Floor Statements

Mr. President, today I wish to honor the 3rd Battalion, 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, Airborne, of Hunter Army Airfield, marking their 25th anniversary of service in support of this Nation.

Since 1989, the 160th SOAR has served in every major conflict and contingency operation supporting the special operations community and providing world-class special operations aviation support. Supporting Operation Just Cause in Panama, Desert Shield and Desert Storm in the Persian Gulf, and multiple operations in support of crisis management prepared them for their most challenging mission of all, the global war on terrorism.

Over the last 13 years, their battalion of MH-47 Chinooks and MH-60 Black Hawks have been continuously deployed in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom and New Dawn, and throughout the world on numerous unnamed and often unknown missions.

In 2013, the unit flew over 8,000 flying hours in support of ongoing combat operations and training missions to support the special operations community and our allies, including over 4,300 under night vision.

Through fiscal management and lean logistics, the battalion has continued to refine the processes enabling a leaner sustainment package while still maintaining effectiveness in every environment in which the battalion's aircraft operate.

The 160th continues to be at the forefront of Army aviation and foreign internal defense aviation support to our allies.

In tribute to its outstanding service during wartime, its important role in strengthening the security of this Nation, and its support to the special operations community, I am honored today to recognize the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment and its contributions to the United States of America.

Mr. President, I rise today in support of the nomination of Jill Pryor to serve as circuit judge for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit.

Ms. Pryor's educational pedigree is beyond reproach. She worked to put herself through college at William & Mary, graduating phi beta kappa. She then went on to Yale Law School where she was the senior editor in chief of the Yale Law Journal. After finishing law school she clerked for Judge Edmundson on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, the very court for which she is today being considered.

Once she finished her clerkship, she decided to stay in Atlanta in private practice, where she has been practicing for the last 25 years. During that time she has played a pivotal role in some of the largest, most complex cases in the history of our legal system and in our great State of Georgia. But like any other well-rounded attorney, Ms. Pryor has taken time to give back outside the courtroom. She is currently on the State Bar of Georgia Board of Governors, and she is also on the Board of Governors of the Georgia Legal Services Program. She is the former chair of the appellate practice section of the State bar, and she is a past president of the Georgia Association for Women Lawyers.

The Eleventh Circuit will be well served by the addition of Ms. Pryor, and as I said in July before the Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Julie Carnes to this very same court, this is a vacancy that needs to be filled and needs to be filled quickly. Ms. Pryor certainly has the judicial as well as educational background to serve on the Eleventh Circuit. She has done extensive work inside the courtroom as well as at the appellate level, and she is well qualified to now go to the Eleventh Circuit.

I am pleased to speak on behalf of this highly qualified nominee, and I urge my colleagues to vote in support of Jill Pryor to the Eleventh Circuit judicial court.

Thank you very much. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center Matt Olsen. Matt has announced his intention to leave his position later this year after serving as Director of NCTC for over 3 years. Matt is one of the best and brightest public servants with whom I have had the pleasure to work. I wish to take a couple of minutes to thank him for a job well done.

As vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I have had the opportunity to work very closely with Matt, as he served in a number of key positions in the intelligence community. Regardless of his position, Matt has served with integrity and has provided sound, honest counsel, which has benefited not only me but numerous other Members of this body.

At NCTC Matt has overseen several key initiatives that have enhanced NCTC's ability to discover and prevent terrorist attacks, such as the Pursuit Group that was put in place after the failed attack on Northwest flight 253. Matt has been a strong advocate for NCTC's mission, striving to make sure NCTC has the right people and the right data to get the job done. He has done his part and has kept the Center acutely focused on terrorist threats to the homeland.

I am certainly glad I supported his nomination and can attest that Matt is a man of his word. Before joining NCTC, Matt served as the National Security Agency's general counsel and as an Associate Deputy Attorney General at the Department of Justice. Matt worked on several national security issues at DOJ but quickly became an expert on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and its implementation. Matt has an excellent perspective of the role of surveillance and keeping this country safe, and I hope he will participate in the public debate on this issue even after his departure from government service.

I would like to say a special thanks to his wife Fern and his three children: Elizabeth, Nate, and Will. Matt has missed many nights and weekends with his family as the Director of NCTC and throughout his public service career. I am sure these sacrifices have been difficult at times, but our Nation is better for it. I know Matt has spent every day of his tenure as Director focusing on how best to neutralize the increasing threat posed by Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Matt's family should be very proud of his outstanding achievements and his dedicated efforts to protect our national security. I understand Matt plans to return to teaching and spend some well- deserved free time with his family. His presence will be missed at NCTC as well as on the Hill. To Matt and his family, thanks again and best wishes for whatever the future holds.

