[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 78 (Thursday, May 22, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3273-S3278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
______
TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RECREATIONAL HUNTING, FISHING,
AND SHOOTING--MOTION TO PROCEED--Continued
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will resume legislative session.
The Senator from Texas.
Mr. CORNYN. Madam President, I want to speak briefly on three topics
this afternoon: human trafficking; the terrorist attack at Fort Hood,
TX, in 2009; and finally, the way the Senate has become a killing
ground for good ideas because of the practices of the majority leader.
Human Trafficking
Starting with human trafficking, we know that while slavery was
formally abolished in the United States years ago, it continues today
in the form of human trafficking. Tragically, too many children are
victims of modern-day slavery--literally tens of thousands right here
in America. That is why in recent years I have joined with colleagues
on both sides of the aisle--obviously, this is not a political or
partisan issue--to work together in a bipartisan way to introduce a
series of bills aimed at accomplishing three things: No. 1, shedding
light on this tragic reality. Most people in their communities around
the country are not even aware of the scourge of human trafficking that
is happening right under their nose. No. 2, we have tried to do
everything we can to save children--minors--from the sex trade. And No.
3, we have tried hard to bring these traffickers to justice.
I was proud to be one of the cosponsors of the 2012 Child Protection
Act, which gave law enforcement agencies better tools with which to
protect children and apprehend criminals. More recently, I joined with
the senior Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden; the senior Senator from
Minnesota, Ms. Klobuchar; and the junior Senator from Illinois, Mr.
Kirk, to introduce something we call the Justice for Victims of
Trafficking Act.
Our bill would establish a domestic trafficking victims fund that
doesn't come from tax dollars but, rather, from fees and fines paid by
people who commit law enforcement offenses. It would allocate tens of
millions of dollars to both fight human trafficking and, just as
importantly, to help victims get the sorts of services they need in
order to heal and to become productive citizens once again. It would
also give law enforcement officials more tools to crack
[[Page S3274]]
down on human trafficking and the broader criminal networks that
support them.
The bill would streamline human trafficking task force investigations
by giving investigators access to better technologies and enhance
cooperation between Federal and State law enforcement partnerships. It
would also allow law enforcement officials to prosecute each and every
member of a human trafficking organization, as opposed to merely the
on-the-ground managers, and it would increase the penalties for
criminals who prey on children through sex slavery.
Finally, it would improve the availability of restitution and witness
assistance for trafficking victims by allowing for a larger portion of
forfeited Federal criminal assets to go directly to the victims.
To be clear, as I said a moment ago, this bill would be funded by the
fines imposed on the people who commit the crimes of child pornography,
child prostitution, sexual exploitation, human trafficking, and
commercial human smuggling offenses at the Federal level, and it would
not increase the Federal deficit.
Earlier this week, the House of Representatives acted by passing its
own version of the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act, and I would
urge the majority leader and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee to bring the Senate version up for a vote in the committee
and on the floor of the Senate as soon as possible. After all, during a
time when politics seems to pervade everything here in Washington, DC,
and we are approaching a midterm election where it seems so hard to do
things that should be easy, this is one thing we ought to be able to do
together.
Fort Hood
I would also urge the majority leader to allow a vote on separate
legislation that has already been approved by the House Armed Services
Committee as an amendment to the national defense authorization bill,
and is now being introduced as an amendment to the Senate bill by my
colleague Senator Cruz of Texas, who sits on the Armed Services
Committee.
This legislation I am referring to I first introduced several years
ago following the terrorist attack on American soil at Fort Hood, TX,
when MAJ Nidal Hasan killed 13 people and injured dozens more. These
individuals who lost their lives deserve the same sort of recognition
on the field of battle as people who lost their lives in other parts of
the world--perhaps overseas. The same benefits should be available to
the families of those who survive terrorist attacks anywhere in the
world.
There is no doubt about the fact that what happened at Fort Hood on
November 5, 2009, was a terrorist attack. The shooter happened to be a
lone-wolf terrorist, happened to be an American citizen, and happened
to be a member of the U.S. Army, but he was also a radicalized Islamist
who reportedly exchanged at least 20 emails with a senior Al-Qaeda
member before committing this massacre. The Al-Qaeda leader with whom
he corresponded is someone who has since become more notorious and even
better known--a man named Anwar al-Awlaki. This person was also the one
who maintained a relationship with a terrorist who tried to blow up
Northwest Airlines flight 253 on Christmas day in 2009, less than 2
months after the Fort Hood attack.
