[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 80 (Tuesday, May 15, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6112-S6115]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
REVEREND JERRY FALWELL
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise to say a few brief words about the
Reverend Jerry Falwell, who passed away earlier today at the age of 73.
I have personally known Reverend Falwell since I first ran for
election to the U.S. Senate in 1978. And, since that time, I have come
to befriend a man who in many ways became a pillar of strength and
inspiration not only to his community of Lynchburg, VA, where he was
born but indeed to people around the world.
Throughout the 28-plus years that I have had the good fortune of
representing the citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia in the U.S.
Senate, Reverend Falwell was always a constituent of mine, and he would
often offer his counsel to me about pressing matters of the day. He
would always do so in a polite, yet firm manner.
While I might not have always agreed with him, I have always admired
Reverend Falwell, particularly for his unwavering commitment to what he
thought was right. Jerry Falwell never ran from controversy, and he
always stuck to his beliefs.
Indeed, I believe it was the firmness of his convictions that, in
part, allowed Jerry Falwell to achieve so much success in whatever he
undertook in life. He was an intensely driven man.
At the age of 22 he started a Baptist church in Lynchburg, VA, with
35 members. Reportedly, on the first Sunday his congregation met in
1956, the first offering totaled $135. Today, that same church has
upwards of 24,000 members and annual revenues of all of his ministries
total over $200 million.
In 1971, Jerry Falwell founded Liberty University--a liberal arts,
Christian institution of higher education. Today, Liberty University
employs more than 1,000 Virginians and educates more than 20,000
students a year either on its campus or through distance learning
programs.
In my view, the thousands and thousands of students who Liberty has
educated these many years will undoubtedly be one part of Reverend
Falwell's strong legacy that will last for generations.
My thoughts and prayers today go out to the Falwell family, including
his beloved wife of nearly 50 years, and his three children.
While I am up, I wonder if I could indicate to the managers that I
intend to
[[Page S6113]]
file an amendment tonight along the lines established by the
distinguished majority leader regarding amendments to be considered on
this bill which relate to the appropriations bill now being formulated
to provide for the funds for the troops. I think it is the wisdom of
the two leaders jointly that on this bill those Senators who wish to
have language attached to any appropriations bill would make known
their desires through adding an amendment on this bill. Cloture will be
filed on such amendments for tomorrow. If my amendment is selected by
the Republican leader, then I understand it would be subject to a
cloture vote tomorrow. But it would at least give me and my principal
cosponsor, Senator Collins, the opportunity to express our two views
and others who have been associated with us to likewise join in
expressing their views. I will do that following the vote tonight.
I yield the floor and thank the managers.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to encourage my colleagues
to support Senator Kerry's amendment to the Water Resources Development
Act. This amendment is quite simple, and if enacted, would contribute
to the modernization of the Army Corps of Engineers, something I have
been fighting for for many years.
The Kerry-Feingold amendment would require the Corps to account for
the potential long and short term effects of global climate change when
planning projects. This commonsense amendment is vital for safeguarding
communities and the environment since virtually every water resource
project designed and built by the Corps sits on the front lines of
global warming.
All Corps projects are going to feel the strain, the impact, and the
consequences of global warming. This is true whether we are talking
about ensuring that flood damage reduction projects will in fact
provide communities with the promised levels of protection; ensuring
that port projects take climate change into account for emergency
preparedness purposes; or ensuring that ecosystem restoration projects
are properly designed.
Along with many of my colleagues, I believe it is essential to take
bold steps to address global climate change. Senators Sanders and Boxer
are leading the most comprehensive, scientifically based global warming
pollutant bill to address the emission of carbon dioxide. I am proud to
cosponsor that bill.
The Kerry-Feingold amendment does not address the emissions of global
warming, but rather simply makes sure that future water resources
projects take into account the effects of global warming. There are a
lot of necessary policy changes needed to respond to global warming and
we need to move forward on all fronts. This proposed amendment should
gain broad bipartisan support, even from those who remain unsure of the
best approach for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and even from those
who remain skeptical about the causes of global climate change.
Our amendment ensures that Corps of Engineers projects will take into
account the impacts of climate change, regardless of its cause. It also
ensures that the Corps will take more aggressive steps to protect
natural systems that can help buffer the impacts of climate change and
that provide a host of other vital benefits.
