Barbara Boxer: “I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am going to answer a question that was posed rhetorically by my friend, which is a…”

“I thank the Chair. Madam President, I am going to answer a question that was posed rhetorically by my friend, which is a fair question. Why make a difference as far as who can carry a gun on Federal land versus national park land? My statement will address this directly to my friend. Coburn amendment No. 805 would make it legal for anyone to carry weapons on critical water infrastructure property managed by the Army Corps of Engineers. My view of this is it is a dangerous amendment. He and I just see it very differently. I believe this amendment would put our national security at risk by making the Nation's dams, reservoirs, hydroelectric powerhouses, navigation locks, major river systems, levees, and other flood risk management features vulnerable to attacks. Current law on Army Corps property is this: Army regulations prohibit the private possession of loaded firearms, ammunition, loaded projectile firing devices, and other weapons on Army Corps property unless--and this is important--unless the weapon is being used for hunting, fishing, or target shooting in designated areas. So let's establish that, yes, people can bring a gun onto corps property, but it needs to be for hunting, fishing, or target shooting. I don't know what other usage there would be. I guess one could argue that a person wants to defend themselves, but they could argue that anywhere. So I don't know what more my friend wants.…”