Floor Statements

Mr. President, I come to the floor tonight heartbroken at the loss of 6 young people and the injuries to 13 more after a devastating gun violence tragedy that occurred on May 23 in the Isla Vista community near Santa Barbara.

As a mother, grandmother, and Senator representing the most unbelievable State in the Union, this latest mass shooting shook me to the core. I was struck by this simple fact: No one is safe in America anymore. No one is safe in America anymore--not in their schools, not in a movie theater, not in their workplace, not in their home, and not on a beautiful college campus overlooking the Pacific Ocean where the victims of this latest horrific attack were busy pursuing their dreams.

I am going to show the faces of the students we lost. Christopher Ross Michaels-Martinez, 20 years old, from Los Osos/Oceano, CA. He was an English major who served as a resident adviser in a campus dorm while maintaining a 4.0 GPA. He was planning to study abroad in London next year, and he dreamed of going to law school like both of his parents. His cousin Jaime described Chris as ``smart, gentle, and kind,'' but with a competitive spirit he showed on the basketball court. His high school basketball coach said, ``he was a coach's dream. He was a team player, he had a great attitude and he was a hard worker who would stay after practice and work on his shots.''

His father Richard said:

Chris was a really good kid. Ask anyone who knew him. His

death has left our family lost and broken.

Veronika Elizabeth Weiss, 19, from Thousand Oaks. She loved sports and

high school. She played on four teams. She started playing softball at the age of 6, and later turned to baseball and was the only girl out of 500 players in the Westlake Baseball League. She was a good student who earned straight A's in high school and graduated with a 4.3 GPA. She was majoring in pre-financial mathematics and statistics. Her father said: ``She wanted to be a financial wizard, and use her high aptitude with complicated math.'' She was a member of the Tri-Delta Sorority, just like her mom and grandmother, and now she is gone.

One of her friends said: ``Veronika was one of the people you knew you wanted to be friends with. She is willing to become friends with anyone and everyone. She is the one person who can make you smile instantly.''

Then there is Katherine ``Katie'' Breann Cooper, 22, of Chino Hills, CA. She was close to her two brothers, and she was weeks away from graduating with a degree in art history. Her friends remember her as fun and outgoing, someone who had ``a very bright smile that lit up a whole room.'' And we can see the smile.

In the words of one family friend, Katie was the ``kind of girl that brought sunshine on an overcast day.'' She loved soccer and running track and helped her family deliver Christmas gifts to her neighbors in Chino Hills every year.

She was also a member of Tri Delta, a ballroom dance teaching assistant, and raised money for St. Jude's Children's Hospital in Memphis. Her friends said she was ``involved in everything'' and ``never slowed down.''

``She was a self-proclaimed princess and I love her for that,'' her friend Courtney said. ``And I know she has a crown on her head today.''

Cheng Yuan ``James'' Hong, 20, San Jose, CA. He was a fourth-year computer engineering major who spent his time volunteering as a teacher assistant at Rainbow Chinese School in Cupertino. He friends described him as a hard-working and bright student who was always willing to help others.

His high school drama teacher in San Jose remembered him as a quiet student who was happy to work backstage to ensure that his classmates could shine.

One of his former classmates said that he was ``one of the kindest, most genuine people I have ever met . . . He was never afraid that his unrelenting kindness might have led to him being taken advantage of. He helped out everybody he knew, myself included, and never asked for anything in return. He was good for the sake of being good, and it is incredibly rare to find people that genuine.''

Then there is George Chen, 19, from San Jose. He graduated from high school in San Jose and had just finished his second year at UC-Santa Barbara where he studied computer science. His father is a software engineer, and George wanted to follow in his dad's footsteps. He liked swimming and hiking and was close to his younger brother, who is 10 years old, despite their age difference. They would play video games together and laugh. Friends described George as a ``gentle soul'' who had a fondness for working with children.

When he went home to visit his parents during breaks from school, his mother said he would always go out of his way to pick up his elderly neighbor's mail and take out their trash. He volunteered for the Buddhist charity group Tzu Chi and as a camp counselor at the YMCA. And he is gone.

Then there is Weihan ``David'' Wang from Fremont, CA, 20 years old. His mother described her son as ``a very, very nice boy,'' the kind who aced his SATs but never bragged about it. He was an avid basketball fan. He played on his high school team in Fremont, and was a big fan of the Los Angeles Lakers.

At UC-Santa Barbara, he studied computer engineering and wanted to start a business with his friends. One friend described David as ``warm-hearted and helpful.'' His parents said that David was ``gentle, kind, loving, joyful, peaceful, faithful, and self-controlled.'' He was supposed to return home for the summer break soon to go on a trip with his family to Yellowstone National Park.

I say to all families who can hear me: Imagine what that does to a mother and father--to a family. David was their only child. His mother said, ``He was always the joy of the family,'' and now he is gone.

These were all bright and talented people who were full of promise and passion. Their dreams and futures were extinguished in an instant of chaos.

Today I join their families, friends, and classmates in mourning their unfathomable loss. Not only that, I stand with them in staunch determination to do everything in my power to stop this senseless violence.

Richard Martinez, the dad of Christopher, said it best. He said he does not want or care about sympathy from politicians. He said to us: ``Get to work and do something.''

The parents of James Hong said the same thing in a letter: ``I know there has been a great injustice, and policy can be improved.'' They added that their son ``can't be here to help anymore, but you can.''

The mother of George Chen said: ``This is not the first time it happens, a killing spree, but I hope it's the last one. No parent should have to go through this.''

And the parents of David Wang wrote: ``It's time to stop gun violence, and be free from fear.'' They are absolutely right. We must act. We cannot sit back and simply accept that nearly 90 Americans are killed every day--and 30,000 are killed every year--from gun violence.

I well remember the Vietnam War because I got involved in politics to try and stop it. It was horrible. We lost more than 50,000 people over 10 years, and we ended that war.

Mr. President, 30,000 are killed every year from gun violence. When are we going to end the war here at home? We cannot accept that every day an average of 8 children and teens under the age of 20 are killed by guns. We cannot accept the fact that children in the United States die by guns 11 times as often as children in other high-income nations. It is an outrage, and it has to end.

We often see the same reaction after mass shootings like this. Some will insist it was just ``the act of a mad man'' and there is nothing you can do to stop a deranged person from going on a rampage. You know what? History says that defeatist attitude is wrong.

Take Australia. In April 1996, a young man killed 35 people and wounded 23 others with a semiautomatic rifle in the so-called Port Arthur massacre, the worst mass shooting in Australian history.

Less than 2 weeks later, the conservative-led national government pushed through fundamental changes to the country's gun laws. Australia's conservative government passed laws that all but prohibited automatic and semiautomatic assault rifles, stiffened licensing and ownership rules, and instituted a temporary gun buyback program that took some 650,000 assault weapons out of public circulation. The law then required licensees to demonstrate a ``genuine need'' for a particular type of gun and take a firearm safety course. Those actions by Australia's leaders made a difference. In the decade before Port Arthur, Australia saw 11 mass shootings. Since then, there has not been a single mass shooting, and the gun murder rate has continued to steadily decline.

In 2011, Australia had 0.86 gun deaths for each 100,000 people--or 25 people. That year the United States had 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 people, or 11,101 Americans. Accounting for the population differences, this is insanity.

Australia said enough is enough. When are we going to do that?

Canadians said enough is enough. In December 1989, a disgruntled student walked into a Montreal engineering school with a semiautomatic and killed 14 students and injured over a dozen others. That tragedy prompted the leaders in Canada to ban more than half of all registered guns, require all gun owners to be at least 18, and obtain a license. You need a license for a car. Why don't you need a license, public safety course, and a background check for a gun? That is what they did.

Canadians said enough is enough, and it paid off. Canada's gun murder rate has declined since passage of these laws, with occasional spikes in gun violence.

In 2009, Canada had 0.5 deaths per 100,000 from gun murders--173 people. The United States had 3 gun murders for every 100,000 that year--that is

11,493 Americans. Come on--173 out of 100,000 compared to 11,493 people out of 100,000? What is wrong with the people here in this country and in this body?