We have just had a vote on one of the lawyers who wrote the memo by
which President Obama authorized a drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki on
September 2011 overseas, so there is no question the Fort Hood shooter
believed he was acting on behalf of Al-Qaeda. There is no one who can
deny he shouted ``Allah akbar'' before opening fire, and no one who can
deny he has since described the act as an act of jihad.
Yesterday I had the chance to question FBI Director James Comey, and
I asked him whether he agreed with the assessment that this incident
was ``workplace violence,'' which some have amazingly called this, or
whether he thought this was an Al-Qaeda-inspired attack of terrorism
here on America soil. His response--something I thought would have been
painfully obvious--was yes, it was a terrorist attack in 2009.
Was the shooter a card-carrying member of Al-Qaeda? Well, I am not
sure exactly what that is, but to me that is the wrong question
entirely. We have to remember that Al-Qaeda leaders, such as Ayman al-
Zawahiri has called upon his terrorist followers to commit dispersed,
small-scale attacks exactly like the one that occurred at Fort Hood in
2009. We do know, from the rich evidence that was discovered during the
prosecution of Major Hasan, that the Fort Hood shooter was most
certainly a disciple of Anwar al-Awlaki.
The awarding of Purple Hearts should not be contingent on geography.
In other words, if an Al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist kills a group of our
brave men and women in uniform overseas, it shouldn't be treated any
differently than if one of their inspired terrorists kills one of our
members of the military here at home as well. The soldiers who were
killed or wounded at Fort Hood were casualties of a global war on
terror, period, and they deserve to be treated as such by the U.S.
Government. They deserve the exact same recognition that military
victims of Al-Qaeda's terrorist attack in New York on September 11,
2001, received--the same recognition they received--nothing more and
nothing less.
Awarding them the Purple Heart is a matter of justice, a matter of
honor, and a matter of honesty.
The House of Representatives has shown great leadership on these
issues that should unite us both on the huge trafficking front and on
the Purple Heart recognition I just mentioned. It is time now for the
Senate to follow suit, and I hope the majority leader will help us get
this legislation up, move it across the floor, pass it, and send it to
the President so he can sign it into law.
Senate Operation
The third point is that I cannot let the remarks of the majority
leader this morning pass without comment--the remarks majority leader
Harry Reid made on the floor this morning about how the Senate is being
operated.
The majority leader came to the floor this morning and called the
legislative process a game. He accused Republicans of stalling
important pieces of legislation, such as the 55 provisions of the tax
extenders bill that died last week in the Senate. But we need to be
clear about exactly who is responsible and what has happened.
This is the third time in 2 weeks the majority leader has killed
legislation which enjoys broad bipartisan support.
First, it was the energy efficiency bill known as the Shaheen-Portman
bill. The majority leader killed that piece of legislation when he
refused any opportunity--either for Democrats or Republicans--to offer
any amendments and get votes on those amendments. If he had simply done
that, that legislation would be on its way to President Obama today, if
not already signed into law.
Then last week we saw these 55 expiring tax provisions, some of which
enjoy broad bipartisan support, such as the research and development
tax credit and the deduction for State sales tax, which is important to
my State because income taxes paid at the State level are deducted from
the Federal income tax bill of people who live in those States and pay
State income tax.
As a matter of fairness and parity, I support a number of the
provisions in the tax extenders bill. But when the majority leader
brought it to the floor and he refused to allow any amendments
whatsoever to this legislation, the minority, of which I am a member,
had no choice but to stop that legislation in its tracks because that
is the only leverage we had to wake up the majority leader and say it
is important for the minority and the people we represent to have a
voice in what happens on the Senate floor.
Our Founding Fathers decided that each State would get two Senators.
But when one or maybe both of those Senators are in the minority party
and if they are shut out of the legislative process entirely because
all amendments and even constructive suggestions are denied, then my
constituents--the 26 million people I represent in the State of Texas--
have been shut out of the process and denied the constitutional
representation they are guaranteed under our founding documents.
There is a theme that resulted in these bills killed by the majority
leader; that is, since the 113th Congress,
[[Page S3275]]
the majority leader's utter refusal to allow debate and votes on
amendments by Members of both parties--both parties.