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

Mr. President, I wish to honor the U.S. Marshals Service on the occasion of the 225th anniversary of its founding. Since its establishment in 1789, the Marshals Service has distinguished itself as not only the oldest, but one of the most effective law enforcement agencies in the United States. In recent years, the Marshals Service has demonstrated its versatility through Operation FALCON, a nationwide fugitive apprehension initiative. In this program, resources of Federal, State, city, and county law enforcement agencies are combined to locate and apprehend criminals wanted for crimes of violence. Since its inception in 2005, Operation FALCON has made 91,086 arrests and cleared 117,874 warrants and is the single most successful initiative aimed at apprehending violent fugitives in U.S. law enforcement history. Congratulations to the Marshals Service on 225 years of service to our Nation.

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

I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 10 minutes as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to talk about the deteriorating situation in Syria and in Iraq. However, before I address the situation in the Middle East, I wish to speak briefly about Russia and the downing of the Malaysian Airline flight 17.

Last week we all watched in horror as news came in of the almost 300 civilians who were callously murdered. I have seen the intelligence on this attack, and it is very clear Russia bears the responsibility for the death of these civilians. Vladimir Putin should be held accountable, regardless of whether it was a Russian soldier or a Russian-sponsored separatist who pulled the trigger. Russia either shot down the plane itself or directly gave separatists the order and the ability to do so.

Russia and its proxy separatists in eastern Ukraine are well armed, as was clearly demonstrated last week, and they are also very irresponsible. President Putin continues to flout the international community by sending heavy weapons and fighters into eastern Ukraine. In addition, Russia is supporting Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria and failing to comply with some of its international arms control obligations.

The limited sanctions put in place so far have done little to deter Putin. In addition to simply increasing sanctions, President Obama must show strength and leadership and rally the international community to secure the crash site, conduct a thorough investigation, and hold the Russians, and particularly Putin, accountable for this unthinkable attack. Now is not the time for half measures. Swift and decisive action is needed to deal with this situation.

The Middle East

With regard to the Middle East, the rise of the al-Nusra Front and ISIL--the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant--presents a serious and credible threat to the security of the region, to the United States of America, and to our allies. Yet despite repeated requests from me and other Members of this body on both sides of the aisle, the administration has yet to present a compelling plan to counter this growing threat. The administration seems determined to keep its head in the sand, but this threat simply cannot be ignored. This same wait-and- see mentality is just more of what got us into this mess with Syria in the first place.

ISIL is gaining strength, capturing arms and equipment, and closing in on Baghdad. ISIL in recent weeks has purportedly garnered hundreds of millions of dollars, thousands of fighters, and countless weapons. We have seen ISIL parade around with 4 U.S.-made howitzers and MRAPs. In the absence of resistance from MRAPs and other forces, ISIL is able to consolidate its gains, redistribute its captured material, and recruit additional fighters. As ISIL has taken territory, it has also ransacked several prisons, providing it with an even larger fighting force, all of this in preparation for an assault on Baghdad.

ISIL is clearly preparing to attack Baghdad, which will inevitably include terrorist attacks against Western interests and possibly including the international airport and the U.S. Embassy. ISIL fighters have plotted and conducted terrorist attacks in Baghdad over the past decade and it is naive to think they will not continue. We can wait for ISIL to descend on Baghdad with its newly acquired weaponry or we can take the fight to them before they reach the Capitol.

In addition to closing in on Baghdad, ISIL has its sights set on Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and other parts of the region. On June 25 of this year, we saw an ISIL suicide bomber detonate himself in a Beirut hotel after being discovered by security forces. This is not the only attack we have seen outside of Iraq and Syria. Lebanon in recent months has been besieged by violence linked to the conflict in Iraq and Syria, and it is only a matter of time before these attacks spread to Jordan as well as to Israel.

ISIL not only represents a credible threat to the region but to Europe and the United States as well. Earlier this year we witnessed an armed attack on a Jewish Museum in Brussels. The attacker, a 29-year- old French national, had returned from fighting in Syria and was arrested with an ISIL flag wrapped around his rifle. Alarmingly, the cell's leader had been arrested in Afghanistan in 2001 and was also a former Guantanamo Bay detainee. Individuals linked to ISIL and Syrian extremist groups have been arrested in other parts of Europe, including Germany and France.

