Floor Statements

Mr. President, can I ask what the order is at this time?

OK. So this is my understanding: I ask Senator Blumenthal, do you have more to say on this matter with the resolution?

OK. I know Senator Coats has some very important remarks to make about the death of a figure whom he cares about very much.

What I wish to propose, if I can, is to talk a little bit about this little back

and forth we had going between my two friends here, and then immediately following what will only take about 2 or 3 minutes is to yield the floor to Senator Coats for 10 minutes.

Less than that. For the benefit of all Senators, we think we are going to have a vote tonight on the Brown amendment. So everyone stay around. We are hoping to have that in the next half hour or so. That is our plan. We hope it will happen.

But I wanted to say in this back and forth we heard between two Senators why I was very strongly for the resolution that was put forward by Senator Blumenthal.

Clearly, what we have in our society today are callous, abusive, unsanitary, or illegal health care practices. These horrible, callous practices turn into tragedies. They produce tragedies. As Senator Blumenthal said, it goes across a wide array of various health care settings.

We do not come down here every day to call out one horrific problem after another. Certainly what has happened in Pennsylvania--and, again, I would take the admonition of Senator Blumenthal, who was a prosecutor, we have to be careful when a jury is deliberating--but certainly if these allegations are true, the individuals involved should be punished to the full extent of the law--and the toughest kind of punishment--and I believe in other cases too.

I know my colleague has talked about a horrible situation in southern Nevada, where 40,000 patients were exposed to hepatitis C. Hepatitis C is a serious and life-threatening condition. Mr. President, 40,000 people were exposed to it. They did nothing. That is deserving of condemnation as well.

He talked about a nursing home in California, where we had the death of a patient because the nurse in that particular case--and nurses are some of the most extraordinarily wonderful people, but in this particular case she had her own convenience ahead of the situation. She improperly medicated patients using antipsychotic drugs, and we know one patient died.

Whatever the setting is--if it is a reproductive health care clinic, if it is a dentist, if it is any type of doctor, any kind of clinic-- where there are willful violations of the law and violations of human dignity and violations of standard of care, we should call them out.

What I thought was so important about Senator Blumenthal's resolution is that he took the spirit of Senator Lee's resolution. He did. He actually included in that what occurred in Pennsylvania. And we did get it to the Republicans 2 hours ago, so it was not a few minutes. I think that is a case in point where we could come together, where we say: Absolutely what happened in Pennsylvania is an outrage, it is a violation of everything we hold dear; and here are some other cases.

As long as I have the floor, I will conclude with this: I have been getting involved in issues that deal with medical errors. I was stunned to find out, as I think are my colleagues--as a matter of fact, I met with a doctor from a Texas hospital where they have improved very much where they were losing patients, dozens of patients every month, because of medical errors, terrible errors that are preventable errors: the wrong prescriptions, the lack of monitoring, infections, terrible infections in hospitals. These are all horrible deaths that are preventable.

I think my colleague's resolution was very statesmanlike. I think what he did was he said to our colleagues who wanted to pass their resolution: Of course we will work with you. Let's broaden it. Let's include condemnation of other horrible tragedies that are occurring throughout the Nation, not just this one case, which is tragic and despicable and every word I could think of, but all these other cases, so we do not every day come here with another example. This is a broad problem in our country. We do the best out of most developed countries, but we still have a long way to go.

I wanted to explain why I supported my friend when he opposed the narrower resolution and support his broad resolution. I would urge my colleagues to work with us.

With that, I yield the floor to my friend from Indiana.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his very warm remarks.

I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the Brown amendment No. 813, as modified with the changes that are at the desk, also be in order; that there be no amendments in order to the Brown amendment prior to a vote in relation to the amendment; that at 5:45 p.m. today, the Senate proceed to vote in relation to the Brown amendment No.

813, as modified; further, that all other provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

Mr. President, I just asked unanimous consent to vote on the Brown amendment. I am going to be supporting that amendment. I think it is an important amendment. I just want to say to colleagues, we are making progress. It is not as fast as Senator Vitter and I would like, but considering the Senate it is not bad. We have moved through a number of amendments already, one particularly contentious amendment.

We are moving toward the finish line. I urge everyone to get their amendments in. I urge them, as best I can, to stay away from nongermane amendments that are controversial, that cause us to pause in our work. This is an important bill. This bill was last done in 2007. You would ask, why does it take so long? We used to do these bills every 2 or 3 years. But the reason it has taken this long, in the interim we decided we would no longer have earmarks.

That made this bill particularly difficult because normally we would mention the projects by name. We could not do that. So we had to figure a way to move forward by making sure we never listed any particular project. We did it in a good way. We said if there is a completed Army Corps report, the project runs forward. If there is a modification that has to be made that did not add to the cost of the project, it goes forward. In the future the local governments can come forward and pitch to the Corps directly. We need flood control in this country. We know that. We knew that before Superstorm Sandy. We certainly know it now. We need port dredging in this country to move our goods. Our goods must be moved, and goods to our country have to come into our ports.

We need environmental restoration. We need to take care of the Everglades. We need to take care of the Chesapeake. I have a place called the Salton Sea that is drying up. We need to take care of these kinds of challenges. We are going to turn to the Brown amendment. I am going to give up the floor now and hope he will explain it. I will be strongly supporting it.