The United Kingdom experienced tragedies that led their leaders to act. In August of 1987, a lone gunman armed with two legally-owned semi-automatic rifles and a handgun went on a 6-hour shooting spree roughly 70 miles west of London, killing 16 people and then himself. Britain expanded the list of banned weapons, including certain semi-automatic rifles. They increased registration requirements for other weapons. Since then, they have banned all handguns, with a few exceptions. The government instituted a buyback program which many credit for taking tens of thousands of illegal or unwanted guns out of supply. Their actions paid off. The UK's gun murder rate since passage of these laws is now less than half of what it used to be.

In 2011 the UK had 0.23 gun deaths per 100,000 people, a fraction of the 10.3 gun deaths per 100,000 in the United States that year. They had 38 gun murders; we had 11,101. What is going on? We have to do some of this here. What are we so scared of?

I said when I started this speech that no one is safe in America because we don't take commonsense steps. I am not saying we ban guns or we ban people from having guns--no--but that we have a system where they have to show they need it. We can do the same things here in America. We can start. How about this: Pass measures that have nearly unanimous support among the American people, wherever they live in our great Nation. Take background checks. Ninety percent of Americans say they support background checks. Because one gun lobby doesn't like it, we turn our backs on 90 percent of the people. What is wrong with us?

We have legislation to expand background checks. It has bipartisan support. We should take it up and pass it and do the work of the people, 90 percent of whom want us to pass background checks.

Assault weapons. Most Americans support banning military-style assault weapons: 81 percent of voters, 71 percent of gun owners, and 60 percent of NRA members. We should pass Senator Feinstein's legislation now and do the work the American people want us to do.

How about high-capacity magazine clips? Seventy-two percent of voters say we should ban the sale of high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Mental health. Lawmakers on both sides support taking action. Let's do it now.

School safety. I authored a bill with Senator Collins to provide the resources needed to make schools safer. Take it up and pass it, and don't load it up with controversy. Pass the things we need to pass. Do it for these families and for God knows all the others who are suffering and crying themselves to sleep every single night, bearing a loss that will never go away.

Here is the situation. In this particular case, we had the family of the gunman who committed the massacre call the police and say: We are very worried about our son. It is haunting to me that they had a feeling about it and they called the police. The police went to interview this troubled young man, and they couldn't see through his problems. They didn't check the gun database we have in California. If they had, they would have seen that he had purchased guns. If they knew that, we would have been in a different circumstance.

So we are introducing legislation called the Pause for Safety Act. This is what it does. No. 1, families and others who are very close to the suspected unstable individual can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order to temporarily stop someone who poses a danger to themselves or others from purchasing a firearm. They can go to court and seek a gun violence prevention order. Let's say it is a group of coworkers who see that this person is threatening or he has written something. They can actually make the case before a judge and get an order, so the person cannot buy guns.

No. 2, it would help ensure that families and others close to the individual can also seek a gun violence prevention warrant which would allow law enforcement to take temporary possession of firearms that already have been purchased. If those police officers had known this individual had bought those weapons--because we do have that database-- they could have gone and gotten the warrant. But under our bill, a family member could do this. They could go to court and seek that gun violence prevention warrant.

No. 3, if law enforcement gets a tip or a warning or a request from a family member, they can then make full use of a gun registry if it exists in their state. It is very important for law enforcement to make use of the gun registry if it exists.

I am very pleased that similar legislation has been introduced in California by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, Assemblyman Das Williams, as well as State Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson.

We all remember the shock and outrage we felt after the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, CT, where a gunman shot 20--babies, I call them-- children--schoolchildren and 6 adult staff members. All of those lives lost, and we said we would take action. We wore ribbons and we came to the floor and we cried. Well, since that shooting, more than 28,000 Americans have died from gun violence--90 people every day. Imagine, if it was anything else that caused the death of 28,000 Americans, we would be on the Senate floor.

The shooting at Sandy Hook and the shooting at UC Santa Barbara are a reminder that we have failed our children. Call it what you want. We are failing our children. We have a basic task to keep our children safe. They look to us, and they believe we will protect them. We have a function here, which is to not allow someone who is unstable and violent to get a weapon. So we need to pull together, and we need to show our children we love them, not by making fancy speeches but by doing the right thing, such as this father said we have to do, Chris's dad. Don't tell me how you love children; don't talk to me about how bad you feel. Do something.

Children need to know they are safe in school. People need to know they are safe at work. People need to feel safe in a restaurant-- anyplace. Let us honor these victims of gun violence by working to end this epidemic. We look at these faces, we look at their eyes, and we know they were just at the start of their adventures, at the height of their productivity, in their twenties.

We have to do something so this doesn't happen again and again and again.

Mr. President, in this work we do so many issues need to be discussed. One of them I have tried to discuss, along with several colleagues, is this incredible threat to our planet caused by climate change. I have participated with my colleagues, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Markey, Senator Cardin, and many others, in all-night speeches and in hearings.

I am so proud to be the chairman of the environment committee. It was many years ago when I took the gavel to become the chairman that I started to really get involved in the details and in the science and in the predictions of scientists as to what could happen. We came very close to doing something important here in the Senate, but we faced a filibuster, and although the House passed a very important bill years ago, we couldn't get it done. We fell six votes short.

At the time, the press said to me: What are you going to do? Are you going to do nothing about this? No, I said. Actually, the most popular law that has ever been passed--I believe it; I haven't taken a poll on it, but I can tell my colleagues from looking at studies that the Clean Air Act covers all kinds of pollution, including carbon pollution. I said that even though we weren't able to have a cap-and-trade system which would put a price on carbon and let people get permits and trade them, I felt that was a good way to work in a capitalistic society, and we didn't go there. I said we have the Clean Air Act. Once an endangerment finding is made--it was started during the Bush administration and completed during the Obama administration--we know the President has full authority to act, with or without the deniers here in the Senate and in the House.

Now, 40 percent of all the carbon is emitted by powerplants, so powerplants are a very important part of the

problem we have to address. We already know the President and the Congress worked together to reduce the pollution coming out of our cars by passing very important fuel economy measures. But this is really the largest problem--those powerplants and the dangerous carbon.

The President understands and looks at his kids and he knows if they are going to have a world in which they can thrive, we have to do something about this problem, and we can't just put our heads in the sand and say the scientists are wrong. Let's not be like the deniers who said smoking didn't cause cancer. Ninety-seven percent of scientists said it did; 3 percent said it didn't. The tobacco lobby went on the side of the bad guys and, for years, we had to fight and prod and push. Guess what happened? People got sick and a lot of them died because there was basically a coverup by the tobacco industry.

We are facing a similar situation. The big special interests are trying to tell the American people: Don't worry about this climate change. It is no big deal. Well, here is the great news: The President has stepped forward. He has taken on carbon pollution from powerplants.

Under current law there is no limit to the amount of carbon pollution that can be released into the air from powerplants. The President's carbon pollution reduction plan is going to change all that. It will protect public health. It will save thousands of lives. It will avoid up to 6,600 premature deaths, 150,000 asthma attacks, 3,300 heart attacks, 2,800 hospital admissions, and 490,000 missed days at school and work will be prevented. Those benefits will kick in.

Here is what is important about that. When we clean up the carbon, we protect the air quality. That is why the President went to a hospital when he announced this. That is why 70 percent of the people-- including, as I recall, a huge majority of Americans--support regulating carbon from powerplants and they are even willing to pay for it. A lopsided and bipartisan majority of Americans support Federal limits on greenhouse gas emissions according to this new poll. Fully 70 percent say the Federal Government should require limits to greenhouse gases from existing plants. What is so interesting: 57 percent of Republicans support it, 76 percent of Independents, and 79 percent of Democrats. So this is a plan whose time has come.

This plan will also create tens of thousands of jobs as we move to a clean energy economy. By reducing carbon pollution, we can avert the most calamitous impacts of climate change, such as rising sea levels, dangerous heat waves, and economic disruption. If we do not act, we could see a 10-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperature, and that is disastrous, really, for all of our States.

I have been so privileged to work on the Senate Climate Action Task Force. What is interesting is that I have listened to people from all over the country talk about what this climate change means in their States. Coastal States have a certain set of problems, inland States, agricultural States, and there are the forest fires that are burning out of control. I hope people will watch the documentary ``Years of Living Dangerously.'' It is really a wake-up call if you have not already awakened to this problem. It is happening all over the world-- fires that do not stop, droughts that the Defense Department is telling us are a real problem.