ISIL's aspirations don't end in Europe but extend to the United States. The group's leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, has been clear about the group's ultimate goal of confronting the United States, and as a country we must be prepared for this threat. Many of ISIL's leaders have threatened the United States for years under the banner of Al Qaeda and Iraq. These fighters have been planning attacks against Baghdad and are responsible for the deaths of many U.S. servicemembers over the last decade.

One of the biggest lessons we learned from the September 11 attacks was that we cannot give terrorists a sanctuary from which to plan attacks against us. Arguably, ISIL now has control of the largest territory ever held by a terrorist group. This safe haven provides ISIL with the time and space they need to train fighters and plan operations. It also has provided them with access to weapons and a network that can be used to support external operations. We knew about the threat we faced from Al Qaeda prior to 9/11, but we failed to act. I just hope we don't make the same mistake again.

ISIL isn't the only threat we face in Iraq and Syria. Experienced fighters and jihadists have flocked to Syria, forming several groups that could threaten the United States, including the Al Qaeda- affiliated al-Nusra Front. Several U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents have traveled to Syria to join the al-Nusra Front and other groups. In May we witnessed Moner Mohammad Abusalha, the first American suicide bomber in Syria, carry out

an attack that is believed to have killed almost 40 Syrian personnel.

A Florida native, Abusalha was eulogized by a recruitment video featuring images of the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center and a burning American flag.

The White House recently announced plans to increase support for the Syrian opposition, including a $500 million plan to train and equip vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. Despite the announcement, few details are available on how this training would actually take place, and it may be quite some time before this program begins. It is also unclear how this new program to train Syrian opposition fighters will actually help counter the growing terrorist threat in Syria as opposed to simply countering the Assad regime. It is clear the administration has not prepared any plan that will fit into a cohesive and compelling foreign policy in the region.

The Middle East over the last 3 years has been besieged by a resurgence of instability, violence, and terrorism. The administration, unfortunately, has done little to stop it. Instead of focusing on countering rising groups in Iraq and Syria, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which appears to have had the unfortunate consequence of letting America's enemies grow stronger.

Al Qaeda, its affiliates, and other terrorist groups are determined to attack the United States. We constantly face new plots and operatives looking for ways to murder Americans, such as the foiled May 2012 AQAP plot to put another IED on a U.S.-bound commercial aircraft. Thankfully, this plot and others have not materialized, but we are not going to always be so fortunate. Just this month TSA was forced to institute new security measures to mitigate the terrorist threat to commercial aviation. The administration must come to grips with the terrorist threats we face and put policies in place that will effectively counter them. I would encourage the administration to act immediately before another act of terrorism against our country occurs.

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

Mr. President, I rise with my colleague Senator Isakson today in support of Judge Julie Carnes, who has been nominated by the President to serve as a circuit court judge for the 11th Judicial Circuit.

Judge Carnes has been a Federal district court judge for the Northern District of Georgia since 1992. She has been the court's chief judge since 2009. Her time on the district court has prepared her well for going to the 11th Circuit.

However, her preparation started long before she was confirmed to her current seat on the Northern District bench. For starters, being a judge is in her blood. As Senator Isakson referenced, her father Charlie Carnes was many things to many people. He was a Navy veteran, a State legislator, and a loving father. But for those of us in the Georgia legal community, from whence I came, we remember him best for his 20 years of service as a Fulton County State court judge, the last 17 years of which he served as chief judge.

After growing up in Atlanta, Judge Julie Carnes attended the University of Georgia where she earned both her bachelor and her law degrees. She then went on to clerk for Judge Lewis Morgan on the old Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Once she finished her clerkship, she served as an assistant U.S. attorney for more than a decade before assuming her position on the Northern District court bench. It is difficult to imagine a more qualified circuit court nominee than Julie Carnes.

The Senate Judiciary Committee appears to share my confidence. She was reported out by voice vote without a single objection to her nomination.

Moreover, this is a seat that needs to be filled, and it needs to be filled quickly. The 11th Circuit is the third busiest circuit in the country. Senator Isakson and I have been working very closely with the White House to address this vacancy since it came on 2 years ago.

Julie Carnes is my dear friend. I have known her for many years. She is the consummate trial court judge, receiving accolades from every single sector of the bar that regularly appears before her. Senator Isakson and I worked very closely with the President, as he indicated. We also worked with Senator Leahy and Senator Grassley and Kathy Ruemmler, the White House counsel, whom I particularly commend, someone who was very persistent. She was very professional in all of her dealings with us. It was a real pleasure to work with the White House securing a number of nominees, the first of which to come to this floor for confirmation is Judge Julie Carnes. This has been a long and arduous process, but there is no questioning its results.