I yield the floor.

I just want to say to Senator Whitehouse before he leaves the floor how much I appreciated his remarks tonight and how much I learned from his remarks. I wish to say to the Senator that I think he put forward the most cogent argument from a religious perspective as to why we have to take action to make sure we don't lose this planet. We are in a planetary emergency. As he said, this is the last place in the world, almost, that doesn't get it.

I wish to say to the Senator from Rhode Island that the reason so many religious leaders are in our coalition to call attention to climate change, to call attention to global warming, to call attention to the rising waters, to call attention to the terrible droughts, to the terrible fires, to the terrible storms, to the extreme weather and all the things we are seeing around us--the Senator from Rhode Island has laid it out chapter and verse, we can truly say, chapter and verse, and I so appreciate what he is doing here. I so appreciate his consistent voice, his passionate voice.

I so appreciate that he is on the committee I am so proud to chair, the Environment and Public Works Committee. We are on a bill that deals with the public works side of the committee. We have good camaraderie there. But when it comes to protecting the environment, it is as if there are just two totally different species of humanity--the deniers and the believers. I am proud to be on the side of the believers. I believe America is built on facts. It is built on, yes, religious beliefs and scientific proof.

I think the Senator from Rhode Island laid it out tonight in such a magnificent way that I intend to send the Senator's remarks, with his permission, to all of our colleagues, to put them up on my Web site because I am so proud to stand with the Senator from Rhode Island in this fight. This is a fight, and as my friend from Rhode Island said it is a fight that puts on one side the special interests, the polluters, the money, versus those who just say we have to save this planet. It is our responsibility. It is our God-given responsibility.

I thank the Senator from Rhode Island so much, and I yield to him.

Mr. President, I wish to say to my friend, today was a great day for the Senator from Rhode Island, not only because of the speech that I think is quite memorable but also because of the amendment he passed with the help of our Republican friends, to set up an oceans trust fund. I think this is a good, positive day, and I am very pleased about that.

I would ask the staff if we are ready to make the unanimous consent request.

We will be in 2 minutes. So I would say to my colleague that we are going to dispose of about six amendments very quickly on the floor, with the indulgence of the Senator, and we should be free and done with this business in a few minutes.

I thank the Senator.

So we will put in a quorum call. I ask unanimous consent to complete my remarks after the remarks of Senator Hoeven.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding the previous order, the following amendments which have been cleared on both sides be considered and agreed to en bloc: Pryor amendment No. 801, as modified, with the changes at the desk; Pryor amendment No. 806; Inhofe amendment No. 835, with a modification to the instruction lines; McCain amendment No. 833; and Murray amendment No. 832; further, that all of the provisions of the previous order remain in effect.

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 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The Committee will hold a hearing entitled, ``The Role of Immigrants in America's Innovation Economy.''

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 8, 2013, at 11:30 a.m., in room 366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

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 8, 2013, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled ``Curbing Federal Agency Waste and Fraud: New Steps to Strengthen the Integrity of Federal Payments.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 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 the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, at 10 a.m. in room 106 Dirksen Senate Office building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem for Minority Women.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Armed Services Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 8, 2013, at 9 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Cyber Threats: Law Enforcement and Private Sector Responses.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the Distrcit of Columbia of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled, ``The Role of the Private Sector in Preparedness and Emergency Response.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommitte on Seapower of the Armed Services Committee be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Senate Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 8, 2013, at 2:30 p.m.

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

Madam President, what is the order at this time?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business for 30 minutes and that we then return to S. 601, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, what is the order?

Madam President, I want to speak now on a bill that Senator Vitter and I are very proud of. But, first, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the committee-reported substitute amendment.

Now I call up the Boxer-Vitter substitute amendment No. 799 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Madam President, I will make an opening statement and then turn it over to my colleague, Senator Vitter, for his opening statement.

I want to just say this is a good day for the Senate to get on a bill that is a bipartisan bill, where we have had unanimous support in the Environment and Public Works Committee. This is a bill that will create or save half a million jobs for our Nation, and it has been a long time in coming. The last WRDA bill--the Water Resources Development Act--was in 2007. It took a lot of work to get here. The reason for that is we had to deal with changing the culture of the Senate away from earmarks in a bill like this where projects were named and figure out a way we could move forward with these projects without earmarks. It was difficult.

Senator Vitter and I and our staffs have worked hard to get to this point. I particularly want to say to both staffs that we couldn't have done it without your amazing focus. We are so appreciative.

Our bill did make it through EPW without a single ``no'' vote. Since then we have been working with almost every Senator to hear their ideas, to get their reactions, and to see if there were ways we could change the bill. This substitute Senator Vitter and I have put forward incorporates the

views of a whole array of Senators, and they know who they are. There are many of them, and we are very happy we were able to work with them. Of course, we will continue to work with them if there are ways we can improve this bill even more.

So this is long past time. As I said, it was 2007 when the last WRDA bill became law, so we have an infrastructure that is critical, and part of it is the water infrastructure. That is what we deal with.