Do you know how the House of Representatives deals with climate change? They pass a bill that says the Defense Department cannot act on what they have already said, which is that climate change is a real, serious threat multiplier. They actually said now it could be a cause of conflict. Before they said it was a threat multiplier. Now they say it is actually a--they use the word ``catalyst'' for conflict. But the House does not like that, so they just said: It shall be so. We will not talk about this anymore. Stamp my foot--no. Disregard 97 percent of the scientists.

Here is the thing I like about the President's proposal: It is respectful of States' roles. It allows major flexibility. Every State is going to have its own plan. Some States may say: Coal-fired plants, you can clean up a little bit. We will get a little savings there. But we will also do some energy efficiency so you do not have to burn as much coal. This is what is envisioned.

Eventually, we are going to see lower prices for our folks. They say in about 15 years we are going to see an 8-percent decrease. Let me say that again. It is going to shrink electricity bills roughly 8 percent, and that is going to happen because we are going to have increased energy efficiency and reduced demand.

So this poll is very clear. People want action. And the Clean Air Act is very clear.

I think it is important to note that under George Bush we wasted 8 years because they kept saying carbon pollution was not covered in the Clean Air Act. But we had some very smart attorneys who went up there-- and one of them is sitting here--who said: No, no, no. Just read it. If you read it, you will see.

Thank goodness the Supreme Court ruled and said that absolutely greenhouse gas emissions can be regulated if there is an endangerment finding. And there certainly was that. So the Clean Air Act has a proven track record.

I will close with this. To those people who are in denial, I say: Wake up because it is not about you; it is about your kids and your grandkids and their kids. So get out of that phase because you are hurting people--innocent people. This is your time to do something--not to walk away.

For those people who say: Oh, the environment, that is not an important issue to the people--no. It is a big deal. Every time my friends here try to repeal parts of the Clean Air Act, I come to the floor with colleagues. We have stopped them. The House voted 90 times with these terrible riders. We have stopped them every time. Eighty percent of the people support the Clean Air Act. We have to protect our families.

We have seen a country that has thrown the environment under the bus. Now they say they are changing, but let's see what a country looks like--instead of listening to my words, let's look at a photo. As shown in this picture, this is what life is like in some Chinese provinces. They do not care about the environment. They do what some of my friends say: Oh, repeal this--they do not even have these laws to repeal. They do not care. Just develop, just develop, just develop. Do not pay attention. Do not worry about best technologies. Just throw the environment under the bus.

Well, guess what. These people are being thrown under the bus. They cannot breathe. And if you cannot breathe, you cannot work. So even China--they are learning they have to do something to clean up their environment.

But we cannot look like this in the future. I am just telling you. People think, oh, an exaggeration. I had one of my Republican colleagues walk out on me in a hearing because I showed this picture. They said: We do not want this.

I am not saying they want it. I am saying that if you repeal all the provisions of the Clean Air Act that they are trying to repeal--and they want, by the way, to stop us from this rule--that is what is going to happen, not that they want it to happen. Of course they do not want it to happen. They do not think it is going to happen. But this has happened because in China, like us, they have a very big economy, and they are expanding. We want to expand, but we have to do it in a clean way.

So the people of my home State of California get this. They get this. The oil companies came in and they put millions of dollars to try to get us to repeal our cap-and-trade system and our rules and our laws. People said: No, no, no, we are not going there with you, Big Oil. Clean up your act.

My mother used to say: Clean up your room. The room they are polluting belongs to everybody. It is the atmosphere. We all have to clean it up. This is not something we take a pass on. This is the planet Earth itself. Somebody said the other day--some scientist--that the Earth will survive. It will look a lot different. The water will be different. This will be different. There will not be the same things growing and forests will be elsewhere. But what about the people? Well, that was not a good story.

It is up to us. We have a lot on our shoulders. We really do. I am not saying it is easy. Nothing is easy. My dad

used to say: Nothing good comes easy. It is true. We have to try to figure it out.

But I want to say to this President tonight how proud I am that he has stepped up to the plate. All the screaming and the denials and the yelling and the rest and the special interests, which my colleague Senator Whitehouse says has a barricade of lies around the Capitol--and he is just looking at his daughters and he is looking at all the young people he meets, and he is saying: You know what, I have to do something. And he is looking at the military. He is looking at them and he is thinking: I am being told--he is saying--by the Department of Defense that climate change is making this an unstable world.

Actually, there is a very strong case to be made that was made in a documentary that a lot of the cause of the Syrian war started out with the farmers rebelling and revolting because they cannot deal with what is happening to their lives--the farmers.

So whether it is climate change or taking care of our veterans or all the other things facing us--the violence--we have a lot on our plate. I just hope we can step up to the plate, with the best of intentions, work across party lines, do our best, stop playing politics. President Obama says one thing. It does not matter what he says, the other side is all over it. How could that be? How could every single thing a person says be controversial? Sometimes I think if the President said ``Good morning,'' one of the Republicans would say ``It is not; how dare you say it is a good morning?'' That is what it is getting to. We have to put that aside. We are only here for a short amount of time, and we have to do our best to solve the problems the American people face.

So I took a long time tonight because I feel there are so many things out there that I am so privileged to be able to talk about and, more important, I can do something about. So I hope our colleagues will come together on these topics and we can make some progress for the good of the American people.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

I thank Senator Whitehouse. As chair of the conference committee for WRRDA, a committee on which the Senator from Rhode Island and Senator Vitter also served, I agree with the Senator's understanding of section 4014. Like Rhode Island, California also has strong leadership on coastal and oceans issues and will benefit from increased collaboration with the Corps of Engineers on coastal and ocean resiliency issues.

The Army Corps was clear that when a project is identified in the study associated with Section 4014, it may be carried out in accordance with the criteria for one of the four existing CAPs referenced in the section, but it will be not funded through or authorized by those CAP authorities. Section 4014 provides its

own funding authorization, and accordingly any project authorized by Section 4014 would be funded by appropriations for that authority.

Madam President, I am joined by the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee to discuss a provision of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act conference report, which we will vote on shortly in the Senate.

Title II, subtitle B includes a number of important provisions related to port and harbor maintenance. In addition to setting annual spending goals for funds from the harbor maintenance trust fund, HMTF, and providing a set-aside for spending on emerging ports, the section now authorizes new expanded uses of the HMTF. The expanded use authority, which includes dredging of berths and disposal of contaminated dredge material, is limited to those ports that collect more HMTF taxes than they receive in HMTF spending.

I also want to note that these new uses are prioritized for the ports that collect much larger amounts of the HMTF fees than they receive in return because the many industries that pay these fees to access American ports deserve to have some of those funds used to improve the facilities they depend on for movement of goods.

These ports have unmet needs that shippers into these ports expect to be addressed. In my home State, we have two large ports--Los Angeles and Long Beach. These two ports collect over a quarter of all revenue for the HMTF, but because of the natural conditions at these ports, they require little to almost no traditional dredging to maintain the federally authorized channels. They do have needs related to berth dredging and disposal of some contaminated sediments.

These expanded use authorities are new and separate from the traditional uses of the HMTF. These new, expanded uses are not limited to the traditional HMTF focus--dredging of the Federal navigation channel. Instead, these are designed to meet additional maintenance needs beyond traditional cost-shared dredging projects.

Specifically, the conference agreement authorizes dredging of berths that are accessible to a Federal navigation channel and that benefit commercial navigation at the harbor. This permits expenditure of HMTF revenues for maintenance of non-Federal berthing areas to a depth required to access the federally authorized channel. The conference agreement does not place any other restriction on the use of these funds; therefore, these funds are eligible for maintenance dredging of berths to any depths necessary to access the federally authorized navigation channel as long as the berth is in a harbor that is accessible to a Federal navigation channel and the dredging benefits commercial navigation.

The conference report also authorizes dredging and disposal of contaminated sediments if such activities provide a benefit to commercial navigation and affect navigation of a Federal navigation project or are located in a berth that is accessible to a Federal navigation project. This provision will enable the HMTF to fund the disposal of legacy-contaminated sediment and sediment unsuitable for open water disposal that affect navigation at a Federal navigation project. This could include a range of cost-effective contaminated sediment removal and disposal activities as long as they provide a benefit to commercial navigation. No limitation beyond the benefit to commercial navigation and the linkage to a Federal navigation project is included.