I am pleased to recommend this highly qualified nominee. I urge my colleagues to support her confirmation.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in discussing the current direction of U.S. foreign policy, especially as it relates to the Middle East. The Obama administration's foreign policy in this regard has unfortunately totally unraveled. The President, to his credit, made the Middle East his priority and engaged the Arab world early on in his presidency. He attempted to forge a new beginning between the United States and the Muslim world, but his idealistic strategy simply has not worked.

The Middle East over the last 3 years has been besieged by a resurgence of violence, instability, and terrorism. The administration has chosen to confront this challenge, which has major implications for U.S. national security, by leading from behind and by relying on an ineffective diplomatic strategy that involves few concrete security measures.

The shortcomings of this diplomatic strategy are painfully evident today in both Syria and in Iraq. In September of last year the administration praised the U.S.-Russian deal to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons. The deal was designed to rid Syria of chemical weapons and buy time for a diplomatic solution. Yet here we are today, in a situation where the Syrians have missed countless deadlines, still have chemical weapons, and continue to use barrel bombs filled with chlorine and other chemicals, as well as ball bearings, with impunity. In addition to the humanitarian disaster that has unfolded in Syria, allowing the status quo to

continue has also given the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, and the al-Nusra Front the safe haven they needed to grow into the force we face today. Make no mistake about it. Terrorists are training inside of Syria today, planning to attack America and American interests.

I have been shocked to hear news commentators and some in this body refer to recent events in the Middle East, including the rise of ISIL in Iraq, as intelligence failures. The intelligence community makes its fair share of mistakes and I am the first to criticize them when they do. But these recent events, including the resurgence of ISIL, are not intelligence failures; they are policy and leadership failures. As we saw in Benghazi, the intelligence community provided ample strategic warning of the deteriorating security situation in Libya. Yet the administration did little to enhance security in Benghazi. Failing to protect the diplomatic facility, despite repeated warnings, is not an intelligence failure, it is a policy and a leadership failure on the part of the administration.

With regard to Iraq, intelligence, including Director Clapper's testimony at a January 29, 2014, hearing, has been abundantly clear that Iraq was vulnerable to the threat from ISIL. I encourage any Member to read the intelligence if they have questions regarding the intelligence community's assessment about security in Iraq and the rise of ISIL before the fall of Mosul. It was clear in 2011, as U.S. forces were withdrawing, that Iraq was vulnerable to a resurgence in extremist activity, and we have seen the violence escalate steadily in the last 3 years during this administration's failed policies. This collapse in security was again easily predicted, but we have stood by and watched as it has occurred. Again, this is a policy failure, not an intelligence failure.

Perhaps the most concerning aspect of this administration's foreign policy is its inadequate counterterrorism strategy. I often hear administration officials touting Al Qaeda's demise or describing the organization as on the run. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. As my friend from South Carolina alluded to earlier, before we began on the floor this morning, he said: Yes, Al Qaeda is on the run. They are running from one country to the next and taking over one country and the next.

Violent extremism is on the rise in the Middle East, and the warning signs have been visible for years. These warning signs include the September 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi, the rising of Al Qaeda- affiliated extremist groups such as the al-Nusra Front in Syria, the resurgence of ISIL, and most recently the fall of Mosul. Just yesterday we saw a terrorist flag raised over the largest refinery inside of Iraq. Despite these stark warning signs, the administration has only been willing to take very limited steps to curb this disturbing trend. Instead of focusing on making counterterrorism operations more effective, the administration has been focused on ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while America's enemies grow stronger. This approach has been a huge gamble that continues to jeopardize America's security.

The administration has sidelined many of the tools we used to successfully counter Al Qaeda in the years immediately after 9/11, including the effective, long-term detention and interrogation of enemy combatants. As a result, we know far less today about many of these terrorist organizations. Since the President ordered the closure of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in January of 2009, our Nation has been without a clear policy for detaining suspected terrorists. Without such a policy, including one that identifies a facility for holding terrorists that are captured outside of Afghanistan, the intelligence community's ability to conduct ongoing intelligence operations have been severely limited. I recognize there is no one-size-fits-all solution for handling terrorists, but our detention policies must foster full intelligence collection before any prosecution begins.

Al Qaeda and its affiliates and other terrorist groups are determined to attack the United States. We constantly face new plots and operatives looking for ways to murder Americans, such as the foiled May 2012 AQAP plot to put another IED on a United States-bound aircraft. Thankfully, this plot and others didn't materialize, but we are not going to always be that fortunate.