Scientists clearly agree that the climate is changing. They also
agree that, as a result of that change, we can expect an increase in
extreme weather events. A recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change expresses this consensus. Climate scientists agree
that global warming will cause stronger storms, more frequent floods,
increased sea level, and extended droughts. This report concludes,
among other things, that: Climate change will lead to more intense
storms and increasing sea levels, particularly along the gulf and
Atlantic coasts, which will pose significant risks to coastal
communities from storm surges and flooding; climate change will lead to
more flooding in the winter and early spring due to earlier snowmelt
and increased rainfall, followed by more water shortages during the
summer, particularly in the Western States; and climate change will
lead to lower water levels in major river systems and the Great Lakes
that will exacerbate existing water resources challenges.
The Scientific Expert Group on Climate Change to the United Nations
also recently concluded that human health ``will be threatened'' by the
global climate change-induced increases in the intensity and frequency
of storms, floods, droughts, and heat-related mortality. These changes
will clearly complicate water resource planning for the foreseeable
future.
But we also know that there are ways to buffer the effects of these
changes. Healthy rivers, streams, floodplains, and wetlands reduce the
impacts of flooding by acting as natural sponges and basins, absorbing
flood waters, and releasing them slowly over time. Coastal wetlands
provide vital barriers between storm surges and communities. When these
wetlands are lost, coastal communities are far more vulnerable to
disaster, as we saw so tragically during Hurricane Katrina. Healthy
streams and wetlands also help minimize the impacts of drought by
recharging groundwater supplies and filtering pollutants from drinking
water. And all of these resources provide critical habitat for fish and
wildlife, and important recreational opportunities.
Even without global climate change, it is imperative that we take a
more aggressive approach to accounting for and protecting these
resources that are so essential for the Nation's health, safety,
economic prosperity, and well-being.
We do not have to peer into a crystal ball to see the dangers of
allowing the Corps to continue to plan projects without accounting for
the changes that will be wrought by climate change. The Nation bore
witness to those dangers when Hurricane Katrina slammed into the gulf
coast. The devastation of New Orleans is a horrific example of the
tragic consequences of an intense storm hitting a region where Corps
projects have destroyed vital natural wetland buffers and have not
properly accounted for the risk of severe storms.
Our amendment requires the Corps to immediately begin to address
these types of issues.
Our amendment would require the Corps to utilize the best available
climate science in assessing flood and storm risks. This seems like
plain common sense to me, but as we have sadly witnessed again and
again, common sense does not always guide the Corps and its
decisionmaking processes.
Our amendment would require the Corps to more fully account for the
value of the services provided by healthy rivers, streams, wetlands,
and floodplains.
Of special importance to me, our amendment also builds on existing
law and policy to require the Corps to use nonstructural approaches,
where appropriate, in project planning. This is critical for ensuring
the best possible protection for those natural systems that are so
important for our current and future health, safety, and welfare. While
the Corps is currently required to consider nonstructural approaches,
it rarely recommends them. This is true even when nonstructural
approaches would provide the same or better project benefits while
avoiding damages to these vital resources.
This provision would not--let me say this again, it would not--
prevent the Corps from using structural approaches like levees and
floodwalls where they are needed. But it would require the Corps to be
more aggressive in its efforts to utilize natural systems that on their
own provide vital flood protection and water quality benefits. And it
would also help the Corps overcome what the Department of the Army
inspector general concluded was an ``institutional bias'' for
constructing costly, large scale structural projects.
We can no longer rely on the status quo to protect our future. We can
no longer rely solely on the Corps' traditional approaches to water
projects. These approaches have too often severed critical connections
between rivers and their wetlands and floodplains, and produced
unanticipated wetland and floodplain losses. These approaches have left
coastal communities, like New Orleans, far more vulnerable. These
approaches have exacerbated flood damages by inducing development in
high risk, flood prone areas and by increasing downstream flooding.
This amendment will change the status quo by removing blinders that
have
[[Page S6114]]
plagued water resources planning for too long. I urge my colleagues to
support our amendment and the commonsense changes it would bring about.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Menendez). Who yields time?
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the time allocation at this point?