Mr. Vitter. I thank Senator Boxer for the discussion of expanded uses of the HMTF. I agree with her understanding of the berth dredging and contaminated sediment disposal eligibilities, which are important to many of our Nation's major commercial ports. Expanding the uses of the HMTF is critical to those ports that are major contributors to the HMTF, yet receive minimal expenditures; therefore, the conference agreement establishes specific criteria for use of this authority. I look forward to working with the Senator more in the future on the implementation of the HMTF provisions in this conference report, including the expanded use provision we are discussing as well as increased expenditures of harbor maintenance trust fund revenues and prioritization of dredging at other key ports, such as the Port of New Orleans.

I thank Senator Vitter for that response. It is important that we are clear on how these new authorities should be implemented.

I also want to highlight how these authorities will benefit my home State of California. In the case of the Port of Los Angeles, the main channels and turning basins are authorized to at least 53-foot depth and have been recently dredged to such depths. Most adjacent container berths were also federally authorized at 53 feet and have been dredged to that depth. As shoaling/siltation occurs, maintenance dredging must be performed in order to keep adequate depth for the large container ships. The new expanded use for berth dredging will permit the maintenance dredging of these berth areas, down to the federally authorized depth.

This new use for disposal of contaminated sediment is also important for the Port of Los Angeles because legacy sediment contamination from the Consolidated Slip at the port will migrate during storm events down the Dominguez Channel and into the newly deepened Federal turning basin and main channel. This new expanded use will now allow the HMTF to fund the removal of this sediment.

I am glad that the conference agreement could address this important need for California ports as well as many other ports around the country. I am also very pleased with all of the other important reforms to the harbor maintenance trust fund included in the conference report. The proper and full maintenance of our nation's ports is of vital importance as we seek to compete in the global economy. The HMTF provisions and other important elements in the WRRDA 2014 help support American jobs, while maintaining America's ability to compete in the global economy.

Dam Optimization

Madam President, I thank Ranking Member Vitter and Senator Cornyn for the discussion of section 1046(a) in the WRRDA conference report. I agree with their understanding and interpretation of this section and wish to address the importance of this provision. In my home State, which is currently facing a historic drought, it is critical that the Corps examine its reservoir operations to increase flexibility so that it can better meet all of the State's water needs, including agriculture, municipal uses, and the environment. Unfortunately, in California, the Corps does not look often enough at how it can better operate its reservoirs to meet multiple needs. This provision does not change the authorized purpose of any reservoir and paragraph (6), ``Effects of subsection,'' makes this clear. The provision simply creates a more transparent process under existing law so that Congress and local communities can work with the Corps to improve management of Federal reservoirs that provide important benefits to local communities.

ACF and ACT River Systems

Colleagues, I am going to take 25 seconds. This is a great day for the Senate, for every single Member in this body, and our States, for jobs, for business, for ecosystem restoration, for our oceans. It is a great bill. I hope we will have a great vote on this bill.

Senator Vitter and I agree. I will yield my remaining time to him.

Madam President, I want to commend the extraordinary work of Cooks from the Valley, a volunteer organization dedicated to supporting our Nation's servicemembers, veterans and their families.

Cooks from the Valley was established in Bakersfield, CA, by local resident Tom Anton, to bring the taste of home cooking to military members stationed all over the world.

What first began with one person in Bakersfield has grown to a diverse group of service-minded volunteers from coast to coast bound by one common goal: to say thank you to the men and women who serve in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Our military members and their families have made tremendous sacrifices and they deserve nothing less than the full and enduring support of a grateful nation. As co-chair of the Senate Military Family Caucus, I want to express my deepest gratitude to everyone at Cooks from the Valley--Mr. Anton, the volunteers, and many community supporters for their steadfast support of our servicemembers, veterans, and their families.

These dedicated Americans generously volunteer their time and resources to travel to all corners of the globe, providing our servicemembers with a taste of home that has boosted the spirits and filled the stomachs of those who put their lives on the line each and every day in service to our Nation. Cooks from the Valley's unique way of giving back to our military men and women should be an inspiration to us all.

As Americans, we have an obligation to give back to those who give so much for us. For many years, Cooks from the Valley has worked to fulfill this responsibility and I know they will continue to make a difference in the lives of our military families for many years to come.

Madam President, what is the order?

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for as much time as I may consume until that time.

Madam President, Senator Cruz makes an impassioned plea against a nominee who is considered by some to be exemplary. It is his right to do that, but let me say before my friend leaves the floor, as impassioned as he is, calling Mr. Barron a liberal, I have heard many call Mr. Barron a conservative. So he must be doing something right. I think it is interesting. So let's keep politics out of this and look at someone's record.

Madam President, with all the arguments and debate that go on around here in a very legitimate way--it is fair. The parties have grown very far apart--whether you look at the minimum wage, with the Democrats wanting to raise it, with some Republicans who say do away with it altogether; with extended unemployment benefits, where we can barely get a handful of them to go along with us--I could go on through the list. We are going to have a chance to make sure students have a fair shot at refinancing their student loans. We do not know where they are, but so far I have not seen them join Senator Warren in her very important move to allow students to refinance their student loans. I could go through a list longer than I am tall. I am not that tall, but still it is 5 feet of differences.

We finally have come together in a way that I am very proud. As chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, we have two sides of our committee--the environment side, which tends to be very difficult, very difficult, with big splits; and then we have the public works side. By putting aside our differences--our deep differences--on the environment and focusing on the other side, we have been able to come up with a couple of really good bills.

The first one is the Water Resources Reform and Development Act called WRRDA. It is so important to our Nation, whether you are a coastal port or an inland port, and it is crucial that this get done.

The last WRDA bill was nearly 7 years ago. I was proud to be involved in that at that time. This one--7 years later--is long overdue. I am going to talk to you more about it. We also voted out a highway bill out of our committee. We are very proud of that. Senator Vitter and I worked very closely, and Senator Barrasso, Senator Carper, and all the Members on both sides and their wonderful staffs.

So tomorrow, I believe, we are going to vote on WRRDA, we are going to vote on the water bill. I know we have a very hectic day tomorrow, so rather than take the time then, I am going to take the time now, and I am hoping to be joined by some colleagues today. But if not, I will lay out why we need to do this bill.

First, I want to say a wonderful thing happened in the House yesterday when the conference report passed over in the House 412 to 4. That was really pretty terrific. Everyone pretty much rose above partisan politics. I am very pleased that Senator Reid is moving forward with this report and all colleagues on both sides want us to pass that conference report and send it to the President. He will sign this bill.

Let me tell you what is at stake: at least half a million jobs--half a million jobs.

First of all, we deal with ports and waterways. The conference agreement makes important investments in reforms related to our Nation's ports. Our Nation's ports and waterways move over 2.3 billion tons of goods--that is amazing--every year; 2.3 billion tons of goods. So we need to keep our ports modernized. We need to invest in our ports. So in this bill we do.

We include a project in Texas, for example, to widen and deepen the Sabine-Neches waterway, which will have over $115 million in annual benefits. This critical waterway transports over 100,000 tons of goods every year. It is the Nation's top port for movement of commercial military goods. And it is vital to our Nation's energy security.

This bill will allow the Corps to address dangerous cross currents at the Port of Jacksonville, FL--that is another example--that create safety concerns for ships entering and exiting the port. It also allows the deepening of this vital hub of commerce.

The bill also authorizes a project to deepen the Boston Harbor to 50 feet. This will prevent heavier road traffic in the busy Northeastern corridor by allowing larger vessels coming through the newly deepened Panama Canal to transport cargo all the way north to Boston Harbor. Without the access to Boston, these vessels would have to offload in other ports and put the cargo on trucks to their final destinations in the Northeast.

Madam President, what I would like to do now is yield to my friend, the Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu.

I just want to say--and I will finish my remarks when she has completed hers because she has a very hectic schedule and I am able to stay on the floor for a while--whenever I see Senator Landrieu she talks to me about her State. And her State is magnificent. I have been there. I was there after Katrina, at her urging. I have been there since to see some of the progress we have made. But Louisiana is a special place. And this special Senator never forgets what needs to be done, and part of it is playing a big role in a bill like the Water Resources Reform and Development Act.

So at this time I will yield, if it is all right, through the Chair. Am I permitted to do this? Can I yield the time that I took to my friend for as much time as she may consume?

You're welcome.