We know that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula--or AQAP--today represents one of the biggest threats to the U.S. homeland and personnel serving overseas. They are continually plotting against our interests and seeking new recruits, especially among our own citizens as well as former Guantanamo detainees. Explosive experts such as Ibrahim al-Asiri continue to roam free, posing a tremendous threat to the safety and security of U.S. citizens.

The proposed closure of Guantanamo Bay presents significant risks for the United States and Yemeni efforts to counter AQAP inside Yemen. A substantial portion of the detainees remaining at Guantanamo Bay are Yemeni citizens. Transferring these individuals to a country plagued by prison breaks, assassinations, and open warfare at this point could prove very catastrophic. These detainees would likely join several other former Gitmo detainees who have returned to the fight in Yemen, further destabilizing the country and worsening an already tenuous security situation.

The most recent example of a totally failed and dangerous policy on the part of this administration is the exchange of five Guantanamo detainees for Sergeant Bergdahl. We are all glad Sergeant Bergdahl is back. We should have done everything we could to get him back, and thank goodness he is now with his family. But the deal--the exchange of five individuals from Guantanamo Bay who now wake up every morning thinking of ways to kill and harm Americans--was not the right thing to do. There were other ways to handle it. Yet this administration, almost callously, without notifying Congress--by the way, that was clearly intentional. The failure to notify Congress of what they planned to do when they signed a memorandum on May 12 and didn't release these individuals for another 2\1/2\ weeks gives us a pretty clear indication that this administration did not want to come to Congress and say we are going to exchange these five Guantanamo prisoners. The reason they did not is because they knew there would be objections from both sides of the aisle to doing such a dangerous thing and setting such a terrible precedent.

So whether it is in Iraq, Afghanistan or in other parts of the Middle East, Americans have fought and died in the war against Al Qaeda. Our Nation is weary of war, but threatening elements still remain. And those five individuals who I just alluded to are clearly threats to the United States.

I have asked the President to declassify the personnel files on those five individuals: Tell the American people what we know about them, Mr. President, and then look the American people in the eye and say: This was a good deal. I know they are going to return to the fight, and they are going to seek to kill and harm Americans, but this was a good deal.

Well, that is for the American people to decide ultimately.

I urge President Obama and my congressional colleagues, as well as the American people, not to abandon the gains we have made in the fight against terrorism since 9/11, but let's remain steady and let's continue to fight the good fight.

With that, I yield for my friend from North Carolina.

Mr. President, I wish to pay special tribute to Jeffrey R. Howard, a key member of my staff on the Select Committee on Intelligence for his distinguished service to the Senate. Jeffrey will leave us shortly to join the new office being opened by Ionic Security in Maryland, where he will serve as the chief technology officer's chief of staff. I am honored to have the opportunity to publicly thank Jeffrey and note my appreciation for his outstanding service to the Select Committee on Intelligence during the past 4 years.

Since becoming the vice chairman of the committee in 2011, I have often relied upon Jeffrey's impressive technical expertise and teamwork skills on a wide range of oversight issues. He has provided us with his expert advice in matters relating to science, technology, and engineering, including cybersecurity, oversight of the National Security Agency, and information technology programs.

Jeffrey is well known on the Hill and by the private sector as one of the leading congressional staff experts on cybersecurity legislative issues. He has worked tirelessly with my team to develop and negotiate legislative proposals consistent with my strong desire to get an effective cybersecurity information sharing bill enacted into law. During the 112th Congress, Jeffrey was a crucial participant in the negotiations that led the ranking members of eight Senate committees to co-sponsor S. 2151 and S. 3342, the Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research, Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2012, more commonly known as ``SECURE IT.'' During this Congress, Senator Feinstein and I have been working very hard to develop a bipartisan cybersecurity information sharing bill that we believe will be well-received by the private sector and our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives. We are finally quite close to being able to mark up our cybersecurity information sharing bill and Jeffrey played an integral role every step of the way.

Jeffrey even has a superpower--he has the ability to translate extremely complicated technical topics into clear and concise explanations that can be used to solve difficult, real-world problems. He is also the undisputed staff champion at documenting the extent of his oversight efforts. He has filed more memoranda for the record during his tenure than half of the professional staff members combined. I dare say that Jeffrey may know more about the National Security Agency than some of the senior executives who have served there. Jeffrey's inexhaustible work ethic and sound judgment have made him an indispensable member of the committee staff and an invaluable resource to other congressional committees. His sly wit and good humor make him a pleasure to work with. He is the consummate team player who improves the performance of everyone around him.