While I am not happy about the fact that my constituents have been
shut out of this process, I would think my Democratic friends'
constituents can't be happy about the fact that they have been shut out
of the process as well.
Here is an amazing statistic. Our Democratic Senators have introduced
676 amendments to bills on the floor since last July. That is 676
amendments not by the minority party but by the majority party that
controls this body. Do we know how many votes they got on Democratic
amendments? They got 7 votes on Democratic amendments since the
beginning of the 113th Congress.
During that same period of time, Republicans have filed hundreds of
amendments too. That used to be the way the Senate worked. Both parties
participate, we represent our States, and we have full and open debate
and an amendment process. Then we vote, the majority rules, and then
bills get passed and sent to the President for signature. But no more
under this majority leader. Now, during this same time frame, while
Democrats only got 7 rollcall votes, the minority got 9 rollcall votes
since last July.
So I find it a little ironic that, both on the energy efficiency bill
and the tax extenders bill, it was Senate Republicans who stood up--not
only for the right of minority party Senators to get votes on
amendments they had filed, but also for the right of our Democratic
colleagues in the majority party who have basically been frozen out of
the process as well.
It might be true that constituents back home in those States where
Democratic Senators were elected would be asking the question: Look. My
Senator who I voted for, whom I support, is a Member of the majority
party. But you're telling me that they can't participate in the
legislative process by offering good ideas to make legislation better
and to get votes? How ineffectual can you be?
I happen to know from talking to many of my Democratic colleagues
that they are not happy about the process either. And it is not just
about process. It is not just about the prerogatives of individual
Senators. This is about the constitutional guarantees of representation
by two Senators for each State, and the rights of the minority to
participate in the process and the people that I represent back home in
Texas being shut out of the process altogether.
So the Senate has become a virtual killing floor for good bipartisan
ideas because of the way the majority leader has run the Senate.
Then there is what happened yesterday on the patent reform bill. I
have been a member of the Judiciary Committee since the time I got to
the Senate, and we have been working very hard to try to deal with the
problem of patent trolls.
Patent trolls are big a problem in industries we wouldn't even
suspect, including real estate, restaurants--not to mention high tech,
pharmaceutical manufacturers, and the like. But what happens is people
buy patents, not for the purpose of making something, not for the
purpose of being productive, but for the purpose of having a basis upon
which to file a lawsuit. Then they shake down small startups, the
innovators, the people who we are depending upon to create new products
that will make our lives better, make us healthier and make us all live
longer, and help grow our economy to create jobs. These people are
either being snuffed out altogether or are very much prejudiced in
terms of their ability to grow because of all of this patent troll
activity.
I have been working closely with the chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, Senator Leahy, who has been working hard on this issue;
Senator Schumer, the Senator from New York, a Democrat; Senator Hatch,
who is a senior Member of the Judiciary Committee; and Senator Grassley
from Iowa, who is the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee. We
were in a pretty good place yesterday where we thought, as a result of
hard negotiations and good bipartisan work, we were going to be in the
position for the chairman of the Judiciary Committee to mark up and to
vote on a patent reform bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee this
morning, only to be told last night that the majority leader basically
killed that bill before it could even be acted on in the Judiciary
Committee.
So this is the third time in 3 weeks the majority leader has
basically been responsible for killing good bipartisan legislation--the
energy efficiency bill, the tax extenders bill, and now the
patent reform bill.
It is the majority leader's imperial leadership, where he is not just
the floor leader for his party, he is not just the traffic cop for the
Senate, but he is the one who wants to pick and choose who gets to
participate in the legislative process. In the process, he has shut out
not just Republicans but Democrats too, and he has turned this
institution which used to be known as the world's greatest deliberative
body into a pale imitation of what it used to be.
I continue to hope, maybe because I am an optimist by nature, that
the majority leader will see the error of his ways and realize he is
not only hurting my constituents but he is hurting the constituents of
every Member of the Senate by denying us an opportunity for an open
legislative process where everyone's voice can be heard, where the
American people can watch and listen, where they can reach their own
conclusions about the merits of each argument, and where they can hold
us accountable for how we vote. That is what elections are supposed to
be about.
So I hope some day the majority leader will change his attitude about
an open legislative process and will help restore the Senate's status
as the world's greatest deliberative body. I predict if he does not do
that, the voters may well do that in November by changing the hands of
the majority from the Democratic party to the current minority party.