I reclaim my time. I want to again say to the Senator that she has made this case. This WRRDA bill is life and death. It truly is in so many of our States. We all saw Katrina. We all saw Superstorm Sandy. I can tell you--I know it sounds like an overstatement, but I can assure you it is not--if we have a situation like that in the Sacramento area, because of the businesses located there and how many people are there--our State has 38 million people-- the devastation would be worse than we have ever seen because of the number of people.

This bill takes care of that problem too so we can fix our levees. That is critical. Our levees are falling apart. The Senator has made the case so forcefully for her State, but also she calls attention to the fact that we are experiencing extreme weather. We cannot put our heads in the sand. I was thinking the other day that if you put your head in the sand, you are going to get sand in your eye and you will never be able to see too well.

We have got to get our heads out of the sand. Extreme weather is here. It is here because of climate change. We have to deal with it. My preference is to do what we can to avoid climate change. But it is late in the game even now. So we have to adapt. My friend from Louisiana, I have to say, has been a stalwart in protecting her State.

We have heard from the Senator from Louisiana as to why WRRDA is so important. You have heard a little bit from me. I was talking about the important projects across this Nation. I discussed the one in Texas, through which they move so many military goods. I discussed the one in Florida where they have these cross currents that are dangerous. I began to discuss a project to deepen Boston Harbor to 50 feet. This will prevent heavier road traffic in the busy Northeast corridor by allowing the larger vessels coming through from the newly deepened Panama Canal to transport cargo all the way north to Boston Harbor.

Without that access to Boston, these vessels would have to offload in other ports and put the cargo on trucks to their final destination in the Northeast. We really have to think about our ports as the alternative, in many cases, to putting cars on the road. In our State, we call it kind of the ``sea highway.'' Our idea in California is to tie our ports together so there can be a seamless way to transport cargo.

In addition to authorizing crucial port projects, the bill reforms the harbor maintenance trust fund to increase port investment. Despite significant maintenance needs at our Nation's ports, only roughly half of the fees collected in the harbor maintenance trust fund go to port activities. These are user funds. They ought to be used for the purpose for which they were intended. This conference report calls for a full expenditure of all revenues collected in the trust fund by 2025.

I want to say, I have had some very good talks with the appropriators, Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby. They have ports in their great States. They know the need to utilize these funds at the ports. We collect funds for the harbor maintenance trust fund, and then they are going to every other kind of use. It does not make sense. It is not right. I believe in user funds, whether it is the highway trust fund, the harbor maintenance trust fund, whether it is Social Security, Medicare--they are targeted funds. They should stay and be used for those purposes.

We do set priorities for our larger ports, smaller ports, for the Great Lakes, the seaports that are large donors. We say, if you are a large donor port, you ought to deserve to have some attention. I can tell you, I represent the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, through which 40 percent of U.S. container imports pass.

They put so much money into the trust fund and they get so little back. There are many cases like that. I am particularly familiar with these because I hear from the folks from those particular ports.

We also have very important inland waterway systems, and this conference report makes important reforms to those. It is essential for transporting goods throughout the country. These include efforts to expedite project delivery and better prepare for future floods and droughts that can slow or even stop navigation at our inland waterways.

We talked a little bit about extreme weather. In the Presiding Officer's State, I will never forget, just before your arrival in the Senate, seeing pictures of what was happening in North Dakota with floods and fires. It was just the most apocalyptic scene that Senator Conrad had photos of. It was shocking.

We are seeing more and more of this extreme weather. We need to get ahead of it. We need to do much needed flood control and coastal hurricane protection projects around the country.

We talked a little bit about Sacramento, our State capital. It faces some of the Nation's most severe flood risks.

The bill contains flood protection measures that will allow the port to strengthen the levees in the Natomas Basin in Sacramento. Here is how many people will be safeguarded: 100,000 people will be safeguarded and $8 billion worth of property.

The bill also focuses on lifesaving flood protection for more than 200,000 residents of Fargo, ND, and Moorhead, MN.

We are talking about States all across our great Nation that have to protect their people.

The bill will restore the reliability of the levee system that protects Topeka, KS. These levees protect thousands of homes and businesses in the city, and this project will return over $13 in benefits for every $1 invested.

The bill will provide lifesaving protection for coastal communities in coastal Louisiana. We heard from Senator Landrieu. Senator Vitter was very strong on this as we worked together.

When we are chairmen, we have to do what is right for the country and also do what is right for our States. The conference report is going to improve our responses to extreme weather events whether they occur in Fargo, Sacramento, or New Orleans.

After the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina and Superstorm Sandy, it became clear that communities needed assistance to protect lives, property, and to improve infrastructure resiliency. What does ``resiliency'' mean? It means that you build your infrastructure in a resilient way so that it lasts and doesn't collapse when you need that protection.

For the first time, this bill allows the Corps to conduct immediate assessments of affected watersheds following an extreme weather event. In the old days, before all this extreme weather, the Corps would come back and fix places and make them just the way they were before the event. Now we are saying: If there is an extreme weather event, please, Corps, identify and look at the ability to construct small flood- control and ecosystem restoration projects, such as levees and floodwalls, and restore wetlands without going through the full study process and receiving additional congressional authorization.

We don't waive any environmental laws. We just say: When you have an emergency and you can show us there are small projects that can work, just go do it because we want people to have their communities back.

The conference report calls for the Corps to use resilient construction techniques that are far more durable. I remember I was in a big debate with a Republican Senator when we had a bridge collapse after an earthquake--an approach to a bridge--and he said: Well, why are you spending more money than it cost to build it?

I said: Because we don't want to rebuild it the same way because it didn't withstand an earthquake.

It is kind of a ``duh'' moment. You don't want to spend taxpayer money rebuilding a flawed piece of infrastructure. Make it strong, and make it resilient. That is what we have to do. For the first time, we are going to make sure this happens.

We require the National Academy of Sciences and the GAO to evaluate options for reducing risk. It is not only the Corps going out there. They are going to depend upon the scientists and they are going to depend upon the GAO, the Government Accountability Office.

The bill authorizes investment in vital ecosystem restoration projects across this Nation. These projects not only preserve our precious natural heritage, they also provide essential benefits to local communities, such as improved flood protection and a boost to local tourism.

A lot of people don't understand the function of a wetland. You see a stretch of wetland and you say: Wow, that is flat land. I can go build on it.

Frankly, over the course of our great Nation's history, that is what we used to do. We filled in those wetlands. We ignored the fact that they were a gift for us to protect. Not only were they beautiful, a place for wildlife, and they helped the air quality, but they acted as natural flood control. When we hear Senator Landrieu discuss this--I went to Louisiana, and I saw how critical that was. The wetlands restoration is critical to absorbing the floodwaters so they don't destroy property and lives.

WRRDA continues the commitment to restoring one of the Nation's greatest environmental treasures--the Florida Everglades.

If you have never seen the Florida Everglades, you need to see the Florida Everglades. It is called a river of grass. It is extraordinary. I will never forget it. Senator Nelson invited my husband and me. He, his wife, my husband, and I went out, saw this river of grass, flora and fauna, and deer jumping from a little patch of grass in the water. It is a miracle from God.

What we do is we allow four Everglades restoration projects to move forward.

We also reauthorize important restoration programs in the Chesapeake Bay and the Columbia River Basin. I thank Senator Cardin for his amazing leadership and, of course, Senator Mikulski as well.

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

If you have been following this speech, I think what you will recognize is how broad a swath we cut with the WRRDA bill. We truly tried to step back and help everybody. This is one Nation, and we need to take care of our heritage. That means we have to protect it from floods and hurricanes, we have to make sure commerce can move forward from our ports, and we want to restore this God-given environment we are supposed to protect.

We direct the Corps to give priority to ecosystem restoration projects that will also provide benefits for public health. This ensures that projects such as the restoration of the Salton Sea--where I live--which both restores vital habitat and addresses serious air- quality concerns, can move forward.

The Salton Sea is amazing. It is an incredible lake. It is the stop- off point for the most amazing array of wildlife. It is drying up. If it continues to go this way, it will not only be a disaster for the wildlife, but it will be a disaster for the people because the odors that are coming from this drying-up sea float all the way to Los Angeles, where we have millions of people. And the jobs we could create there with clean energy and other types of development--we have to move on that.

