 3 o'clock on a Thursday, and we have disposed of numerous amendments. We are still looking at more. We are trying to resolve all of those. One way or the other, it is our plan to finish this bill next week. It is very rare to have a bill that is so bipartisan, that will, in fact, support over 500,000 jobs, and that has the support of business, labor, and all kinds of community groups. With that, I thank my colleagues for working with us.

I have talked to the majority leader. There will be no further votes today. Next week we will finish this bill. I thank you very much.

I thank my friend from Missouri. It has been a pleasure working with him and staff on his excellent amendment with Senator Nelson. We are very pleased we were able to clear this.

I also thank Senator Landrieu and Senator Durbin. They had some issues, but they stepped back and let us move forward with these amendments.

People are working together, and they are working very hard, and I am very pleased about where we are. I thank my colleague from Missouri.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, what is the order?

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

How much time is there as far as Senator Whitehouse is concerned?

Thank you very much. I wanted to get the order squared away so I could share the information with colleagues before Senator Coburn is heard on his amendments.

Madam President, we are on the Water Resources Development Act--it is a great day for the Senate--because we have received a D-plus rating on our infrastructure. This is the greatest Nation in the world. If we cannot move people or products, if our ports need to be deepened--and because they are not deepened, we cannot move commerce in and out--we have problems.

As we move into periods of extreme weather--there is some debate as to why, and I will not get into that because it is almost like a religious debate, so I will not go there. The fact is we have extreme weather, and now that we have some rules in place, this bill will make it a lot easier for people in the State of the Presiding Officer to deal with the corps after an extreme weather event. For the first time they will not have to come back for new authorizations. They can do some moves right then and there to improve the situation, and that is a reform I think is very necessary.

I certainly thank Senator Vitter, my ranking member, and every member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. I want to thank all the organizations that have come to support this legislation. We have them listed, and I am just going to read a few of those.

Madam President, may I speak for approximately 5 more minutes.

We have the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Foundry Society, the American Public Works Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Soybean Association, Associated General Contractors of America, Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Clean Water Construction Coalition, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, Construction Management Association of America, International Liquid Terminals Association, International Propeller Club of the United States, and the International Union of Operating Engineers.

I will not read all of these as there are too many.

We received a letter today from the chamber of commerce, which I will talk about in a few minutes.

We also have listed the Laborers International Union of North America, surveyors, real estate people, Grain and Feed Association, the Retail Federation, the National Waterways Conference, National Stone Sand & Gravel Association, Portland Cement Association, the American Institute of Architects, the Fertilizer Institute, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Waterways Council.

This is just a sample. America is behind this bill. This is important. Everything we do here is important, and this is as important. It will, in fact, support over half a million jobs--not doing things we don't need but doing things we need and must do.

We have some very important letters. One letter is from the American Association of Port Authorities and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. They talk about how it is important that this legislative progress should not be slowed or jeopardized by amendments that are not germane to the bill.

This is their language: If enacted, this long overdue legislation will ensure critical investments are being made.

They say nice things about Senator Vitter and me, which I will not read because it is too self-serving, but I am very proud to have it in writing. I will put it on my wall when I get back to the office.

There is another letter from the Transportation Construction Coalition, and it basically says: This bill will remove barriers to realizing the benefits of water resources projects. It needs to be bipartisan and bicameral. Let's swiftly pass this.

That is a very important message for us.

We have the Associated General Contractors of America, and they say: Please don't slow or jeopardize this bill.

We have a letter coming from the chamber of commerce, and it is going to say the same thing.

I know Senator Coburn feels very strongly about his amendments, and we have agreed to take them up and vote on them. Every Senator has the right to do anything they want. I just want to lay it out here for the American people: This is a public works bill dealing with water infrastructure. It is not a bill about guns, it is not a bill about a woman's right to choose, it is not a bill about gay rights or gay marriage, it is not a bill about those very hot button issues we know divide the American people.