How much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 9
minutes 9 seconds. The Senator from Oklahoma controls 5 minutes 58
seconds.
Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, I will try to speed up and use such
time as I may use quickly.
Again, let me respond very quickly to some of the assertions that
have been made. I want to try to get back to the bigger picture, but I
will be very specific about a couple things.
First of all, I never have suggested, nor have I heard anybody who
has argued in favor of actions suggesting, there would be no cost,
which is the term the Senator from Oklahoma used. We are not talking
about no cost. We are talking about relative costs. It is clear from
all the best analyses of every economic model that the costs of not
acting are much greater than the costs of acting.
That has become true, we have seen, in what has happened with respect
to damages, migrations of species, other things that are already
occurring and being observed as a result of the warming that is taking
place.
In addition to that, I still say to my colleague from Oklahoma,
despite the scientists he quotes, he still cannot produce one peer-
reviewed study that says global climate change is not happening as a
consequence of human activity. He cannot produce one peer-reviewed
report that does not say it is happening, period--not one.
So he can come in with a report that says some little thing here,
some little thing there, but that does not go to the fundamental
question of who is causing what.
As I said earlier in this debate, they have a fundamental
responsibility, if they are going to stand up and say to Americans we
do not need to do anything; and that responsibility is to answer what
is causing the warming if it is not the human-induced activity; and,
secondly, how can the human activity that is being created not be doing
what the scientists allege it is doing. On both counts, they have
never, ever had a sufficient scientific explanation.
Moreover, again, I would point out--I did earlier; the Senator was
not here--as to the so-called SPM, as it is called, the policymaker's
summary, there is a list on the first page of that summary, and all the
people who wrote it are scientists. They are the ones who put that
report together.
So there is a point where you can sort of be debating all the red
herrings here, which is not what is important. What is important in the
end is that the consensus, globally, of leaders, of scientists, is
clear about what is happening and why it is happening, No. 1. No. 2,
what we are trying to do is not even respond to that, even though I
believe we ought to be; we are simply trying to guarantee there is an
adequate level of congressionally mandated--not voluntary but
congressionally mandated--review with respect to this in the activities
of the Corps of Engineers.
The fact is that climate change, obviously, relates to risk-based
analysis. There are many climate change events that are taking place,
all of which could affect the reliability of Corps projects. In this
bill there is a program for ecosystem restoration in the Louisiana
coastal area. Key is going to be ultimately developing a strategy for
restoration that understands what happens with respect to coastal
erosion and sea level rise. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet in
Louisiana, right along the coast, is dependent on storm surge
information, hurricane prediction, sea level rise. Virtually every
single beach replenishment project--what good is it going to do to
replenish beaches in certain ways if the sea level is going to be
rising and the intensity of those storms may increase?
With respect to that, I would say to my friend from Oklahoma, the
prediction was there would be more named storms, more hurricanes, and
indeed there were more named storms. The level of predictions of storms
was met, they just did not hit the United States. We lucked out. But
the total numbers, in fact, were high.
So you can play with these possibilities. You can ignore science, if
you choose to. But I think responsible legislation at this point, given
the scientists and the level of information we have, requires us to
act, and this is one very small way to act responsibly.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Well, here we go again. This is exactly the same thing.
If I responded to everything he said then, I have already done it
before. I have read and I have talked about this. I have more
scientists, if anyone wants to hear from more scientists. Also, as far
as peer-reviewed studies, I have documented it, I have said where they
are. So I can just say that so many times.
But here is what I would suggest: What we are talking about is an
amendment to this bill, an amendment to the bill which addresses the
Corps of Engineers and asks them to report to us on every project, from
this point forward, certain types of things, and it describes what they
are.
We had a hearing the other day, I say to my good friend from
Massachusetts. It was May 11, 2007. That was, what, last week. We have
had John Paul Woodley, who is the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Civil Works.
This is a quote from his testimony. He said:
The United States Army Corps of Engineers has the capacity
and necessary authorities to comprehensively examine the
uncertainties, threats and vulnerabilities on water
infrastructure and to implement the necessary adjustments as
part of a proactive adaptive management program.
They can do it now. They can do it. This is the head of the Corps of
Engineers. So they do not need this amendment.
Now, I wish to say this. We were supposed to have this vote at 5:30.