My colleagues and I trust Jeffrey's judgment implicitly. His dedicated public service and exceptional day-to-day performance on the job have earned our respect and admiration, and it inspired a generation of staff who had the privilege to work alongside him. There is no doubt that Jeffrey has a bright future at Ionic Security; however, should the right opportunity present itself, I would strongly encourage my Senate colleagues to entice him back into public service. We will miss Jeffrey deeply, but his legacy will remain a part of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for years to come.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded, and to speak as in morning business.

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

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.

Mr. President, today I congratulate the Creekview High School rocketry team from Canton, GA who outperformed hundreds of

their peers from across the country on Saturday, May 10, 2014, to earn 1st place at the 12th annual Team America Rocketry Challenge. Champions Amanda Semler, 18; Andrew White, 16; Nick Dimos, 16; Austin Bralick, 16; and Bailey Robertson, 15, bested more than 700 other teams representing 48 states, the District of Columbia and the U.S. Virgin Islands to earn the national title. These students will now go on to represent the United States in London at the Farnborough International Airshow.

Team America Rocketry Challenge, TARC, is the world's largest student rocket contest and the aerospace and defense industry's flagship program designed to encourage students to pursue study and careers in science, technology, engineering and math, STEM. Sponsored by the Aerospace Industries Association, the National Association of Rocketry and more than 20 industry partners, TARC provides middle and high school students the opportunity to design, build and launch model rockets in a competition among more than 5,000 students nationwide.

I cannot express how proud I am of these students whose achievement represents tremendous dedication and unwavering commitment. It is equally encouraging to see young people with such a strong commitment to STEM education and fields of study. I wish these Creekview High School students and teachers the best as they go on to represent our Nation in London.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded and I be allowed to speak as if in morning business.

Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

I rise to speak about a bill that I am introducing today which is an amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act and it is entitled the End-User Protection Act. During the debate on Dodd-Frank a couple years ago, a constant concern for me and others in this Chamber was how best to protect end users, the individuals and businesses that use futures markets both to purchase commodities and use derivatives to hedge their risk. The legislation that ultimately passed was not what I had desired, but it did specify that end users should not be treated the same as banks, and in many instances should not be subject to the same registration and margin requirements as other market participants. But that simply has not been the case as the CFTC has gone through the rulemaking process.

I have seen many instances where the Commission in its zeal to finalize rules has not given due consideration to those farmers, ranchers, and other end users who depend on our futures markets to hedge their risks. Time and again end users brought their concerns to the Commission, and the end-user exemption I helped to author was not honored. In other instances Dodd-Frank created unintended consequences that must be fixed. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the End-User Protection Act.

As commodities end users have struggled through an increasing burden of reforms that were never designed for them, the effect has been an increase in their cost of doing business and, for some, making the already high risks associated with farming even higher.

The bill I am introducing clarifies that unlike banks, true derivative end users are exempt from the margin requirements applied by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to many of the derivatives contracts that they enter into.

Let me highlight a few of the other reforms that are included in this bill. One of the most egregious abuses by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has been with their cost-benefit analysis. While the CEA instructed the Commission to weigh the cost and benefits of regulations, it is only recently we have seen misgivings in this process. Throughout the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process industry participants have relayed concerns about the cost-benefit analyses performed by the CFTC. Commissioners as well have vocalized concerns that the model the CFTC has used is deficient in several areas. For instance, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal in August of 2011, Commissioner Scott O'Malia stated:

With respect to our proposed rule makings, our own

inspector general has called into question the quality of the

cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, during the course of our

final rule makings, I have continued to see indications that

the CFTC intends to persist with a one-size-fits-all,

qualitative approach. This approach contradicts two recent

executive orders from President Obama and justifiably renders

our rule makings vulnerable to legal challenge.

. . . We need to be more cognizant of the effects that our

rule makings may have on the food and energy costs of average

Americans. If the CFTC needs to re-propose a rule making,

then so be it. Given the stakes for Main Street and Wall

Street, it is more important to get a rule making right than

to finish it fast.

As Commissioner O'Malia notes, getting it right is the most important part for the average American--but not, it seems, for the Commission. Even the CFTC's Inspector General detailed insufficient cost-benefit methodology in rulemakings. In some instances the Commission has even released ``interpretive guidance'' in order to subvert the cost-benefit process altogether.