I will have more to say after Senator Coburn talks about his amendment. I am just going to make a plea to my colleagues: We are trying so hard to accommodate everybody but, speaking for myself, I hope we can avert and avoid controversy on this bill. We have so much controversy every minute of every day. There have been terrible arguments on this floor about issues as to whether we should extend the debt ceiling, whether to default, do background checks. These issues are tough. I am not saying they should be avoided. We have to confront them. Every once in a while I hope we can take a pause from this controversy and do something for this country and come together without the rancor, without the upset, and without the divisiveness of some of these issues.

We will proceed to deal with these issues that Senator Coburn has brought forth on guns. After we dispose of these, I hope we will not have this kind of divisiveness on a bill that is so needed.

I thank the Presiding Officer very much.

I yield the floor.

I thank the Senator from Oklahoma.

Madam President, I wish to thank my friend from Oklahoma because it was tough for me on this bill to face the first amendment being a gun amendment. The Senator from Oklahoma has very strong emotions about it. So do I. We just come down on different sides. But I believe we want to show our good faith. I am also pleased we are not going to vote on the study amendment because, as I researched it, it looks as if there is already a study underway and I look forward to looking at the results of that study with the Senator from Oklahoma in terms of the buying of ammunition. I thank the Senator for that. It means a lot.

I ask the Chair, since Senator Coburn is now not going to take up one of his amendments and we only have one more, what is the status of time? How does that change things?

I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am going to answer a question that was posed rhetorically by my friend, which is a fair question. Why make a difference as far as who can carry a gun on Federal land versus national park land? My statement will address this directly to my friend.

Coburn amendment No. 805 would make it legal for anyone to carry weapons on critical water infrastructure property managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. My view of this is it is a dangerous amendment. He and I just see it very differently.

I believe this amendment would put our national security at risk by making the Nation's dams, reservoirs, hydroelectric powerhouses, navigation locks, major river systems, levees, and other flood risk management features vulnerable to attacks.

Current law on Army Corps property is this: Army regulations prohibit the private possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, and other weapons on Army Corps property unless--and this is important--unless the weapon is being used for hunting, fishing, or target shooting in designated areas. So let's establish that, yes, people can bring a gun onto corps property, but it needs to be for hunting, fishing, or target shooting.

I don't know what other usage there would be. I guess one could argue that a person wants to defend themselves, but they could argue that anywhere. So I don't know what more my friend wants. We have hunting, fishing, and target shooting in designated areas so we don't have these weapons near this critical infrastructure.

Similar to the regulations that govern private gun possession on military bases, corps regulations require guns to be unloaded when transported to and from these designated hunting, fishing, and target- shooting areas. In addition, under current law, the regulations allow for permission to be given to private individuals by the district commander of the corps. So if somebody has a need to do this, they can get permission to do it. As I look at the current rules, I see it very differently. I see the Army Corps cooperating, making sure people can take their weapons onto corps land, but making sure the uses are the recreational uses. If they have a special problem or a special issue, they can get permission to carry a gun for other circumstances.

So the law already allows for the transport of guns on and off Army Corps property when used appropriately for hunting or sport. I guess we would have to say why would we have an amendment here that I believe will put our critical water infrastructure installations and millions of Americans who visit corps land at risk? I think it is a public safety issue.

Why do I oppose this Coburn amendment and why do I say it is dangerous? First of all, Army Corps rangers are not trained or equipped to be law enforcement officers. That is quite different from the national park lands. Second, Army Corps facilities are infrastructure that is critical to national security, the economy, and the safety of the American people. Third, the amendment ignores significant increases in the budget deficit, and I know my friend is, if not the biggest deficit hawk, certainly one of the biggest deficit hawks in history-- ever since I have been here, which is a long time. So we have costs-- notifying the public of the change in law and somehow hiring security guards to protect dams and reservoirs and other critical infrastructure.

I have sat in on numerous discussions, both classified and unclassified, that talk about the need to protect the critical infrastructure of this world in which we live. In this world we live in, we may well see more homegrown terrorists who know our land and who know where these dams are, and who know where these reservoirs are, and who know where these locks are.

The Army Corps rangers are not trained or equipped to be law enforcement officers. They have no authority to carry firearms, to make arrests, or execute search warrants. Corps rangers are tasked with resource management and recreation maintenance. They are not law enforcement officers.