It is now 10 after 6. I am prepared not to say anything else and to
yield back the remainder of my time, if the Senator from Massachusetts
will do the same thing.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to ask the Senator a question,
if I may.
Mr. INHOFE. On your time, go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. On my time.
The Senator said he had a whole lot of peer-reviewed studies. I would
ask the Senator a simple question: Does he have one peer-reviewed study
that says conclusively global climate change is not happening as a
consequence of human activity, and, No. 2, that it is not happening.
Does he have a peer-reviewed study that says that?
Mr. INHOFE. Let me respond to that question. Of course I do not have
that.
Mr. KERRY. That is what I said.
Mr. INHOFE. But I do have peer-reviewed studies that say specifically
the amount of change that is attributable to human activity is so small
it is not measurable, like .07 of 1 degree in 50 years. Now, that is
significant. I have several peer-reviewed studies. I would be glad to
respond to your question by reading those.
I have a peer-reviewed study published in the April 18, 2007, issue
of the science journal Geophysical Research Letters, which found that
if the world continues to warm, vertical wind shear--which literally
tears apart storms--will also rise. These winds will decrease the
number and severity of storms we would otherwise have.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I interrupt my friend from Oklahoma and
reclaim my time.
Mr. INHOFE. We have approximately 20 peer-reviewed studies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls the
time at this point.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, the Senator is making my point. I
conceded there are studies that will assert there is some change of a
variation of what may or may not be happening but none that suggests it
is not happening as a result of our activity or that it is not
happening.
The Senator talks about this .07-of-a-degree change. What he says is
a reduction. But what we are looking at is an automatic increase in
rate of increase that is going to occur no matter what. So somebody can
doubt whether you are going to have a reduction. That is not the point.
The point is, there is
[[Page S6115]]
going to be a level of increase that goes up to a percentage which
varies from about 2 degrees centigrade to 3 degrees centigrade, up to
7.7 degrees Fahrenheit. And .07 of a degree from that is not going to
make a difference with respect to the fundamental issue of the Earth
warming.
So again, let's debate apples and apples, not something else. I think
that is important in this debate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, at this time, if the Senator wants, we can
yield back our time.
Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield my time, except for 1 minute for
the chairman of the committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I wish to talk about something else for a
moment to let Senators know where we are. We have been working staff to
staff. We are so close to completing this WRDA bill. Once we vote on
this 60-vote issue, we are down to a few amendments. There is a
managers' package that has been signed off on by the leaders of the
committee. We would like to get that done.
What we want to say to colleagues on both sides is, if you want to
participate in this bill, tonight would be the night to do it because
we are wrapping this thing up tomorrow. Our hope is we can complete it.
We have this managers' package. If you have something you need to say
about this bill, if you have a last-minute amendment you want to show
us, this would be the time, this would be the moment.
I would be happy to yield some time to my colleague if he wishes to
make some comments.
Mr. INHOFE. No. Mr. President, I thank the chairman of the committee
and the manager of this bill. Let me say I agree with everything the
Senator said. I thought we were going to finish it tonight, but if it
is tomorrow, it is tomorrow. It is too significant not to finish it.
I appreciate the Senator from Massachusetts joining me in yielding
back the remainder of our time. We are going to be ready to take a vote
here shortly.
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1094.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Johnson), and the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller) are necessarily absent.
Mr. LOTT. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator
from Kansas (Mr. Brownback), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
DeMint), the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole), and the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. McCain).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole) would have voted ``nay.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 51, nays 42, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 166 Leg.]
YEAS--51
Akaka
Bayh
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Gregg
Harkin
Inouye
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Obama
Reed
Reid
Sanders
Schumer
Smith
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Sununu
Tester
Warner
Whitehouse
Wyden
NAYS--42
Alexander
Allard
Baucus
Bennett
Bond
Bunning
Burr
Byrd
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McConnell
Murkowski
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Roberts
Salazar
Sessions
Shelby
Stevens
Thomas
Thune
Vitter
Voinovich
Webb
NOT VOTING--7
Brown
Brownback
DeMint
Dole
Johnson
McCain
Rockefeller
The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 51, the nays are
42.
Under the previous order, requiring 60 votes for the adoption of this
amendment, the amendment is withdrawn.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________