President Obama has made clear that he expects a thorough analysis, and the Commission should be held to the same standard as other agencies. Therefore, my bill amends the Commodities Exchange Act to require a real cost-benefit analysis be performed before rulemaking. I am asking for the Commission as a rulemaking body to play fair, to do the right thing, and ensure when they pass a rule they know how it will affect market participants and the industry as a whole first.

We know some companies pass risk from their affiliates to one central hedging unit in order to consolidate their combined market risk. Then they hedge that risk with the market. Often the affiliate that houses the central desk is deemed a ``financial entity'' and therefore not able to utilize the end-user exception to mandatory clearing. Simply put, when one company with multiple units trades with itself, it shouldn't face the same regulatory burden as when it trades in the market.

We have also seen instances where transparency has had unintended consequences for some market participants. As their trading data was made available, some savvy market participants have been able to track their trades without even knowing the name of the company. It is important these entities not face a disadvantage in the market, resulting in millions of dollars in additional costs simply because their positions can be identified. This bill fixes that issue and ends that disadvantage.

Another reform this bill makes is allowances for utilities' volumetric optionality. Many utilities that are purchasers of natural gas for both electricity and home heating often are unable to detail exactly how much demand they will have during a particular timeframe. Although they previously were able to utilize contracts that allowed this ``optionality'' to determine when and how much electricity they could purchase, these types of contracts are now effectively prohibited. By barring these utilities from being able to employ market strategies to keep costs low and ensure stability, the cost rises not only for the end-user company but for the consumer as well. We should make allowances for this volumetric optionality and the bill before us does just that.

In summary, this bill clarifies the existing end-user exemption that the Congress provided during the Dodd-Frank debate. Further, it ensures that market participants who do not pose systemic risks and use our futures markets to decrease their cost of business and increase their efficiencies are able to continue those practices, ultimately to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

I rise to speak about a bill that I am introducing today which is an amendment to the Commodity Exchange Act and it is entitled the End-User Protection Act. During the debate on Dodd-Frank a couple years ago, a constant concern for me and others in this Chamber was how best to protect end users, the individuals and businesses that use futures markets both to purchase commodities and use derivatives to hedge their risk. The legislation that ultimately passed was not what I had desired, but it did specify that end users should not be treated the same as banks, and in many instances should not be subject to the same registration and margin requirements as other market participants. But that simply has not been the case as the CFTC has gone through the rulemaking process.

I have seen many instances where the Commission in its zeal to finalize rules has not given due consideration to those farmers, ranchers, and other end users who depend on our futures markets to hedge their risks. Time and again end users brought their concerns to the Commission, and the end-user exemption I helped to author was not honored. In other instances Dodd-Frank created unintended consequences that must be fixed. It is for these reasons that I am introducing the End-User Protection Act.

As commodities end users have struggled through an increasing burden of reforms that were never designed for them, the effect has been an increase in their cost of doing business and, for some, making the already high risks associated with farming even higher.

The bill I am introducing clarifies that unlike banks, true derivative end users are exempt from the margin requirements applied by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to many of the derivatives contracts that they enter into.

Let me highlight a few of the other reforms that are included in this bill. One of the most egregious abuses by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission has been with their cost-benefit analysis. While the CEA instructed the Commission to weigh the cost and benefits of regulations, it is only recently we have seen misgivings in this process. Throughout the Dodd-Frank rulemaking process industry participants have relayed concerns about the cost-benefit analyses performed by the CFTC. Commissioners as well have vocalized concerns that the model the CFTC has used is deficient in several areas. For instance, in a letter to the Wall Street Journal in August of 2011, Commissioner Scott O'Malia stated:

With respect to our proposed rule makings, our own

inspector general has called into question the quality of the

cost-benefit analysis. Nevertheless, during the course of our

final rule makings, I have continued to see indications that

the CFTC intends to persist with a one-size-fits-all,

qualitative approach. This approach contradicts two recent

executive orders from President Obama and justifiably renders

our rule makings vulnerable to legal challenge.

. . . We need to be more cognizant of the effects that our

rule makings may have on the food and energy costs of average

Americans. If the CFTC needs to re-propose a rule making,

then so be it. Given the stakes for Main Street and Wall

Street, it is more important to get a rule making right than

to finish it fast.

As Commissioner O'Malia notes, getting it right is the most important part for the average American--but not, it seems, for the Commission. Even the CFTC's Inspector General detailed insufficient cost-benefit methodology in rulemakings. In some instances the Commission has even released ``interpretive guidance'' in order to subvert the cost-benefit process altogether.