The Coburn amendment would allow individuals to carry loaded or concealed weapons on all corps land as long as the individual's possession is in compliance with the State law where the property is located. By the way, I appreciate the fact the Coburn amendment does that, because some others have offered amendments where if a person is in a State that allows conceal and carry, they can go to any State. The Coburn amendment doesn't do that. I appreciate that very much.

Now in the 49 States that allow concealed carrying of loaded weapons, the corps would not be able to prevent visitors from carrying concealed loaded weapons on corps campsites and hiking trails. Yet the corps has no employees who perform law enforcement duties. I have said this now three times. It is a very important point. We are putting our corps people in a situation where they are unarmed and people coming on the property are armed. So if someone carries a weapon onto corps land--and I agree with my friend that 99-something percent of the people are wonderful and would never think of committing any type of felony, but we know violent crime happens every day. Good Lord, all one has to do is read the paper. We know there are--how many deaths every day from guns? There are 87 deaths a day from guns. A lot of that is suicide and a lot of that is violence toward another person. So let me tell my colleagues what the corps can do in the case where there is a felony on the land there--someone doing something violent. They could write a ticket or call for backup. Since they have no weapons and no authority to arrest suspects, it is a dangerous situation. If this were to pass, we would have to spend a whole lot of dough making sure we train the corps personnel or allow them to hire law enforcement. We are talking about a lot of funds we don't have.

I don't know what the problem is. Honestly, maybe my friend has heard from colleagues or friends or people who are upset about this. But the fact is people can have weapons on corps land for all kinds of reasons pertaining to recreation, which is the point. Yes, one has to get them to the site not loaded and so on, and there are rules and regulations, but I don't think that is a problem. Some of the hunters I know are extremely proud of the safety record they have had and what they teach their kids.

Now let's talk about the facilities that I think are being put at risk--facilities important to our national security, to our economy, and to our public safety. The Department of Homeland Security under President Bush took action in 2003 to list--and I am quoting--this sounds funny--``dam''--D-A-M--``assets.'' Those include navigation locks, levees, and water retention facilities, as a sector that is critical to the function of the economy, to the government, to our society, to the well-being of our people. The inspector general notes that these assets are especially important because one catastrophic failure at some locations could affect populations exceeding 100,000 people and have economic consequences surpassing $10 billion. So we are talking about changing the law on corps land that would expand the right to carry a gun, which people now have on corps land as long as it is for recreation purposes--expanding it in a way that could threaten critical infrastructure. This is in a situation where there are no armed guards. One catastrophic failure could affect 100,000 people and could have economic consequences surpassing $10 billion.

This is a report from the Bush administration, folks.

A 2011 DHS Inspector General report indicated there were numerous security gaps already at critical dam assets across the Nation. So I do not know why we would allow anyone to bring firearms to those critical infrastructure facilities. They can use them for hunting and fishing, but we should have some rules that protect this infrastructure.

Just notifying the public of the change in law that my friend wants to see happen will cost an enormous amount of money--millions of dollars. The Coburn amendment does not address the costs, and normally he would do that in an amendment: address the costs the corps would incur in order to train their workers to carry weapons or to hire outside security for that.

I appreciate and respect the views of my friend, but I also think this is something we should not do today on this bill now, especially when we are seeing a lot of talk about more homegrown terrorism. We want to protect our infrastructure. It may be that the corps ought to look at more protection for these facilities. I am willing to look at that. But I do think we are making a problem where there is not a problem. People can go on corps land and use their guns for hunting and fishing, recreation and target shooting, and I think that is working out fine. This seems to be an amendment that is solving a problem that, frankly, does not exist.

I have 38 million people in my State. That is a lot of people. I asked: Do we

have a lot of letters on this? I, at this point, do not know of any. But I may have some now that the Senator has brought this up. We probably have it on both sides now. But I hate to see us do this because I think it is going to put critical water infrastructure at risk.

This is not the national parks. These are not facilities where we have armed guards. If something were to happen to a reservoir, to a dam, the Bush administration tells us it could be quite devastating to communities.