So I was excited to see that everyone agrees that if you have a body of water that is deteriorating, that, if you don't pay attention to it, could cause a public health crisis, then it should have some kind of a priority.

The conference report also addresses important ocean and coastal resiliency issues, allowing the Corps to carry out ocean and coastal resiliency projects in coordination with a broad range of stakeholders, including States, Federal agencies, and NGOs.

I compliment Sheldon Whitehouse for the work he put into this provision. It is very important. Our oceans and our coasts are not only magnificent gifts, but they truly are important to our economy.

People who come to California like to see the whole State, but people gravitate to the coast. It is so magnificent, and we have to make sure we treat our coasts and oceans right. That means making sure that if they are endangered, we do something about it.

This is a first. This is exciting for Sheldon Whitehouse, and I am very thrilled to have been able to help him.

I have to give a shout-out to Senator Reid, without whom this provision wouldn't have made it in the bill. We were down to that one issue. We had taken care of 150 issues, but we were down to that one issue. Leader Reid was able to help us. And I thank the House for working with us.

I don't know how many of you have heard of TIFIA, which is a program we expanded in the highway bill. What it does is it leverages funds. So if our States or localities in our States passed a half-cent sales tax to build transportation, the Federal Government now has a way, through the TIFIA Program, to come around up front, take a project that has, say, 20 years of revenue coming in, pay that up-front cost right there, and build that project quickly.

We did the same for water. We call it WIFIA, and it is a new initiative. We hope that it will be interesting to folks and that they will use it. We will assist localities in need of loans for flood control or wastewater and drinking water infrastructure to receive those loans from this new funding mechanism, the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act.

WIFIA will allow localities an opportunity to move forward with water infrastructure projects in the same way TIFIA does in transportation. Where there is a local source of funding, the Federal Government can front those funds.

The TIFIA Program is working so well. I just went to an amazing press conference with the folks from Los Angeles. They have been given an $800 million TIFIA loan that is enabling them to build a subway. It is very exciting, and the Federal Government has no risk--almost zero risk--because the funds will be paid back from the sales tax.

These new WIFIA funding arrangements supplement existing programs to help leverage more investment in our Nation's aging infrastructure. The conference report also updates the Clean Water State Revolving Fund to ensure that our existing sources of water infrastructure funding are able to continue to meet pressing needs.

Chief's reports: The conference report authorizes 34 critical Army Corps projects where the Chief of Engineers has completed a comprehensive study.

This was an absolute necessity for the Senate. The House and Senate came at this in a very different way. Their priority was making sure they could hold hearings on all the chief's reports. Our priority was saying: Look, we are not going to go ahead with any project that doesn't have a completed chief's report. So that is the ``r'' for reform--their reform, making sure Congress holds the hearings; our reform, making sure that we include completed chief's reports.

We are very happy about these chief's reports. They are all over the Nation. I gave some examples in the beginning of my statement. These projects will restore vital ecosystems, preserve our natural heritage, and maintain navigation routes for commerce and movement of goods.

In the future, looking forward, how are we going to continue, because these WRDA bills come every 7 years. It is very slow. What is a better way to deal with the future needs of our States?

We developed a system with the House that allows local sponsors--such as someone from the State of the Presiding Officer, a flood control agency in the State--to make their case now directly to the Army Corps, and then the Corps would recommend those projects to Congress.

It is interesting that we took ourselves--because of the earmark ban--out of the picture. It allows people from Fargo, from Los Angeles, from Humboldt--wherever they are from--to go and see the Corps and make the case

for their project. Then the Corps would say: We sat down with these local officials. There are 10 or 15 projects we think are important.

That is going to be a new way we are going to give more local input.

I am very excited and happy to be standing on the floor today on this issue because it was 1 year ago almost to the day that the Senate passed the Boxer-Vitter WRDA bill by a vote of 83 to 14. It was just over 1 year ago. It has been 1 year--1 year of being in conference; 1 year of struggling with issue after issue; 1 year of people saying: That is it, we are done, we are walking out the door--wait, come back. It has been a year. When you read how a bill becomes a law, it sounds so simple. It says the House passes a bill, then the Senate passes a bill, then there are conferees and they get together and they work it out, and then it comes back and everyone is smiling and happy and they pass it, and then the bill goes to the President. Well, it is not exactly that way. It is a lot of give and take.

Sometimes you do have a bill that is not as complex as these here, and it can go smoothly. But how a bill becomes a law depends on who is in the room, it depends on what is happening nationwide, it depends on who the President is, and so many different things. But we were able to do this.

So 1 year ago we passed it in the Senate, and tomorrow, I believe, we are going to pass the conference report. The agreement will cost roughly the same as the Senate-passed bill and well below the last WRDA bill. One might ask why? Well, it is because as we authorized new projects, we deauthorized old projects. And that is important. We were able to go better than one-for-one in deauthorizing and authorizing.

Also, we had a very good talk with the CBO--the Congressional Budget Office. It is rare I have ever said a ``good talk'' with the CBO, because while the Presiding Officer is very good at accounting--a genius at that--I can tell you they do not make any sense to me. But Senator Vitter and I were actually able to persuade them on this bill to be realistic in the way we score it. If a State isn't going to be able to come up with their matching funds for 10 years, don't put this in as a cost in the first year. So the CBO was very open to working with us, and for that I thank them. It is a rarity, putting common sense on the table.

In closing, I thank all of the staff on both sides of the aisle who put in countless hours to develop this bipartisan, bicameral agreement. They didn't just work until midnight, 3 a.m., they worked on it 24/7 for all these months. I thank Bettina Poirier, my incredible chief of staff of the EPW Committee, my chief counsel, our guiding light, our guiding star; Jason Albritton, who is here with me today, who has worked nonstop, and will continue to do it until it is over, right, and get it ready for the President to sign; and Ted Illston, who is on the floor and is a wonderful, wonderful staffer; and Tyler Rushforth.

These are the key people on my staff. One would think it would be 20 or 30 more, but it is not. It is this handful of people who made this happen for all of us.

I have to say I got to know Senator Vitter's staff so well, and we laughed at times. There was some irony involved in all of this. I would like to thank Zak Baig, Charles Brittingham, Chris Tomassi on Senator Vitter's staff. And Senator Vitter himself. Again, we were able to set aside a lot of differences we have on climate, on environment, on clean air, clean water, safe drinking water, where we go at it--nuclear power safety. We go at it. But we were able to say for the good of the people, we have to show people we can set aside our differences and come together. We did it here, we did it on the highway bill, and now it is time for the Senate to show the American people we can truly come together and pass this bill.

I do want to show one more thing before I leave the floor, and that is some of the organizations that have supported us and that support this bill. I can't read them all; it would take too long, but I will highlight some of these: the AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department, the American Association of Port Authorities, the American Concrete Pavement Association--I am passing over a lot of these--the Associated General Contractors of America, the Association of California Water Agencies, the Association of State Dam Safety Officials, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the American Farm Bureau Federation.

Let me give a few more. These are the supporters. The Arkansas Waterways Commission, the Big River Coalition, the City of Sacramento, the City of Los Angeles, Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute, the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund Fairness Coalition, the International Union of Operating Engineers, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, the National League of Cities, the National Governors Association, the National Asphalt Paving Association, and the National Association of Clean Water Agencies.

The list goes on. Here are a few more, in case anyone is interested. The National Ready Mix Concrete Association, the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, the National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association, the Santa Clara Valley Water District, The Nature Conservancy, the Texas Department of Transportation, the United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters, the U.S. Society of Dams, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Vinyl Institute, the Water Resources Coalition, the Waterways Council, Inc.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the entire list of these supporters.

To those who are listening as I read from this list, it did include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, it did include the AFL-CIO, Transportation Trades Department, which is so encouraging, and the National Governors Association. And I guess I will read this one:

The nation's governors applaud Congress for reaching an

agreement that provides states with the resources to address

their critical water infrastructure needs . . . governors

urge the House and Senate to pass the WRRDA conference report

and send it to the President for signature as soon as

possible.

I want to say how much I endorse what the Governors said. Send this bill to the President as soon as possible.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention Congressman Shuster, who heads my counterpart committee in the House. Congressman Shuster was a delight to work with, even when it got tough for me. We had some tough, tough disagreements, but he stuck with it.