Then things will change, and this body will return to its status as the
world's greatest deliberative body.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
Climate Change
Mr. WALSH. Madam President, I served 33 years in the National Guard.
When I joined the Guard, I swore an oath to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic. I have taken a similar oath as a Senator.
Former Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army Gordon Sullivan famously
wrote, ``Hope is not a method.''
I didn't come to Congress to hope. I approach my work here with the
lessons I learned in the military: Find solutions and work together to
overcome challenges.
Unfortunately, that approach is not how it works in Washington. Too
many people here don't care about solutions, and many ignore the
problems.
There is no greater proof than climate change. Here we are in 2014,
almost 50 years after President Johnson warned that ``by burning fossil
fuels humanity is unwittingly conducting a vast geophysical
experiment.''
Yet irresponsible leaders in Washington pretend that climate change
isn't real. They pretend that humans aren't causing it. They hope they
can go along with the status quo. But Montanans know better.
Here are the facts:
Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are now higher than at any
time in human history.
The 12 hottest years on record have been in the last 15 years.
The average temperature in Montana is 2.5 degrees higher than in
1900.
And spring runoff now occurs 1 week to 4 weeks earlier.
In Montana, climate change has contributed to the worst mountain pine
beetle epidemic in recorded history. The combination of mild weather
and stressed trees has allowed beetles to spread further and longer.
Their legacy is red trees, then dead trees, then wildfires like we have
never seen before.
Fire season is now 11 weeks longer than when I was a kid. The amount
of forest that burns in the West has doubled. Fires are burning longer
and burning more trees each and every year.
The best guess from America's scientists is that 3 to 4 times more
forest will burn each year by the middle of this century, devastating
rural communities that rely on timber and tourism.
[[Page S3276]]
In 2000, I led the response of the Montana National Guard to the
historic wildfires in Montana. We activated over 1,800 of Montana's
soldiers and airmen. That year, about 1 million acres of Montana were
burned. Businesses and landowners lost over $3 million a day.
Suppressing wildfires now consumes up to 40 percent of the Forest
Service's budget. This is unsustainable. It reduces the agency's
ability to fund other programs like hazardous fuel reduction and trail
maintenance.
In Montana we have a saying that if you don't like the weather, stick
around for an hour and it will change. But under climate change, it is
changing across a wider range. Rains are falling more intensely,
increasing erosion and runoff. The trend of more frequent and more
intense rainfall is likely to continue. Heat waves and drought have
also become more intense. What all of this means for Montana's
agriculture is hard to predict, but without a doubt our biggest
industry faces big uncertainty. The uncertainty in agriculture is
especially true for water delivery, both for livestock and irrigated
crops. As snow in the winter shifts to rain and extreme weather gets
worse, it is becoming harder to run irrigation systems that were
designed for the climate of 100 years ago.
We saw one of the worst droughts in history hit Montana ranchers and
farmers in 2012. The year before Montana experienced a 500-year flood
in the Missouri River Basin. Across the Great Plains the floods caused
$2 billion in damage. Across the Nation we are paying out of our nose
for extreme weather and natural disasters--$110 billion in damage in
2012 alone.
Climate change will also damage our tourism, which is Montana's
second biggest industry. Glacier National Park itself is losing its
namesake. Its ecosystem will change. Its cold water, which supports
unique species and a strong trout fishery, will no longer be fed by
melting ice. The communities in the Milk River Basin which receive 70
percent of their water from glaciers will also be impacted. Snowpack
across the Rockies has already decreased 20 percent on average since
1980. In parts of Montana it may decrease by 50 percent in my lifetime.
Winter tourism in Montana is also big business, generating over $150
million in income and supporting over 4,500 jobs. But less snow means
fewer jobs. Skiing and snowmobiling contribute $265 million to the
Montana economy. During the low snowfall winters of 2002 and 2005,
Montana ski resorts lost $16 million in revenue compared to heavy snow
years.
Warmer temperatures also harm hunting, fishing, and our booming
outdoor industry, which supports more than 64,000 jobs and attracts 11
million visitors to Montana each year. Warmer streams and fewer trout
translate to direct reduction in Montana jobs. Stream closures in
recent years because of warm water are the first proof of this threat.
Nearly 50 percent of habitat for the bull trout and cutthroat trout
could be lost in the West this century. Big game species such as moose
and elk face similar threats with a warmer climate.