Now, what does this bill do? We focus on flood control. We focus on ports and environmental restoration projects where the corps has completed a comprehensive study. Then we also incorporate authorizations for projects that need modifications, and the modifications don't add to the overall cost of the project. For the future, we have developed a system that allows local sponsors to make their case directly to the corps because we are fearful that as new needs come up, there is no path forward. So we do all that in this bill.

I am proud of a lot of provisions in this bill, but one of them is what we call WIFIA--the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act. It is a way to assist localities in need of loans for flood control or wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to receive these loans upfront.

Let me explain that. We expanded a program called TIFIA in the Transportation bill dealing with transportation infrastructure. We said where a local government or a region came forward with, say, a sales tax or bond for a series of transportation projects, and they wanted to move quickly and build them in a shorter timeframe, as long as they had that steady stream of funding, the Federal Government, with virtually no risk, could advance these funds and let them build these projects quicker, creating jobs and improving the infrastructure quicker.

So we did this same thing with water. It is a small project, and it is not a replacement for our existing funding through the corps and EPA, but it is a supplement. It is a supplement that would help existing programs leverage more investment in our infrastructure. So WIFIA will allow localities an opportunity to move forward with water infrastructure projects in the same way TIFIA works.

This bill is critical. I mean, let's just say what it is. I know there are people who will offer amendments on subjects ranging--well, let's just say broad-ranging subjects. And it is their right to do it. Senator Vitter and I know that, and it is what it is. It is the Senate and people will come forward. But we hope we will not get bogged down on these nongermane amendments because so much is at stake.

I think this would be a good time for me to mention some of the supporters of our bill: the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Concrete Pressure Pipe Association, the American Council of Engineering Companies, the American Farm Bureau, the American Foundry Society, the American Public Works Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association. This list goes on and on.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the list of these supporting organizations.

I will say that we are looking at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce supporting this bill, the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, the Waterways Council, Inc., and the Plumbing Manufacturers, International. Wherever we look, whether it is business or labor, whether it is governmental entities--even the American Farm Bureau Federation, as I said, and Laborers International Union of North America--it is a really important bill. Even the Commercial Real Estate Development Association. Why? Because they know if you are going to sell a house in an area that gets flooded, you need to address the flooding problems. So we do address flooding problems.

We do address port deepening. Believe me, without these port deepenings in a lot of our ports--not all our ports need to do it-- commerce could come to a halt, and I would say almost a screeching halt. There may be better terminology, but you have to dredge those ports to a certain depth so those vessels can move in and out.

Let me talk about just one area in my home State. Senator Vitter and I often say we see the world a little differently--or a lot differently when it comes to a lot of issues, but when it comes to infrastructure, we have a lot in common. He had to face the horrific catastrophic situation during and after Katrina, and I look at that issue and say: Oh, my Lord, if we had something like that happen in Sacramento, what would happen? We have so many more people than they have in his State. We have more commerce there. We have the seat of the State government in the Natomas Basin. So we have to strengthen the levees, and we are talking about $7 billion in property. So we are talking about a need to prevent terrible flooding.

Now, that is just one area of my State--and I want to thank Congresswoman Doris Matsui for all the work she has done over on the House side, and the many others who have helped her over there. I just mention her name because she has been so involved in representing Sacramento.

Our bill provides lifesaving flood protection for more than 200,000 residents of Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN, who have been fighting rising waters in recent weeks, just as they do most years after the spring thaw. The bill will restore the viability of the levee system that protects Topeka, KS. These levees protect thousands of homes and businesses, and this project will return over $13 in benefits for every dollar invested.

I know our current Presiding Officer is a fiscal conservative. We are talking about a bill that invests $1 and gets $13 back. So flood control and flood protection are critical. All we have to do is look at Sandy to see what happened and look at the cost--one event, $60 billion. So if we were to invest a portion of that into trying to mitigate these problems before they start, that is what the WRDA bill is all about and why it is so important and essential. So I hope it doesn't get bogged down in extraneous amendments.

I talked about the ports. One of those projects is in Texas, to widen and deepen the Sabine-Neches Waterway, which will have over $115 million in annual benefits. It transports 100,000 tons of goods every year. It is the top port for the movement of commercial military goods.

Whether you are in a red State, whether you are in a blue State, whether you are in a purple State or, frankly, any other State if there are any, you are protected in this bill. You are covered in this bill.

Look at Florida, the Port of Jacksonville, with safety concerns there for ships entering and exiting this port because of dangerous cross currents. This bill will make it possible to protect that port.

Critical ecosystem restoration: The Florida Everglades. If you have never been to the Everglades, you should go to the Everglades. It is a miraculous place, a God-given treasure. We have to restore it. It needs our attention. We definitely have four new Everglades restoration projects that will move forward in this bill.

For the Chesapeake Bay and the Columbia River Basin, we enable the Corps to work with States along the North Atlantic coast to restore vital coastal habitats from Virginia to Maine, and allow the Corps to implement projects to better prepare for extreme weather in the northern Rocky Mountain States of Montana and Idaho.

In addition--this is important. I talked a little bit about Superstorm Sandy--we have a new extreme weather title I am very proud of. This will enable the Corps to help communities better prepare for and reduce the risks of extreme weather-related disasters. How does it do it? For the first time, the Boxer-Vitter bill allows the Corps to conduct immediate assessments of affected watersheds following extreme weather events. For example, if this had been operational right after Katrina, the Corps would have gone right in there. They would not have had to wait for an authorization. They would not have had to wait for an emergency supplemental. They would have identified and constructed small flood control projects immediately, such as building levees, flood walls, restoring wetlands, and would not have to go through the full study process and receive authorization.