I also want to congratulate him on his victory yesterday, and I want to tell him, through this statement, how much I look forward to working with him on the Transportation bill. If we can do this, we can do that. That is important because we have to keep America moving. We are the greatest Nation on Earth, but you can't be the greatest Nation on Earth if you don't have modern water infrastructure, if your cities are flooding, if your ports can't move products. You can't. And you certainly can't have a great nation when you cannot have a highway system that functions, a transportation system that functions. You can't. There is no such thing. Because if you can't move commerce, if you can't move people, you can't move America forward.

I will say again, my deepest thanks to staff, my deepest thanks to Senator Vitter, my deepest thanks to Senator Carper, to my entire committee, Senator Barrasso, to Congressman Shuster, to Senator Reid, to all of you, because this was one of those labors of love in which we all engage. We all wanted a bill, and we put away our little side arguments, came together, and now we have a bill that is a multibillion-dollar bill that will build our Nation and that is going to help our commerce and it is going to put 500,000 people to work. I couldn't be happier. I look forward to this vote tomorrow.

One more person I will thank: Congressman Nick Rahall, who worked as the ranking member with Mr. Shuster. The two of them were a great team, and we were able to cut across the partisan divide, cut across the House-Senate divide, tough as it was.

It is a great day. It is a great day in the U.S. Senate and in the Congress, and I look forward to the President's signing this bill.

With that, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, we yield back all of our time.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, today I ask my colleagues to join me in honoring Dr. Charles Monell as he retires from the Rancho Mirage Library Advisory Commission after two decades of service and dedication to the library and the community it serves.

Throughout a long and distinguished career in medicine, including as the chief of surgery at the Beverly Glen Hospital in Los Angeles, Dr. Monell also gave generously of his time to a variety of charitable causes, especially those supporting music and education. Being particularly devoted to supporting public libraries, Dr. Monell served on the California State Library Commission for 14 years prior to retiring from medicine in 1992 and becoming a full-time resident of Rancho Mirage, which was working to establish its first public library.

In 1993, Dr. Monell was appointed to the Rancho Mirage Public Library Planning Committee, and led the effort to convert a former bank building into the first library. On January 6, 1996, as chairman of the new Rancho Mirage Public Library Commission, he introduced President Gerald Ford for the ribbon-cutting ceremony and formal opening of the Rancho Mirage Public Library.

The library was up and running, but Dr. Monell did not stop there. In 2003, he secured a gift of $2 million from the Annenberg Foundation to purchase land for a new and larger Rancho Mirage Public Library, which opened on January 6, 2006--10 years to the day after the first library opening.

Dr. Monell has shared his lifelong love of music with the library and the community. With his personal contributions and fundraising efforts, he helped the library purchase a Steinway concert grand piano and sponsored concert performances by the acclaimed musicians of the Idyllwild Arts Academy. He has also donated his personal Civil War library to the Rancho Mirage Library, and generously made possible a private study room in the library for the community to use.

On May 12, the Library Advisory Commission honored Dr. Monell for his extraordinary devotion to the library and his 18 years of service on the commission. On June 5, Mayor Iris Smotrich will present Dr. Monell with a proclamation from the City of Rancho Mirage in appreciation of his distinguished service.

I am pleased to join them in saluting Dr. Charles Monell for his dedicated and inspiring service to the community of Rancho Mirage.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

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 21, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SR-253 of the Russell Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing entitled ``Delivering Better Health Care Value to Customers: the First Three Years of the Medical Loss Ratio''.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2 p.m. in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., to hold a hearing entitled ``Authorization For Use of Military Force After Iraq And Afghanistan.''

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 21, 2014, at 10 a.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 21, 2014, in room SD-628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, at 2:30 p.m., to conduct a hearing entitled ``Indian Education Series: Ensuring the Bureau of Indian Education has the Tools Necessary to Improve.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 2:15 p.m., to hold an African Affairs and East Asian and Pacific Affairs subcommittee hearing entitled, ``The Escalating International Wildlife Trafficking Crisis: Ecological, Economic and National Security Issues.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy of the Committee on Finance be authorized to

meet during the session of the Senate on May 21, 2014, at 10 a.m., in room SD-215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Strengthening Social Security to Meet the Needs of Tomorrow's Retirees.''

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

Mr. President, under the order I ask unanimous consent for 20 minutes to address the Senate.

Mr. President, I rise to urge Senator Reid to say a very clear no to the request by 37 Republicans that we create a new Senate select committee on Benghazi. I was astounded to see 37 Republicans-- many of whom have worked on this issue with me and Senator Menendez on the Foreign Relations Committee--essentially make this request at a time when we have so much information already on Benghazi. To spend the funds for this separate committee--in addition to the one the House has set up--doesn't make sense unless you believe, as I do, that this is all a political witch hunt.

The attacks of September 11, 2012, in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, were a tragedy. After such a tragedy, we should all come together and make certain that this never happens again, but we should not play politics. Instead of focusing and agreeing on how we can prevent future attacks against U.S. personnel overseas--as they have had an opportunity to do by adding more funding for diplomatic posts to protect our people--the Republicans want to turn the Benghazi-Libya tragedy into a scandal. That is scandalous. The way they are handling this issue is a scandal.

The American people are smart. I have seen recent polls, and they get it. More than 60 percent--and I will look that up again--say this is all about politics; it is not about anything else.

I wish to explain to the American people what we have done about this tragedy. Over the last 20 months, these attacks have received unprecedented scrutiny. I have a chart I wish to share that explains it.

We have had nine House and Senate investigations on Benghazi. We have conducted 17 hearings. We have held 50--5-0--briefings. We have conducted 25 interviews, issued 8 subpoenas, and reviewed 25,000 pages of documents. There are 25,000 pages of documents that have been reviewed. We have had six reports released. All of these little boxes represented here show the various hearings, the various committees, the various briefings, the various documents. We look at this chart and realize this is unprecedented.

Nine different House and Senate committees have investigated the attacks. Seventeen hearings have been conducted. Fifty briefings have taken place. Twenty-five transcribed interviews have been conducted. Eight subpoenas have been issued. More than 25,000 pages of documents have been reviewed, and 6 congressional reports have been released.

I have gone over this a couple of times this morning because I want to make sure the Record reflects all of this accurately.

In case that is not enough to convince the people of this country what a witch hunt the Republicans are on, I will show my colleagues a partial viewing of the materials, if my colleagues will excuse me while I bend down. That is just one stack of binders. All of these binders are filled--filled--with all of the information that came out of these reports.

So before people get up here and say, Oh, we need more information, how about reading what we already have: stacks and stacks of information.

Within these binders are the reports and the testimony Congress has already heard over the last 20 months, but my Republican friends would have us believe none of this happened and none of what the chart depicts happened. They are not satisfied with exhaustive reviews, much of which was conducted by House Republican committee Chairs, by the way. They walk away from their own work because they are playing politics. They should be proud of the work they did, but this isn't about the work they did. It is about playing politics. It is about hurting people--hurting people.

Benghazi was a tragedy. We lost four beautiful, patriotic Americans. Don't turn it into a scandal.

I guess these filled binders were not enough for them in the House of Representatives.

I will take these down now.

This wasn't enough for them: 9 committees, 17 hearings, 50 briefings, 25 interviews, 8 subpoenas, 25,000 pages of documents, 6 reports. All of this was not enough for them. The House set up a new select committee and, again, 37 of my Republican friends now want their own select committee. That is right; they want two new committees to investigate what has been investigated, investigated, and investigated.

A person doesn't need a degree in political science to know what a political witch hunt looks like. All a person needs to do is to look at this and a person understands. This is a campaign tactic by my Republican colleagues to gin up their base ahead of the midterm election and, by the way, look ahead to 2016, where they are filled with anxiety at the thought that the former Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, may be the Democratic nominee.

This is a campaign tactic, this call for these committees. We know Republicans have been actively fundraising off this tragedy. That is right; they have been fundraising off this tragedy. When Speaker Boehner was asked about it, all he did was walk away from the question. I watched that interview. It was painful.

They said: Aren't you going to stop the fundraising?

He said: We are just interested in the facts.

They said: Aren't you going to stop this fundraising?

He said: We are just interested in the facts.

Answer the question. We know it is a political witch hunt because before he was minding his Ps and Qs, the House Select Committee chairman suggested the administration should be put on ``trial'' over Benghazi--put on trial.