Rural communities across Montana are especially vulnerable to climate
change. Many of them rely on single sectors tied to the land, from
timber to grain to outfitting, and are less able to adapt to a changing
economy.
I know what resource development looks like. My hometown of Butte was
once known as ``the Richest Hill on Earth.'' The copper mined on that
hill helped us win World War II, but today it is part of the largest
Superfund site in America, including the Berkeley Pit. Mining continues
to be an important industry in Montana, and Butte still churns out
copper that is used around the world. Fortunately, Butte has also
diversified. It now has good paying jobs in manufacturing and
aerospace. One lesson I took from growing up there is we cannot afford
another Berkeley Pit anywhere. Climate change is the equivalent of a
Berkeley Pit: Ignore first; ask questions later.
Montanans understand the dilemma we are facing. We are the Treasure
State. Our history is the history of resource development: from beaver
trapping to the gold rush, copper mining to railroads and the open
range, the homestead movement to the timber and fossil fuel booms. But
along with the booms came a lot of busts.
In Montana we had to spend tons of money on fixing our past mistakes.
Over $1.5 billion has been spent at our Superfund sites alone. Each
year we spend another $13 million to clean up abandoned mine lands. If
only our resources had been developed the right way the first time, all
that money could have been spent on drinking water or better roads or
lower student loans or researching cures for disease.
I know there are no easy solutions to the challenges we face today.
Today 82 percent of energy used in the United States comes from fossil
fuels. I am proud to represent a State with more than $1.6 billion in
investment in wind energy since 2005. Renewable energy does have a
bright future. A 2009 study ranked Montana's wind resources as the
second best in the Nation. Montana also has potential for solar energy
and is one of only 13 States with the potential to produce commercial
geothermal energy. Renewables, including wind, are not always the right
answer. Our current power grid has real physical limitations. I will
continue supporting renewable energy and upgrades to the grid because
we need to reduce our carbon emissions. But we cannot ignore today's
reality.
Look at me standing here. I flew here on a plane that burns jet fuel.
I am wearing cotton, and I eat wheat and corn, all of which depend on
fertilizers, were irrigated using power from coal and natural gas, and
were transported by diesel. I am speaking into a microphone and a
camera that need electricity. In the United States in the year 2014, we
either dig up or pipe up five-sixths of our entire energy. I couldn't
do my job and visit Montanans without fossil fuel--and I understand
that--and many of them wouldn't have jobs either.
Montana is one of about a dozen States that is a net exporter of
energy. The oil and gas industry directly employs over 4,000 workers.
Our unemployment rate in Montana is currently at 4.8 percent, in part
because of the good jobs in the Bakken. We have 2,000 workers directly
in the coal industry, from mining it to burning it to maintaining the
boilers that burn it. Coal alone is responsible for over $100 million
of revenue each year in the State and local economy. I don't agree with
some people who want to just pull the plug on coal. The United States
burns only 11 percent of the coal consumed globally each year. The less
we invest in cleaning up coal, the less likely we are to make a dent in
climate change. We cannot just take our ball and go home. That simply
outsources our pollution problem to countries such as China.
I know firsthand of the value of domestic energy. In 2004 and 2005 I
led the largest deployment of Montana men and women to war in 60 years,
more than 700 of Montana's finest went with me to Iraq. Some of them
didn't return home with me; some of them returned severely injured. The
debate leading up to the war focused on weapons of mass destruction and
the connection of Saddam Hussein to the war on terrorism, but since
World War II our strategic interest in the Middle East has been oil.
Our dependence on foreign oil should never again be a reason for war. I
don't want countries forced to make military decisions or tempted to
put soldiers on the ground because they are afraid that their economy
will freeze up without energy from other countries. That means I want
more oil responsibly produced here in the United States from places
such as the Bakken. It means that I support a project like the Keystone
XL Pipeline, which will make us more energy secure and strengthen the
economy of eastern Montana, while ensuring precautions are taken to
guarantee pipeline safety and reliability and protect private property
rights. Private industry jump-started by government-funded research and
development has already provided part of the solution. The access to
tight oil and gas has made us more energy secure. The trend is in the
right direction. Less than half of the oil consumed by Americans now
comes from other countries.