After an extreme weather event--Senator Vitter and our whole committee believe it is an extraordinary circumstance--if you can move in there and mitigate the damage right away, you should do that with these smaller type projects. In this extreme weather title we also require the Corps and the National Academy of Sciences to jointly evaluate all of the options for reducing risks, including flooding and droughts, including those related to future extreme weather events because as far as we can tell, there is no specific study that looks at the future.

The cost of this bill comes in well below the last WRDA bill and we move toward a better use of the harbor maintenance trust fund. Let me be clear. Senator Vitter and I both believe it is a critical issue to use the harbor maintenance trust fund for harbor maintenance. It seems to me to be fair and it seems to him to be fair. But what has happened over the years, because we have these budgetary problems, is the harbor maintenance trust fund is used for other uses. We wanted to totally take that fund away and save it for harbors. It was not going to happen. There was too much controversy around it.

What we were able to do, though, is to make sure the appropriators knew our concerns. Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby worked with us on a letter and it commits to helping us move toward the new authorization levels in this bill which ratchet up spending on the ports.

We also make sure that some of our ports that are donor ports--let's say the one in LA and Long Beach, that do not have issues of deepening of the channel, that need to use those funds for other uses--get a chance, when those moneys come in, to get it back. Some of my people are paying in pennies on the dollar. It is not fair.

We do try to address the issue of the larger ports, even the smaller ports, Great Lakes, the seaports that are large donors to the fund. We make important reforms of the inland waterways system, which is critical for transporting goods throughout the country. Expediting project delivery is something we do.

I want to take a moment here. I want to be unequivocal on this project delivery piece. I stand here with credentials going back forever. In my case it is a long time. I can say very proudly that every single environmental law stays in place in this bill. As a matter of fact, we have a savings clause which specifically says all these laws stay in place.

Senator Vitter and I have a little disagreement over environmental laws. We have to work together. He stepped up and said: Look, some of these agencies are holding up projects for years and we are not getting our projects done. I thought he had a point. So together we worked on a compromise. It is not everything he wanted; it is not everything I wanted. But we are moving forward while saving all the environmental laws by making sure that when the Corps has a project and they complete their work, they issue something called a ROD, a record of decision. We make sure all the agencies now are involved in setting the timetable for that ROD. Then the agencies have an additional 6 months after the date they approved of to get their comments in. If they do not, yes, they will get a penalty.

Frankly, I think that is important. We do cap those penalties, but the fact is we are here to do the people's business. As long as we protect everyone's rights, which we do, and we bend over backward to make sure all the agencies are involved, making sure the timeframes around a ROD are fair and they are involved, we say, yes, you have to step to the plate.

I have examples in my State where the agencies have taken such a long time--whether, frankly, it is an environmental project or a construction project, flood control--where agencies are not talking to each other. Senator Vitter and I believed it was important to send a message.

Look, the administration doesn't love this and we understand it. But that is why we have separation of powers here. We say it is only right to work together. Our bill is not perfect, we know that, but I will tell you we support 500,000 jobs, we protect people from flooding, we enable commerce to move through our ports, we encourage innovative financing and leveraging of funds, and we begin the hard work of preparing for and responding to extreme weather. I defy anyone to tell us another bill that does those things--protects jobs, protects people from flooding, enables commerce to move through our ports, encourages innovative financing, even more jobs, and preparing for and responding to extreme weather.

I want to talk about a couple of people by name here. I will do more people later. I want to mention, of course, first and foremost Senator Vitter, who has been a pleasure to work with. We have had our moments where we have not agreed. Our staffs had their moments when they did not agree. We never got up in anger. We never walked away from the table. We stayed at the table. To me that is so important. We did it on this bill. I wish we could do it on others, but that is another day. But we are certainly doing it on this bill. First and foremost, I thank him.

Next, I thank Senators Mikulski and Shelby for writing a letter to us. It is not all we want but it is a show of good faith and I think it is precedent setting, that we have this letter saying they are going to do everything in their power to help.

I thank Senator Vitter's colleague, Senator Landrieu. She has worked behind the scenes with me since Katrina, and I know the two of them have worked together. I think her efforts matched with Senator Vitter's are very important for Louisiana.

I have been to Louisiana many times. I have warm relationships there. I certainly helped when it came to the RESTORE Act, and I certainly intend to remember everything the people there went through and to follow through on my commitments to them.

In this bill we are fair to Louisiana, we are fair to California, we are fair to the Great Lakes, we are fair to the small port States, we are fair to the medium port States. We have done everything. We are fair to the States that have ports that now have competition from international ports. I do believe if we can get through some of the sticky wicket of some amendments that don't have anything to do with this, if we can get through with that, we will have a very good, strong, bipartisan bill. I honestly also believe Chairman Shuster in the House will move forward as well. He is a terrific person to work with and I enjoy working with him as well. If we produce this work product and we can get it done this week--which I hope we can--it will make a big difference.