President Obama has made clear that he expects a thorough analysis, and the Commission should be held to the same standard as other agencies. Therefore, my bill amends the Commodities Exchange Act to require a real cost-benefit analysis be performed before rulemaking. I am asking for the Commission as a rulemaking body to play fair, to do the right thing, and ensure when they pass a rule they know how it will affect market participants and the industry as a whole first.

We know some companies pass risk from their affiliates to one central hedging unit in order to consolidate their combined market risk. Then they hedge that risk with the market. Often the affiliate that houses the central desk is deemed a ``financial entity'' and therefore not able to utilize the end-user exception to mandatory clearing. Simply put, when one company with multiple units trades with itself, it shouldn't face the same regulatory burden as when it trades in the market.

We have also seen instances where transparency has had unintended consequences for some market participants. As their trading data was made available, some savvy market participants have been able to track their trades without even knowing the name of the company. It is important these entities not face a disadvantage in the market, resulting in millions of dollars in additional costs simply because their positions can be identified. This bill fixes that issue and ends that disadvantage.

Another reform this bill makes is allowances for utilities' volumetric optionality. Many utilities that are purchasers of natural gas for both electricity and home heating often are unable to detail exactly how much demand they will have during a particular timeframe. Although they previously were able to utilize contracts that allowed this ``optionality'' to determine when and how much electricity they could purchase, these types of contracts are now effectively prohibited. By barring these utilities from being able to employ market strategies to keep costs low and ensure stability, the cost rises not only for the end-user company but for the consumer as well. We should make allowances for this volumetric optionality and the bill before us does just that.

In summary, this bill clarifies the existing end-user exemption that the Congress provided during the Dodd-Frank debate. Further, it ensures that market participants who do not pose systemic risks and use our futures markets to decrease their cost of business and increase their efficiencies are able to continue those practices, ultimately to the benefit of the consumer.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to talk about a dear friend of mine who last Friday, at the joint spring meeting in Las Vegas, received the American Bar Association's Solo, Small Firm and General Practice Division's 2014 Lifetime Achievement Award.

Larry Walker is a lawyer in Perry, GA. He is a lifetime resident of Perry and went back to his hometown of Perry to practice in 1965. I am so proud that Larry has been recognized by his peers--of which I am one, as a practicing lawyer in Georgia before I came into government. Larry epitomizes what lawyers look to when you think of someone who is a good lawyer.

The award he received recognizes solo and small firm attorneys who are widely accepted by their peers as having significant lifetime distinction, exceptional achievement, and distinction in an exemplary way. Winners are viewed by other solo and small firm practitioners as epitomizing the ideals of the legal profession of solo and small firm practitioners.

Larry began his law career, as I say, in 1965 when he came back to Perry to practice law. He became a judge of the Perry Municipal Court at the age of 23. In 1972 Larry ran for the General Assembly of Georgia and won the seat that was formerly held by soon-to-be-Senator Sam Nunn. He served in the General Assembly until 2005. In 1986 he was elected majority leader of the Georgia House of Representatives and served in that capacity for 16 years. He was the founding member of Walker, Hulbert, Gray & Moore and served as chair of the State Legislative Leaders Foundation. Larry also represented Georgia's Eighth Congressional District on the Georgia Department of Transportation from 2007 to 2009, and in August of 2009 he was appointed by then-Governor Sonny Perdue to the University System of Georgia Board of Regents, where he continues to serve today.

Larry writes a weekly column for the Houston, GA, Home Journal and is the author of a book entitled ``Life on the Gnat Line,'' a composition of Larry's widely read columns on family, everything southern, reading, politics, and, of course, just folks. Larry is a frequent speaker at various community and State events, including continuing legal education seminars.

Larry has been my dear friend for over 30 years. He is not just a great lawyer, he is a great guy. He and I have had the opportunity to knock down a quail bird or two in the woods of South Georgia. We have had discussions late into the night over politics and life in general. Larry is one of those individuals who make life fun and who are a pleasure to be around, and that is why I am so excited the American Bar Association has seen fit to recognize Larry's talents, his hard work, his dedication, and his integrity to the law profession. He has been successful not because he moved to his hometown where he was well known; he has been successful because he is looked at as someone who possesses all the finest characteristics a lawyer can hope to have.

I am indeed privileged to call him a dear friend. I am indeed privileged to have an opportunity to say to Larry and to his wife Janice, congratulations. This kind of award shows that people all across this great country recognize you, Larry, for the great work you have done in our profession for all of these years since you first hung out your shingle in June of 1965.