Yet even if we continue to increase domestic production by displacing
foreign oil, we are still exposed as a country to two risks. First, oil
remains a necessary ingredient in our economy. Second, the oil market
continues to be a global one, exposing us to price
[[Page S3277]]
swings that can seriously harm our own economy. Therefore, in addition
to more domestic oil production, we need to diversify our
transportation fuels. The growth of advanced biofuels in America is the
way to do that. I support diversifying our fuel sources by developing
homegrown alternatives such as biodiesel, jet fuel from camelina, and
ethanol from wheat and barley to reduce demand for foreign oil.
I also support the military's continued investment in renewable
energy. The impacts of climate change also have a strong national
security connection. The Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense
Review has found a direct link between climate change and national
security threats like terrorism. Climate change is a threat multiplier.
Higher sea levels and extreme weather increase poverty, humanitarian
crises, and political instability.
I know what political instability abroad can mean. It can mean our
servicemembers, our sons and daughters, will be put in harm's way in
order to protect our way of life. As a veteran and someone who has
sworn an oath to this country, these impacts concern me because they
make us less safe.
Today despite all the evidence that climate change is harming us and
will hurt our children and grandchildren even more, we seem stuck.
Congress is handcuffed by folks who have their heads in the sand.
Instead of taking responsibility to solve this problem, they are
choosing to ignore it. The Clean Air Act has helped Americans tackle
pollution for over 40 years because it was written to last. The Supreme
Court has spoken and the law is clear. But using a section of the law
drafted when the Beatles were still recording is not the ideal way to
tackle climate change, given how much our understanding has evolved
since then on pollution control. Ninety-seven percent of climate
scientists agree that climate change is a human-caused problem. In the
military 97 percent is about as certain as a mission can get. But that
is not good enough here in Washington.
Climate change is another example of why Washington is broken. We
have an agency writing regulations with enormous impact on all
Montanans, using congressional directions written when I was a child.
We have an agency trying to put out a fire with a trowel because that
is the only tool it has. I am committed to putting the fire out because
we cannot afford inaction. The benefits of acting are clear, but I
would prefer to use the right tool for that job. Yet Washington is so
broken that the alternative is to do nothing. Plan B is repeal. Plan B
ignores reality. I cannot accept that.
I will be watching the EPA's Clean Air Act regulations closely to
keep the agency accountable to Montanans and make any final rules
workable for Montana. Members of Congress should be taking
responsibility and upholding the oaths we all swore to. We should agree
that climate change is a clear enemy and take steps to stop it.
I strongly support a bigger investment in securing a responsible
future for coal: tax credits, loans, loan guarantees, and grants for
carbon capture as well as sequestration. I have cosponsored bills and
signed letters. I have pressed Senators to maintain existing incentives
for coal. Coal does have a future, but it needs to lower its emissions.
Montana is already leading the way with cutting-edge research in carbon
sequestration. Beyond fossil fuels, our forests are a carbon sink,
absorbing about 12 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions each year.
But climate change itself threatens this important service provided by
our forests. More active management, especially under the new farm bill
authority to address beetle-killed forests is critical. Getting the
biogenic emissions rule right, on the largest possible geographic
scale, is critical for forests to continue absorbing CO2
emissions.
I support other energy options to reduce carbon emissions, including
reduced energy demand overall and retrofitting nonpowered dams.
Whatever rule the EPA proposes under the Clean Air Act for existing
power plants, Montana and other States must take the lead role in
implementation.
The United States has always led the way with innovative technology,
from the first oil wells and nuclear reactors to the first solar cells
and hydraulic fracturing. In fact, access to tight natural gas
formations in the last decade has already helped lower our carbon-
related emissions by 10 percent. Despite the serious challenges imposed
by climate change, I am confident that America can innovate solutions
while creating good paying jobs and new technology. But as a first step
we cannot put our heads in the sand and continue with business as
usual. The reason is simple. If we continue with business as usual, the
people left with the mess will be the next generation.
The people left taking responsibility for our emissions will be my
granddaughter Kennedy and all of our grandchildren. If we don't act
now, Kennedy will grow up in a Montana that burns every summer. She
won't be able to fly-fish because the rivers are too hot for trout.
Kennedy will have to explain to her kids what glaciers were. When I
took office, I swore an oath to make the right choice, and I am
committed to solving climate change for Kennedy and for future
generations.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded, and to speak as in morning
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
WRRDA Passage
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Madam President, today the Senate passed the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act. It has been too long since
Congress last addressed our water infrastructure, and I want to applaud
Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter for their diligent work and
unswerving commitment to making this bill a reality.