So I hope we will oppose this amendment. Again, it is with respect that I say these things. I say them because I truly do think this is misguided. I hope we can get on with the underlying bill.

I thank my colleague and yield the floor.

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

No problem.

Madam President, I think the point is, the Senator tries to say what I think about the right to bear arms. He does not know my views. It is very clear the Supreme Court has stated the Second Amendment--that there is a right to bear arms. But just as any other right--free speech, freedom of the press--rights are not unrestricted. We all know the story: You have free speech, but you cannot go into a theater and yell ``fire, fire'' unless there is a fire because you could be charged for causing a riot. So there is no absolute right.

The corps has stated on their land you can already bring a gun as long as it is about hunting, it is about fishing, it is about recreation. But they say, if it is near their critical infrastructure-- which the Bush administration says is a homeland security necessity to protect--you cannot carry a loaded weapon.

My friend says he excluded these areas. I am telling you--you can read this--there is no exclusion. And if you read the CRS----

I will in 1 second. I want to read what CRS says:

Proposed legislation does not explicitly provide the Corps

with authority to restrict firearms at Corps facilities

(e.g., dams) or in specifically designated areas.

I am happy to yield.

Well, if I could say to my friend, through the Chair, fine, get me the code. But the Senator said his amendment specifically excluded it, and it does not. I am researching now that part, but there is no question there is no explicit prohibition here.

So now you get into a circumstance where you have one Federal law that says one thing, another Federal law that says something else, and we know where that leads, folks. That leads to court.

I think my friend wanted to exclude being able to carry weapons near levees and dams and so on. He ought to like the status quo because that is the status quo. The status quo is, if you want to use a gun for hunting, fishing, recreation, fine, the corps already allows it. You just cannot use it on critical infrastructure. He says that is his point. What is the problem? What is the problem?

As I discuss this with my friend, I do not see why his amendment is necessary. I hope he will withdraw it, frankly.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the CRS report summary that was done on this identical bill, which clearly states in their analysis that this would allow individuals to carry firearms--loaded--on to levees, dams, near reservoirs, and the rest. It is clearly stated here:

Proposed legislation does not explicitly provide the Corps

with authority to restrict firearms at Corps facilities [like

dams]. . . .

And it goes on to say that is their decision.

CRS did a big study of it. I appreciate my friend says he covers this. It is not in his legislation. It is just not in there. He does not refer to that other law. He does not say anything about the other law.

My point is that the corps already allows you to bring a loaded gun onto the premises. You can even get a special permit if you want to bring it to other areas. It is already the law.

So this is an amendment that, in my reading of it, would allow you then to go onto these other areas--the levees, the reservoirs, the critical infrastructure. CRS agrees. I have put it in the Record. My friend says no.

I will tell you something, I do not think we should move forward with this--he is--and we will see where the votes fall.

I yield the floor.

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

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

Madam President, for the interest of all Senators, we are moving forward with our bill. We have a first vote on an amendment at 2 o'clock. At this time we are determining whether Senator Whitehouse will offer his amendment. If he does, there will be a vote on one of the two Coburn amendments--he has withdrawn the other--and then a vote on the Whitehouse amendment if, in fact, he offers it.

I would like say for the benefit of all Senators that this is a WRDA bill; this is a water bill. This is about dredging our ports. This is about making sure we have restoration of our wetlands. This is about making sure we have flood control protection. This is about the infrastructure of our country, the ability to move goods, and the ability to have an infrastructure that is much better than the D-plus it is rated at this time.

This is not a gun bill. I beg my colleagues, whatever side you are on, we cannot turn this bill into a gun bill because that is not going to happen. I hope my colleagues will look at the Coburn amendment and decide that the best course is not to have it on this bill. It doesn't belong on this bill, and it shouldn't be on this bill. It is nongermane, and, more important to me, it is very controversial.

I wish to ask the Senator from Rhode Island a question. I know the Senator has a wonderful amendment that deals with the protection of our oceans on a water bill. Guess what--an amendment about water on a water bill. This is good. I would ask my friend if he intends to offer his amendment.

