[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 6]
[Senate]
[Pages 9011-9016]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 9012]]

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, 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

[[Page 9013]]

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.
  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.

[[Page 9014]]

  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 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

[[Page 9015]]

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 9016]]

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.

                          ____________________