The fact that an infrastructure bill of this magnitude can be passed
without earmarks and with a balance of reforms and authorizations for
critical projects is a testament to good leadership and a desire by
Members of Congress on both sides of the Capitol to better our Nation.
One of the projects this bill advances is crucial to not only my
State of Georgia but to the entire country. Passage of this bill, with
the enhanced authorization it contains for the Savannah Harbor
Expansion Project, will be the culmination of years of work for the
State of Georgia and project stakeholders--and my entire time serving
in the Georgia congressional delegation.
The idea to expand the Port of Savannah was in its infancy when I
first came to Congress in 1994. The Port of Savannah had just been
deepened, and we realized then that it was not enough; more and bigger
ships were coming in. In 1996 a reconnaissance study was authorized to
determine whether the port should be deepened even further. While the
need to deepen the channel to accommodate larger ships has been a
constant issue, the port itself has been able to operate and grow
through its own innovation--Georgia ingenuity at its best. In fact,
between 2000 and 2005, the Port of Savannah was recognized as the
fastest growing seaport in the country. The port continues to grow and
is consistently breaking its own records.
In 2006, the Panama Canal expansion was approved by a national
referendum in Panama, officially kicking off the race in Savannah to
get this project under construction. The people of Georgia told us this
project needed to happen. All levels of the government--local, State,
and Federal--from all political persuasions agreed and have given their
utmost to this project. It has been my No. 1 economic priority for
Georgia the entire time I have been in office.
The WRDA bill in 1999 gave the authorization to expand the port, and
while there were cheers all around from those of us in the
congressional delegation, little did we know of the tremendous battles
yet to come. All the way until the present, every step has been a
struggle. We have jumped 15 years of hurdles to bring this project to
fruition.
I even recall one instance where we thought we had things taken care
of from the standpoint of all the mitigation that needed to be done
with the port, which is located on the Savannah River. We then found
out there was an endangered species that needed to be
[[Page S3278]]
protected because the city of Augusta, which is 136 miles upstream, is
also located on the Savannah River. We then had to go back, have
another study done, and after months and months we finally came up with
a fish ladder project that was to be installed in Augusta, 136 miles
north of the Savannah Port, but we got that done.
We still may face more obstacles as we guide this project to
completion, but the fact remains that for every $1 invested in the
project, the Nation will see a nearly $6 return. For Georgia, the value
of SHEP is almost immeasurable. The port already supports some 300,000
jobs across our State, and when post-Panamax vessels start rolling into
Savannah, the economic benefits will increase dramatically.
Georgia has always been a great place to do business, and a big
reason for that is we have had strong leadership at the State level--
leaders who understand that making investments in economic development
projects can give great returns.
In this case the Port of Savannah is an epicenter of worldwide
commercial traffic. The imports and exports associated with this port
expansion mean that jobs will be created not only in my home State but
all throughout the country.
Congress has once again agreed with us that SHEP is a vital project
for our country. Now that we have completed our work, it is imperative
that the administration carry through with its commitments.
The Project Partnership Agreement, which is a document that details
the construction plans for a Corps of Engineers project, needs to be
finalized and signed immediately. I have complete faith in the ability
of the Corps and the Georgia Ports Authority to get that document
finished as soon as possible--based on their commitments to me and
Senator Isakson.
We didn't close the book on this project today, but we did jump
forward by several chapters. Ensuring the appropriate language was
included in this bill to move SHEP forward and voting today for this
bill have been the highlight of my final year in Congress and represent
the culmination of years of work by me, Senator Isakson, as well as
many others.
I want to state my thanks once more to Chairwoman Boxer and Ranking
Member Vitter for working with us on this matter. Their tireless
efforts have done more for this country and for Georgia than they may
realize.
The work of those Senators and their staffs as well as the work of
Chairman Shuster and Ranking Member Rahall and their staffs on the
House side will be felt by users of waterways on rivers and lakes, by
barge operators, commercial and recreational boaters, by cities,
counties, and States, and by everyone in this country who uses and
consumes water.
This bill represents the fulfillment of a commitment I made to my
constituents to see the harbor deepening through, and I look forward to
the day when I am in Savannah and watch a big shovel go underwater to
start deepening that port once again.
I suggest the absence of a quorum call.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASEY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________