Before I turn it over to Senator Vitter, let me say for the interests of all Members, we are working on an agreement that will allow us to go to a couple of amendments a side. One of them will be the Whitehouse amendment. A couple will be by Senator Coburn. We are looking at other amendments. We hope we can have votes this afternoon. We don't know at this point. That is certainly the hope of Senator Vitter and myself. We would very much like to proceed.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, just for the interest of all Senators, we are looking at some amendments which hopefully we can vote on tonight or early in the morning. It is one of those surprises to the American people that we are on a water infrastructure bill that deals with building absolutely necessary flood control projects and making sure our commerce can move through our ports--and we have money to deepen the channels and make sure our ports are working; they take those imports, they get those exports; it all works; critical infrastructure--and the first two Republican amendments are about guns.

Let me say it again. We are working on a critical infrastructure bill, and the first two Republican amendments are not about jobs, not about business, not about commerce--about guns. So we will deal with that. We will deal with those amendments.

But I think the American people have to listen. When our colleagues on the other side of the aisle get up and talk about the economy, straight from the heart: This economy is not creating enough jobs, oh, my goodness, the first two amendments they offer on a critical infrastructure bill--that is so critical to business that the chamber of commerce has endorsed it, that every business that is involved in construction has endorsed it, that every worker organization has endorsed it, the National Governors Association has endorsed it--the first two amendments are not about jobs, they are not about commerce; they are about guns. So let's understand what we are dealing with.

Budget Conference

Now, I want to say to my friend from Texas--and I welcome him to the Senate--for 3 years his party has been following Democrats all over the country, yelling at us: Where is your budget? Get your budget done. For shame on you; no budget.

And what has he done, starting from yesterday? Objected to this country having a budget because he thinks maybe--he does not know this; he is guessing--that in a conference, where we try to negotiate the differences between the sides, something might happen that he does not like. Maybe we will wind up saying: Yes, there ought to be a penalty on companies that ship jobs overseas. Maybe we will tighten some tax loopholes that allow the most successful companies to pay nothing in taxes while the middle class pays through the nose. Maybe he does not like the fact that Warren Buffett--one of the most successful entrepreneurs in our Nation--got up and said: You know what, I am embarrassed. I pay a lower effective tax rate than my secretary. Maybe he thinks that is good. Fine. But do not stop us from getting a budget.

Anyone who knows how a bill becomes a law--whether they are here 15 minutes or more than 20 years, as I have been--everyone knows that the way we operate here is that the House does a budget, the Senate does a budget.

We did a budget. Republicans demanded it, and we did it for sure. And we took care of 100 amendments. We remember being in until 5 in the morning. I certainly remember that. Now the next step is that you go to conference.

So I am saying here that I will be on my feet. Every time the good Senator from Texas comes, I will come and I will say: Senator, let the process work, do not be fearful of the process, because, you know what, when you have power--as the Senator does and as I do--do not be afraid of the process. If you want to make the point that the

Buffett rule does not make sense, make your point, but do not stop us from getting a budget.

I do not understand how any conservative could stop us from getting a budget, but yet that is what we have.

So I would urge my friend to work with his colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Let's get to the conference. Let's make sure the chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Ryan, who I am sure is very competent, and our chairman, Senator Murray, who I know is very competent--get them in the room with their conferees, and let's let democracy work. This is the way a bill becomes a law.

They have stopped us from appointing conferees for a budget conference. I could tell you, having been here for a while, it is essential that we get to conference--whether it is the WRDA bill that we are so anxious to do because it is so important for jobs or whether it is the budget or whether it is an appropriations bill. Do not be afraid of the process. This is a democracy. We take our differences into a conference room, and we work together. If you do not like the outcome, that is fair enough. I could truly say I have not liked the outcome of a number of conferences, but I do not stop people from going to the conference because that is stopping democracy. That is a dictatorship. I decide something is going to happen in conference that I do not like. Now, what if I say that what could well happen in the conference is they make the sequester permanent. That could happen in the conference. I think that is devastating, to make the sequester permanent. I want to stop the sequester. I do not like the fact that 70,000 kids cannot get Head Start. I do not like the fact that people cannot get their chemotherapy. I do not like the fact that Meals on Wheels is being cut back and senior citizens who cannot afford meals are not getting them. I do not like the fact that people are not getting HIV screenings or breast cancer screenings. That is what is happening. So I do fear, frankly, that if there is a conference, the Republicans will prevail and they may come out of this with a permanent sequester. So I could stand here and say: I object to the process because I am fearful that they will get in there and they will make the sequester permanent, and that would hurt my people in California. But you know what, I have more faith in us. I have more faith in the American people. I have more faith in the process.

So I would urge my friend to stand down on this--and his allies. I know he is sincere, but I am saying that it is against progress. We do not know if there will be a tax increase or a tax decrease. Frankly, I have some really great ideas for tax decreases that I would like to see--decreases for the middle class, decreases for the working poor. I would like to see that in a conference. But I do not know what our colleagues will come back with.

But I use this time as the manager of the water infrastructure bill to tell colleagues that we should come together, not only on this bill. Instead of offering controversial amendments on guns to a water infrastructure bill, why cannot we just focus on what is before us? Finishing this WRDA bill--getting it done for the 500,000 jobs that rely on this, getting it done for the thousands of businesses that rely on it, getting it done for organized labor and the chamber of commerce coming together here. Get it done. And on the budget front, get it done.