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

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

Madam President, I am very confused. Yesterday there was an agreement there would be a vote. What is my colleague's understanding?

OK, we just need to have some more time. So I recommend the Senator stay on the floor so we can get a colleague on the floor. That would be great. After we do that, I am going to encourage my friend to take some time and go into why it is so critical we pay attention to the oceans of our country, what is happening to the state of our oceans, and what is happening to the quality of our oceans, given so many factors, including the changes we are experiencing in climate, because he is a great expert on that.

Does my friend want some time now? I would like to see if I can get us to the yeas and nays.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have up to 5 minutes to speak before the vote. Am I correct in assuming the vote is at 2 o'clock?

Thank you very much, Madam President.

I wish to again let Senators know where we are. At 2 o'clock, we will be voting on a gun amendment. I would hope this gun amendment would not get the 60 votes required because I believe it is dangerous. Even though Senator Coburn says it would not allow guns to be carried on critical infrastructure such as dams and locks and reservoirs, we now have two studies that say, in fact, it would allow that.

According to the Bush administration, this critical water infrastructure is a target for terrorists. We are now entering into a stage when our leaders are talking about homegrown terror, and we do not have to look too much further than Boston to understand this is a problem.

Why would we want to have on a water infrastructure bill an amendment that allows people to come in with guns and go right to the heart of those critical water infrastructure projects--those dams, those reservoirs, those locks, et cetera--particularly since the corps already allows, for recreational use, the use of guns for hunting, target practice or fishing. That is already allowed.

There are rules. This is not comparable to the National Park Service. We could get into another debate on that. That one--I know some people here voted for that, to allow extensive guns being carried on parkland. That change was made. The corps is a different situation. The Park Service act like police. They can come in. They can quell a disturbance. They are armed. They are trained. The corps is not a law enforcement entity. That means what they would have to do, if there was a violent outburst, is call the local governments, the State governments, and we do not know how long it would take to have those law enforcement people arrive at such a situation.

So I am pleading with my colleagues, this is a water infrastructure bill. This is not a gun bill. This is not the place to add these types of amendments. We have a very bipartisan bill. It is supported by the chamber of commerce, it is supported by the unions, it is supported by local governments, by the Governors Association. I could go on and on. There is a list of literally 150 organizations. It came out of the committee with a bipartisan vote.

I hope when the clock strikes 2 we can have a vote that keeps us on track, that does not turn the WRDA bill into a gun bill. It is not necessary. It is not appropriate. The fact is, there is nothing in the amendment that would stop people from carrying guns onto critical water infrastructure. It sets up a national security threat. It endangers people.

I just want to be clear: I am not going to allow a bill to move forward that endangers the lives of the people I represent. I owe them a lot more than that, let alone the entire country. We all serve this Nation.

So I hope we will not pass this amendment. I ask for a ``no'' vote on the Coburn amendment.

With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I ask for the yeas and nays on the Whitehouse amendment and urge its passage.

Mr. President, a parliamentary inquiry.

I understand there are some asking for a voice vote. Would that be all right with Senator Whitehouse?

All right. I think we should go on with the vote then.

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

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Change of Vote

Mr. President, I have a unanimous consent request. I will make it in a minute.

We are making good progress. We have three amendments in order now: the Blunt amendment No. 800, Pryor amendment 806, and Inhofe amendment No. 835. I ask they be the following amendments in that order to be considered; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to these amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendments. That is my request.

Mr. President, we are well on our way to getting this bill done, I hope. The Whitehouse amendment was one that was overwhelmingly supported. I hope that will set the tone for this particular bill; that we will come forward together; that we will not have contentious issues that divide us and divide the American people on a bill that is so motherhood and apple pie as this one is, which is to make sure our ports are dredged, that our flood control projects are done, that our environmental restoration of wetlands is done. It is a very simple, straightforward bill.

Order of Procedure

I further ask unanimous consent that immediately following my remarks here Senator Whitehouse be recognized for up to 5 minutes to thank the Senate for this vote--I know he has worked exceedingly hard on this-- and then there be a period of morning business for up to 30 minutes, with each Senator allowed to speak for up to 10 minutes.