We also know the House GOP refused House minority leader Nancy Pelosi's offer to put an equal number of Democrats and Republicans on the panel. Oh, no, because it is a political witch hunt and they want total control over that committee.

Here is one issue I know the select committee won't be investigating in the House, and that is the budget cuts House Republicans made to security at our embassies and at our consulates, at our diplomatic posts around the world--cuts that Republicans actually boasted about making. Here in the Senate, we have tried to get through an embassy security bill by unanimous consent and they objected I don't know how many times--a couple of times.

So we are not going to see an investigation into why the Republicans thought it was wise to cut spending on embassy security. Oh, no, they won't look at that. One Congressman in the House was asked by CNN whether the GOP cut embassy security, because the reporter was incredulous, and this Congressman said: Absolutely. Look, we have to make priorities and choices. You have to prioritize things. So, clearly, this particular Member of Congress was proud they cut embassy security; but, believe me, they are not

going to be investigating that in their investigative committee.

I will tell my colleagues what else they are not going to investigate. They are not going to investigate the tragedy and the scandal of more than 4,000 Americans killed in the Iraq war based on phony intelligence--4,000 Americans dead, based on phony intelligence. I never heard one call for a select committee to find out why that happened. And that ignores the tens of thousands of wounded, some with post-traumatic stress, and all the problems we know are happening.

Here is something else they won't tell us. Between 1998 and 2013, there were at least 501 significant attacks against U.S. diplomatic facilities and personnel in 70 countries, resulting in the deaths of 586 people, including 67 Americans. During the Bush administration, there were 166 attacks which killed 116 people, including 18 Americans. All of these attacks were terrible tragedies, but not one of them was exploited for political gain. Why would we exploit a tragedy where an American got killed for political gain? We could have done it.

I was serving in the House back in 1983. I know that is probably close to when the Presiding Officer was born. I was serving in the House in 1983 when a truck bomb exploded outside the Marine barracks in Beirut, Lebanon, killing 241 American servicemembers. The attack came just 6 months after 17 Americans were killed in the bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. Let me tell my colleagues about how that was handled by then-Speaker Tip O'Neill when Ronald Reagan was President. Tip O'Neill conducted real oversight with the two parties working closely together. Within 2 months, the House stepped forward--Democrats and Republicans--and produced a report that criticized the lax security around the barracks and called for new measures to keep our brave military men and women safe. That is the way we should handle these things, not a kangaroo court, not a political witch hunt, not a partisan investigation.

Let's face it. This is politics. They are about discrediting the Obama administration and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. I repeat: Never in history, to my knowledge--and I have gone back and back--has any political party done what they are doing on Benghazi.

There is disinformation. They say: Well, the President kept saying it was because of the movie that was produced. The President stepped forward and in his first comment said the attacks were acts of terror. That is his quote. We never hear that from the Republicans. He called them acts of terror.

I will tell my colleagues what else they forget to mention: that Secretary Clinton was the first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks. Let me reiterate. The very first person to convene an independent investigation of the attacks in Benghazi was Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The independent investigation was nonpartisan. It was called an investigation by the Accountability Review Board. It was chaired by Ambassador Thomas Pickering and Admiral Michael Mullen. Talk about a nonpartisan team. I can attest to the fact they are nonpartisan. I am privileged to sit on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am the most senior member on that committee. I will tell my colleagues these two gentlemen came forward and delivered their report. They talked very openly and honestly about the systemic problems that undermined security in Benghazi. And guess what happened after that report. Secretary Clinton and the State Department quickly accepted all 29 of those recommendations and put them into place--first under Secretary Clinton and now Secretary Kerry.

So let me say this again. There is this call for this political witch hunt because they want to hurt Hillary Clinton, and Hillary Clinton was the first person to convene an independent investigation that made 29 recommendations that she started to put in place, and Secretary Kerry is completing that task. Unbelievable. But we won't hear that from our Republican friends. They want to make Benghazi into a scandal, but they are the scandal. That is the scandal: playing politics with a tragedy. That is the scandal.

The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a bipartisan report based on dozens of committee hearings, briefings, and interviews--that is in here as well--that highlighted the need to better respond to security threats against our diplomatic posts and personnel around the world.

Instead of going over all of these reports--I showed my colleagues how many there are, and this chart demonstrates that as well in a very clear way how many investigations that have been conducted--instead of focusing on protecting Americans serving abroad by carrying out the recommendations of these reports, my colleagues are obsessing over talking points prepared for a Sunday TV show.

There is nothing in the thousands of documents released that even remotely suggests an attempt to cover up what happened in Benghazi. As I said, the President said they were acts of terror. Hillary Clinton launched the investigation. The investigation made 29 recommendations.

This new select committee request is a sham. It is a kangaroo court. It is a waste of taxpayer dollars. If Senate Republicans really wanted to help protect the men and women who bravely serve our country overseas, they would stop objecting to our request to take up our bipartisan embassy security bill.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed S. 1386. It is named after Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. It is called the Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty Embassy Security Threat Mitigation and Personnel Protection Act.

It was passed and reported in December of last year. It was authored by Senators Menendez and Corker. I thank them for that. This bill will authorize funding for key measures recommended by the Accountability Review Board, including security upgrades at our embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic posts, especially high-risk posts. It also authorizes new funding for security training, including language training for high-threat security environments. It would direct the Secretary of State to expand the Marine Corps security guard detachment program to help protect our diplomatic facilities and personnel.

Why do the Republicans keep objecting to this bill? You cannot, with a straight face, tell me you truly care about our foreign personnel when you stand in the way of S. 1386, a bill to provide for enhanced security, a bill that is bipartisan, a bill that came out of the committee on which I serve, Foreign Relations.

I hope other colleagues will come down and talk about this sham. We have so much to do. We need to grieve for the families, the deaths of four Americans. Their loss is deep, very deep. To turn that into some investigation, some witch hunt, is not the right thing to do for their memories. The right thing to do for their memories is to pass this embassy security bill.

I do not know how to say it, but it does cost money to make upgrades to your home, to your buildings. We are here in the Capitol, we protect and upgrade these beautiful buildings because of their history. We have to upgrade our buildings. That does not come free. It does cost money.

Yet House Republicans were bragging that they cut embassy security. So I am going to talk about this a lot because I care so deeply about making sure our personnel are safe all over the world. Until they allow this bill to go through, I truly question the deep concerns that are being expressed by my Republican friends. Oh, they need yet another committee to get to the bottom of Benghazi.

We know what happened. It was a terror attack on a facility that needed more protection. OK? How do we make sure that does not happen again? We have had more than 500 attacks--significant attacks--on our facilities since 1998, between 1998 and 2013 over 500 attacks.

Never has anyone of any party tried to play politics with it. The reason I am so, shall we say, upset with this is because it is the wrong way to move forward. People look at us and they wonder if we can get anything done. I am so proud. I have a very important water resources bill coming up. We worked so well together across the aisle. We did a highway bill. We worked so well across the aisle. Why don't we do what we did when Tip O'Neill was

Speaker and work well across the aisle on foreign policy? When I was coming up, foreign policy basically stopped at the water's edge. We respected the President, whoever it may be, Republican or Democrat.

If we had a critique, we expressed it, but we did it in a way that was, if I can just say, less partisan. I will leave you with the image of this chart. This chart says it all. We have investigated this. We have looked at it. We have conducted hearings and briefings and interviews and issued subpoenas and reviewed documents and issued reports.

We do not need to spend money on another committee because someone is afraid of Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Just deal with it. Do not try to revise history. She was the first person to convene an independent investigation to begin to put the pieces into play that would in fact make sure this did not happen again.

Don't say you care about embassy security when you stand and oppose a bipartisan bill that would make sure we make the requisite improvements to our facilities? I hope Harry Reid, our leader, will not say yes to a committee that is nothing but a political witch hunt. I will continue to come down to the floor to discuss this issue, to debate this issue if it is necessary to do so.

I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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 20, 2014, at 10:15 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, 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, on May 20, 2014, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-430 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Economic Security for Working Women: A Roundtable Discussion.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, on May 20, 2014, at 10 a.m. in room SD-226 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to conduct a hearing entitled ``Judicial Nominations.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 5 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 3:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 11 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 20, 2014, at 2 p.m.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that all time be yielded back.

I ask for the yeas and nays.