With that, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period of debate only until 6:30 p.m. and that at that time the majority leader or his designee be recognized.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 11:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 8, the Senate resume consideration of S. 601 and the following amendments be the first amendments in order to the pending Boxer-Vitter substitute amendment No. 799: Coburn amendment No. 804 on ammunition; Coburn amendment No. 805 on Army Corps lands and guns; and Whitehouse amendment No. 803 on oceans; that there be no second-degree amendments in order to any of these amendments prior to votes in relation to the amendments; that the Coburn and Whitehouse amendments be subject to a 60-vote affirmative vote threshold; and that the time until 2 p.m. be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees for debate on their amendments; that Senator Coburn control 40 minutes of the Republican time; that at 2 p.m. the Senate proceed to votes in relation to the Coburn and Whitehouse amendments in the order listed; that there be 2 minutes equally divided in between the votes and all after the first vote be 10-minute votes; further, that upon disposition of the Coburn and Whitehouse amendments, the substitute amendment, as amended, if amended, be agreed to and be considered original text for the purposes of further amendment.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Madam President, I wish to take about 2 minutes--and I know Senator Brown is here to speak--to explain what just happened because a normal person would never follow this, in my opinion. That is just me speaking.

Let me tell my colleagues what we did. Happily, we are moving forward with the first votes on amendments to the WRDA bill--the water resources bill--tomorrow. I have to thank so much Majority Leader Reid because he worked very hard on making sure we could figure out a way to move these votes forward. Senator Vitter and I both wanted to see this happen, and we are very pleased.

So what will happen is we will first have a vote on an amendment by Senator Coburn dealing with a study about ammunition. Upon disposition of that amendment, we will move to another Coburn amendment that deals with people being able to carry guns on Corps of Engineers land that has levees and dams on it and so on. We will have debate and a vote on that. Finally, we will have a vote on the Whitehouse amendment which deals with an oceans trust fund. So those three votes will be in order, and following that we believe the Boxer-Vitter amendment will be pending.

I wish to thank everybody for their cooperation in moving forward. I don't understand why and how we would have gun amendments on a water infrastructure bill, but that is just me. This is about water infrastructure. It is about flood control. It is about making sure our ports are deepened so that commerce can flow in and out. It is about water conservation. It is about wetlands conservation and restoration. So I don't quite get why we are voting on guns, but it is the Republicans' desire that the first two votes be on guns, so that is what we are going to do. We will dispose of those.

I can only say to my colleagues, my friends, on both sides of the aisle, could we keep the amendments to the subject at hand? If we could keep the amendments to the subject at hand--I know there is a desire to have votes on lots of issues, but I think we all agree that for the economic well-being of our country, we need an infrastructure that is top-notch. I hate to say it but our infrastructure has been rated as a D-plus. That means our ports are not functioning as they should and our flood control projects are not handling the extreme weather we are facing. We need to get back to work here in regular order.

I know there are people here who think more gun votes is the way to go. That is a very controversial subject. It tears at the heart of the American people in many ways. But so be it. Let the country see what we are dealing with. The first two votes by the Republicans on a water infrastructure bill are about guns. Let the people decide if they think it is appropriate on a water infrastructure bill that deals with flood

control and the adequacy of our ports and our wetlands, and restoration, if that bill should be burdened with amendments about guns. I don't think so. That is how I am talking about it. We will see what happens tomorrow, but at least we have a path forward.

Again, I thank Senator Vitter for working with me today. I thank Senator Reid and all of my colleagues for their indulgence. Frankly, I hoped we would have had a few relevant amendments disposed of, but at least we have a path forward together, and I look forward to seeing everybody then.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for working on military sexual assault. Senator Gillibrand and I and others are working on a way to handle these assaults which takes them out of the chain of command and makes sure the prosecutors get the chance to decide whether a case goes forward, and no one in the chain of command can overturn a military court that makes a decision.

So I look forward to working with all my colleagues, female colleagues and male colleagues, because this is an absolute disgrace for the greatest Nation on Earth. We have to change a culture that somehow is permissive toward violence against women, and might I add men as well, when we look at the numbers. There is a lot of sexual violence against men in the military in terms of numbers--more cases against men than women--but in terms of percentages, there are more against women. It is a terrible situation.

Madam President, I want to thank my colleagues for working on military sexual assault. Senator Gillibrand and I and others are working on a way to handle these assaults which takes them out of the chain of command and makes sure the prosecutors get the chance to decide whether a case goes forward, and no one in the chain of command can overturn a military court that makes a decision.

So I look forward to working with all my colleagues, female colleagues and male colleagues, because this is an absolute disgrace for the greatest Nation on Earth. We have to change a culture that somehow is permissive toward violence against women, and might I add men as well, when we look at the numbers. There is a lot of sexual violence against men in the military in terms of numbers--more cases against men than women--but in terms of percentages, there are more against women. It is a terrible situation.

Regular order.

Madam President, I was unable to attend the roll call vote that occurred on April 25, 2013 because of a family obligation. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

As electronic commerce has grown dramatically, new policies are necessary to maintain a level playing field so that businesses of all types can both compete and prosper. This bipartisan bill has the support of a broad coalition of Governors, mayors, business leaders, and labor groups, and is especially important to our local governments. I look forward to working with my colleagues to ensure that implementation of these changes is manageable for small businesses in California and elsewhere.

Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the 98th anniversary of the Armenian genocide.

In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations passed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide based in part on the horrific crimes perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire against the Armenian people in the early 20th Century.

Between 1915 and 1923, more than 1.5 million Armenians were marched to their deaths in the deserts of the Middle East, murdered in concentration camps, drowned at sea, and forced to endure horrific acts of brutality at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.

Yet, in the 65 years that have passed since the Convention was adopted, successive U.S. administrations have refused to call the deliberate massacre of the Armenians by its rightful name genocide.

For many years, I have urged both Democratic and Republican administrations to finally acknowledge the truth. I do so again today. It is long past time for our government to acknowledge, once and for all, that the Armenian genocide is a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.

In fact, the Armenian genocide along with the Holocaust is one of the most studied cases of genocide in history. Tragically, Adolf Hitler even used the Ottoman Empire's action against the Armenians to justify the extermination of the Jews in the Holocaust, saying in 1939, ``Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?''

A number of sovereign nations, ranging from Argentina to France, as well as 43 out of 50 U.S. States have recognized what happened to the Armenians as genocide. Yet successive U.S. administrations continue only to refer to the Armenian genocide as an annihilation, massacre, or murder.

The entire Armenian community and the descendants of the victims of the Armenian genocide continue to suffer prolonged pain each and every day that goes by without full acknowledgement by the United States.

I hope that this is the year that we finally right this terrible wrong because the United States cannot and does not turn a blind eye to atrocities around the globe. In fact, the United States is often the first to speak out in the face of violence and unspeakable suffering and to urge other countries to respond. But sadly, our Nation is on the wrong side of history when it comes to the Armenian genocide.

So this April 24, as we pause to remember the victims and to celebrate the many contributions Armenian Americans have made to our great country, I hope that the United States will finally and firmly stand on the right side of history and officially condemn the crimes of 1915 to 1923 by their appropriate name.

Will my friend yield for a question?

Madam President, I appreciate Senator Reid taking the leadership here, and as I understand it--and I want him to confirm it-- what he has done is he has suggested the cuts that are hurting so many of our American citizens be restored and he is paying for that. He is not putting it on a credit card. He is paying for it by taking funds from the overseas account because we are winding down wars. Am I correct that what the Senator is doing is paying a price that equals the amount he is restoring of the sequester?

And I also want to say to my friend, I understand we are truly suffering in this country. I have examples of people who were turned away from cancer clinics. They can't get their chemotherapy. The Cancer Society--which is not a government entity--has said this is very dangerous.

Is my friend aware that patients are being turned away and not getting the

chemotherapy, grants are not being funded? I know he mentioned that. But I think the fact that patients who need chemotherapy who live--some are being denied this. Is my friend aware of that?

I would also say, I wonder if my friend knew--and I take just a city from the Midwest. In Cincinnati, 200 children will be dropped or denied access to Head Start. Anita Wolf, a mother of two special needs children, said she may have to choose which child can remain in Head Start enrichment programs.

I say to my friend, we are here because this is hurting people. This isn't about statistics, and I am very disappointed we can't work together to restore this. How long does my friend restore these cuts?

I thank the Senator from Nevada for yielding, and I will listen to my colleagues from the other side.

Madam President, I worked with my colleague from Alabama on a lot of issues. We do work together on occasion.

But on this particular issue we see the world very differently, which is to be respected, and it is with full respect that I say this sequester is not necessary. These across-the-board cuts were put into place to be so difficult and so painful that both parties would come together and come up with a solution. The President has tried and tried. He said to both parties: Why don't we meet in the middle? Let's replace the sequester, these mindless cuts, with other cuts that make sense and are not painful, and the other half with tax reform, doing away with subsidies, tax loopholes such as the billions of dollars a year oil companies have been getting that don't make sense, since they are the most profitable companies probably in the world.

But Republicans' answer to that: We are not going to look at taking away these tax breaks from big companies. We are going to not look at trying to see whether millionaires or billionaires can pay anymore. We want to replace the sequester with more cuts.

I know it is a fast-moving country we live in. Lord knows you have gone through some difficult times in Massachusetts and I thank the Presiding Officer for her leadership. But we do not have that short a memory. We remember this awful recession that almost turned into a depression. We know because it is basic--I am an economics major; it was a long time ago--but there was a basic understanding that when times are tough the government doesn't turn to austerity. The government helps us by saying: You know what, maybe this is a good time to fix those bridges, to build those highways, to do the things we need to do because a great country needs an infrastructure and this is the time to do it--because we need the jobs, too.

We have no partners over there. Now Senator Reid comes up with a very sensible plan and here is the plan: For the next 5 months we restore the sequester. We take away those mindless cuts, get us back to normalcy, try to find another solution, a long-term solution, but in the meantime, pay for stopping the sequester by cutting from an overseas war funding account. As we bring home our soldiers from Afghanistan and Iraq, we have an account that can be drawn down. So when our colleagues say Senator Reid is raising taxes to do this, he is not raising taxes No. 1. He is cutting spending by taking savings out of this overseas war account.

It makes a lot of sense. The American people want to see the Afghanistan war come to an end. The American people want to see the Iraq war totally completed. We are saying take that money and how about spending it here?

Their answer today, which is so astounding, from Senator Coburn who objected to this very important bill--Senator Coburn said he has the answer. It is called flexibility. What does that mean? It means all of these cuts, these billions and billions of dollars in cuts, we will then tell the agency: Figure it out. You figure out where to fix it.

For example, in the FAA they have an airport improvement fund. They are saying we do not have to fire these air traffic controllers. Let's not do that. Take the money from the airport improvement fund.

If you know anything about the airport improvement fund, it is not an idle fund. It is a fund that is paid for by taxes that people pay so their airports will be improved, hence it is called the airport improvement fund. Whether it is making sure the runways are safe or making sure the terminals are secure--this is why we have airport improvement funds. You cannot rob Peter to pay Paul.

I want to say to my friend--he left the floor--and he is my friend, Senator Coburn: Flexibility is not the answer. If somebody comes to me, a colleague, and says: Senator Boxer, I left my wallet home and I am starving, can you lend me $10? And I say flexibility--what flexibility? He left his wallet home. Flexibility does not pay for air

traffic controllers. Flexibility does not pay for teachers. Flexibility does not pay for FBI agents. If we ever learned anything from the horror in Boston, it is the unbelievable first responders in addition to the citizens who rushed toward the blast. The people there, the professionals, the doctors who happened to be there--we pay those people.

Earth to the Senate: Not everybody lives off a trust fund.

People need to get paid. Flexibility does not do it. I cannot say, if I get a call from an air traffic controller: Oh, why don't you just volunteer on your day off? He will probably tell me he is going to figure out a way--on his day off that he is forced to have, his furlough--to make some money for his family.

Sometimes I wonder if we are in ``Alice in Wonderland'' around here. Nothing could be more true than today.

I want you to know that I have people in Los Angeles who are stuck on runways for hours and miss very important functions. How about one of my people in Los Angeles--I have his name. It is not important. He said he missed a funeral on Monday because his incoming flight was delayed. ``We had to cancel our whole trip because the funeral is tonight and we are not going to make it.''

Flexibility is not the answer. The answer is to restore the money from sequestration. The FAA announced plans to close 149 airport control towers nationwide, including many in my State.

How about people who are getting turned away who need chemotherapy and the American Cancer Society Action Network said that because of sequestration ``funding for cancer research and prevention programs are taking a dangerous hit.'' Again I say to my Republican friend, this is from the private sector on what is happening around here.

The National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program will provide 32,000 fewer breast and cervical cancer screenings this year to women who have no other option for affordable, lifesaving screenings. These are lifesaving screenings. Do you want to tell that woman: Flexibility? That is not the answer. The answer is restore the funds from the sequester.

Head Start, about to lose 70,000 of its 1 million slots for children. Let me tell you, in Cincinnati, 200 children will be dropped or denied access to Head Start.

Anita Wolfe, a mother of two special needs children, said she may have to choose which child can remain in Head Start's enrichment program. This is a bad situation.

In Oakland, the housing authority is losing $11 million, and expects 800 to 900 fewer families will get housing assistance.

In Indiana Head Start programs in two towns resorted to a lottery system last month to determine which kids could remain in the program.

Riverbend Head Start in Illinois has had to cut its school year by 2 weeks, leaving its staff unemployed and its participating families without childcare for those two weeks.

The Santa Clara County Housing Authority has lost $21 million in funding and is considering pulling housing assistance vouchers from some of the 17,000 households it serves. Local resident and mother of two Alicia Diaz fears that she may become homeless as a result.

The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency expects to lose $13.9 million, affecting housing assistance to 1,700 families.

Many of the 24,000 Los Angeles families relying on Section 8 vouchers could lose all or part of their housing subsidy before the end of this year.

Customs and Border Patrol has furloughed 60,000 agents nationwide and restricted overtime. This is causing delays in cargo processing at the Ports of Hueneme, Long Beach and Los Angeles, which rely heavily on overtime because they are extremely busy ports.

More than 100 dockworkers in Port Hueneme were idled due to delays, and shipments had to wait to be inspected. Every minute of delay costs money for businesses receiving their products late. Customs and Border Patrol estimates that delays could become as long as 5 days.

We are seeing delays in our ports. We are seeing dock workers idled. With these delays, says one of my people, ``I have to hire the labor and pay them while I wait for Customs to clear the vessel.'' It is having an impact on our economy.

Just to finish up, Senator Reid took the leadership today. I am so proud to stand with him. He found a place to get the money to put the funds back in and avert the sequester, stop the pain at the airports, stop the pain at the clinics, restore Meals on Wheels to our seniors-- all the things I talked about, and he paid for it by going to the war fund that is winding down, and making sure we can fix this problem for 5 months.

It is shocking that my Republican friends would object to this when their constituency is feeling the same pain as the rest of us.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I was unable to attend the rollcall vote that occurred on Monday, April 22, 2013. Had I been present, I would have voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 743, the Marketplace Fairness Act.

I move to lay the motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 719